This debate has raged since I started reading this forum. It appears under various banners:
?circa 1999: How about a 17" iMac?
?circa 2000: How about a cheaper Cube?
(aka headless iMac)
?circa 2001: How about a pro-sumer Mac?
?now: How about a mid-tower?
By listing these crusades I'm not being flip about this question. It's personally important to me--and to the Mac community in general I feel. People get really hot about it. Remember the reaction at the price of the cube? Ouch!
More calm heads, like Amorph--he always comments on these threads, intelligently btw--pointed out the Apple is a company. It needs to make $ and there are economic reasons for what we perceive as a lack of choice in the middle.
For me, I waited MUCH longer to buy a computer from Apple till the education market had a 733 Power Mac for $1202. Much longer was 2 years but computer years are like dog years; 1 yr = 7 yrs. I always suggested that when Apple upgrades the Power Macs, that they leave a tower from the last version and just chop off $200. But is that good for them?
(BTW, they dont always offer a cheaper model when they upgrade)
We think it would help market share. Apple thinks it would just cut profits margins and the bottom line. Thats the debate. Would a prosumer machine get enough new buyers to compensate for a reduction in Power sales?
Nobody knows but Im thinking more that a mid-level machine might be worth the gamble. Market share needs to increase. Plus, the strategy of not meeting a product need to "force" customers to buy a more expensive Power Mac....I dont know...seems ok in the short run but in the long run it could alienate a lot of buyers. Especially since the Power Macs are not so powerful these days. Its the OS that is the attraction and we need more people using our new OSX.
After writing all this, I realize that if it hasn't happened now, it probably never will!
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's maintained a 5% marketshare in a period of intense growth in the industry. That involved huge increases in unit sales. With a sub-par OS, hardware that's only above par in niches, and savvy introductions of technologies people actually want. This is the spot for the half baked car analogies. The only concern _marketshare_ wise for Apple, is that developers bail. And that's half-addressed by the open source aspects, and half addressed by the sheer coolness factor of Cocoa -> not happening any time soon.
Now we have the foundations of a great OS, and the furnishings are getting to par. The whole point of switching OSes is just now being realized - little things can be fixed fast without reengineering everything in the basement.
All we're really looking for is respectable hardware.
A budget tower would make Apple's price/performance look much better for some people. The question is, how many? The iMac performance and the budget tower performace would be pretty darn similar (once that second CPU is pulled). And the main difference would come down to the upgradability of the graphics card. Apple is no longer a big enough piece of the market to sell two devices to essentially an overlapping market.
Someone needs to say it, but most are too afraid. The flat panel iMac is a mistake. It needs to be removed. It is screwing up the whole lineup. The lineup should be:
eMac-- priced to move.
reborn Cube-- for consumers who want limited expandability and the ability to add on a flat panel, with a touch of class.
Tower-- for the power user, but they also need to extend the low end. The low end tower should have similar CPU, RAM, and HD specs as the high end eMac. The reborn Cube should span from the mid eMac to the mid Powermac.
the motto: price, style, performance
Then they need to do the same thing for the portables. iBook is basically fine, on track. Powerbook will have to be split-- one stays slim, light, and elegant for the business folk. The other will be bigger, hotter, more power hungry and more powerful for the power user on the road.
Charge reasonable prices for everything. See, you only have to worry about product pricing cannibalism when your products are unbalanced.
I don't know. This makes sense to me. This is where I thought Apple was going when we first heard rumors about the Cube. But then they priced it too high. Then the new iMac: I don't know, I just don't understand that product. I know some people think it is cool looking, but it just seems like they gave up everything just to make a computer that looks like a sunflower.
If anything needs to be eliminate from the product matrix it's the eMac. The new iMac is a much better design and once LCD prices fall again, the need for an eMac will become deminished.
I only expect the eMac and the old iMac to be around for another year before lower component costs allow Apple to replace both with the new iMac.
The eMac is simply "stop-gap" until LCD prices fall to where Apple can offer 15-inch iMacs for $999 and possibly lower.
<strong>I cant buy it, I dont qualify. And its not bieng advertised to the general public.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A QS 800 will run you $1200, the same price Apple sells the low-end Edu tower for. Simply because you can't buy a 'budget' tower direct from Apple doesn't mean you can't buy an Apple tower on a budget.
You miss the point. The QS 800 is a fine price, but its an end of line sell out. When they are gone that is it.
On top of that, new users ( switchers ) wont see it at powermax, they are going to go into a shop.
I think that the new iMac is a mistake. Any cheap monitor less machine that Apple made is going to compete with it, and I think that will leave it being sold to users who value its style over the flexibility of a cheap tower. It would be another cube debacle.
Lots of people have said that it doenst have to be a tower, but one of Apple problems is achieving economies of scale. Selling twice as many towers would reduce the manufacturing costs on all towers ( for case, m board, power supply etc ) and raise margins across the board for those machines. On top of that, fixed costs - R&D for the tower - gets amortised across a larger number of machines, once again increasing margins.
Apple already have the machine, its the QS 800 for education. They need to make that a premanent feature of the line up, and keep it at the same price ( it should move to the new case and motherboard, and probably 867 ).
Its not going to happen tho', because it would be a blow to Job's ego, and that cant be allowed to happen. I dont think people really want the iMac, they just settle for it because there is no other choice.
The eMac is stopgap, but I think for the reason that education markets just didnt want the new iMac. Its going to stay around for a while.
<strong>for someone looking to spend $1100 or under on a tower, I think it is better to find a good used once top-of-the-line system than to buy a budget tower (which apple does not offer). for $1100, anyone could probably nab at least a dual 500...someone needing real power probably shouldn't be looking for budget tower anyhow.
staying behind the curve is pretty much my motto for all consumer computer purchases though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When it comes to Apple towers, you have no choice BUT to stay behind the curve!
<strong>Someone needs to say it, but most are too afraid. The flat panel iMac is a mistake. It needs to be removed. It is screwing up the whole lineup. The lineup should be:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I basically agree - but I think what you'll see is the iMac price creep down very slowly. The 'coolness factor' of the LCDs pretty much dictates that direction for Apple as a whole, they just started too early and put out an overpricecs iMac.
With the original iMac, Apple was doing _very_ well with the pricing. By having a sub-1000 unit, you got people into the store. After studying the specs, people generally choose the 1200 or 1400 model. But if Apple'd dropped the 999 model, those same people wouldn't have even been in the store! It is counter-intuitive for the non-low-end box to outsell the low end box, but the least capable iMac was (I seem to recall) third out of the four lines in sales.
<strong>I basically agree - but I think what you'll see is the iMac price creep down very slowly. The 'coolness factor' of the LCDs pretty much dictates that direction for Apple as a whole, they just started too early and put out an overpricecs iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True enough.
[quote]<strong>With the original iMac, Apple was doing _very_ well with the pricing. By having a sub-1000 unit, you got people into the store. After studying the specs, people generally choose the 1200 or 1400 model. But if Apple'd dropped the 999 model, those same people wouldn't have even been in the store! It is counter-intuitive for the non-low-end box to outsell the low end box, but the least capable iMac was (I seem to recall) third out of the four lines in sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."
It makes sense, in a way. You don't buy a washing machine because it's $399. You buy it for what it can do. If you can get what you want for $399, great. If you can't, well, it might be a few hundred bucks more to get what you want, but then you have what you want.
I expect the LCD iMac to drift down to about $999 eventually, as component prices allow. But that model will never be the bestseller.
I heard a rumor from a good source that Apple is going to come out with a consumer tower for Christmas. Basically a headless eMac specs wise. If they actually go through with it, who knows? But its definitely been discussed at Apple. I suggest we pound them with emails to reiterate what a great idea that would be........................
<strong>I heard a rumor from a good source that Apple is going to come out with a consumer tower for Christmas. Basically a headless eMac specs wise. If they actually go through with it, who knows? But its definitely been discussed at Apple. I suggest we pound them with emails to reiterate what a great idea that would be........................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey! What the hell ever happened to keeping the product matrix simple! Just because DELL maintains 18 different computer lines and is the number one computer maker doesn't mean Apple should follow suite.
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't this truism hold true for Powermacs as well? I think this is one great big argument in favor of a "budget tower" if I've ever seen one.
I do feel the iMac will drift to the magic £999 mark and lower.
The eMac was kind of muted by Apple as a stop gap. Apple themselves acknowledged the panel LCD price problems.
The eMac is probably a good idea. I'd like to see it go lower in price, replace the crt G3 iMac and become the Mac that is priced to shift. Something they didn't quite achieve with the original G3 iMac but looked as though they were nearly going to at one point. (Wasn't Jobs himself quoted as saying he'd love to see a £299 iMac? I'd a bought one for that... )
I'm sure Apple's intentions for the LCD iMac were to replace the G3 iMac's pricepoints. Or slightly above. But they're way above! I'd like to see two LCD iMacs below a K! A couple just above.
Sorry, but £1,645 for a very limited expandable computer isn't on. Maybe £1,395 tops.
I'd like to see the eMac at £795 or less for two models. £999 ish for superdrive model.
As for a budget tower...I think it's essential to boost the flagging powerMac sales. Many people won't stomach £1,350 before they can get an expandable computer. It's ridiculous. Apple's business model is too rigid.
In x86 land...you can get expandable computers at virtually all price points. I'm a sure there are Switchers who balk at Apple's tower prices and think the iMac and co' are 'cute' but....BUT!!! Add to that the snail pace of performance updates...and...well...that's another thread...I guess.
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The basic argument starts with the supply/demand curve and the thinking that goes with it. Cheaper = sells more! But, when you start varying the features, it just doesn't work that way. (And then we have the PC users arguing about all sorts of things that just don't apply... because no PC has the features we wanted.)
But... that does seem counter-intuitive. If you make the comment 'cheap things sell more', people will say 'Duh!'. If you make the comment '2 products that differ by only one minor feature are priced $100 apart, which one sells more?'... Much more thinking goes on . It is a truism in sales, I could grant that - but it is not something that I would have said _before_ I took a class in marketing. Class = learned behavior.
<strong>Shouldn't this truism hold true for Powermacs as well? I think this is one great big argument in favor of a "budget tower" if I've ever seen one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only if you assume that Apple is marketing their towers at consumers.
They aren't.
The towers are their workstations, and the people who buy them tend not to fuss over a few hundred dollars, because that's, oh, a few hours of work; maybe a day's worth.
I work for a nonprofit agency, and the Dell I have to deal with cost a whole lot more than $1699. They didn't even look at the low end. Businesses (including organizations like mine) and consumers have different buying habits, different needs, different options, etc. Generally, they figure out what they want in advance, send out bids, and go with the most attractive one. Features first, then price.
Consumers, on the other hand, actually interact one on one with salespeople, and they're what makes the old practice of advertizing a loss leader and selling a more expensive model possible.
There's another bit of pricing psychology at work here that people are missing (especially the ones pointing at $699 price tags): Consumers look at price as an equivalent for the manufacturer's estimated value of the product - its confidence in the product, if you will. Inexpensive is fine, but cheap telegraphs desperation, and implies shoddy workmanship and cut corners. You don't want to go there, especially not if you have a brand like Apple's. That's why, IMO, old models at clearance prices are better than new models at low retail prices.
The real way to sell cheap, if you want to do it, is to do what Pearl did with their drumsets: Set the retail prices as high as, or higher than, boutique names like Gretsch (implying similar quality) and then let dealers sell them for half price or less (and, for that matter, sell direct to your customers for half price or less). Then you get the positive glow of a high retail price, the popularity of the low selling price, and the glee any consumer gets when buying a brand new, expensive thing at 50% off. That worked so well for Pearl that they're now the world's largest drumset manufacturer by a margin, and they actually produce drumsets that are on par with the likes of Gretsch.
There's another bit of pricing psychology at work here that people are missing (especially the ones pointing at $699 price tags): Consumers look at price as an equivalent for the manufacturer's estimated value of the product - its confidence in the product, if you will. Inexpensive is fine, but cheap telegraphs desperation, and implies shoddy workmanship and cut corners. You don't want to go there, especially not if you have a brand like Apple's. That's why, IMO, old models at clearance prices are better than new models at low retail prices.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another example is the perfume industry. Selling absolutely identical bottles of one ounce of perfume at these price points, which sells best?
$1, $5, $10, $20, $50.
On the face of it, we all turn and point at the $1 bottle. 'Well duh, it's the same stuff!'. But. When the purchaser doesn't know that and is just presented with the 5 bottles, it is the $20 and $50 bottles that sell best. And doing 'taste tests' between any two (where you _do_ let the people know which is which) people will point to the more expensive one is 'better'. In a double blind test, of course, they'll test out as identical. Bizarre.
<strong>No, not that they ARE marketing their towers at consumers, but they could or should market a tower at them. That's (presumably) the next 5%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see where the presumption comes from that towers would cause a huge spike in consumer sales.
There are several well-known facts about people's computer buying tendencies:
1) When consumers upgrade, they upgrade entire systems. Often including the printer. The reasoning I've heard usually is that if the computer's obsolete, everything else probably is too, and there's some basis for that: New CPUs allow for new software which frequently takes advantage of new peripherals, etc. Remember, Apple polled 8600 and 9600 users, and even among those users - professionals, overwhelmingly - 1 in 5 had ever added a PCI card. 1 in 5. When I finally added one to mine, after nearly three years, it was to get USB and FireWire. Shortly afterward, I had a Cube on my desk.
2) Consumers don't upgrade individual components. The moment you mention swapping out a hard drive, adding a PCI slot, or even adding RAM, you lose people. If a "techie person" coaxes them to upgrade, they might bring their machine to Best Buy and pay some kid to add the RAM for them. But because of rule 1, they'll probably end up walking out with a new machine. And an extended warranty.
3) "Consumer" towers exist for the convenience of the manufacturer. I'm going to repeat this until it sticks. The consumer sees a mass of boxes, wires, sharp things, etc. that they have to call their children over to assemble for them.
Apple pitches iMacs at consumers because you just pull them out, set them up and plug them in. They don't come in components because components are just more things to diddle with and the odds are they'll all get replaced anyway. Tinkerers are a very small minority.
Based on the consumers I know, the overwhelming issue facing Apple is compatibility. People do not want to be stranded on a little island, no matter how pretty it is. That's why the Switch ads are done so well. Shouting compatibility from the rooftops (and, I need hardly add, delivering it), more than a $1200 tower, will convince people to come over.
Anyone who's technical enough to exploit the advantages of a tower is technical enough to find a good deal on an older model Mac. Low End Mac regularly runs stories from curious PC users who "switched" by buying older Macs, so that end's covered.
I don't doubt that $1200 towers would fly out the doors, but I'll bet they'd go right into Apple's installed base of PowerMac users.
"I don't see where the presumption comes from that towers would cause a huge spike in consumer sales."
They won't see a huge spike by putting outdated cpus in them either. Or selling obseletism computers for ridiculous prices.
Well, seeing as how 'power'Mac sales have shrank since they bumped their prices and kept them there...maybe there is some correlation between price and 'power'Mac sales. (That and using out of date equipment...) 'These are our workstations...' They aint SGI. They aint even x86 workstation territory in graphic cards, ram or cpu.
They are selling to consumers.
Workstation? Define? Heh. Yeah. You can debate what Apple sees as 'their' workstation based upon their current prices.
Computers are that relatively powerful to what they were I'd argue any x86 computer you can get cheaper than the low end 'power'Mac is a comparitive 'workstation'. I'd say an Athlon 2.1 xp with 512 of real DDR ram erc would qualify.
I'd hardly call a Mac tower at around a 'K' or a little higher eg £1,100 inc vat as cutting corners.
Apple have their consumer line padding out into what should be low end tower territory. Because they can't get the iMac flat as cheap as it should be. Yeesh.
They need to address the pricing of both the iMac and the towers...not to mention the eMac.
Subjective opinion. They're a couple of hundred over priced. That's alot to be over.
£1,350 is Apple's budget tower. Poor. I know lots of PC people who won't pay that price. They can get decent towers from £750 to £1,200.
Apple are missing alot of sales from people who know about components...want to build their machines or have choice about graphic cards. They don't want crappy limited machines like the eMac or the LCD iMac (despite its good looks...)
I'd love the widescreen iMac...but yeesh, you should be able to upgrade the processor and the graphic card.
Huge sales spike?
Well, after the novelty of 'looks' had died down?
What happend to the flat iMac?
Er...consumers voted with their wallet when Apple jacked the prices.
To me, they slowed the momentum. Economy or not. People will buy if competitively priced.
And the towers aren't. Therefore sales have shrank and will, in my opinion, continue to do so.
Okay, no way Apple's going to have a £499 tower (but you can get a cheap 2 gig x86 box for that price...) but having their low end tower 3 times the lowest priced x86 competitor?
Where are the options? Buy an emac? That's a very limited option.
£1,000 pounds is hardly budget anyhow. Especially considering all the extras apple doesn't give you eg monitor...
A thousand pounds ish is the average tower price I see in the high streets now. It buys you alot. £2,000 for a decent computer? That stopped being an average years ago.
Apple let profits get in the way of forward momentum with the iMac and they still can't figure out why people stopped buying them and the towers.
Well, duh!
Well, Apple are making profits...so they must be doing something right. Something. But NOT enough somethings. Otherwise their profits would be higher.
I don't see where the presumption comes from that towers would cause a huge spike in consumer sales.
...
I don't doubt that $1200 towers would fly out the doors, but I'll bet they'd go right into Apple's installed base of PowerMac users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some consumers have old monitors they would like to reuse. Some feel more comfortable just knowing that they could upgrade, even though most never would. Some might want to upgrade a video card, or replace a small harddrive with a bigger one, or add a second optical drive....
And it's not that they ever would, but if you absolutely CAN'T with an iMac, they'll never buy. And by your own logic, a low-cost entry model gets people to look and you can then upsell. I've had plenty of friends look into purchasing a Mac but balk at the thought of an all-in-one machine. Were a tower available, I'm more than sure some of then would have switched.
As for selling to current Apple users instead of consumers, you say that as if it's bad. It's not. If it's the product Mac users want, so much so that even you suggest that they'd fly off the shelves, then Apple should offer it to us.
Comments
?circa 1999: How about a 17" iMac?
?circa 2000: How about a cheaper Cube?
(aka headless iMac)
?circa 2001: How about a pro-sumer Mac?
?now: How about a mid-tower?
By listing these crusades I'm not being flip about this question. It's personally important to me--and to the Mac community in general I feel. People get really hot about it. Remember the reaction at the price of the cube? Ouch!
More calm heads, like Amorph--he always comments on these threads, intelligently btw--pointed out the Apple is a company. It needs to make $ and there are economic reasons for what we perceive as a lack of choice in the middle.
For me, I waited MUCH longer to buy a computer from Apple till the education market had a 733 Power Mac for $1202. Much longer was 2 years but computer years are like dog years; 1 yr = 7 yrs. I always suggested that when Apple upgrades the Power Macs, that they leave a tower from the last version and just chop off $200. But is that good for them?
(BTW, they dont always offer a cheaper model when they upgrade)
We think it would help market share. Apple thinks it would just cut profits margins and the bottom line. Thats the debate. Would a prosumer machine get enough new buyers to compensate for a reduction in Power sales?
Nobody knows but Im thinking more that a mid-level machine might be worth the gamble. Market share needs to increase. Plus, the strategy of not meeting a product need to "force" customers to buy a more expensive Power Mac....I dont know...seems ok in the short run but in the long run it could alienate a lot of buyers. Especially since the Power Macs are not so powerful these days. Its the OS that is the attraction and we need more people using our new OSX.
After writing all this, I realize that if it hasn't happened now, it probably never will!
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's maintained a 5% marketshare in a period of intense growth in the industry. That involved huge increases in unit sales. With a sub-par OS, hardware that's only above par in niches, and savvy introductions of technologies people actually want. This is the spot for the half baked car analogies. The only concern _marketshare_ wise for Apple, is that developers bail. And that's half-addressed by the open source aspects, and half addressed by the sheer coolness factor of Cocoa -> not happening any time soon.
Now we have the foundations of a great OS, and the furnishings are getting to par. The whole point of switching OSes is just now being realized - little things can be fixed fast without reengineering everything in the basement.
All we're really looking for is respectable hardware.
A budget tower would make Apple's price/performance look much better for some people. The question is, how many? The iMac performance and the budget tower performace would be pretty darn similar (once that second CPU is pulled). And the main difference would come down to the upgradability of the graphics card. Apple is no longer a big enough piece of the market to sell two devices to essentially an overlapping market.
eMac-- priced to move.
reborn Cube-- for consumers who want limited expandability and the ability to add on a flat panel, with a touch of class.
Tower-- for the power user, but they also need to extend the low end. The low end tower should have similar CPU, RAM, and HD specs as the high end eMac. The reborn Cube should span from the mid eMac to the mid Powermac.
the motto: price, style, performance
Then they need to do the same thing for the portables. iBook is basically fine, on track. Powerbook will have to be split-- one stays slim, light, and elegant for the business folk. The other will be bigger, hotter, more power hungry and more powerful for the power user on the road.
Charge reasonable prices for everything. See, you only have to worry about product pricing cannibalism when your products are unbalanced.
I don't know. This makes sense to me. This is where I thought Apple was going when we first heard rumors about the Cube. But then they priced it too high. Then the new iMac: I don't know, I just don't understand that product. I know some people think it is cool looking, but it just seems like they gave up everything just to make a computer that looks like a sunflower.
I only expect the eMac and the old iMac to be around for another year before lower component costs allow Apple to replace both with the new iMac.
The eMac is simply "stop-gap" until LCD prices fall to where Apple can offer 15-inch iMacs for $999 and possibly lower.
<strong>I cant buy it, I dont qualify. And its not bieng advertised to the general public.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A QS 800 will run you $1200, the same price Apple sells the low-end Edu tower for. Simply because you can't buy a 'budget' tower direct from Apple doesn't mean you can't buy an Apple tower on a budget.
<a href="http://powermax.com/cgi-global/generate.cgi?p=C-NG4-M8705LL/A" target="_blank">$1294</a>
On top of that, new users ( switchers ) wont see it at powermax, they are going to go into a shop.
I think that the new iMac is a mistake. Any cheap monitor less machine that Apple made is going to compete with it, and I think that will leave it being sold to users who value its style over the flexibility of a cheap tower. It would be another cube debacle.
Lots of people have said that it doenst have to be a tower, but one of Apple problems is achieving economies of scale. Selling twice as many towers would reduce the manufacturing costs on all towers ( for case, m board, power supply etc ) and raise margins across the board for those machines. On top of that, fixed costs - R&D for the tower - gets amortised across a larger number of machines, once again increasing margins.
Apple already have the machine, its the QS 800 for education. They need to make that a premanent feature of the line up, and keep it at the same price ( it should move to the new case and motherboard, and probably 867 ).
Its not going to happen tho', because it would be a blow to Job's ego, and that cant be allowed to happen. I dont think people really want the iMac, they just settle for it because there is no other choice.
The eMac is stopgap, but I think for the reason that education markets just didnt want the new iMac. Its going to stay around for a while.
<strong>for someone looking to spend $1100 or under on a tower, I think it is better to find a good used once top-of-the-line system than to buy a budget tower (which apple does not offer). for $1100, anyone could probably nab at least a dual 500...someone needing real power probably shouldn't be looking for budget tower anyhow.
staying behind the curve is pretty much my motto for all consumer computer purchases though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When it comes to Apple towers, you have no choice BUT to stay behind the curve!
<strong>Someone needs to say it, but most are too afraid. The flat panel iMac is a mistake. It needs to be removed. It is screwing up the whole lineup. The lineup should be:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I basically agree - but I think what you'll see is the iMac price creep down very slowly. The 'coolness factor' of the LCDs pretty much dictates that direction for Apple as a whole, they just started too early and put out an overpricecs iMac.
With the original iMac, Apple was doing _very_ well with the pricing. By having a sub-1000 unit, you got people into the store. After studying the specs, people generally choose the 1200 or 1400 model. But if Apple'd dropped the 999 model, those same people wouldn't have even been in the store! It is counter-intuitive for the non-low-end box to outsell the low end box, but the least capable iMac was (I seem to recall) third out of the four lines in sales.
<strong>I basically agree - but I think what you'll see is the iMac price creep down very slowly. The 'coolness factor' of the LCDs pretty much dictates that direction for Apple as a whole, they just started too early and put out an overpricecs iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True enough.
[quote]<strong>With the original iMac, Apple was doing _very_ well with the pricing. By having a sub-1000 unit, you got people into the store. After studying the specs, people generally choose the 1200 or 1400 model. But if Apple'd dropped the 999 model, those same people wouldn't have even been in the store! It is counter-intuitive for the non-low-end box to outsell the low end box, but the least capable iMac was (I seem to recall) third out of the four lines in sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."
It makes sense, in a way. You don't buy a washing machine because it's $399. You buy it for what it can do. If you can get what you want for $399, great. If you can't, well, it might be a few hundred bucks more to get what you want, but then you have what you want.
I expect the LCD iMac to drift down to about $999 eventually, as component prices allow. But that model will never be the bestseller.
<strong>I heard a rumor from a good source that Apple is going to come out with a consumer tower for Christmas. Basically a headless eMac specs wise. If they actually go through with it, who knows? But its definitely been discussed at Apple. I suggest we pound them with emails to reiterate what a great idea that would be........................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey! What the hell ever happened to keeping the product matrix simple! Just because DELL maintains 18 different computer lines and is the number one computer maker doesn't mean Apple should follow suite.
<strong>
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shouldn't this truism hold true for Powermacs as well? I think this is one great big argument in favor of a "budget tower" if I've ever seen one.
I do feel the iMac will drift to the magic £999 mark and lower.
The eMac was kind of muted by Apple as a stop gap. Apple themselves acknowledged the panel LCD price problems.
The eMac is probably a good idea. I'd like to see it go lower in price, replace the crt G3 iMac and become the Mac that is priced to shift. Something they didn't quite achieve with the original G3 iMac but looked as though they were nearly going to at one point. (Wasn't Jobs himself quoted as saying he'd love to see a £299 iMac? I'd a bought one for that...
I'm sure Apple's intentions for the LCD iMac were to replace the G3 iMac's pricepoints. Or slightly above. But they're way above! I'd like to see two LCD iMacs below a K! A couple just above.
Sorry, but £1,645 for a very limited expandable computer isn't on. Maybe £1,395 tops.
I'd like to see the eMac at £795 or less for two models. £999 ish for superdrive model.
As for a budget tower...I think it's essential to boost the flagging powerMac sales. Many people won't stomach £1,350 before they can get an expandable computer. It's ridiculous. Apple's business model is too rigid.
In x86 land...you can get expandable computers at virtually all price points. I'm a sure there are Switchers who balk at Apple's tower prices and think the iMac and co' are 'cute' but....BUT!!! Add to that the snail pace of performance updates...and...well...that's another thread...I guess.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Why counter-intuitive? That's one of the oldest truisms in sales: People are initially attracted by cost of entry, but they trade up for features. This is true for just about every product on earth. If the low-end model is ever the top seller it means that somebody screwed up. Usually they're "loss leaders."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The basic argument starts with the supply/demand curve and the thinking that goes with it. Cheaper = sells more! But, when you start varying the features, it just doesn't work that way. (And then we have the PC users arguing about all sorts of things that just don't apply... because no PC has the features we wanted.)
But... that does seem counter-intuitive. If you make the comment 'cheap things sell more', people will say 'Duh!'. If you make the comment '2 products that differ by only one minor feature are priced $100 apart, which one sells more?'... Much more thinking goes on
<strong>Shouldn't this truism hold true for Powermacs as well? I think this is one great big argument in favor of a "budget tower" if I've ever seen one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only if you assume that Apple is marketing their towers at consumers.
They aren't.
The towers are their workstations, and the people who buy them tend not to fuss over a few hundred dollars, because that's, oh, a few hours of work; maybe a day's worth.
I work for a nonprofit agency, and the Dell I have to deal with cost a whole lot more than $1699. They didn't even look at the low end. Businesses (including organizations like mine) and consumers have different buying habits, different needs, different options, etc. Generally, they figure out what they want in advance, send out bids, and go with the most attractive one. Features first, then price.
Consumers, on the other hand, actually interact one on one with salespeople, and they're what makes the old practice of advertizing a loss leader and selling a more expensive model possible.
There's another bit of pricing psychology at work here that people are missing (especially the ones pointing at $699 price tags): Consumers look at price as an equivalent for the manufacturer's estimated value of the product - its confidence in the product, if you will. Inexpensive is fine, but cheap telegraphs desperation, and implies shoddy workmanship and cut corners. You don't want to go there, especially not if you have a brand like Apple's. That's why, IMO, old models at clearance prices are better than new models at low retail prices.
The real way to sell cheap, if you want to do it, is to do what Pearl did with their drumsets: Set the retail prices as high as, or higher than, boutique names like Gretsch (implying similar quality) and then let dealers sell them for half price or less (and, for that matter, sell direct to your customers for half price or less). Then you get the positive glow of a high retail price, the popularity of the low selling price, and the glee any consumer gets when buying a brand new, expensive thing at 50% off. That worked so well for Pearl that they're now the world's largest drumset manufacturer by a margin, and they actually produce drumsets that are on par with the likes of Gretsch.
[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
There's another bit of pricing psychology at work here that people are missing (especially the ones pointing at $699 price tags): Consumers look at price as an equivalent for the manufacturer's estimated value of the product - its confidence in the product, if you will. Inexpensive is fine, but cheap telegraphs desperation, and implies shoddy workmanship and cut corners. You don't want to go there, especially not if you have a brand like Apple's. That's why, IMO, old models at clearance prices are better than new models at low retail prices.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another example is the perfume industry. Selling absolutely identical bottles of one ounce of perfume at these price points, which sells best?
$1, $5, $10, $20, $50.
On the face of it, we all turn and point at the $1 bottle. 'Well duh, it's the same stuff!'. But. When the purchaser doesn't know that and is just presented with the 5 bottles, it is the $20 and $50 bottles that sell best. And doing 'taste tests' between any two (where you _do_ let the people know which is which) people will point to the more expensive one is 'better'. In a double blind test, of course, they'll test out as identical. Bizarre.
<strong>
Only if you assume that Apple is marketing their towers at consumers.
They aren't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, not that they ARE marketing their towers at consumers, but they could or should market a tower at them. That's (presumably) the next 5%.
<strong>No, not that they ARE marketing their towers at consumers, but they could or should market a tower at them. That's (presumably) the next 5%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see where the presumption comes from that towers would cause a huge spike in consumer sales.
There are several well-known facts about people's computer buying tendencies:
1) When consumers upgrade, they upgrade entire systems. Often including the printer. The reasoning I've heard usually is that if the computer's obsolete, everything else probably is too, and there's some basis for that: New CPUs allow for new software which frequently takes advantage of new peripherals, etc. Remember, Apple polled 8600 and 9600 users, and even among those users - professionals, overwhelmingly - 1 in 5 had ever added a PCI card. 1 in 5. When I finally added one to mine, after nearly three years, it was to get USB and FireWire. Shortly afterward, I had a Cube on my desk.
2) Consumers don't upgrade individual components. The moment you mention swapping out a hard drive, adding a PCI slot, or even adding RAM, you lose people. If a "techie person" coaxes them to upgrade, they might bring their machine to Best Buy and pay some kid to add the RAM for them. But because of rule 1, they'll probably end up walking out with a new machine. And an extended warranty.
3) "Consumer" towers exist for the convenience of the manufacturer. I'm going to repeat this until it sticks.
Apple pitches iMacs at consumers because you just pull them out, set them up and plug them in. They don't come in components because components are just more things to diddle with and the odds are they'll all get replaced anyway. Tinkerers are a very small minority.
Based on the consumers I know, the overwhelming issue facing Apple is compatibility. People do not want to be stranded on a little island, no matter how pretty it is. That's why the Switch ads are done so well. Shouting compatibility from the rooftops (and, I need hardly add, delivering it), more than a $1200 tower, will convince people to come over.
Anyone who's technical enough to exploit the advantages of a tower is technical enough to find a good deal on an older model Mac. Low End Mac regularly runs stories from curious PC users who "switched" by buying older Macs, so that end's covered.
I don't doubt that $1200 towers would fly out the doors, but I'll bet they'd go right into Apple's installed base of PowerMac users.
They won't see a huge spike by putting outdated cpus in them either.
Well, seeing as how 'power'Mac sales have shrank since they bumped their prices and kept them there...maybe there is some correlation between price and 'power'Mac sales. (That and using out of date equipment...) 'These are our workstations...' They aint SGI. They aint even x86 workstation territory in graphic cards, ram or cpu.
They are selling to consumers.
Workstation? Define? Heh. Yeah. You can debate what Apple sees as 'their' workstation based upon their current prices.
Computers are that relatively powerful to what they were I'd argue any x86 computer you can get cheaper than the low end 'power'Mac is a comparitive 'workstation'. I'd say an Athlon 2.1 xp with 512 of real DDR ram erc would qualify.
I'd hardly call a Mac tower at around a 'K' or a little higher eg £1,100 inc vat as cutting corners.
Apple have their consumer line padding out into what should be low end tower territory. Because they can't get the iMac flat as cheap as it should be. Yeesh.
They need to address the pricing of both the iMac and the towers...not to mention the eMac.
Subjective opinion. They're a couple of hundred over priced. That's alot to be over.
£1,350 is Apple's budget tower. Poor. I know lots of PC people who won't pay that price. They can get decent towers from £750 to £1,200.
Apple are missing alot of sales from people who know about components...want to build their machines or have choice about graphic cards. They don't want crappy limited machines like the eMac or the LCD iMac (despite its good looks...)
I'd love the widescreen iMac...but yeesh, you should be able to upgrade the processor and the graphic card.
Huge sales spike?
Well, after the novelty of 'looks' had died down?
What happend to the flat iMac?
Er...consumers voted with their wallet when Apple jacked the prices.
To me, they slowed the momentum. Economy or not. People will buy if competitively priced.
And the towers aren't. Therefore sales have shrank and will, in my opinion, continue to do so.
Okay, no way Apple's going to have a £499 tower (but you can get a cheap 2 gig x86 box for that price...) but having their low end tower 3 times the lowest priced x86 competitor?
Where are the options? Buy an emac? That's a very limited option.
£1,000 pounds is hardly budget anyhow. Especially considering all the extras apple doesn't give you eg monitor...
A thousand pounds ish is the average tower price I see in the high streets now. It buys you alot. £2,000 for a decent computer? That stopped being an average years ago.
Apple let profits get in the way of forward momentum with the iMac and they still can't figure out why people stopped buying them and the towers.
Well, duh!
Well, Apple are making profits...so they must be doing something right. Something. But NOT enough somethings. Otherwise their profits would be higher.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I don't see where the presumption comes from that towers would cause a huge spike in consumer sales.
...
I don't doubt that $1200 towers would fly out the doors, but I'll bet they'd go right into Apple's installed base of PowerMac users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some consumers have old monitors they would like to reuse. Some feel more comfortable just knowing that they could upgrade, even though most never would. Some might want to upgrade a video card, or replace a small harddrive with a bigger one, or add a second optical drive....
And it's not that they ever would, but if you absolutely CAN'T with an iMac, they'll never buy. And by your own logic, a low-cost entry model gets people to look and you can then upsell. I've had plenty of friends look into purchasing a Mac but balk at the thought of an all-in-one machine. Were a tower available, I'm more than sure some of then would have switched.
As for selling to current Apple users instead of consumers, you say that as if it's bad. It's not. If it's the product Mac users want, so much so that even you suggest that they'd fly off the shelves, then Apple should offer it to us.