Actually the reason for the minitower is simple: you can keep the screen. Pretend you are Joe Bob switcher or IT guy.
Many potential switchers have a large supply of monitors, and do not want throw them away. IT departments can not afford to lose the entire computer because the screen goes out.
Joe Bob does not have a large supply of monitors. The average system is replaced all at once, and usually handed down. The logic is simple: Usually, by the time you can get a better machine, you can also get a better monitor and a better printer; and if you're going to hand down a system, no point handing it down without the monitor and the printer, right?
Only geeks and gearheads keep large numbers of monitors around. These are not typical buyers. These are people who take soldering pencils to their motherboards.
As for IT guys, they once refused to buy systems with onboard ethernet, too, because they didn't want to lose the whole computer just because the NIC goes out (NICs die a lot more frequently than monitors do). Well, guess what? You have to search hard to find an enterprise desktop that doesn't have onboard ethernet now. The fact is that an AIO's monitor is replaceable, and the AIO enjoys the advantage that it can be picked up and replaced with another backup very, very easily. All IT guy has to do is give up the idea that he'll be at the user's desk for hours with screws and circuit boards strewn hither and yon, and it's an easy adjustment to make.
Quote:
All-in-ones are great for people with no hardware investment, but in order for apple to move into the target business markets and hit more switchers... a cheaper tower is necessary. Not everyone can afford the $1800 cost of entry for apple towers.
I think this market is minimal, frankly. Most consumer hardware has a distinct end-of-life anyway. If anything, I'm seeing people replacing their printers before they replace their computers now - inkjets are getting disposable.
Quote:
It would not have to be the latest and greatest.... and single processors would be an easy differentiator.
Remember that a 1.8GHz G5 is worth $100 in Apple's pricing:
Quote:
"the g5 cube"
nvidia 5700 video, no firewire 800 or optical audio, 1 pci slot, agp slot, airport extreme slot, no dual display support
$799: 1.6 g5 with combo drive 256/80 no dual display support
So $1200 in savings comes from... what? Maybe $200 less in hardware? Huh?
This is exactly what I was warning against! TALLY UP. Optical audio is pennies! PCI slots? Maybe a couple of bucks (the major cost comes with supporting any at all, so if you're going to have one, might as well have three). AGP? Same as PCI. No dual display support? That's just firmware. We're nowhere near $1200.
If the machine sold at all, it would be because the price would redefine "loss leader." But it's not addressing an especially large market.
The R&D is already done for this product. Apple has motherboards, cases, parts, everything it needs to just lump together a machine. Would it cost more than a PC? Who cares? It's not competing with Dell. It's competing with a high end iMac and a low end PowerMac.
This is the type of poor logic that keeps Apple's market share low. Apple does compete with Dell, as well as Sony, IBM, HP, and many more companies. They sell computers, and Apple sells computers. If the leadership is deluded enough to think that their main competition is themselves then there isn't much hope for the company.
As for "Cannibalizing" current product lines, this shouldn't be a concern as long as Apple has not overextended themselves with models like they did back in the days of the performa. Profit margins and units ordered can be adjusted to keep Apple's overall profit margin steady. The main concern is if there is a large enough market for any 1 design to pay for the R&D, manufacturing and marketing and still turn a profit that meets your business goals. I think that Apple's product line could take advantage of a lower priced "tower" (or whatever) which might have a slightly higher profit margin than the iMac, yet still be lower in price. They may have to lower the number of iMacs built a quarter to do this, but it would allow them to compete with other computer manufacturers in a way that they are not doing today, which makes Apples chance at gaining market share greater.
What do I want? A headless iMac. The cMac. It would be xStation shaped. It would lack expansion slots. However, it would have an upgradable AGP slot, but ADC would be "unsupported."
Joe Bob may not have a huge supply of monitors, but he probably has one. The whole switcher thing is an admission that most everybody has a computer now, and with it a monitor.
Headless single processor G5 with upgradeable graphics is the key. The fact that you all can't figure out the pricing just goes to show how screwed up the current lineups are.
Jade I like your concepts on the what the newer models should be, but don't you think those prices are a little bit low?
Hey I can dream up specs...but I think these are the price points we need..... but you can adjust the specs. If HP and Sony can find a way to fit a Pentium 4, 120gb+ hard drive and decent video and DVD burning in a $999-1099 package....apple should be able to fit it in for $1299 or close to it.
I mean hard drives are getting cheap....2X256 RAM is cheap...and video cards are finding their way into cheap PCs....the margins are still pretty high. And Apple has a growing software business and high targets for Applecare and other add-ons. The computers do not need to make the bulk of the money any more...Apple is selling services.
PS: my parents are no way big tech geeks, and they have 2 current computers. There is an old 15" CRT in storage, a 19" and !7" CRT in use with the current computers. They like the monitors they have...they do not want to pay the big bucks for an LCD. When my Dad upgrades he will buy a PC...not because he doesn't like Apples, but because he doesn't want to trash hie "expensive for the time screen" It is big enough for him, it does what he needs and he already has space dedicated to it. If there was a cheaper tower he would buy an apple in a heartbeat....
Trust me I work in computer sales.....the only customers who buy a monitor and tower together are the ones without a computer. (or those who don't have an LCD). The rest come in and pick up a tower and maybe a printer. The people buying the all-in-ones: new users and people upgrading old imacs
NOT SWITCHERS!
They do not want to pay $1800 for a new tower! The mini-tower will not cannabilize sales much from imacs, emacs, and powermacs...it will attract a new customer. Admit it, you know a lot of users out there who run out and get the latest/greatest/fastest no matter what the cost. And if you are making your living on the computer you spend what you need to do your job efficiently.
In my lineup pros get dual processors and mini towers and all-in-ones get single processors...that is the differentiator. The free slots and ports are just little things to add the icing on the cake. For prosumers and consumers optical audio and firewire 800 are overkill...as are 2 hard drives in most cases. If you need more than what is availible you move up to the pros and get more.
Over the past few years computing power is surpassing most people's needs....you can edit video on a $500 computer, unimaginable a few years ago....but we all know the Pixar's of the universe aren't moving to lowend computers to do their work. The professional apples have their place there, but Apple cannot only focus on the pros and the old Apple users to reach the agressive targets they have in mind. There is no need for an enterprise class OS X if no one starts to use it.
As for IT guys, they once refused to buy systems with onboard ethernet, too, because they didn't want to lose the whole computer just because the NIC goes out (NICs die a lot more frequently than monitors do). Well, guess what? You have to search hard to find an enterprise desktop that doesn't have onboard ethernet now. The fact is that an AIO's monitor is replaceable, and the AIO enjoys the advantage that it can be picked up and replaced with another backup very, very easily. All IT guy has to do is give up the idea that he'll be at the user's desk for hours with screws and circuit boards strewn hither and yon, and it's an easy adjustment to make.
ok so the CD-ROM goes out and so does the screen, or the ethernet card goes out and so does your emac. Sorry I am taking my chances with buying a $20 replacement network card..not sending my emac back to apple for repair. Computers are mission critical in today's environment.
Quote:
I think this market is minimal, frankly. Most consumer hardware has a distinct end-of-life anyway. If anything, I'm seeing people replacing their printers before they replace their computers now - inkjets are getting disposable.
actually I see a lot of people replace their monitors before their computers.....hence the abundance of suitable monitors. Inkjets don't make money...the ink does so printer makers make money no matter if the printer is old or new..it doesn't matter
Quote:
Remember that a 1.8GHz G5 is worth $100 in Apple's pricing:
So $1200 in savings comes from... what? Maybe $200 less in hardware? Huh?
This is exactly what I was warning against! TALLY UP. Optical audio is pennies! PCI slots? Maybe a couple of bucks (the major cost comes with supporting any at all, so if you're going to have one, might as well have three). AGP? Same as PCI. No dual display support? That's just firmware. We're nowhere near $1200.
If the machine sold at all, it would be because the price would redefine "loss leader." But it's not addressing an especially large market.
Processor? $250 (based on 2.8 Pentium 4 retail price)
Case: PAC-T01 Aluminum case $135
RAM: PC3200 1X512 $80
Hard drive: 80gb Hitachi $75
Superdrive: Pioneer A06 $160
Video Card: ~$100
Motherboard: ~$150
Keyboard and mouse: $100
OS X: $129
So retail pricing for similar components is $1180. And I can buy this system myself. Apples hardware cost should be cheaper. So theoretical profit on this machine is $120, nearly 10% on a cheap computer.
But the new cost for highest 2 powermacs is $2150. And the cheap one is $1850. So most of the extra cash is used by increased hardware. Keep in mind there are retail prices... so these should be pretty acheivable for apple.
*Profit on the low end 10%
*Profit on the high end 13-28%
*ipod profits 30% (and higher volumes..equivalent to the profit on an all-in-one or cheap computer in dollars, Apple can safely decrease some margins)
Let's pretend apple adds better support for dual processors in the pro software and Adobe and everyone else... those people who need two processors will get them. I meet a lot of people who think the g5 is worthless without 2 processors...those people are not going to buy a single processor minitower no matter how cheap. And there is still a big market for duals. Sorry Amorph I know you are the expert but I do not buy that it isn't possible for apple to make a cheaper computer. The motherboard won't need to be different for my mini-tower...just the case!
With shared componenets a mini tower wil be very feasible.
ok so the CD-ROM goes out and so does the screen, or the ethernet card goes out and so does your emac. Sorry I am taking my chances with buying a $20 replacement network card..not sending my emac back to apple for repair. Computers are mission critical in today's environment.
Yup. And onboard ethernet is standard nonetheless.
Believe me, our IT guy doesn't like it, but there you are.
If you keep spares around, NBD. You can send the faulty one to an Apple Store (they're going to be handling repairs now for rapid turnaround, precisely to accomodate businesses) while the client types away merrily on a backup machine.
Quote:
actually I see a lot of people replace their monitors before their computers.....hence the abundance of suitable monitors. Inkjets don't make money...the ink does so printer makers make money no matter if the printer is old or new..it doesn't matter
I know that inkjets don't make money. That was just an aside. I'm struggling to think of one person I know who's replaced a monitor within the lifetime of a computer, and failing. They're all PC users, incidentally.
YMMV, clearly.
Quote:
Sorry Amorph I know you are the expert but I do not buy that it isn't possible for apple to make a cheaper computer. The motherboard won't need to be different for my mini-tower...just the case!
OK, you answered one question (notice, by the way, how far we ended up from $799?), but I posed two: First, you have to actually price the thing out. You did that. Then, you have to account for the fact that a shuttle-style machine with one G5, one PCI slot, AGP, and 1 drive bay would satisfy the needs of a huge bulk of PowerMac customers, cannibalizing the PowerMac and driving the price of the full tower up. (Note my prediction upthread that in 80% or more cases, that 1 PCI slot would remain empty, and the AGP slot would keep its original card. Yes, I'm cynical about that, but the numbers back me up.) This would also put upward pressure on the "minitower" to make up for the lost margin. Apple breaks even operationally. They don't have much room to play with here.
Last, and I haven't mentioned this yet in this thread, you have to ask whether this is a consumer or a professional machine. They're priced differently. Consumer machines are pure expenses, so there's immense downward pressure on prices (enterprise machines are similar, only with even more pressure). Professional machines pay for themselves by definition, so there's a little more leeway margin-wise. Even a machine with a $1000 premium (the top of the line, obviously) can justify the expense in a matter of weeks at the rate a professional bills for work. And this is where you have to hop off the "prosumer" fence if you're Apple and you're trying to make this work. The two markets have different price structures, and you have to pick one or the other (or you can opt for the Cube's "executive toy" price structure, but let's assume that Apple won't do that again...).
None of this matters because a purchase is most often based on perceived value, not actual value.
And this has... what to do with my point?
Joe Bob doesn't have monitors lying around. If Joe can pawn the old system on somebody else and get a new one, that's nice and convenient and clean, and the printer was probably getting flaky anyway. The retail stores they visit will strongly encourage this, of course, because they make just a bit more from those nice package deals (and even more from the service contracts, of course).
I just advised someone on a new system purchase, incidentally. The eagerness with which they were just going to sweep the whole old, cranky setup away and replace it with all new stuff was almost palpable. Needless to say, they'll be getting an iMac.
Joe Bob doesn't have monitors lying around. If Joe can pawn the old system on somebody else and get a new one, that's nice and convenient and clean, and the printer was probably getting flaky anyway. The retail stores they visit will strongly encourage this, of course, because they make just a bit more from those nice package deals (and even more from the service contracts, of course).
I just advised someone on a new system purchase, incidentally. The eagerness with which they were just going to sweep the whole old, cranky setup away and replace it with all new stuff was almost palpable. Needless to say, they'll be getting an iMac.
But for a corporate environment that logic is replaced by the fact that companies DO have monitors laying around, and especially in graphics departments people wish to keep what they have.
We just got 4 dual 2GHz and a dozen 1.8GHz. We never use the PCI slots and will most likely not replace the video card. We did up the RAm to 4GB however. But for the same money we got the dozen 1.8GHz, we could have gotten 20 smaller cube like G5s. While in the end this isn't a significan't difference for Apple (we still use the same budget $$$) it DOES pump their units sold numbers. This is something you can't do for Joe Bob home user. He only gets one machine at a time. More units sold encourage developers to develop for the Mac platform and that is better for the long run.
Any "prosumer" model runs into a fairly serious question: What justifies the lower price?
The "prosumer" market is actually two categories: What I call the "broke power user" market, which consists of people (many of them students) trying to get professional work out of consumer goods, and the "loaded consumer" market, which consists of people blowing untold amounts of money on machines that essentially send and receive email and browse the web. So we can come at this problem from two angles: Scaling up consumer hardware and scaling down professional hardware. Since you're asking for the latter, I'll start there.
Respectfully, I don't believe you've accounted for a significant component of the "prosumer" macintosh market: gamers.
With the advent of the modern gaming console (X-Box, PlayStation, etc.), it's easy to discount the need for PC/Mac gaming. But the evolution of video cards from the lowly Rage 128 of only four years ago, and the record number of multiplayer games developed for BOTH platforms affirms the need for a simple machine with powerful, upgradable graphics.
Quote:
So what we have is a machine that will satisfy the desires of a majority of the PowerMac using population at a substantial discount. But what will it do to the PowerMac? One of the reasons Apple can offer the machines they're offering at the prices they're offering is that they're selling in volume. But - and this is something no "minitower" proponent I've seen is willing to admit, but it's pretty obvious - the "minitower" is designed to cannibalize the PowerMac. Its whole purpose is to offer 80% of the machine at 20% of the price, to borrow an old promise.
Then perhaps the 80%/20% analogy is flawed. In my mind, the purpose of a prosumer Macintosh is to fill a niche that OSX users are willing to pay for.
Also, I might add that a prosumer Macintosh need not look like anything inparticular. Tower, mini-tower, micro-tower, Cube, etc. are all pretty much irrelevant. What Apple creates, people will buy--even if it comes in "flower power" colors.
Quote:
Can you really price two PCI slots, one drive bay, one CPU and a little bit of aluminum at whatever savings you're hoping to realize? If you can, can you account for the impact on Apple's margins, and what it would do to the PowerMac's prices?
Yes, I absolutely can. I only need look at the (Wintel) PC world for ways in which to produce a fine-looking external case with powerful capabilities. Shuttle does it every day--perfectly.
Moreover, there are a handful of companies that have jumped on the bandwagon to follow in Shuttle's footsteps. Each producing micro-towers that have similar specifications to Shuttle's products.
What would it do to Apple's margins? First off, you might want to take a look at "my" specification at the bottom of this post. Does it look like anything that Apple sells now? If not, I have a hard time believing it's going to cannibalize sales from another "similar" product.
Quote:
Here are a few guidelines for designing inexpensive hardware that work just as well in actual design as they do from the comfort of your own armchair:
1) Slots and cards are expensive. This applies to CPU cards, PCI cards, and any other kind you can think of.
2) Integration is cheap. The more things you can stuff onto one chip, the cheaper the whole thing is to make.
3) Slots constrain design. You add 1 PCI or AGP slot - just one little one - and you've lost control over how much heat there will be, where it will be coming from, what kind of airflow you have, etc. You will never see something like the iMac or the Cube with "just one open slot". (The Cube had an AGP slot, but to see how upgradable it is, go and read up on how to upgrade it: Essentially, unless you have one of the non-standard cards Apple specifically produced for it, you've got all kinds of interesting work to do.) Also, if you add AGP, you have to support ADC, which requires 130W, which means that you can't slip a small, tailored power supply into the dome of your iMac any more.
While I respect your technical savvy, I think that you're off-base in your assumptions about the impact a single AGP slot has on case design.
Again, Shuttle produces micro-towers and micro-boards that handle AGP, 1394, USB, PCI, (2)3.5", and (1)5.25" components with INTERNAL heat conductors and power supplies around 200-300W.
No offense, but telling me what Apple CAN'T do when their competetors have already done the same thing EN-MASSE does not carry much factual weight.
Quote:
So, if you want something like a "headless iMac," it's going to have to be like a headless iMac: Heavily integrated and slot-free - only with an external power brick the way the Cube had in order to support whatever arbitrary monitor you decide to attach. If you want a "mini-PowerMac," you're going to have to make real compromises (not "maybe just one slot") to see any meaningful cost reduction, and then you'll have to deal with the consequences for the full-blown model if the result is still what most of the market would be OK with.
All that said, the popularity of the $1299 PowerMac G4 can't be denied (although it can be at least partly explained by the fact that it boots Mac OS 9 - Quark 4.11 just won't die, will it?). But, really, the iMac 17" and 20" models are prosumer machines. They don't have the PC-clone appeal of zillions of bays and slots and things sticking out, but in terms of what they're actually capable of they seem to hold their own.
So, you would consider a computer with an integrated monitor to be a prosumer machine? What about a computer WITHOUT an integrated monitor? Because, if we look at the current Macintosh line, it seems that a consumer can ONLY purchase an Apple machine for GREATER than $1299 if they want to use their own monitor.
Is this a prosumer or consumer price point? Seems to me that it's both, since $1299 is the LOWEST priced (monitorless) machine you can get at EITHER price point. In my opinion, this is a serious marketing flaw.
I'd actually like to see:
* G4 processor
* 512MB Ram
* USB, 1394, LAN, Audio, etc. integrated motherboard
* accessable AGP 4x/8x slot
* nVidia FX5200 64MB or greater video card
* single HD
* single Combo/Superdrive
* OSX
* less than $900
But that's me. I don't manage Apple. I just own a "smurf" G3 tower and some stock.
an interesting perspective i thought I should share with you all, My dad is actually going to be getting an imac this christmas, with a little persuasion from yours truly. However It was me that had to tell them that the iMac is an entire computer, not just a monitor with included cd-rom thats what he thought they were, and this guy (my dad) is fairly computer literate, poor marketing on apples part if you ask me. Also more and more people when they buy new computers buy new monitors with them.
Just that even if you replace the hole widget all at once, you don't want to be forced to do that again down the road. Most people buy a new DVD player with that brand new TV, but don't want them combined in case one breaks down first.
I agree that it's almost never a problem, but when making a purchase it is perceived as a potential problem.
By definition the prosumer straddles both consumer and professional needs....
Prosumers: the people who do not make their living with the technology...just like to have stuff that will give them the flexibility to leanr and upgrade their skills to professional level. These are dabbles with a jones for more capable products in case their needs change.
*For the record...the $799 model is also possible...I only priced out the $1299 model using retail pricing. Based on retail cost it should come in around $750. The $1200 is what I could make it for without volume discounts...it is not that expensive for Apple to make. Those costs should really be 25-30% less for Apple.
Again lets look at digital cameras to talk about how the prosumer line fits in
1. the consumer cameras 4.0 and less megapixel point and shoots, under $400 (Bronze)
2. the prosumers: the low end SLRs. 5-8MP with camera bodies and lenses attached. $400-1200 (silver)
3. the pro cameras: separate bodies and lenses $1200 (gold)
The customers who purchase this stuff:
Bronze: I take pictures of my kids and vacations
Silver: this is my hobby and I am taking photography classes. I would like to grow into becoming a better photographer
Gold: This is how I make my money and my career depends on my camera
Typically some of the bronze customers move up to silver, but very few glds go down to silver. The golds know what they need and what tools are necessary to accomplish it.
Now lets look at PDAs
We have the Palm zires and the under $200 PDAs: usualy just calendar and secure digital slot. For $200-400 you might get bluetooth, more memory or wireless. For the $400 plus you get bluetooth, wireless, corporate network accessibility and cameras..... very clear differentialtors.
For apple these the proposed minitowers will fit in at two levels: (in my specs) the $799-1299 price range and will have the following target customers.
1. Enterprise customers
2. People dabbling in the digital video and needing room to grow
3. people who do not like all-in-ones
4. The other 90%
There are a lot of customers like you dad out ther Amorph: they just want one box for their computer....but there also a lot like my Dad. You siad the only people you know with extra monitors
We are not talking about the people upgrading their Windows 98 computers or original imacs. These people can be easily persuaded to get an imac/emac.
Lets face it...if you bought a computer in the last 2-3 years...and your needs are mostly interent and organizing your photos....your computer will hold up for the next 10 years. These are the people upgrading their printers and monitors, not their computers.
So lets take a hypothtical Computer user and a 5 year timeline
year 1: bought new tower, monitor, printer
year 2: I love my computerbut that new program needs more RAM, but I need an all in one printer
year 3: My computer is still pretty good...but those new 21" monitors look good.
Year 4: Look at those new computers...but will I ever watch TV on my computer (insert trendy new feature here) but my hard drive is running low...maybe I will upgrade.
Year 5: Wow that new operating systems looks great, time for a new computer.
See how you end up with extra peripherals. The people who post here: we are the people who upgrade and keep up with the latest stuff and are more likely to buy them.
There are more cutomer profiles thant the consumers and professionals.
1. The low end: first computers, and dedicated email machines
2. The moderate users: computers are well integrated in daily life: email, pictures, burning CDs and DVDs
3. The creative hobby-ist: I email and stuff but I am convering my movies to DV and dabbling into photo-editing, movie making etc.
4. Gamers
5. Businesses: the basic beige box
6. The people who make their living on computers: graphic designers, moviemakers, CAD people, architects etc
Apple is really only hitting two of these categories. I don't think Apple needs to play in the super low end but businesses and moderate users are the ones left out of Apples lineup..and these are also the volume categories. Not all people want all-in-ones...and these are not the best choices for everyone.
Apple has lost a great deal of creative market share to the mid range PCS...... a $999 PC offers more than enough power for a lot of these users.....these are the people that will buy the mini-towers. Very few of the powermac customers will jump ship to a cheaper computer.....but more of the in between people will jump on a mini-tower. The customers I see buy a g5 overwhelmingly will buy one no matter what the cost...the people that Apple is losing now are the fence-sitters...who rarely endo up with a powermac.
Even if 80% of people never use up the PCI slots.....many people will utilize dual processors and firewire 800.
Although gamers can be a great market...apple has no need to pursue it now..............not enough games yet.
I think Apple can sacrifice 5% of powermac customers for 2x as many total units sold.
Lets say that Apple makes all the current towers dual and comes out with the mini-tower that some people are craving.
Apple is not going to come out with any new G4 based machines (and as far as I've been able to tell the G4 processor is not cheaper than the G5), so lets give it tthe folowing spects:
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 2GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
One PCI Slots
One APG slot (Radeon 9600 pro)
56K internal modem
Now let's figure out how much it would cost.
The difference between the full sized and mini towers are: 2 less PCI and memory slots, one less processor slot, and a smaller case. So how much money would that save off of the cost of the full sized tower? Fifty bucks? Lets be generous and say the parts would cost $100 less.
Now before we get all excited about our $100 savings, we have to add in the cost of designing the new case and motherboard, and we must not forget the millions it will cost to run another assembly line for the new mini-tower...
Once you do the math you can see that the mini-tower would probably cost somewhere around $1799.00. Yes, that is the cost of the single processor full-sized tower. And it is the reason Apple has not bothered making a mini-tower.
The demands for a headless iMac runs into similar problems. The R&D cost along with the cost of running another assembly line adds so much to the price that it would be about as expensive as the eMac (that is if you are truly asking for a headless iMac and don't try to sneak in expansion slots, see the mini-tower above for that.
We all want Apple products to be cheaper, and some of us want them to be more powerful. Fortunately Apple products are slowly fulfilling both desires, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they offer in the next few years.
Based on today's RETAIL pricing, these would be approximately:
1) G5 ($?)
2) case, mobo ($300 for Shuttle)
3) RAM ($50)
4) SATA HD ($100)
5) SuperDrive ($200)
6) Radeon 9600 ($200)
7) internal Modem ($50)
So, we have about $900 RETAIL, not including the processor. Moreover, if you axe the SATA for an IDE, and redude the Radeon 9600 to a 9200 (or equivalent GeForce), you get $680 RETAIL.
Quote:
Once you do the math you can see that the mini-tower would probably cost somewhere around $1799.00.
Wow! That G5 processor sure does cost a LOT!
Don't mean to be overly-snarky, but the PC world is already doing this CHEAPER and BETTER. Apple is a competent-enough company that they could contract Shuttle to do the work for them, or set up their own line and still be cost-effective.
Quote:
Yes, that is the cost of the single processor full-sized tower. And it is the reason Apple has not bothered making a mini-tower.
The demands for a headless iMac runs into similar problems. The R&D cost along with the cost of running another assembly line adds so much to the price that it would be about as expensive as the eMac (that is if you are truly asking for a headless iMac and don't try to sneak in expansion slots, see the mini-tower above for that.
And if you are privy to numbers that support this claim, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. But it seems to me that the PC world is already doing the R&D, creating new assembly lines, and making a HEALTHY PROFIT all the same.
I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple couldn't produce a mini/micro tower if the PC world hadn't done it already. As it stands, Shuttle has nearly perfected the process.
Quote:
We all want Apple products to be cheaper, and some of us want them to be more powerful. Fortunately Apple products are slowly fulfilling both desires, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they offer in the next few years.
Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Comments
Originally posted by jade
Actually the reason for the minitower is simple: you can keep the screen. Pretend you are Joe Bob switcher or IT guy.
Many potential switchers have a large supply of monitors, and do not want throw them away. IT departments can not afford to lose the entire computer because the screen goes out.
Joe Bob does not have a large supply of monitors. The average system is replaced all at once, and usually handed down. The logic is simple: Usually, by the time you can get a better machine, you can also get a better monitor and a better printer; and if you're going to hand down a system, no point handing it down without the monitor and the printer, right?
Only geeks and gearheads keep large numbers of monitors around. These are not typical buyers. These are people who take soldering pencils to their motherboards.
As for IT guys, they once refused to buy systems with onboard ethernet, too, because they didn't want to lose the whole computer just because the NIC goes out (NICs die a lot more frequently than monitors do). Well, guess what? You have to search hard to find an enterprise desktop that doesn't have onboard ethernet now. The fact is that an AIO's monitor is replaceable, and the AIO enjoys the advantage that it can be picked up and replaced with another backup very, very easily. All IT guy has to do is give up the idea that he'll be at the user's desk for hours with screws and circuit boards strewn hither and yon, and it's an easy adjustment to make.
All-in-ones are great for people with no hardware investment, but in order for apple to move into the target business markets and hit more switchers... a cheaper tower is necessary. Not everyone can afford the $1800 cost of entry for apple towers.
I think this market is minimal, frankly. Most consumer hardware has a distinct end-of-life anyway. If anything, I'm seeing people replacing their printers before they replace their computers now - inkjets are getting disposable.
It would not have to be the latest and greatest.... and single processors would be an easy differentiator.
Remember that a 1.8GHz G5 is worth $100 in Apple's pricing:
"the g5 cube"
nvidia 5700 video, no firewire 800 or optical audio, 1 pci slot, agp slot, airport extreme slot, no dual display support
$799: 1.6 g5 with combo drive 256/80 no dual display support
So $1200 in savings comes from... what? Maybe $200 less in hardware? Huh?
This is exactly what I was warning against! TALLY UP. Optical audio is pennies! PCI slots? Maybe a couple of bucks (the major cost comes with supporting any at all, so if you're going to have one, might as well have three). AGP? Same as PCI. No dual display support? That's just firmware. We're nowhere near $1200.
If the machine sold at all, it would be because the price would redefine "loss leader." But it's not addressing an especially large market.
Originally posted by Amorph
Joe Bob does not have a large supply of monitors.
Joe Bob is an idiot!!
Originally posted by bunge
The R&D is already done for this product. Apple has motherboards, cases, parts, everything it needs to just lump together a machine. Would it cost more than a PC? Who cares? It's not competing with Dell. It's competing with a high end iMac and a low end PowerMac.
This is the type of poor logic that keeps Apple's market share low. Apple does compete with Dell, as well as Sony, IBM, HP, and many more companies. They sell computers, and Apple sells computers. If the leadership is deluded enough to think that their main competition is themselves then there isn't much hope for the company.
As for "Cannibalizing" current product lines, this shouldn't be a concern as long as Apple has not overextended themselves with models like they did back in the days of the performa. Profit margins and units ordered can be adjusted to keep Apple's overall profit margin steady. The main concern is if there is a large enough market for any 1 design to pay for the R&D, manufacturing and marketing and still turn a profit that meets your business goals. I think that Apple's product line could take advantage of a lower priced "tower" (or whatever) which might have a slightly higher profit margin than the iMac, yet still be lower in price. They may have to lower the number of iMacs built a quarter to do this, but it would allow them to compete with other computer manufacturers in a way that they are not doing today, which makes Apples chance at gaining market share greater.
Originally posted by Amorph
Joe Bob does not have a large supply of monitors. The average system is replaced all at once, and usually handed down.
None of this matters because a purchase is most often based on perceived value, not actual value.
Headless single processor G5 with upgradeable graphics is the key. The fact that you all can't figure out the pricing just goes to show how screwed up the current lineups are.
Originally posted by kraig911
Jade I like your concepts on the what the newer models should be, but don't you think those prices are a little bit low?
Hey I can dream up specs...but I think these are the price points we need..... but you can adjust the specs. If HP and Sony can find a way to fit a Pentium 4, 120gb+ hard drive and decent video and DVD burning in a $999-1099 package....apple should be able to fit it in for $1299 or close to it.
Sony RS420
HP 350N
I mean hard drives are getting cheap....2X256 RAM is cheap...and video cards are finding their way into cheap PCs....the margins are still pretty high. And Apple has a growing software business and high targets for Applecare and other add-ons. The computers do not need to make the bulk of the money any more...Apple is selling services.
PS: my parents are no way big tech geeks, and they have 2 current computers. There is an old 15" CRT in storage, a 19" and !7" CRT in use with the current computers. They like the monitors they have...they do not want to pay the big bucks for an LCD. When my Dad upgrades he will buy a PC...not because he doesn't like Apples, but because he doesn't want to trash hie "expensive for the time screen" It is big enough for him, it does what he needs and he already has space dedicated to it. If there was a cheaper tower he would buy an apple in a heartbeat....
Trust me I work in computer sales.....the only customers who buy a monitor and tower together are the ones without a computer. (or those who don't have an LCD). The rest come in and pick up a tower and maybe a printer. The people buying the all-in-ones: new users and people upgrading old imacs
NOT SWITCHERS!
They do not want to pay $1800 for a new tower! The mini-tower will not cannabilize sales much from imacs, emacs, and powermacs...it will attract a new customer. Admit it, you know a lot of users out there who run out and get the latest/greatest/fastest no matter what the cost. And if you are making your living on the computer you spend what you need to do your job efficiently.
In my lineup pros get dual processors and mini towers and all-in-ones get single processors...that is the differentiator. The free slots and ports are just little things to add the icing on the cake. For prosumers and consumers optical audio and firewire 800 are overkill...as are 2 hard drives in most cases. If you need more than what is availible you move up to the pros and get more.
Over the past few years computing power is surpassing most people's needs....you can edit video on a $500 computer, unimaginable a few years ago....but we all know the Pixar's of the universe aren't moving to lowend computers to do their work. The professional apples have their place there, but Apple cannot only focus on the pros and the old Apple users to reach the agressive targets they have in mind. There is no need for an enterprise class OS X if no one starts to use it.
Originally posted by Amorph
As for IT guys, they once refused to buy systems with onboard ethernet, too, because they didn't want to lose the whole computer just because the NIC goes out (NICs die a lot more frequently than monitors do). Well, guess what? You have to search hard to find an enterprise desktop that doesn't have onboard ethernet now. The fact is that an AIO's monitor is replaceable, and the AIO enjoys the advantage that it can be picked up and replaced with another backup very, very easily. All IT guy has to do is give up the idea that he'll be at the user's desk for hours with screws and circuit boards strewn hither and yon, and it's an easy adjustment to make.
ok so the CD-ROM goes out and so does the screen, or the ethernet card goes out and so does your emac. Sorry I am taking my chances with buying a $20 replacement network card..not sending my emac back to apple for repair. Computers are mission critical in today's environment.
I think this market is minimal, frankly. Most consumer hardware has a distinct end-of-life anyway. If anything, I'm seeing people replacing their printers before they replace their computers now - inkjets are getting disposable.
actually I see a lot of people replace their monitors before their computers.....hence the abundance of suitable monitors. Inkjets don't make money...the ink does so printer makers make money no matter if the printer is old or new..it doesn't matter
Remember that a 1.8GHz G5 is worth $100 in Apple's pricing:
So $1200 in savings comes from... what? Maybe $200 less in hardware? Huh?
This is exactly what I was warning against! TALLY UP. Optical audio is pennies! PCI slots? Maybe a couple of bucks (the major cost comes with supporting any at all, so if you're going to have one, might as well have three). AGP? Same as PCI. No dual display support? That's just firmware. We're nowhere near $1200.
If the machine sold at all, it would be because the price would redefine "loss leader." But it's not addressing an especially large market.
Alright here is my tally of there parts:
Retail Pricing courtesy of Central Computers www.centralcomputers.com
Processor? $250 (based on 2.8 Pentium 4 retail price)
Case: PAC-T01 Aluminum case $135
RAM: PC3200 1X512 $80
Hard drive: 80gb Hitachi $75
Superdrive: Pioneer A06 $160
Video Card: ~$100
Motherboard: ~$150
Keyboard and mouse: $100
OS X: $129
So retail pricing for similar components is $1180. And I can buy this system myself. Apples hardware cost should be cheaper. So theoretical profit on this machine is $120, nearly 10% on a cheap computer.
Now the pricing on the theoretical powermac
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro: ~$300
workstation graphics: additional $500+
PC4000 RAM: 1 x 512: additional $70
optical audio: $170
firewire 800: $85
additional processor $100
160 gb hard drive: $70 additional
250 gb: ~$150 additonal
But the new cost for highest 2 powermacs is $2150. And the cheap one is $1850. So most of the extra cash is used by increased hardware. Keep in mind there are retail prices... so these should be pretty acheivable for apple.
*Profit on the low end 10%
*Profit on the high end 13-28%
*ipod profits 30% (and higher volumes..equivalent to the profit on an all-in-one or cheap computer in dollars, Apple can safely decrease some margins)
Let's pretend apple adds better support for dual processors in the pro software and Adobe and everyone else... those people who need two processors will get them. I meet a lot of people who think the g5 is worthless without 2 processors...those people are not going to buy a single processor minitower no matter how cheap. And there is still a big market for duals. Sorry Amorph I know you are the expert but I do not buy that it isn't possible for apple to make a cheaper computer. The motherboard won't need to be different for my mini-tower...just the case!
With shared componenets a mini tower wil be very feasible.
Originally posted by jade
ok so the CD-ROM goes out and so does the screen, or the ethernet card goes out and so does your emac. Sorry I am taking my chances with buying a $20 replacement network card..not sending my emac back to apple for repair. Computers are mission critical in today's environment.
Yup. And onboard ethernet is standard nonetheless.
Believe me, our IT guy doesn't like it, but there you are.
If you keep spares around, NBD. You can send the faulty one to an Apple Store (they're going to be handling repairs now for rapid turnaround, precisely to accomodate businesses) while the client types away merrily on a backup machine.
actually I see a lot of people replace their monitors before their computers.....hence the abundance of suitable monitors. Inkjets don't make money...the ink does so printer makers make money no matter if the printer is old or new..it doesn't matter
I know that inkjets don't make money. That was just an aside. I'm struggling to think of one person I know who's replaced a monitor within the lifetime of a computer, and failing. They're all PC users, incidentally.
YMMV, clearly.
Sorry Amorph I know you are the expert but I do not buy that it isn't possible for apple to make a cheaper computer. The motherboard won't need to be different for my mini-tower...just the case!
OK, you answered one question (notice, by the way, how far we ended up from $799?), but I posed two: First, you have to actually price the thing out. You did that. Then, you have to account for the fact that a shuttle-style machine with one G5, one PCI slot, AGP, and 1 drive bay would satisfy the needs of a huge bulk of PowerMac customers, cannibalizing the PowerMac and driving the price of the full tower up. (Note my prediction upthread that in 80% or more cases, that 1 PCI slot would remain empty, and the AGP slot would keep its original card. Yes, I'm cynical about that, but the numbers back me up.) This would also put upward pressure on the "minitower" to make up for the lost margin. Apple breaks even operationally. They don't have much room to play with here.
Last, and I haven't mentioned this yet in this thread, you have to ask whether this is a consumer or a professional machine. They're priced differently. Consumer machines are pure expenses, so there's immense downward pressure on prices (enterprise machines are similar, only with even more pressure). Professional machines pay for themselves by definition, so there's a little more leeway margin-wise. Even a machine with a $1000 premium (the top of the line, obviously) can justify the expense in a matter of weeks at the rate a professional bills for work. And this is where you have to hop off the "prosumer" fence if you're Apple and you're trying to make this work. The two markets have different price structures, and you have to pick one or the other (or you can opt for the Cube's "executive toy" price structure, but let's assume that Apple won't do that again...).
Originally posted by bunge
None of this matters because a purchase is most often based on perceived value, not actual value.
And this has... what to do with my point?
Joe Bob doesn't have monitors lying around. If Joe can pawn the old system on somebody else and get a new one, that's nice and convenient and clean, and the printer was probably getting flaky anyway. The retail stores they visit will strongly encourage this, of course, because they make just a bit more from those nice package deals (and even more from the service contracts, of course).
I just advised someone on a new system purchase, incidentally. The eagerness with which they were just going to sweep the whole old, cranky setup away and replace it with all new stuff was almost palpable. Needless to say, they'll be getting an iMac.
Originally posted by Amorph
And this has... what to do with my point?
Joe Bob doesn't have monitors lying around. If Joe can pawn the old system on somebody else and get a new one, that's nice and convenient and clean, and the printer was probably getting flaky anyway. The retail stores they visit will strongly encourage this, of course, because they make just a bit more from those nice package deals (and even more from the service contracts, of course).
I just advised someone on a new system purchase, incidentally. The eagerness with which they were just going to sweep the whole old, cranky setup away and replace it with all new stuff was almost palpable. Needless to say, they'll be getting an iMac.
But for a corporate environment that logic is replaced by the fact that companies DO have monitors laying around, and especially in graphics departments people wish to keep what they have.
We just got 4 dual 2GHz and a dozen 1.8GHz. We never use the PCI slots and will most likely not replace the video card. We did up the RAm to 4GB however. But for the same money we got the dozen 1.8GHz, we could have gotten 20 smaller cube like G5s. While in the end this isn't a significan't difference for Apple (we still use the same budget $$$) it DOES pump their units sold numbers. This is something you can't do for Joe Bob home user. He only gets one machine at a time. More units sold encourage developers to develop for the Mac platform and that is better for the long run.
Originally posted by Amorph
Any "prosumer" model runs into a fairly serious question: What justifies the lower price?
The "prosumer" market is actually two categories: What I call the "broke power user" market, which consists of people (many of them students) trying to get professional work out of consumer goods, and the "loaded consumer" market, which consists of people blowing untold amounts of money on machines that essentially send and receive email and browse the web. So we can come at this problem from two angles: Scaling up consumer hardware and scaling down professional hardware. Since you're asking for the latter, I'll start there.
Respectfully, I don't believe you've accounted for a significant component of the "prosumer" macintosh market: gamers.
With the advent of the modern gaming console (X-Box, PlayStation, etc.), it's easy to discount the need for PC/Mac gaming. But the evolution of video cards from the lowly Rage 128 of only four years ago, and the record number of multiplayer games developed for BOTH platforms affirms the need for a simple machine with powerful, upgradable graphics.
So what we have is a machine that will satisfy the desires of a majority of the PowerMac using population at a substantial discount. But what will it do to the PowerMac? One of the reasons Apple can offer the machines they're offering at the prices they're offering is that they're selling in volume. But - and this is something no "minitower" proponent I've seen is willing to admit, but it's pretty obvious - the "minitower" is designed to cannibalize the PowerMac. Its whole purpose is to offer 80% of the machine at 20% of the price, to borrow an old promise.
Then perhaps the 80%/20% analogy is flawed. In my mind, the purpose of a prosumer Macintosh is to fill a niche that OSX users are willing to pay for.
Also, I might add that a prosumer Macintosh need not look like anything inparticular. Tower, mini-tower, micro-tower, Cube, etc. are all pretty much irrelevant. What Apple creates, people will buy--even if it comes in "flower power" colors.
Can you really price two PCI slots, one drive bay, one CPU and a little bit of aluminum at whatever savings you're hoping to realize? If you can, can you account for the impact on Apple's margins, and what it would do to the PowerMac's prices?
Yes, I absolutely can. I only need look at the (Wintel) PC world for ways in which to produce a fine-looking external case with powerful capabilities. Shuttle does it every day--perfectly.
Moreover, there are a handful of companies that have jumped on the bandwagon to follow in Shuttle's footsteps. Each producing micro-towers that have similar specifications to Shuttle's products.
What would it do to Apple's margins? First off, you might want to take a look at "my" specification at the bottom of this post. Does it look like anything that Apple sells now? If not, I have a hard time believing it's going to cannibalize sales from another "similar" product.
Here are a few guidelines for designing inexpensive hardware that work just as well in actual design as they do from the comfort of your own armchair:
1) Slots and cards are expensive. This applies to CPU cards, PCI cards, and any other kind you can think of.
2) Integration is cheap. The more things you can stuff onto one chip, the cheaper the whole thing is to make.
3) Slots constrain design. You add 1 PCI or AGP slot - just one little one - and you've lost control over how much heat there will be, where it will be coming from, what kind of airflow you have, etc. You will never see something like the iMac or the Cube with "just one open slot". (The Cube had an AGP slot, but to see how upgradable it is, go and read up on how to upgrade it: Essentially, unless you have one of the non-standard cards Apple specifically produced for it, you've got all kinds of interesting work to do.) Also, if you add AGP, you have to support ADC, which requires 130W, which means that you can't slip a small, tailored power supply into the dome of your iMac any more.
While I respect your technical savvy, I think that you're off-base in your assumptions about the impact a single AGP slot has on case design.
Again, Shuttle produces micro-towers and micro-boards that handle AGP, 1394, USB, PCI, (2)3.5", and (1)5.25" components with INTERNAL heat conductors and power supplies around 200-300W.
No offense, but telling me what Apple CAN'T do when their competetors have already done the same thing EN-MASSE does not carry much factual weight.
So, if you want something like a "headless iMac," it's going to have to be like a headless iMac: Heavily integrated and slot-free - only with an external power brick the way the Cube had in order to support whatever arbitrary monitor you decide to attach. If you want a "mini-PowerMac," you're going to have to make real compromises (not "maybe just one slot") to see any meaningful cost reduction, and then you'll have to deal with the consequences for the full-blown model if the result is still what most of the market would be OK with.
All that said, the popularity of the $1299 PowerMac G4 can't be denied (although it can be at least partly explained by the fact that it boots Mac OS 9 - Quark 4.11 just won't die, will it?). But, really, the iMac 17" and 20" models are prosumer machines. They don't have the PC-clone appeal of zillions of bays and slots and things sticking out, but in terms of what they're actually capable of they seem to hold their own.
So, you would consider a computer with an integrated monitor to be a prosumer machine? What about a computer WITHOUT an integrated monitor? Because, if we look at the current Macintosh line, it seems that a consumer can ONLY purchase an Apple machine for GREATER than $1299 if they want to use their own monitor.
Is this a prosumer or consumer price point? Seems to me that it's both, since $1299 is the LOWEST priced (monitorless) machine you can get at EITHER price point. In my opinion, this is a serious marketing flaw.
I'd actually like to see:
* G4 processor
* 512MB Ram
* USB, 1394, LAN, Audio, etc. integrated motherboard
* accessable AGP 4x/8x slot
* nVidia FX5200 64MB or greater video card
* single HD
* single Combo/Superdrive
* OSX
* less than $900
But that's me. I don't manage Apple. I just own a "smurf" G3 tower and some stock.
? PC Card slot, for some expansion capability
? add a seperate Apple flat panel monitor, or third party screen
That would pretty much fit this niche perfectly.
Originally posted by Amorph
And this has... what to do with my point?
Just that even if you replace the hole widget all at once, you don't want to be forced to do that again down the road. Most people buy a new DVD player with that brand new TV, but don't want them combined in case one breaks down first.
I agree that it's almost never a problem, but when making a purchase it is perceived as a potential problem.
By definition the prosumer straddles both consumer and professional needs....
Prosumers: the people who do not make their living with the technology...just like to have stuff that will give them the flexibility to leanr and upgrade their skills to professional level. These are dabbles with a jones for more capable products in case their needs change.
*For the record...the $799 model is also possible...I only priced out the $1299 model using retail pricing. Based on retail cost it should come in around $750. The $1200 is what I could make it for without volume discounts...it is not that expensive for Apple to make. Those costs should really be 25-30% less for Apple.
Again lets look at digital cameras to talk about how the prosumer line fits in
1. the consumer cameras 4.0 and less megapixel point and shoots, under $400 (Bronze)
2. the prosumers: the low end SLRs. 5-8MP with camera bodies and lenses attached. $400-1200 (silver)
3. the pro cameras: separate bodies and lenses $1200 (gold)
The customers who purchase this stuff:
Bronze: I take pictures of my kids and vacations
Silver: this is my hobby and I am taking photography classes. I would like to grow into becoming a better photographer
Gold: This is how I make my money and my career depends on my camera
Typically some of the bronze customers move up to silver, but very few glds go down to silver. The golds know what they need and what tools are necessary to accomplish it.
Now lets look at PDAs
We have the Palm zires and the under $200 PDAs: usualy just calendar and secure digital slot. For $200-400 you might get bluetooth, more memory or wireless. For the $400 plus you get bluetooth, wireless, corporate network accessibility and cameras..... very clear differentialtors.
For apple these the proposed minitowers will fit in at two levels: (in my specs) the $799-1299 price range and will have the following target customers.
1. Enterprise customers
2. People dabbling in the digital video and needing room to grow
3. people who do not like all-in-ones
4. The other 90%
There are a lot of customers like you dad out ther Amorph: they just want one box for their computer....but there also a lot like my Dad. You siad the only people you know with extra monitors
We are not talking about the people upgrading their Windows 98 computers or original imacs. These people can be easily persuaded to get an imac/emac.
Lets face it...if you bought a computer in the last 2-3 years...and your needs are mostly interent and organizing your photos....your computer will hold up for the next 10 years. These are the people upgrading their printers and monitors, not their computers.
So lets take a hypothtical Computer user and a 5 year timeline
year 1: bought new tower, monitor, printer
year 2: I love my computerbut that new program needs more RAM, but I need an all in one printer
year 3: My computer is still pretty good...but those new 21" monitors look good.
Year 4: Look at those new computers...but will I ever watch TV on my computer (insert trendy new feature here) but my hard drive is running low...maybe I will upgrade.
Year 5: Wow that new operating systems looks great, time for a new computer.
See how you end up with extra peripherals. The people who post here: we are the people who upgrade and keep up with the latest stuff and are more likely to buy them.
There are more cutomer profiles thant the consumers and professionals.
1. The low end: first computers, and dedicated email machines
2. The moderate users: computers are well integrated in daily life: email, pictures, burning CDs and DVDs
3. The creative hobby-ist: I email and stuff but I am convering my movies to DV and dabbling into photo-editing, movie making etc.
4. Gamers
5. Businesses: the basic beige box
6. The people who make their living on computers: graphic designers, moviemakers, CAD people, architects etc
Apple is really only hitting two of these categories. I don't think Apple needs to play in the super low end but businesses and moderate users are the ones left out of Apples lineup..and these are also the volume categories. Not all people want all-in-ones...and these are not the best choices for everyone.
Apple has lost a great deal of creative market share to the mid range PCS...... a $999 PC offers more than enough power for a lot of these users.....these are the people that will buy the mini-towers. Very few of the powermac customers will jump ship to a cheaper computer.....but more of the in between people will jump on a mini-tower. The customers I see buy a g5 overwhelmingly will buy one no matter what the cost...the people that Apple is losing now are the fence-sitters...who rarely endo up with a powermac.
Even if 80% of people never use up the PCI slots.....many people will utilize dual processors and firewire 800.
Although gamers can be a great market...apple has no need to pursue it now..............not enough games yet.
I think Apple can sacrifice 5% of powermac customers for 2x as many total units sold.
Apple is not going to come out with any new G4 based machines (and as far as I've been able to tell the G4 processor is not cheaper than the G5), so lets give it tthe folowing spects:
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 2GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
One PCI Slots
One APG slot (Radeon 9600 pro)
56K internal modem
Now let's figure out how much it would cost.
The difference between the full sized and mini towers are: 2 less PCI and memory slots, one less processor slot, and a smaller case. So how much money would that save off of the cost of the full sized tower? Fifty bucks? Lets be generous and say the parts would cost $100 less.
Now before we get all excited about our $100 savings, we have to add in the cost of designing the new case and motherboard, and we must not forget the millions it will cost to run another assembly line for the new mini-tower...
Once you do the math you can see that the mini-tower would probably cost somewhere around $1799.00. Yes, that is the cost of the single processor full-sized tower. And it is the reason Apple has not bothered making a mini-tower.
The demands for a headless iMac runs into similar problems. The R&D cost along with the cost of running another assembly line adds so much to the price that it would be about as expensive as the eMac (that is if you are truly asking for a headless iMac and don't try to sneak in expansion slots, see the mini-tower above for that.
We all want Apple products to be cheaper, and some of us want them to be more powerful. Fortunately Apple products are slowly fulfilling both desires, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they offer in the next few years.
Originally posted by Res
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 2GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
One PCI Slots
One APG slot (Radeon 9600 pro)
56K internal modem
Based on today's RETAIL pricing, these would be approximately:
1) G5 ($?)
2) case, mobo ($300 for Shuttle)
3) RAM ($50)
4) SATA HD ($100)
5) SuperDrive ($200)
6) Radeon 9600 ($200)
7) internal Modem ($50)
So, we have about $900 RETAIL, not including the processor. Moreover, if you axe the SATA for an IDE, and redude the Radeon 9600 to a 9200 (or equivalent GeForce), you get $680 RETAIL.
Once you do the math you can see that the mini-tower would probably cost somewhere around $1799.00.
Wow! That G5 processor sure does cost a LOT!
Don't mean to be overly-snarky, but the PC world is already doing this CHEAPER and BETTER. Apple is a competent-enough company that they could contract Shuttle to do the work for them, or set up their own line and still be cost-effective.
Yes, that is the cost of the single processor full-sized tower. And it is the reason Apple has not bothered making a mini-tower.
The demands for a headless iMac runs into similar problems. The R&D cost along with the cost of running another assembly line adds so much to the price that it would be about as expensive as the eMac (that is if you are truly asking for a headless iMac and don't try to sneak in expansion slots, see the mini-tower above for that.
And if you are privy to numbers that support this claim, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. But it seems to me that the PC world is already doing the R&D, creating new assembly lines, and making a HEALTHY PROFIT all the same.
I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple couldn't produce a mini/micro tower if the PC world hadn't done it already. As it stands, Shuttle has nearly perfected the process.
We all want Apple products to be cheaper, and some of us want them to be more powerful. Fortunately Apple products are slowly fulfilling both desires, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they offer in the next few years.
Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Respectfully,
-Antithesis