I'd say so. 95% plus of the worldwide PC market isn't bankrupt. They are making profit. They are doing so in increased volume.
Apple don't have to be cheap and nasty.
Offering a mid-tower isn't going to bankrupt them. Offering an i7 with a decent gpu? Meehh, baaahh. It's like the majority of the PC vendors aren't offering this or making a profit from offering this, and Apple would make even more money off it. Apple do make more money off whatever they make. Even if it is outmoded, outdated. *Looks blankly. Clearly, Apple fans who feel a mid-tower is impossible haven't been to overclockers.co.uk recently and seen the reality of competition, the real world is offering outside of Job's reality warp.
And you're ignoring the historically outrageous price jacks on the Mac Pro Tower. The iMac and the Mac Mini.
Apple made a profit on these computers before they jacked the prices up...and yes, the iBook, Mac Mini used to have discrete gpus before the integrated crappics. Apple used to sell a flat screen iMac for £695 with Int crappics. Now it's £995 with Inte crappics for the entry model? And? And what? Oh. You don't see those price hikes. Maybe they could hike them by £300 more? And? And what? Apple would go out of business if they price cut their computers in line with what the real world is offering?
*Shrugs. It's just now, they're earning even more money off computers with outdated specs and p*ss poor gpus.
Good for them, their profits and their shareholders.
But to people who don't earn a fortune, don't own Apple stock and want a good deal?
Well, the PC market is much more competitive than the Apple one.
And I own an Apple machine.
Apple doesn't offer a mid-tower design because Apple and Jobs have an oversimplified view of what people want.
Well. They're flat out wrong on that. Why? Because the whole planet doesn't have an iMac. Or a Mini. So clearly, out of all desktops sold, Apple's desktop argument isn't a compelling one. There are more PC towers sold than iMacs. Fact. And Apple could design one. Or give the fat ass overpriced Mac Pro the £1000 price cut it's entry model deserves.
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.
Your right. I did stop and think about the 'factory' door thing... but then I just took the $600 at face value. My mistake. There are a lot of people on this forum, however who want the xMac to be around that price.
Your $900-$1000 range is much more realistic. It's still right in the middle of iMac price range though. And it's a more capable, more expandable desktop that allows you to buy your a monitor of your choice.... maybe one NOT from Apple. That could be very tempting for a lot of iMac buyers.
The success of any NEW Apple desktop tower is always going to depend on how many new customers it can attract to the Mac platform. And that has to be balanced by how many current Mac users would 'choose an xMac instead of a more expensive Mac.
Quote:
I'm not sure where you are pulling those numbers from but I suspect they are tainted.
The numbers are not tainted. MacBook Airs cost $1650 (Average)
If the Air was around 10% of all Apple's notebook sales (6 M) ... that's a billion dollars in revenue.
Even at 5% of sales that's half a billion... around about the same as the revenue from half a million $1000 xMacs.
We don't know the real Air sales figures, but 1 in 20 doesn't sound too outlandish to me.
Quote:
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.
You forgot the simple matter of a salable configuration that doesn't cause rational customers to buy an xMac instead of a more expensive desktop Mac.
We already have a number of allegedly rational customers who are bending over in laughter at Apple's current line up..... despite it being successful.
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.
Dave
A thoroughly rounded post that nails it.
If only Dave was inside Apple, he's be the one to stand up to Jobs and call him BS on this issue.
We already have a number of allegedly rational customers who are bending over in laughter at Apple's current line up..... despite it being successful.
'Relatively' successful. Ie in Apple's own 'small world'. And it is a small world compared to the rest of the PC market world wide. So clearly, there are plenty of PC purchasers, switchers can't, for some reason, able to buy an Apple Mac?
I wonder why? Could it be...overpriced? Underspecced? Limited in choice and flexibility? Over 95% of PC customers world wide have a wider view than people on these boards.
And they aren't buying the iMac, Mac Pro and Mini in droves. Why? Because they are very expensive compared to PC desktops. The only Apple desktop that can give you quad power is £1000 more than the PC entry to quadcore.
And people like you are still saying Apple can't make a mid-tower and make a profit when clearly their profits on their desktop line sustain a lower volume approach. *Shrugs. I guess marketshare isn't that important.
Oh. But they did cut the price on the Macbook and called it a Pro. So, maybe marketshare is a little important. But clearly not as important as being the history long margin huggers they are.
The notion that Apple have to cut margins to single figures to compensate for a mid-tower is laughable when you look at the price g-OWCH-ch-ge on the current offerings.
And if Apple's current offerings have more or less flat-lined or de-accelerated in growth...then WHAT are they going to offer in Desktops AND laptops to reach the remaining 95% of the world PC market that no so long back they said they were aiming at?
Clearly, the current line up has just about done what it could. And to reach more customers, Apple will have to vary it's tired, underspecced, old strategy, over simplified line up. Because 95% of the world's PC market world wide don't fall into Apple's 1-2-3 model.
(Or ironically, they fall into the 1 size tower model with specs to cater for all model...the model Apple doesn't offer...)
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. 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.
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.
I thought they must have been using the expensive Xeons but the 3500-series isn't that much at all. This means the $2500 Mac Pro uses a $284 CPU. Say the GPU is $150, the 3GB stock Ram is $150, Motherboard $500, $500 enclosure with PSU, HDD etc, you're talking about close to $900 left over for profit. 30% profit is indeed $750 but even that seems excessive.
It definitely seems like they're driving people to iMacs and milking the profits from people who simply can't do without a Mac Pro.
I understand the desire to use IPS displays on the upper end of the iMacs but I'd personally much rather buy a $1500 Quad i7 cube with a $300-400 matte IPS display 3rd party than a 24" dual Core iMac.
I thought they must have been using the expensive Xeons but the 3500-series isn't that much at all. This means the $2500 Mac Pro uses a $284 CPU. Say the GPU is $150, the 3GB stock Ram is $150, Motherboard $500, $500 enclosure with PSU, HDD etc, you're talking about close to $900 left over for profit. 30% profit is indeed $750 but even that seems excessive.
It definitely seems like they're driving people to iMacs and milking the profits from people who simply can't do without a Mac Pro.
I understand the desire to use IPS displays on the upper end of the iMacs but I'd personally much rather buy a $1500 Quad i7 cube with a $300-400 matte IPS display 3rd party than a 24" dual Core iMac.
Buy this guy a cigar.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Hmm...the notion that Apple might milk profits. Gosh. I'm...I'm...utterly shocked. Honest Apple? Milking profits?
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.
Well if you are referring to me as one of the stubborn people in this thread... you are correct. However I have not been 'supporting' Apple just for the sake of it. I have been trying to highlight real, plausible, economic reasons why Apple doesn't produce this elusive desktop Mac. I have tried to be impartial and logical about it.
I have reacted to the stubbornness shown here by people who constantly claim that the potential market for an xMac is larger than it is. People who claim that offering a $600 xMac would solve all of Apple's Mac problems. (no I don't mean you ) People who delve into the technical details of why one computer is better than another and ignore the fact that the average consumer (ie most of them) doesn't care. One poster has basically said... fuck the profits.. go for volume. Well great... you don't have to be a fanboy to know that that's the last thing Apple is going to do.
I am not against an xMac. I am in desperate need of something to replace my cranky old iMac G5. If Apple released an xMac alongside new iMacs, in a couple of weeks, I would seriously consider buying one. However my reasons for doing so are different from yours. If an xMac and a screen (almost definitely not from Apple) costs 2 or 3 hundred dollars less than an iMac... then I'll buy the xMac.
You want storage... I'm just happy with saving a few bucks. There's plenty of people in your boat. More power, more expandability etc etc. I believe that the boat for the "save 300 bucks"people is bigger! That's why I think Apple is concerned about cannibalisation.
Yes. Of course an xMac would turn a profit. But how much profit would Apple loose from elsewhere? And how many new customers would it bring in?
There is one thing that all the xMaccers have in common. They WANT a consumer level, mid-priced, expandable, upgradable desktop computer... BYO screen. Sorry, they have another thing in common. They say that's what most consumers want. The odd thing is, that as soon as the price of laptops dropped, most consumers rushed off and bought ... laptops.
Silly bloody consumers.
Quote:
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.
edit>
What is it do you like a limited selection when trying to satisfy your home computing needs.
It's not a given that you need a new model. Mac notebooks seem to be doing very well in the market with, basically only two ranges. (I am guessing you wouldn't want to count the Air). I believe the biggest single factor in hardware sales is price. Up the specs on the Mini, shave a few dollars off iMacs, and slide the Mac Pros down a step or two. That will also drive hardware sales. No new model needed. I suspect (maybe it's hope) that Apple will do that. The thing is Apple is doing well, and they have the luxury of waiting until the time is right.
Let's see what the next update brings.
Quote:
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!!
Dave, you have provide the most rational argument, in this thread for the need for Apple to produce the xMac. However, with respect your argument seems mostly to be based on your needs. And your needs seem to be mostly technical. That's not a bad thing. There are lots of people just like you. Are there enough?
SORRY, I KNOW IT'S (I'M) BORING but one last point for you Dave.
Your idea about the desktop market growing if the whole Tablet thing takes off.
That idea has some legs! If everyone, in the home, is running around with some kind of little slate/netbook device then notebook sales will surely drop.
Personally I'm not sure that home desktops would necessarily rise (a lot of homes probably already purchase a mix of laptops/desktops)... but they might.
Hmm...the notion that Apple might milk profits. Gosh. I'm...I'm...utterly shocked. Honest Apple? Milking profits?
I think people expect them to profit more because they sell less, that makes sense (economies of scale) so it's not a complete surprise but when they use cheaper components this time round and prices go up during a recession, there's no justification for that.
They don't always do it. I think the iphones and ipods are quite fairly priced, the Minis still need that £100 drop, the iMacs could use the same, the laptops are not bad maybe likewise but it's not extreme. Then we get to the Mac Pro and the old model started at £1499 for the quad and this time uses cheaper hardware but went up to £1899.
I guess it had to or why would anyone want the £1799 iMac if a Mac Pro is £1499? The solution of course is for Apple to stop the infatuation with the iMac and cap it's top-end pricing to £1499. If a CPU pushes it too high, don't use it. Who's going to notice the difference between the 2.93GHz and 3.06GHz or the GT120 and 130? Nobody but they will between the 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo and the Nehalem 2.66 quad.
At current iMac and Mac Pro prices I only see an xMac priced in the $1,600 - $2,500 range.
Knowing Apple the starting point is more likely $1,899 or $1,999.
But I agree with Marvin that the whole desktop range needs to drop by $100-$500 depending on model, shifting everything down.
Including the xMac model.
I'm sure prices will come down eventually - just uncertain when exactly.
Suppliers were surely pushed already to drop their component prices due to the ever-abused excuses of 'bad times' and 'bad economy'.
But of course Apple won't pass these savings on if they don't have to. They'll keep at their double whammy (high end user prices but much lower component prices) for as long as they can get away with it - reeking in higher and higher margins.
All will depend on the upcoming sales data. If it turns out Apple sold even more Macintosh units than expected, they might not be very much inclined to lower prices dramatically.
At that I'd expect tokens at best. $50 here, $100 there.
Yet if sales figures show a huge drop in units sold chances are we'll see $100 - $500 reductions across all desktop models.
But so far rumors on upcoming sales figures unfortunately point to the former.
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 point is that they make more money on the iMac. Any xMac would cannibalize iMac sales unless they were stupidly priced. At which point, why bother?
Quote:
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.
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
You answered your own question. Towers don't sell any more. Look how much they are discounted in the big stores. People don't want big ugly loud metal boxes sitting under their desks. They want cute, demur little boxes like the Mac Mini sitting on their desks to show off...
Given this news, the mac pro might finally be worth it's somewhat inflated price tag over the rest of the mac range and not to mention it would leave apple wide open to produce a consumer i7 machine (less so called sales cannibalization). Since there appears to be little to no chance of apple becoming willing to shoehorn a quadcore i7 into an iMac. Maybe when mobile i5 comes out. honestly i see no issue in pricing them in the same range as the iMac, possibly starting slightly lower or higher, it even gives apple the opportunity to try and upsell people from a crappy consumer monitor to the apple cinema display.
A desktop does not have to be huge, Personally i think if apple produce a in between consumer desktop it would look, in terms of form factor a lot like these sorts of machines, the so called "booksize" form factor. Before you freak out about horrible generic PC products, i'm just giving you an idea of the size.
If they use 2.5 HDDs and use a slim optical drive they should be able to use full size desktop GPUs, otherwise they might have to use so called 'half height' cards, possibly custom designed for the platform.
So, the lineup should be geared for only the least demanding users then? Most of them are coming over for sub-$1000 PCs. Why are you people so against additional profit and so for driving segments of users away from the Mac? Does Apple's judgement being percent mean that much to you?
The point is that they make more money on the iMac. Any xMac would cannibalize iMac sales unless they were stupidly priced. At which point, why bother?
You know this how? Do you have access to their books or do you just blindly assume Apple is doing everything correctly?
Quote:
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
Is Toshiba an entire computer platform? You're excuses would be valid though if either Apple was running windows or they allowed others to serve the Mac segments they won't be bothered with.
So, the lineup should be geared for only the least demanding users then? Most of them are coming over for sub-$1000 PCs.
Coming 'over' to where?
Quote:
Why are you people so against additional profit and so for driving segments of users away from the Mac?
I am 'against' people who won't even contemplate the possibility that the market for a consumer Mac tower is too small... getting smaller... and may not be lucrative enough.
Comments
wizard69:
Tired of this thread! Apple has the flexibility to make a profit on anything.
Agreed
foolproof
I'd say so. 95% plus of the worldwide PC market isn't bankrupt. They are making profit. They are doing so in increased volume.
Apple don't have to be cheap and nasty.
Offering a mid-tower isn't going to bankrupt them. Offering an i7 with a decent gpu? Meehh, baaahh. It's like the majority of the PC vendors aren't offering this or making a profit from offering this, and Apple would make even more money off it. Apple do make more money off whatever they make. Even if it is outmoded, outdated. *Looks blankly. Clearly, Apple fans who feel a mid-tower is impossible haven't been to overclockers.co.uk recently and seen the reality of competition, the real world is offering outside of Job's reality warp.
And you're ignoring the historically outrageous price jacks on the Mac Pro Tower. The iMac and the Mac Mini.
Apple made a profit on these computers before they jacked the prices up...and yes, the iBook, Mac Mini used to have discrete gpus before the integrated crappics. Apple used to sell a flat screen iMac for £695 with Int crappics. Now it's £995 with Inte crappics for the entry model? And? And what? Oh. You don't see those price hikes. Maybe they could hike them by £300 more? And? And what? Apple would go out of business if they price cut their computers in line with what the real world is offering?
*Shrugs. It's just now, they're earning even more money off computers with outdated specs and p*ss poor gpus.
Good for them, their profits and their shareholders.
But to people who don't earn a fortune, don't own Apple stock and want a good deal?
Well, the PC market is much more competitive than the Apple one.
And I own an Apple machine.
Apple doesn't offer a mid-tower design because Apple and Jobs have an oversimplified view of what people want.
Well. They're flat out wrong on that. Why? Because the whole planet doesn't have an iMac. Or a Mini. So clearly, out of all desktops sold, Apple's desktop argument isn't a compelling one. There are more PC towers sold than iMacs. Fact. And Apple could design one. Or give the fat ass overpriced Mac Pro the £1000 price cut it's entry model deserves.
Lemon Bon Bon.
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.
Your right. I did stop and think about the 'factory' door thing... but then I just took the $600 at face value. My mistake. There are a lot of people on this forum, however who want the xMac to be around that price.
Your $900-$1000 range is much more realistic. It's still right in the middle of iMac price range though. And it's a more capable, more expandable desktop that allows you to buy your a monitor of your choice.... maybe one NOT from Apple. That could be very tempting for a lot of iMac buyers.
The success of any NEW Apple desktop tower is always going to depend on how many new customers it can attract to the Mac platform. And that has to be balanced by how many current Mac users would 'choose an xMac instead of a more expensive Mac.
I'm not sure where you are pulling those numbers from but I suspect they are tainted.
The numbers are not tainted. MacBook Airs cost $1650 (Average)
If the Air was around 10% of all Apple's notebook sales (6 M) ... that's a billion dollars in revenue.
Even at 5% of sales that's half a billion... around about the same as the revenue from half a million $1000 xMacs.
We don't know the real Air sales figures, but 1 in 20 doesn't sound too outlandish to me.
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.
You forgot the simple matter of a salable configuration that doesn't cause rational customers to buy an xMac instead of a more expensive desktop Mac.
We already have a number of allegedly rational customers who are bending over in laughter at Apple's current line up..... despite it being successful.
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.
Dave
A thoroughly rounded post that nails it.
If only Dave was inside Apple, he's be the one to stand up to Jobs and call him BS on this issue.
Lemon Bon Bon.
We already have a number of allegedly rational customers who are bending over in laughter at Apple's current line up..... despite it being successful.
'Relatively' successful. Ie in Apple's own 'small world'. And it is a small world compared to the rest of the PC market world wide. So clearly, there are plenty of PC purchasers, switchers can't, for some reason, able to buy an Apple Mac?
I wonder why? Could it be...overpriced? Underspecced? Limited in choice and flexibility? Over 95% of PC customers world wide have a wider view than people on these boards.
And they aren't buying the iMac, Mac Pro and Mini in droves. Why? Because they are very expensive compared to PC desktops. The only Apple desktop that can give you quad power is £1000 more than the PC entry to quadcore.
And people like you are still saying Apple can't make a mid-tower and make a profit when clearly their profits on their desktop line sustain a lower volume approach. *Shrugs. I guess marketshare isn't that important.
Oh. But they did cut the price on the Macbook and called it a Pro. So, maybe marketshare is a little important. But clearly not as important as being the history long margin huggers they are.
The notion that Apple have to cut margins to single figures to compensate for a mid-tower is laughable when you look at the price g-OWCH-ch-ge on the current offerings.
And if Apple's current offerings have more or less flat-lined or de-accelerated in growth...then WHAT are they going to offer in Desktops AND laptops to reach the remaining 95% of the world PC market that no so long back they said they were aiming at?
Clearly, the current line up has just about done what it could. And to reach more customers, Apple will have to vary it's tired, underspecced, old strategy, over simplified line up. Because 95% of the world's PC market world wide don't fall into Apple's 1-2-3 model.
(Or ironically, they fall into the 1 size tower model with specs to cater for all model...the model Apple doesn't offer...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
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. 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.
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.
I thought they must have been using the expensive Xeons but the 3500-series isn't that much at all. This means the $2500 Mac Pro uses a $284 CPU. Say the GPU is $150, the 3GB stock Ram is $150, Motherboard $500, $500 enclosure with PSU, HDD etc, you're talking about close to $900 left over for profit. 30% profit is indeed $750 but even that seems excessive.
It definitely seems like they're driving people to iMacs and milking the profits from people who simply can't do without a Mac Pro.
I understand the desire to use IPS displays on the upper end of the iMacs but I'd personally much rather buy a $1500 Quad i7 cube with a $300-400 matte IPS display 3rd party than a 24" dual Core iMac.
I thought they must have been using the expensive Xeons but the 3500-series isn't that much at all. This means the $2500 Mac Pro uses a $284 CPU. Say the GPU is $150, the 3GB stock Ram is $150, Motherboard $500, $500 enclosure with PSU, HDD etc, you're talking about close to $900 left over for profit. 30% profit is indeed $750 but even that seems excessive.
It definitely seems like they're driving people to iMacs and milking the profits from people who simply can't do without a Mac Pro.
I understand the desire to use IPS displays on the upper end of the iMacs but I'd personally much rather buy a $1500 Quad i7 cube with a $300-400 matte IPS display 3rd party than a 24" dual Core iMac.
Buy this guy a cigar.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Hmm...the notion that Apple might milk profits. Gosh. I'm...I'm...utterly shocked. Honest Apple? Milking profits?
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.
Well if you are referring to me as one of the stubborn people in this thread... you are correct. However I have not been 'supporting' Apple just for the sake of it. I have been trying to highlight real, plausible, economic reasons why Apple doesn't produce this elusive desktop Mac. I have tried to be impartial and logical about it.
I have reacted to the stubbornness shown here by people who constantly claim that the potential market for an xMac is larger than it is. People who claim that offering a $600 xMac would solve all of Apple's Mac problems. (no I don't mean you
I am not against an xMac. I am in desperate need of something to replace my cranky old iMac G5. If Apple released an xMac alongside new iMacs, in a couple of weeks, I would seriously consider buying one. However my reasons for doing so are different from yours. If an xMac and a screen (almost definitely not from Apple) costs 2 or 3 hundred dollars less than an iMac... then I'll buy the xMac.
You want storage... I'm just happy with saving a few bucks. There's plenty of people in your boat. More power, more expandability etc etc. I believe that the boat for the "save 300 bucks"people is bigger! That's why I think Apple is concerned about cannibalisation.
Yes. Of course an xMac would turn a profit. But how much profit would Apple loose from elsewhere? And how many new customers would it bring in?
There is one thing that all the xMaccers have in common. They WANT a consumer level, mid-priced, expandable, upgradable desktop computer... BYO screen. Sorry, they have another thing in common. They say that's what most consumers want. The odd thing is, that as soon as the price of laptops dropped, most consumers rushed off and bought ... laptops.
Silly bloody consumers.
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.
edit>
What is it do you like a limited selection when trying to satisfy your home computing needs.
It's not a given that you need a new model. Mac notebooks seem to be doing very well in the market with, basically only two ranges. (I am guessing you wouldn't want to count the Air). I believe the biggest single factor in hardware sales is price. Up the specs on the Mini, shave a few dollars off iMacs, and slide the Mac Pros down a step or two. That will also drive hardware sales. No new model needed. I suspect (maybe it's hope) that Apple will do that. The thing is Apple is doing well, and they have the luxury of waiting until the time is right.
Let's see what the next update brings.
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!!
Dave, you have provide the most rational argument, in this thread for the need for Apple to produce the xMac. However, with respect your argument seems mostly to be based on your needs. And your needs seem to be mostly technical. That's not a bad thing. There are lots of people just like you. Are there enough?
SORRY, I KNOW IT'S (I'M) BORING but one last point for you Dave.
Your idea about the desktop market growing if the whole Tablet thing takes off.
That idea has some legs! If everyone, in the home, is running around with some kind of little slate/netbook device then notebook sales will surely drop.
Personally I'm not sure that home desktops would necessarily rise (a lot of homes probably already purchase a mix of laptops/desktops)... but they might.
Why do you always cut the poster's name when you quote ?
Hmm...the notion that Apple might milk profits. Gosh. I'm...I'm...utterly shocked. Honest Apple? Milking profits?
What do you really want Apple.... an xMac... or just cut the prices on everything that they make?
Hmm...the notion that Apple might milk profits. Gosh. I'm...I'm...utterly shocked. Honest Apple? Milking profits?
I think people expect them to profit more because they sell less, that makes sense (economies of scale) so it's not a complete surprise but when they use cheaper components this time round and prices go up during a recession, there's no justification for that.
They don't always do it. I think the iphones and ipods are quite fairly priced, the Minis still need that £100 drop, the iMacs could use the same, the laptops are not bad maybe likewise but it's not extreme. Then we get to the Mac Pro and the old model started at £1499 for the quad and this time uses cheaper hardware but went up to £1899.
I guess it had to or why would anyone want the £1799 iMac if a Mac Pro is £1499? The solution of course is for Apple to stop the infatuation with the iMac and cap it's top-end pricing to £1499. If a CPU pushes it too high, don't use it. Who's going to notice the difference between the 2.93GHz and 3.06GHz or the GT120 and 130? Nobody but they will between the 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo and the Nehalem 2.66 quad.
Knowing Apple the starting point is more likely $1,899 or $1,999.
But I agree with Marvin that the whole desktop range needs to drop by $100-$500 depending on model, shifting everything down.
Including the xMac model.
I'm sure prices will come down eventually - just uncertain when exactly.
Suppliers were surely pushed already to drop their component prices due to the ever-abused excuses of 'bad times' and 'bad economy'.
But of course Apple won't pass these savings on if they don't have to. They'll keep at their double whammy (high end user prices but much lower component prices) for as long as they can get away with it - reeking in higher and higher margins.
All will depend on the upcoming sales data. If it turns out Apple sold even more Macintosh units than expected, they might not be very much inclined to lower prices dramatically.
At that I'd expect tokens at best. $50 here, $100 there.
Yet if sales figures show a huge drop in units sold chances are we'll see $100 - $500 reductions across all desktop models.
But so far rumors on upcoming sales figures unfortunately point to the former.
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 point is that they make more money on the iMac. Any xMac would cannibalize iMac sales unless they were stupidly priced. At which point, why bother?
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.
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
You answered your own question. Towers don't sell any more. Look how much they are discounted in the big stores. People don't want big ugly loud metal boxes sitting under their desks. They want cute, demur little boxes like the Mac Mini sitting on their desks to show off...
People don't want big ugly loud metal boxes sitting under their desks.
You haven't been here long have you?
Given this news, the mac pro might finally be worth it's somewhat inflated price tag over the rest of the mac range and not to mention it would leave apple wide open to produce a consumer i7 machine (less so called sales cannibalization). Since there appears to be little to no chance of apple becoming willing to shoehorn a quadcore i7 into an iMac. Maybe when mobile i5 comes out. honestly i see no issue in pricing them in the same range as the iMac, possibly starting slightly lower or higher, it even gives apple the opportunity to try and upsell people from a crappy consumer monitor to the apple cinema display.
A desktop does not have to be huge, Personally i think if apple produce a in between consumer desktop it would look, in terms of form factor a lot like these sorts of machines, the so called "booksize" form factor. Before you freak out about horrible generic PC products, i'm just giving you an idea of the size.
If they use 2.5 HDDs and use a slim optical drive they should be able to use full size desktop GPUs, otherwise they might have to use so called 'half height' cards, possibly custom designed for the platform.
Oh well, this is purely speculation of course.
Silly bloody consumers.
So, the lineup should be geared for only the least demanding users then? Most of them are coming over for sub-$1000 PCs. Why are you people so against additional profit and so for driving segments of users away from the Mac? Does Apple's judgement being percent mean that much to you?
The point is that they make more money on the iMac. Any xMac would cannibalize iMac sales unless they were stupidly priced. At which point, why bother?
You know this how? Do you have access to their books or do you just blindly assume Apple is doing everything correctly?
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
Is Toshiba an entire computer platform? You're excuses would be valid though if either Apple was running windows or they allowed others to serve the Mac segments they won't be bothered with.
So, the lineup should be geared for only the least demanding users then? Most of them are coming over for sub-$1000 PCs.
Coming 'over' to where?
Why are you people so against additional profit and so for driving segments of users away from the Mac?
I am 'against' people who won't even contemplate the possibility that the market for a consumer Mac tower is too small... getting smaller... and may not be lucrative enough.
...
Explain to me then how Toshiba is #5 worldwide without a tower. That's two less models than Apple.
Or is this an indictment of how small both of these companies market share is.
Or is this an indictment of how small both of these companies market share is.
You mean just big enough to be in the top 5.
Especially for Apple in the US with their margins and mindshare. You'd rather be Dell or Apple? Nuff said...or evidently not for xMac zealots.
But nooooo....Jobs must be a fool not to see the clear advantages of the xMac.