The only upgrades I've done to my Macs in the past four or five years is to add memory or a larger hard drive. When I had an iMac and looked into swapping the hard drive, it was discouraging so I didn't try it.
Fact is, a lot of people ask their friends, or do research when buying a computer. They might tune in to these forums and see all kinds of people talking about how the iMacs and eMacs are not upgradable and think that's a negative and not buy one.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
Exactly. However, I think Apple's fear is that Power Mac sales (which are more profitable) would suffer if there was any other modular choice. I wish they'd get over it.
What about offering the same sets of options on motherboards etc with a choice of really cool cases.
domes cubes pyramids cylinders etc. Just design 5 different cases. Do a just in time made to order thing where the essential parts on a skeleton are fitted into the case. This way you can have the consumer unit that fit's your lifestyle.
What about offering the same sets of options on motherboards etc with a choice of really cool cases.
domes cubes pyramids cylinders etc. Just design 5 different cases. Do a just in time made to order thing where the essential parts on a skeleton are fitted into the case. This way you can have the consumer unit that fit's your lifestyle.
With the exception of the NeXT cube and the Power Macintosh G4 Cube, (both at Jobs' insistence) form follows function, as it should be. Ask Ive, he'll tell you.
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
I agree 100% If Jobs has to have a all in one then at minimum it should be made out of current hardware not 2 year old stale crap. This is why the consumer offerings have been a marketing failure. Apple has said to the consumer here is overpriced stale hardware our way take it or buy a powermac! so what do those folks go do? buy a PC. Cube could have been a success except for it price,its slow G4 and no pci slots. what was Jobs thinking???Powermac was such a better deal. you just cant keep pushing slow G4s forever and this has been apples biggest mistake. no matter what you wrap them up in they are still way outclassed by everything else. in a laptop they are ok but have no business being on a desk machine going up against P4s and AMDs athlons. everything about the so called consumer offerings from apple are wrong. they should scrap iMac,Emac and start over . boxing in the customer into these models have cost them marketshare big time. Apple has become out of sight and out of mind to 98 out of 100 new computer buyers. the Blame is on Jobs shoulders and the bean counters at Apple.
... not 2 year old stale crap. This is why the consumer offerings have been a marketing failure. Apple has said to the consumer here is overpriced stale hardware our way take it or buy a powermac! ... you just cant keep pushing slow G4s forever and this has been apples biggest mistake....everything about the so called consumer offerings from apple are wrong. they should scrap iMac,Emac and start over ... the Blame is on Jobs shoulders and the bean counters at Apple.
some call you juvenile, I called you a troll. Or did you just get up on the wrong side of bed? At least go to the current hardware forum to bash "stale" hardware, and leave your rants out of here.
"How many iMacs are not being sold due to the mandatory built-in screen."
vs.
"How many people will not buy an Apple display if they could get a headless iMac?"
I'm so glad somebody else realizes that this is the whole problem with Apple's marketshare.
Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor. When's the last time Apple offered a low end, standalone display with a decent price? Not the current 17" Studio Display, a complete joke at $699. Not its predecessors the original LCD 15" Studio Display or the "Mobius Strip" 17 CRT, both ridiculously out of the mainstream at $999 and $499. Everybody says the Cube failed due to its high price, but the even more egregious pricing of the accompanying Apple displays were just as much to blame.
So Apple "fixes" this problem by simply attaching the display to the machine. You want OS X, iLife and the whole Mac experience but don't want to pay $2K for a Power Mac? Then you're gonna have to buy one of our displays. There is no way out.
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?" If Think Secret is right and the 17" ASD is going away with a new 20" Cinema Display taking its place as the entry level display at $999, then even a $999 G5 mini goes right back up to $2K, so what's the point? Even if Apple keeps a 17" LCD in its lineup, it would have to be $299 in order to have any effect on marketshare. Dell is selling 3GHz/17" LCD bundles for under $1K right now! Does anyone here really see Apple's 17" display going from $699 to $299 in one jump? Didn't think so.
So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). But now you've got the worst of both worlds: the G5 mini, even at a ridiculously optimistic 1.8GHz/$999, still doesn't have anywhere near the necessary specs to attract a meaningful number of switchers, so all that happens is roughly the same number of existing Mac users buy the things and Apple loses out on hundreds of thousands of display sales. Since display sales plummet, Apple has even less volume with which to gain competitive contracts from the LCD manufactures, so the cost of the Cinema Displays go up and the whole problem just keeps getting worse.
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
Yeah, this is a touchy issue; personally, I feel that the PowerBooks themselves cover the "all-in-one" niche extremely well. The iMac (to me) is pointless; why not just get a PowerBook that can go with you? But then the contenders enter with "you'll never see a 20 or 23" LCD PowerBook." And we're back to why some like the all-in-one form factor.
Who manufactures Apple's displays now anyway; I remember that it used to be Sony, and now more recently LG I believe (according to rumors of the newest HD display). I don't have any comparison other than the PowerBook LCDs we've had (in a Pismo and PowerBook G4 867 15") versus a 15" NEC used on our PC. The LCD on my PowerBook is clearly of higher quality (also partly due to benefits within OS X), but are Apple's badged TFTs really in such a league of their own compared to other brands (like Sony or NEC)?
some call you juvenile, I called you a troll. Or did you just get up on the wrong side of bed? At least go to the current hardware forum to bash "stale" hardware, and leave your rants out of here.
...Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor....
...So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). ...
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
The measure of market share, which drives third party software development, is measured in computers not monitors. Apple has ceded peripheral development and sales to third party manufacturers when they could no longer compete in these markets before. Maybe it is time to do this with monitors as well in favor of driving computer sales which could drive up market share.
The main benefit to the Apple monitor is a unified design. The ADC displays also use fewer cables, but at a premium which may not be justified. Look at it this way, a competing display of comparable quality typically has a power supply, A/D converter with VGA connector, probably speakers and some even the USB "hub". Apple's power supply is in the computer, speakers external, and only offers a single ADC connector. One would think that these omissions would add up to a reduced manufacturing cost, not an increased one. So, what is the consumer paying for, style and simplicity of interface.
The question is should Apple be so short sighted that they would allow their monitor sales to drive down their computer market share? The business model shouldn't be viewed as the sale of a Mac and an Apple monitor, but the cost of the Mac itself because that is the measure of market share. Let the monitors sell themselves based on the value that they bring to the market, and if Apple cannot compete then let them go the way of the Newton. Apple is after all a hardware company, not a monitor manufacturer.
I'm so glad somebody else realizes that this is the whole problem with Apple's marketshare.
Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor. When's the last time Apple offered a low end, standalone display with a decent price? Not the current 17" Studio Display, a complete joke at $699. Not its predecessors the original LCD 15" Studio Display or the "Mobius Strip" 17 CRT, both ridiculously out of the mainstream at $999 and $499. Everybody says the Cube failed due to its high price, but the even more egregious pricing of the accompanying Apple displays were just as much to blame.
So Apple "fixes" this problem by simply attaching the display to the machine. You want OS X, iLife and the whole Mac experience but don't want to pay $2K for a Power Mac? Then you're gonna have to buy one of our displays. There is no way out.
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?" If Think Secret is right and the 17" ASD is going away with a new 20" Cinema Display taking its place as the entry level display at $999, then even a $999 G5 mini goes right back up to $2K, so what's the point? Even if Apple keeps a 17" LCD in its lineup, it would have to be $299 in order to have any effect on marketshare. Dell is selling 3GHz/17" LCD bundles for under $1K right now! Does anyone here really see Apple's 17" display going from $699 to $299 in one jump? Didn't think so.
So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). But now you've got the worst of both worlds: the G5 mini, even at a ridiculously optimistic 1.8GHz/$999, still doesn't have anywhere near the necessary specs to attract a meaningful number of switchers, so all that happens is roughly the same number of existing Mac users buy the things and Apple loses out on hundreds of thousands of display sales. Since display sales plummet, Apple has even less volume with which to gain competitive contracts from the LCD manufactures, so the cost of the Cinema Displays go up and the whole problem just keeps getting worse.
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
If Apple keeps its current display lineup, there is no question the 17" shoiuld ring in at about $499. Apple does not have to create a $1299 bundle to compete with Dell, a $1500 choice would be fine. Apple will concede some monitor sales with a headless machine, but if Apple uses DVI on the next revision of monitor, Apple will sell a whole lot morre to PC users. And none of this "but pc users can get an ADC to DVI adapter" that tacks on $100 extra dollars to the monitor cost, Apple can either include the cable in every LCD or kill ADC. The increases volume from the PC users will make up for the g5 express buyers who skip the Apple monitor. A lot of powermac customers skip the Apple LCd too. But many people like their computers to "match" and will buy a display. Apple needs to decided if they are abanodoning or embracing mid-range monitors (17" and below)
Apple hads done very well advertising the power of the g5, and for a lot of "enlightened" Pc users, the slower GHz is ok if it is a g5. At the point a customer is compaing 64 bit and 32 bit they are willing to concede a few . GHZ. Or Apple can have a naming scheme like AMD for the g5 expresses. No one gives AMD a hard time for stopping at 2.2ghz, their processors are names 2800, 3200 and so on, without broadcasting the GHZ, and AMD is doing very well in the consumer marketplace.
A headless afforddable tower will keep current Apple customer from jumoing ship, and potential Apple customers more likely to choose Apple. someone did a study, 50% of computer buyers consider Apple. Why doesn't this translate into higher sales?.
If Apple keeps its current display lineup, there is no question the 17" shoiuld ring in at about $499. Apple does not have to create a $1299 bundle to compete with Dell, a $1500 choice would be fine.
Why, specifically, is $1500 "fine"? Because that's the price you'd personally be willing to pay? Because that's the price the tiny group of "enlightened switchers" would be willing to pay? Do you really think the average PC user who refuses to buy a 1.25GHz 17" iMac for $1800, is suddenly going to overcome all his ignorant Mac bias and buy a 1.6GHz machine with a separate, but matching 17" display for $1500? All when he can get a 3Ghz + 17" combo from Dell for $999?
This is just more of the classic "close enough is good enough" mindset that plagues so many Mac users. You have this happy notion that most PC users are on the fence about the Mac and will tolerate being ripped off, just as long as it's not as much as they're being ripped off now. The reality is just the opposite. Apple would have to offer either identically powerful hardware with ordinary industrial design for less cost than Wintel, or identically powerful hardware with superior industrial design for the same cost as Wintel (and not a penny higher) for them to even consider switching.
Quote:
Apple will concede some monitor sales with a headless machine, but if Apple uses DVI on the next revision of monitor, Apple will sell a whole lot morre to PC users...The increases volume from the PC users will make up for the g5 express buyers who skip the Apple monitor.
Now this is the exact response I was hoping for when I posted my display conundrum. In fact, I made a lengthy argument for this very concept on another forum. Let me paraphrase it here:
Apple's market leading, large format displays have always been coveted by Wintel users. There's four years of potential demand for these monitors pent up only by the incompatibility of ADC. If Apple can improve the design, intro a 30" high end model, lower prices, and most importantly, publicly dump ADC and advertise these displays directly to Wintel customers, then a MASSIVE new stream of revenue is instantly available.
Since these increased display sales are pure gravy (going to customers who never would have bought one anyway) their extra income can be used to subsidize a headless Mac. If a customer doesn't choose to buy an Apple monitor with his G5 mini, that is (finally) OK, since the display he was supposed to buy already got sold to someone using a Dell.
Though this excellent Sell-Displays-Directly-To-Wintel-Users strategy allows Apple to finally kick their AIO habit, it is crucial to realize it is NOT a marketshare strategy. Nothing will increase Mac marketshare other than perceived hardware parity and lucrative, cross-platform displays sales do nothing to address that. All it does is allow a greater range of desktop offerings to Apple's existing customers and give them greater value in their Mac purchases, which at this point is all we can hope for.
Apple display sales to WinPC customers would put Apple logos directly in their faces while they're using their PCs. At some point those customers might consider looking at Macs when it's time to buy new computers; but only if Apple offers Macs they can afford and which will work with the Apple displays they already have. They don't have to be exactly the same price as Dell, just "affordable," unlike the dual G5 towers.
Apple display sales to WinPC customers would put Apple logos directly in their faces while they're using their PCs. At some point those customers might consider looking at Macs when it's time to buy new computers; but only if Apple offers Macs they can afford and which will work with the Apple displays they already have. They don't have to be exactly the same price as Dell, just "affordable," unlike the dual G5 towers.
Yes, the Apple logo in their face aspect is a powerful side effect of the strategy.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
The proposed DVI-display-as-headless-Mac-subsidy strategy will not increase marketshare (at least not with any significance). What it will do is make current Mac users happier, entice a few more enlightened switchers to make the jump and get Apple off the AIO crackpipe. Still pretty good in my book, especially if it gets me the G5 mini I want.
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?"[/B]
Quote:
Originally posted by boots
In my case, probably the Sony 21" Trinitron. It's probably four years old. I'm really glad it did not come attached to a CPU.
In the case of many of my friends, something like a Dell2001FP, other have 17 and 22" Cinema displays too.
Displays last a long time.
I obviously meant what new display goes with it at time of purchase. No computer company can sell a desktop on the assumption that you'll use your old CRT you got laying around, especially not Apple.
If Apple vends a headless Mac, they MUST provide an affordable, accompanying display, at least as an option. So I ask again, what is it going to be?
This is a red herring. Apple hasn't appealed to "average PC users" since before the IBM PC was introduced and they had a 70% share of the personal computer market.
Macintosh buyers have always looked for value in something other than price/performance, simply because the platform has really never been able to consistently compete on those terms. Apple won't ever be able to compete with a Dell 3GHz + 17" LCD for less than $1000 on $/GHz+inches alone-- it will always be a question of whether or not Apple can get close enough that a good sized group of people are willing to pay extra for all the goodies that come with the Mac.
Personally, I don't buy the argument that Apple can't compete in the 17" LCD market. I just don't think they're trying right now. Think about it-- how difficult is it to design an LCD monitor? You've got the display panel itself, which is just purchased from a vendor, and you design the enclosure, some wiring, some controls, & the powersupply-- that's about it. Why couldn't Apple put together a 17" for $450, and sell it in a bundle with the 1.8 G5 for $100 off the price of both purchased separately? That'd be $1349, which I think a LOT of people would go for; certainly a lot more than currently go for the iMac.
Yes, the Apple logo in their face aspect is a powerful side effect of the strategy.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
The proposed DVI-display-as-headless-Mac-subsidy strategy will not increase marketshare (at least not with any significance). What it will do is make current Mac users happier, entice a few more enlightened switchers to make the jump and get Apple off the AIO crackpipe. Still pretty good in my book, especially if it gets me the G5 mini I want.
People want a $1000 mac,...just not one with a head. And even if it only increase unit sales by 10%...that's still a good number of new mac users. I don't think a headless cheaper mac will bring PC users over in droves, but it will bring a few more over..and this will make a difference in Apple's bottom line, developers bottom line, and get us more support and software.
Apple isn't going to get to 10% overnight, but with small adjustments appe can remain more significinat, instead of the hardware company that makes pretty computers that are too expensive for the masses.
I say look at ibooks, they are a little more expensive than PC notebooks, but a lot of switchers buy them, because they are close enough in price and features. This is the niche the g5 express could fiill in the apple desktop lineup, a vehicle to drive more unit sales, and potential customers. You still gotta get them in the door.
Why, specifically, is $1500 "fine"? Because that's the price you'd personally be willing to pay? Because that's the price the tiny group of "enlightened switchers" would be willing to pay? Do you really think the average PC user who refuses to buy a 1.25GHz 17" iMac for $1800, is suddenly going to overcome all his ignorant Mac bias and buy a 1.6GHz machine with a separate, but matching 17" display for $1500? All when he can get a 3Ghz + 17" combo from Dell for $999?
I nominate $1500 tottal for an apple tower and a 17" LCD because the customers buying computers in the price range are also very likely to be doing the things apple advertises with ilife. The under $1000 are differennt than the $1000-1500 people. Apple can easilt poach quite a few of these people...with an attractive option. If you want to try out movie making or garage band....you will be willing to spend $1000 on a powerful new machine.....to set up your home studio or whatever. The people looking for new video editing stations know they need to spedn about $1000 for a machine that will handle it decently. And well a lot of computer users are like my family...they have more monitors than computers. An apple 17" display for $500 is just reasonable enough...but I imagine the geeks will have an extra monitor. The higher end computer shoppers will buy the apple monitor, and the cheap pros will use their current Cinema display.
Comments
Fact is, a lot of people ask their friends, or do research when buying a computer. They might tune in to these forums and see all kinds of people talking about how the iMacs and eMacs are not upgradable and think that's a negative and not buy one.
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
Originally posted by iDave
I think no matter how non-upgradeable Apple wants to make their computers, one should at least be able to swap the hard drive, swap the GPU and add memory with little effort. That's why a G5 Express-like computer would be a good idea.
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
Originally posted by boots
If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
Exactly. However, I think Apple's fear is that Power Mac sales (which are more profitable) would suffer if there was any other modular choice. I wish they'd get over it.
domes cubes pyramids cylinders etc. Just design 5 different cases. Do a just in time made to order thing where the essential parts on a skeleton are fitted into the case. This way you can have the consumer unit that fit's your lifestyle.
Originally posted by TednDi
What about offering the same sets of options on motherboards etc with a choice of really cool cases.
domes cubes pyramids cylinders etc. Just design 5 different cases. Do a just in time made to order thing where the essential parts on a skeleton are fitted into the case. This way you can have the consumer unit that fit's your lifestyle.
With the exception of the NeXT cube and the Power Macintosh G4 Cube, (both at Jobs' insistence) form follows function, as it should be. Ask Ive, he'll tell you.
So,
Originally posted by boots
The contention in this thread seems to center around whther such a product should completely replace the present day all-in-one designs. I would argue that the two might well coexist. Gensor made his case that he likes the existing design, I say let him have it, don't take it away.
In the end this boils down to consumers wanting more choices from Apple. If Apple sticks stubbornly to the four quadrant product chart then there will always be people whose desires are not met - no matter what is in the individual boxes.
I would like to see Apple bring out a machine at a $1k - $1500 price point, without an attached display. Ideally it would appeal to new buyers that like the modularity, Mac upgraders who want to save some money, and PC switchers who have a display handy. And put the best components in it possible while staying profitable. If it's designed to the same profit margin as the iMac, Apple shouldn't care in the end which way a buyer chooses, the profit would be the same (minus NRE costs). Simply put I think it's time they offered more choices as a way to be attractive to more potential buyers.
I agree 100% If Jobs has to have a all in one then at minimum it should be made out of current hardware not 2 year old stale crap. This is why the consumer offerings have been a marketing failure. Apple has said to the consumer here is overpriced stale hardware our way take it or buy a powermac! so what do those folks go do? buy a PC. Cube could have been a success except for it price,its slow G4 and no pci slots. what was Jobs thinking???Powermac was such a better deal. you just cant keep pushing slow G4s forever and this has been apples biggest mistake. no matter what you wrap them up in they are still way outclassed by everything else. in a laptop they are ok but have no business being on a desk machine going up against P4s and AMDs athlons. everything about the so called consumer offerings from apple are wrong. they should scrap iMac,Emac and start over . boxing in the customer into these models have cost them marketshare big time. Apple has become out of sight and out of mind to 98 out of 100 new computer buyers. the Blame is on Jobs shoulders and the bean counters at Apple.
Originally posted by Aurora
... not 2 year old stale crap. This is why the consumer offerings have been a marketing failure. Apple has said to the consumer here is overpriced stale hardware our way take it or buy a powermac! ... you just cant keep pushing slow G4s forever and this has been apples biggest mistake....everything about the so called consumer offerings from apple are wrong. they should scrap iMac,Emac and start over ... the Blame is on Jobs shoulders and the bean counters at Apple.
some call you juvenile, I called you a troll. Or did you just get up on the wrong side of bed? At least go to the current hardware forum to bash "stale" hardware, and leave your rants out of here.
Originally posted by johnq
We/Apple need these questions answered:
"How many iMacs are not being sold due to the mandatory built-in screen."
vs.
"How many people will not buy an Apple display if they could get a headless iMac?"
I'm so glad somebody else realizes that this is the whole problem with Apple's marketshare.
Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor. When's the last time Apple offered a low end, standalone display with a decent price? Not the current 17" Studio Display, a complete joke at $699. Not its predecessors the original LCD 15" Studio Display or the "Mobius Strip" 17 CRT, both ridiculously out of the mainstream at $999 and $499. Everybody says the Cube failed due to its high price, but the even more egregious pricing of the accompanying Apple displays were just as much to blame.
So Apple "fixes" this problem by simply attaching the display to the machine. You want OS X, iLife and the whole Mac experience but don't want to pay $2K for a Power Mac? Then you're gonna have to buy one of our displays. There is no way out.
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?" If Think Secret is right and the 17" ASD is going away with a new 20" Cinema Display taking its place as the entry level display at $999, then even a $999 G5 mini goes right back up to $2K, so what's the point? Even if Apple keeps a 17" LCD in its lineup, it would have to be $299 in order to have any effect on marketshare. Dell is selling 3GHz/17" LCD bundles for under $1K right now! Does anyone here really see Apple's 17" display going from $699 to $299 in one jump? Didn't think so.
So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). But now you've got the worst of both worlds: the G5 mini, even at a ridiculously optimistic 1.8GHz/$999, still doesn't have anywhere near the necessary specs to attract a meaningful number of switchers, so all that happens is roughly the same number of existing Mac users buy the things and Apple loses out on hundreds of thousands of display sales. Since display sales plummet, Apple has even less volume with which to gain competitive contracts from the LCD manufactures, so the cost of the Cinema Displays go up and the whole problem just keeps getting worse.
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
Who manufactures Apple's displays now anyway; I remember that it used to be Sony, and now more recently LG I believe (according to rumors of the newest HD display). I don't have any comparison other than the PowerBook LCDs we've had (in a Pismo and PowerBook G4 867 15") versus a 15" NEC used on our PC. The LCD on my PowerBook is clearly of higher quality (also partly due to benefits within OS X), but are Apple's badged TFTs really in such a league of their own compared to other brands (like Sony or NEC)?
Originally posted by jwdawso
some call you juvenile, I called you a troll. Or did you just get up on the wrong side of bed? At least go to the current hardware forum to bash "stale" hardware, and leave your rants out of here.
you are being as much of a troll as he is.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
...Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor....
...So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). ...
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
The measure of market share, which drives third party software development, is measured in computers not monitors. Apple has ceded peripheral development and sales to third party manufacturers when they could no longer compete in these markets before. Maybe it is time to do this with monitors as well in favor of driving computer sales which could drive up market share.
The main benefit to the Apple monitor is a unified design. The ADC displays also use fewer cables, but at a premium which may not be justified. Look at it this way, a competing display of comparable quality typically has a power supply, A/D converter with VGA connector, probably speakers and some even the USB "hub". Apple's power supply is in the computer, speakers external, and only offers a single ADC connector. One would think that these omissions would add up to a reduced manufacturing cost, not an increased one. So, what is the consumer paying for, style and simplicity of interface.
The question is should Apple be so short sighted that they would allow their monitor sales to drive down their computer market share? The business model shouldn't be viewed as the sale of a Mac and an Apple monitor, but the cost of the Mac itself because that is the measure of market share. Let the monitors sell themselves based on the value that they bring to the market, and if Apple cannot compete then let them go the way of the Newton. Apple is after all a hardware company, not a monitor manufacturer.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I'm so glad somebody else realizes that this is the whole problem with Apple's marketshare.
Apple's adherence to the AIO form factor is mainly due to their long standing inability to be an effective low end display vendor. When's the last time Apple offered a low end, standalone display with a decent price? Not the current 17" Studio Display, a complete joke at $699. Not its predecessors the original LCD 15" Studio Display or the "Mobius Strip" 17 CRT, both ridiculously out of the mainstream at $999 and $499. Everybody says the Cube failed due to its high price, but the even more egregious pricing of the accompanying Apple displays were just as much to blame.
So Apple "fixes" this problem by simply attaching the display to the machine. You want OS X, iLife and the whole Mac experience but don't want to pay $2K for a Power Mac? Then you're gonna have to buy one of our displays. There is no way out.
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?" If Think Secret is right and the 17" ASD is going away with a new 20" Cinema Display taking its place as the entry level display at $999, then even a $999 G5 mini goes right back up to $2K, so what's the point? Even if Apple keeps a 17" LCD in its lineup, it would have to be $299 in order to have any effect on marketshare. Dell is selling 3GHz/17" LCD bundles for under $1K right now! Does anyone here really see Apple's 17" display going from $699 to $299 in one jump? Didn't think so.
So the only other option would be to completely cede display sales to third parties. Sell the headless Mac as a naked product and not care where the customer gets his display (which is precisely what many on the board have been clamoring for). But now you've got the worst of both worlds: the G5 mini, even at a ridiculously optimistic 1.8GHz/$999, still doesn't have anywhere near the necessary specs to attract a meaningful number of switchers, so all that happens is roughly the same number of existing Mac users buy the things and Apple loses out on hundreds of thousands of display sales. Since display sales plummet, Apple has even less volume with which to gain competitive contracts from the LCD manufactures, so the cost of the Cinema Displays go up and the whole problem just keeps getting worse.
Until someone here can give a detailed business model wherein Apple sells a 2.0 GHz G5 mini WITH a 17" LCD for a TOTAL of $1,299, (which is still 1GHz slower and $300 more that the competition) then we're stuck with AIO.
If Apple keeps its current display lineup, there is no question the 17" shoiuld ring in at about $499. Apple does not have to create a $1299 bundle to compete with Dell, a $1500 choice would be fine. Apple will concede some monitor sales with a headless machine, but if Apple uses DVI on the next revision of monitor, Apple will sell a whole lot morre to PC users. And none of this "but pc users can get an ADC to DVI adapter" that tacks on $100 extra dollars to the monitor cost, Apple can either include the cable in every LCD or kill ADC. The increases volume from the PC users will make up for the g5 express buyers who skip the Apple monitor. A lot of powermac customers skip the Apple LCd too. But many people like their computers to "match" and will buy a display. Apple needs to decided if they are abanodoning or embracing mid-range monitors (17" and below)
Apple hads done very well advertising the power of the g5, and for a lot of "enlightened" Pc users, the slower GHz is ok if it is a g5. At the point a customer is compaing 64 bit and 32 bit they are willing to concede a few . GHZ. Or Apple can have a naming scheme like AMD for the g5 expresses. No one gives AMD a hard time for stopping at 2.2ghz, their processors are names 2800, 3200 and so on, without broadcasting the GHZ, and AMD is doing very well in the consumer marketplace.
A headless afforddable tower will keep current Apple customer from jumoing ship, and potential Apple customers more likely to choose Apple. someone did a study, 50% of computer buyers consider Apple. Why doesn't this translate into higher sales?.
Originally posted by jade
If Apple keeps its current display lineup, there is no question the 17" shoiuld ring in at about $499. Apple does not have to create a $1299 bundle to compete with Dell, a $1500 choice would be fine.
Why, specifically, is $1500 "fine"? Because that's the price you'd personally be willing to pay? Because that's the price the tiny group of "enlightened switchers" would be willing to pay? Do you really think the average PC user who refuses to buy a 1.25GHz 17" iMac for $1800, is suddenly going to overcome all his ignorant Mac bias and buy a 1.6GHz machine with a separate, but matching 17" display for $1500? All when he can get a 3Ghz + 17" combo from Dell for $999?
This is just more of the classic "close enough is good enough" mindset that plagues so many Mac users. You have this happy notion that most PC users are on the fence about the Mac and will tolerate being ripped off, just as long as it's not as much as they're being ripped off now. The reality is just the opposite. Apple would have to offer either identically powerful hardware with ordinary industrial design for less cost than Wintel, or identically powerful hardware with superior industrial design for the same cost as Wintel (and not a penny higher) for them to even consider switching.
Apple will concede some monitor sales with a headless machine, but if Apple uses DVI on the next revision of monitor, Apple will sell a whole lot morre to PC users...The increases volume from the PC users will make up for the g5 express buyers who skip the Apple monitor.
Now this is the exact response I was hoping for when I posted my display conundrum. In fact, I made a lengthy argument for this very concept on another forum. Let me paraphrase it here:
Apple's market leading, large format displays have always been coveted by Wintel users. There's four years of potential demand for these monitors pent up only by the incompatibility of ADC. If Apple can improve the design, intro a 30" high end model, lower prices, and most importantly, publicly dump ADC and advertise these displays directly to Wintel customers, then a MASSIVE new stream of revenue is instantly available.
Since these increased display sales are pure gravy (going to customers who never would have bought one anyway) their extra income can be used to subsidize a headless Mac. If a customer doesn't choose to buy an Apple monitor with his G5 mini, that is (finally) OK, since the display he was supposed to buy already got sold to someone using a Dell.
Though this excellent Sell-Displays-Directly-To-Wintel-Users strategy allows Apple to finally kick their AIO habit, it is crucial to realize it is NOT a marketshare strategy. Nothing will increase Mac marketshare other than perceived hardware parity and lucrative, cross-platform displays sales do nothing to address that. All it does is allow a greater range of desktop offerings to Apple's existing customers and give them greater value in their Mac purchases, which at this point is all we can hope for.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?"
In my case, probably the Sony 21" Trinitron. It's probably four years old. I'm really glad it did not come attached to a CPU.
In the case of many of my friends, something like a Dell2001FP, other have 17 and 22" Cinema displays too.
Displays last a long time.
Originally posted by iDave
Apple display sales to WinPC customers would put Apple logos directly in their faces while they're using their PCs. At some point those customers might consider looking at Macs when it's time to buy new computers; but only if Apple offers Macs they can afford and which will work with the Apple displays they already have. They don't have to be exactly the same price as Dell, just "affordable," unlike the dual G5 towers.
Yes, the Apple logo in their face aspect is a powerful side effect of the strategy.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
The proposed DVI-display-as-headless-Mac-subsidy strategy will not increase marketshare (at least not with any significance). What it will do is make current Mac users happier, entice a few more enlightened switchers to make the jump and get Apple off the AIO crackpipe. Still pretty good in my book, especially if it gets me the G5 mini I want.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
The one question I have never seen successfully answered by any headless Mac advocates is simply "what display goes with it?"[/B]
Originally posted by boots
In my case, probably the Sony 21" Trinitron. It's probably four years old. I'm really glad it did not come attached to a CPU.
In the case of many of my friends, something like a Dell2001FP, other have 17 and 22" Cinema displays too.
Displays last a long time.
I obviously meant what new display goes with it at time of purchase. No computer company can sell a desktop on the assumption that you'll use your old CRT you got laying around, especially not Apple.
If Apple vends a headless Mac, they MUST provide an affordable, accompanying display, at least as an option. So I ask again, what is it going to be?
[...] average PC user [...] most PC users [...]
This is a red herring. Apple hasn't appealed to "average PC users" since before the IBM PC was introduced and they had a 70% share of the personal computer market.
Macintosh buyers have always looked for value in something other than price/performance, simply because the platform has really never been able to consistently compete on those terms. Apple won't ever be able to compete with a Dell 3GHz + 17" LCD for less than $1000 on $/GHz+inches alone-- it will always be a question of whether or not Apple can get close enough that a good sized group of people are willing to pay extra for all the goodies that come with the Mac.
Personally, I don't buy the argument that Apple can't compete in the 17" LCD market. I just don't think they're trying right now. Think about it-- how difficult is it to design an LCD monitor? You've got the display panel itself, which is just purchased from a vendor, and you design the enclosure, some wiring, some controls, & the powersupply-- that's about it. Why couldn't Apple put together a 17" for $450, and sell it in a bundle with the 1.8 G5 for $100 off the price of both purchased separately? That'd be $1349, which I think a LOT of people would go for; certainly a lot more than currently go for the iMac.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yes, the Apple logo in their face aspect is a powerful side effect of the strategy.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
The proposed DVI-display-as-headless-Mac-subsidy strategy will not increase marketshare (at least not with any significance). What it will do is make current Mac users happier, entice a few more enlightened switchers to make the jump and get Apple off the AIO crackpipe. Still pretty good in my book, especially if it gets me the G5 mini I want.
People want a $1000 mac,...just not one with a head. And even if it only increase unit sales by 10%...that's still a good number of new mac users. I don't think a headless cheaper mac will bring PC users over in droves, but it will bring a few more over..and this will make a difference in Apple's bottom line, developers bottom line, and get us more support and software.
Apple isn't going to get to 10% overnight, but with small adjustments appe can remain more significinat, instead of the hardware company that makes pretty computers that are too expensive for the masses.
I say look at ibooks, they are a little more expensive than PC notebooks, but a lot of switchers buy them, because they are close enough in price and features. This is the niche the g5 express could fiill in the apple desktop lineup, a vehicle to drive more unit sales, and potential customers. You still gotta get them in the door.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Why, specifically, is $1500 "fine"? Because that's the price you'd personally be willing to pay? Because that's the price the tiny group of "enlightened switchers" would be willing to pay? Do you really think the average PC user who refuses to buy a 1.25GHz 17" iMac for $1800, is suddenly going to overcome all his ignorant Mac bias and buy a 1.6GHz machine with a separate, but matching 17" display for $1500? All when he can get a 3Ghz + 17" combo from Dell for $999?
I nominate $1500 tottal for an apple tower and a 17" LCD because the customers buying computers in the price range are also very likely to be doing the things apple advertises with ilife. The under $1000 are differennt than the $1000-1500 people. Apple can easilt poach quite a few of these people...with an attractive option. If you want to try out movie making or garage band....you will be willing to spend $1000 on a powerful new machine.....to set up your home studio or whatever. The people looking for new video editing stations know they need to spedn about $1000 for a machine that will handle it decently. And well a lot of computer users are like my family...they have more monitors than computers. An apple 17" display for $500 is just reasonable enough...but I imagine the geeks will have an extra monitor. The higher end computer shoppers will buy the apple monitor, and the cheap pros will use their current Cinema display.