History dictates, to me at least that when Apple had more market share was when their systems were priced MUCH lower than competitors. Look at an Apple II versus an IBM XT/AT. We are talking 5-6 times cheaper.
I dunno about that. My dad bought our Apple IIe for around $3000. If I remember, an IBM was about 4k.
Things were a lot different then. An office, unless it was a big company, would usually only have one PC, but because of VisiCalc it was likely to be an Apple. IBM wasn't very popular at home because only the geeks had home PCs and the geeks liked Apples.
An office, unless it was a big company, would usually only have one PC, but because of VisiCalc it was likely to be an Apple.
Getting back to the point that Mac OS X is Apple's jewel, the push from the Business Sales team needs to be extreme. I really think OS X can sell people more than hardware, but they need not faint when seeing a bill for $1300+ per system for an iMac or PowerMac G4. Seeing a bill for $599 per system is a little easier to swallow.
Besides, these are managers and administration we are talking about. They are scared to death (and of losing their jobs) of purchasing Apples over Wintels. But if they can be shown how Office works flawlessly on Mac OS X and how secure and stable and simple it really is, they can be sold. Hardware alone won't do it. On that, at least, I guess we agree
Apple needs a low cost point of entry if for no other reason than to get people shopping for a computer into a store. The iPod is good, but that can now be purchased in a lot of stores that don't sell Macs. An inexpensive machine could be a good start.
Maybe no modem, low end upgradeable graphics card, upgradeable CD-ROM, wired keyboard and mouse, slow bus, whatever it takes.
Bah. Apple has more than 3% in "marketshare" if you don't count servers (it is actualy closer to 7%). It is sad that since Garner says the mac market share is 3%, everyone quotes that as the gold standard fact. Sure, it is if you count big server sales. But if you only count desktop and laptop sales (which 99% of developers should), then you will see the real truth in "marketshare". Just because I could convice a few million people that we are all living in a dream world, doesn't mean that we really are. Run the numbers yoruself, and you will see.
Apple is doing fine. With the recent moves to secure more business and educational sales, plus the new opertunity for cluster sales, I think things can only get better. A bargin-bin Mac is not needed.
$699 with iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto and AppleWorks. $849 with all of the above + SuperDrive and iDVD. And a 'pro' model for $1049 with a 25% faster processor and more ram, etc.
First of all a larger market share is never a bad thing as it increases the chanses of ports to OSX and it would propably speed up the release future ports.
Secondly, I agree on your point that it should share as many parts as possible with the iMac and that it should not have a PCI and a AGP slot. Not that it would be expensive to add them mind you. But it would keep cannibalization of the more profit bringing iMac to a minimum. And this simply by avoiding the dillemma of putting expandabillety versus the (in my vision of the product matrix) better CPU and, for some users, the built in screen of the iMac. And it would keep the tooling costs of setting up a new product line to a absolute minimum.
I disagree. iLove the looks of the xStation but it also brings one thing to mind... clusters. Datacruncher cluster? Xcode cluster? SETI cluster? Internet server cluster? etc. For those who can't afford xServe clusters. But yo often need faster networking then standard ethernet. You need a pci slot. you just do.
Is it? Would you rather have more market share and no money, or less market share and money?
I agree that Apple could use a less expensive non-AIO in the line up, but less expensive will mean less features. Every "please Apple, replace the iMac with my wonderful idea" thread that pops up here wants top-end features at a bottom-end price. That isn't a bad desire, but you can't just ignore economics. If you want a economy box you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. Integrated graphics and no PCI slots is a good start.
I for one think Apple is VERY capable of making an "economy" tower with better than average features. Look at the G4 PowerMacs. You can get a 1.25GHz G4 with many expansion slots, a 64MB graphics card, fast DDR SDRAM, and a nice HD all for just $1,299.
Personally, I think Apple could easily drop this price to $1,199 since $1,299 is at the TOP of what you can call "economy pricing" ... but that's besides my point. I don't think Apple should try to make a tower under $999 because they'll have to compromise too much in terms of the quality we've all come to expect from Apple.
That said, Apple NEEDS to continue to offer a low-end tower. The G4 PowerMac needs to stay in the lineup and keep getting updated every 6 months. Eventually, when the next generation CPU comes out, the economy G4 tower can become an economy G5 tower. The point is ... towers have features that people want ... and they don't want to have to pay more than $1,299 for them.
Apple NEEDS to keep an economy tower.
Now, having said that, Apple can still make cheap AIO computers in the $599-$1,199 range.
Just NOT an AIO. That is the whole point. I wish the eMac would just go away...
Just because you don't like a computer means it's not a good model? The eMac is the perfect educational computer. Thus the 'e'. Plug in the power cable, the keyboard and mouse and it's set up.
Schools don't care about PCI slots, or extra HD bays, or using a differnt monitor. Bringing out the eMac, even after claiming the death of CRTs, was one of the smartest moves Apple had made in the education market.
Again, what you're really talking about is not a replacement for the eMac/iMac because you don't want an all-in-one. You're talking about a simpler, cheaper G4 tower.
There's a big difference. The AIO is a good format for Apple, and it's still the number one seller (Unfortunately Apple includes their eMac sales numbers with their iMac number, so I can't tell you how many they've been selling).
I think it should be called "iStation" since it's the low end, And I agree with those saying it would have loose the pci slot to get to that price point. probably would have to go for integrated gfx too.How about going for $699 with upgradeable gfx instead? Other than that I REALLY LIKE IT!
OT,but I really think the "product matrix" should be:
PowerBook
xBook
iBook
xMac (to replace current iMac)
iMac (to replace current eMac)
PowerStation (rename current PowerMac)
xStation (to replace cerrent Powermac G4)
iStation (as seen above, but with iColors. White or whatever)
I love the idea. The reason apple has squeezed two products into the consumer desktop space of thier grid is that neither of thier two offerings fills the void. The iMac is cool, but two expensive. The eMac is cheap, but lame. The original idea of this post was simple (kiss) enough to pull everything together.
For the AIO lovers you could include a lock (and key) for special iDisplays, 17" CRT, 15" FP, 17" FP, or 19" FP. Slightly harder to set up, but not much.
How about bluetooth and an HDTV out port so that it could be used as a set top box?
How about a docking station for the 12" ibook with the same form factor?
Apple could really benefit from having a single product line associated with thier entire consumer line. Something that scales all the way from cheap, for the market share, to something comparable to a low end tower. I don't think that the eMac or iMac are cutting it in possibly the most important quadrant of thier product grid.
Just because you don't like a computer means it's not a good model? The eMac is the perfect educational computer. Thus the 'e'. Plug in the power cable, the keyboard and mouse and it's set up.
Schools don't care about PCI slots, or extra HD bays, or using a differnt monitor. Bringing out the eMac, even after claiming the death of CRTs, was one of the smartest moves Apple had made in the education market.
Again, what you're really talking about is not a replacement for the eMac/iMac because you don't want an all-in-one. You're talking about a simpler, cheaper G4 tower.
There's a big difference. The AIO is a good format for Apple, and it's still the number one seller (Unfortunately Apple includes their eMac sales numbers with their iMac number, so I can't tell you how many they've been selling).
I really don't like it when people tell me what I am saying. The eMac is selling next to zero! And no, I am not talking about a tower. People aren't buying bigger, they are buying smaller, because when they have to move them, who wants to lug around a 40lb tower? I'd rather pick up a 5-10lb slab. Simple. LCD sales are skyrocketing. Why? Because they are damn near the same price as CRTs, they are 1/4 the weight and simply look better. No BS scan rates, etc... So, explain to me again why the ancient CRT slug, eMac is so perfect for Education. And for Apple?
Here's Apple's numbers for the past quarter:
PowerBook........... 166,000
PowerMac/xServe.. 156,000
iBook................... 133,000
iMac LCD.............. 129,000
eMac.................... 86,000
iMac CRT............... 41,000
Mmmmm, big seller, huh? Hell, even the iMac LCD had 50% more sales than the eMac. It is a dead dog, let's just bury it.
So, explain to me again why the ancient CRT slug, eMac is so perfect for Education. And for Apple?
eMac.................... 86,000
iMac CRT............... 41,000
86,000+41,000=127,000
That's 127,000 CRT based all-in-ones. I'm pretty sure most of those went to education.
Quote:
Mmmmm, big seller, huh?
If we're talking about CRTs, in the numbers you posted, yeah it is, especially since these computers are "dead dogs." The figure is about on par with the much vaunted LCD iMac.
17" CRT monitors retail from $100.00 for bubblevision to $250.00 for high-end flat screens. Even with huge volume discounts and retail markups, I have a hard time believing that Apple's only paying $70 for the eMac's flat screen CRT.
Given that assumption, Apple could easily and economically drop the guts of an eMac into a pizza-box and simultaneously drop the price from $799 to $699. I'd buy 3 of those computers right now.
Or to put it differently, I don't want an AIO, I won't buy an AIO, and $1,299 (for a low-end G4 tower) is too much for an entry-level computer.
This just in from the analyst meeting: Steve answered a question about low-end desktops, and he answered that the data says that, increasingly, they're being replaced with low-end notebooks. Phil Schiller credited AirPort for that.
So, at least from the vantage point of Apple executives, it looks like both education and the low-end consumer market are converging on the iBook, and any low-end desktop will play second fiddle increasingly over time. That probably means that the iMac will stay relatively upscale, which means that its feature set will be geared that way.
That's 127,000 CRT based all-in-ones. I'm pretty sure most of those went to education.
If we're talking about CRTs, in the numbers you posted, yeah it is, especially since these computers are "dead dogs." The figure is about on par with the much vaunted LCD iMac.
Exactly my point - the sales, compared to PowerMac and PowerBook sales is meager. Thanks for ignoring that fact though. Take a look at Apple's Q4 03 statement. Sliding iMac (which now include eMac - go figure) and iBook sales for the past year. Why? Budgets are getting cut in these tough times. How is a school going to justify buying a $1099 iBook or a $1299 iMac or even a $799 beast eMac, when they can budget on a $599 (your-clone-inserted-here) PC. Get the picture....market share! And when you have a budget of $36,000 to upgrade desktops this school year, you can either buy 60 clones, or 45 eMacs. Hmmm, that's 25% less kids getting to sit down at a computer. What would you do? What are schools doing? According to their report:
"Apple saw a 15% decline in education in education spending when compared with the year ago quarter, primarily due to weakness in the K-12, which Anderson speculated was due to budget crises and reluctance to spend in the early part of budget year. About 47% of the education units shipped were portables."
Same functionality + lower price = more computers for students. What don't you understand about the eMac?
Versus the iMac, but everyone and their dead grandmother know the iMac is WAAAAY overpriced. I understand plenty about the eMac. eMac is not cannabalizing iMac sales. Apple is being cannabalized by PC vendors. Thus the xStation (iStation as was noted above, better title!)
Ok, back to the original question. Would this peak your interest? A low-cost Mac without the frills of the e/iMac? That was the whole intent. If there is great interest, then there must be a way for Apple to bring this to us.
Ok, back to the original question. Would this peak your interest? A low-cost Mac without the frills of the e/iMac? That was the whole intent. If there is great interest, then there must be a way for Apple to bring this to us.
50 geeks on an online message board does not equal great interest.
Comments
Originally posted by Rhumgod
History dictates, to me at least
I dunno about that. My dad bought our Apple IIe for around $3000. If I remember, an IBM was about 4k.
Things were a lot different then. An office, unless it was a big company, would usually only have one PC, but because of VisiCalc it was likely to be an Apple. IBM wasn't very popular at home because only the geeks had home PCs and the geeks liked Apples.
Originally posted by spankalee
An office, unless it was a big company, would usually only have one PC, but because of VisiCalc it was likely to be an Apple.
Getting back to the point that Mac OS X is Apple's jewel, the push from the Business Sales team needs to be extreme. I really think OS X can sell people more than hardware, but they need not faint when seeing a bill for $1300+ per system for an iMac or PowerMac G4. Seeing a bill for $599 per system is a little easier to swallow.
Besides, these are managers and administration we are talking about. They are scared to death (and of losing their jobs) of purchasing Apples over Wintels. But if they can be shown how Office works flawlessly on Mac OS X and how secure and stable and simple it really is, they can be sold. Hardware alone won't do it. On that, at least, I guess we agree
Maybe no modem, low end upgradeable graphics card, upgradeable CD-ROM, wired keyboard and mouse, slow bus, whatever it takes.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
It's hard when they only have 3% market share.
Bah. Apple has more than 3% in "marketshare" if you don't count servers (it is actualy closer to 7%). It is sad that since Garner says the mac market share is 3%, everyone quotes that as the gold standard fact. Sure, it is if you count big server sales. But if you only count desktop and laptop sales (which 99% of developers should), then you will see the real truth in "marketshare". Just because I could convice a few million people that we are all living in a dream world, doesn't mean that we really are. Run the numbers yoruself, and you will see.
Apple is doing fine. With the recent moves to secure more business and educational sales, plus the new opertunity for cluster sales, I think things can only get better. A bargin-bin Mac is not needed.
$699 with iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto and AppleWorks. $849 with all of the above + SuperDrive and iDVD. And a 'pro' model for $1049 with a 25% faster processor and more ram, etc.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
First of all a larger market share is never a bad thing as it increases the chanses of ports to OSX and it would propably speed up the release future ports.
Secondly, I agree on your point that it should share as many parts as possible with the iMac and that it should not have a PCI and a AGP slot. Not that it would be expensive to add them mind you. But it would keep cannibalization of the more profit bringing iMac to a minimum. And this simply by avoiding the dillemma of putting expandabillety versus the (in my vision of the product matrix) better CPU and, for some users, the built in screen of the iMac. And it would keep the tooling costs of setting up a new product line to a absolute minimum.
I disagree. iLove the looks of the xStation but it also brings one thing to mind... clusters. Datacruncher cluster? Xcode cluster? SETI cluster? Internet server cluster? etc. For those who can't afford xServe clusters. But yo often need faster networking then standard ethernet. You need a pci slot. you just do.
Originally posted by spankalee
Is it? Would you rather have more market share and no money, or less market share and money?
I agree that Apple could use a less expensive non-AIO in the line up, but less expensive will mean less features. Every "please Apple, replace the iMac with my wonderful idea" thread that pops up here wants top-end features at a bottom-end price. That isn't a bad desire, but you can't just ignore economics. If you want a economy box you'll have to sacrifice some stuff. Integrated graphics and no PCI slots is a good start.
I for one think Apple is VERY capable of making an "economy" tower with better than average features. Look at the G4 PowerMacs. You can get a 1.25GHz G4 with many expansion slots, a 64MB graphics card, fast DDR SDRAM, and a nice HD all for just $1,299.
Personally, I think Apple could easily drop this price to $1,199 since $1,299 is at the TOP of what you can call "economy pricing" ... but that's besides my point. I don't think Apple should try to make a tower under $999 because they'll have to compromise too much in terms of the quality we've all come to expect from Apple.
That said, Apple NEEDS to continue to offer a low-end tower. The G4 PowerMac needs to stay in the lineup and keep getting updated every 6 months. Eventually, when the next generation CPU comes out, the economy G4 tower can become an economy G5 tower. The point is ... towers have features that people want ... and they don't want to have to pay more than $1,299 for them.
Apple NEEDS to keep an economy tower.
Now, having said that, Apple can still make cheap AIO computers in the $599-$1,199 range.
Originally posted by rustedborg
Now, having said that, Apple can still make cheap AIO computers in the $599-$1,199 range.
Just NOT an AIO. That is the whole point. I wish the eMac would just go away...
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Just NOT an AIO. That is the whole point. I wish the eMac would just go away...
Just because you don't like a computer means it's not a good model? The eMac is the perfect educational computer. Thus the 'e'. Plug in the power cable, the keyboard and mouse and it's set up.
Schools don't care about PCI slots, or extra HD bays, or using a differnt monitor. Bringing out the eMac, even after claiming the death of CRTs, was one of the smartest moves Apple had made in the education market.
Again, what you're really talking about is not a replacement for the eMac/iMac because you don't want an all-in-one. You're talking about a simpler, cheaper G4 tower.
There's a big difference. The AIO is a good format for Apple, and it's still the number one seller (Unfortunately Apple includes their eMac sales numbers with their iMac number, so I can't tell you how many they've been selling).
OT,but I really think the "product matrix" should be:
PowerBook
xBook
iBook
xMac (to replace current iMac)
iMac (to replace current eMac)
PowerStation (rename current PowerMac)
xStation (to replace cerrent Powermac G4)
iStation (as seen above, but with iColors. White or whatever)
edit: spelling.
For the AIO lovers you could include a lock (and key) for special iDisplays, 17" CRT, 15" FP, 17" FP, or 19" FP. Slightly harder to set up, but not much.
How about bluetooth and an HDTV out port so that it could be used as a set top box?
How about a docking station for the 12" ibook with the same form factor?
Apple could really benefit from having a single product line associated with thier entire consumer line. Something that scales all the way from cheap, for the market share, to something comparable to a low end tower. I don't think that the eMac or iMac are cutting it in possibly the most important quadrant of thier product grid.
Originally posted by spankalee
Just because you don't like a computer means it's not a good model? The eMac is the perfect educational computer. Thus the 'e'. Plug in the power cable, the keyboard and mouse and it's set up.
Schools don't care about PCI slots, or extra HD bays, or using a differnt monitor. Bringing out the eMac, even after claiming the death of CRTs, was one of the smartest moves Apple had made in the education market.
Again, what you're really talking about is not a replacement for the eMac/iMac because you don't want an all-in-one. You're talking about a simpler, cheaper G4 tower.
There's a big difference. The AIO is a good format for Apple, and it's still the number one seller (Unfortunately Apple includes their eMac sales numbers with their iMac number, so I can't tell you how many they've been selling).
I really don't like it when people tell me what I am saying. The eMac is selling next to zero! And no, I am not talking about a tower. People aren't buying bigger, they are buying smaller, because when they have to move them, who wants to lug around a 40lb tower? I'd rather pick up a 5-10lb slab. Simple. LCD sales are skyrocketing. Why? Because they are damn near the same price as CRTs, they are 1/4 the weight and simply look better. No BS scan rates, etc... So, explain to me again why the ancient CRT slug, eMac is so perfect for Education. And for Apple?
Here's Apple's numbers for the past quarter:
PowerBook........... 166,000
PowerMac/xServe.. 156,000
iBook................... 133,000
iMac LCD.............. 129,000
eMac.................... 86,000
iMac CRT............... 41,000
Mmmmm, big seller, huh? Hell, even the iMac LCD had 50% more sales than the eMac. It is a dead dog, let's just bury it.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
So, explain to me again why the ancient CRT slug, eMac is so perfect for Education. And for Apple?
eMac.................... 86,000
iMac CRT............... 41,000
86,000+41,000=127,000
That's 127,000 CRT based all-in-ones. I'm pretty sure most of those went to education.
Mmmmm, big seller, huh?
If we're talking about CRTs, in the numbers you posted, yeah it is, especially since these computers are "dead dogs." The figure is about on par with the much vaunted LCD iMac.
Given that assumption, Apple could easily and economically drop the guts of an eMac into a pizza-box and simultaneously drop the price from $799 to $699. I'd buy 3 of those computers right now.
Or to put it differently, I don't want an AIO, I won't buy an AIO, and $1,299 (for a low-end G4 tower) is too much for an entry-level computer.
So, at least from the vantage point of Apple executives, it looks like both education and the low-end consumer market are converging on the iBook, and any low-end desktop will play second fiddle increasingly over time. That probably means that the iMac will stay relatively upscale, which means that its feature set will be geared that way.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
So, explain to me again why the ancient CRT slug, eMac is so perfect for Education.
Price, price, price.
Using .edu pricing & base model w/ SuperDrive:
eMac - $999
iMac - $1699
That's a $700 savings per computer for the same functionality
The more you buy the better it gets, a realistic situation for education:
(2) eMac - $1998
(2) iMac - $3398
That's a $1400 savings over the iMac, which can be used to buy an additional eMac!
(20) eMac - $19980
(20) iMac - $33980
Savings = $14000 - That savings would allow you to buy 14 additional eMacs, making 14 additional students happy!
Same functionality + lower price = more computers for students. What don't you understand about the eMac?
Originally posted by job
86,000+41,000=127,000
That's 127,000 CRT based all-in-ones. I'm pretty sure most of those went to education.
If we're talking about CRTs, in the numbers you posted, yeah it is, especially since these computers are "dead dogs." The figure is about on par with the much vaunted LCD iMac.
Exactly my point - the sales, compared to PowerMac and PowerBook sales is meager. Thanks for ignoring that fact though. Take a look at Apple's Q4 03 statement. Sliding iMac (which now include eMac - go figure) and iBook sales for the past year. Why? Budgets are getting cut in these tough times. How is a school going to justify buying a $1099 iBook or a $1299 iMac or even a $799 beast eMac, when they can budget on a $599 (your-clone-inserted-here) PC. Get the picture....market share! And when you have a budget of $36,000 to upgrade desktops this school year, you can either buy 60 clones, or 45 eMacs. Hmmm, that's 25% less kids getting to sit down at a computer. What would you do? What are schools doing? According to their report:
"Apple saw a 15% decline in education in education spending when compared with the year ago quarter, primarily due to weakness in the K-12, which Anderson speculated was due to budget crises and reluctance to spend in the early part of budget year. About 47% of the education units shipped were portables."
Originally posted by FormatC2
Same functionality + lower price = more computers for students. What don't you understand about the eMac?
Versus the iMac, but everyone and their dead grandmother know the iMac is WAAAAY overpriced. I understand plenty about the eMac. eMac is not cannabalizing iMac sales. Apple is being cannabalized by PC vendors. Thus the xStation (iStation as was noted above, better title!)
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Ok, back to the original question. Would this peak your interest? A low-cost Mac without the frills of the e/iMac? That was the whole intent. If there is great interest, then there must be a way for Apple to bring this to us.
50 geeks on an online message board does not equal great interest.