What I would like is an IMac thats more transportable, to move between rooms or out to the patio. A 17-20 inch with kickstand, a battery that give say 8 hrs of use. So basically a laptop without a a keyboard.
I guess the counter argument is just buy a laptop. Of course the 17" is gone from Apples lineup. Interestingly back in the day I felt forced into an Apple laptop for lack of decent desktop solution.
This may also incorporate Apple TV. It would have to be Light enough to move, easily so the handle is also the stand? A transportable 20 inch for the same price point. As current model.... After all Who has a computer hutch anymore?
Between laptops and tablets I actually see demand for these low cost machines evaporating. Desktops will become more performance oriented machines. I can see the Mini going away for this reason replaced by an XMac like device. The iPads solve the needs of basic users and with TB even a rather low end laptop can do much of the work of a Mini. Mac Mini sales reflect this trend so it is hard to imagine how Apple would introduce yet another low end Mac, especially a desktop.
In a little over a week, Apple's entire line up of computers that will not include one computer you can add an additional internal hard drive nor video card. Really, a mini with non-descreet graphics? iMacs with mobile graphics and a Mac Pro with fixed pro graphics.... What happened to the desktop computer? Reinvented or completely ignored? I built a hackintosh for $1800 with great graphics, multiple drives, and plenty of ram... It looks like crap but I have given up on Apple desktops after 7 iMacs... I will never buy and all-one-computer again.... it is so 1999. Their portables are amazing... but how about a small tower, two drive slots, and 3 pci slots? And really give us a choice of some monitors... 24", 27", 30" + 42" with a tv tuner.
I would love to see a choice again when buy apple compatible software and hardware.
I have considered doing a hackintosh, but ideally I would love to see history repeat itself and have apple license their s/w and h/w to Motorola.
When the Motorola Starmax was available back in the late 90's or thereabouts, we purchased several of them.
In hindsight, there just was NO downside to buying the Motorola "mac clone" vs a genuine apple.
The only problem was that Motorola did TOO GOOD of a job with its version of the apple clone.
(Apple no doubt wanted a good dependable apple clone, but not a clone that was SO GOOD that apple itself had to compete with it's own CLONE MAKER!)
I mean after all, apple gave a measily 1 year warranty vs the Motorola 5 year warranty.
A 5 year warranty and the warranty was included in the price, not an add on.
The Motorola was about 50% to 70% of the cost of a genuine apple. You received great pricing, good savings AND it went a long way in keeping folks from having to even contemplate building a hackintosh (why build your own when a cheap, solid, dependable, 100% compatible clone was already available)
Every single one of those Starmax clones were retired from use in fully working condition.
After 7 years of use, the only things that had problems and got warranty replaced were 3 floppy drives and 1 hard drive.
The same could not be said about original apple hardware we had.
It is obvious apple will never re-issue a clone license under the terms that Motorola got (motorola's longer warranty, cheaper MSRP,etc)
Areas in which apple couldn't even compete with it's own clone maker, side by side, for any feature, except "bragging rights" to say that the apple was an apple and not an licensed apple "clone".
First off, welcome back TS. Second of all, I feel the base model iMac [B][U]IS[/U][/B] the budget model though it is priced too high. They should have dropped it down to $1,199 if they were going with Iris Pro.
I guess the budget model which maybe will start at $999 will have the successor to Iris, the next model up with succeed Iris Pro, and then it will go 850M, 860M, 875M and 880M. I would think the 880M has 4 GB of memory and everything else has at least 2 GB.
And the best indication is Intel has already said there will be $299 Haswell Notebook this Christmas.
There already is a Haswell Notebook for sale at $199. It is the Acer C 720 Chromebook. It arrived three weeks ago for $249 but the price just dropped. I'm getting one to supplement my Linux machine. Once I have it I'll be able to access Netflix and my old Mac Book will be sold.
Netflix is the only reason I've held on to it for so long. For me OS X is getting cluttered with stuff I don't use. I love the speed I get using Linux even with low end hardware. I don't play games or make movies so low end processors work for me.
Apple doesn't seem to cater to the professional as much as before. Their hardware specifications aren't really superior to their competition. Yet they demand high prices. Is OS X really worth that premium? These days I don't think so. It's true that Linux won't be adopted by the masses until some of the major manufacturers grow a pair and forsake Windows in a big way. Wasn't it an HP VP who said recently that Microsoft was competing directly against them and that they weren't happy about it? Samsung already makes Chromebooks. They might be willing to make a purely Linux box and dump Microsoft. They might even build their own OS for desktops like they're doing for mobile devices.
Apple already makes budget machines. They just don't charge budget prices for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Interestingly back in the day I felt forced into an Apple laptop for lack of decent desktop solution.
This was the case for me too in 2008. Most of the time it stayed connected to an external monitor, speakers, keyboard, and mouse.
There already is a Haswell Notebook for sale at $199. It is the Acer C 720 Chromebook. It arrived three weeks ago for $249 but the price just dropped. I'm getting one to supplement my Linux machine. Once I have it I'll be able to access Netflix and my old Mac Book will be sold.
Actually I'm sad to hear about the sale of the Mac Book.
Netflix is the only reason I've held on to it for so long. For me OS X is getting cluttered with stuff I don't use. I love the speed I get using Linux even with low end hardware. I don't play games or make movies so low end processors work for me.
Unfortunately that isn't the case for me. I often have my machine loaded to the point that it just crawls.
Apple doesn't seem to cater to the professional as much as before. Their hardware specifications aren't really superior to their competition.
They never have been. I'm not sure where you get this idea that they at one time had superior hardware. Even in the days of the power PC it was more marketing than real performance advantages.
Yet they demand high prices. Is OS X really worth that premium?
For my primary computer I'd say yes. For other thing no. This isn't an all or nothing world.
These days I don't think so. It's true that Linux won't be adopted by the masses until some of the major manufacturers grow a pair and forsake Windows in a big way. Wasn't it an HP VP who said recently that Microsoft was competing directly against them and that they weren't happy about it? Samsung already makes Chromebooks. They might be willing to make a purely Linux box and dump Microsoft. They might even build their own OS for desktops like they're doing for mobile devices.
Linux will never go mainstream due to the number of dumb people out there. They only possible way this could happen is if HP or some other large entity put a large effort into producing a modern GUI layer to isolate the user from the UnIX underbelly like Apple did. QT isn't it and neither is GNome or some of the lesser solutions.
Apple already makes budget machines. They just don't charge budget prices for them.
Not really considering a budget machine means a machine built to hit a certain price point. My problem with Apple is not so much a budget machine but rather the lack of real differentiation of a model line line the Mini. Let's face it there isn't a lot of real difference between the base Mini and the upsell models. Certainly not enough to justify the price increases.
This was the case for me too in 2008. Most of the time it stayed connected to an external monitor, speakers, keyboard, and mouse.
Yes and when you try to explain that to people they get all defensive about Apples desktop lineup. I'm a Linux user myself and one reason I go that route is to be able to fit the hardware to the use, you can't do that with Apple.
Why don’t idiots understand what the Mac Mini is? Is it the shape that throws them off?
They aren't idiots.
A Mac Mini only appears to be a cheaper alternative. If you are buying a brand new system, you have to consider:
- Mac Mini
- Keyboard & Mouse
- Display
It's true that you can get cheap displays, but these certainly don't come from Apple. So if you are a consumer wanting to break into the Mac space for the first time, the bar is actually set rather high.
A "budget" iMac is not at all a bad idea, especially given what else is out there in the market by way of competition (that is, Apple has some really distinct advantages in the desktop space these days).
For those who make the comparison with iPhone 5s and 5c; it's not an unreasonable comparison in some ways, but it's not terribly valid here. The two markets are completely different in terms of the end user experience. I can see how there could be a lot more space to move in the desktop arena in terms of price and functionality, versus the mobile phone arena.
It depends what you put inside your Mac Mini. Better SSD and more Ram and a more expensive monitor and keyboard and track pad or mouse naturally the price goes higher with a faster processor also.Maybe you do have a point about the i mac model.
A "budget" iMac is not at all a bad idea, especially given what else is out there in the market by way of competition (that is, Apple has some really distinct advantages in the desktop space these days).
I often suggest the mini to graphic designers, simply because you can opt for a display that is better aligned with their work at comparable final cost. The imac used to start at $999. It's Apple that moved away from that. I have yet to see them reverse any of these pricing strategies, so I wouldn't count on a cheaper imac. I would call it extremely unlikely. I will say that the base 21.5" model seems overpriced relative to what it offers. A 21.5" panel is extremely cheap, yet the cost still went up when they switched to the laminated design.
<p>I often suggest the mini to graphic designers, simply because you can opt for a display that is better aligned with their work at comparable final cost. The imac used to start at $999. It's Apple that moved away from that. I have yet to see them reverse any of these pricing strategies, so I wouldn't count on a cheaper imac. I would call it extremely unlikely. I will say that the base 21.5" model seems overpriced relative to what it offers. A 21.5" panel is extremely cheap, yet the cost still went up when they switched to the laminated design.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>There's still a pretty reasonable gap between the Mac Mini and the base model iMac, I'd say - especially when you start optioning them up at the point of order.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, the argument against a cheaper iMac has less to do with other product options and more to do with the fact that Apple's Mac business generally seems to be pretty strong. In other words, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to fill the space between Mac Mini and iMac.</p>
They aren't idiots.
A Mac Mini only appears to be a cheaper alternative. If you are buying a brand new system, you have to consider:
- Mac Mini
- Keyboard & Mouse
- Display
It's true that you can get cheap displays, but these certainly don't come from Apple. So if you are a consumer wanting to break into the Mac space for the first time, the bar is actually set rather high.
That's a rather bizarre loop. You lampshaded that very quickly, and I don't see if there is any reason to do that, unless you have an agenda in your argument. Apple's display is nice, but nowhere near necessary. The user's previous peripherals would generally work very well. I'm not a fan of Apple's input devices anyway, so the input devices I've gotten with other machines get stored.
I will say that I was disappointed when the $499 mini went away. They didn't necessarily raise the prices, but they removed the bottom rung. I recall that model merely didn't have Bluetooth or WiFi, it took the $599 model to get that.
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>JeffDM</strong> <a href="/t/160147/apple-expected-to-offer-more-affordable-budget-imac-next-year/160#post_2510477"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
You revived a five month old thread.<br />
That's a rather bizarre loop. You lampshaded that very quickly, and I don't see if there is any reason to do that, unless you have an agenda in your argument. Apple's display is nice, but nowhere near necessary. The user's previous peripherals would generally work very well. I'm not a fan of Apple's input devices anyway, so the input devices I've gotten with other machines get stored.<br />
<br />
I will say that I was disappointed when the $499 mini went away. They didn't necessarily raise the prices, but they removed the bottom rung. I recall that model merely didn't have Bluetooth or WiFi, it took the $599 model to get that.</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>I did revive a five month old thread. And you responded - thanks. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's really no bizarre loop here; even if you take out an Apple display, you are still likely spending at least $199 or so for a halfway decent LCD display of a reasonable size.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Adding previous peripherals is a valid point to make, but we're still talking about a fair amount of BYO. What if you are upgrading from a PC to a Mac Mini? Your keyboard won't have the Mac functionality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it's worth taking a step back and considering what type of user might buy this kind of system. If we are talking about a lower-cost entry-level desktop platform, then the Mac Mini doesn't necessarily represent the value that appears on the surface - because you are only buying the box and nothing else. The iMac is, of course, the complete solution because you don't have to seek out additional peripherals (the exception perhaps being the USB SuperDrive, of course).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If nothing else, I am simply suggesting that dismissing the idea of an entry level iMac because we have a Mac Mini is not necessarily the straightforward and obvious solution that it sounds like.</p>
<p>There's still a pretty reasonable gap between the Mac Mini and the base model iMac, I'd say - especially when you start optioning them up at the point of order.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, the argument against a cheaper iMac has less to do with other product options and more to do with the fact that Apple's Mac business generally seems to be pretty strong. In other words, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to fill the space between Mac Mini and iMac.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Imacs have started as low as $1000 in the past. Right now their entry model comes with a 21.5" screen and integrated graphics for $1300. You won't get much more entry level than that. The iris graphics add something to the cpu cost, but that cpu would otherwise be cheaper than those used in the Mini according to ark.intel. Their strategy is most likely for the notebooks to carry the bulk of entry level purchases. They are more common among college students, which are arguably an important group. They would be a better option if they at least offered a 13" at the entry level. The most popular size worldwide is 15". For Apple the 13" is probably the more popular one. This is supported by their cautious approach with the 13" cmbp. It outlasted the 15" and remains in spite of being only $100 less than the entry 13" rmbp. If they were looking to strengthen their entry level options anywhere, that seems like the most likely place. My predictions have been off lately though, as they have broken several of their typical patterns.</p>
Imacs have started as low as $1000 in the past. Right now their entry model comes with a 21.5" screen and integrated graphics for $1300. You won't get much more entry level than that.
Considering how much a TV set goes for these days I'd have to say that Apple has plenty of room for a low cost iMac.
The iris graphics add something to the cpu cost, but that cpu would otherwise be cheaper than those used in the Mini according to ark.intel. Their strategy is most likely for the notebooks to carry the bulk of entry level purchases.
Notebooks is where most of the market is these days. It is the one reason why I don't think a low price iMac will stimulate sales all that much.
They are more common among college students, which are arguably an important group. They would be a better option if they at least offered a 13" at the entry level. The most popular size worldwide is 15". For Apple the 13" is probably the more popular one. This is supported by their cautious approach with the 13" cmbp. It outlasted the 15" and remains in spite of being only $100 less than the entry 13" rmbp. If they were looking to strengthen their entry level options anywhere, that seems like the most likely place. My predictions have been off lately though, as they have broken several of their typical patterns.
With a whole new generation of chips coming from Intel I can see Appple offering a low end laptop that doesn't suck either this years end or next year. The market would be similar to the iPad, that is people that don't need stte of the art performance.
Considering how much a TV set goes for these days I'd have to say that Apple has plenty of room for a low cost iMac.
Televisions are generally very low margin items. Most are produced by companies that are also invested in producing the panels. Many of these panels are shared across televisions and computer monitors. As for Apple, they bumped the price by $100 when they switched to the current laminated design. They went to integrated graphics in the base model, and the price remained the same. It seems likely to me that a low cost version isn't in line with their desired margins, especially when a 21.5" panel costs very little at this point.
Televisions are generally very low margin items. Most are produced by companies that are also invested in producing the panels. Many of these panels are shared across televisions and computer monitors.
That is very true but the point remains, the screen and electronics to drive a TV is cheap. Apple can add the computer electronics for a reasonable amount and still have machine that is lower cost than their current products.
As for Apple, they bumped the price by $100 when they switched to the current laminated design. They went to integrated graphics in the base model, and the price remained the same. It seems likely to me that a low cost version isn't in line with their desired margins, especially when a 21.5" panel costs very little at this point.
Honestly I think Apple was getting greedy over the last couple of years trying to squeeze more margin out of its products than the market was willing to pay. That is why a we saw that realignment in price of the laptops a year or so ago. This was after the 13" rMBP was introduced at what was seen as an excessively high price. The prices on the iMacs don't appear to be as wildly out of line as it has been the only desktop Mac showing strong sales for a long time. However that doesn't mean their margins aren't thicker than they should be especially for the entry level machine.
I see a need for Apple to drive adoption and the only way to do that is through more competitive pricing for entry level machines. The one thing that has always bugged me about both the iMac and the Mini's is the lack of significant differentiation between the entry level and the upsell models. Often you pay a good penny for the up sell model without getting a corresponding performance benefit. This is more true with the Mini but holds for the iMac too. I'd rather see a cheaper entry level device that maybe isn't as bleeding edge hardware wise but is salable at a lower entry price. At least then when you fork out extra cash for the upsell model you are getting a significantly better machine. Such an approach might actually increase Apples average margins if the upgrade to the up sell model is compelling enough.
In a nut shell I see a lower cost iMac as a real possibility. I can see it driving sales especially if they can market it below the $1000 point which is a real wall for many people.
As an interesting aside in another thread somewhere a college student enquirer about Apples laptops, apparently his went bonkers and the professor over seeing the research OK'ed the purchase of a new machine but requested that the total cost be kept to around $1000. I've seen this often with people locally, they just don't want to jump that hurdle cause by another digit. Unfortunately when you look at Apples product line up you have little to choose from that is solidly under $1000. Under $1000 it should be as AppleCare and other goodies will certainly blow out your costs. So I think this idea that Apple could sell a lot more hardware if they could offer sub $1000 solutions is real. Apple only needs to come up with a formula that creates a machine that doesn't suck at that price and with all the new hardware (chips) available to them I see that as very possible this year into next years.
In a nut shell I see a lower cost iMac as a real possibility. I can see it driving sales especially if they can market it below the $1000 point which is a real wall for many people.
As an interesting aside in another thread somewhere a college student enquirer about Apples laptops, apparently his went bonkers and the professor over seeing the research OK'ed the purchase of a new machine but requested that the total cost be kept to around $1000. I've seen this often with people locally, they just don't want to jump that hurdle cause by another digit. Unfortunately when you look at Apples product line up you have little to choose from that is solidly under $1000. Under $1000 it should be as AppleCare and other goodies will certainly blow out your costs. So I think this idea that Apple could sell a lot more hardware if they could offer sub $1000 solutions is real. Apple only needs to come up with a formula that creates a machine that doesn't suck at that price and with all the new hardware (chips) available to them I see that as very possible this year into next years.
Part of it is that the base offerings often feel reverse engineered to meet a price point while retaining similar margins. Most of their product line involves including a certain amount of features to justify a relatively high cost of entry. I typically urge people to consider what they actually require rather than get caught up in the various things that are added on regardless of necessity. Speaking of research I've been digging through Linux projects. Some of the coding styles that are employed give me a massive headache with people using weird methods to (sort of in a hacked in manner) encapsulate C code or the use of variables marked extern and goto statements where the project was obviously revised in someone's off time. Anyway I thought you might get a laugh from that.
They have as you put it gone after very high margins, but I don't see a reversal to this strategy in the near future. They have merely gone further with pushing inexpensive software to drive hardware purchases. Even when they do something that looks like an attempt at low cost hardware, it doesn't seem to go well. The 5c for whatever reason adopted the same prior year hardware approach with a less expensive method of case manufacturing, and it came in at the same price level as the 4S did alongside the 5. That made little sense to me, as it was unlikely to draw more prepaid users and users in countries where subsidized hardware is less common. I think many people also miss the reason Maverick's was a "free" upgrade. Apple wants to minimize support costs and draw developers by having everyone on the latest possible OS. It's similar to their strategy with iOS.
Part of it is that the base offerings often feel reverse engineered to meet a price point while retaining similar margins.
Well everybody does that if they want to stay in business. That is they engineer a product for a market, price point and like. What I have trouble with is the differentiation between the entry model and their upsell models.
Most of their product line involves including a certain amount of features to justify a relatively high cost of entry. I typically urge people to consider what they actually require rather than get caught up in the various things that are added on regardless of necessity. Speaking of research I've been digging through Linux projects. Some of the coding styles that are employed give me a massive headache with people using weird methods to (sort of in a hacked in manner) encapsulate C code or the use of variables marked extern and goto statements where the project was obviously revised in someone's off time. Anyway I thought you might get a laugh from that.
There are some good Linux projects out there and many more bad ones. I do believe you are right, some of these projects are touched upon by their developers when they get a spare moment. For some reason C is way over used and out of place in many of these projects.
They have as you put it gone after very high margins, but I don't see a reversal to this strategy in the near future. They have merely gone further with pushing inexpensive software to drive hardware purchases.
That appears to be the case but I really believe they are way to focused on margins and that directly impacts sales. Maybe they learned their lessons with the retina MBP machines. I really see the retina MBPs and Apple early leadership in retina as an attempt to justify high margins that customers rejected.
Even when they do something that looks like an attempt at low cost hardware, it doesn't seem to go well. The 5c for whatever reason adopted the same prior year hardware approach with a less expensive method of case manufacturing, and it came in at the same price level as the 4S did alongside the 5. That made little sense to me, as it was unlikely to draw more prepaid users and users in countries where subsidized hardware is less common.
Yet by most reasonable measures the 5C has been a big success at least in the US. I really don't know what Apple is up to with respect to phone sizes but having a line up of slightly different sized machines doesn't jive with me. I'm still running an iPhone 4 because I like the compact size.
I think many people also miss the reason Maverick's was a "free" upgrade. Apple wants to minimize support costs and draw developers by having everyone on the latest possible OS. It's similar to their strategy with iOS.
There are probably other reasons for the free upgrade to Mavericks but the issue with support has to be one of them. I just like the idea that Apple can upgrade an OS every year or so and maintain even old Macs at a high level of functionality. Compare that to the other commercial operating system which has to be reinstalled constantly and often requires a hardware upgrade with the newer releases.
Given that I think the real deal with the free Mavericks and the much lower software costs in general, is to undermine MicroSoft. Sure low software costs attract people to the Mac ( for those that actually buy software) but any customers they draw from the MS world directly impacts Microsofts income since it comes largely from software. Plus as you indicate, the included or low cost software impacts people perception of value.
Well everybody does that if they want to stay in business. That is they engineer a product for a market, price point and like. What I have trouble with is the differentiation between the entry model and their upsell models.
There are some good Linux projects out there and many more bad ones. I do believe you are right, some of these projects are touched upon by their developers when they get a spare moment. For some reason C is way over used and out of place in many of these projects.
That appears to be the case but I really believe they are way to focused on margins and that directly impacts sales. Maybe they learned their lessons with the retina MBP machines. I really see the retina MBPs and Apple early leadership in retina as an attempt to justify high margins that customers rejected.
I was examining whether a color engine and raw photo processor would run under iOS. One is well documented but the coding style is completely wacky to someone unfamiliar with it. I was trying to figure it out via the public api documentation. I debated stepping through the code in a debugger to try to make a flow chart out of it, but that sounded awful. The other attempts to emulate static class variables in C through the use of preprocessor macros. Then it uses odd naming conventions and had a number of goto statements. Interestingly the project itself is quite powerful. It's just that you can tell when something has been patched quite a bit. That it's one .C of 10,000 lines or so didn't help. It also makes it more difficult to get flagging help from Xcode. Anyway it was pretty funny. I'll link what I was working on if I ever finish it at any point. My concern with the use of anything open source is often whether I can fork a smaller version, due to not knowing whether a project will be abandoned. I think they use C for its simplicity, especially in things like primitive sizes. C++ has a lot of will be at least this size, so extra error checking code may be needed in debug builds.
Quote:
Given that I think the real deal with the free Mavericks and the much lower software costs in general, is to undermine MicroSoft. Sure low software costs attract people to the Mac ( for those that actually buy software) but any customers they draw from the MS world directly impacts Microsofts income since it comes largely from software. Plus as you indicate, the included or low cost software impacts people perception of value.
I am skeptical there. Most people just retain whatever OS came with the computer. In the case of Windows they have supported older versions pretty far out. I would have to look up figures as to their retail sales of Windows. Perhaps it was a little distorted going from Vista to 7, as 7 stabilized to a much nicer place than Vista.
Comments
I guess the counter argument is just buy a laptop. Of course the 17" is gone from Apples lineup. Interestingly back in the day I felt forced into an Apple laptop for lack of decent desktop solution.
Between laptops and tablets I actually see demand for these low cost machines evaporating. Desktops will become more performance oriented machines. I can see the Mini going away for this reason replaced by an XMac like device. The iPads solve the needs of basic users and with TB even a rather low end laptop can do much of the work of a Mini. Mac Mini sales reflect this trend so it is hard to imagine how Apple would introduce yet another low end Mac, especially a desktop.
In a little over a week, Apple's entire line up of computers that will not include one computer you can add an additional internal hard drive nor video card. Really, a mini with non-descreet graphics? iMacs with mobile graphics and a Mac Pro with fixed pro graphics.... What happened to the desktop computer? Reinvented or completely ignored? I built a hackintosh for $1800 with great graphics, multiple drives, and plenty of ram... It looks like crap but I have given up on Apple desktops after 7 iMacs... I will never buy and all-one-computer again.... it is so 1999. Their portables are amazing... but how about a small tower, two drive slots, and 3 pci slots? And really give us a choice of some monitors... 24", 27", 30" + 42" with a tv tuner.
I would love to see a choice again when buy apple compatible software and hardware.
I have considered doing a hackintosh, but ideally I would love to see history repeat itself and have apple license their s/w and h/w to Motorola.
When the Motorola Starmax was available back in the late 90's or thereabouts, we purchased several of them.
In hindsight, there just was NO downside to buying the Motorola "mac clone" vs a genuine apple.
The only problem was that Motorola did TOO GOOD of a job with its version of the apple clone.
(Apple no doubt wanted a good dependable apple clone, but not a clone that was SO GOOD that apple itself had to compete with it's own CLONE MAKER!)
I mean after all, apple gave a measily 1 year warranty vs the Motorola 5 year warranty.
A 5 year warranty and the warranty was included in the price, not an add on.
The Motorola was about 50% to 70% of the cost of a genuine apple. You received great pricing, good savings AND it went a long way in keeping folks from having to even contemplate building a hackintosh (why build your own when a cheap, solid, dependable, 100% compatible clone was already available)
Every single one of those Starmax clones were retired from use in fully working condition.
After 7 years of use, the only things that had problems and got warranty replaced were 3 floppy drives and 1 hard drive.
The same could not be said about original apple hardware we had.
It is obvious apple will never re-issue a clone license under the terms that Motorola got (motorola's longer warranty, cheaper MSRP,etc)
Areas in which apple couldn't even compete with it's own clone maker, side by side, for any feature, except "bragging rights" to say that the apple was an apple and not an licensed apple "clone".
It is obvious apple will never re-issue a clone license…
Should also be obvious that no one makes hardware anywhere near as well as Apple, too.
I guess the budget model which maybe will start at $999 will have the successor to Iris, the next model up with succeed Iris Pro, and then it will go 850M, 860M, 875M and 880M. I would think the 880M has 4 GB of memory and everything else has at least 2 GB.
And the best indication is Intel has already said there will be $299 Haswell Notebook this Christmas.
There already is a Haswell Notebook for sale at $199. It is the Acer C 720 Chromebook. It arrived three weeks ago for $249 but the price just dropped. I'm getting one to supplement my Linux machine. Once I have it I'll be able to access Netflix and my old Mac Book will be sold.
Netflix is the only reason I've held on to it for so long. For me OS X is getting cluttered with stuff I don't use. I love the speed I get using Linux even with low end hardware. I don't play games or make movies so low end processors work for me.
Apple doesn't seem to cater to the professional as much as before. Their hardware specifications aren't really superior to their competition. Yet they demand high prices. Is OS X really worth that premium? These days I don't think so. It's true that Linux won't be adopted by the masses until some of the major manufacturers grow a pair and forsake Windows in a big way. Wasn't it an HP VP who said recently that Microsoft was competing directly against them and that they weren't happy about it? Samsung already makes Chromebooks. They might be willing to make a purely Linux box and dump Microsoft. They might even build their own OS for desktops like they're doing for mobile devices.
Apple already makes budget machines. They just don't charge budget prices for them.
Interestingly back in the day I felt forced into an Apple laptop for lack of decent desktop solution.
This was the case for me too in 2008. Most of the time it stayed connected to an external monitor, speakers, keyboard, and mouse.
Why don’t idiots understand what the Mac Mini is? Is it the shape that throws them off?
They aren't idiots.
A Mac Mini only appears to be a cheaper alternative. If you are buying a brand new system, you have to consider:
- Mac Mini
- Keyboard & Mouse
- Display
It's true that you can get cheap displays, but these certainly don't come from Apple. So if you are a consumer wanting to break into the Mac space for the first time, the bar is actually set rather high.
A "budget" iMac is not at all a bad idea, especially given what else is out there in the market by way of competition (that is, Apple has some really distinct advantages in the desktop space these days).
For those who make the comparison with iPhone 5s and 5c; it's not an unreasonable comparison in some ways, but it's not terribly valid here. The two markets are completely different in terms of the end user experience. I can see how there could be a lot more space to move in the desktop arena in terms of price and functionality, versus the mobile phone arena.
It depends what you put inside your Mac Mini. Better SSD and more Ram and a more expensive monitor and keyboard and track pad or mouse naturally the price goes higher with a faster processor also.Maybe you do have a point about the i mac model.
A "budget" iMac is not at all a bad idea, especially given what else is out there in the market by way of competition (that is, Apple has some really distinct advantages in the desktop space these days).
I often suggest the mini to graphic designers, simply because you can opt for a display that is better aligned with their work at comparable final cost. The imac used to start at $999. It's Apple that moved away from that. I have yet to see them reverse any of these pricing strategies, so I wouldn't count on a cheaper imac. I would call it extremely unlikely. I will say that the base 21.5" model seems overpriced relative to what it offers. A 21.5" panel is extremely cheap, yet the cost still went up when they switched to the laminated design.
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>hmm</strong> <a href="/t/160147/apple-expected-to-offer-more-affordable-budget-imac-next-year/160#post_2509622"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<p>I often suggest the mini to graphic designers, simply because you can opt for a display that is better aligned with their work at comparable final cost. The imac used to start at $999. It's Apple that moved away from that. I have yet to see them reverse any of these pricing strategies, so I wouldn't count on a cheaper imac. I would call it extremely unlikely. I will say that the base 21.5" model seems overpriced relative to what it offers. A 21.5" panel is extremely cheap, yet the cost still went up when they switched to the laminated design.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>There's still a pretty reasonable gap between the Mac Mini and the base model iMac, I'd say - especially when you start optioning them up at the point of order.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, the argument against a cheaper iMac has less to do with other product options and more to do with the fact that Apple's Mac business generally seems to be pretty strong. In other words, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to fill the space between Mac Mini and iMac.</p>
That's a rather bizarre loop. You lampshaded that very quickly, and I don't see if there is any reason to do that, unless you have an agenda in your argument. Apple's display is nice, but nowhere near necessary. The user's previous peripherals would generally work very well. I'm not a fan of Apple's input devices anyway, so the input devices I've gotten with other machines get stored.
I will say that I was disappointed when the $499 mini went away. They didn't necessarily raise the prices, but they removed the bottom rung. I recall that model merely didn't have Bluetooth or WiFi, it took the $599 model to get that.
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>JeffDM</strong> <a href="/t/160147/apple-expected-to-offer-more-affordable-budget-imac-next-year/160#post_2510477"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
You revived a five month old thread.<br />
That's a rather bizarre loop. You lampshaded that very quickly, and I don't see if there is any reason to do that, unless you have an agenda in your argument. Apple's display is nice, but nowhere near necessary. The user's previous peripherals would generally work very well. I'm not a fan of Apple's input devices anyway, so the input devices I've gotten with other machines get stored.<br />
<br />
I will say that I was disappointed when the $499 mini went away. They didn't necessarily raise the prices, but they removed the bottom rung. I recall that model merely didn't have Bluetooth or WiFi, it took the $599 model to get that.</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>I did revive a five month old thread. And you responded - thanks.
<p> </p>
<p>There's really no bizarre loop here; even if you take out an Apple display, you are still likely spending at least $199 or so for a halfway decent LCD display of a reasonable size.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Adding previous peripherals is a valid point to make, but we're still talking about a fair amount of BYO. What if you are upgrading from a PC to a Mac Mini? Your keyboard won't have the Mac functionality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it's worth taking a step back and considering what type of user might buy this kind of system. If we are talking about a lower-cost entry-level desktop platform, then the Mac Mini doesn't necessarily represent the value that appears on the surface - because you are only buying the box and nothing else. The iMac is, of course, the complete solution because you don't have to seek out additional peripherals (the exception perhaps being the USB SuperDrive, of course).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If nothing else, I am simply suggesting that dismissing the idea of an entry level iMac because we have a Mac Mini is not necessarily the straightforward and obvious solution that it sounds like.</p>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Ingsoc</strong> <a href="/t/160147/apple-expected-to-offer-more-affordable-budget-imac-next-year/160#post_2509782"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<p> </p>
<p>There's still a pretty reasonable gap between the Mac Mini and the base model iMac, I'd say - especially when you start optioning them up at the point of order.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, the argument against a cheaper iMac has less to do with other product options and more to do with the fact that Apple's Mac business generally seems to be pretty strong. In other words, there doesn't seem to be an immediate need to fill the space between Mac Mini and iMac.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Imacs have started as low as $1000 in the past. Right now their entry model comes with a 21.5" screen and integrated graphics for $1300. You won't get much more entry level than that. The iris graphics add something to the cpu cost, but that cpu would otherwise be cheaper than those used in the Mini according to ark.intel. Their strategy is most likely for the notebooks to carry the bulk of entry level purchases. They are more common among college students, which are arguably an important group. They would be a better option if they at least offered a 13" at the entry level. The most popular size worldwide is 15". For Apple the 13" is probably the more popular one. This is supported by their cautious approach with the 13" cmbp. It outlasted the 15" and remains in spite of being only $100 less than the entry 13" rmbp. If they were looking to strengthen their entry level options anywhere, that seems like the most likely place. My predictions have been off lately though, as they have broken several of their typical patterns.</p>
Considering how much a TV set goes for these days I'd have to say that Apple has plenty of room for a low cost iMac.
Televisions are generally very low margin items. Most are produced by companies that are also invested in producing the panels. Many of these panels are shared across televisions and computer monitors. As for Apple, they bumped the price by $100 when they switched to the current laminated design. They went to integrated graphics in the base model, and the price remained the same. It seems likely to me that a low cost version isn't in line with their desired margins, especially when a 21.5" panel costs very little at this point.
I see a need for Apple to drive adoption and the only way to do that is through more competitive pricing for entry level machines. The one thing that has always bugged me about both the iMac and the Mini's is the lack of significant differentiation between the entry level and the upsell models. Often you pay a good penny for the up sell model without getting a corresponding performance benefit. This is more true with the Mini but holds for the iMac too. I'd rather see a cheaper entry level device that maybe isn't as bleeding edge hardware wise but is salable at a lower entry price. At least then when you fork out extra cash for the upsell model you are getting a significantly better machine. Such an approach might actually increase Apples average margins if the upgrade to the up sell model is compelling enough.
In a nut shell I see a lower cost iMac as a real possibility. I can see it driving sales especially if they can market it below the $1000 point which is a real wall for many people.
As an interesting aside in another thread somewhere a college student enquirer about Apples laptops, apparently his went bonkers and the professor over seeing the research OK'ed the purchase of a new machine but requested that the total cost be kept to around $1000. I've seen this often with people locally, they just don't want to jump that hurdle cause by another digit. Unfortunately when you look at Apples product line up you have little to choose from that is solidly under $1000. Under $1000 it should be as AppleCare and other goodies will certainly blow out your costs. So I think this idea that Apple could sell a lot more hardware if they could offer sub $1000 solutions is real. Apple only needs to come up with a formula that creates a machine that doesn't suck at that price and with all the new hardware (chips) available to them I see that as very possible this year into next years.
In a nut shell I see a lower cost iMac as a real possibility. I can see it driving sales especially if they can market it below the $1000 point which is a real wall for many people.
As an interesting aside in another thread somewhere a college student enquirer about Apples laptops, apparently his went bonkers and the professor over seeing the research OK'ed the purchase of a new machine but requested that the total cost be kept to around $1000. I've seen this often with people locally, they just don't want to jump that hurdle cause by another digit. Unfortunately when you look at Apples product line up you have little to choose from that is solidly under $1000. Under $1000 it should be as AppleCare and other goodies will certainly blow out your costs. So I think this idea that Apple could sell a lot more hardware if they could offer sub $1000 solutions is real. Apple only needs to come up with a formula that creates a machine that doesn't suck at that price and with all the new hardware (chips) available to them I see that as very possible this year into next years.
Part of it is that the base offerings often feel reverse engineered to meet a price point while retaining similar margins. Most of their product line involves including a certain amount of features to justify a relatively high cost of entry. I typically urge people to consider what they actually require rather than get caught up in the various things that are added on regardless of necessity. Speaking of research I've been digging through Linux projects. Some of the coding styles that are employed give me a massive headache with people using weird methods to (sort of in a hacked in manner) encapsulate C code or the use of variables marked extern and goto statements where the project was obviously revised in someone's off time. Anyway I thought you might get a laugh from that.
They have as you put it gone after very high margins, but I don't see a reversal to this strategy in the near future. They have merely gone further with pushing inexpensive software to drive hardware purchases. Even when they do something that looks like an attempt at low cost hardware, it doesn't seem to go well. The 5c for whatever reason adopted the same prior year hardware approach with a less expensive method of case manufacturing, and it came in at the same price level as the 4S did alongside the 5. That made little sense to me, as it was unlikely to draw more prepaid users and users in countries where subsidized hardware is less common. I think many people also miss the reason Maverick's was a "free" upgrade. Apple wants to minimize support costs and draw developers by having everyone on the latest possible OS. It's similar to their strategy with iOS.
Given that I think the real deal with the free Mavericks and the much lower software costs in general, is to undermine MicroSoft. Sure low software costs attract people to the Mac ( for those that actually buy software) but any customers they draw from the MS world directly impacts Microsofts income since it comes largely from software. Plus as you indicate, the included or low cost software impacts people perception of value.
Well everybody does that if they want to stay in business. That is they engineer a product for a market, price point and like. What I have trouble with is the differentiation between the entry model and their upsell models.
There are some good Linux projects out there and many more bad ones. I do believe you are right, some of these projects are touched upon by their developers when they get a spare moment. For some reason C is way over used and out of place in many of these projects.
That appears to be the case but I really believe they are way to focused on margins and that directly impacts sales. Maybe they learned their lessons with the retina MBP machines. I really see the retina MBPs and Apple early leadership in retina as an attempt to justify high margins that customers rejected.
I was examining whether a color engine and raw photo processor would run under iOS. One is well documented but the coding style is completely wacky to someone unfamiliar with it. I was trying to figure it out via the public api documentation. I debated stepping through the code in a debugger to try to make a flow chart out of it, but that sounded awful. The other attempts to emulate static class variables in C through the use of preprocessor macros. Then it uses odd naming conventions and had a number of goto statements. Interestingly the project itself is quite powerful. It's just that you can tell when something has been patched quite a bit. That it's one .C of 10,000 lines or so didn't help. It also makes it more difficult to get flagging help from Xcode. Anyway it was pretty funny. I'll link what I was working on if I ever finish it at any point. My concern with the use of anything open source is often whether I can fork a smaller version, due to not knowing whether a project will be abandoned. I think they use C for its simplicity, especially in things like primitive sizes. C++ has a lot of will be at least this size, so extra error checking code may be needed in debug builds.
Given that I think the real deal with the free Mavericks and the much lower software costs in general, is to undermine MicroSoft. Sure low software costs attract people to the Mac ( for those that actually buy software) but any customers they draw from the MS world directly impacts Microsofts income since it comes largely from software. Plus as you indicate, the included or low cost software impacts people perception of value.
I am skeptical there. Most people just retain whatever OS came with the computer. In the case of Windows they have supported older versions pretty far out. I would have to look up figures as to their retail sales of Windows. Perhaps it was a little distorted going from Vista to 7, as 7 stabilized to a much nicer place than Vista.