You stated Apple could sell half a million xMacs...... (now) at $600 apiece.
At, say, 30% profit that's.... 90 Million dollars.
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost? Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
Side Note: You call the Macbook Air a failure, yet it only needs to sell around 200K units a year to be more profitable than your xMac strategy.
Apple is not competing with itself. Why wouldn't they manufacture less iMacs and get rid of the mini?
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost? Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
That is exactly the point.
We all want a cheap $600-$800 xMac which can be upgraded beyond the power level of a Mac Pro.
But it is not going to happen.
Apple will not ruin its (ridiculous but somehow they still get away with it) high profit margins on the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pros.
With the current product mix and price structure the only opening for an xMac is the $1,600-$2,000 price range.
And yet it would still have less features than the bottom Mac Pro model.
But would anyone be happy with such an xMac price?
I think instead of an xMac it is more likely the next Mac Pro upgrade will drop the current single CPU config to $1,999 and offer a third config in-between at today's price point as e.g.:
I can see the point of the mini. But it's way overpriced by £200-300.
I can see the point of the iMac. But the entry model is stupidly overpriced by £300.
I can see the point of the Mac Pro. But the entry model is stupidly over priced by £1000.
For the benefit of readers outside of the UK here is a translation of Lemon's figures.
Mini : Overpriced by 40% - 60%
iMac : Overpriced by 32%
Pro : Overpriced by 53%
Here is lemon's foolproof plan to save Apple from the deep mire that their consumer desktop strategy is leading them to.
Quote:
Keep the mini ... but push the price much, much lower. £195-£295.
push the iMac to its former 'low end' emphasis...and really cut the price on it. £695-£995.
Intro the Cube tower/mid-tower. £795-£1395.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
We all want a cheap $600-$800 xMac which can be upgraded beyond the power level of a Mac Pro.
But it is not going to happen.
Apple will not ruin its (ridiculous but somehow they still get away with it) high profit margins on the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pros.
With the current product mix and price structure the only opening for an xMac is the $1,600-$2,000 price range.
And yet it would still have less features than the bottom Mac Pro model.
But would anyone be happy with such an xMac price?
I think instead of an xMac it is more likely the next Mac Pro upgrade will drop the current single CPU config to $1,999 and offer a third config in-between at today's price point as e.g.:
single quad-core $1,999
single hexa-core $2,499
dual hexa-core $3,299
Pretty much agree with all of the above.
I suspect that Apple is seriously looking at the ASP of the whole Mac line. Not solely because of the economy, or our irate forum friends. But there will come a time when the only way to maintain growth will be to spread the customer net a little wider. It won't take much. A slightly lower entry price for each different model and economies of scale will help.
It won't occur in one fell swoop. Little nips and tucks... here and there. They already started with the last notebook bump.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
Yeah. Instead of focusing on the profit margin - focus on 'Volume, Volume, Volume' with products that can be upgraded instead of dreaming up products that can only be replaced. [How about an SDHC slot for an iPod or iPhone?] It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
I'm afraid if Apple plans to use sub-desktop components in the new iMac it's not going to make my decision much easier. [I know I could build a killer Windows 7 machine for the price of the upcoming iMac. Of course, I'd still be using Windows 7 without Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.]
It would be nice if Apple cared to focus more on price effective components instead of design. The next few days may sadly force the decision.
I eagerly await what the redesigned iMac announcement promises.
It's a shame that profits and shareholders have to come into the equation... but that is the argument that you xMaccers keep making! You keep saying that Apple is missing out on a large and lucrative market yet you consistently fail to offer any evidence that either is true.
Offering a "consumer desktop tower"... or not is NOT A MEASURE of a company's success. Neither is position in a league table. Dell is currently the number one computer manufacturer in the US. They have dozens of towers for sale... and their sales have DROPPED by 20%. What does that prove?
You are repeating yourself. And you are being inaccurate. The figures you are quoting came from NPD and were not for desktops ONLY.
But the increase in laptop sales has been rapid. You have no idea when that is going to slowdown or stop. The fastest growing sector at the moment is those bloody netbooks! The least powerful, least capable, least upgradeable systems out there.
The PC tower market may still be a reasonable size, but it swamped by machines costing $400 or even $300. The biggest single reason that people buy these machines is not because they are expandable... or easily upgradable... it's because they only cost $400 or $300!
It may not be in your interest but unfortunately Apple wants to make a bit more profit on the machines they sell. They have chosen not to join the race to the bottom. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes it makes you think... but you don't have to think very hard. If windows is on 90% of all computers sold than, of course there are going to be more PCs than Macs in peoples homes. Those figures also came from NPD. Why don't you ask them how many homes, with multiple computers didn't own a Mac at all five years ago.
It's an interesting statistic but the number, and type, of computers used in peoples homes... that were bought in the past... doesn't really shed a lot of light on what people are going to buy... tomorrow.
You did not address any of the advantages / disadvanntages for AIO & consumer tower desktop, why?
Next you continue to bring up the increase in laptop sales relative to desktop sales which does not negate the fact that desktop sales are still a huge multi-billion $ market.
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
The savings in using desktop parts would make up the difference so Apple maintains margins still dominate the >$1000 consumer computer market. This combined with the computer I described above at the $599 range, then Apple potentially increases market share in the <$1000 desktop consumer market. And they should be able to sell more monitors.
And do you know anyone personally that would refuse to buy a computer that wasn't an AIO, I personally know dozens that do refuse to buy AIOs.
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
Apple's current Mac margins are around 30%.
So an iMac sold for $1,499 earns Apple about $450.
Now imagine the same person purchases instead your new proposed $599 desktop plus third-party monitor.
Even at 30% margin, Apple would only earn $180 as the total price is much lower.
So for every lost iMac sale (at $1,499) Apple would have to sell 2.5 (!) of your new desktops - just to break even. 3 to make any actual gain.
It's even worse on higher priced iMacs and Mac Pros. At $2,499 for the cheapest Mac Pro Apple earns $750. For every low end Mac Pro sale lost, they'd need to sell at least 4.5 of your new desktops to make any gain.
For the sake of simplicity let's further assume that Apple's iMac and Mac Pro line make up about 1/3 of all Macs sold.
In the extreme case that all these customers now buy your proposed new Mac instead Apple would need to sell about 3.5-4x as many of your new desktops to make the same total profit.
That would be equivalent to 4/3 or roughly 133% extra Macs instead of the 33%. That's 66% + 133% = 199%.
Or in other words Apple needs to double their total market share in order to just maintain the same profit level!
That's a lot of extra work and extra sales - to basically just stand still profit wise!
In real terms they'd probably need to triple their market share to see any real increase in profits with that strategy.
How likely is this?
And if they fail and only manage a 50% market share increase then the whole strategy was a big failure.
And Apple would end up earning much less!
And that's probably likely because most Windows PCs are sold to enterprises, and companies won't switch to Macs in massive numbers that easily.
The whole gamble is just too huge.
Even if not all potential iMac and Mac Pro buyers would switch to the new Mac, the amount of extra Mac sales required will still be massive.
No company the size of Apple will take that bet. Companies are much too conservative.
But I'm sure change will come, eventually.
Very slowly. A bit here, a bit there, like we've seen with the MacBooks.
Yet nothing the likes of a $599 xMac. Not like that.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
It's not about having the same components cheaper but cheaper components so they make the same profit margins. I worked out in another thread that by switching the Mac Pro from expensive Xeon chips, they could make a Mac Pro for $1500 and the money would be saved on component cost alone, no drop to margins yet you reach a wider audience as it's a more accessible price.
If they go out of their way to build a smaller product like a cube, it has a unique identity and has a more desirable form factor, while at the same time delivering a much better price/performance ratio than the iMac.
They'd make really nice servers too being cube shaped if the handles were internal to the cube design.
You stated Apple could sell half a million xMacs...... (now) at $600 apiece.
At, say, 30% profit that's.... 90 Million dollars.
Actually you missed what I said which was to get them out the factory door for $600. In ther words the cost to Apple for each unit would be around the 600 mark. After Apple tacks on profit and other costs we are talking about a price to you and me of something like $900 to $1100.
This is for a state of the art product with a fast i7 processor and a respectable GPU. The unit would have space for at least three drives and I'm flexible as to how that storage is implemented. As to expansion slots it will need at least one and ideally two. If for nothing else it would provide for USB 3 updates if it ever takes off.
Quote:
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost?
None seriously
Quote:
Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
This is Apple they are likely to earn the same profit. Further if they had a decent display line up they would actually rake in more money on average.
Quote:
Side Note: You call the Macbook Air a failure, yet it only needs to sell around 200K units a year to be more profitable than your xMac strategy.
I'm not sure where you are pulling those numbers from but I suspect they are tainted. In any event I totally reject the idea that their is no potential for profit in an XMac. It is simply a matter of a salable configuration that doesn't cause rational customers to bend over in laughter.
I suspect that Apple is seriously looking at the ASP of the whole Mac line. Not solely because of the economy, or our irate forum friends. But there will come a time when the only way to maintain growth will be to spread the customer net a little wider.
Yes!! To do that Apple needs additional models because there is more to customer demand than can be serviced with two models. Basically that is all Apple has for the consumer. Even within models the configuration spread sucks. For example there should be a 500MHz spread in chip speed between the high end and low end Mini.
Quote:
It won't take much. A slightly lower entry price for each different model and economies of scale will help.
As will Intels new chips. For a given performance level, systems based on Intels new i5 & i7s, will be much cheaper and more compact.
Quote:
It won't occur in one fell swoop. Little nips and tucks... here and there. They already started with the last notebook bump.
Actually what I like about the new notebooks is the attention to serviceability. In many ways an iMac is a joke for maintenance and expandability. It is not impossible for Apple to address this though. A cleaner design with bays for disk drives is a snap.
Frankly if they put a little effort into the iMac I don't think the demand for XMac would be as great. Even on the iMac there needs to be real differences in performance and configurability between the models. There is nothing wrong with a low end iMac with limited features but a 26" iMac needs room for internal storage bays.
Yeah. Instead of focusing on the profit margin - focus on 'Volume, Volume, Volume' with products that can be upgraded instead of dreaming up products that can only be replaced. [How about an SDHC slot for an iPod or iPhone?]
Look I'm all for Apple reducing their Mac prices. And if squeezing their margins a little helps to do that... then so be it. But coming up with a plan that reduces Mac margins to way below those of Dell and HP would be suicide for their computer business.
It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
[/QUOTE]
There is little point in gaining market share if you end up loosing money.
It's not about having the same components cheaper but cheaper components so they make the same profit margins. I worked out in another thread that by switching the Mac Pro from expensive Xeon chips, they could make a Mac Pro for $1500 and the money would be saved on component cost alone, no drop to margins yet you reach a wider audience as it's a more accessible price.
If they go out of their way to build a smaller product like a cube, it has a unique identity and has a more desirable form factor, while at the same time delivering a much better price/performance ratio than the iMac.
They'd make really nice servers too being cube shaped if the handles were internal to the cube design.
Thing is, the only difference in component costs between a i7 machine and Xeon 3500 machine would be the ECC memory and Apple is using the less expensive non-ECC variety. Everything else is the same. Its the same chip, same chipset, same prices only with support for more expensive ECC support and much more expensive buffered memory. So, based on component costs alone, the current Mac Pro should be much cheaper than the last one, yet it got (like the previous five updates before it) a price increase. Here's a possible reason.
24" iMac with Radeon HD 4850
$2249.
Base 2.66ghz Mac Pro:
$2499
Quad core Mac Pro with 2.93ghz CPU and Radeon Radeon 4870 (no Quadro or FirePro option) $3199
Base 8-core Mac Pro
$3299
No overlap except for memory and hard drives. Seems to me that Mac Pro margins have to be much higher than the rest of Apple's wares due to protecting the iMac and a little bit of corporate OCD. The rest of the computer world was using higher margins on the professional machines (Apple hasn't made a distinction between consumer and pro with the towers since the PowerMacs were numbered) and its not like anyone can go anywhere else for Mac OS X computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Look I'm all for Apple reducing their Mac prices. And if squeezing their margins a little helps to do that... then so be it. But coming up with a plan that reduces Mac margins to way below those of Dell and HP would be suicide for their computer business.
It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
There is little point in gaining market share if you end up loosing money.[/QUOTE]
If that (extremely loyal) little point market share would have known we would would be treated like this now, we would have let the company fail a decade ago. For many, many years we were the only thing keeping Apple afloat. All we ask is the same loyalty we showed be returned. But the great god Apple is considered to be above such things.
So an iMac sold for $1,499 earns Apple about $450.
...
Apple's overall margin is ~30%. No one knows margins for individual products, I contend iMac margins are lower. Even the Mac mini on introduction was probably lower, but now since it is behind to curve it may be approaching 30%.
Preumably iPhone margins are considerably higher than 30%, so what products do you contend bring down margins overall?
You did not address any of the advantages / disadvanntages for AIO & consumer tower desktop, why?
Why? Because, as I have said all along, I believe the reasons Apple doesn't sell an xMac are purely economic... and not technical. And because most of the advantages / disadvantages that you listed were related to upgradability. There is just no getting away from the fact that most consumers don't buy systems based on that criteria.
Quote:
Next you continue to bring up the increase in laptop sales relative to desktop sales which does not negate the fact that desktop sales are still a huge multi-billion $ market.
Because you cannot ignore the fact that every time a consumer goes out and buys a laptop they are not buying a desktop. Hell, Microsoft based a whole advertising campaign on that fact.
And you keep ignoring the fact that out of the "huge" desktop market a large amount are being sold to business and public sector orgs. These are customers who are not going to instantly jump on a 'non Windows' xMac.
I cannot find any good data on what the mix is between consumer vs enterprise etc. Here's one snippet, though, from Dell. Less than 50% of their revenue, from computers comes from the consumer and small biz sectors. Less than 25% comes from their 'consumer' customers alone.
Your 'huge' consumer desktop market just got a bit smaller. Add in just HP's figures and it gets smaller still.
And you also keep ignoring the fact that a large amount of desktops are priced at only 300 or 400 or 500 dollars.
The 'huge' desktop market has been shrinking due to the rise of the laptop market.
It gets smaller still if you narrow it down to consumers (and maybe small businesses).
And smaller still if you cut out the real low end.
The 'huge' consumer desktop market is not so huge.
Quote:
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
You have just built a computer that is more capable and more expandable and around $1000 dollars cheaper (not including a decent screen) than the average iMac. Now that's not going to cannibalise sales of iMacs is it? You've probably also sent the Mac Mini down the toilet.
Quote:
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
Not content with ending the Mac Mini, you now want to offer an even more powerful system than the iMacs. Still around $600 cheaper (not including a decent screen). Further, the $1999, hi-end version is cleverly priced to attract a few Mac Pro buyers. Nice job.
It's irrelevant that your two new tower systems have the same 'Apple' profit margins. You have described systems that would cut into sales of ALL of the current desktop Macs. And at a cheaper price. You haven't cut the margins... just the ASP.
The only way that this makes good business sense is if your new desktops can attract new switchers. And, with your pricing strategy, it would have to be a lot of switchers. Which takes us back to the beginning. How many consumers want upgradable desktop towers... and how many of them want to run the Mac OS?
Quote:
And do you know anyone personally that would refuse to buy a computer that wasn't an AIO, I personally know dozens that do refuse to buy AIOs.
I have got dozens of friends who already use Macs. "Friends" is a poor metric. Apple is not going to base their strategy on either of our sets of friends.
Why? Because, as I have said all along, I believe the reasons Apple doesn't sell an xMac are purely economic... and not technical. And because most of the advantages / disadvantages that you listed were related to upgradability. There is just no getting away from the fact that most consumers don't buy systems based on that criteria.
So what, there are plenty that do appreciate upgradability and the fact a computer is upgradable does not deter any one from buying a computer, but it does inhibit others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Because you cannot ignore the fact that every time a consumer goes out and buys a laptop they are not buying a desktop. Hell, Microsoft based a whole advertising campaign on that fact.
Irrelevant, the desktop market is still huge - in the multi billions of dollars. Are you suggesting that as people buy laptops they get rid of their desktops, evidence shows this to be wrong. When their desktops become outdated, will they then abandon them, or will they buy new? I suggest they will buy new, especially if they bought a Netbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And you keep ignoring the fact that out of the "huge" desktop market a large amount are being sold to business and public sector orgs. These are customers who are not going to instantly jump on a 'non Windows' xMac.
I never said they would, but there is the chance of increasing their numbers. Also, at price points mentioned Apple keeps selling to the same people they are currently selling, only with a better value and the same gross margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
I cannot find any good data on what the mix is between consumer vs enterprise etc. Here's one snippet, though, from Dell. Less than 50% of their revenue, from computers comes from the consumer and small biz sectors. Less than 25% comes from their 'consumer' customers alone.
Who cares. I am not asking Apple to adopt Dell's strategy of selling the lowest common denominator and to businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Your 'huge' consumer desktop market just got a bit smaller. Add in just HP's figures and it gets smaller still.
And you also keep ignoring the fact that a large amount of desktops are priced at only 300 or 400 or 500 dollars.
The 'huge' desktop market has been shrinking due to the rise of the laptop market.
It gets smaller still if you narrow it down to consumers (and maybe small businesses).
And smaller still if you cut out the real low end.
The 'huge' consumer desktop market is not so huge.
Yes is is unless you consider multi billions in sales as insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
You have just built a computer that is more capable and more expandable and around $1000 dollars cheaper (not including a decent screen) than the average iMac. Now that's not going to cannibalise sales of iMacs is it? You've probably also sent the Mac Mini down the toilet.
No, I didn't. I said Apple could build a computer using desktop parts that would be more powerful than the Mac mini provide better value to the consumer @ the same starting price point($599) and provide the same gross margins. How does this affect Apple's profits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Not content with ending the Mac Mini, you now want to offer an even more powerful system than the iMacs. Still around $600 cheaper (not including a decent screen). Further, the $1999, hi-end version is cleverly priced to attract a few Mac Pro buyers. Nice job.
No, I didn't. Granted the starting price point ($899) is $300 less than the least expensive iMac(not the $600 you mention) the range encompasses the entire range of the current iMac, and provides for the same gross margins.
Yes Apple may lose some current Mac Pro purchasers, but as you and posters following your reasoning keeps saying - Professional Computer users should be more than willing to buy the high end workstation as it will more than justify the $$ over time and on top of that you and similar posters keep saying that Apple doesn't have much of a chance of gaining sales in businesses anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
It's irrelevant that your two new tower systems have the same 'Apple' profit margins. You have described systems that would cut into sales of ALL of the current desktop Macs. And at a cheaper price. You haven't cut the margins... just the ASP.
The only way that this makes good business sense is if your new desktops can attract new switchers. And, with your pricing strategy, it would have to be a lot of switchers. Which takes us back to the beginning. How many consumers want upgradable desktop towers... and how many of them want to run the Mac OS?
No, I haven't. What I've said continually is that Apple could offer better value in the same markets they are currently in and still maintain current gross margins, whatever they may be, for the current line-up.
By the way, you didn't address the discrepancy in your stated 30% margins for desktops. Assuming most people are correct in that the iPhone has much higher gross margins, then since the company as a whole has 30% gross margins, then what does Apple sell that has less than 30% margins? iPods? software? In numerous cost comparisons in the past(note: especially upon initial introduction), when Apple computers are compared based on somewhat equivalent parts to other manufacturers they are fairly close in price. And those manufacturers have gross margins in the 16 - 20% range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
I have got dozens of friends who already use Macs. "Friends" is a poor metric. Apple is not going to base their strategy on either of our sets of friends.
Please name one friend or any post anywhere in any of these discussions, or anywhere for that matter, in which a poster claimed they would not buy a computer because it was not AIO. That makes no sense at all and you know it. But yet, there are consumers that will not buy an AIO for any number of reasons.
This idea that it is not possible for Apple to make a healthy profit on the XMac is total BS and I have to wonder why people are so stubborn in their support of Apple. What is it do you like a limited selection when trying to satisfy your home computing needs.
The simply fact is Apple needs additional Mac models to drive hardware sales. You can only go so far with two consummer models. As has already been mentioned Apple needs a wider net to catch more fish.
Most perplexing is that Apple is in the music and Movie business but does not have a consummer level machine really suited to act as a repository for all that software they sell. A multimedia Mac ought to be a no brainer if you ask me. The desired features of XMac would allow it to operate in that role easily. You would have to be off your rocker to expect people to implement an iMac in this role, so obviously Apple is loosing sales to manufacture like HP that see this massive hole in Apples lineup. Apple just needs to make the damn thing and set the price to maintain margians.
I also don't buy this idea that a lower price on the Pro would eat into iMac sales or that that would be bad. The reality is the Pro is like parking an aircraft carrier in your drive way and then wondering why there is no room for the car. For the same reason that most people manage better with a bass boat so too do they preferr a smaller computer in the house.
Give us the capability to purchase hardware that is more suitable to our needs and sales will only increase. Frankly the crying about laptop sales means nothing here as I just bought one a little over a year ago, yet I still have this need for an XMac. Call it a home server, an media server, a high performance workstation, a video editing platform or any number of otherthings - WHATEVER IT IS IT IS NOT A LAPTOP!! Do you hear me. Actually it kinda reminds me of the digital hub that Apple has promoted in the past.
Comments
I asked you how much your xMac would cost.
I missed this.
But it's not without issue.
You stated Apple could sell half a million xMacs...... (now) at $600 apiece.
At, say, 30% profit that's.... 90 Million dollars.
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost? Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
Side Note: You call the Macbook Air a failure, yet it only needs to sell around 200K units a year to be more profitable than your xMac strategy.
Apple is not competing with itself. Why wouldn't they manufacture less iMacs and get rid of the mini?
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost? Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
That is exactly the point.
We all want a cheap $600-$800 xMac which can be upgraded beyond the power level of a Mac Pro.
But it is not going to happen.
Apple will not ruin its (ridiculous but somehow they still get away with it) high profit margins on the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pros.
With the current product mix and price structure the only opening for an xMac is the $1,600-$2,000 price range.
And yet it would still have less features than the bottom Mac Pro model.
But would anyone be happy with such an xMac price?
I think instead of an xMac it is more likely the next Mac Pro upgrade will drop the current single CPU config to $1,999 and offer a third config in-between at today's price point as e.g.:
single quad-core $1,999
single hexa-core $2,499
dual hexa-core $3,299
You are repeating yourself.
That's the whole point of this thread.
Lemon Bon Bon.
But it is not going to happen.
Like teh Intel.
Like teh dropping of OS 9.
Like a gaming Mac portable see iPod touch.
Like the music player.
Like the phone.
Like the X-Serve.
Like the sub £1000 Mac.
Like Windows on Mac.
Like a Tablet Mac. Oh. Wait. That's not out yet.
Jus like the 'Mid-Tower...'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes we are talking in circles.
A sure sign it's a question with no real answer.
Most your examples are really good too because we would likely need a similar paradigm shift for an xMac to happen.
Not saying it's never going to happen.
For example if Apple were to slash $1,000 off all Mac Pro prices to now start at $1,499 - suddenly there would be room for a $1,099 xMac.
Or if Apple were to slash its Mac product margins from 30-35% down to 10-15% we'd also have room for a $1,300 xMac.
Might happen...
I can see the point of the mini. But it's way overpriced by £200-300.
I can see the point of the iMac. But the entry model is stupidly overpriced by £300.
I can see the point of the Mac Pro. But the entry model is stupidly over priced by £1000.
For the benefit of readers outside of the UK here is a translation of Lemon's figures.
Mini : Overpriced by 40% - 60%
iMac : Overpriced by 32%
Pro : Overpriced by 53%
Here is lemon's foolproof plan to save Apple from the deep mire that their consumer desktop strategy is leading them to.
Keep the mini ... but push the price much, much lower. £195-£295.
push the iMac to its former 'low end' emphasis...and really cut the price on it. £695-£995.
Intro the Cube tower/mid-tower. £795-£1395.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
Don't worry Steve, Apple will be in safe hands.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Too many lemons. Not enough Bon Bons.
Apple is not competing with itself. Why wouldn't they manufacture less iMacs and get rid of the mini?
Why don't they just discontinue the iMac too? Then they would have to produce an xMac
Best plan yet!
That is exactly the point.
We all want a cheap $600-$800 xMac which can be upgraded beyond the power level of a Mac Pro.
But it is not going to happen.
Apple will not ruin its (ridiculous but somehow they still get away with it) high profit margins on the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pros.
With the current product mix and price structure the only opening for an xMac is the $1,600-$2,000 price range.
And yet it would still have less features than the bottom Mac Pro model.
But would anyone be happy with such an xMac price?
I think instead of an xMac it is more likely the next Mac Pro upgrade will drop the current single CPU config to $1,999 and offer a third config in-between at today's price point as e.g.:
single quad-core $1,999
single hexa-core $2,499
dual hexa-core $3,299
Pretty much agree with all of the above.
I suspect that Apple is seriously looking at the ASP of the whole Mac line. Not solely because of the economy, or our irate forum friends. But there will come a time when the only way to maintain growth will be to spread the customer net a little wider. It won't take much. A slightly lower entry price for each different model and economies of scale will help.
It won't occur in one fell swoop. Little nips and tucks... here and there. They already started with the last notebook bump.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
Yeah. Instead of focusing on the profit margin - focus on 'Volume, Volume, Volume' with products that can be upgraded instead of dreaming up products that can only be replaced. [How about an SDHC slot for an iPod or iPhone?] It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
I'm afraid if Apple plans to use sub-desktop components in the new iMac it's not going to make my decision much easier. [I know I could build a killer Windows 7 machine for the price of the upcoming iMac. Of course, I'd still be using Windows 7 without Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL.]
It would be nice if Apple cared to focus more on price effective components instead of design. The next few days may sadly force the decision.
I eagerly await what the redesigned iMac announcement promises.
It's a shame that profits and shareholders have to come into the equation... but that is the argument that you xMaccers keep making! You keep saying that Apple is missing out on a large and lucrative market yet you consistently fail to offer any evidence that either is true.
Offering a "consumer desktop tower"... or not is NOT A MEASURE of a company's success. Neither is position in a league table. Dell is currently the number one computer manufacturer in the US. They have dozens of towers for sale... and their sales have DROPPED by 20%. What does that prove?
You are repeating yourself. And you are being inaccurate. The figures you are quoting came from NPD and were not for desktops ONLY.
But the increase in laptop sales has been rapid. You have no idea when that is going to slowdown or stop. The fastest growing sector at the moment is those bloody netbooks! The least powerful, least capable, least upgradeable systems out there.
The PC tower market may still be a reasonable size, but it swamped by machines costing $400 or even $300. The biggest single reason that people buy these machines is not because they are expandable... or easily upgradable... it's because they only cost $400 or $300!
It may not be in your interest but unfortunately Apple wants to make a bit more profit on the machines they sell. They have chosen not to join the race to the bottom. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes it makes you think... but you don't have to think very hard. If windows is on 90% of all computers sold than, of course there are going to be more PCs than Macs in peoples homes. Those figures also came from NPD. Why don't you ask them how many homes, with multiple computers didn't own a Mac at all five years ago.
It's an interesting statistic but the number, and type, of computers used in peoples homes... that were bought in the past... doesn't really shed a lot of light on what people are going to buy... tomorrow.
You did not address any of the advantages / disadvanntages for AIO & consumer tower desktop, why?
Next you continue to bring up the increase in laptop sales relative to desktop sales which does not negate the fact that desktop sales are still a huge multi-billion $ market.
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
The savings in using desktop parts would make up the difference so Apple maintains margins still dominate the >$1000 consumer computer market. This combined with the computer I described above at the $599 range, then Apple potentially increases market share in the <$1000 desktop consumer market. And they should be able to sell more monitors.
And do you know anyone personally that would refuse to buy a computer that wasn't an AIO, I personally know dozens that do refuse to buy AIOs.
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
Apple's current Mac margins are around 30%.
So an iMac sold for $1,499 earns Apple about $450.
Now imagine the same person purchases instead your new proposed $599 desktop plus third-party monitor.
Even at 30% margin, Apple would only earn $180 as the total price is much lower.
So for every lost iMac sale (at $1,499) Apple would have to sell 2.5 (!) of your new desktops - just to break even. 3 to make any actual gain.
It's even worse on higher priced iMacs and Mac Pros. At $2,499 for the cheapest Mac Pro Apple earns $750. For every low end Mac Pro sale lost, they'd need to sell at least 4.5 of your new desktops to make any gain.
For the sake of simplicity let's further assume that Apple's iMac and Mac Pro line make up about 1/3 of all Macs sold.
In the extreme case that all these customers now buy your proposed new Mac instead Apple would need to sell about 3.5-4x as many of your new desktops to make the same total profit.
That would be equivalent to 4/3 or roughly 133% extra Macs instead of the 33%. That's 66% + 133% = 199%.
Or in other words Apple needs to double their total market share in order to just maintain the same profit level!
That's a lot of extra work and extra sales - to basically just stand still profit wise!
In real terms they'd probably need to triple their market share to see any real increase in profits with that strategy.
How likely is this?
And if they fail and only manage a 50% market share increase then the whole strategy was a big failure.
And Apple would end up earning much less!
And that's probably likely because most Windows PCs are sold to enterprises, and companies won't switch to Macs in massive numbers that easily.
The whole gamble is just too huge.
Even if not all potential iMac and Mac Pro buyers would switch to the new Mac, the amount of extra Mac sales required will still be massive.
No company the size of Apple will take that bet. Companies are much too conservative.
But I'm sure change will come, eventually.
Very slowly. A bit here, a bit there, like we've seen with the MacBooks.
Yet nothing the likes of a $599 xMac. Not like that.
Basically, give me the product I want.... cut all prices by at least 30% .... sell a bunch more computers..... slash profits down to single figures ... or better yet make no profit at all.
It's not about having the same components cheaper but cheaper components so they make the same profit margins. I worked out in another thread that by switching the Mac Pro from expensive Xeon chips, they could make a Mac Pro for $1500 and the money would be saved on component cost alone, no drop to margins yet you reach a wider audience as it's a more accessible price.
If they go out of their way to build a smaller product like a cube, it has a unique identity and has a more desirable form factor, while at the same time delivering a much better price/performance ratio than the iMac.
They'd make really nice servers too being cube shaped if the handles were internal to the cube design.
I asked you how much your xMac would cost.
I missed this.
But it's not without issue.
You stated Apple could sell half a million xMacs...... (now) at $600 apiece.
At, say, 30% profit that's.... 90 Million dollars.
Actually you missed what I said which was to get them out the factory door for $600. In ther words the cost to Apple for each unit would be around the 600 mark. After Apple tacks on profit and other costs we are talking about a price to you and me of something like $900 to $1100.
This is for a state of the art product with a fast i7 processor and a respectable GPU. The unit would have space for at least three drives and I'm flexible as to how that storage is implemented. As to expansion slots it will need at least one and ideally two. If for nothing else it would provide for USB 3 updates if it ever takes off.
How many Mini's and iMacs (and the odd Mac Pro) sales would be lost?
None seriously
Apple might sell 500K xMacs but if they lost 200K sales of their other desktops then that 90 million profit just disappears.
This is Apple they are likely to earn the same profit. Further if they had a decent display line up they would actually rake in more money on average.
Side Note: You call the Macbook Air a failure, yet it only needs to sell around 200K units a year to be more profitable than your xMac strategy.
I'm not sure where you are pulling those numbers from but I suspect they are tainted. In any event I totally reject the idea that their is no potential for profit in an XMac. It is simply a matter of a salable configuration that doesn't cause rational customers to bend over in laughter.
Dave
Pretty much agree with all of the above.
I suspect that Apple is seriously looking at the ASP of the whole Mac line. Not solely because of the economy, or our irate forum friends. But there will come a time when the only way to maintain growth will be to spread the customer net a little wider.
Yes!! To do that Apple needs additional models because there is more to customer demand than can be serviced with two models. Basically that is all Apple has for the consumer. Even within models the configuration spread sucks. For example there should be a 500MHz spread in chip speed between the high end and low end Mini.
It won't take much. A slightly lower entry price for each different model and economies of scale will help.
As will Intels new chips. For a given performance level, systems based on Intels new i5 & i7s, will be much cheaper and more compact.
It won't occur in one fell swoop. Little nips and tucks... here and there. They already started with the last notebook bump.
Actually what I like about the new notebooks is the attention to serviceability. In many ways an iMac is a joke for maintenance and expandability. It is not impossible for Apple to address this though. A cleaner design with bays for disk drives is a snap.
Frankly if they put a little effort into the iMac I don't think the demand for XMac would be as great. Even on the iMac there needs to be real differences in performance and configurability between the models. There is nothing wrong with a low end iMac with limited features but a 26" iMac needs room for internal storage bays.
Dave
Yeah. Instead of focusing on the profit margin - focus on 'Volume, Volume, Volume' with products that can be upgraded instead of dreaming up products that can only be replaced. [How about an SDHC slot for an iPod or iPhone?]
Look I'm all for Apple reducing their Mac prices. And if squeezing their margins a little helps to do that... then so be it. But coming up with a plan that reduces Mac margins to way below those of Dell and HP would be suicide for their computer business.
It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
[/QUOTE]
There is little point in gaining market share if you end up loosing money.
It's not about having the same components cheaper but cheaper components so they make the same profit margins. I worked out in another thread that by switching the Mac Pro from expensive Xeon chips, they could make a Mac Pro for $1500 and the money would be saved on component cost alone, no drop to margins yet you reach a wider audience as it's a more accessible price.
If they go out of their way to build a smaller product like a cube, it has a unique identity and has a more desirable form factor, while at the same time delivering a much better price/performance ratio than the iMac.
They'd make really nice servers too being cube shaped if the handles were internal to the cube design.
Thing is, the only difference in component costs between a i7 machine and Xeon 3500 machine would be the ECC memory and Apple is using the less expensive non-ECC variety. Everything else is the same. Its the same chip, same chipset, same prices only with support for more expensive ECC support and much more expensive buffered memory. So, based on component costs alone, the current Mac Pro should be much cheaper than the last one, yet it got (like the previous five updates before it) a price increase. Here's a possible reason.
24" iMac with Radeon HD 4850
$2249.
Base 2.66ghz Mac Pro:
$2499
Quad core Mac Pro with 2.93ghz CPU and Radeon Radeon 4870 (no Quadro or FirePro option) $3199
Base 8-core Mac Pro
$3299
No overlap except for memory and hard drives. Seems to me that Mac Pro margins have to be much higher than the rest of Apple's wares due to protecting the iMac and a little bit of corporate OCD. The rest of the computer world was using higher margins on the professional machines (Apple hasn't made a distinction between consumer and pro with the towers since the PowerMacs were numbered) and its not like anyone can go anywhere else for Mac OS X computers.
Look I'm all for Apple reducing their Mac prices. And if squeezing their margins a little helps to do that... then so be it. But coming up with a plan that reduces Mac margins to way below those of Dell and HP would be suicide for their computer business.
It's not like an sales of a FAIRLY PRICED xMac (or Mac Pro Mini) would take business away from Apple. Profits perhaps, but I think Apple can stand to increase the market share of Mac products to be more than a fraction of the market saturation of the iPod and iPhone.
There is little point in gaining market share if you end up loosing money.[/QUOTE]
If that (extremely loyal) little point market share would have known we would would be treated like this now, we would have let the company fail a decade ago. For many, many years we were the only thing keeping Apple afloat. All we ask is the same loyalty we showed be returned. But the great god Apple is considered to be above such things.
Apple's current Mac margins are around 30%.
So an iMac sold for $1,499 earns Apple about $450.
...
Apple's overall margin is ~30%. No one knows margins for individual products, I contend iMac margins are lower. Even the Mac mini on introduction was probably lower, but now since it is behind to curve it may be approaching 30%.
Preumably iPhone margins are considerably higher than 30%, so what products do you contend bring down margins overall?
You did not address any of the advantages / disadvanntages for AIO & consumer tower desktop, why?
Why? Because, as I have said all along, I believe the reasons Apple doesn't sell an xMac are purely economic... and not technical. And because most of the advantages / disadvantages that you listed were related to upgradability. There is just no getting away from the fact that most consumers don't buy systems based on that criteria.
Next you continue to bring up the increase in laptop sales relative to desktop sales which does not negate the fact that desktop sales are still a huge multi-billion $ market.
Because you cannot ignore the fact that every time a consumer goes out and buys a laptop they are not buying a desktop. Hell, Microsoft based a whole advertising campaign on that fact.
And you keep ignoring the fact that out of the "huge" desktop market a large amount are being sold to business and public sector orgs. These are customers who are not going to instantly jump on a 'non Windows' xMac.
I cannot find any good data on what the mix is between consumer vs enterprise etc. Here's one snippet, though, from Dell. Less than 50% of their revenue, from computers comes from the consumer and small biz sectors. Less than 25% comes from their 'consumer' customers alone.
Your 'huge' consumer desktop market just got a bit smaller. Add in just HP's figures and it gets smaller still.
And you also keep ignoring the fact that a large amount of desktops are priced at only 300 or 400 or 500 dollars.
The 'huge' desktop market has been shrinking due to the rise of the laptop market.
It gets smaller still if you narrow it down to consumers (and maybe small businesses).
And smaller still if you cut out the real low end.
The 'huge' consumer desktop market is not so huge.
The lowend of Apple's market is the Mac mini @ $599. It uses more expensive laptop CPUs and hard drives. Replace these with more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs and hard drives a larger case with an extra hard / optical drive bay @ a couple of slots. Charge the same price. Exactly how does this reduce Apple's profit margin?
You have just built a computer that is more capable and more expandable and around $1000 dollars cheaper (not including a decent screen) than the average iMac. Now that's not going to cannibalise sales of iMacs is it? You've probably also sent the Mac Mini down the toilet.
Cannabilize iMac sales you say, OK. Then Apple offers another consumer desktop tower in the $899 - $1999 range with higher end more powerful less expensive desktop CPUs with hard / optical drive bays and a couple of slots.
Not content with ending the Mac Mini, you now want to offer an even more powerful system than the iMacs. Still around $600 cheaper (not including a decent screen). Further, the $1999, hi-end version is cleverly priced to attract a few Mac Pro buyers. Nice job.
It's irrelevant that your two new tower systems have the same 'Apple' profit margins. You have described systems that would cut into sales of ALL of the current desktop Macs. And at a cheaper price. You haven't cut the margins... just the ASP.
The only way that this makes good business sense is if your new desktops can attract new switchers. And, with your pricing strategy, it would have to be a lot of switchers. Which takes us back to the beginning. How many consumers want upgradable desktop towers... and how many of them want to run the Mac OS?
And do you know anyone personally that would refuse to buy a computer that wasn't an AIO, I personally know dozens that do refuse to buy AIOs.
I have got dozens of friends who already use Macs. "Friends" is a poor metric. Apple is not going to base their strategy on either of our sets of friends.
Why? Because, as I have said all along, I believe the reasons Apple doesn't sell an xMac are purely economic... and not technical. And because most of the advantages / disadvantages that you listed were related to upgradability. There is just no getting away from the fact that most consumers don't buy systems based on that criteria.
So what, there are plenty that do appreciate upgradability and the fact a computer is upgradable does not deter any one from buying a computer, but it does inhibit others.
Because you cannot ignore the fact that every time a consumer goes out and buys a laptop they are not buying a desktop. Hell, Microsoft based a whole advertising campaign on that fact.
Irrelevant, the desktop market is still huge - in the multi billions of dollars. Are you suggesting that as people buy laptops they get rid of their desktops, evidence shows this to be wrong. When their desktops become outdated, will they then abandon them, or will they buy new? I suggest they will buy new, especially if they bought a Netbook.
And you keep ignoring the fact that out of the "huge" desktop market a large amount are being sold to business and public sector orgs. These are customers who are not going to instantly jump on a 'non Windows' xMac.
I never said they would, but there is the chance of increasing their numbers. Also, at price points mentioned Apple keeps selling to the same people they are currently selling, only with a better value and the same gross margins.
I cannot find any good data on what the mix is between consumer vs enterprise etc. Here's one snippet, though, from Dell. Less than 50% of their revenue, from computers comes from the consumer and small biz sectors. Less than 25% comes from their 'consumer' customers alone.
Who cares. I am not asking Apple to adopt Dell's strategy of selling the lowest common denominator and to businesses.
Your 'huge' consumer desktop market just got a bit smaller. Add in just HP's figures and it gets smaller still.
And you also keep ignoring the fact that a large amount of desktops are priced at only 300 or 400 or 500 dollars.
The 'huge' desktop market has been shrinking due to the rise of the laptop market.
It gets smaller still if you narrow it down to consumers (and maybe small businesses).
And smaller still if you cut out the real low end.
The 'huge' consumer desktop market is not so huge.
Yes is is unless you consider multi billions in sales as insignificant.
You have just built a computer that is more capable and more expandable and around $1000 dollars cheaper (not including a decent screen) than the average iMac. Now that's not going to cannibalise sales of iMacs is it? You've probably also sent the Mac Mini down the toilet.
No, I didn't. I said Apple could build a computer using desktop parts that would be more powerful than the Mac mini provide better value to the consumer @ the same starting price point($599) and provide the same gross margins. How does this affect Apple's profits?
Not content with ending the Mac Mini, you now want to offer an even more powerful system than the iMacs. Still around $600 cheaper (not including a decent screen). Further, the $1999, hi-end version is cleverly priced to attract a few Mac Pro buyers. Nice job.
No, I didn't. Granted the starting price point ($899) is $300 less than the least expensive iMac(not the $600 you mention) the range encompasses the entire range of the current iMac, and provides for the same gross margins.
Yes Apple may lose some current Mac Pro purchasers, but as you and posters following your reasoning keeps saying - Professional Computer users should be more than willing to buy the high end workstation as it will more than justify the $$ over time and on top of that you and similar posters keep saying that Apple doesn't have much of a chance of gaining sales in businesses anyway.
It's irrelevant that your two new tower systems have the same 'Apple' profit margins. You have described systems that would cut into sales of ALL of the current desktop Macs. And at a cheaper price. You haven't cut the margins... just the ASP.
The only way that this makes good business sense is if your new desktops can attract new switchers. And, with your pricing strategy, it would have to be a lot of switchers. Which takes us back to the beginning. How many consumers want upgradable desktop towers... and how many of them want to run the Mac OS?
No, I haven't. What I've said continually is that Apple could offer better value in the same markets they are currently in and still maintain current gross margins, whatever they may be, for the current line-up.
By the way, you didn't address the discrepancy in your stated 30% margins for desktops. Assuming most people are correct in that the iPhone has much higher gross margins, then since the company as a whole has 30% gross margins, then what does Apple sell that has less than 30% margins? iPods? software? In numerous cost comparisons in the past(note: especially upon initial introduction), when Apple computers are compared based on somewhat equivalent parts to other manufacturers they are fairly close in price. And those manufacturers have gross margins in the 16 - 20% range.
I have got dozens of friends who already use Macs. "Friends" is a poor metric. Apple is not going to base their strategy on either of our sets of friends.
Please name one friend or any post anywhere in any of these discussions, or anywhere for that matter, in which a poster claimed they would not buy a computer because it was not AIO. That makes no sense at all and you know it. But yet, there are consumers that will not buy an AIO for any number of reasons.
The simply fact is Apple needs additional Mac models to drive hardware sales. You can only go so far with two consummer models. As has already been mentioned Apple needs a wider net to catch more fish.
Most perplexing is that Apple is in the music and Movie business but does not have a consummer level machine really suited to act as a repository for all that software they sell. A multimedia Mac ought to be a no brainer if you ask me. The desired features of XMac would allow it to operate in that role easily. You would have to be off your rocker to expect people to implement an iMac in this role, so obviously Apple is loosing sales to manufacture like HP that see this massive hole in Apples lineup. Apple just needs to make the damn thing and set the price to maintain margians.
I also don't buy this idea that a lower price on the Pro would eat into iMac sales or that that would be bad. The reality is the Pro is like parking an aircraft carrier in your drive way and then wondering why there is no room for the car. For the same reason that most people manage better with a bass boat so too do they preferr a smaller computer in the house.
Give us the capability to purchase hardware that is more suitable to our needs and sales will only increase. Frankly the crying about laptop sales means nothing here as I just bought one a little over a year ago, yet I still have this need for an XMac. Call it a home server, an media server, a high performance workstation, a video editing platform or any number of otherthings - WHATEVER IT IS IT IS NOT A LAPTOP!! Do you hear me. Actually it kinda reminds me of the digital hub that Apple has promoted in the past.
Dave