i'm actually surprised how similar this conversation is to the discussion about the powermac line exactly one year ago. "too expensive, too underpowered, crappy bus speeds, too loud." and what happened? as soon as apple got its hands on the G5 it solved (or tried to solve) all of these problems at once. did it drop the powermac price by $500 ? no, but it added value by maximizing the included technologies.
i think the same thing can happen here by the end of the summer, where we'll be able to see a dual 3 Ghz powermac and a single 2 Ghz ... something. hopefully an xMac of some sort, or a modular iMac. maybe it won't happen fast enough for us macheads, but there's the downside to announcing the 3 Ghz timeframe so far in advance.
as far as pricing goes, apple has never sold really low-priced hardware. but its consumer lines have tried to make up for that by including lots of things as standard equipment. maybe the next line will have superdrives across the board (along with 512mb ram).
right now the consumer lines don't look like much of a value, because they aren't. but we're in the trough between waves. and hopefully there's a big one on the horizon ....
Apple could try and recoup the profit margin they lose by not bundling any software with the low end machines and charging more for it as an option.
If Apple had programs which everyone wanted to buy this idea of reducing prices might work really well for them. Not everyone wants Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro, ilife comes free with each new mac and is only $49 anyway. If Apple had something that appealed to the masses like a real office killing app they might get lots of money in that way.
The 970fx is cheaper to produce but we don't have any 970fx based machines yet so we can only guess what they will start selling for. My guess is they will stay at the current prices for a while. If there was a cheaper cut down G5 processor (like the celeron or duron) which didn't detract from whats in the high end machines they would sell pretty well.
To appeal to the home market though it has to be fast enough, cheap enough and have all the features like ethernet (for broadband), modem (just incase), AGP slot, firewire 400 & USB2. If it can run normal day to day apps and still put up a fight when it comes to running a power app then they would do well.
They could also put this kind of CPU in the ibook and have a more powerful one in the powerbooks. I think they are partially in this situation because they relied too much on MOTO to deliver the goods in the first place. Atleast IBM do seem to be pulling out the stops when it comes to producing the 970 so after the FX comes out I think speed bumps will increase..
I won't beat a deadhorse as it is begining to smell.
It would probably be a cool thing to start an "IF I WAS STEVE JOBS FORUM" and write how you would steer Apple if you were at the wheel. I am sure lots of users here could think of great ways to put Apple on a level pegging with the wintel world.
I really think they really just need to chop the monitor off the eMac and charge about $500 for it. Make it an enclosed system without expansion, keep it at a G4 or slow G5. A case that can be vertical or horizontal and you are set.
Add television onto it as a $100 option and you have a set-top box for media serving and Tivo-capability and I would buy two in a second.
Again this reasoning makes no sense in the face of Current PowerMac sales. The majority of the sales are at the higher end because these machies appeal to certain segments of the pro market. No one is looking a the single processor model.
In effect Apple does not ahve a low cost machine and the PowerMac itself is only useful to people who are going to buy high end anyways. A low cost Mac can't tank high end PowerMac sales because of the marekt they are being sold to. The minute Apple comes out with a 2.6GHz+ PowerMac, current sales of the Power Mac line will drop to zip. There simply isn't a market, at the price they currently sell at, for the machines if they aren't leading edge performance machines.
A machine designed for the market the low cost G5 would be targeted at, simply would not result in a Mac that appeals to current G5 tower users. This is rather obvious folks, it is like saying the iMac appeals to the same market as the Towers. That would be a stretch for anybody to make, same goes for th low cost machine.
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
The difference is actually $800. For Apple to justify doing this, they'd have to cripple the machine to the point where it can be produced for at least $700 less.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but high-end Power Mac sales would tank, immediately, because 90% of those buying them would no longer have the need. Where do you suggest Apple would make up the loss? Not with a $250 profit on a $1000 machine, that's for sure.
I really think they really just need to chop the monitor off the eMac and charge about $500 for it. Make it an enclosed system without expansion, keep it at a G4 or slow G5. A case that can be vertical or horizontal and you are set.
When the new IBM G3 with Altivec is available (which will probably be called a G4) it might be a good time to stick one of those in a mini-tower and sell it for something less than the cost of an eMac. Being a G4, it wouldn't compete too much with the G5 towers and would give potential switchers who already have monitors the all important option of buying a Mac. I seriously doubt the G5 will make it into such a machine until the Power Macs move on to something better and faster.
The BMW analogy is tired and old. If Apple is BMW then developers are the fuel for this vehicle and the Applications are the open road. Without market share there is risk of fuel shortages and washed out roads.
Also, Apple does not make money because people choose to pay a premium for Apple hardware. What is selling is the hardware that has been price competitive, i.e. laptops. The G5's and servers hardware are also priced aggressively. Computers not priced competitively are trickling out.
Both Fred Anderson and Steve Jobs have stated 10% market share as a goal. No one is happy with low market share no matter what color they paint it, period.
With the iPod Apple has the opportunity to introduce a loss leader computer to get people to use the OS and iApps and become Mac users.
This is what will gain market share. These people will invest in more Apple hardware and Mac software if they have a good experience with their initial computer purchase.
The iPod has opened a door to all the PC iPod users. Now if we have a stepping stone loss leader computer for these folks they'll come on over.
It will have to be a Apple PC for chump change and not a scary economic and psychological investment that will put up a barrier to an initial purchase and a new Apple user.
have a look at the "data summary" PDF and look at the break down of sales. I know it could be improved on but atleast it is up from this time a year ago.
Apple could release OSX for Intel / Amd based machines and bring out their own PC as well. They would gain lots of converts that way but only if there was software to go with it. Most developers might not want to risk upsetting Microsoft so that would be one big hurdle. The G5 Apple machines would still be superior. Then they could start bringing people over from Wintel based machines including their own. If Apple left the ability to install Windows more people would be willing to give it a shot as they would still end up with a nice machine even if they didn't like the new OS (still what is there not to like about it).
If you look at what happend when Safari came out, the majority of Apple users stopped using Internet Explorer in an instant. If Apple released there office killing app and had OSX for PC's they could really make a dent in all the available computer markets.
Then again Apple is not able to meet the demand for the ipod, so I don't know how succesful any of this would be at the moment. Maybe a few new plants and more reliable sources for components are needed before they make that step.
If it was a huge success and ever came about, 2 years from now when there are 1000 x as many users on this site we could begin to discuss why we ever doubted them in the first place.
Again this reasoning makes no sense in the face of Current PowerMac sales. The majority of the sales are at the higher end because these machies appeal to certain segments of the pro market. No one is looking a the single processor model.
I really think they really just need to chop the monitor off the eMac and charge about $500 for it.
The CRT in the eMac might cost Apple $50 apiece. Where does the extra $150 in savings come from? Not the slightly reduced amount of Lexan for the case.
And I think it's pretty safe to say that Apple isn't netting $200 per eMac. Their margins aren't that good, especially not at the low end.
Apple can't tap into the immense commodity market that allows PC makers to offer super-cheap machines, and it would be unwise for them to offer something called a Mac that couldn't function as a full Mac because of missing ports or features sacrificed to cut costs. Integrated graphics, a staple of the low-end PC market, are a non-starter given Quartz.
I trust that the eMac is just about the cheapest Mac Apple can offer. They could cut a few corners, and omit a few things, but not much more than $100 worth.
Whence my belief that if Apple targets this martket, it'll be with an accessory/appliance that's not a Mac.
The CRT in the eMac might cost Apple $50 apiece. Where does the extra $150 in savings come from? Not the slightly reduced amount of Lexan for the case.
And I think it's pretty safe to say that Apple isn't netting $200 per eMac. Their margins aren't that good, especially not at the low end.
Apple can't tap into the immense commodity market that allows PC makers to offer super-cheap machines, and it would be unwise for them to offer something called a Mac that couldn't function as a full Mac because of missing ports or features sacrificed to cut costs. Integrated graphics, a staple of the low-end PC market, are a non-starter given Quartz.
I trust that the eMac is just about the cheapest Mac Apple can offer. They could cut a few corners, and omit a few things, but not much more than $100 worth.
Whence my belief that if Apple targets this martket, it'll be with an accessory/appliance that's not a Mac.
....well, one thing you need to remember is that the 90nm 970fx is almost half the size of the 7457 G4, I think the G4 was around 100mm^2, the G5 around 60mm^2. Motorola also isn't using 300mm, but 200mm wafers. IBM also also stated that they have had "suprisingly few" problems with yields. That is something you never heard from Motorola.
So, the cost of the CPU should be drastically lower. I would guess that a G5 would cost half what a G4 cost, if not less. So, there is much money to be saved in using a G5 over a G4.
Apple could easily build and sell an entry level G5 mini tower for $699 and keep the same margins they have on the eMac, if not actually increase them slightly.
And the reason they need to address this is, some of us actually NEED office computers. I cant write payroll checks on a cell phone or iPod. There is and always will be a need for a desk computer.
Unfortunately, Apple chooses to ignore this market. So, I have three PCs instead of 3 Macs I would have purchased. And, to get my business, all Apple has to do is build a minitower SOHO/Corporate Mac.
The original iMac did not provide what people expected in a Mac. It did not have SCSI, serial ports, ADB connector or a floppy disk drive, and did not include FireWire until much later. For the times, these were low cost, no frills, entry level computers that sold well and likely took sales away from higher price Macs. Apple not only survived, but the early iMac was a key product in Apple's recovery. So why does suggesting a low end Mac, stripped of some features, meet with such resistance now? No doubt, such a Mac would take some sales from higher price models, but like the early iMac, it would sell to people who otherwise would not consider a Mac today.
I'll make a specific suggestion so you can have some target practice. The processor may be on the horizon, something like a low cost 2 GHz G4 from IBM called Mojave. There would be no PCI or graphics cards, so costs can be kept low, but there would be a way to build two versions. For illustration, I'll suggest a card that is wired into the high end model, but it could be done by adding extra parts to a common "raw" motherboard. A blank plate covers part of the back panel on the low end model. Also, this Mac would have a provision for attaching a special flat panel monitor on top of it, but it is not an all-in-one. A special, very short cord connects the "optional" monitor to the Mac.
All models have a hard drive, optical drive, two USB ports and Ethernet, but no modem. The lowest price model is aimed at any enterprise or individual that needs nothing more than these features. There would be few or no applications. Price should and can be pretty low, but there needs to be reasonable profit.
The better model provides a modem, two FireWire ports and two or three additional USB ports. The consumer version of this model would have iLife and other consumer type applications. The business version could have productivity applications. The optional flat display could be available in a special package deal, or purchased separately.
Such a product allows people to get a Mac at very low cost if they have a monitor, or know how to get one cheaply. Yet, it doesn't require a different product to give people an AIO like Mac. The very lowest price model would attract many who would end up buying the better model when they see the added value.
The original iMac did not provide what people expected in a Mac. It did not have SCSI, serial ports, ADB connector or a floppy disk drive, and did not include FireWire until much later. For the times, these were low cost, no frills, entry level computers that sold well and likely took sales away from higher price Macs. Apple not only survived, but the early iMac was a key product in Apple's recovery. So why does suggesting a low end Mac, stripped of some features, meet with such resistance now? No doubt, such a Mac would take some sales from higher price models, but like the early iMac, it would sell to people who otherwise would not consider a Mac today.
The original iMac was revolutionary in that it forced folks to give up what needed to become obsolete anyway, i.e. floppies, SCSI, serial ports and ADB. Firewire was on the horizon but still too expensive, so only USB was included, and it could replace most of what was left out. None of the technology on current Macs is facing obsolescence, that I know of, so it's hard to pick something to leave out.
Quote:
I'll make a specific suggestion so you can have some target practice. The processor may be on the horizon, something like a low cost 2 GHz G4 from IBM called Mojave. There would be no PCI or graphics cards, so costs can be kept low, but there would be a way to build two versions. For illustration, I'll suggest a card that is wired into the high end model, but it could be done by adding extra parts to a common "raw" motherboard. A blank plate covers part of the back panel on the low end model. Also, this Mac would have a provision for attaching a special flat panel monitor on top of it, but it is not an all-in-one. A special, very short cord connects the "optional" monitor to the Mac.
All models have a hard drive, optical drive, two USB ports and Ethernet, but no modem. The lowest price model is aimed at any enterprise or individual that needs nothing more than these features. There would be few or no applications. Price should and can be pretty low, but there needs to be reasonable profit.
How much could Apple really save by leaving out a modem? Five bucks? They would save nothing by leaving out software. An argument could be made that this might generate more profit when folks buy the software. If Firewire ports were left out, which would save some money, it would be difficult to use iMovie without being able to hook up your DV camera, limiting the appeal of iLife software. I can buy the idea of leaving out Firewire on a business Mac that would be networked.
Quote:
The better model provides a modem, two FireWire ports and two or three additional USB ports. The consumer version of this model would have iLife and other consumer type applications. The business version could have productivity applications. The optional flat display could be available in a special package deal, or purchased separately.
Such a product allows people to get a Mac at very low cost if they have a monitor, or know how to get one cheaply. Yet, it doesn't require a different product to give people an AIO like Mac. The very lowest price model would attract many who would end up buying the better model when they see the added value.
You have some interesting ideas here but with Apple emphasizing the "digital hub," I think it unlikely that they would consider making a consumer machine without Firewire ports, a modem and iLife.
I think a Mac that's quite a bit slower than the G5 towers and completely non-expandable except for memory is the only way we'll ever see a new headless Mac. But I agree with those who say one is needed.
. . . How much could Apple really save by leaving out a modem? Five bucks? They would save nothing by leaving out software. An argument could be made that this might generate more profit when folks buy the software. If Firewire ports were left out, which would save some money, it would be difficult to use iMovie without being able to hook up your DV camera, limiting the appeal of iLife software. I can buy the idea of leaving out Firewire on a business Mac that would be networked.
You have some interesting ideas here but with Apple emphasizing the "digital hub," I think it unlikely that they would consider making a consumer machine without Firewire ports, a modem and iLife. . .
The idea is to provide a very low cost Mac for business or classroom where a modem, FireWire and iLife may not be needed. Yet, it would cost $49 (OWC price) to add a USB modem, and another $49 for iLife. So the consumer can see a benefit of the better model, which has both of these plus FireWire for another $100, or even a little more, but only when these features are needed.
The idealistic view that digital life style should be a part of every Mac, regardless of end use, doesn't get very far with purchasing agents or potential customers who don't need these features. No one likes having to pay for something they do not want and will not use. There are plenty of other computer choices.
The idea of a headless mac that is going to appeal to a broad range of users, is not going to work if you alienate half of the them by having no upgrade path or making Apple only connectors. Even the cheapest Dell has an upgrade path.
How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor.
I agree with Amorph that it will be something else that makes PC users switch. Apple hardware always makes the news and still excites people when they bring out something radically different. I am sure they grab a handful of first time buyers or coverts that way.
The idea of a headless mac that is going to appeal to a broad range of users, is not going to work if you alienate half of the them by having no upgrade path or making Apple only connectors. Even the cheapest Dell has an upgrade path.
How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor.
I agree with Amorph that it will be something else that makes PC users switch. Apple hardware always makes the news and still excites people when they bring out something radically different. I am sure they grab a handful of first time buyers or coverts that way.
Sideshow
...price sensitivity is why people don't switch.
AIOs don't do well as a market on the whole. Neither an eMac nor an iMac is not a competitor to an HP, Dell, or Sony mini-tower. The mini-tower is the bread and butter of the PC market.
Why do I have to spend $1800 to buy a Mac with even one PCI or AGP slot? You only gotta spend $500 on the PC side.
That is a huge gulf. Almost the entire market exists in that gulf. Apple is living on the very fringe. Were it not for the iPod, Apple wouldn'teven be turning a profit.
Fred Anderson stated that Apple has nothing in that void and they know its a problem. By those words, even Apple is aware they have missed the mark with the iMac. Expect it to be rectified. I just hope Applle doesn't try to be too cute and leave things like PCI slots and AGP slots out of the thing.
Everybody wants everything, for $500. Here's an intelligent thought for you: Expandability, schmandability; who cares. (Oh, except for gamers who think they have to have a new graphics card every six months.)
Maybe the problem is that people just have different values, and ideas about what value actually means. I think by definition, being a Mac user means I get the highest quality products, but with that comes a price premium. Sure, how cool would it be to not have to pay a premium for a Mac, but I realize why things are priced the way they are and I bite the bullet.
It's not just price that stops people switching. If Apple matched the price of the cheapest PC with something that is comparable sure they would sell.. They would win some people over and sell lots to people that already have a mac. But still people that have a large PC software library and are stuck on using Windows would think twice. You could try and tempt them with virtual PC. If Apple could make there own emulation software that might work better in the long run than relying on Microsoft to do it.
idave is right about gamers but the other thing they want is games and when I say games I mean current ones not just snood or shufflepuck cafe
Companies like EA don't make games for the mac anymore because it is not worth their time. They sell the licenses off cheaply and let someone else do it. I know it sounds silly but the other problem with games on the mac is that only the good big sellers come over. People still want to be able to buy the crap ones with the big name when they come out.
Mooseman is right about the gulf in the market but the problem is how they fill in that gap without harming their higher end machines. I dont think anyone would argue that the amount of time taken in designing and building a mac is a hell of a lot longer than a dell so they dont want to upset the customers who already own a tower with something that is not significantly diferent in features and performance.
Mooseman is right about the gulf in the market but the problem is how they fill in that gap without harming their higher end machines. I dont think anyone would argue that the amount of time taken in designing and building a mac is a hell of a lot longer than a dell so they dont want to upset the customers who already own a tower with something that is not significantly diferent in features and performance.
Sideshow
...I think the way the can fill without damaging the Pro line is to do what they should have long ago, make all the Pro line dual processor. The mobo costs the same whether they make a Dual or Single.
And, I'm almost sure that 2 90nm G5s will cost about the same as 1 G4. So, there is no reason the whole Pro line shouldn't go dual. With the high end moving to Quad (maybe when the dual core comes out).
I love my dual G4, and I only paid $1699 for it new. And I'm sure a current single 1.6GHz G5 isn't much faster than my nearly 2 year old machine. Saaaad.
The biggest G5 seller was the Dual 2GHz G5. The worst seller was the single 1.6. Obviously the pro types are more interested in how much time it takes to render a wipe/dissolve, compress, clean, and convert than they are how much the computer costs. So a $699 single CPU Mac isn't gonna exactly steal sales away from the top end.
Apple could easily afford to sell a PC at $699-$749. We already know they can build a PC WITH a 17" monitor, a decent graphics chip and a CD-RW for $799. They should just repackage into a simple mini-tower with 3 PCI, 1 AGP, lower bus clock, lower single CPU speed, and blammo! Instant big seller.
A lot of misunderstanding about who is the customer. Many valid issues brought up apply to a particular market, but not all markets. What interests or excites one group or people means little or nothing to another. A manager who simply needs network computers isn't going to value the same features as someone wanting to make home movies or work with digital photography.
Also, Apple does not need to go head to head with Dell on price. They cannot. But when a manager gets fed up with something about good old MS, Apple's prices need to be close enough to justify purchasing Macs. The difference needs to be small enough so the pain of switching is less than the pain of continuing with a Windows network.
Also, there is misunderstanding of the Mac I proposed. I suggested an optional monitor that could be somehow attached to the top of this Mac. This idea was a minor point, just frosting on the cake for someone who likes the AIO. The Mac might have a standard video connector. The optional special monitor would include a short cable (just long enough) that would reduce cable clutter. The monitor would have to be designed for attaching to the top of the Mac. It would be a way Apple could entice customers to spend more on the whole purchase if the end result was cool enough. If not, scrap the idea.
Quote:
Originally posted by SideShowBob
. . . How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor. . .
Comments
i think the same thing can happen here by the end of the summer, where we'll be able to see a dual 3 Ghz powermac and a single 2 Ghz ... something. hopefully an xMac of some sort, or a modular iMac. maybe it won't happen fast enough for us macheads, but there's the downside to announcing the 3 Ghz timeframe so far in advance.
as far as pricing goes, apple has never sold really low-priced hardware. but its consumer lines have tried to make up for that by including lots of things as standard equipment. maybe the next line will have superdrives across the board (along with 512mb ram).
right now the consumer lines don't look like much of a value, because they aren't. but we're in the trough between waves. and hopefully there's a big one on the horizon ....
- matt
If Apple had programs which everyone wanted to buy this idea of reducing prices might work really well for them. Not everyone wants Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro, ilife comes free with each new mac and is only $49 anyway. If Apple had something that appealed to the masses like a real office killing app they might get lots of money in that way.
The 970fx is cheaper to produce but we don't have any 970fx based machines yet so we can only guess what they will start selling for. My guess is they will stay at the current prices for a while. If there was a cheaper cut down G5 processor (like the celeron or duron) which didn't detract from whats in the high end machines they would sell pretty well.
To appeal to the home market though it has to be fast enough, cheap enough and have all the features like ethernet (for broadband), modem (just incase), AGP slot, firewire 400 & USB2. If it can run normal day to day apps and still put up a fight when it comes to running a power app then they would do well.
They could also put this kind of CPU in the ibook and have a more powerful one in the powerbooks. I think they are partially in this situation because they relied too much on MOTO to deliver the goods in the first place. Atleast IBM do seem to be pulling out the stops when it comes to producing the 970 so after the FX comes out I think speed bumps will increase..
I won't beat a deadhorse as it is begining to smell.
It would probably be a cool thing to start an "IF I WAS STEVE JOBS FORUM" and write how you would steer Apple if you were at the wheel. I am sure lots of users here could think of great ways to put Apple on a level pegging with the wintel world.
Sideshow
Add television onto it as a $100 option and you have a set-top box for media serving and Tivo-capability and I would buy two in a second.
In effect Apple does not ahve a low cost machine and the PowerMac itself is only useful to people who are going to buy high end anyways. A low cost Mac can't tank high end PowerMac sales because of the marekt they are being sold to. The minute Apple comes out with a 2.6GHz+ PowerMac, current sales of the Power Mac line will drop to zip. There simply isn't a market, at the price they currently sell at, for the machines if they aren't leading edge performance machines.
A machine designed for the market the low cost G5 would be targeted at, simply would not result in a Mac that appeals to current G5 tower users. This is rather obvious folks, it is like saying the iMac appeals to the same market as the Towers. That would be a stretch for anybody to make, same goes for th low cost machine.
Originally posted by iDave
The difference is actually $800. For Apple to justify doing this, they'd have to cripple the machine to the point where it can be produced for at least $700 less.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but high-end Power Mac sales would tank, immediately, because 90% of those buying them would no longer have the need. Where do you suggest Apple would make up the loss? Not with a $250 profit on a $1000 machine, that's for sure.
Originally posted by TKN
I really think they really just need to chop the monitor off the eMac and charge about $500 for it. Make it an enclosed system without expansion, keep it at a G4 or slow G5. A case that can be vertical or horizontal and you are set.
When the new IBM G3 with Altivec is available (which will probably be called a G4) it might be a good time to stick one of those in a mini-tower and sell it for something less than the cost of an eMac. Being a G4, it wouldn't compete too much with the G5 towers and would give potential switchers who already have monitors the all important option of buying a Mac. I seriously doubt the G5 will make it into such a machine until the Power Macs move on to something better and faster.
Also, Apple does not make money because people choose to pay a premium for Apple hardware. What is selling is the hardware that has been price competitive, i.e. laptops. The G5's and servers hardware are also priced aggressively. Computers not priced competitively are trickling out.
Both Fred Anderson and Steve Jobs have stated 10% market share as a goal. No one is happy with low market share no matter what color they paint it, period.
With the iPod Apple has the opportunity to introduce a loss leader computer to get people to use the OS and iApps and become Mac users.
This is what will gain market share. These people will invest in more Apple hardware and Mac software if they have a good experience with their initial computer purchase.
The iPod has opened a door to all the PC iPod users. Now if we have a stepping stone loss leader computer for these folks they'll come on over.
It will have to be a Apple PC for chump change and not a scary economic and psychological investment that will put up a barrier to an initial purchase and a new Apple user.
have a look at the "data summary" PDF and look at the break down of sales. I know it could be improved on but atleast it is up from this time a year ago.
Apple could release OSX for Intel / Amd based machines and bring out their own PC as well. They would gain lots of converts that way but only if there was software to go with it. Most developers might not want to risk upsetting Microsoft so that would be one big hurdle. The G5 Apple machines would still be superior. Then they could start bringing people over from Wintel based machines including their own. If Apple left the ability to install Windows more people would be willing to give it a shot as they would still end up with a nice machine even if they didn't like the new OS (still what is there not to like about it).
If you look at what happend when Safari came out, the majority of Apple users stopped using Internet Explorer in an instant. If Apple released there office killing app and had OSX for PC's they could really make a dent in all the available computer markets.
Then again Apple is not able to meet the demand for the ipod, so I don't know how succesful any of this would be at the moment. Maybe a few new plants and more reliable sources for components are needed before they make that step.
If it was a huge success and ever came about, 2 years from now when there are 1000 x as many users on this site we could begin to discuss why we ever doubted them in the first place.
Sideshow
Originally posted by wizard69
Again this reasoning makes no sense in the face of Current PowerMac sales. The majority of the sales are at the higher end because these machies appeal to certain segments of the pro market. No one is looking a the single processor model.
Are you sure? How do you know this?
Originally posted by TKN
I really think they really just need to chop the monitor off the eMac and charge about $500 for it.
The CRT in the eMac might cost Apple $50 apiece. Where does the extra $150 in savings come from? Not the slightly reduced amount of Lexan for the case.
And I think it's pretty safe to say that Apple isn't netting $200 per eMac. Their margins aren't that good, especially not at the low end.
Apple can't tap into the immense commodity market that allows PC makers to offer super-cheap machines, and it would be unwise for them to offer something called a Mac that couldn't function as a full Mac because of missing ports or features sacrificed to cut costs. Integrated graphics, a staple of the low-end PC market, are a non-starter given Quartz.
I trust that the eMac is just about the cheapest Mac Apple can offer. They could cut a few corners, and omit a few things, but not much more than $100 worth.
Whence my belief that if Apple targets this martket, it'll be with an accessory/appliance that's not a Mac.
Originally posted by Amorph
The CRT in the eMac might cost Apple $50 apiece. Where does the extra $150 in savings come from? Not the slightly reduced amount of Lexan for the case.
And I think it's pretty safe to say that Apple isn't netting $200 per eMac. Their margins aren't that good, especially not at the low end.
Apple can't tap into the immense commodity market that allows PC makers to offer super-cheap machines, and it would be unwise for them to offer something called a Mac that couldn't function as a full Mac because of missing ports or features sacrificed to cut costs. Integrated graphics, a staple of the low-end PC market, are a non-starter given Quartz.
I trust that the eMac is just about the cheapest Mac Apple can offer. They could cut a few corners, and omit a few things, but not much more than $100 worth.
Whence my belief that if Apple targets this martket, it'll be with an accessory/appliance that's not a Mac.
....well, one thing you need to remember is that the 90nm 970fx is almost half the size of the 7457 G4, I think the G4 was around 100mm^2, the G5 around 60mm^2. Motorola also isn't using 300mm, but 200mm wafers. IBM also also stated that they have had "suprisingly few" problems with yields. That is something you never heard from Motorola.
So, the cost of the CPU should be drastically lower. I would guess that a G5 would cost half what a G4 cost, if not less. So, there is much money to be saved in using a G5 over a G4.
Apple could easily build and sell an entry level G5 mini tower for $699 and keep the same margins they have on the eMac, if not actually increase them slightly.
And the reason they need to address this is, some of us actually NEED office computers. I cant write payroll checks on a cell phone or iPod. There is and always will be a need for a desk computer.
Unfortunately, Apple chooses to ignore this market. So, I have three PCs instead of 3 Macs I would have purchased. And, to get my business, all Apple has to do is build a minitower SOHO/Corporate Mac.
I really don't understand what Apple has to lose.
I'll make a specific suggestion so you can have some target practice. The processor may be on the horizon, something like a low cost 2 GHz G4 from IBM called Mojave. There would be no PCI or graphics cards, so costs can be kept low, but there would be a way to build two versions. For illustration, I'll suggest a card that is wired into the high end model, but it could be done by adding extra parts to a common "raw" motherboard. A blank plate covers part of the back panel on the low end model. Also, this Mac would have a provision for attaching a special flat panel monitor on top of it, but it is not an all-in-one. A special, very short cord connects the "optional" monitor to the Mac.
All models have a hard drive, optical drive, two USB ports and Ethernet, but no modem. The lowest price model is aimed at any enterprise or individual that needs nothing more than these features. There would be few or no applications. Price should and can be pretty low, but there needs to be reasonable profit.
The better model provides a modem, two FireWire ports and two or three additional USB ports. The consumer version of this model would have iLife and other consumer type applications. The business version could have productivity applications. The optional flat display could be available in a special package deal, or purchased separately.
Such a product allows people to get a Mac at very low cost if they have a monitor, or know how to get one cheaply. Yet, it doesn't require a different product to give people an AIO like Mac. The very lowest price model would attract many who would end up buying the better model when they see the added value.
Originally posted by snoopy
The original iMac did not provide what people expected in a Mac. It did not have SCSI, serial ports, ADB connector or a floppy disk drive, and did not include FireWire until much later. For the times, these were low cost, no frills, entry level computers that sold well and likely took sales away from higher price Macs. Apple not only survived, but the early iMac was a key product in Apple's recovery. So why does suggesting a low end Mac, stripped of some features, meet with such resistance now? No doubt, such a Mac would take some sales from higher price models, but like the early iMac, it would sell to people who otherwise would not consider a Mac today.
The original iMac was revolutionary in that it forced folks to give up what needed to become obsolete anyway, i.e. floppies, SCSI, serial ports and ADB. Firewire was on the horizon but still too expensive, so only USB was included, and it could replace most of what was left out. None of the technology on current Macs is facing obsolescence, that I know of, so it's hard to pick something to leave out.
I'll make a specific suggestion so you can have some target practice. The processor may be on the horizon, something like a low cost 2 GHz G4 from IBM called Mojave. There would be no PCI or graphics cards, so costs can be kept low, but there would be a way to build two versions. For illustration, I'll suggest a card that is wired into the high end model, but it could be done by adding extra parts to a common "raw" motherboard. A blank plate covers part of the back panel on the low end model. Also, this Mac would have a provision for attaching a special flat panel monitor on top of it, but it is not an all-in-one. A special, very short cord connects the "optional" monitor to the Mac.
All models have a hard drive, optical drive, two USB ports and Ethernet, but no modem. The lowest price model is aimed at any enterprise or individual that needs nothing more than these features. There would be few or no applications. Price should and can be pretty low, but there needs to be reasonable profit.
How much could Apple really save by leaving out a modem? Five bucks? They would save nothing by leaving out software. An argument could be made that this might generate more profit when folks buy the software. If Firewire ports were left out, which would save some money, it would be difficult to use iMovie without being able to hook up your DV camera, limiting the appeal of iLife software. I can buy the idea of leaving out Firewire on a business Mac that would be networked.
The better model provides a modem, two FireWire ports and two or three additional USB ports. The consumer version of this model would have iLife and other consumer type applications. The business version could have productivity applications. The optional flat display could be available in a special package deal, or purchased separately.
Such a product allows people to get a Mac at very low cost if they have a monitor, or know how to get one cheaply. Yet, it doesn't require a different product to give people an AIO like Mac. The very lowest price model would attract many who would end up buying the better model when they see the added value.
You have some interesting ideas here but with Apple emphasizing the "digital hub," I think it unlikely that they would consider making a consumer machine without Firewire ports, a modem and iLife.
I think a Mac that's quite a bit slower than the G5 towers and completely non-expandable except for memory is the only way we'll ever see a new headless Mac. But I agree with those who say one is needed.
Originally posted by iDave
. . . How much could Apple really save by leaving out a modem? Five bucks? They would save nothing by leaving out software. An argument could be made that this might generate more profit when folks buy the software. If Firewire ports were left out, which would save some money, it would be difficult to use iMovie without being able to hook up your DV camera, limiting the appeal of iLife software. I can buy the idea of leaving out Firewire on a business Mac that would be networked.
You have some interesting ideas here but with Apple emphasizing the "digital hub," I think it unlikely that they would consider making a consumer machine without Firewire ports, a modem and iLife. . .
The idea is to provide a very low cost Mac for business or classroom where a modem, FireWire and iLife may not be needed. Yet, it would cost $49 (OWC price) to add a USB modem, and another $49 for iLife. So the consumer can see a benefit of the better model, which has both of these plus FireWire for another $100, or even a little more, but only when these features are needed.
The idealistic view that digital life style should be a part of every Mac, regardless of end use, doesn't get very far with purchasing agents or potential customers who don't need these features. No one likes having to pay for something they do not want and will not use. There are plenty of other computer choices.
How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor.
I agree with Amorph that it will be something else that makes PC users switch. Apple hardware always makes the news and still excites people when they bring out something radically different. I am sure they grab a handful of first time buyers or coverts that way.
Sideshow
Originally posted by SideShowBob
The idea of a headless mac that is going to appeal to a broad range of users, is not going to work if you alienate half of the them by having no upgrade path or making Apple only connectors. Even the cheapest Dell has an upgrade path.
How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor.
I agree with Amorph that it will be something else that makes PC users switch. Apple hardware always makes the news and still excites people when they bring out something radically different. I am sure they grab a handful of first time buyers or coverts that way.
Sideshow
...price sensitivity is why people don't switch.
AIOs don't do well as a market on the whole. Neither an eMac nor an iMac is not a competitor to an HP, Dell, or Sony mini-tower. The mini-tower is the bread and butter of the PC market.
Why do I have to spend $1800 to buy a Mac with even one PCI or AGP slot? You only gotta spend $500 on the PC side.
That is a huge gulf. Almost the entire market exists in that gulf. Apple is living on the very fringe. Were it not for the iPod, Apple wouldn'teven be turning a profit.
Fred Anderson stated that Apple has nothing in that void and they know its a problem. By those words, even Apple is aware they have missed the mark with the iMac. Expect it to be rectified. I just hope Applle doesn't try to be too cute and leave things like PCI slots and AGP slots out of the thing.
idave is right about gamers but the other thing they want is games and when I say games I mean current ones not just snood or shufflepuck cafe
Companies like EA don't make games for the mac anymore because it is not worth their time. They sell the licenses off cheaply and let someone else do it. I know it sounds silly but the other problem with games on the mac is that only the good big sellers come over. People still want to be able to buy the crap ones with the big name when they come out.
Mooseman is right about the gulf in the market but the problem is how they fill in that gap without harming their higher end machines. I dont think anyone would argue that the amount of time taken in designing and building a mac is a hell of a lot longer than a dell so they dont want to upset the customers who already own a tower with something that is not significantly diferent in features and performance.
Sideshow
Originally posted by SideShowBob
Mooseman is right about the gulf in the market but the problem is how they fill in that gap without harming their higher end machines. I dont think anyone would argue that the amount of time taken in designing and building a mac is a hell of a lot longer than a dell so they dont want to upset the customers who already own a tower with something that is not significantly diferent in features and performance.
Sideshow
...I think the way the can fill without damaging the Pro line is to do what they should have long ago, make all the Pro line dual processor. The mobo costs the same whether they make a Dual or Single.
And, I'm almost sure that 2 90nm G5s will cost about the same as 1 G4. So, there is no reason the whole Pro line shouldn't go dual. With the high end moving to Quad (maybe when the dual core comes out).
I love my dual G4, and I only paid $1699 for it new. And I'm sure a current single 1.6GHz G5 isn't much faster than my nearly 2 year old machine.
The biggest G5 seller was the Dual 2GHz G5. The worst seller was the single 1.6. Obviously the pro types are more interested in how much time it takes to render a wipe/dissolve, compress, clean, and convert than they are how much the computer costs. So a $699 single CPU Mac isn't gonna exactly steal sales away from the top end.
Apple could easily afford to sell a PC at $699-$749. We already know they can build a PC WITH a 17" monitor, a decent graphics chip and a CD-RW for $799. They should just repackage into a simple mini-tower with 3 PCI, 1 AGP, lower bus clock, lower single CPU speed, and blammo! Instant big seller.
I'll take 2, thanks.
Also, Apple does not need to go head to head with Dell on price. They cannot. But when a manager gets fed up with something about good old MS, Apple's prices need to be close enough to justify purchasing Macs. The difference needs to be small enough so the pain of switching is less than the pain of continuing with a Windows network.
Also, there is misunderstanding of the Mac I proposed. I suggested an optional monitor that could be somehow attached to the top of this Mac. This idea was a minor point, just frosting on the cake for someone who likes the AIO. The Mac might have a standard video connector. The optional special monitor would include a short cable (just long enough) that would reduce cable clutter. The monitor would have to be designed for attaching to the top of the Mac. It would be a way Apple could entice customers to spend more on the whole purchase if the end result was cool enough. If not, scrap the idea.
Originally posted by SideShowBob
. . . How are you going to have this special Apple cable hanging out of the back for video output? Is it going to be hard wired or removable. In either case people will not like it. If you lose the cable what do you do, walk down to your local shop and buy another one? If it is hardwired and it breaks you would have to send it off for repair. Really it is going to have to have ADC and DVI ports on the back and a VGA adaptor. . .