USB 2 is also backward-forward compatible. Go ahead and buy a USB 2 device to use with your new computer and it will also work with your old computers (albeit at a slower speed.)
yeah, it's backwards compatible but that means nothing, people don't like paying extra for high-speed they can't use.
USB2.0 should be integrated. As much as I hate this multi-standard BS and Intel for forcing it on the market when their was a perfectly good (in fact superior) standard already in wide adoption (for cameras), they pushed it nonetheless and USB2.0 is running away with evert facet of Non-Video affordable consumer interconnect.
Not good to be left out of that.
Apple, either give us USB2.0 or someone, for the love of God, make a cheap in-line USB2.0 to firewire bridge.
480-400 Mbps is a small enough difference that a decent bridge would see no sustained difference. In fact, given what we know about USB2.0, it might run faster bridged over firewire (without interference from other USB devices!)
USB2 is running away with the game. Scanners, printers, optical drives, external HDD's, MP3 players, outboard sound cards, and digital still cameras will all be on USB 2.0 in greater numbers and with lower prices.
It's pulling ahead when it should have died mnostly because manufacturers can reach a much wider base with ONE product/port. They get all the USB1.1 customers and USB2 customers without having to make 2 versions or a doubly connective version of the same product.
I wish it would just go away, but it won't, so if you want to have the best seletion of consumer periphs, you need it.
<strong>USB2 is running away with the game. Scanners, printers, optical drives, external HDD's, MP3 players, outboard sound cards, and digital still cameras will all be on USB 2.0 in greater numbers and with lower prices.
It's pulling ahead when it should have died mnostly because manufacturers can reach a much wider base with ONE product/port. They get all the USB1.1 customers and USB2 customers without having to make 2 versions or a doubly connective version of the same product.
I wish it would just go away, but it won't, so if you want to have the best seletion of consumer periphs, you need it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's always firewire cases, and bare internal drives. That should (in most cases) be about the same (or slightly less) cost.
I don't know that I agree that USB2 is "running away with it". I don't really see that many USB2 products, or at least no more than FireWire (yet, that is). Maybe I'm looking at the wrong products. Or maybe it's just because I don't tend to frequent PC-centric stores very often.
As an aside, I do agree that USB2 will probably win out, 'cause it's Intel's baby. The same Intel that makes, what, 70%+ of the CPU market and a big chunk of the in-use chipsets. When they decide to support something, then that's a lot of market leverage. And, as we've seen in the past, they tend to not support things they have no control over.....
<strong>I don't know that I agree that USB2 is "running away with it". I don't really see that many USB2 products, or at least no more than FireWire (yet, that is).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahah Intel motherboards have lost their luster .
The i820 Debacle and the RDRAM debacle eroded Intels marketshare for motherboards. I'm most likely going to use a nForce2 Mobo for my next PC...and it has SHAZAM...USB2 and Firewire like a good Mobo is supposed to.
Canon and other manufacturers already have USB on some models to transfer stills but if they try to move to USB only then that model will be stricken from my list as potential cameras.
Matsu's right. USB2 has/will take over. It's up to Apple and other companies to deliver products that utilize the advanced features that FW has over USB ala iPod.
Apple didn't by Zayante because their name was cool.
I don't know if they even need a "tower" for a low end machine, just make a machine that is all in one, has upgradable graphics, and a couple pci slots.
That would work for me. I'd like to have a mac with better graphics card than geforce2mx and the option to upgrade that down the road. Also would like to be able to pop in a 5.1 audio card, or video capture card.
Oh ya, and apple coputers don't really need very many pci slots maybe just 2. Most expandability can be done through firewire. You just have to pay extra for the devices.
Plus it would be cool if you could have 2 internal harddrives.
Maybe make the thing look like a minature xserve and sell it for $1199
2 hard drive bays
2 pci
1 agp
867/933mhz processor
half the size of the xserve
top of the thing is like the side of a powermac case, can easily lift up and expand.
1g 1.5g of ram max
I think that could be doable, right now i don't know if i want to buy an emac or a tower, the price of an emac is really nice for what you get, but i kind of want expandability and don't know how much i would miss it...
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.
There is a governing "standards" board that implements all of this. Even if the licensing were not under this board, it still wouldn't be up to Apple - Firewire was developed in co-operation with Sony.
That seems to be a problem with much of Apple's research - the results often become standards, and they make little or nothing off of them at that point, even tho' they spent buckets of money developing.
As for the disparate ages of the markets, my earlier comment still stands - Intel essentially owns the market. This means when they develop a product, they can implement it ASAP, without waiting for acceptance from anyone else. Everybody else follows 'cause they can't afford not to.
Apple can't do that. The market is too small, and, as Mac users, we bitched for years about Apple using proprietory tech that was often better/faster but far more expensive. This is the real reason that Apple implements older PC technologies in its' machines, IMO. You can't be bleeding edge if your users won't accept it 'cause it costs too much. Remember the good old days, when we had to pay 2-3 times as much for a SCSI drive, or non-industry standard RAM?
People who want apple to do "this and that" are doing it for the greed of themselves, not for the good of Apple.
The computer economy isn't in the best shape right now. A few jabs and swipes like the "switch campaign" is one thing, all out war is another. You might gain a lot of territory, but you would lose a of resources and in all reality won't be able to secure it.
Also,
In business there is one very classic rule. Don't run a price war unless it's the last option.
Let Apple do what it feels it's best, you vote with your money, not with your half-baked advice.
<strong>People who want apple to do "this and that" are doing it for the greed of themselves, not for the good of Apple.
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're Kuku!
Actually, I just think you're off base. I don't think Apple should get in a "price war" with Wintel machines. There is a gap in their own pricing though, and they could fill it.
That's fine, as long as I'm not the one trying to give indirect advice to Apple Co. They have their own people for that.
[quote]
I don't think Apple should get in a "price war" with Wintel machines. There is a gap in their own pricing though, and they could fill it.
<hr></blockquote>
And your reason being? Not many people know the amount of money the cost of production is. Nor do many people know the statistics of what people will buy.
[quote]
And keep their high margins.
<hr></blockquote>
I'll save myself the trouble of thinking up a proper rebutal as a poster above me already clearly explained why this would not be true.
[quote]
And improve customer satisfaction.
<hr></blockquote>
Customer satisfaction = supplier disatisfaction. Since that can't happen they meet in the middle.
[quote]
And increase their market share.
<hr></blockquote>
That's an easy thing to do. Can they defend it afterwards.
[quote]
And their revenues.
<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't say anything about profits.
[quote]
And stock price.
<hr></blockquote>
That, you vote with your money. SO yes, that actually will apply...until you see them in red.
Since Apple's been stuck at 5% for X number of years, I'd guess that their "people" aren't infallible. I'd also guess that the people here, while also are not infallible, are here to discuss how Apple could improve.
I do know that about 90% of the people will buy a machine that costs less than $1699. It's just got Windows instead of the Mac OS.
Apple can price a tower and pick a margin. I don't think anyone is asking for a $699 Mac. If you think Apple couldn't produce a profitable $1200 tower, you're deluding yourself.
I'm not sure that customer satisfaction = distributer dissatisfaction. If anything, a happy customer is happy because they bought something they like. A satisfied distributer is satisfied because he's sold his inventory.
If they make a profitable $1200 tower, yes they can defend their increase in market share. Yes their increased revenue would be an increase in profit.
The whole argument seems to hinge on Apple's ability to create a (decent) low cost tower with high margins. Again, I don't think anyone is seriously asking for a $699 tower. $1200 is almost double that, and there's definitely some margin between the two.
<strong>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was actually part of my point. You can't make "FireWire" a standard if the PC worlf knows it unedr IEEE-1394, since most users who might know the FireWire brand can't really help themselves with a device that supports IEEsumptin.
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't anybody under the impression that USB and FireWire will most probably satisfy different needs/uses? Honestly, I can't see Canon (for example) starting to replace FW with USB on its line of digital comcorders... FW isn't as widespread/generalized as USB, that's for sure, but I believe it has a strong position in the video market, one which USB isn't likely to come close to anytime soon.
This debate reminds me of old things, like "Apple will never implement Bluetooth because they already have Airport": silly argument, the two standards aren't really competing for the same market spot.
<strong>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct. IIRC though, now the name "FireWire" is free too--once you had to pay a small fee to Apple to use it. Proof of this? Sorry, I can't remember, I read it somewhere some months ago. But what I did notice is that now Tom's Hardware calls it by the "FireWire" name, putting in parethesis the 1394 stuff.
Could this be the beginning of a wider acceptance in the PC world? I certainly hope so...
<strong>People who want apple to do "this and that" are doing it for the greed of themselves, not for the good of Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what?
Is Apple like a bum asking for our change? Oh sure, why don't we all give a couple of bucks so that the poor guys in Cupertino can have a warm supper, every once in a while?
I happen to own 0% in Apple stock, but I do own 100% of myself, so obviously I care more of my own good than Apple's. As most mentally sane people do. Otherwise we'd all be happy spending 5k+ on the latest Apple carp.
Apple's good vs. my own... Oh please, gimme a break--you're kiddin', ain't you?
The whole argument seems to hinge on Apple's ability to create a (decent) low cost tower with high margins. Again, I don't think anyone is seriously asking for a $699 tower. $1200 is almost double that, and there's definitely some margin between the two.
<hr></blockquote>
That $699 quote is from the PC side, which depends on ecconomies of scale. Macs do not play by those rules. It's also why so many companies died out. When things go sour, they had nothing to fall back on.
Profit margins are not the same.
As I've tried to say, posters above have already proven this is exactly the problem.
I'll try to summerize.
Apple has used the unified mobo design, mainly as a cost cutting measure. I.E. make in buke.
So no, they will not be making a old and new models just for a buget tower like someone had suggested. So we're talking souped down model cost here. Not QSs.
Component costs. Even without knowing what apple's contracts are we know apple obviously loses some profits when people tries to do the minimum. Stated I think in April-02 when they took outthose configs at the apple store.
Given this, this is exactly why high profit margins are unlikely. One has a fix cost of a mobo+case+stuff, and can only cut minor marginal costs from lesser specs. Not a lot to work with.
Now let's analyis if apple can even make a decent profit dispite that.
First we have to guess how big the gap is. It's between the e-mac/imac and the PMs. let say it takes 20% away from those potential customers. I.E. People that wanted to buy eMac/iMac/PM but then bought this fictional "budget tower".
The imacs/emacs aren't that big of a problem since as a poster above has mentioned, they barely break even given the information given from CFO speeches.
The PMs however... will lose 10% of their customer base.
So let's do the theortical numbers. if apple only get's half the profit margins of the PMs as opposed to this "buget tower" then you would need to get 20% "switchers" alone to break even.
This is not including any extra costs incured such as extra workers for productions/packagings/ads/sales reps/ etc.
And to top it off, trying this in a market that's SHRINKING. I.E people not buying new computers at ALL.
As also mentioned, apply already has an old model educational deal similar to this. and Retailers try to clear out old models with price cuts.
The chances of this making a success requires a lot of praying with many things that can go sour.
As a disclaimer, this is off the top of my head and not ment for anything more then rambling. Point out any faults if you want.
[quote]
I'm not sure that customer satisfaction = distributer dissatisfaction. If anything, a happy customer is happy because they bought something they like. A satisfied distributer is satisfied because he's sold his inventory.
<hr></blockquote>
Somehow I just knew someone would try to make it sound humble.
You know what will make a customer happier, if they get service for FREE. You know what will make a distributer happier, if they get payment for NOTHING. I don't think I have to explain further. This concept was concieved before I was borned.
Comments
USB2.0 should be integrated. As much as I hate this multi-standard BS and Intel for forcing it on the market when their was a perfectly good (in fact superior) standard already in wide adoption (for cameras), they pushed it nonetheless and USB2.0 is running away with evert facet of Non-Video affordable consumer interconnect.
Not good to be left out of that.
Apple, either give us USB2.0 or someone, for the love of God, make a cheap in-line USB2.0 to firewire bridge.
480-400 Mbps is a small enough difference that a decent bridge would see no sustained difference. In fact, given what we know about USB2.0, it might run faster bridged over firewire (without interference from other USB devices!)
The price delta isn't that high between FW and USB2 products.
It's pulling ahead when it should have died mnostly because manufacturers can reach a much wider base with ONE product/port. They get all the USB1.1 customers and USB2 customers without having to make 2 versions or a doubly connective version of the same product.
I wish it would just go away, but it won't, so if you want to have the best seletion of consumer periphs, you need it.
<strong>USB2 is running away with the game. Scanners, printers, optical drives, external HDD's, MP3 players, outboard sound cards, and digital still cameras will all be on USB 2.0 in greater numbers and with lower prices.
It's pulling ahead when it should have died mnostly because manufacturers can reach a much wider base with ONE product/port. They get all the USB1.1 customers and USB2 customers without having to make 2 versions or a doubly connective version of the same product.
I wish it would just go away, but it won't, so if you want to have the best seletion of consumer periphs, you need it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's always firewire cases, and bare internal drives. That should (in most cases) be about the same (or slightly less) cost.
I don't know that I agree that USB2 is "running away with it". I don't really see that many USB2 products, or at least no more than FireWire (yet, that is). Maybe I'm looking at the wrong products. Or maybe it's just because I don't tend to frequent PC-centric stores very often.
As an aside, I do agree that USB2 will probably win out, 'cause it's Intel's baby. The same Intel that makes, what, 70%+ of the CPU market and a big chunk of the in-use chipsets. When they decide to support something, then that's a lot of market leverage. And, as we've seen in the past, they tend to not support things they have no control over.....
<strong>I don't know that I agree that USB2 is "running away with it". I don't really see that many USB2 products, or at least no more than FireWire (yet, that is).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?
<strong>
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.
<strong>
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahah Intel motherboards have lost their luster .
The i820 Debacle and the RDRAM debacle eroded Intels marketshare for motherboards. I'm most likely going to use a nForce2 Mobo for my next PC...and it has SHAZAM...USB2 and Firewire like a good Mobo is supposed to.
Canon and other manufacturers already have USB on some models to transfer stills but if they try to move to USB only then that model will be stricken from my list as potential cameras.
Matsu's right. USB2 has/will take over. It's up to Apple and other companies to deliver products that utilize the advanced features that FW has over USB ala iPod.
Apple didn't by Zayante because their name was cool.
That would work for me. I'd like to have a mac with better graphics card than geforce2mx and the option to upgrade that down the road. Also would like to be able to pop in a 5.1 audio card, or video capture card.
Oh ya, and apple coputers don't really need very many pci slots maybe just 2. Most expandability can be done through firewire. You just have to pay extra for the devices.
Plus it would be cool if you could have 2 internal harddrives.
Maybe make the thing look like a minature xserve and sell it for $1199
2 hard drive bays
2 pci
1 agp
867/933mhz processor
half the size of the xserve
top of the thing is like the side of a powermac case, can easily lift up and expand.
1g 1.5g of ram max
I think that could be doable, right now i don't know if i want to buy an emac or a tower, the price of an emac is really nice for what you get, but i kind of want expandability and don't know how much i would miss it...
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: MicrosoftOsXp ]</p>
<strong>
Looking at how old FireWire is, and how old USB2 is and comparing the marketshare.. I think Apple ought to give away cheap FireWire licences to gain FW marketshare - or is the cashflow they have with licensing FW that huge now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.
There is a governing "standards" board that implements all of this. Even if the licensing were not under this board, it still wouldn't be up to Apple - Firewire was developed in co-operation with Sony.
That seems to be a problem with much of Apple's research - the results often become standards, and they make little or nothing off of them at that point, even tho' they spent buckets of money developing.
As for the disparate ages of the markets, my earlier comment still stands - Intel essentially owns the market. This means when they develop a product, they can implement it ASAP, without waiting for acceptance from anyone else. Everybody else follows 'cause they can't afford not to.
Apple can't do that. The market is too small, and, as Mac users, we bitched for years about Apple using proprietory tech that was often better/faster but far more expensive. This is the real reason that Apple implements older PC technologies in its' machines, IMO. You can't be bleeding edge if your users won't accept it 'cause it costs too much. Remember the good old days, when we had to pay 2-3 times as much for a SCSI drive, or non-industry standard RAM?
The computer economy isn't in the best shape right now. A few jabs and swipes like the "switch campaign" is one thing, all out war is another. You might gain a lot of territory, but you would lose a of resources and in all reality won't be able to secure it.
Also,
In business there is one very classic rule. Don't run a price war unless it's the last option.
Let Apple do what it feels it's best, you vote with your money, not with your half-baked advice.
~Kuku
<strong>People who want apple to do "this and that" are doing it for the greed of themselves, not for the good of Apple.
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're Kuku!
Actually, I just think you're off base. I don't think Apple should get in a "price war" with Wintel machines. There is a gap in their own pricing though, and they could fill it.
And keep their high margins.
And improve customer satisfaction.
And increase their market share.
And their revenues.
And stock price.
You're Kuku!
<hr></blockquote>
Yes I am.
[quote]
Actually, I just think you're off base.
<hr></blockquote>
That's fine, as long as I'm not the one trying to give indirect advice to Apple Co. They have their own people for that.
[quote]
I don't think Apple should get in a "price war" with Wintel machines. There is a gap in their own pricing though, and they could fill it.
<hr></blockquote>
And your reason being? Not many people know the amount of money the cost of production is. Nor do many people know the statistics of what people will buy.
[quote]
And keep their high margins.
<hr></blockquote>
I'll save myself the trouble of thinking up a proper rebutal as a poster above me already clearly explained why this would not be true.
[quote]
And improve customer satisfaction.
<hr></blockquote>
Customer satisfaction = supplier disatisfaction. Since that can't happen they meet in the middle.
[quote]
And increase their market share.
<hr></blockquote>
That's an easy thing to do. Can they defend it afterwards.
[quote]
And their revenues.
<hr></blockquote>
That doesn't say anything about profits.
[quote]
And stock price.
<hr></blockquote>
That, you vote with your money. SO yes, that actually will apply...until you see them in red.
~Kuku
<strong>
~Kuku</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since Apple's been stuck at 5% for X number of years, I'd guess that their "people" aren't infallible. I'd also guess that the people here, while also are not infallible, are here to discuss how Apple could improve.
I do know that about 90% of the people will buy a machine that costs less than $1699. It's just got Windows instead of the Mac OS.
Apple can price a tower and pick a margin. I don't think anyone is asking for a $699 Mac. If you think Apple couldn't produce a profitable $1200 tower, you're deluding yourself.
I'm not sure that customer satisfaction = distributer dissatisfaction. If anything, a happy customer is happy because they bought something they like. A satisfied distributer is satisfied because he's sold his inventory.
If they make a profitable $1200 tower, yes they can defend their increase in market share. Yes their increased revenue would be an increase in profit.
The whole argument seems to hinge on Apple's ability to create a (decent) low cost tower with high margins. Again, I don't think anyone is seriously asking for a $699 tower. $1200 is almost double that, and there's definitely some margin between the two.
<strong>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was actually part of my point. You can't make "FireWire" a standard if the PC worlf knows it unedr IEEE-1394, since most users who might know the FireWire brand can't really help themselves with a device that supports IEEsumptin.
<strong>
Too little too late. Intel has dropped Firewire from their motherboards for obvious reasons. The Wintel world is going to make it as difficult as possible to use Firewire while doing everything else they can to undermine it with USB2.
We'll all know we're in trouble with the first digital cameras (or someone forbid camcorder) arrive with USB2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't anybody under the impression that USB and FireWire will most probably satisfy different needs/uses? Honestly, I can't see Canon (for example) starting to replace FW with USB on its line of digital comcorders... FW isn't as widespread/generalized as USB, that's for sure, but I believe it has a strong position in the video market, one which USB isn't likely to come close to anytime soon.
This debate reminds me of old things, like "Apple will never implement Bluetooth because they already have Airport": silly argument, the two standards aren't really competing for the same market spot.
IMHO.
ZoSo
<strong>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that licensing of IEEE-1394 had very little (if anything) to do with Apple. As far as I know, the only time Apple makes any money is when the Firewire? name itself gets used - thus the reason that most of the PC world calls it IEEE-1394, clumsy tho' it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct. IIRC though, now the name "FireWire" is free too--once you had to pay a small fee to Apple to use it. Proof of this? Sorry, I can't remember, I read it somewhere some months ago. But what I did notice is that now Tom's Hardware calls it by the "FireWire" name, putting in parethesis the 1394 stuff.
Could this be the beginning of a wider acceptance in the PC world? I certainly hope so...
ZoSo
<strong>People who want apple to do "this and that" are doing it for the greed of themselves, not for the good of Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what?
Is Apple like a bum asking for our change? Oh sure, why don't we all give a couple of bucks so that the poor guys in Cupertino can have a warm supper, every once in a while?
I happen to own 0% in Apple stock, but I do own 100% of myself, so obviously I care more of my own good than Apple's. As most mentally sane people do. Otherwise we'd all be happy spending 5k+ on the latest Apple carp.
Apple's good vs. my own... Oh please, gimme a break--you're kiddin', ain't you?
Sheesh...
ZoSo
<strong>Apple's good vs. my own... Oh please, gimme a break--you're kiddin', ain't you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<psychotic voice, waving hands like wild>
JUST WHAT KIND OF APPLE FAN ARE YOU!?!
</psychotic voice, waving hands like wild>
The whole argument seems to hinge on Apple's ability to create a (decent) low cost tower with high margins. Again, I don't think anyone is seriously asking for a $699 tower. $1200 is almost double that, and there's definitely some margin between the two.
<hr></blockquote>
That $699 quote is from the PC side, which depends on ecconomies of scale. Macs do not play by those rules. It's also why so many companies died out. When things go sour, they had nothing to fall back on.
Profit margins are not the same.
As I've tried to say, posters above have already proven this is exactly the problem.
I'll try to summerize.
Apple has used the unified mobo design, mainly as a cost cutting measure. I.E. make in buke.
So no, they will not be making a old and new models just for a buget tower like someone had suggested. So we're talking souped down model cost here. Not QSs.
Component costs. Even without knowing what apple's contracts are we know apple obviously loses some profits when people tries to do the minimum. Stated I think in April-02 when they took outthose configs at the apple store.
Given this, this is exactly why high profit margins are unlikely. One has a fix cost of a mobo+case+stuff, and can only cut minor marginal costs from lesser specs. Not a lot to work with.
Now let's analyis if apple can even make a decent profit dispite that.
First we have to guess how big the gap is. It's between the e-mac/imac and the PMs. let say it takes 20% away from those potential customers. I.E. People that wanted to buy eMac/iMac/PM but then bought this fictional "budget tower".
The imacs/emacs aren't that big of a problem since as a poster above has mentioned, they barely break even given the information given from CFO speeches.
The PMs however... will lose 10% of their customer base.
So let's do the theortical numbers. if apple only get's half the profit margins of the PMs as opposed to this "buget tower" then you would need to get 20% "switchers" alone to break even.
This is not including any extra costs incured such as extra workers for productions/packagings/ads/sales reps/ etc.
And to top it off, trying this in a market that's SHRINKING. I.E people not buying new computers at ALL.
As also mentioned, apply already has an old model educational deal similar to this. and Retailers try to clear out old models with price cuts.
The chances of this making a success requires a lot of praying with many things that can go sour.
As a disclaimer, this is off the top of my head and not ment for anything more then rambling. Point out any faults if you want.
[quote]
I'm not sure that customer satisfaction = distributer dissatisfaction. If anything, a happy customer is happy because they bought something they like. A satisfied distributer is satisfied because he's sold his inventory.
<hr></blockquote>
Somehow I just knew someone would try to make it sound humble.
You know what will make a customer happier, if they get service for FREE. You know what will make a distributer happier, if they get payment for NOTHING. I don't think I have to explain further. This concept was concieved before I was borned.
~Kuku
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Kuku ]</p>