The $399 question?

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 172
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    It's hard to believe. I've been occasionally posting about the need for a low end Mac for over three years and mostly get shot down. Here is a serious and good discussion going on. Fantastic! Business, Education and Light Duty Home Usage all need it. I agree that a separate monitor is best, at least in today's market. Those who have good monitors now can switch cheaper and easier.
  • Reply 102 of 172
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The CRT iMac is extremely overpriced, and the eMac, as shipped, is much too expensive for business considering it doesn't have the Office alternative that would be absolutely neccessary.



    Full versions of Office shipped with the machine don't add anywhere near the price of retail. Sorry.



    Take one Dell dimension 2300 desktop at 599 CANADIAN. Add the 17" option for 100 and a netwrk card for 40. That's 739. Now add OfficeXP Small Business for 169, and you're at $908 Canadian for a complete Office workstation with Office and a 17" monitor. Add $139 for ground shipping, unless you buy during a "free shipping" special, and you get just a hair over 1000 Canadian. Finit. Unless you NEED "Access" on ALL you machines, you are paying TOO MUCH.



    Translation: Apple still has a lot of work to do if it wants to win those Business sales.
  • Reply 103 of 172
    jmoneyjmoney Posts: 133member
    How bout Apple just do what they've been doing, innovating and making kickass machines.. You wanna buy crap, get a Gateway. You want a real computer, ya get a mac.
  • Reply 104 of 172
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Do as they have been doing? I think you mean falling 18+ months behind in CPU specification and grossly over-charging for products as their edu sales continue to shrink and their overall market slowly does the same (over the long term).
  • Reply 105 of 172
    Well I'm glad I managed to shift this discussion back to low-cost macs



    I agree with Matsu - what I had suggested was not a FULL thin client as seen in the not-too-successful Sun boxes, but more of a no-frills desktop that is capable of running Office together with enterprise software such as accounting systems or customer relationship management systems (CRMS) which are often (and increasingly) served up through a very simple front end programme or a browser interface. So it would still have some RAM and a HD, but both could be quite limited in size to keep costs down.



    Rhumgod, if you read my previous post, you will see that Dell quoted US$760 for a similar machine (incl 15-inch CRT monitor and Windows 2000 Pro) that is currently sitting on my desk at work which runs Outlook, Office, Internet Explorer and a couple of niche database programmes. This what Apple would have to compete with.



    Someone suggested that Apple go the whole hog and build an Office-compatible replacement software package. Personally I don't agree with this. However compatible it professes to be, I think businesses will always want the comfort of knowing that they have the proper thing if they want to swap files with their M$-using customers. Also, the sort of businesses that need Office on every desktop already have a huge investment in both Office licences (which they could probably swap to the Mac version without too much extra cost) and also in the training of their staff. I work in a document-heavy industry and probably one-third of the staff in this office are secretaries, all of whom would need retraining if we changed WP package. That adds a LOT to the switching cost. Unless M$ decides to bin Office for Mac, leave Office to them.



    As to whether this low-cost desktop should have a built-in screen, that is difficult. I think for education (schools and universities) the single form factor is quite attractive. However, for the large enterprise, I think they would probably prefer separate monitors. If either a CPU or a monitor dies, they can just swap that bit without effectively having to throw away both bits.



    Apple has already indicated that it believes the CRT is dead, but recent price rises in LCDs have forced them to keep the CRT-based eMacs and iMacs in their product line. If they did make a monitor-less low-cost enterpris box, I think they would be VERY reluctant to sell it with an Apple-branded CRT monitor. However, when LCD prices do come down and enterprises start buying LCDs as a matter of course (incentivised by energy efficiency, less desk usage, less eye strain for employees etc) then Apple should be first in line to sell them a $500 computer and a $150 LCD 15-inch Apple monitor to go with it.



    I think this would be a very attractive proposition to enterprises, possibly already in Mac-friendly sectors such as media or who are looking to avoid the increasing costs of M$ Windows licensing. For example, think of a newspaper with these simple "thin desktops" for journalists and admin staff, PowerMacs for the DTP operators and Xserves in the server room



    The time may not be quite right yet - some people in this thread have already identified some improvements required to Mac OS X Server and the cost of LCDs needs to come down a bit more to kill off the separate CRT monitor once and for all. But that time may not be far away....
  • Reply 106 of 172
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Mebbe you're right about the Office thang. If M$ can put Office ona Dell for 169, then Apple and M$ could do the same, Bill, Steve, work it out, please?



    What I would need to see from Apple, though is some serious progress in the Office suite space. Appleworks doesn't have to become an office killer per se (so long as it's exclusively on the Mac, it could never be anyway). But it should come a lot closer to current full-fledged office suites than it currently does. After that, why not make the whole thing accept plugins, so that third parties could turn it into whatever needs demand. An Html editor, presentation software, office compatibility layers, enhanced database functionality and access compatibility, yadda yadda yadda...



    The time is probably coming when your complete office suite will be delivered through a browser window to any compliant browser, platforms won't matter much then.
  • Reply 107 of 172
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    I agree that a lower ended business client box is a good idea for Apple. I would argue that you could build such a thing easily and possibly even offer an LCD bundle that would be attractive. The iMac CRT is indeed overpriced for what you are getting, but let's not forget you are getting the OS too, which has way more value, and after all, why Macs have a more premium price. Functionality adds quite a bit of value.



    Now, you can go buy a Dell and, as most large corporations do, go with a Microsoft License agreement, but you wind up spending more in license costs, technical troubleshooting time, replacement hardware when your Dell fails (and ours are pieces of crap!), downtime when it does, and the myriads of other problems in the PeeCee world.



    The iMac CRT/LCD is close, but I think Apple needs to downgrade all the ports and some of the hardware to get the cost down. Remember the pizza box LC - while it was a joke as a decent desktop, it would be nice to see something along those lines in the lineup today.
  • Reply 108 of 172
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>The time is probably coming when your complete office suite will be delivered through a browser window to any compliant browser, platforms won't matter much then.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I don't think it's going to happen for a long time yet, in part because there's no evidence that the necessary business model will provide the huge profits software companies currently make.



    It's sad, because I love the idea in theory.



    An office filled with thin clients, data residing on servers, and a fast network. If you've never seen a room full of Sun Rays, you've missed one of the computer world's most beautiful sights. Trouble is, each of those Sun Rays costs just shy of $1,000, and the servers required to host 50-100 of the beasts start at $60-70,000. And that's just the hardware, never mind all the software licences.



    It's just much cheaper to fill a room with Optiplexes and Edges running Windows.



    I've always (Well, for a while now) hoped that document-centric computing would come of age, where documents are described (Probably in XML), and "agents" can operate on them. It's much more elegant than our current application-centric computing world.



    Sigh. Back to reality now, I guess...
  • Reply 109 of 172
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    This is what I believe cause the original panic in M$. What eventually led to very bad behavior, anti-trust, monopoly and all that business. Office=Money. Office platform = money and control. Internet = new platform. Open = no more control.



    While the whole Office in a browser window ain't good for M$, their lock on the Office market is so tight that no other company could hope to overcome them without offering a lot mre flexibility in the way Office wares are delivered. If someone delivered an Office alternative with as close to full featured compatibility as is humanly possible, AND could make it platform agnostic so that a browser window on the creative dept's macs or on accountanting's Windows, or in engineering's *nix workstations could ALL open said documents with little or no fuss. Oh yeah, M$ might have some problems then.



    But iDunno what's possible...
  • Reply 110 of 172
    Does everybody think that IT support is the same for both a Macintosh and a $499 (or $399) PC? In other words, is the cost of ownership the same?



    Is Apple not successful if it doesn't have a $399 computer? Can Apple be successful just at the high end, particularly when IBM delivers a highly competitive processor? Can Apple be Apple and engineer Macintoshes to make a profit at a 5% margin?



    What percentage market share does Apple need to make the bashers move on to another topic?
  • Reply 111 of 172
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:

    <strong>

    The iMac CRT/LCD is close, but I think Apple needs to downgrade all the ports and some of the hardware to get the cost down. Remember the pizza box LC - while it was a joke as a decent desktop, it would be nice to see something along those lines in the lineup today.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is part of the problem, though: What do you downgrade? USB has to stay on board. The lower-end Macs already are missing Gb ethernet, and you can't really skimp on 100-base T as it's becoming standard (and if you're relying on network drives for everything, it's not really an option anyway). FireWire could go, except that FW drives (including the iPod) are very popular with IT people for updating and troubleshooting. Low-end Macs already ship with plain-Jane CD-ROMs, and you can't really get rid of those unless you don't feel any need to run any low-level diagnostic/repair software on the machine. HDDs are already small at the low end. Apple would have to shave off little bits here and there - cheaper case materials, a slightly older graphics chipset, etc. Some of them are dangerous: You really don't want to bundle cheap HDDs, for example, unless you want to leave a bad impression with your customers when they start failing en masse. They could ditch ADC, ship with DVI, and thereby get away with a smaller power supply and lower cooling requirements.



    There's no point chintzing on the monitor, or at least not on the part that actually displays. Enterprise has embraced the LCD, and there are a lot of laws (and ergonomics consultants) who have sold managers on crisp, bright 17" LCDs for desktops. 15" monitors won't fly in business anymore. Since it would be wierd for Apple to sell two 17" LCDs, one in a cheap case, I imagine they'd either offer an AIO model or leave the option open.



    There are some dangers here: I just posited an Apple desktop that can't use an Apple monitor without an expensive, clumsy adapter, and which might not look much like an Apple (cheaper case) and which might not work with an iPod, or with some or all of Apple's "Digital Hub" strategy (since some of the iApps would probably not make it on board either - iMovie?). A Mac that doesn't fit in with other Macs and Apple products could backfire. With PCs it doesn't matter, because of the commodity nature of PCs.



    Apple and MS have teamed up on Office promos for business-targeted machines before, recently even, so I'm not really worried about that. I'd also like to see an "Office killer" from somewhere (although I don't want Apple to do it - AW should be lean and elegant, not so packed with features that someone might need that you can't find anything), but realistically, You Can't Beat the Real Thing(TM). At least, not right now.
  • Reply 112 of 172
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Apple could take the mother board from the tower, keep 1 PCI slots and but leave the AGP on, decrease the Ram slots to 2, and put it in a stylish desktop case. Use a lowen single processer daughter card, and there is your low end buisness model. They could also just bring back the Cube with a low end G4. Either way the R & D is already done (The first solution would probably take some investment in "downgrading" the motherboard, but save money in reusing the parts from the tower).



    The benefit to Apple in doing this is that they might attract consumers that dont want to spend the money for a tower, but dont want the limitations of an all-in-one computer. They also would probably pick up more revinue from their display sales.



    The downside is that it would probably take away some of the revinue out of sales from both the Tower and the iMac. To make it profitable, Apple would have to price it agressively enough to attract new customers, while maintaining enough of a margin on the computer to make up for the loss from the iMac and tower sales.
  • Reply 113 of 172
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by JCG:

    <strong>Apple could take the mother board from the tower, keep 1 PCI slots and but leave the AGP on, decrease the Ram slots to 2, and put it in a stylish desktop case. Use a lowen single processer daughter card, and there is your low end buisness model.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That misses the mark. It would do as a low end consumer tower, whatever that is - or maybe a Cube-style workstation - but trust me: Businesses don't give a hoot about video card performance or expandability. You don't need a RADEON to run Office.



    A repackaged iMac mobo would be closer to the mark: Cheaper, cooler, smaller motherboard, video that's more than good enough, etc. There's no way a machine with a PowerMac-based motherboard will come anywhere near four Benjamins.
  • Reply 114 of 172
    stevessteves Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    That misses the mark. It would do as a low end consumer tower, whatever that is - or maybe a Cube-style workstation - but trust me: Businesses don't give a hoot about video card performance or expandability. You don't need a RADEON to run Office.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, now that we're using Quartz for OS X, a Radeon or Geforce is pretty much required for Quartz extreme acceleration. There's a world of difference between two of my machines, just tooling around in OS X. One machine (low end iMac has a crappy 8MB ATI Rage128pro), the other machine has a Geforce 4 Ti. Yes, there's a difference in processor, but Quartz Extreme is the difference between OS X's Aqua GUI being practical or not.



    [quote]<strong>

    A repackaged iMac mobo would be closer to the mark: Cheaper, cooler, smaller motherboard, video that's more than good enough, etc. There's no way a machine with a PowerMac-based motherboard will come anywhere near four Benjamins.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Generically speaking, I'd like to comment on a few things. With regards to "thin clients", forget it, it's not going to happen. Cheap, $500 (and below) PCs are a direct response to the threat of thin clients.



    Finally, what will cheap Macs do for Apple? For starters, they aren't selling in huge numbers. Cheap people buy cheap PCs. These same cheap people don't spend a fortune in software. Likewise, increased marketshare of this sort is meaningless. Further, the people that purchase this sort of a machine are clearly not computer enthusiasts. Likewise, tech support costs are likely to be high for this type of user. What's in it for Apple to produce and sell a $400 Mac? Apple has established a brand image of quality whereby the low end threshold has a minimum set of features that's considerably higher than the low end PCs. I'm obviously not talking about clock speed here, rather things like Firewire, Ethernet, etc.



    Steve
  • Reply 115 of 172
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by SteveS:



    <strong>Actually, now that we're using Quartz for OS X, a Radeon or Geforce is pretty much required for Quartz extreme acceleration.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The chipset RADEONs do fine and everything Apple makes has that or better. You can't even buy a Rage 128 any more (unless it's stale retail inventory). ATi doesn't make them.



    So, QE notwithstanding, you still don't need an AGP slot.



    [quote]<strong>Generically speaking, I'd like to comment on a few things. With regards to "thin clients", forget it, it's not going to happen. Cheap, $500 (and below) PCs are a direct response to the threat of thin clients.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Exactly. And since Apple offers neither, they're not getting into this space. It's an interesting idea for education and enterprise markets where you really don't need that much desktop horsepower, cost is an issue, and servers are a given. If Apple only sells them as part of a package with other, high-margin components they're not loss leaders.



    [quote]<strong>Finally, what will cheap Macs do for Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Very little, which is why I'm directing my ideas toward enterprise.



    You can get a machine that "just" does email and the web, but it's not going to be a Mac. Apple has always competed on value adds, and that's certainly true now. Fortunately, Apple's consumer sales look fine.



    Back to enterprise: As for the TCO argument, Steve has said: "We tried selling TCO. It didn't work." It may be true that Macs are cheaper in the long run. It may be true that support costs are lower, and support is easier. But Apple could never translate that advantage into a sale. So they're trying other things now, and trying to keep TCO as an "oh, by the way" advantage rather than a main selling point.



    [ 11-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 116 of 172
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    That misses the mark. It would do as a low end consumer tower, whatever that is - or maybe a Cube-style workstation - but trust me: Businesses don't give a hoot about video card performance or expandability. You don't need a RADEON to run Office.



    A repackaged iMac mobo would be closer to the mark: Cheaper, cooler, smaller motherboard, video that's more than good enough, etc. There's no way a machine with a PowerMac-based motherboard will come anywhere near four Benjamins.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    My suggestion works for 2 markets, the "Pro-Sumer" and the corperate. I agree that Corperate markets do not care much about graphics cards, but you would want to capture as much market as possible with as little expense as possible. One day Apple may be able to release a thin client for corperate and education, but first they need to have the server hardware, and software acceptance to pull off such a marketing move. They currently have neither, even though OS X is attracting a lot of attention to the Mac platform as a possible solution.
  • Reply 117 of 172
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    This is part of the problem, though: What do you downgrade? USB has to stay on board.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    First of all, I believe Apple would have to downgrade performance in select ways to keep it from taking too many sales from the iMac and eMac. Do not support quartz extreme, if it is not needed to run office and accounting applications, and put video on the motherboard. Saves cost and keeps performance below the better Macs. I do not know the cost of adding two PCI slots, but it would allow Apple to omit several things that are not needed by everyone. Candidates for omitting are FireWire, Ethernet and a modem. The appropriate card(s) can be added depending on the need of a business or school. Yet another way to save is by using a processor that includes some motherboard functionality on the chip. Such chips have been discussed, and even built I believe. Motorola had one called the Thunderbird some time back. A simple G3 that includes much support circuitry would cut overall cost a good deal.
  • Reply 118 of 172
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    Though I don't think Apple (or any company other than Sun) will go down the thin client route any time soon, if at all, I do believe Apple is keeping the option there.



    It's got most of the necessary technology in place, and the rest is coming: Servers, clustering(?), network installs, NetBoot, Rendezvous, the beginnings of some groupware (iCal), and hardcore Java support.



    All it would take are some machines modeled on the Sun Rays: A G3, a cheap graphics chip, ethernet (or 802.11g if it ever appears), USB mouse and keyboard, and a couple of display options.



    That just leaves one question, and one that will mean this never happens: Who the hell would buy them?
  • Reply 119 of 172
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    Schools for mass labs
  • Reply 120 of 172
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>The chipset RADEONs do fine and everything Apple makes has that or better. You can't even buy a Rage 128 any more (unless it's stale retail inventory). ATi doesn't make them

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually you would be suprised, ATI still makes the Rage 128 and nvidia still makes the TNT2



    They cost almost nothing to produce these days and believe it or not they are still sold in pretty large numbers, ATI only opened the doors to 3rd party manufacturing a year ago, and almost all their partners are offering Rage 128 cards.



    In anyevent, the Radeon 7000 and GeForce 2mx are dirt cheap in the quanities Apple would buy them in.



    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>Back to enterprise: As for the TCO argument, Steve has said: "We tried selling TCO. It didn't work." It may be true that Macs are cheaper in the long run. It may be true that support costs are lower, </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That was true up until a few years ago, unfortunetly PC's have improved dramatically, and Apple has fallen behind, esspecially with Mac OS X, it's support requirements are obscene.



    Will this improve over time, probably. But for the time being Mac OS X is an incredible burden on IT support.



    As for cheap macs, what would cheap macs do for Apple?



    IT WOULD STOP THE HEMORAGING OF MARKETSHARE AND MAYBE ALLOW APPLE TO SALVAGE ATLEAST A CREDIBLE BASE IN EDUCATION!



    I am on the frontline, people are abandoning the Mac in large numbers, a major reason is price.



    Contratary to popular belief, we are not in 1997 anymore, these cheap PC's aren't thrown together with parts picked out of dumpsters in Taiwan anymore, they have high quality components, often higher quality than those used by Apple in their most expensive machines. I get more Power Mac G4's returned for service, than I get Compaq's.



    Dell figured out some time ago, that if you lower prices, you will sell more computers, you don't need a PhD from the London School Of Economics to figure this one out.



    Unless Apple offers a competitive entry level desktop they are screwed, Apple has no trouble offering competitive notebook systems,



    If Apple can make an inexpensive and competitive laptop, why the **** can't they make a desktop?



    my customers ask me that day-in-day-out



    Take the guts out of the iBook, stick it in a white box, sell it without a monitor for $599 and everyone is happy!
Sign In or Register to comment.