Can and should Apple build 500-700 dollar machines? I don't know. I think it's a good idea, and no, such machines won't have an LCD. But at 999, that's no longer territory for a CRT based system.
Apple has publicly stated a desire to build a 999 consumer machine -- the "sweet spot"
That's not a bargain computer, it's fairly high end for a home machine, actually, but I think they've rightly assessed it as a "sweet spot"
What that means, is that machine is not cheap enough to sell, rather, it's just pricey enough, and attractive enough, to make 500-750 level buyers cough up the extra 300 quid and walk out with something a lot nicer.
999 is a sweet spot because it marks a nice threshold -- yo can convince people to spend that much rather easily if you throw a few nice features their way.
A CRT doesn't meet that criteria.
eMac is just a place holder in lieu of something proper for the space.
The evidence is in Apple's own institutional pricing on the eMac -- they can afford to sell it a LOT cheaper than 999, and they do, albeit with a few changes.
You will see a 999 iMac, and it will have an LCD, unless it goes headless.
I think it would be a good idea for apple to build a sub-£500 machine. The equivalent of an iPod. Deliberately AIO if it has bog-standard parts to run 'X' reasonable. Barebones. A simple Cube like device with a simple and elegant enclosure. Do people know what speed their console processor runs at? But they still want one, eh?
They have and it makes sense they plan to address it or get continually pounded with 60,000 sales. They lumped the iMac2 with the eMac because they knew damn well early on that they got it wrong and tried to mask the iMac 2's failure.
£999 is the top end average price for a cpu around the UK. £750 is the new sweet spot, common for a PC that can hand the eMac its ass on cpu spec. But looking around the PC World store..? The eMac has two weaknesses.
1. CPU. Apple need to drive the G5 into the consumer desktops half a year ago. 2 gig G5.
2. Monitor. Dell, box makers are selling LCDs with £750 computers. The shadow mask moire refresh challenged eMac isn't in the same league. It's poor. Rather save on the monitor and knock the price down another 100 quid and you've got an eBox for £455 and £545. Suddenly, Mac as a switcher box is a real proposition. Actually with the super drive and grahics? The eMac is competitive. Less ram on graphics than eMachines. Smaller hard drive. That's about it.
CRT doesn't meet the new 'sweet spot' landscape criteria. Agreed. It looks very tired in person. Doesn't represent Apple or the iMac principles of quality at all.
The eMac was and is clearly a place holder graphic of a machine in leu of the pricing crisis that hit the iMac 2 almost from its debut. Apple's big mistake was replacing the Cube with the iMac. Duh. The iMac's success was built on entry level power and value. The iMac 2 is so far behind the PowerMac G5 it aint funny. You can't con consumers, Apple.
Duh. They voted with their feet and no-G4 zealot can argue with the results or Apple's statement that Apple missed the 'sweetspot', the designs for iMac2/eMac are old news and that, eh...the next iMac will be G5 all you G4 fans...heh...sorry to disappoint, ah-heh?
I cannot figure Apple. If they can offer such good value to institutions, why not consumers? There's a big 95% of the market they haven't got...
80 stores and counting. And Apple store customers still aren't buying enough Macs for the foot patrol they're getting.
I think Matsu's arguments resonate because Apple is as flawed as it is brilliant sometimes.
Two AIOs going up to £2000.
They're only 'headless' Mac is £1300-£2100.
Odd.
At least give consumers a choice below the £1300.
If Apple can make money on institutional selling on eMacs and iBooks which are already reasonably priced they they could make a killing I would have thought on PC users who want to try the Mac as a second computer.
I think the eMac represents the cheapest ever Mac? @ £545. Lose the crap CRT and I'd buy...would have bought by now. They could easily get the price below £500.
The iBook could easily be many PC users 2nd computer. A virus free laptop. Apple is rightfully going after the laptop market with 40-50% of sales going this way.
But to neglect the 50% of computer consumers out there is madness.
iMac sales of 350-450,000 is not beyond Apple. There is a reason why eMac and iMac2 aren't selling. Apple themselves have told us the reasons.
I think Apple should go for a design that is simple. Elegant. Less elcectic.
Apple Studio alu variation. Annodised to match iPod minis. Brilliant tie-in to iPod users who want to 'match', to women who like colours eg 'pink' is the 2nd biggest seller in the states and to PC users to want to try the iPod, sorry, 'Apple' experience.
A monitor on your table. No wires. No bulk. No clutter. Like the iPod. Sleek, simple. Cool. But not odd looking like the iMac 2. You can love your iPod. But do you love your lamp-Mac? (Appleinsider owning iMac2 owners don't count...) iMacs had charm. iPod minis have charm but elegance. iMac 2 was clinical. Cold. Lacking charm. Blobbing your tongue out indeed.
It needs G5. Given. 17 inch - 23 inch.
17 inch entry. If the iMac 2 got £999 then the 3G G5 iMac will make £999. Personally. It should go lower. £795. With the eMac underneath.
I'd like to see a sub-iMac desktop. Replace the eMac with a sub-iMac. Similar. White plastic. 1.5 gig G4 client. 15 inch. Selling for £595 and £695. Break through. CRT dropped. Onboard graphics.
Bit like the difference between the iBook and the Powerbook but for iMac range instead.
And a new catchy name. eMac is pants. Called it the...
I usually post in USD, even though I buy in CAD, why Apple hates those who buy in GBP, I have no idea -- Apple really should apply a better conversion in foriegn markets.
The title of this thread is "REALISTIC suggestions for new iMac 2004".
Being realistic means that you also have to take into account the amount of money Apple has decided it needs to make on each box. Being realistic doesn't mean that you scour the internet for the cheapest components available and claim that Apple should make the iMac 3 using these; and then make next to no profit while they're at it!
Realism suggests that the iMac 3 will offer roughly the same quality of components as the iMac 2; with slight improvements here and there (mostly associated with the demands of including a G5 on the motherboard). A realistic view of the entire situation would indicate that the price points will be roughly the same as before. If Apple is able to shave $100-$200, then it should be considered a victory, but don't be surprised if the iMac 3 is slightly more expensive than the iMac 2.
I can understand why people have morphed this thread into a 'the iMac must compete with Dell or eMachines' discussion, but I just don't think that its realistic!
The eMac is forced to compete with DELL every day. Apple does well to lower the institutional price of the eMac substantially beyond that offered as a mere "edu" discount.
A thousand dollar iMac with a 17" LCD hardly competes with eMachines or DELL, nor scrapes the depths of the bargain hunters' aisle.
An LCD on a thousand dollar machine is pretty standard for a family/home computer. If we consider the market for the iMac -- home computers -- it's rather obvious that we're not talking about price competition in it's most aggressive price chopping mode, merely presenting an entry point that is not so costly as to be immediately dismissed as absurd.
The eMac has been filling that gap, but not entirely that well. Apple never tells you how many eMacs they sell at RETAIL, just the totals sold. Why? Because most of the eMacs are sold at heavy discount to edu institutions.
Margins on a 1000 machine with a 17" LCD are not a problem at all. I can build one from retail (not "OEM") priced components, I can almost do it in Canadian dollars even. Imagine what a company contracting out to build a few thousand units per week can do? Won't cost them more than 700-800 to design, build, ship, store such a product. Plenty of margin.
The only UNREALISTIC thing about the current iMac is its high price tag.
yawn..the same old bitchin' about pricing. Some people never tire of this. Trust, the eMac is not being sold for $999 to edu. If you think this then you haven't checked pricing for edu eMacs. This doesn't even take into consideration additional discounts that go to institutions and not just students.
Dell doesn't sell cheapo computers to schools because they like to. The cheapo clients are loss leaders for selling Dell Servers and support. That's where the money is. You want cheap Apple headless Macs then pray that Apple can start selling Xserves outside of cluster environments.
...Being realistic means that you also have to take into account the amount of money Apple has decided it needs to make on each box...
Being realistic also means taking into account the price point that the computer must compete in for it to be successfull, which does mean taking into account the price of the competition which , like it or not, does include Dell, suggesting otherwise is nieve.
Apple has admitted that the high price of the iMac G4 is part of its problem, therefore part of the realistic suggestions should take into account that the entry price point for the next iMac will be lower than the current $1299 retail. I would say that expecting the entry price for the successor to the iMac G4 to stay the same or be higher is unrealistic if Apple expects it to be successfull in today's market. $999 price tag is where it needs to be if they can put a computer together to compete at that price point, and a more agressive entry of $799 would be more appropriate for today's market.
$999 price tag is where it needs to be if they can put a computer together to compete at that price point, and a more agressive entry of $799 would be more appropriate for today's market.
Another broken record. We already have an eMac for $999. You guys keep tossing these price points out as if they are magical. Dell's crappiest Dimension 2400 would be over $999 with a decent 17" LCD. You guys are asking too much. No one is shipping a good machine(ie DVD-R, FW,USB, quality 17" good software) for $999. These are pipedreams people. The PCs at this level are crap and somehow you expect Apple to get there. Apple will not ship junk. They may ship something defective on the odd occaision but they will not ship subpar equipment, which is the PC norm on the low end.
Another broken record. We already have an eMac for $999....
Broken record or not, the marketing of the iMac has always been as Apple's consumer computer, which by Apple's own admission should have a lower entry price to compete in the market that it is targeted for. I'm not suggesting using a 17" LCD pannel for the low end iMac, just that it's price point needs to hit the "sweet spot" for it's intended market.
The eMac is intended for the education market, and it's release to the general public was due to Apple's inability to get the iMac down to the price that could compete in the lower end consumer market. I have not seen a concerted effort on Apples part to remarket the eMac as the entry consumer computer, and why should they? They have already spent a lot of money building up the iMac as their consumer computer. If they are going to abandon that market for the iMac to the eMac then it would be best to rename the eMac to the iMac and do a better job advertising this computer as their entry level. But as of today, the iMac has always been advertised as the conusmer level computer, and the "switcher's" solution. Add to that the fact that the eMac, after just recieving an update, is even more out of date and underpowered than the iMac will be when it is released next month and I think that it would be a bad idea for Apple to put their effort into marketing this computer as their entry model.
It has been addressed and re-stated so many times that my head hurts, and my eyes are tired of reading the same post over and over again.
Yes, to compete with the crappy entry level systems, Apple would themselves have to throw together, Bob's Modem, Sarah's LCD, and a bunch of other mix and match sub-par but magically higher specs based on a bunch of disclaimers at the bottom of the box, and have no aesthetic value, or lifetime cycle longer than two years, with many choices to upgrade to something useable, which I don't want them to do or see them doing, because then people will think of Apple as the other vendors, and even worse since it is Apple and not Dell, or whomever. Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
Apple must offer better hardware, Always! Not cheaper! That is the problem, the other is the Cost per unit, since Apple has a smaller user base the cost of each component is higher than a Dell, etc. So, we pay more in the end. Apple also spends chunks of money on research and development and the people behind that development to help in the overall experience. After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
You can build a cheap PC, but what do you have to run on it?! Windows, and a bunch of other crap, that just feels broke to me most of the time. But, have your price bitching, that is fine with me, but you may never get it.
It has been addressed and re-stated so many times that my head hurts, and my eyes are tired of reading the same post over and over again.
Yes, to compete with the crappy entry level systems, Apple would themselves have to throw together, Bob's Modem, Sarah's LCD, and a bunch of other mix and match sub-par but magically higher specs based on a bunch of disclaimers at the bottom of the box, and have no aesthetic value, or lifetime cycle longer than two years, with many choices to upgrade to something useable, which I don't want them to do or see them doing, because then people will think of Apple as the other vendors, and even worse since it is Apple and not Dell, or whomever. Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
Apple must offer better hardware, Always! Not cheaper! That is the problem, the other is the Cost per unit, since Apple has a smaller user base the cost of each component is higher than a Dell, etc. So, we pay more in the end. Apple also spends chunks of money on research and development and the people behind that development to help in the overall experience. After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
You can build a cheap PC, but what do you have to run on it?! Windows, and a bunch of other crap, that just feels broke to me most of the time. But, have your price bitching, that is fine with me, but you may never get it.
I went to Dell's site on a whim and picked the lowest 2400 desktop they had. I had to add a combo drive, bump RAM to 256MB, bump the HDD to 80GB *and* add the 17"lcd because the system was by no means standard with it. The price when I was through was $959. With that price it still had crappy embedded shared memory graphics and whatever chaotic collection of software they bundle with it. I also bumped the OS to WinXP pro to make it as comparable to OSX as was possible.
I was a bit shocked since I didn't even specify the "nice" 17" lcd but just the basic one. I think Apple may be hard pressed to build an iMac with 17" lcd and G5 at $999. I *could* imagine one with G5 and 17" lcd at $1299 though and honestly, that may be good enough to spark interest.
People who look at the absolute bottom line and just want a cheap box will probably never consider Apple anyway so why try to bottomfeed?
edit - Dell's site is an atrocity which violates a number of the Geneva Conventions and as such there are a myriad of ways to configure any particular model they offer. I am sure you could price the 2400 lower or even a bit higher depending on how you navigate Dell's site. Sorry, just my small disclaimer .
Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
I agree with ijerry on his second point, which is often not appreciated ... in that Apple can and must move profits from one part of the company to the other, yet they are smart enough to make sure iPods and the Retail stores are independently profitable.
I don't however agree that Apple can't compete with the Wal-mart crowd. I will be happy myself with an Apple that can survive the next 5o years giving me great hardware and software, regardless of the business accolades Dell may get. However if MS can steal Apple ideas, and Dell can develope business ideas, why can't Apple set up a low-end skunk works to find and MARKET to a (if not Wal-mart) at least Costco pricepoint. It isn't just about saving Apples face as high quality, it is about using imagination to open a new market with the same gusto as they did starting retail stores!!
And I believe the original iMac DID that and THAT is why it was successful.
Some people are just so ignorant of how selling things works it amazes me.
The point to having a $599-699 Mac isn't to sell a ton of them at lower margins, it is to get people looking. Once you have them looking you can upsell them to a system w/ higher margins. Dell doesn't advertise $399 PCs on TV because they want to sell people $399 PCs, they advertise them to get people to look at their other offerings.
Sorry but when your lowest cost system that you advertise starts at 999 or more (as in this case) people simply aren't going to look. For those who want to interject something about the emac's price being below 999, forget it Apple does not and likely never will advertise it as a consumer system.
The fact remains: eMac is a poor machine for consumers at the 799-999 range. 999 warrants an LCD.
I think it's a pretty good deal. I've used eMacs and I know the great quality they have. It's by no means a steal, but it's really worth the 799-999 USD that you could spend on it. And forget this talk about the LCD. It won't make or break the product. I'd rather have a good quality machine with a CRT for 999 than some 799 Dell with an LCD because sooner or later it's going down.
You know, you DO get what you pay for. It's not just a saying.
I agree with ijerry on his second point, which is often not appreciated ... in that Apple can and must move profits from one part of the company to the other, yet they are smart enough to make sure iPods and the Retail stores are independently profitable.
I don't however agree that Apple can't compete with the Wal-mart crowd. I will be happy myself with an Apple that can survive the next 5o years giving me great hardware and software, regardless of the business accolades Dell may get. However if MS can steal Apple ideas, and Dell can develope business ideas, why can't Apple set up a low-end skunk works to find and MARKET to a (if not Wal-mart) at least Costco pricepoint. It isn't just about saving Apples face as high quality, it is about using imagination to open a new market with the same gusto as they did starting retail stores!!
And I believe the original iMac DID that and THAT is why it was successful.
You are still missing the point that OS X is not Windows home edition, it is a pro OS, and you simply cannot run it on cheap hardware, there is no way around it. That is why on my G3, and even my G4 I have issues with X because it is a big and powerful OS. OS 9 was not this way, and thus Apple could use whatever parts they needed to, such is not the case now, we need a higher end graphics card, need a fast front-side bus, need ability for high memory, need a decent sized hard drive, and you still have to re-coup software development. Unlike Dell or MS, Apple cannot have a money-losing product in the hopes of acquiring a higher market share. They don't really have to as they are still making money, and that is what matters. Not the market share number as it is subjective. When people need an Apple product that the PC can't do or can't do well, then you will see the migration. Even if Apple was 200-300 dollars cheaper you would not see droves of switchers, I am not sure why many assume that. The software drives the hardware purchase, not the other way around, that is the way it is and many just don't understand that. IBM does as they sell anything to anybody and are perhaps the people that everyone should be paying attention to as far as a business model, including Apple. But for now, it is in Apple's best interest to offer the better computing experience than it is to offer the cheapest. It is also in their best interest to stay out of the gadgetry market and focus on consumer solutions. That is their market and their way to maintain profitability, and for now that is their only way.
Some people are just so ignorant of how selling things works it amazes me.
The point to having a $599-699 Mac isn't to sell a ton of them at lower margins, it is to get people looking. Once you have them looking you can upsell them to a system w/ higher margins. Dell doesn't advertise $399 PCs on TV because they want to sell people $399 PCs, they advertise them to get people to look at their other offerings.
Sorry but when your lowest cost system that you advertise starts at 999 or more (as in this case) people simply aren't going to look. For those who want to interject something about the emac's price being below 999, forget it Apple does not and likely never will advertise it as a consumer system.
There's a reason those Dell machines cost that. They're made of cheap materials and parts in massive quantities and won't last very long. Then users will feel sorry they even bought it. I wonder how would people feel about cheap Apple computers that stop working after a few months? The company won't get any new customers like that. Apple is about quality, durability, style, design, ease of use. Stop trying to get $699 dream machines or trying to make Apple sell at Dell's price points, which can't be done without compromising a lot of things.
Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.
Sometimes you won't get too many looks after selling a low-price, low quality product. That's what keeping a reputation as a computer company is all about. Apple can't afford to look bad.
Apple can't advertise machines at 399 so people look at their other offerings. Armani doesn't sell $50 suits.
Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.
You want Apple to build machines to draw people so they can "bait and switch". We comprehend and disregarded it as silly. Apple will not build a machine they cannot profit on.
You are the one with comprehension problems if you do not understand why Apple won't do it.
Really? Dell seems to be doing fine doing just that.
However, I never said low-quality or that Apple should price themselves the same as Dell. $699 should be more than adequate for a low-end headless Mac. One that doesn't have anywhere near the performance of a PowerMac or be quite as stylish as an iMac, but it would have to have decent quality and style. There is no reason that Apple could not make decent margins on such a system at $699 and likely even at $599. Again you miss the point, upselling works, but only if people look at what you have to offer in the first place.
Comments
Can and should Apple build 500-700 dollar machines? I don't know. I think it's a good idea, and no, such machines won't have an LCD. But at 999, that's no longer territory for a CRT based system.
Apple has publicly stated a desire to build a 999 consumer machine -- the "sweet spot"
That's not a bargain computer, it's fairly high end for a home machine, actually, but I think they've rightly assessed it as a "sweet spot"
What that means, is that machine is not cheap enough to sell, rather, it's just pricey enough, and attractive enough, to make 500-750 level buyers cough up the extra 300 quid and walk out with something a lot nicer.
999 is a sweet spot because it marks a nice threshold -- yo can convince people to spend that much rather easily if you throw a few nice features their way.
A CRT doesn't meet that criteria.
eMac is just a place holder in lieu of something proper for the space.
The evidence is in Apple's own institutional pricing on the eMac -- they can afford to sell it a LOT cheaper than 999, and they do, albeit with a few changes.
You will see a 999 iMac, and it will have an LCD, unless it goes headless.
I think it would be a good idea for apple to build a sub-£500 machine. The equivalent of an iPod. Deliberately AIO if it has bog-standard parts to run 'X' reasonable. Barebones. A simple Cube like device with a simple and elegant enclosure. Do people know what speed their console processor runs at? But they still want one, eh?
They have and it makes sense they plan to address it or get continually pounded with 60,000 sales. They lumped the iMac2 with the eMac because they knew damn well early on that they got it wrong and tried to mask the iMac 2's failure.
£999 is the top end average price for a cpu around the UK. £750 is the new sweet spot, common for a PC that can hand the eMac its ass on cpu spec. But looking around the PC World store..? The eMac has two weaknesses.
1. CPU. Apple need to drive the G5 into the consumer desktops half a year ago. 2 gig G5.
2. Monitor. Dell, box makers are selling LCDs with £750 computers. The shadow mask moire refresh challenged eMac isn't in the same league. It's poor. Rather save on the monitor and knock the price down another 100 quid and you've got an eBox for £455 and £545. Suddenly, Mac as a switcher box is a real proposition. Actually with the super drive and grahics? The eMac is competitive. Less ram on graphics than eMachines. Smaller hard drive. That's about it.
CRT doesn't meet the new 'sweet spot' landscape criteria. Agreed. It looks very tired in person. Doesn't represent Apple or the iMac principles of quality at all.
The eMac was and is clearly a place holder graphic of a machine in leu of the pricing crisis that hit the iMac 2 almost from its debut. Apple's big mistake was replacing the Cube with the iMac. Duh. The iMac's success was built on entry level power and value. The iMac 2 is so far behind the PowerMac G5 it aint funny. You can't con consumers, Apple.
Duh. They voted with their feet and no-G4 zealot can argue with the results or Apple's statement that Apple missed the 'sweetspot', the designs for iMac2/eMac are old news and that, eh...the next iMac will be G5 all you G4 fans...heh...sorry to disappoint, ah-heh?
I cannot figure Apple. If they can offer such good value to institutions, why not consumers? There's a big 95% of the market they haven't got...
80 stores and counting. And Apple store customers still aren't buying enough Macs for the foot patrol they're getting.
I think Matsu's arguments resonate because Apple is as flawed as it is brilliant sometimes.
Two AIOs going up to £2000.
They're only 'headless' Mac is £1300-£2100.
Odd.
At least give consumers a choice below the £1300.
If Apple can make money on institutional selling on eMacs and iBooks which are already reasonably priced they they could make a killing I would have thought on PC users who want to try the Mac as a second computer.
I think the eMac represents the cheapest ever Mac? @ £545. Lose the crap CRT and I'd buy...would have bought by now. They could easily get the price below £500.
The iBook could easily be many PC users 2nd computer. A virus free laptop. Apple is rightfully going after the laptop market with 40-50% of sales going this way.
But to neglect the 50% of computer consumers out there is madness.
iMac sales of 350-450,000 is not beyond Apple. There is a reason why eMac and iMac2 aren't selling. Apple themselves have told us the reasons.
I think Apple should go for a design that is simple. Elegant. Less elcectic.
Apple Studio alu variation. Annodised to match iPod minis. Brilliant tie-in to iPod users who want to 'match', to women who like colours eg 'pink' is the 2nd biggest seller in the states and to PC users to want to try the iPod, sorry, 'Apple' experience.
A monitor on your table. No wires. No bulk. No clutter. Like the iPod. Sleek, simple. Cool. But not odd looking like the iMac 2. You can love your iPod. But do you love your lamp-Mac? (Appleinsider owning iMac2 owners don't count...) iMacs had charm. iPod minis have charm but elegance. iMac 2 was clinical. Cold. Lacking charm. Blobbing your tongue out indeed.
It needs G5. Given. 17 inch - 23 inch.
17 inch entry. If the iMac 2 got £999 then the 3G G5 iMac will make £999. Personally. It should go lower. £795. With the eMac underneath.
I'd like to see a sub-iMac desktop. Replace the eMac with a sub-iMac. Similar. White plastic. 1.5 gig G4 client. 15 inch. Selling for £595 and £695. Break through. CRT dropped. Onboard graphics.
Bit like the difference between the iBook and the Powerbook but for iMac range instead.
And a new catchy name. eMac is pants. Called it the...
Lemon Bon Bon
Being realistic means that you also have to take into account the amount of money Apple has decided it needs to make on each box. Being realistic doesn't mean that you scour the internet for the cheapest components available and claim that Apple should make the iMac 3 using these; and then make next to no profit while they're at it!
Realism suggests that the iMac 3 will offer roughly the same quality of components as the iMac 2; with slight improvements here and there (mostly associated with the demands of including a G5 on the motherboard). A realistic view of the entire situation would indicate that the price points will be roughly the same as before. If Apple is able to shave $100-$200, then it should be considered a victory, but don't be surprised if the iMac 3 is slightly more expensive than the iMac 2.
I can understand why people have morphed this thread into a 'the iMac must compete with Dell or eMachines' discussion, but I just don't think that its realistic!
A thousand dollar iMac with a 17" LCD hardly competes with eMachines or DELL, nor scrapes the depths of the bargain hunters' aisle.
An LCD on a thousand dollar machine is pretty standard for a family/home computer. If we consider the market for the iMac -- home computers -- it's rather obvious that we're not talking about price competition in it's most aggressive price chopping mode, merely presenting an entry point that is not so costly as to be immediately dismissed as absurd.
The eMac has been filling that gap, but not entirely that well. Apple never tells you how many eMacs they sell at RETAIL, just the totals sold. Why? Because most of the eMacs are sold at heavy discount to edu institutions.
Margins on a 1000 machine with a 17" LCD are not a problem at all. I can build one from retail (not "OEM") priced components, I can almost do it in Canadian dollars even. Imagine what a company contracting out to build a few thousand units per week can do? Won't cost them more than 700-800 to design, build, ship, store such a product. Plenty of margin.
The only UNREALISTIC thing about the current iMac is its high price tag.
Dell doesn't sell cheapo computers to schools because they like to. The cheapo clients are loss leaders for selling Dell Servers and support. That's where the money is. You want cheap Apple headless Macs then pray that Apple can start selling Xserves outside of cluster environments.
Originally posted by dws
...Being realistic means that you also have to take into account the amount of money Apple has decided it needs to make on each box...
Being realistic also means taking into account the price point that the computer must compete in for it to be successfull, which does mean taking into account the price of the competition which , like it or not, does include Dell, suggesting otherwise is nieve.
Apple has admitted that the high price of the iMac G4 is part of its problem, therefore part of the realistic suggestions should take into account that the entry price point for the next iMac will be lower than the current $1299 retail. I would say that expecting the entry price for the successor to the iMac G4 to stay the same or be higher is unrealistic if Apple expects it to be successfull in today's market. $999 price tag is where it needs to be if they can put a computer together to compete at that price point, and a more agressive entry of $799 would be more appropriate for today's market.
$999 price tag is where it needs to be if they can put a computer together to compete at that price point, and a more agressive entry of $799 would be more appropriate for today's market.
Another broken record. We already have an eMac for $999. You guys keep tossing these price points out as if they are magical. Dell's crappiest Dimension 2400 would be over $999 with a decent 17" LCD. You guys are asking too much. No one is shipping a good machine(ie DVD-R, FW,USB, quality 17" good software) for $999. These are pipedreams people. The PCs at this level are crap and somehow you expect Apple to get there. Apple will not ship junk. They may ship something defective on the odd occaision but they will not ship subpar equipment, which is the PC norm on the low end.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Another broken record. We already have an eMac for $999....
Broken record or not, the marketing of the iMac has always been as Apple's consumer computer, which by Apple's own admission should have a lower entry price to compete in the market that it is targeted for. I'm not suggesting using a 17" LCD pannel for the low end iMac, just that it's price point needs to hit the "sweet spot" for it's intended market.
The eMac is intended for the education market, and it's release to the general public was due to Apple's inability to get the iMac down to the price that could compete in the lower end consumer market. I have not seen a concerted effort on Apples part to remarket the eMac as the entry consumer computer, and why should they? They have already spent a lot of money building up the iMac as their consumer computer. If they are going to abandon that market for the iMac to the eMac then it would be best to rename the eMac to the iMac and do a better job advertising this computer as their entry level. But as of today, the iMac has always been advertised as the conusmer level computer, and the "switcher's" solution. Add to that the fact that the eMac, after just recieving an update, is even more out of date and underpowered than the iMac will be when it is released next month and I think that it would be a bad idea for Apple to put their effort into marketing this computer as their entry model.
Yes, to compete with the crappy entry level systems, Apple would themselves have to throw together, Bob's Modem, Sarah's LCD, and a bunch of other mix and match sub-par but magically higher specs based on a bunch of disclaimers at the bottom of the box, and have no aesthetic value, or lifetime cycle longer than two years, with many choices to upgrade to something useable, which I don't want them to do or see them doing, because then people will think of Apple as the other vendors, and even worse since it is Apple and not Dell, or whomever. Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
Apple must offer better hardware, Always! Not cheaper! That is the problem, the other is the Cost per unit, since Apple has a smaller user base the cost of each component is higher than a Dell, etc. So, we pay more in the end. Apple also spends chunks of money on research and development and the people behind that development to help in the overall experience. After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
You can build a cheap PC, but what do you have to run on it?! Windows, and a bunch of other crap, that just feels broke to me most of the time. But, have your price bitching, that is fine with me, but you may never get it.
Originally posted by ijerry
It has been addressed and re-stated so many times that my head hurts, and my eyes are tired of reading the same post over and over again.
Yes, to compete with the crappy entry level systems, Apple would themselves have to throw together, Bob's Modem, Sarah's LCD, and a bunch of other mix and match sub-par but magically higher specs based on a bunch of disclaimers at the bottom of the box, and have no aesthetic value, or lifetime cycle longer than two years, with many choices to upgrade to something useable, which I don't want them to do or see them doing, because then people will think of Apple as the other vendors, and even worse since it is Apple and not Dell, or whomever. Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
Apple must offer better hardware, Always! Not cheaper! That is the problem, the other is the Cost per unit, since Apple has a smaller user base the cost of each component is higher than a Dell, etc. So, we pay more in the end. Apple also spends chunks of money on research and development and the people behind that development to help in the overall experience. After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
You can build a cheap PC, but what do you have to run on it?! Windows, and a bunch of other crap, that just feels broke to me most of the time. But, have your price bitching, that is fine with me, but you may never get it.
I went to Dell's site on a whim and picked the lowest 2400 desktop they had. I had to add a combo drive, bump RAM to 256MB, bump the HDD to 80GB *and* add the 17"lcd because the system was by no means standard with it. The price when I was through was $959. With that price it still had crappy embedded shared memory graphics and whatever chaotic collection of software they bundle with it. I also bumped the OS to WinXP pro to make it as comparable to OSX as was possible.
I was a bit shocked since I didn't even specify the "nice" 17" lcd but just the basic one. I think Apple may be hard pressed to build an iMac with 17" lcd and G5 at $999. I *could* imagine one with G5 and 17" lcd at $1299 though and honestly, that may be good enough to spark interest.
People who look at the absolute bottom line and just want a cheap box will probably never consider Apple anyway so why try to bottomfeed?
edit - Dell's site is an atrocity which violates a number of the Geneva Conventions and as such there are a myriad of ways to configure any particular model they offer. I am sure you could price the 2400 lower or even a bit higher depending on how you navigate Dell's site. Sorry, just my small disclaimer
Originally posted by ijerry
Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.
After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.
I agree with ijerry on his second point, which is often not appreciated ... in that Apple can and must move profits from one part of the company to the other, yet they are smart enough to make sure iPods and the Retail stores are independently profitable.
I don't however agree that Apple can't compete with the Wal-mart crowd. I will be happy myself with an Apple that can survive the next 5o years giving me great hardware and software, regardless of the business accolades Dell may get. However if MS can steal Apple ideas, and Dell can develope business ideas, why can't Apple set up a low-end skunk works to find and MARKET to a (if not Wal-mart) at least Costco pricepoint. It isn't just about saving Apples face as high quality, it is about using imagination to open a new market with the same gusto as they did starting retail stores!!
And I believe the original iMac DID that and THAT is why it was successful.
The point to having a $599-699 Mac isn't to sell a ton of them at lower margins, it is to get people looking. Once you have them looking you can upsell them to a system w/ higher margins. Dell doesn't advertise $399 PCs on TV because they want to sell people $399 PCs, they advertise them to get people to look at their other offerings.
Sorry but when your lowest cost system that you advertise starts at 999 or more (as in this case) people simply aren't going to look. For those who want to interject something about the emac's price being below 999, forget it Apple does not and likely never will advertise it as a consumer system.
Originally posted by Matsu
The fact remains: eMac is a poor machine for consumers at the 799-999 range. 999 warrants an LCD.
I think it's a pretty good deal. I've used eMacs and I know the great quality they have. It's by no means a steal, but it's really worth the 799-999 USD that you could spend on it. And forget this talk about the LCD. It won't make or break the product. I'd rather have a good quality machine with a CRT for 999 than some 799 Dell with an LCD because sooner or later it's going down.
You know, you DO get what you pay for. It's not just a saying.
Originally posted by MacGregor
I agree with ijerry on his second point, which is often not appreciated ... in that Apple can and must move profits from one part of the company to the other, yet they are smart enough to make sure iPods and the Retail stores are independently profitable.
I don't however agree that Apple can't compete with the Wal-mart crowd. I will be happy myself with an Apple that can survive the next 5o years giving me great hardware and software, regardless of the business accolades Dell may get. However if MS can steal Apple ideas, and Dell can develope business ideas, why can't Apple set up a low-end skunk works to find and MARKET to a (if not Wal-mart) at least Costco pricepoint. It isn't just about saving Apples face as high quality, it is about using imagination to open a new market with the same gusto as they did starting retail stores!!
And I believe the original iMac DID that and THAT is why it was successful.
You are still missing the point that OS X is not Windows home edition, it is a pro OS, and you simply cannot run it on cheap hardware, there is no way around it. That is why on my G3, and even my G4 I have issues with X because it is a big and powerful OS. OS 9 was not this way, and thus Apple could use whatever parts they needed to, such is not the case now, we need a higher end graphics card, need a fast front-side bus, need ability for high memory, need a decent sized hard drive, and you still have to re-coup software development. Unlike Dell or MS, Apple cannot have a money-losing product in the hopes of acquiring a higher market share. They don't really have to as they are still making money, and that is what matters. Not the market share number as it is subjective. When people need an Apple product that the PC can't do or can't do well, then you will see the migration. Even if Apple was 200-300 dollars cheaper you would not see droves of switchers, I am not sure why many assume that. The software drives the hardware purchase, not the other way around, that is the way it is and many just don't understand that. IBM does as they sell anything to anybody and are perhaps the people that everyone should be paying attention to as far as a business model, including Apple. But for now, it is in Apple's best interest to offer the better computing experience than it is to offer the cheapest. It is also in their best interest to stay out of the gadgetry market and focus on consumer solutions. That is their market and their way to maintain profitability, and for now that is their only way.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Some people are just so ignorant of how selling things works it amazes me.
The point to having a $599-699 Mac isn't to sell a ton of them at lower margins, it is to get people looking. Once you have them looking you can upsell them to a system w/ higher margins. Dell doesn't advertise $399 PCs on TV because they want to sell people $399 PCs, they advertise them to get people to look at their other offerings.
Sorry but when your lowest cost system that you advertise starts at 999 or more (as in this case) people simply aren't going to look. For those who want to interject something about the emac's price being below 999, forget it Apple does not and likely never will advertise it as a consumer system.
There's a reason those Dell machines cost that. They're made of cheap materials and parts in massive quantities and won't last very long. Then users will feel sorry they even bought it. I wonder how would people feel about cheap Apple computers that stop working after a few months? The company won't get any new customers like that. Apple is about quality, durability, style, design, ease of use. Stop trying to get $699 dream machines or trying to make Apple sell at Dell's price points, which can't be done without compromising a lot of things.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.
Sometimes you won't get too many looks after selling a low-price, low quality product. That's what keeping a reputation as a computer company is all about. Apple can't afford to look bad.
Apple can't advertise machines at 399 so people look at their other offerings. Armani doesn't sell $50 suits.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.
You want Apple to build machines to draw people so they can "bait and switch". We comprehend and disregarded it as silly. Apple will not build a machine they cannot profit on.
You are the one with comprehension problems if you do not understand why Apple won't do it.
However, I never said low-quality or that Apple should price themselves the same as Dell. $699 should be more than adequate for a low-end headless Mac. One that doesn't have anywhere near the performance of a PowerMac or be quite as stylish as an iMac, but it would have to have decent quality and style. There is no reason that Apple could not make decent margins on such a system at $699 and likely even at $599. Again you miss the point, upselling works, but only if people look at what you have to offer in the first place.
Originally posted by Dazaran
Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.
Yeah, because it obviously worked for gateway!