Kits, Clones and Low Cost Macs
Discussions about low cost Macs keep appearing, usually for one compelling reason. There is no desktop Mac that can compete with the low cost Windows PCs. As a result, Apple is losing the educational market, losing some long time Mac customers, and making little headway in enterprise. True, Apple is making gains somewhere, since market share is not dropping. Yet this shows that Apple might be realizing market growth now, with the right low end products.
Whether or not Apple intends to pursue this market, we don't know. If they choose to ignore this market, it would hurt the Mac platform, which depends on a high enough market share to keep developers motivated, long term. If Apple plans no low cost products, like those that have been mentioned in these discussions, they must at least find a way to keep the platform healthy.
The solution might be a new kind of clone. Here is the reasoning. If Apple is going to lose sales to low cost computers, these may as well be low cost OS X computers that run standard Mac applications. So the trick would be to keep clones in the really low price market, period. And just how could Apple do this?
Motherboard! Apple could design a motherboard for this market, and sell it with an OS license to would be computer makers. Apple could also offer this same board with a boxed copy of OS X through the Apple store, for those who wish to build their own. Bundling the board and OS X would ensure that a licensed version of OS X is included with each new computer. It would also mean that upgrading a motherboard later requires a new version of the OS too. Some may not like bundling OS X, but I think it would be a good business practice.
What would such a motherboard be? That could be an interesting discussion. Briefly, I think it needs to restrict performance to the low end markets being addressed: schools, general office applications and low end home use. To keep from raising too many issues here, I'll just leave it at that, and not suggest any specific ways to do it. The other issue would be form factor. Apple could design the board to fit a small standard case, or they could have their own size and shape. It Apple chose to go with a special form factor, they would need to offer a case at the Apple store for those building their own, and possibly a power supply too.
The nice thing about this plan is that Apple can observe sales of the clones, and later decide whether to enter this low cost market with their own product. Also, having parts available for building or completely refurbishing computers may be attractive to business. It gives the appearance of having more "standard" hardware, which it would be in some ways.
Edit Addendum: Just to recap, this whole idea is an alternative way for Apple to address declining share in cost sensitive markets. The preferred way would be for Apple to sell a Mac that can compete in this price range. The special motherboard would be the only way for clone makers to enter the Mac market. Selling the same motherboard through the Apple store is just an after thought, if Apple were already producing it for clones.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
Whether or not Apple intends to pursue this market, we don't know. If they choose to ignore this market, it would hurt the Mac platform, which depends on a high enough market share to keep developers motivated, long term. If Apple plans no low cost products, like those that have been mentioned in these discussions, they must at least find a way to keep the platform healthy.
The solution might be a new kind of clone. Here is the reasoning. If Apple is going to lose sales to low cost computers, these may as well be low cost OS X computers that run standard Mac applications. So the trick would be to keep clones in the really low price market, period. And just how could Apple do this?
Motherboard! Apple could design a motherboard for this market, and sell it with an OS license to would be computer makers. Apple could also offer this same board with a boxed copy of OS X through the Apple store, for those who wish to build their own. Bundling the board and OS X would ensure that a licensed version of OS X is included with each new computer. It would also mean that upgrading a motherboard later requires a new version of the OS too. Some may not like bundling OS X, but I think it would be a good business practice.
What would such a motherboard be? That could be an interesting discussion. Briefly, I think it needs to restrict performance to the low end markets being addressed: schools, general office applications and low end home use. To keep from raising too many issues here, I'll just leave it at that, and not suggest any specific ways to do it. The other issue would be form factor. Apple could design the board to fit a small standard case, or they could have their own size and shape. It Apple chose to go with a special form factor, they would need to offer a case at the Apple store for those building their own, and possibly a power supply too.
The nice thing about this plan is that Apple can observe sales of the clones, and later decide whether to enter this low cost market with their own product. Also, having parts available for building or completely refurbishing computers may be attractive to business. It gives the appearance of having more "standard" hardware, which it would be in some ways.
Edit Addendum: Just to recap, this whole idea is an alternative way for Apple to address declining share in cost sensitive markets. The preferred way would be for Apple to sell a Mac that can compete in this price range. The special motherboard would be the only way for clone makers to enter the Mac market. Selling the same motherboard through the Apple store is just an after thought, if Apple were already producing it for clones.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
Comments
As for a cheap "headless" mac, this is plausable and a very good idea. It doesn't matter if it's a cube, a "pizza box" a micro tower, the point is that a sub 1000 mac, with a G4 and without a built in monitor would be a very good idea. Apple could price it so that this mac would cost about 100-200 more than an equal iMac. So you are paying for the upgradability (AGP slot,3 ram slots, 1 PCI). Such a cheap machine would be for the following: Linux users (computer geeks with monitors and extra memory,HDs etc.) PC and Mac users with old monitors they want to use.
Apple added the eMac to lower the price of the iMac
12 inch powerbook to add a small and cheap Powerbook
Apple added the "plastic" iBook to make a 999 portable
A sub 1000 non aio is needed and would sell well. Even if it took sales away from the powermac, it doesn't really matter as the Powermac sales are abismal anyway.
Apple needs to either address this market, or turn some clone makers lose in it to keep the Mac platform alive and well. Addressing a group of niche markets will not keep a critical mass of developers producing appealing applications. Apple may be doing some great stuff, and they are not doing too bad financially, but without a powerful force of developers it cannot last. As I mentioned before, if Apple is going to lose sales to low priced competition, why not let it be to clones, who are at least bolstering the OS X PPC platform? If Apple controls the motherboard that clone makers use, Apple can keep clones out of the their most important markets. I would prefer that Apple bites the bullet, and makes a low priced Mac themselves, but clones are better than nothing.
Yes. A computer with LCD for less than £500 inc Vat by the sounds of it. This is where the low-end of the iMac should be. Even if it meant shared graphics. For people who just want email and 'stuff' that is all it needs to be.
The iMac 2 is failing in the original remitt. A sub-grand computer. Apple have partially repeated the mistake of the Cube. The iMac should not be competing with tower sales. Which it is. It's way too much for an unexpandable machine. Selling 120K ish iMac 2 computers is poor. The original iMac could spit out three times that in a poor quarter. Why? Price and three models under a K. Yet again, Apple fails to realise a superb machine for the right price. When will they get this thing right.
Most normal people aren't going to be persuaded by 'X' costing 50% more than the opposition. From 'power'Macs to iMacs. Sure, they may get a few more middle class switchers who weren't aware of Apple.
They need to realign the iMac 2 and 'power'Macs in price.
But they need to get to that 'low cost' area by hook or crook. And this will lead to growth.
They're doing well considering.
But they can't afford to lose the edu' market.
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple, for god's sake, just give us a tower or cube redux (with one added PCI slot and support for full size cards) for 999 (including 64MB graphics and a fast combo drive. That's all. high margin, reasonably priced, headless switcher machine. Trim the optical, HDD, and RAM allotments and sell to edu for 699.
Done. Quit fooking around. OSX is not that special, not enough to overcome the spec sheet, neither are iApps. X86 has iApps too, it's called Kazaa. You can only sell models where they are price competitive with X86. Hence excellent iBook sales and miserable PM/iMac sales. Feature competitive helps too, and the one feature people really want, expansion/upgradability, you don't offer on any reasonably priced machine.
Yes.
Yes.
Agreed on all three.
When Apple gets that. They'll get some growth.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
I bought a cube back when they dropped it to $1295; I thought it was a bit pricey but I had monitors already. The cube had an expensive acrylic case and a gee-whiz power switch to drive the price up. Drop the snazzy gewgaws and make a simple minitower and sell it for $999 or less.
G4 Power Supply
G4 ATX Main Logic Board
G4 Daughtercard
Graphics Card
Hard Drive
Memory
$999
----------
This could be the "low end Power Mac" that everyone begs Apple for. Low-end components, no Apple case, schools don't have to have an optical drive, everyone else can choose their own.
I think Apple wouldn't be able to sell just the motherboard, as it would be too low margin and uncontrollable.
But a kit with other components, take that Bill!
Barto
It is still a card with CPUs and cache sitting on a MLB.
LIF is more sturdy, being screwed onto the motherboard.
Also, the physical pressure against the pins helps with data transmittion, so LIF probably ends up cheaper.
Barto
Exactly. Apple had to be a smart arse about it. And after pulling their head from their own rectum looked puzzled as to why the cube wasn't selling.
Take away the fluff and it would still have looked pretty cool.
As it is, they could 'do the cube' again with modifications in materials used, slightly bigger dimensions for standard components...and drop the fluff and it would blow the eMac out the water.
Fully agreed with your post.
Lemon Bon Bon
I think many would buy a low performance Mac motherboard for $170, right? That would be without RAM, but might include the lowest cost G3. Add $129 for a boxed copy of OS X that comes bundled with the board, and the Apple store price is $299. Think about that. Just $100 less than the $399 price that has been talked about, and Apple need not throw in a case, power supply, fan, hard disk drive, CD-ROM drive nor RAM. Apple also does not have to test the entire system, nor carry the completed Macs in inventory, just the boards.
Anyway, this just occurred to me, and I want to buy one. While I'm making improbable wishes, it would be nice if Apple also sold a case that looks better than the ugly PC boxes I see in stores. I'd be willing to pay a premium for it.
<strong>I just saw a TV commercial for Dell. They are selling a computer with a flat panel LCD display for $599 US. The price competition is worse than I had heard it was not long ago. Apple cannot expect to succeed in the education and the enterprise markets without lower prices. Also, home computer users will not all need IBM's upcoming 970 to play the latest action games. I already know of three long time Mac users who switched to Windows because of price. These are folks who mainly use a computer for the internet and email. Three may not sound like a big lose, but in my circle of friends that is 50 percent of the Mac users I know.
Apple needs to either address this market, or turn some clone makers lose in it to keep the Mac platform alive and well. Addressing a group of niche markets will not keep a critical mass of developers producing appealing applications. Apple may be doing some great stuff, and they are not doing too bad financially, but without a powerful force of developers it cannot last. As I mentioned before, if Apple is going to lose sales to low priced competition, why not let it be to clones, who are at least bolstering the OS X PPC platform? If Apple controls the motherboard that clone makers use, Apple can keep clones out of the their most important markets. I would prefer that Apple bites the bullet, and makes a low priced Mac themselves, but clones are better than nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Go to dell.com and price out the features you want with that $599 Dell that are comparable to Apple's and post the price.
<strong>
Go to dell.com and price out the features you want with that $599 Dell that are comparable to Apple's and post the price.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Mac has a lot of features. Unfortunately, many schools and business offices do not need them. Neither did my three Mac using friends / relations who dumped their older Macs for very low cost Windows PCs.
Apple needs to somehow address this market, and does not need to provide a lot of features to do so. If people want features and better performance, they buy the higher priced Macs. When people do not need these features, the features are worth nothing in their buying equation.
<strong>
What do people think the minimum spec for a Mac OS X capable machine should be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good question. Millions of customers seem to think the low end Dell is good enough for what they use a computer for. So the processor and on-board Intel video are adequate for Windows XP and typical internet and productivity applications. So I guess a similar level of performance is okay for a low end Mac.
I think about those I know who dumped their older Mac for a cheap, new Windows PC. They were mostly satisfied with their Mac. It did everything they needed to do. Two of these were Performa 6400s, and one was a Performa 631. These folks do not use a computer for music, home movies or digital photography. They didn't need much in the way of new features, but wanted a bigger hard drive, more memory, maybe a faster CD ROM drive, a more stable OS and a little better performance. A new, low-end Windows PC was by far the cheapest way to get it all. As an added bonus, they now feel up to date with their new computers, and are very satisfied.
That is a big piece of the home computer market, and almost the entire market for schools and general office use. They need nothing fancy, but want to up date equipment.
If Apple were to release the components ala carte, it would reveal far too much to customers. Pricing the components in an expensive manner would price them out of the acceptable range. Yet, pricing them within an acceptable range, would reveal how very bloated the prices are for Apple's regular machines. As we all realize, Apple loves high margins.
Finally, Apple would loathe to permit any type of cloning again, unless it was tightly controlled. Regular cloning would present the same problem it did previously -- direct pricing pressure that would undermine Apple sales. Anyway you look at it, Apple is reticent to go low-cost, and it doesn't seem like it will happen any time soon, at least officially. Those looking for cheap or home-built Macs will have to forgo any type of Apple solution.
<strong>What do people think the minimum spec for a Mac OS X capable machine should be?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have an iMac DV (450MHz G3) at home and a QuickSilver 733 at work. Based on my long OS X experience, I'd say that a sufficiently powered consumer Mac is:
G3 @ 600 MHz, minimum 256 MB RAM, CD-RW, 40GB HB @ 7200 RPM, GeForce 4 w/32 MB, Ethernet, FW, 2 USB ports, keyboard, 2-button mouse.
It would run OS X, most of games, ProjectBuilder, office apps just fine. To be honest, I just cannot justify 3 GHz CPU with 2GB RAM for home use. Scientists, graphics/video pros are a different case. I guess what we speak about is home, office and school. The above config is sufficient for what people mostly do there.
1. Why should everyone want a home supercomputer?
2. What is the largest part of the computer market? I don't have any figures available, but I suppose it's home and office. And I'm not sure Apple pursues these targets very well.