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.
Dell + HP = Big Market Share
Apple + Toshiba = Extremely Small Market Share
Elephant vs mice
It' laughable that you're comparing the market share of a company with supposedly a full line up of computers(Apple) with a company that only sells laptops. And implying that this is a good place for Apple. It should be embarrassing.
Except that the elephants are starving while eating netbooks and the mice are enjoying higher ASPs and margins drinking the cream of the market. One of them anyway.
Quote:
It' laughable that you're comparing the market share of a company with supposedly a full line up of computers(Apple) with a company that only sells laptops. And implying that this is a good place for Apple. It should be embarrassing.
What is laughable is folks claiming that Apple needs towers gain share when Toshiba has zero. This means that Apple can dump it's entire desktop line and still make it to #5 worldwide if it wanted to.
But it doesn't want to because it doesn't freaking matter. Apple has plenty of share and scads of developers busily learning objective C, cocoa and the core apis on OSX.
Given that folks continue to claim that PC gaming is dead (it ain't but many MMOs run on OSX anyway and the iMac can game okay in bootcamp so it's a moot point) what pray tell does Apple need more share at the expense of profitability for? Because people aren't bitching that Apple doesn't make a tower. They're bitching that the tower is more than two grand.
As much as I support the key points made, above figures are not all that useful as they only provide units shipped.
But that could be a $300 netbook or a $10,000 workstation. We don't know.
Nor do we know how profitable these units are on average.
While Acer might have 11.1% market share in units they might have quite a different profit share.
And at the end of the day it's irrelevant how many units you sell. If you don't make a profit you won't be around for much longer...
That's probably a reason why Apple does not pursue a middle-of-the-road consumer desktop box.
That market is so thin in margins as components are cheap and competition huge, that they would never make any reasonable profit.
Regardless of the numbers they could sell.
So why pursue something that won't contribute to the bottom line all that much?
And why enter a dying market anyway? (Which Toshiba's market share increase 'despite' the fact that they don't sell desktops seems to prove.)
With Apple's profits and units sold still on the rise there is very little incentive for them to lower prices much.
That's the sad truth. So I don't see them introducing a consumer desktop in the $1,000-$1,500 range any time soon.
They could. But they have no reason to do so.
Yet with latest hexacore CPU rumors it does seem more likely that they might keep a single quad-core CPU model in the Mac Pro lineup with a price tag < $2,000. $1,899 if we're lucky. That would effectively be today's model.
While the single and dual hexacore CPUs might get newer features like 6/12 RAM slots and 10Gbit Ethernet, SATA 600Mbit etc...
I think that's the best we can expect as an xMac for now.
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.
Marvin calls it simply and effectively. I agree with this post. Especially the notion that we trim the 'high end' of the iMac, drive that down wards and slot a profitable 'mid-tower' at the former £1500 pricepoint. You can't make a profit on a £1500 tower? You're doing something wrong. Especially considering how dirt cheap desktop quad cpus and mainstream gpus are. Memory and hds are also dirt cheap. I don't buy the argument there isn't a profit in a tower below the Mac Pro (when the Mac Pro is overpriced as is.) £795-£1495. No profit in that? I don't believe it. It's not like Apple follows the industry model of competitive prices with high end components? Apple slaps 30% on most of their computer products. They'd do the same with a mid-tower.
They used to have a tower for £1500. They could easily give us a £1195-£1500 mid-tower range. Plenty of profit there when you consider i7 and gpu prices. Both of which are in very cheap and there's plenty of choice of desktop components. HD and memory prices are nominal these days. I don't see how a profit...care of Apple premiums (TM) can't be made.
If they're not making a consumer tower, it's a political and greedy margin hugger choice. And until more Apple buyers demand it, we won't get it.
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.
In agreement with the price cut. Secondly, a tower in the £795 to £1495 (would that translate to your dollars?) You could stick a decent quad cpu and low end gpu in a £795 tower. And push the specs higher right up to £1495. Apple makes profit on selling own brand monitors. (Unless any irrational person on this board thinks Apple doesn't make a profit on their overpriced 24 inch £600 LED monitor?)
Cannibal? I never get that argument. Tower plus LED monitor or iMac. It's still a sale. More profit in selling them separately I'd a thought.
As much as I support the key points made, above figures are not all that useful as they only provide units shipped.
But that could be a $300 netbook or a $10,000 workstation. We don't know.
Nor do we know how profitable these units are on average.
Who really cares? Look at it this way there is profit to be had in rocks. You can sell them by the truckload straight out of a quarry or sell them one at a time as pet rocks. It is all in the marketing and servicing customer needs.
Like wise Apple can sell an XMac if it really wants to and make a profit in the same way they make a profit on XServe and the Mac Pro. The only difference is that XMac would move more product than those two combined.
The mistake you guys make and it is constant in the various XMac threads is the assumption that we want a cheap XMac. That is not the case at all, rather we want a desktop unit with certain expandability features that is considerably less expensive than the Mac Pro. My best estimates still puts this box above $1000 in cost. It is still cheaper than a Mac PRo and would still have a compact DESKTOP enclosure. Compact relative to a Mac Pro.
If apple can't make a profit on such a machine then frankly they should just close the doors and dissolve the company.
Quote:
While Acer might have 11.1% market share in units they might have quite a different profit share.
And at the end of the day it's irrelevant how many units you sell. If you don't make a profit you won't be around for much longer...
It is notable that the only people suggesting that Apple can't make a profit on XMac are the people against that. Do you know how silly that is when Apple is making a profit off every laptop sold. How do they do that when Apples laptops are the same basic machine as everybody elses? Simple they price the machines to make a profit even if that makes those laptops more expensive than the competitions.
Quote:
That's probably a reason why Apple does not pursue a middle-of-the-road consumer desktop box.
That market is so thin in margins as components are cheap and competition huge, that they would never make any reasonable profit.
Using that logic they would have never entered the laptop market. Your reasoning simply doesn't hold water.
Quote:
Regardless of the numbers they could sell.
So why pursue something that won't contribute to the bottom line all that much?
Again you are making an assumption here. I don't expect Apple to sell anything that doesn't add to the bottom line. I do expect them however to push forward with this positive run in Mac sales they are having. To do that they have to expand their product line up to appeal to more varied interests and XMac is one platform they need bad.
Quote:
And why enter a dying market anyway? (Which Toshiba's market share increase 'despite' the fact that they don't sell desktops seems to prove.)
Toshiba doesn't have to provide a wide range of products as they operate in a market where all of that is taken care of by other manufactures. It's pretty simple really either Apple provides people with what they need or you will see an explosion in hackintoshes. Like it or not Apple is loosing sales, the result of people giving up on them or going the DIY route.
Quote:
With Apple's profits and units sold still on the rise there is very little incentive for them to lower prices much.
I wish you would get off the price bandwagon and realize this has little to do with that. It is about models and choice. It's like buying a pickup there is a wide range of possibilities from the major manufactures.
Quote:
That's the sad truth.in AVX coming.
If the widest datatype determined the architecture, then a VAX-11/780 would have been called a So I don't see them introducing a consumer desktop in the $1,000-$1,500 range any time soon.
They could. But they have no reason to do so.
Yet with latest hexacore CPU rumors it does seem more likely that they might keep a single quad-core CPU model in the Mac Pro lineup with a price tag < $2,000. $1,899 if we're lucky. That would effectively be today's model.
While the single and dual hexacore CPUs might get newer features like 6/12 RAM slots and 10Gbit Ethernet, SATA 600Mbit etc...
I think that's the best we can expect as an xMac for now.
You know, I read this thread and see the computing equivalent of people saying, "if only they released a horse and cart with expandable slots for as many oxen or horses as I want, with a configurable cargo bay (choose as many hay bales as you need!) and with an option of two or four spoked wheels."
The market for a configurable desk bound ugly box is restricted to an increasingly small collection of middle aged, tinkering men with beards. The tech world is advancing at a rapid pace, yet many still believe it's 1995.
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
You know, I read this thread and see the computing equivalent of people saying, "if only they released a horse and cart with expandable slots for as many oxen or horses as I want, with a configurable cargo bay (choose as many hay bales as you need!) and with an option of two or four spoked wheels."
You must of worked awfully hard this morning to come up with that. All we are askng for is some drive bays, a decent GPU, and a fully capable high performance desktop CPU. In both cases (GPU&CPU) the desktop parts lower costs and provide better performance.
Quote:
The market for a configurable desk bound ugly box is restricted to an increasingly small collection of middle aged, tinkering men with beards. The tech world is advancing at a rapid pace, yet many still believe it's 1995.
First off I shave every morning. Second it's not to tinker but to expand storage and lower system cost. It amazes me that people using Mac hardware actually think that external hard drives are a good idea; it isn't, never has been and never will be for solving basic storage needs.
I agree the tech world is changing rapidly that only makes expandable storage more important. One of the facets that require all this storage is multimedia. Nowi could see Apple ignoring this issue if iTunes was owned by somebody else, but frankly they are shooting themselves in the foot here. Apple simply needs to offer hardware that meets the needs of their customers using iTunes.
A customer shouldn't have to jump through hopes every time he runs out of dIsk space for a library. Like you said the tech world is not like it was in 95 and this problem has been solved in numerous ways actually. For Apple one possibility is to buy Drobo and integrate their array technology right into Mac OS and the XMac. This keeps the box clean and presentable and avoids the uglyness of a Mini with an attached drive.
Quote:
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
Well you are far from normal if you ask me. Normal people want good value for their money. Normal people want to avoid the waste and clutter of gang of disk drives and other attachments for a simply application of a computer. Normal people want fast computers so that when they are doing work on them the machine is fuild and responsive. Normal people want to be able to leverage Apples latest technology in an agressive manner on reasonable priced hardware (looking at GCD and OpenCL here).
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much. People aren't asking you to roll over...just not to expect Apple to roll over for a small but very vocal segment of their user base.
They don't really give a shit about your narrow demographic. Especially if you buy their gear anyway. Get over it.
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.
yes $150 for a shit gpu and ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB [Add $200.00]
It just needs to be good value i.e reasonable spec for a reasonable price (a dual core 3GHz machine for $2200 fails this requirement) and doesn't include a pricey display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phormic
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
I wasn't aware that over 40% of the world's computing population were abnormal.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much. People aren't asking you to roll over...just not to expect Apple to roll over for a small but very vocal segment of their user base.
They don't really give a shit about your narrow demographic. Especially if you buy their gear anyway. Get over it.
They roll over for you rubber stampers. And despite what you and your extremely narrow minded segment might think, people are allowed to have a position over than "worship Apple like a god and shun all the nonbelievers with doubts." Criticism for a platform is good, group think is bad. get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's where the false assumption comes in. It doesn't need to be configurable and it doesn't need to be ugly. For example:
It just needs to be good value i.e reasonable spec for a reasonable price (a dual core 3GHz machine for $2200 fails this requirement) and doesn't include a pricey display.
I wasn't aware that over 40% of the world's computing population were abnormal.
I would say configurable is a pretty big need. One of the iMac's most glaring flaws (other than the CPU) is having only a pair of SO-DIMM slots and the low RAM ceiling it comes with. Then again, if kept it with its intended audience and didn't try to push it upmarket, there wouldn't be a problem.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much.
Vinea,
Why are you so negative when it comes to someone else wanting or needing a particular computer set-up? One man's meat is another man's poison. Don't rain on someone else's parade. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. (Can't think of any more adages.) You sound like Scrooge when you belittle someone's needs.
Why not let members express their views without coming down hard on them?
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much.
Vinea,
Why are you so negative when it comes to someone else wanting or needing a particular computer set-up?
Why beat a dead horse again?
Quote:
One man's meat is another man's poison. Don't rain on someone else's parade. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. (Can't think of any more adages.) You sound like Scrooge when you belittle someone's needs.
I don't belittle their needs. I belittle their assumption that they know better than Apple that an xMac would be both profitable and popular. I would have ignored this thread but it got injected into a tablet thread and you're seeing snide xMac comments again in other threads as well by the usual crew. The iMac thread. The Mac Pro thread. The tablet thread. Always the little jibes about the xMac and how much the lineup suxxors and injecting negativity into any desktop thread.
So it's tiresome to see that crap again and this thread was the vector to get these folks all worked up again. Not that raining on their parade here is likely to change that outcome but hey, if they keep it to one damn thread it would be fine. So rather than raining in all the other damn threads I'll piss on them from a dizzying height here instead.
Quote:
Why not let members express their views without coming down hard on them?
"If apple can't make a profit on such a machine then frankly they should just close the doors and dissolve the company. "
If they are parroting Dell then suggesting they go buy one isn't coming down on them any more than they deserve. That kind of statement is well past irony and into ignorance.
They roll over for you rubber stampers. And despite what you and your extremely narrow minded segment might think, people are allowed to have a position over than "worship Apple like a god and shun all the nonbelievers with doubts." Criticism for a platform is good, group think is bad. get over it.
If your "criticisms" were more than the usual "the mac pro costs too much and the imac too thin" whine it might be worthy call it a criticism.
Apple left the desktop market years ago. Nothing since then is compelling enough for them to return... especially not the declining market share for desktops.
Well you are far from normal if you ask me. Normal people want good value for their money. Normal people want to avoid the waste and clutter of gang of disk drives and other attachments for a simply application of a computer. Normal people want fast computers so that when they are doing work on them the machine is fuild and responsive. Normal people want to be able to leverage Apples latest technology in an agressive manner on reasonable priced hardware (looking at GCD and OpenCL here).
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
I second that, Dave.
Looks like Vinny baby doesn't.
I bought an iMac because Apple doesn't offer a £795-£1495 mid-tower solution that 95%+ of the worlds pc sellers and buyers have access to. Had Apple given me that choice, would I really have chosen a dual core, outdated gpu over a Nehalem i7 and high end gpu?
Neeeeeeeeeeee-ope.
This notion that towers are somekind of minority design choice is stretching it. Considering installed base and you can walk into a PC World and see that it's pretty much half and half still. And the tower design is still being modified and played with. Some of the PC vendors are getting quite stylish with their towers now.
*Shrugs. It's called choice.
Maybe Apple should add a 'Mac Pro Mini' to the mix and let us decide..?
If your "criticisms" were more than the usual "the mac pro costs too much and the imac too thin" whine it might be worthy call it a criticism.
Apple left the desktop market years ago. Nothing since then is compelling enough for them to return... especially not the declining market share for desktops.
1st point. Well, it is a criticism. And the lack of mid-tower or 'mini-me' tower only adds to it.
2nd point. Well. Duh. Sure looks that way, eh? (2 desktops using laptop parts...ergo: they don't really have a consumer desktop line. But an extended laptop line...)
Comments
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.
Dell + HP = Big Market Share
Apple + Toshiba = Extremely Small Market Share
Elephant vs mice
It' laughable that you're comparing the market share of a company with supposedly a full line up of computers(Apple) with a company that only sells laptops. And implying that this is a good place for Apple. It should be embarrassing.
Dell + HP = Big Market Share
Apple + Toshiba = Extremely Small Market Share
Dell + HP = Lots of consumer towers + declining market share
Apple + Toshiba = No consumer towers + rising market share
Dell + HP = Big Market Share
Apple + Toshiba = Extremely Small Market Share
Elephant vs mice
Except that the elephants are starving while eating netbooks and the mice are enjoying higher ASPs and margins drinking the cream of the market. One of them anyway.
It' laughable that you're comparing the market share of a company with supposedly a full line up of computers(Apple) with a company that only sells laptops. And implying that this is a good place for Apple. It should be embarrassing.
What is laughable is folks claiming that Apple needs towers gain share when Toshiba has zero. This means that Apple can dump it's entire desktop line and still make it to #5 worldwide if it wanted to.
But it doesn't want to because it doesn't freaking matter. Apple has plenty of share and scads of developers busily learning objective C, cocoa and the core apis on OSX.
Given that folks continue to claim that PC gaming is dead (it ain't but many MMOs run on OSX anyway and the iMac can game okay in bootcamp so it's a moot point) what pray tell does Apple need more share at the expense of profitability for? Because people aren't bitching that Apple doesn't make a tower. They're bitching that the tower is more than two grand.
But that could be a $300 netbook or a $10,000 workstation. We don't know.
Nor do we know how profitable these units are on average.
While Acer might have 11.1% market share in units they might have quite a different profit share.
And at the end of the day it's irrelevant how many units you sell. If you don't make a profit you won't be around for much longer...
That's probably a reason why Apple does not pursue a middle-of-the-road consumer desktop box.
That market is so thin in margins as components are cheap and competition huge, that they would never make any reasonable profit.
Regardless of the numbers they could sell.
So why pursue something that won't contribute to the bottom line all that much?
And why enter a dying market anyway? (Which Toshiba's market share increase 'despite' the fact that they don't sell desktops seems to prove.)
With Apple's profits and units sold still on the rise there is very little incentive for them to lower prices much.
That's the sad truth. So I don't see them introducing a consumer desktop in the $1,000-$1,500 range any time soon.
They could. But they have no reason to do so.
Yet with latest hexacore CPU rumors it does seem more likely that they might keep a single quad-core CPU model in the Mac Pro lineup with a price tag < $2,000. $1,899 if we're lucky. That would effectively be today's model.
While the single and dual hexacore CPUs might get newer features like 6/12 RAM slots and 10Gbit Ethernet, SATA 600Mbit etc...
I think that's the best we can expect as an xMac for now.
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.
Marvin calls it simply and effectively. I agree with this post. Especially the notion that we trim the 'high end' of the iMac, drive that down wards and slot a profitable 'mid-tower' at the former £1500 pricepoint. You can't make a profit on a £1500 tower? You're doing something wrong. Especially considering how dirt cheap desktop quad cpus and mainstream gpus are. Memory and hds are also dirt cheap. I don't buy the argument there isn't a profit in a tower below the Mac Pro (when the Mac Pro is overpriced as is.) £795-£1495. No profit in that? I don't believe it. It's not like Apple follows the industry model of competitive prices with high end components? Apple slaps 30% on most of their computer products. They'd do the same with a mid-tower.
They used to have a tower for £1500. They could easily give us a £1195-£1500 mid-tower range. Plenty of profit there when you consider i7 and gpu prices. Both of which are in very cheap and there's plenty of choice of desktop components. HD and memory prices are nominal these days. I don't see how a profit...care of Apple premiums (TM) can't be made.
If they're not making a consumer tower, it's a political and greedy margin hugger choice. And until more Apple buyers demand it, we won't get it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Towers don't sell any more
Yes they do.
Lemon Bon Bon.
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.
In agreement with the price cut. Secondly, a tower in the £795 to £1495 (would that translate to your dollars?) You could stick a decent quad cpu and low end gpu in a £795 tower. And push the specs higher right up to £1495. Apple makes profit on selling own brand monitors. (Unless any irrational person on this board thinks Apple doesn't make a profit on their overpriced 24 inch £600 LED monitor?)
Cannibal? I never get that argument. Tower plus LED monitor or iMac. It's still a sale. More profit in selling them separately I'd a thought.
Lemon Bon Bon.
As much as I support the key points made, above figures are not all that useful as they only provide units shipped.
But that could be a $300 netbook or a $10,000 workstation. We don't know.
Nor do we know how profitable these units are on average.
Who really cares? Look at it this way there is profit to be had in rocks. You can sell them by the truckload straight out of a quarry or sell them one at a time as pet rocks. It is all in the marketing and servicing customer needs.
Like wise Apple can sell an XMac if it really wants to and make a profit in the same way they make a profit on XServe and the Mac Pro. The only difference is that XMac would move more product than those two combined.
The mistake you guys make and it is constant in the various XMac threads is the assumption that we want a cheap XMac. That is not the case at all, rather we want a desktop unit with certain expandability features that is considerably less expensive than the Mac Pro. My best estimates still puts this box above $1000 in cost. It is still cheaper than a Mac PRo and would still have a compact DESKTOP enclosure. Compact relative to a Mac Pro.
If apple can't make a profit on such a machine then frankly they should just close the doors and dissolve the company.
While Acer might have 11.1% market share in units they might have quite a different profit share.
And at the end of the day it's irrelevant how many units you sell. If you don't make a profit you won't be around for much longer...
It is notable that the only people suggesting that Apple can't make a profit on XMac are the people against that. Do you know how silly that is when Apple is making a profit off every laptop sold. How do they do that when Apples laptops are the same basic machine as everybody elses? Simple they price the machines to make a profit even if that makes those laptops more expensive than the competitions.
That's probably a reason why Apple does not pursue a middle-of-the-road consumer desktop box.
That market is so thin in margins as components are cheap and competition huge, that they would never make any reasonable profit.
Using that logic they would have never entered the laptop market. Your reasoning simply doesn't hold water.
Regardless of the numbers they could sell.
So why pursue something that won't contribute to the bottom line all that much?
Again you are making an assumption here. I don't expect Apple to sell anything that doesn't add to the bottom line. I do expect them however to push forward with this positive run in Mac sales they are having. To do that they have to expand their product line up to appeal to more varied interests and XMac is one platform they need bad.
And why enter a dying market anyway? (Which Toshiba's market share increase 'despite' the fact that they don't sell desktops seems to prove.)
Toshiba doesn't have to provide a wide range of products as they operate in a market where all of that is taken care of by other manufactures. It's pretty simple really either Apple provides people with what they need or you will see an explosion in hackintoshes. Like it or not Apple is loosing sales, the result of people giving up on them or going the DIY route.
With Apple's profits and units sold still on the rise there is very little incentive for them to lower prices much.
I wish you would get off the price bandwagon and realize this has little to do with that. It is about models and choice. It's like buying a pickup there is a wide range of possibilities from the major manufactures.
That's the sad truth.in AVX coming.
If the widest datatype determined the architecture, then a VAX-11/780 would have been called a So I don't see them introducing a consumer desktop in the $1,000-$1,500 range any time soon.
They could. But they have no reason to do so.
Yet with latest hexacore CPU rumors it does seem more likely that they might keep a single quad-core CPU model in the Mac Pro lineup with a price tag < $2,000. $1,899 if we're lucky. That would effectively be today's model.
While the single and dual hexacore CPUs might get newer features like 6/12 RAM slots and 10Gbit Ethernet, SATA 600Mbit etc...
I think that's the best we can expect as an xMac for now.
Learn that expecting more is not a crime!!!!
The market for a configurable desk bound ugly box is restricted to an increasingly small collection of middle aged, tinkering men with beards. The tech world is advancing at a rapid pace, yet many still believe it's 1995.
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
You know, I read this thread and see the computing equivalent of people saying, "if only they released a horse and cart with expandable slots for as many oxen or horses as I want, with a configurable cargo bay (choose as many hay bales as you need!) and with an option of two or four spoked wheels."
You must of worked awfully hard this morning to come up with that. All we are askng for is some drive bays, a decent GPU, and a fully capable high performance desktop CPU. In both cases (GPU&CPU) the desktop parts lower costs and provide better performance.
The market for a configurable desk bound ugly box is restricted to an increasingly small collection of middle aged, tinkering men with beards. The tech world is advancing at a rapid pace, yet many still believe it's 1995.
First off I shave every morning. Second it's not to tinker but to expand storage and lower system cost. It amazes me that people using Mac hardware actually think that external hard drives are a good idea; it isn't, never has been and never will be for solving basic storage needs.
I agree the tech world is changing rapidly that only makes expandable storage more important. One of the facets that require all this storage is multimedia. Nowi could see Apple ignoring this issue if iTunes was owned by somebody else, but frankly they are shooting themselves in the foot here. Apple simply needs to offer hardware that meets the needs of their customers using iTunes.
A customer shouldn't have to jump through hopes every time he runs out of dIsk space for a library. Like you said the tech world is not like it was in 95 and this problem has been solved in numerous ways actually. For Apple one possibility is to buy Drobo and integrate their array technology right into Mac OS and the XMac. This keeps the box clean and presentable and avoids the uglyness of a Mini with an attached drive.
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
Well you are far from normal if you ask me. Normal people want good value for their money. Normal people want to avoid the waste and clutter of gang of disk drives and other attachments for a simply application of a computer. Normal people want fast computers so that when they are doing work on them the machine is fuild and responsive. Normal people want to be able to leverage Apples latest technology in an agressive manner on reasonable priced hardware (looking at GCD and OpenCL here).
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
Dave
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much. People aren't asking you to roll over...just not to expect Apple to roll over for a small but very vocal segment of their user base.
They don't really give a shit about your narrow demographic. Especially if you buy their gear anyway. Get over it.
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.
yes $150 for a shit gpu and ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB [Add $200.00]
makeing it $350 for 4870 512.
The market for a configurable desk bound ugly box
That's where the false assumption comes in. It doesn't need to be configurable and it doesn't need to be ugly. For example:
http://macprocube.com/
It just needs to be good value i.e reasonable spec for a reasonable price (a dual core 3GHz machine for $2200 fails this requirement) and doesn't include a pricey display.
Curiously, Apple seem to release products designed to appeal to as many normal people as they can.
I wasn't aware that over 40% of the world's computing population were abnormal.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much. People aren't asking you to roll over...just not to expect Apple to roll over for a small but very vocal segment of their user base.
They don't really give a shit about your narrow demographic. Especially if you buy their gear anyway. Get over it.
They roll over for you rubber stampers. And despite what you and your extremely narrow minded segment might think, people are allowed to have a position over than "worship Apple like a god and shun all the nonbelievers with doubts." Criticism for a platform is good, group think is bad. get over it.
That's where the false assumption comes in. It doesn't need to be configurable and it doesn't need to be ugly. For example:
http://macprocube.com/
It just needs to be good value i.e reasonable spec for a reasonable price (a dual core 3GHz machine for $2200 fails this requirement) and doesn't include a pricey display.
I wasn't aware that over 40% of the world's computing population were abnormal.
I would say configurable is a pretty big need. One of the iMac's most glaring flaws (other than the CPU) is having only a pair of SO-DIMM slots and the low RAM ceiling it comes with. Then again, if kept it with its intended audience and didn't try to push it upmarket, there wouldn't be a problem.
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much.
Vinea,
Why are you so negative when it comes to someone else wanting or needing a particular computer set-up? One man's meat is another man's poison. Don't rain on someone else's parade. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. (Can't think of any more adages.) You sound like Scrooge when you belittle someone's needs.
Why not let members express their views without coming down hard on them?
Originally Posted by vinea
How about this? Buy a freaking Dell and hackintosh it if it bothers you that much.
Vinea,
Why are you so negative when it comes to someone else wanting or needing a particular computer set-up?
Why beat a dead horse again?
One man's meat is another man's poison. Don't rain on someone else's parade. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. (Can't think of any more adages.) You sound like Scrooge when you belittle someone's needs.
I don't belittle their needs. I belittle their assumption that they know better than Apple that an xMac would be both profitable and popular. I would have ignored this thread but it got injected into a tablet thread and you're seeing snide xMac comments again in other threads as well by the usual crew. The iMac thread. The Mac Pro thread. The tablet thread. Always the little jibes about the xMac and how much the lineup suxxors and injecting negativity into any desktop thread.
So it's tiresome to see that crap again and this thread was the vector to get these folks all worked up again. Not that raining on their parade here is likely to change that outcome but hey, if they keep it to one damn thread it would be fine. So rather than raining in all the other damn threads I'll piss on them from a dizzying height here instead.
Why not let members express their views without coming down hard on them?
"If apple can't make a profit on such a machine then frankly they should just close the doors and dissolve the company. "
If they are parroting Dell then suggesting they go buy one isn't coming down on them any more than they deserve. That kind of statement is well past irony and into ignorance.
They roll over for you rubber stampers. And despite what you and your extremely narrow minded segment might think, people are allowed to have a position over than "worship Apple like a god and shun all the nonbelievers with doubts." Criticism for a platform is good, group think is bad. get over it.
If your "criticisms" were more than the usual "the mac pro costs too much and the imac too thin" whine it might be worthy call it a criticism.
Apple left the desktop market years ago. Nothing since then is compelling enough for them to return... especially not the declining market share for desktops.
Well you are far from normal if you ask me. Normal people want good value for their money. Normal people want to avoid the waste and clutter of gang of disk drives and other attachments for a simply application of a computer. Normal people want fast computers so that when they are doing work on them the machine is fuild and responsive. Normal people want to be able to leverage Apples latest technology in an agressive manner on reasonable priced hardware (looking at GCD and OpenCL here).
Your position seems to be let me roll over and take what Apple has. The point of view that avoids the thught that People really have things they like to get done fast on their PCs. Your point of view is like saying my life is pathetic and I don't deserve anything but what is offered.
Frankly I just can't comprehend your point of view.
I second that, Dave.
Looks like Vinny baby doesn't.
I bought an iMac because Apple doesn't offer a £795-£1495 mid-tower solution that 95%+ of the worlds pc sellers and buyers have access to. Had Apple given me that choice, would I really have chosen a dual core, outdated gpu over a Nehalem i7 and high end gpu?
Neeeeeeeeeeee-ope.
This notion that towers are somekind of minority design choice is stretching it. Considering installed base and you can walk into a PC World and see that it's pretty much half and half still. And the tower design is still being modified and played with. Some of the PC vendors are getting quite stylish with their towers now.
*Shrugs. It's called choice.
Maybe Apple should add a 'Mac Pro Mini' to the mix and let us decide..?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I bought an iMac...
That says it all why there's no xMac. You already decided.
If your "criticisms" were more than the usual "the mac pro costs too much and the imac too thin" whine it might be worthy call it a criticism.
Apple left the desktop market years ago. Nothing since then is compelling enough for them to return... especially not the declining market share for desktops.
1st point. Well, it is a criticism. And the lack of mid-tower or 'mini-me' tower only adds to it.
2nd point. Well. Duh. Sure looks that way, eh? (2 desktops using laptop parts...ergo: they don't really have a consumer desktop line. But an extended laptop line...)
Lemon Bon Bon.