"The Best Custom Built Computers for Gaming and Business"
So it is clear that they are custom builders.
If we were to find out that Falcon is selling more of those computers than Apple is selling Mac Pros them who is the custom builder? The fact is there isn't much difference between these computers and Apples Mac Pos as far as volume goes.
Quote:
You don't think DiY market has been doing this for decades? I think it obvious that DiY market HAS been doing this for decades.
Frankly the Falcon appears to have more thought put into it than most DIY machines.
Quote:
You don't think Apple is the furthest thing form the DiY market? That would be news to me.
Exactly how was there no basis for my statement? It is exactly the reality. Apple is never going to compete in the DiY market.
It is pretty simple, I don't think classifying the Falcon as a DIY machine is doing your argument any good.
Quote:
I didn't see where that was the whole point. I originally thought you might be able to save cash by dropping server parts for low end users, but the more I look into, the more I think anyone who is doing computation intensive work in a business environment, ECC memory should be standard. The cost is minimal and the improvement in memory reliability is dramatic. On a serious work machine this should at least be an option.
There are good reason to want server grade hardware and ECC memory. However that isn't a requirement for all of us. This is why I'd like to see an XMac added to the line up. Note I said added not a Mac Pro replacement. Such a machine should be possible at well under $1500.
I didn't see where that was the whole point. I originally thought you might be able to save cash by dropping server parts for low end users, but the more I look into, the more I think anyone who is doing computation intensive work in a business environment, ECC memory should be standard. The cost is minimal and the improvement in memory reliability is dramatic. On a serious work machine this should at least be an option.
I have mentioned that if you're looking at i7s in the range of the i7 2600k and up, you won't save much if anything there. I've also mentioned that a case redesign isn't a guaranteed price drop. If you look at the entire Apple line, none of them use cheap cases, and size isn't the only real factor there. Machined cases are extremely expensive/labor intensive to produce (looking at the macbook line here). The reason I find myself questioning Apple these days is that in spite of the price, things that concern me are not a high priority for them. These include graphics drivers, hard drive and gpu cooling, and cooperation with vendors that produce any software that I use (including Adobe). I actually do appreciate well engineered parts, but that doesn't make up for my other concerns. They're significant issues.
Another one would be that Apple should have directly licensed the technology used in Disk Warrior as a baseline functionality for OSX. HFS+ has far too many directory issues, and not everyone even knows about these tools, which shouldn't be necessary in the form of third party software.
If we were to find out that Falcon is selling more of those computers than Apple is selling Mac Pros them who is the custom builder? The fact is there isn't much difference between these computers and Apples Mac Pos as far as volume goes.
High or low volume. Falcon themselves claim to be custom builders, but if you want to make claims about numbers, I would like to see your source. I expect Apple sells many more Mac Pros than Falcon sells Mach Vs. (The Mac Pro has a lower starting price)
I really don't see how or why custom PC builder aimed primarily at gamers has anything to do with the Mac Pro.
But they sure do pretty paint jobs, I am sure there is high business demand for that.
What desktop market? Desktop sales pale in comparison to notebook sales, and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance. They'd probably make more money bringing the iPod Classic back than trying to profit from a budget or gaming xMac. Like it or not towers are not what the typical customer wants or needs.
We can't use Mac sales to indicate what type of computer customers want, seeing how Apple's desktop offerings are so limited. One forecast for 2011 projects worldwide sales of personal computers to be 36% desktops and 64% mobile. And those figures exclude servers. At about one third of total sales, I'd say that desktop computers represent a very sizable market.
We can't use Mac sales to indicate what computer customers want, seeing how Apple's desktop offerings are so limited. One forecast for 2011 projects worldwide sales of personal computers to be 36% desktops and 64% mobile. And those figures exclude servers. At about one third of total sales, I'd say that desktop computers represent a very sizable market.
1) My reference is to the overall desktop v. notebook sales as noted by the statement "and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance."
2) When it comes to Apple's market focus exactly what part of the overall desktop market do you expect them to play in? As previously stated they aren't going to make a gaming rig that costs thousands of dollars that actually turn a profit but have very, very low sales, and they aren't going sell the plethora of cheap desktops that make up nearly all the world's desktop PCs but make a very, very low profit.
3) This whole xMac argument is beyond silly. The average consumer doesn't want to have big ass towers and 6 boxes to unpack when they buy a new computer. The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
1) My reference is to the overall desktop v. notebook sales as noted by the statement "and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance."
The current numbers do show strong demand for laptops but I have to wonder how long at will hold. This being asked by a MBP owner. What has me asking this question, well my iPhone and iPad. As Apple mature iCloud and other software initiatives I really have to wonder if it makes sense to buy a laptop the next time around. IPad makes for a far more portable computer than a laptop. As software and capability matures there my current needs for a laptop will diminish.
Quote:
2) When it comes to Apple's market focus exactly what part of the overall desktop market do you expect them to play in? As previously stated they aren't going to make a gaming rig that costs thousands of dollars that actually turn a profit but have very, very low sales, and they aren't going sell the plethora of cheap desktops that make up nearly all the world's desktop PCs but make a very, very low profit.
They can define their own market just like they do with laptops. Think about it Apple is currently doing better than the industry in general at delivering value. The AIRs are a good example that even after a year have little real competition.
I really think your arguments are old, Apple is a different company today and the markets have changed dramatically. People recognize the value in Mac OS and are willing to spend a bit on hardware to run it. Beyond that you are fixated on towers, I really don't see the XMac as a tower.
Quote:
3) This whole xMac argument is beyond silly. The average consumer doesn't want to have big ass towers and 6 boxes to unpack when they buy a new computer.
Exactly! You have hit upon a couple of points that drive the desire for an XMac.
Quote:
The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
It is foolhardy to do things a certain way because it was decided upon eons ago. Markets change and more impressively Apple has changed, the Mac desktop needs to reflect these changes.
All we are really asking for is that Apple put the same care and fore thought that they put into laptop design into desktop design. That isn't asking a lot. It could mean that they build an XMac or it could mean that they refactor the Mini and produce a less castrated machine. The reality today is that Apple has little in the way of hardware for the desktop that meets common user needs.
1) ... The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
I understand you to say that there is no viable market for a Mac between the Mini and Pro if it does not have a built-in display. Yet, in the world of Windows, that's precisely what sells the most. How would you explain that? I happen to believe that computer makers are selling what buyers want. For whatever reason, Apple chose to only offer the iMac in this price/performance range, take it or leave it. To me, it looks like a marketing blind spot on Apple's part.
I understand you to say that there is no viable market for a Mac between the Mini and Pro if it does not have a built-in display. Yet, in the world of Windows, that's precisely what sells the most. How would you explain that? I happen to believe that computer makers are selling what buyers want. For whatever reason, Apple chose to only offer the iMac in this price/performance range, take it or leave it. To me, it looks like a marketing blind spot on Apple's part.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
Sometimes I really don't understand you guys. Some of you attack the idea of existence of the xMac almost like a life threat! Come on! Relax! Would the xMac be useful for some us? Yes, it would! Not to all, but some! Everybody has different "Mac needs" so each one picks the one he/she sees fit. I guess no one of us here should discard that idea or any other.
If Apple is really questioning the meaning of the Mac Pro, something should replace it in case of it going away for good. It's not reasonable (at least from my point o view) the iMac being the top performer on Apple line of products.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple.
Not at all! It is the world of the customer plain and simple.
Quote:
I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE.
More BS! If Apple can make money selling laptops then they certainly can do so with desktops. Frankly this is a non argument, Apple already has a losing formula in the Mac Pro due to a disconnect with the customer. They can overcome that with the XMac by dis tilling down the basic features needed by their customer base. Then building the right computer at the right price.
Quote:
Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
Explain to us how making a desktop that would sell to a much larger user base than the Mac Pro wold bring down revenue. As to profit per unit again it isn't a problem for Apple as they sell all other hardware profitably except possibly the Mac Pro. Do you really think the Mini, AIR or iMac are unprofitable? If not why would Apple design and sell an unprofitable XMac. They wouldn't of course, instead they would apply their engineering and design skills to offer up a profitable machine.
It bothers me that people think the XMac is for some reason impossible based on profitability but yet dismiss the problems with the Mac Pro. The sad reality is that the Apple desktop is a one pony show and that pony is named Mini. As a desktop machine the Mini is very wanting. Neither the iMac nor the Pro fulfill the rolls that desktop users are engaging their hardware in.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
Not a bad configuration and in one instance close to what I had in mind. I'd drop the optical though and aim for three drive bays as a minimum. If Ivy Bridge was incorporated I'd even suggest integrated graphics in the base model. An additional slot would be nice too.
Quote:
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Yes a massive hole!
In any event at this point I'd rather that Apple pull out the stops and through some technology at the XMac to redefine what a desktop is. If they can do it for the AIR they certainly can do it for the desktop.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
No, just trying to apply some sanity to your bizarre claims. Which you have zero backing for.
10x the effort to add one model??? Please explain this total nonsense.
You made big claims about a drop in margins without a product even existing. How can you make such claims without even the slightest notion of the content or price. I just created a starting point.
If you want to spout utter nonsense, be prepared to be called on it.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
Thanks for your clarification. Though Windows-based vendors sell mostly xMac style PCs, you say it is not for Apple. The reason you give is that Apple makes more profit on computers than those companies making Windows products. Do you really think that is a proof of your statement? I say that Apple can price the xMac so it is very profitable. Why wouldn't Apple do so? Apple has no competition when it comes to selling computers running Mac OSX. The competition is between Mac OSX and Windows, and there are a lot of buyers willing to pay a little more to run OSX.
You also mention bringing down profit-per-unit drastically, but that is something Apple doesn't have to do, as mentioned above. It's how companies compete in the world of Window OS. The simple contention of many of us is that Apple would sell significantly more desktop computers if they had the xMac, and a profitable xMac at that.
Not a bad configuration and in one instance close to what I had in mind. I'd drop the optical though and aim for three drive bays as a minimum. If Ivy Bridge was incorporated I'd even suggest integrated graphics in the base model. An additional slot would be nice too.
In any event at this point I'd rather that Apple pull out the stops and through some technology at the XMac to redefine what a desktop is. If they can do it for the AIR they certainly can do it for the desktop.
It was just a starting point and I wanted to keep it far away from the Mac Pro, lest the cannibalization cries start up.
It just seems ridiculous someone can complain about lower margins on a product that is undefined and unpriced, so I thought I would introduce a starting point.
IMO Apple could ramp market share and profits if the headless desktop lineup was something like this for starting points:
$499: Mini
$999: xMac (similar to described above)
$1999: Mac Pro
I think those are feasible targets and you have a lineup that spans entry to high end professional in 3 models (plus options of course).
IMO Apple could ramp market share and profits if the headless desktop lineup was something like this for starting points:
$499: Mini
$999: xMac (similar to described above)
$1999: Mac Pro
I think those are feasible targets and you have a lineup that spans entry to high end professional in 3 models (plus options of course).
I'll put in my two cents. Seeing how the low end iMac is $1200, essentially, I think that would be a good be starting price for and xMac. The buyer would be trading the built-in display for flexibility and serviceability of the xMac: drive bays, PCIe card slots, RAM expansibility and an easily removable access panel. Higher configurations would likely go over $2000.
I don't know enough about professional needs for a workstation to comment on Mac Pro pricing, but I think the current low end configuration could be eliminated. People who now buy that would likely buy a high end xMac model. I think the idea of the Mac Pro and xMac sharing hardwired as much as possible is a good one. However, the Mac Pro case should have some distinctive marking that makes it easily noticed. I'm sure professionals have pride in their equipment, and don't want people thinking they are using an xMac. Economically, hardware sharing would make it profitable to keep the Mac Pro, even when it's sales are low, because both the Mac Pro and xMac could be built on the same production line.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
I'm just going to mention here that with Apple, new models are not always what people expect. Had one of the PC oems come out with something resembling the mini, everyone would have laughed at them. If Intel's targets keep going down on overall tdp you might fit more in that box than you do today, but it's pretty restrictive in the kind of logic board it would fit. For reference Intel did mention they wanted to see 17W quad core laptop cpus in a couple years. The ones they referenced currently run 45W. Apple's influence and ARM probably played a part here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
I don't know enough about professional needs for a workstation to comment on Mac Pro pricing, but I think the current low end configuration could be eliminated. People who now buy that would likely buy a high end xMac model. I think the idea of the Mac Pro and xMac sharing hardwired as much as possible is a good one. However, the Mac Pro case should have some distinctive marking that makes it easily noticed. I'm sure professionals have pride in their equipment, and don't want people thinking they are using an xMac. Economically, hardware sharing would make it profitable to keep the Mac Pro, even when it's sales are low, because both the Mac Pro and xMac could be built on the same production line.
No one that uses one for work cares what it looks like. You're sort of off the mark on that. The other machines simply have a lot of limits that you don't have to think about on a mac pro assuming you can pay for the upgrades needed to remove them. They're also less prone to downtime simply because outside of a logic board, you can pretty much obtain replacement components and do it yourself within a day (don't believe what they tell you with pro care, it can still take just as long).
We are living in such an incredible era of technology. I remember being 12 in 1999 and my first computer bought by my parents for $2,000 was a Pentium III Gateway 500 MHz, CRT monitor, 64 MB SDRAM, AOL dial-up, and a 10 GB HDD at who knows the speed. (I didn't know much about computers then or else I could have told them how they were getting ripped off).
The Mac platform didn't interest me back then though I wish it had or who knows where I would be.
Edit: And now I realize I meant to post this in the thinner MacBook Pro thread but I'll modify my post here. I cannot wait to see what both the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge E platforms bring.
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Take me for instance. I'm simply not going to buy what doesn't fit my needs and wants. The mini needs to be bigger. It should have kept the footprint of the previous mini and gone taller to offer room for two hard drives and an optical drive. My requirement is internal devices. The iMac comes with a glossy screen I do not want and I also do not like all in ones. I want a computer that is easy to open with normal tools. The place I most often see suction cups and putty knives is in an auto body shop.
Since I haven't been able to get the computer I want I have also held back from buying any of Apple's others iDevices. Why support the company when I can't get what I really want?
The Mac Pro is way more computer than I need. In processing power, size and price. And yet the Mac Pro is the only desktop computer Apple makes that is designed for ease of use. Ports on the front where you can reach them and an easy to open case. Only the Mac Pro is function over form but it still looks good.
I am very close to giving up and switching to Windows.
Comments
Huh? I see lots of basis.
Are you saying they aren't a custom builder?
I am on their page and the page heading is:
"The Best Custom Built Computers for Gaming and Business"
So it is clear that they are custom builders.
If we were to find out that Falcon is selling more of those computers than Apple is selling Mac Pros them who is the custom builder? The fact is there isn't much difference between these computers and Apples Mac Pos as far as volume goes.
You don't think DiY market has been doing this for decades? I think it obvious that DiY market HAS been doing this for decades.
Frankly the Falcon appears to have more thought put into it than most DIY machines.
You don't think Apple is the furthest thing form the DiY market? That would be news to me.
Exactly how was there no basis for my statement? It is exactly the reality. Apple is never going to compete in the DiY market.
It is pretty simple, I don't think classifying the Falcon as a DIY machine is doing your argument any good.
I didn't see where that was the whole point. I originally thought you might be able to save cash by dropping server parts for low end users, but the more I look into, the more I think anyone who is doing computation intensive work in a business environment, ECC memory should be standard. The cost is minimal and the improvement in memory reliability is dramatic. On a serious work machine this should at least be an option.
There are good reason to want server grade hardware and ECC memory. However that isn't a requirement for all of us. This is why I'd like to see an XMac added to the line up. Note I said added not a Mac Pro replacement. Such a machine should be possible at well under $1500.
I didn't see where that was the whole point. I originally thought you might be able to save cash by dropping server parts for low end users, but the more I look into, the more I think anyone who is doing computation intensive work in a business environment, ECC memory should be standard. The cost is minimal and the improvement in memory reliability is dramatic. On a serious work machine this should at least be an option.
I have mentioned that if you're looking at i7s in the range of the i7 2600k and up, you won't save much if anything there. I've also mentioned that a case redesign isn't a guaranteed price drop. If you look at the entire Apple line, none of them use cheap cases, and size isn't the only real factor there. Machined cases are extremely expensive/labor intensive to produce (looking at the macbook line here). The reason I find myself questioning Apple these days is that in spite of the price, things that concern me are not a high priority for them. These include graphics drivers, hard drive and gpu cooling, and cooperation with vendors that produce any software that I use (including Adobe). I actually do appreciate well engineered parts, but that doesn't make up for my other concerns. They're significant issues.
Another one would be that Apple should have directly licensed the technology used in Disk Warrior as a baseline functionality for OSX. HFS+ has far too many directory issues, and not everyone even knows about these tools, which shouldn't be necessary in the form of third party software.
If we were to find out that Falcon is selling more of those computers than Apple is selling Mac Pros them who is the custom builder? The fact is there isn't much difference between these computers and Apples Mac Pos as far as volume goes.
High or low volume. Falcon themselves claim to be custom builders, but if you want to make claims about numbers, I would like to see your source. I expect Apple sells many more Mac Pros than Falcon sells Mach Vs. (The Mac Pro has a lower starting price)
I really don't see how or why custom PC builder aimed primarily at gamers has anything to do with the Mac Pro.
But they sure do pretty paint jobs, I am sure there is high business demand for that.
What desktop market? Desktop sales pale in comparison to notebook sales, and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance. They'd probably make more money bringing the iPod Classic back than trying to profit from a budget or gaming xMac. Like it or not towers are not what the typical customer wants or needs.
We can't use Mac sales to indicate what type of computer customers want, seeing how Apple's desktop offerings are so limited. One forecast for 2011 projects worldwide sales of personal computers to be 36% desktops and 64% mobile. And those figures exclude servers. At about one third of total sales, I'd say that desktop computers represent a very sizable market.
http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_pcww1203.htm
We can't use Mac sales to indicate what computer customers want, seeing how Apple's desktop offerings are so limited. One forecast for 2011 projects worldwide sales of personal computers to be 36% desktops and 64% mobile. And those figures exclude servers. At about one third of total sales, I'd say that desktop computers represent a very sizable market.
http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_pcww1203.htm
1) My reference is to the overall desktop v. notebook sales as noted by the statement "and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance."
2) When it comes to Apple's market focus exactly what part of the overall desktop market do you expect them to play in? As previously stated they aren't going to make a gaming rig that costs thousands of dollars that actually turn a profit but have very, very low sales, and they aren't going sell the plethora of cheap desktops that make up nearly all the world's desktop PCs but make a very, very low profit.
3) This whole xMac argument is beyond silly. The average consumer doesn't want to have big ass towers and 6 boxes to unpack when they buy a new computer. The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
1) My reference is to the overall desktop v. notebook sales as noted by the statement "and that's without even considering Apple's notebook dominance."
The current numbers do show strong demand for laptops but I have to wonder how long at will hold. This being asked by a MBP owner. What has me asking this question, well my iPhone and iPad. As Apple mature iCloud and other software initiatives I really have to wonder if it makes sense to buy a laptop the next time around. IPad makes for a far more portable computer than a laptop. As software and capability matures there my current needs for a laptop will diminish.
2) When it comes to Apple's market focus exactly what part of the overall desktop market do you expect them to play in? As previously stated they aren't going to make a gaming rig that costs thousands of dollars that actually turn a profit but have very, very low sales, and they aren't going sell the plethora of cheap desktops that make up nearly all the world's desktop PCs but make a very, very low profit.
They can define their own market just like they do with laptops. Think about it Apple is currently doing better than the industry in general at delivering value. The AIRs are a good example that even after a year have little real competition.
I really think your arguments are old, Apple is a different company today and the markets have changed dramatically. People recognize the value in Mac OS and are willing to spend a bit on hardware to run it. Beyond that you are fixated on towers, I really don't see the XMac as a tower.
3) This whole xMac argument is beyond silly. The average consumer doesn't want to have big ass towers and 6 boxes to unpack when they buy a new computer.
Exactly! You have hit upon a couple of points that drive the desire for an XMac.
The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
It is foolhardy to do things a certain way because it was decided upon eons ago. Markets change and more impressively Apple has changed, the Mac desktop needs to reflect these changes.
All we are really asking for is that Apple put the same care and fore thought that they put into laptop design into desktop design. That isn't asking a lot. It could mean that they build an XMac or it could mean that they refactor the Mini and produce a less castrated machine. The reality today is that Apple has little in the way of hardware for the desktop that meets common user needs.
1) ... The market Apple functions in determined this eons ago and so argument about how it would be cool if Apple just made a tower that wasn't as towery as the Mac Pro but more towery than the Mac mini without having the built-in display like the iMac is just foolhardy. It's not going to happen because their no viable market for it!
I understand you to say that there is no viable market for a Mac between the Mini and Pro if it does not have a built-in display. Yet, in the world of Windows, that's precisely what sells the most. How would you explain that? I happen to believe that computer makers are selling what buyers want. For whatever reason, Apple chose to only offer the iMac in this price/performance range, take it or leave it. To me, it looks like a marketing blind spot on Apple's part.
I understand you to say that there is no viable market for a Mac between the Mini and Pro if it does not have a built-in display. Yet, in the world of Windows, that's precisely what sells the most. How would you explain that? I happen to believe that computer makers are selling what buyers want. For whatever reason, Apple chose to only offer the iMac in this price/performance range, take it or leave it. To me, it looks like a marketing blind spot on Apple's part.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
If Apple is really questioning the meaning of the Mac Pro, something should replace it in case of it going away for good. It's not reasonable (at least from my point o view) the iMac being the top performer on Apple line of products.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple.
Not at all! It is the world of the customer plain and simple.
I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE.
More BS! If Apple can make money selling laptops then they certainly can do so with desktops. Frankly this is a non argument, Apple already has a losing formula in the Mac Pro due to a disconnect with the customer. They can overcome that with the XMac by dis tilling down the basic features needed by their customer base. Then building the right computer at the right price.
Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
Explain to us how making a desktop that would sell to a much larger user base than the Mac Pro wold bring down revenue. As to profit per unit again it isn't a problem for Apple as they sell all other hardware profitably except possibly the Mac Pro. Do you really think the Mini, AIR or iMac are unprofitable? If not why would Apple design and sell an unprofitable XMac. They wouldn't of course, instead they would apply their engineering and design skills to offer up a profitable machine.
It bothers me that people think the XMac is for some reason impossible based on profitability but yet dismiss the problems with the Mac Pro. The sad reality is that the Apple desktop is a one pony show and that pony is named Mini. As a desktop machine the Mini is very wanting. Neither the iMac nor the Pro fulfill the rolls that desktop users are engaging their hardware in.
That isn't reality, just your unsubstantiated (and bizarre) opinion.
How is it 10X the effort to add one simple model? That is just ludicrous.
How does it lower profit per unit when there is no clear definition of what an xMac is or what it is priced at? Again nonsense on your part.
Example xMac: $1199
Processor: 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Ram: 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 (2 slots open)
HD: 500 GB 7200 RPM Desktop (1 Bay free)
Optical: Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive
Video: MB Integrated Radeon 6750M
Slots: 1 PCIe x16 lane
Case: small aluminum pizza box style
Easily typical Apple Mac Margins there...
Not a bad configuration and in one instance close to what I had in mind. I'd drop the optical though and aim for three drive bays as a minimum. If Ivy Bridge was incorporated I'd even suggest integrated graphics in the base model. An additional slot would be nice too.
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Yes a massive hole!
In any event at this point I'd rather that Apple pull out the stops and through some technology at the XMac to redefine what a desktop is. If they can do it for the AIR they certainly can do it for the desktop.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
No, just trying to apply some sanity to your bizarre claims. Which you have zero backing for.
10x the effort to add one model??? Please explain this total nonsense.
You made big claims about a drop in margins without a product even existing. How can you make such claims without even the slightest notion of the content or price. I just created a starting point.
If you want to spout utter nonsense, be prepared to be called on it.
That's the world of Windows-based vendors, not Apple. I clearly explained there is no viable market FOR APPLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY FOR APPLE. Apple already takes the lion share of the profuts from the PC market and the notebook sector is growing. Your suggesting is they spend 10x as much effort in the Mac department to make 2% great profit while bringing down their revenue and profit per unit drastically. It's simply not going to happen.
Thanks for your clarification. Though Windows-based vendors sell mostly xMac style PCs, you say it is not for Apple. The reason you give is that Apple makes more profit on computers than those companies making Windows products. Do you really think that is a proof of your statement? I say that Apple can price the xMac so it is very profitable. Why wouldn't Apple do so? Apple has no competition when it comes to selling computers running Mac OSX. The competition is between Mac OSX and Windows, and there are a lot of buyers willing to pay a little more to run OSX.
You also mention bringing down profit-per-unit drastically, but that is something Apple doesn't have to do, as mentioned above. It's how companies compete in the world of Window OS. The simple contention of many of us is that Apple would sell significantly more desktop computers if they had the xMac, and a profitable xMac at that.
Not a bad configuration and in one instance close to what I had in mind. I'd drop the optical though and aim for three drive bays as a minimum. If Ivy Bridge was incorporated I'd even suggest integrated graphics in the base model. An additional slot would be nice too.
In any event at this point I'd rather that Apple pull out the stops and through some technology at the XMac to redefine what a desktop is. If they can do it for the AIR they certainly can do it for the desktop.
It was just a starting point and I wanted to keep it far away from the Mac Pro, lest the cannibalization cries start up.
It just seems ridiculous someone can complain about lower margins on a product that is undefined and unpriced, so I thought I would introduce a starting point.
IMO Apple could ramp market share and profits if the headless desktop lineup was something like this for starting points:
$499: Mini
$999: xMac (similar to described above)
$1999: Mac Pro
I think those are feasible targets and you have a lineup that spans entry to high end professional in 3 models (plus options of course).
IMO Apple could ramp market share and profits if the headless desktop lineup was something like this for starting points:
$499: Mini
$999: xMac (similar to described above)
$1999: Mac Pro
I think those are feasible targets and you have a lineup that spans entry to high end professional in 3 models (plus options of course).
I'll put in my two cents. Seeing how the low end iMac is $1200, essentially, I think that would be a good be starting price for and xMac. The buyer would be trading the built-in display for flexibility and serviceability of the xMac: drive bays, PCIe card slots, RAM expansibility and an easily removable access panel. Higher configurations would likely go over $2000.
I don't know enough about professional needs for a workstation to comment on Mac Pro pricing, but I think the current low end configuration could be eliminated. People who now buy that would likely buy a high end xMac model. I think the idea of the Mac Pro and xMac sharing hardwired as much as possible is a good one. However, the Mac Pro case should have some distinctive marking that makes it easily noticed. I'm sure professionals have pride in their equipment, and don't want people thinking they are using an xMac. Economically, hardware sharing would make it profitable to keep the Mac Pro, even when it's sales are low, because both the Mac Pro and xMac could be built on the same production line.
Wow! You sure showed me¡ You put a handful of components together, appended a price you think is fair and completely ignored Apple's market focus. I'm surprised Apple has hried you to run their company with that level of detail and understanding of computers and their market¡
I'm just going to mention here that with Apple, new models are not always what people expect. Had one of the PC oems come out with something resembling the mini, everyone would have laughed at them. If Intel's targets keep going down on overall tdp you might fit more in that box than you do today, but it's pretty restrictive in the kind of logic board it would fit. For reference Intel did mention they wanted to see 17W quad core laptop cpus in a couple years. The ones they referenced currently run 45W. Apple's influence and ARM probably played a part here.
I don't know enough about professional needs for a workstation to comment on Mac Pro pricing, but I think the current low end configuration could be eliminated. People who now buy that would likely buy a high end xMac model. I think the idea of the Mac Pro and xMac sharing hardwired as much as possible is a good one. However, the Mac Pro case should have some distinctive marking that makes it easily noticed. I'm sure professionals have pride in their equipment, and don't want people thinking they are using an xMac. Economically, hardware sharing would make it profitable to keep the Mac Pro, even when it's sales are low, because both the Mac Pro and xMac could be built on the same production line.
No one that uses one for work cares what it looks like. You're sort of off the mark on that. The other machines simply have a lot of limits that you don't have to think about on a mac pro assuming you can pay for the upgrades needed to remove them. They're also less prone to downtime simply because outside of a logic board, you can pretty much obtain replacement components and do it yourself within a day (don't believe what they tell you with pro care, it can still take just as long).
The Mac platform didn't interest me back then though I wish it had or who knows where I would be.
Edit: And now I realize I meant to post this in the thinner MacBook Pro thread but I'll modify my post here. I cannot wait to see what both the Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge E platforms bring.
The xMac is huge hole in Apples lineup that has been widely discussed for over a decade. It's absence is responsible for people for skipping Apple altogether, abandoning Apple for PCs or Hackintoshes, and is likely partly responsible for Apple having a larger laptop skew than the rest of the industry.
Take me for instance. I'm simply not going to buy what doesn't fit my needs and wants. The mini needs to be bigger. It should have kept the footprint of the previous mini and gone taller to offer room for two hard drives and an optical drive. My requirement is internal devices. The iMac comes with a glossy screen I do not want and I also do not like all in ones. I want a computer that is easy to open with normal tools. The place I most often see suction cups and putty knives is in an auto body shop.
Since I haven't been able to get the computer I want I have also held back from buying any of Apple's others iDevices. Why support the company when I can't get what I really want?
The Mac Pro is way more computer than I need. In processing power, size and price. And yet the Mac Pro is the only desktop computer Apple makes that is designed for ease of use. Ports on the front where you can reach them and an easy to open case. Only the Mac Pro is function over form but it still looks good.
I am very close to giving up and switching to Windows.