Except for having dual processors, there's no reason why the Powermacs cost as much as they do. It's riidiculous. Also, why should people have to buy old discontinued hardware just to get an expandible computer and a computer without a built-in monitor?
[quote]They could see a lower ended PowerMac tower with a last generation single processor to round out the bottom of their line. Maybe have Mediocre, Fast, Faster, etc... Like an 800MHz G4 tower for $899 or something but I would probably buy an eMac for $200 more and so would most corporate customers who then have one less piece of hardware to deal with.<hr></blockquote>
That would be pretty good. Yeah, some people, like you, would go for the eMac, but a lot of people wouldn't because this way they wouldn't be tied to one monitor choice and they'd be able to upgrade the tower more than they could upgrade the e/iMac.
I assert that any canabilization which would result from the release of a low end tower would be more than made up for by increased sales from other consumers. For many people, the choice is not between iMac or Tower, but between Mac and PC.
My Mom has my old Powerbase 240 with a 19" monitor I gave her to be easy on her eyes. Which NEW computer do you recommend? The $1,700.00 "entry-level" dual 867MHz Power Mac or the $700.00 Dell that dork is pushing?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the two computers are equivalent. But there's no way in hell my mom needs an 867 dualie and a 60 gig hard-drive.
So the Powerbase will be consigned to the Garage, next to the Pizza Box Quadra, the LC before it and the Plus before that, and the 512 that started my family in computing. In its place will sit, in all likelihood, an ugly gray Dell which I will resent, but grudgingly accept.
There is a reason that this topic comes up again and again: They're killing themselves. There are lots of people who WANT Macs, who DON'T WANT AIOs, and who can't afford Dualies.
I don't care how Apple does it. Stick an iMac's guts in a bare bones case. Ship a headless eMac. Ship a single 867 tower w/ 128k ram and a 20 gig hardrig. Hell, if they don't want to sully the Apple name with something ugly, rebrand it as Power. I don't care. Just offer something, anything, headless for under $1000.00
[quote] IME corporates don't upgrade. They replace and trickle down. Shit rolls down hill <hr></blockquote>
Families do that too... My mom is constantly trying to pawn off her extra-old PC crap to my neices and nephews, while she gets an extra-new one for the 'office' (in the house) and the current 'office' one goes to the outside shop. Her latest is a $900 CDN 1.25Mhz computer with CD and CD burner. My next Mac will set me back at least $1500 CDN.
I believe the biggest question people should be asking is "what does Corporate America want?" and rather than asking yourself or myself, they should be askinng Corporate America. In most cases, I believe the biggest thing will be 'backwards compatability' wherin the Apple doesn't stand a chance right out of the box (without third-party software/hardware)
Now, to change this would require a significant change in the people responsible for selling Corporate America on their current solutions... Those IT people who make their money selling the hardware and software and by charging you to fix the problems.
Lets face it, this important group of people isn't going to recommend a computer which generates less money from hardware (for them) and less need to fix (by hiring them).
Apple should be focussing on building an IT team of sales, marketing and upgrading personnel whose sole mandate is to contact companies and build solutions using Apple products. Perhaps building their stores in the various states is a step towards that.
A low end tower would canibalize iMac sales moreso than pMac sales, and that's a good thing as even a low end tower would have a better margin. So what if it took a few PM sales? It'd take more than a few iMac sales. I'm not advocating cheap, just affordable and expandable/upgradable. Look at what the majority of ALL consumers buy, affordable towers. It pretty obvious that anyone with the stated intention of selling lots of computers should have a product that matches what is by far the most popular configuration on the market -- the 999 consumer tower. Apple could make the from 800-1500 dollars to overlap with the iMac and give consumers a choice.
Some of you seem to think that Apple is largely successful at corraling iMac users into higher margin products. They aren't. Apple's slowly shrinking marketshare testifies to the fact that people increasingly look elsewhere when they do not find the price/feature/expansion combinations that meet their needs.
"Some of you seem to think that Apple is largely successful at corraling iMac users into higher margin products. They aren't. Apple's slowly shrinking marketshare testifies to the fact that people increasingly look elsewhere when they do not find the price/feature/expansion combinations that meet their needs."
Exactly. Don't give me what I want? I'll go elsewhere no matter how 'nice' it is. People are often sticklers. They want their 'idea' of what they want. If someone else has it... They buy elsewhere.
Gee, I wonder why 97% of the computing world doesn't buy Apple?
Maybe they see alot of things Apple just aint giving them. I wonder what they are?
Comments
[quote]They could see a lower ended PowerMac tower with a last generation single processor to round out the bottom of their line. Maybe have Mediocre, Fast, Faster, etc... Like an 800MHz G4 tower for $899 or something but I would probably buy an eMac for $200 more and so would most corporate customers who then have one less piece of hardware to deal with.<hr></blockquote>
That would be pretty good. Yeah, some people, like you, would go for the eMac, but a lot of people wouldn't because this way they wouldn't be tied to one monitor choice and they'd be able to upgrade the tower more than they could upgrade the e/iMac.
[ 01-02-2003: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
My Mom has my old Powerbase 240 with a 19" monitor I gave her to be easy on her eyes. Which NEW computer do you recommend? The $1,700.00 "entry-level" dual 867MHz Power Mac or the $700.00 Dell that dork is pushing?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the two computers are equivalent. But there's no way in hell my mom needs an 867 dualie and a 60 gig hard-drive.
So the Powerbase will be consigned to the Garage, next to the Pizza Box Quadra, the LC before it and the Plus before that, and the 512 that started my family in computing. In its place will sit, in all likelihood, an ugly gray Dell which I will resent, but grudgingly accept.
There is a reason that this topic comes up again and again: They're killing themselves. There are lots of people who WANT Macs, who DON'T WANT AIOs, and who can't afford Dualies.
I don't care how Apple does it. Stick an iMac's guts in a bare bones case. Ship a headless eMac. Ship a single 867 tower w/ 128k ram and a 20 gig hardrig. Hell, if they don't want to sully the Apple name with something ugly, rebrand it as Power. I don't care. Just offer something, anything, headless for under $1000.00
Families do that too... My mom is constantly trying to pawn off her extra-old PC crap to my neices and nephews, while she gets an extra-new one for the 'office' (in the house) and the current 'office' one goes to the outside shop. Her latest is a $900 CDN 1.25Mhz computer with CD and CD burner. My next Mac will set me back at least $1500 CDN.
I believe the biggest question people should be asking is "what does Corporate America want?" and rather than asking yourself or myself, they should be askinng Corporate America. In most cases, I believe the biggest thing will be 'backwards compatability' wherin the Apple doesn't stand a chance right out of the box (without third-party software/hardware)
Now, to change this would require a significant change in the people responsible for selling Corporate America on their current solutions... Those IT people who make their money selling the hardware and software and by charging you to fix the problems.
Lets face it, this important group of people isn't going to recommend a computer which generates less money from hardware (for them) and less need to fix (by hiring them).
Apple should be focussing on building an IT team of sales, marketing and upgrading personnel whose sole mandate is to contact companies and build solutions using Apple products. Perhaps building their stores in the various states is a step towards that.
Some of you seem to think that Apple is largely successful at corraling iMac users into higher margin products. They aren't. Apple's slowly shrinking marketshare testifies to the fact that people increasingly look elsewhere when they do not find the price/feature/expansion combinations that meet their needs.
Exactly. Don't give me what I want? I'll go elsewhere no matter how 'nice' it is. People are often sticklers. They want their 'idea' of what they want. If someone else has it... They buy elsewhere.
Gee, I wonder why 97% of the computing world doesn't buy Apple?
Maybe they see alot of things Apple just aint giving them. I wonder what they are?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Maybe they see alot of things Apple just aint giving them. I wonder what they are?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
volume...
97% of the PC-using worldpopulation can't be wrong.
so being one of them makes you are always right and if not, then there is an awfull lot of people wrong... so many, they can't be wrong.
it's impossible betting the wrong horse...