$1899 - $1299 = $600

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
The 20" iMac costs $1899, and the 20" display costs $1299. So that's $600 for a 1.8 Ghz G5, the RAM, the graphics card, the hard drive, the Superdrive, etc.



Presumably they're getting lower margins on the iMac, but still, doesn't that suggest that they could sell a headless G5 Mac for dirt cheap if they wanted? Certainly under $1000.



They need to dump the eMac and put a single G5 in a box and sell it for $899 w/o the monitor. People will still buy the iMac for its elegance and small footprint, and they'll buy the PowerMac to get duals and expansion slots and to have the fastest Mac available. But they also need a switcher machine for people looking at PCs. Right now there's nothing competitive from Apple, and Apple has said they know it. So what are they waiting for?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Are they the same monitor? Apple probably have some healthy margins on the 20" monitor, but less on the iMac.
  • Reply 2 of 56
    resres Posts: 711member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    The 20" iMac costs $1899, and the 20" display costs $1299. So that's $600 for a 1.8 Ghz G5, the RAM, the graphics card, the hard drive, the Superdrive, etc.



    Presumably they're getting lower margins on the iMac, but still, doesn't that suggest that they could sell a headless G5 Mac for dirt cheap if they wanted? Certainly under $1000.



    They need to dump the eMac and put a single G5 in a box and sell it for $899 w/o the monitor. People will still buy the iMac for its elegance and small footprint, and they'll buy the PowerMac to get duals and expansion slots and to have the fastest Mac available. But they also need a switcher machine for people looking at PCs. Right now there's nothing competitive from Apple, and Apple has said they know it. So what are they waiting for?




    The parts for the 20" LCD probably cost Apple less than $700, so to keep up profitability I think that they would need to charge closer to $1199 for your headless G5 Mac.
  • Reply 3 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Stoo

    Are they the same monitor? Apple probably have some healthy margins on the 20" monitor, but less on the iMac.



    Size and resolution are the same, so I'd guess yes.



    I did the same math.



    What needs to be carefully noted here though is what Apple (maybe) could do is a "headless, slotless 'brick' of a computer" for that price...maybe...we have no idea what their cost structure looks like. As soon as you begin adding slots (which everyone desiring the headless iMac seems to expect) the math changes a bit. First bigger box...second, bigger power supply...both increase direct (component) costs and indirect (shipping and storage) costs.
  • Reply 4 of 56
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Stoo

    Are they the same monitor? Apple probably have some healthy margins on the 20" monitor, but less on the iMac.



    The monitors are the same size, but the specs show better brightness and such on the stand-alone display then the iMac. I doubt there's too much of a difference in price though.
  • Reply 5 of 56
    They probably expect (and I would assume quite correctly) that they will be selling quite a few more iMac G5's than 20" displays, so margins don't need to be so high. Plus, the fact that they are lower-quality displays could lower their costs a fair amount.
  • Reply 6 of 56
    If a headless iMac came out I would buy it!



    I think it would be a succes just because of the low price and people who

    dont mind not having a flatscreen could just buy a cheep CRT and still have the power of the G5 for a really low price.



    But as long as the eMac is still around I can't see the price being that low



    So I think Apple will either update the eMac or discontinue it and launch this new headless iMac
  • Reply 7 of 56
    kedakeda Posts: 722member
    I have two very nice monitors siting here, attached to my G3. I am considering an iMac for home use, but its hard to rationalize dumping these two screens. The topic has been recycled many times and I don't think Apple will do it, but if they made a headless iMac (pizza-box?) that could run dual monitors I'd buy it.
  • Reply 8 of 56
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,458member
    Lordie, another.. "Why the hell won't Apple pull their head out of their ass and sell me a minitower" thread.



    We've been having these since before the cube. Apple appears very capable of doing it. They seem to enjoy torturing us and don't want to do sell it though.



    Those mini-G5' towers that were shown on here, I'd be overcome with computer lust and just have to buy one before I could even think about where the money was coming from. Having a few harddrive bays, an upgradeable AGP or PCI express graphic card and a fast single G5 processor for around $999 would be unstoppable which is why we all keep chatting about it.



    No one knows why Apple won't do it. Steve appears to hate anything that could hold a few standardized parts and be reasonably priced.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    No one knows why Apple won't do it. Steve appears to hate anything that could hold a few standardized parts and be reasonably priced.



    Nick




    Now why would Jobs care about what the consumer wants? He's always given the public what he wants. While Apple's current product line is pretty good, there's still that attitude that the customer has little choice when buying. It's either a faster processor but you gotta pay the extra bucks for the bigger screen. You want a big screen, well too bad you gotta pay for that faster processor. What happend to some degree of choice? That's why a headless mac will work and should sell well IMO.
  • Reply 10 of 56
    akacakac Posts: 511member
    Apple has talked about this in their analyst conference calls. It doesn't make sense for them to do so.



    You can't just take one RETAIL price that has a whole cost structure behind it and subtract it from another RETAIL price that has another whole cost structure behind it.



    The truth is that #1 - since the G5 is in short supply, it makes no sense making pennies off the supply when they could make hundreds of dollars off that supply. This means that if they have 250,000 G5s available - they know they can sell PowerMacs and iMacs with that supply and make a hundred bucks per device, while if they do a "iCheap" they'd make a buck or two. Which makes more sense?



    #2 - Cost of packaging, support, shipping, DESIGN, etc.. still would make an 'iCheap" into the $700 price range - if not higher. Might as well just by an eMac.
  • Reply 11 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DVD_Junkie

    Now why would Jobs care about what the consumer wants? He's always given the public what he wants. While Apple's current product line is pretty good, there's still that attitude that the customer has little choice when buying. It's either a faster processor but you gotta pay the extra bucks for the bigger screen. You want a big screen, well too bad you gotta pay for that faster processor. What happend to some degree of choice? That's why a headless mac will work and should sell well IMO.



    Well I assume eventually at the Apple Store you should be able to do som BTO configuration. The two cases probably are so tightly packed that there are some physical barriers to some wishlist configs, but you are correct in worrying about choice in the consumer market.



    All you economist/marketing genius wannabees, stop trashing the eMac with it's healthy sales and all ready paid for R&D. Even if there were a minitower G5, the eMac will still make Apple money. The minitower would have to support its own market and it would.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    I think it's safe to say that at this point, Apple has no intention to ever release ths headless iMac. Dream on, brothers, either resign yourself to this fate or... keep complaining I guess.
  • Reply 13 of 56
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman





    . . . No one knows why Apple won't do it. Steve appears to hate anything that could hold a few standardized parts and be reasonably priced.



    Nick






    I believe you hit it. No one knows why. Apple gives some "good sounding" reasons to appease market analysts, but there is more to it and we simply do not know. Yet, regarding a headless G5 iMac, it would be logical to wait until IBM can supply a whole lot more processors before doing it.



    The best headless consumer/business/education Mac right now would be a small, headless eMac, and make it expandable. Being expandable, it could drop a couple features to make the entry price a little lower yet. Most folks argue, there would be so little profit that it would hurt Apple's bottom line. It ain't necessarily so. Apple could sell a low-end headless Mac that gives Apple the same dollar profit as an eMac. No law says a company must make less profit on a lower priced item. In this case, the profit margin, in percent, would be higher on the low-end Mac.



    Apple could have a lower cost display to go with a headless eMac, and offer a discount to those buying both the Mac and display together. That way, buyers of the complete system would not be hit with higher profit margin than on the current eMac.



    Right now, we can get a low-end headless Mac on eBay. This is where all but one of my Macs came from, because Apple doesn't make the headless eMac. I did buy a G5 Power Mac for any heavy duty stuff. I know that it is hurting Apple to not have such a Mac. I would rather have something small and new for the light duty Macs.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    I think it's safe to say that at this point, Apple has no intention to ever release ths headless iMac. Dream on, brothers, either resign yourself to this fate or... keep complaining I guess.



    Apart from the issue of a headless Mac, my intent was just to show that these G5 + computer guts can't be all that expensive. Just a few months ago, they were selling a 1.8 Ghz single G5 PowerMac for $2400, with specs only a bit better than this new 20" iMac that is only $600 more than the 20" monitor alone. That makes me go hmmm. Now they're all dual, so it's hard to compare. But their margins must be absolutely huge on these things.
  • Reply 15 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Akac

    Might as well just by an eMac.



    dood, you are missing the point. most here would happily pay the same amount that an eMac retails, just so long as there isnt a monitor attached...
  • Reply 16 of 56
    The new iMac: the disposable display.



    You're paying $1900 for a $600 un-upgradeable computer and $1300 screen. The expensive display becomes utterly useless once the computer is outdated. It has all the disadvantages of a laptop with none of the advantages (mobility, size and weight).
  • Reply 17 of 56
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    The new iMac: the disposable display.



    You're paying $1900 for a $600 un-upgradeable computer and $1300 screen. The expensive display becomes utterly useless once the computer is outdated. It has all the disadvantages of a laptop with none of the advantages (mobility, size and weight).






    That may be a little over critical. A G5 iMac will not become useless when it is outdated. It might be assigned some useful but lesser tasks. I have a 300 MHz beige G3 doing email and word processing right now. I'm typing on it. I'd much rather have a G4 iMac for this job, and it is now outdated.



    I do agree with the strong preference for a headless computer that many here have. Apple is missing a lot of potential sales by not having one or two models of a headless Mac that are small and under $1000.
  • Reply 18 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by snoopy

    That may be a little over critical. A G5 iMac will not become useless when it is outdated. It might be assigned some useful but lesser tasks. I have a 300 MHz beige G3 doing email and word processing right now. I'm typing on it. I'd much rather have a G4 iMac for this job, and it is now outdated.



    I do agree with the strong preference for a headless computer that many here have. Apple is missing a lot of potential sales by not having one or two models of a headless Mac that are small and under $1000.




    Apple's fear is that a sale of a computer under $1000 will be one PM or iMac less sold. That's where many here disagree. Most of those that would buy the sub-$1000 headless unit will not be buying the dual CPU towers or the more expensive iMac. I know many of these people and I've been trying for years to get them to buy a new Mac but they keep arguing the high cost and hence go off and buy a $800 Windows paperweight or keep plugging away with a G3 or even a motorola 604e Mac. Apple's ever decreasing marketshare is as much their own fault.
  • Reply 19 of 56
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I think Apple should just offer the eMac without a monitor, with a user upgradeable GPU, but at the same price as the eMac. The cost to produce and ship (in volume or individually) that little box would be less than an eMac, so the profit margins would be higher. It doesn't need to be their best box.
  • Reply 20 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    The new iMac: the disposable display.



    You're paying $1900 for a $600 un-upgradeable computer and $1300 screen. The expensive display becomes utterly useless once the computer is outdated. It has all the disadvantages of a laptop with none of the advantages (mobility, size and weight).




    Perhaps Apple finally gets this and is making the new iMac capable of having most its parts, including the motherboard, replaceable by the user.



    It remains to be seen if this means that we will be able to update the processor and video card in the future, but its seems to be that it should be possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.