So the plan is to get Windows 10 on a billion devices. After giving it away for almost a year they are at 300 mi. At $119 I wonder how long it will take to get to the goal. This could really delay Windows 11.
Considering that most people will get it for free with a new computer, the $119 price point is mostly irrelevant. Most of the people who are ever going to upgrade their older version will have done so by now. The rest will get it for free when they get a new computer. The only real point of starting to charge for it is to get those last few users who planned to upgrade but who just haven't gotten around to it to do it now before the price goes up.
So the plan is to get Windows 10 on a billion devices. After giving it away for almost a year they are at 300 mi. At $119 I wonder how long it will take to get to the goal. This could really delay Windows 11.
It'll probably be moving to a subscriber model, like they did with Office. So it'll be renamed something silly like Windows 360, or just Windows (with no version number.) If you don't renew, at worst some functionality will probably be daectivated (for example, ability to play/stream Xbox One games on your PC), at best you just won't be able to install any new feature updates (but security updates will probably remain active.)
So the plan is to get Windows 10 on a billion devices. After giving it away for almost a year they are at 300 mi. At $119 I wonder how long it will take to get to the goal. This could really delay Windows 11.
Considering that most people will get it for free with a new computer, the $119 price point is mostly irrelevant. Most of the people who are ever going to upgrade their older version will have done so by now. The rest will get it for free when they get a new computer. The only real point of starting to charge for it is to get those last few users who planned to upgrade but who just haven't gotten around to it to do it now before the price goes up.
They're not really getting it for free, you pay for it when you buy the OEM hardware; there is nothing free.
So, after June 29, do my PCs stop popping up "Get Windows 10" messages in the middle of me trying to do things? Do they stop trying to update themselves without my permission in the middle of the night?
Nice rant. But it appears that ONLY YOU think this. Every financial blog, every tech blog, literally everybody BUT YOU thinks Tim Cook is doing an amazing job running Apple. Well, you and a few other “Steve is dead” ranters here on AI.
wrong.
Microsoft is valued at 35 times earnings. Apple is valued at 10 times earnings.
In other words every $1 of profit from Microsoft is worth 3.5x a dollar of profit from Apple.
Wall Street and investors clearly have more confidence in Microsoft. 350% more confidence in fact. And its pathetic since Microsofts revenue and profits have been dropping for YEARS while Apple just had its first drop in revenue in 13 years. Tim Cook is given ZERO benefit of the doubt.
People vote with the $$$. And right now investors view Apple and the Apple CEO as a stagnant company.
Microsoft is a monopoly. This is the real reason why their p/e ratio differs so much. Apple products can be easily copied. This is what the street thinks and all the copycat companies think.
I don't know for certain but I'm fairly sure the compulsory updates will cease after the 29th of july. that being said, you still have until then to get windows 10 and all future updates for free
The last few versions of Windows have been utter disasters. Windows mobile remains a partial abortion. PC sales are slowing down. Yet analysts don’t fall all over themselves to publish “Microsoft is doomed” articles. Where are the “What Microsoft must do to survive” articles? Analysts fume that Apple is a one trick pony with the iPhone responsible for too much of its bottom line. Microsoft is basically a one trick pony with Windows, the Surface line is doing just okay, and Windows phones are a sad joke. But Apple is the one in trouble, right?
Uh, I don't think you understand where microsoft earns most of their money: Enterprise. Only $14bn of Microsoft's $96bn for FY16 came from consumers, the rest is all business. The consumer windows-running segment could cease to exist and Microsoft wouldn't be out too much revenue. The high-end server side software thatMicrosoftt provides is second to none, the Linux-based competitors to SCCM are held up by string and tape and Apple doesn't even have a competitor to it.
It's like IBM or Oracle: Who the hell still uses their products? Businesses, and that's why they are multi billion dollar companies.
So the plan is to get Windows 10 on a billion devices. After giving it away for almost a year they are at 300 mi. At $119 I wonder how long it will take to get to the goal. This could really delay Windows 11.
It'll probably be moving to a subscriber model, like they did with Office. So it'll be renamed something silly like Windows 360, or just Windows (with no version number.) If you don't renew, at worst some functionality will probably be daectivated (for example, ability to play/stream Xbox One games on your PC), at best you just won't be able to install any new feature updates (but security updates will probably remain active.)
Current goal is a subscription model. Two years free subscription of basic Windows with initial registration, no free subscription for the equivalent of "Pro" versions, etc. Those that fail to renew subscriptions will lose the ability to install new applications. This exclusion will include updates to installed applications with the exception of those through the official Microsoft Store (updates here will remain enabled and typically free). Microsoft "important" OS updates will continue to be enabled and free regardless of subscription status.
Advantages to subscription are planned to include "core services" such as Office and PS4 direct support. All the cash-cows for one low monthly fee...
What this would do is basically allow Microsoft to hold your computer hostage. The only difference between this and RansomWare is that Microsoft will have coaxed legal protections into place via lobbying and lawmakers prior to launching this model.
For what it's worth, there is additionally a push to require an "always on" connection to fight piracy for non-enterprise editions, but this is clearly a nonstarter in many countries. Some want this in the U.S., but this "feature" is unlikely to see the light of day.
Or so I "hear"...
Several years ago, MS "expired" my legit copy of MS Windows 7 and told me I would have to buy a new copy. I spent more than three hours on the phone with several of their support staff; I initially thought it was just another MS annoyance that I could clear up by sending them my invoice and perhaps a copy of the Disc or packaging (things they have been known to request). But they didn't ask, and didn't care. I never even found out why the issue occurred. All avenues during that conversation led to me having to purchase a new copy. The ONLY think they offered me was a $50 discount, and they made it clear that I didn't deserve this favor. Not only did I not take their offer, I made a commitment that I would not feed MS another penny of my money, and would try to steer anyone I could away from them (easier these days than it used to be). All this was prior to them offering to give it away for free, another offer that I have declined. Screw MS.
The last few versions of Windows have been utter disasters. Windows mobile remains a partial abortion. PC sales are slowing down. Yet analysts don’t fall all over themselves to publish “Microsoft is doomed” articles. Where are the “What Microsoft must do to survive” articles? Analysts fume that Apple is a one trick pony with the iPhone responsible for too much of its bottom line. Microsoft is basically a one trick pony with Windows, the Surface line is doing just okay, and Windows phones are a sad joke. But Apple is the one in trouble, right?
Uh, I don't think you understand where microsoft earns most of their money: Enterprise. Only $14bn of Microsoft's $96bn for FY16 came from consumers, the rest is all business. The consumer windows-running segment could cease to exist and Microsoft wouldn't be out too much revenue. The high-end server side software thatMicrosoftt provides is second to none, the Linux-based competitors to SCCM are held up by string and tape and Apple doesn't even have a competitor to it.
It's like IBM or Oracle: Who the hell still uses their products? Businesses, and that's why they are multi billion dollar companies.
MS is certainly not the only viable option. And if all the consumers switch to MacOS, what's going to happen to business adoption of Windows?
To not be negative all the time (someone might see a pattern) I found one positive feature of MS W10 now in beta, to be introduced later next year: it's called Ubuntu and its binary (even bash) compatible with Linux executables. It really is great news for companies still running Windows because they can now build for Linux only, and as a nice bonus will make Windows obsolete altogether. Cudos to MS.
Agreed. It's a pity they didn't do this years ago because one of the main reasons that so many developers have abandoned Windows is because of the UNIX shell available on OSX.
Apple could easily kill off two of its main rivals with two easy moves.
1. Stop Google search as the default on iOS. Google's mobile revenue is 75% iOS.
2. Sell Macs that run iOS that can compete on price with Windows PC's. Sell a Mac with A10X, 4GB Ram, and 128GB flash drive for $399. Apple would not be sacrificing any profit margins because A-series chips are much cheaper than Intel chips.
Those two moves alone would CRUSH Microsoft and Google.
So, your suggestion for 'saving' Apple is for Cook to release a machine for a market in decline.
Question is how does Apple take advantage of the weakness in Windows? How will Apple get a bigger market share for desktops in homes and business?
MacMini with iOS
A10X CPU 4 GB RAM 128 GB Flash storage $399
The AppleTV4 is basically the same thing and sells for $199. No doubt Apple could make good margins on a $399 MacMini with iOS.
This would be huge because it would be the first time in decades the Mac can compete with Windows on price. But still offer a superior experience AND good margins.
About 300 million PC's were sold last year. Apple sold only 20 million PC's last year. Apple could easily sell 50 million more PC's if they sold these $399 units.
In 5 years Apple could have about 20-30% of the desktop user base. That is powerful.
Just as well you don't run Apple.
headlines: Apple release laughable expensive net top computers. reviews in: so it costs as much as an iPad without a display, underpowered junk that doesn't run x86 applications, no one want to run phone or tablet versions of the applications, Desktop iOS not ready for prime time. APPLE STOCK PLUMMETS CEO Sog35 apologises for having no clue how business works, eats a bullet.
Question is how does Apple take advantage of the weakness in Windows? How will Apple get a bigger market share for desktops in homes and business?
MacMini with iOS
A10X CPU 4 GB RAM 128 GB Flash storage $399
The AppleTV4 is basically the same thing and sells for $199. No doubt Apple could make good margins on a $399 MacMini with iOS.
This would be huge because it would be the first time in decades the Mac can compete with Windows on price. But still offer a superior experience AND good margins.
About 300 million PC's were sold last year. Apple sold only 20 million PC's last year. Apple could easily sell 50 million more PC's if they sold these $399 units.
In 5 years Apple could have about 20-30% of the desktop user base. That is powerful.
Just as well you don't run Apple.
headlines: Apple release laughable expensive net top computers. reviews in: so it costs as much as an iPad without a display, underpowered junk that doesn't run x86 applications, no one want to run phone or tablet versions of the applications, Desktop iOS not ready for prime time. APPLE STOCK PLUMMETS CEO Sog35 apologises for having no clue how business works, eats a bullet.
I would not be surprised if Apple were working on things like this, but having a line of computers that are incompatible within that line (some with ARM, some with Intel) would cause a lot of market confusion and overall damage to the brand.
I am expecting we might see the first signs of Apple taking that direction at WWDC (they had a little sign last year - relating to Apple store and bitcode). A sign that they are looking at it as a possible future is if they start preparing the app store (and potentially out of app store installation process) of taking bitcode and being able to download an Intel version or ARM version depending on what type of computer you have. Once they make the process of writing and installing applications across different processor types invisible then they can think about introducing hardware.
It would likely not show up in the Mac Mini (at least not at the beginning). The current processors a bit more powerful than the A10X. Maybe in the future they will introduce a product called the Mac Raspberry but not in the near future.
Don't know how many people run VMWare Fusion or Parallels, but those would not be available in their current form since all the operating systems installed under there are Intel platforms... They would have to create a x86 motherboard emulator... which would cut the speed of any system installed under there to a fraction of current speed (if VMWare decided to support the platform at all). That is one confusion that is not in Apple's hands for the most part. If they did not support it at all then you would also have a problem with any company that uses VMs for QA test environments etc. (i.e. easily revertible/restorable).
If it were introduced it would likely be a version of the Macbook that would see it first. I would not expect anything like this for at least a few years though. It is not something to take lightly since when they switched to Intel the sales of Macs accelerated.... but with Intel struggling with smaller die sizes and the market likely stagnating for potentially the next decade (while ARM improves).... it is wise for any company to investigate alternatives.
The last few versions of Windows have been utter disasters. Windows mobile remains a partial abortion. PC sales are slowing down. Yet analysts don’t fall all over themselves to publish “Microsoft is doomed” articles. Where are the “What Microsoft must do to survive” articles? Analysts fume that Apple is a one trick pony with the iPhone responsible for too much of its bottom line. Microsoft is basically a one trick pony with Windows, the Surface line is doing just okay, and Windows phones are a sad joke. But Apple is the one in trouble, right?
Uh, I don't think you understand where microsoft earns most of their money: Enterprise. Only $14bn of Microsoft's $96bn for FY16 came from consumers, the rest is all business. The consumer windows-running segment could cease to exist and Microsoft wouldn't be out too much revenue. The high-end server side software thatMicrosoftt provides is second to none, the Linux-based competitors to SCCM are held up by string and tape and Apple doesn't even have a competitor to it.
It's like IBM or Oracle: Who the hell still uses their products? Businesses, and that's why they are multi billion dollar companies.
While that's true, IBM has been sort of a big fat rut for a long while and looking for a way out of it.
Uh, I don't think you understand where microsoft earns most of their money: Enterprise. Only $14bn of Microsoft's $96bn for FY16 came from consumers, the rest is all business. The consumer windows-running segment could cease to exist and Microsoft wouldn't be out too much revenue. The high-end server side software thatMicrosoftt provides is second to none, the Linux-based competitors to SCCM are held up by string and tape and Apple doesn't even have a competitor to it.
It's like IBM or Oracle: Who the hell still uses their products? Businesses, and that's why they are multi billion dollar companies.
MS is certainly not the only viable option. And if all the consumers switch to MacOS, what's going to happen to business adoption of Windows?
For businesses to switch to MacOS, we'd need something that Apple can deliver that would replace both Windows Server and SCCM. Apple doesn't use MacOS on their backbone infrastructure for a reason - they don't offer enterprise management products.
We're also asking two questions: What if businesses all switch every single one of their consumer-facing computers to MacOS? This would cut another about $4bn from Microsoft's profit sheets, or somewhere floating under 4% total revenue. Literally every single computer in an SCCM-managed organisation could switch to MacOS and server side, everything would still be fine as long as it's properly configured.
What is businesses switched all their server-side infrastructure to a non-Microsoft brand? First - there would have to be a viable alternative. I can configure, deploy, maintain and update MacOS, Linux and Windows installations remotely across the enterprise I work in using SCCM. There is no Apple product that exists that can rival that, and the Linux ones, whilst we do use them here and there, are not anywhere near as seamless. And second - yes, this would cause microsoft to drop like a stone financially. You'd be cutting off their lifelines and a major source of income.
Yes, there are a few alternatived out there - we use Ansible, Puppet and Fog mostly - but none come close to what SCCM can do.
headlines: Apple release laughable expensive net top computers. reviews in: so it costs as much as an iPad without a display, underpowered junk that doesn't run x86 applications, no one want to run phone or tablet versions of the applications, Desktop iOS not ready for prime time. APPLE STOCK PLUMMETS CEO Sog35 apologises for having no clue how business works, eats a bullet.
It would be much more powerful than a regular iPad. Even more powerful than the $900 iPad Pro, because the chip can run hot without worry of draining battery life. If you think a Mac iOS is a bad idea then you must think a $1000 Mac Pro is a bad idea and under powered also.
Fact is hundreds of millions of people would be satisfied with a hot running A10X CPU as a desktop. Most users are not power users. They use their desktops for email, web, social apps, photos, video, streaming. That's it. A souped up A-class chip can run those with ease.
Right now Apple has ZERO Mac's at the $400-$700 price level. And don't mention the horrible MacMini with standard hard-drive, slow as hell. If Apple is willing to sell an AppleTV for $149 why not a slightly upgraded desktop for $399? Add more RAM, more FLASH, dual CPU's and you get higher models for $499-$699. This is a price range Apple should be competing in.
AppleTV is a services play, not a hardware play. You buy an AppleTV and you are likely going to use it for paid services much more than a Mac Mini.
Apple has a Mac Mini at $499, then the next one up is $699, and above that $999. The $499 one is to get you in the door, then hopefully up-sell you from there. It is still perfectly functional even if it does not have an SSD. It can run "email, web, social apps, photos, video, streaming" perfectly fine. Of course when you buy one for $499 -- you will still need to buy a monitor - which for many will end up costing another $500 ($999 if you buy the low end Apple Monitor).
Then you get to the point if you are going to spend all that money for a desktop computer, why not get one that is more cool and you don't have to worry about wires etc. (average user).... you look around and seeing an iMac for $1099 that saves you all that hassle... or a Macbook Air for less and it comes with a built in monitor -- or you say boy, there is an iPad and it can do EVERYTHING I need for less -- and I can do it while sitting on the couch, while snuggled up to my partner pretending they are important while watching TV.
Then of course if you are just talking about a low end mac mini sale and nothing else (they are buying a monitor elsewhere, etc.) -- you would have to sell 3 of those to make up the revenue of 1 of the other computers.
Of course when we started this thread it was about a low P.E. ratio and how the stock price was.... well... guess what, a new Mac Mini would not help. Apple is seen as a hardware play -- not a services play... a hardware play in a rather mature market.... and it is getting a P.E. ratio that reflects it. Microsoft is a services play, one that is bumped up by being seen as high growth due to their cloud services division.
Oh so you are talking about actual iOS and not ARM OS X.
That would be stupid, that is a touch oriented interface and then you have the confusion of making sure you get a touch monitor for the OS and lots of people complaining after getting home and the piece of junk just does not work. That none of their Mac Applications work, etc. etc. etc.
It would be much more powerful than a regular iPad. Even more powerful than the $900 iPad Pro, because the chip can run hot without worry of draining battery life. If you think a Mac iOS is a bad idea then you must think a $1000 Mac Pro is a bad idea and under powered also.
Fact is hundreds of millions of people would be satisfied with a hot running A10X CPU as a desktop. Most users are not power users. They use their desktops for email, web, social apps, photos, video, streaming. That's it. A souped up A-class chip can run those with ease.
Right now Apple has ZERO Mac's at the $400-$700 price level. And don't mention the horrible MacMini with standard hard-drive, slow as hell. If Apple is willing to sell an AppleTV for $149 why not a slightly upgraded desktop for $399? Add more RAM, more FLASH, dual CPU's and you get higher models for $499-$699. This is a price range Apple should be competing in.
AppleTV is a services play, not a hardware play. You buy an AppleTV and you are likely going to use it for paid services much more than a Mac Mini.
Apple has a Mac Mini at $499, then the next one up is $699, and above that $999. The $499 one is to get you in the door, then hopefully up-sell you from there. It is still perfectly functional even if it does not have an SSD. It can run "email, web, social apps, photos, video, streaming" perfectly fine. Of course when you buy one for $499 -- you will still need to buy a monitor - which for many will end up costing another $500 ($999 if you buy the low end Apple Monitor).
Then you get to the point if you are going to spend all that money for a desktop computer, why not get one that is more cool and you don't have to worry about wires etc. (average user).... you look around and seeing an iMac for $1099 that saves you all that hassle... or a Macbook Air for less and it comes with a built in monitor -- or you say boy, there is an iPad and it can do EVERYTHING I need for less -- and I can do it while sitting on the couch, while snuggled up to my partner pretending they are important while watching TV.
Then of course if you are just talking about a low end mac mini sale and nothing else (they are buying a monitor elsewhere, etc.) -- you would have to sell 3 of those to make up the revenue of 1 of the other computers.
Of course when we started this thread it was about a low P.E. ratio and how the stock price was.... well... guess what, a new Mac Mini would not help. Apple is seen as a hardware play -- not a services play... a hardware play in a rather mature market.... and it is getting a P.E. ratio that reflects it. Microsoft is a services play, one that is bumped up by being seen as high growth due to their cloud services division.
You are looking at this all wrong.
The new CEO of Apple should have 2 main goals:
1. Aggressively increase user base 2. Aggressively become a world class services provider
I'd rather sell 3 cheap iOS desktops then 1 expensive iMac. Because I triple my user base. And eventually many of those who bought the iOS desktops will buy more products. Its a know fact that once someone buys an Apple device their chance of buying another Apple device is very high. Its pretty obvious that Mac desktop sales have peaked. The only way to get more sales is to address a lower price range. This is impossible to do with expensive Intel chips. With A-series it is very possible to sell $399 desktops AND make nice margins. How do I know? Because Apple sells the iPhone SE for $399.
I predict that if Apple sells a $399 iOS Mac they would double their units the first year. Triple units in 3 years. In 10 years their desktop user base will double or even triple. This is a powerful base. From that base you can sell more services and desktop specific services.
From a pure hardware play selling an iOS Mac does not make much sense. But this is a software/services play. Increase user base without sacrificing too much profit. IN the long run profits will increase.
What about iMac or laptops that run iOS? I would not do that. The iPad Pro fits the bill for the iOS laptop. The iMac is a premium product. No need to sell a cheaper version of it.
Sounds like you are endorsing Apple for a race to the bottom.
Comments
I don't know for certain but I'm fairly sure the compulsory updates will cease after the 29th of july. that being said, you still have until then to get windows 10 and all future updates for free
Uh, I don't think you understand where microsoft earns most of their money: Enterprise. Only $14bn of Microsoft's $96bn for FY16 came from consumers, the rest is all business. The consumer windows-running segment could cease to exist and Microsoft wouldn't be out too much revenue. The high-end server side software thatMicrosoftt provides is second to none, the Linux-based competitors to SCCM are held up by string and tape and Apple doesn't even have a competitor to it.
It's like IBM or Oracle: Who the hell still uses their products? Businesses, and that's why they are multi billion dollar companies.
Advantages to subscription are planned to include "core services" such as Office and PS4 direct support. All the cash-cows for one low monthly fee...
What this would do is basically allow Microsoft to hold your computer hostage. The only difference between this and RansomWare is that Microsoft will have coaxed legal protections into place via lobbying and lawmakers prior to launching this model.
For what it's worth, there is additionally a push to require an "always on" connection to fight piracy for non-enterprise editions, but this is clearly a nonstarter in many countries. Some want this in the U.S., but this "feature" is unlikely to see the light of day.
Or so I "hear"...
Several years ago, MS "expired" my legit copy of MS Windows 7 and told me I would have to buy a new copy. I spent more than three hours on the phone with several of their support staff; I initially thought it was just another MS annoyance that I could clear up by sending them my invoice and perhaps a copy of the Disc or packaging (things they have been known to request). But they didn't ask, and didn't care. I never even found out why the issue occurred. All avenues during that conversation led to me having to purchase a new copy. The ONLY think they offered me was a $50 discount, and they made it clear that I didn't deserve this favor. Not only did I not take their offer, I made a commitment that I would not feed MS another penny of my money, and would try to steer anyone I could away from them (easier these days than it used to be). All this was prior to them offering to give it away for free, another offer that I have declined. Screw MS.
MS is certainly not the only viable option. And if all the consumers switch to MacOS, what's going to happen to business adoption of Windows?
headlines: Apple release laughable expensive net top computers.
reviews in: so it costs as much as an iPad without a display, underpowered junk that doesn't run x86 applications, no one want to run phone or tablet versions of the applications, Desktop iOS not ready for prime time.
APPLE STOCK PLUMMETS
CEO Sog35 apologises for having no clue how business works, eats a bullet.
I am expecting we might see the first signs of Apple taking that direction at WWDC (they had a little sign last year - relating to Apple store and bitcode). A sign that they are looking at it as a possible future is if they start preparing the app store (and potentially out of app store installation process) of taking bitcode and being able to download an Intel version or ARM version depending on what type of computer you have. Once they make the process of writing and installing applications across different processor types invisible then they can think about introducing hardware.
It would likely not show up in the Mac Mini (at least not at the beginning). The current processors a bit more powerful than the A10X. Maybe in the future they will introduce a product called the Mac Raspberry but not in the near future.
Don't know how many people run VMWare Fusion or Parallels, but those would not be available in their current form since all the operating systems installed under there are Intel platforms... They would have to create a x86 motherboard emulator... which would cut the speed of any system installed under there to a fraction of current speed (if VMWare decided to support the platform at all). That is one confusion that is not in Apple's hands for the most part. If they did not support it at all then you would also have a problem with any company that uses VMs for QA test environments etc. (i.e. easily revertible/restorable).
If it were introduced it would likely be a version of the Macbook that would see it first. I would not expect anything like this for at least a few years though. It is not something to take lightly since when they switched to Intel the sales of Macs accelerated.... but with Intel struggling with smaller die sizes and the market likely stagnating for potentially the next decade (while ARM improves).... it is wise for any company to investigate alternatives.
For businesses to switch to MacOS, we'd need something that Apple can deliver that would replace both Windows Server and SCCM. Apple doesn't use MacOS on their backbone infrastructure for a reason - they don't offer enterprise management products.
We're also asking two questions:
What if businesses all switch every single one of their consumer-facing computers to MacOS?
This would cut another about $4bn from Microsoft's profit sheets, or somewhere floating under 4% total revenue. Literally every single computer in an SCCM-managed organisation could switch to MacOS and server side, everything would still be fine as long as it's properly configured.
What is businesses switched all their server-side infrastructure to a non-Microsoft brand?
First - there would have to be a viable alternative. I can configure, deploy, maintain and update MacOS, Linux and Windows installations remotely across the enterprise I work in using SCCM. There is no Apple product that exists that can rival that, and the Linux ones, whilst we do use them here and there, are not anywhere near as seamless.
And second - yes, this would cause microsoft to drop like a stone financially. You'd be cutting off their lifelines and a major source of income.
Yes, there are a few alternatived out there - we use Ansible, Puppet and Fog mostly - but none come close to what SCCM can do.
Apple has a Mac Mini at $499, then the next one up is $699, and above that $999. The $499 one is to get you in the door, then hopefully up-sell you from there. It is still perfectly functional even if it does not have an SSD. It can run "email, web, social apps, photos, video, streaming" perfectly fine. Of course when you buy one for $499 -- you will still need to buy a monitor - which for many will end up costing another $500 ($999 if you buy the low end Apple Monitor).
Then you get to the point if you are going to spend all that money for a desktop computer, why not get one that is more cool and you don't have to worry about wires etc. (average user).... you look around and seeing an iMac for $1099 that saves you all that hassle... or a Macbook Air for less and it comes with a built in monitor -- or you say boy, there is an iPad and it can do EVERYTHING I need for less -- and I can do it while sitting on the couch, while snuggled up to my partner pretending they are important while watching TV.
Then of course if you are just talking about a low end mac mini sale and nothing else (they are buying a monitor elsewhere, etc.) -- you would have to sell 3 of those to make up the revenue of 1 of the other computers.
Of course when we started this thread it was about a low P.E. ratio and how the stock price was.... well... guess what, a new Mac Mini would not help. Apple is seen as a hardware play -- not a services play... a hardware play in a rather mature market.... and it is getting a P.E. ratio that reflects it. Microsoft is a services play, one that is bumped up by being seen as high growth due to their cloud services division.
That would be stupid, that is a touch oriented interface and then you have the confusion of making sure you get a touch monitor for the OS and lots of people complaining after getting home and the piece of junk just does not work. That none of their Mac Applications work, etc. etc. etc.