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><hr></blockquote>
There is such a case... el capitain and its revisions. that is an outstnading case.
. . . Apple has...computers. They also have a huge software division to support that makes next-to-no money, and can't rely on investment income to cover ALL their expenses. If you aren't willing to massively skmip on features (and we all seem agreed on this), then Apple cannot make its computers much cheaper without their becoming X-boxes. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I basically agree with what you say too. Just don't gloss over a low end Mac too quickly. As Programmer pointed out, reducing the cost of a component by accepting lower performance only works up to a point. Going still lower in performance does not save a thing. Today, the lowest cost parts would have adequate performance for markets that a low end Mac would serve. Check out my MacPC posting if you missed it at the end of page one. These markets could be served by an extremely cheap G3 processor. Programmer would know, but my guess is that 600 MHz is sufficient, and going to a lower clock rate would be no cheaper. If we forget my former idea to have a couple PCI slots, the motherboard should be very cheap. I am guessing that Apple would make a small but reasonable profit at a $599 selling price.
The biggest challenge in building a low cost "MacPC" would be keeping its sales confined to the intended markets. It would have to be plenty good for low end markets, where Apple sells next to nothing today. Yet, it must not be easily upgraded, so it does not take many sales from the more profitable Macs. The more profitable Macs are supporting OS X development and other overhead, which PC makers do not have. If these sales can be kept intact, the small but reasonable profit from a MacPC would be real profit, and Apple's market share would go up.
Programmer, if Apple goes all G4s and better for Macs in the near future, how much do you think Apple could buy the cheapest G3 for, to use in something like a MacPC? Six dollars?
A kit Macintosh for ~$1000 would be able to function as a digital hub. You can build it yourself, and add what you choose. Your choice of case and drives, add more RAM.
It would be for the geek market, schools and businesses. It would NOT be a beautiful Power Mac for $1000. The only way that would happen is if Matsu owned Apple, and sent the company bankrupt.
<strong>A kit Macintosh for ~$1000 would be able to function as a digital hub. You can build it yourself, and add what you choose. Your choice of case and drives, add more RAM.
It would be for the geek market, schools and businesses. It would NOT be a beautiful Power Mac for $1000. The only way that would happen is if Matsu owned Apple, and sent the company bankrupt.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but Apple could make a simpler case and sell a complete powerMac for $999. And make money off it. Single processor, smaller motherboard.
Also, they would make a $499 PowerMac way before they would EVER make a kit PowerMac. That's just a geek's wet dream.
If a Macintosh can't function as a digital hub, then it's not a godamed Macintosh in my view.
Apple is about dragging the computer world into the light. Not selling second rate, generations old technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was thinking about some of your comments when I got the idea to call a low cost Mac the MacPC. It must be differentiated from the MacDH, so to speak. Maybe most of us in this discussion want a Mac that can be used as a digital hub. It's too bad that so many computer buyer do not feel the same. Almost everyone I know owns a Windows PC now. A number of these are former Mac users who switched in the last couple years. They didn't need or want the digital hub. They wanted something new with just a little better performance than their old 180 MHz G3 or 66 MHz 68040. They also wanted a bigger hard drive and more RAM. You know, all the stuff you get with today's computers. These folks couldn't see spending a whole lot more for a Mac, though they had been satisfied with the Mac's quality and OS.
The Mac exodus in schools and small business goes on too. It's a good thing that Apple has the new iMac, and that the switch campaign is working. There are many PC users who want the digital hub and all the Mac has to offer. I love it. But Apple can't just ignore the market and still bring home the bacon. Apple seems to say, "They want bread? Let them eat cake. That's all we've got."
There is no way that Apple could make a complete Power Mac for $1000. It would have to be single processor, have bad graphics, low RAM, low storage space, no superdrive, what would be the point?
People who want expansion also want high performance.
A "headless" Mac (so called pizza-box) would be different, letting users pick a monitor. I don't think it would be viable with eMacs and iMac 17s, with their already great monitors however.
A kit Mac is also different, as it offers users customizability without free-for-all (like an Apple motherboard would).
The product manager of the Xserve said that if users demand something (reasonable), Apple would be stupid not to build it. This applies to a kit Macintosh.
As for a MacPC, why doesn't Apple make dishwashers? Or cars? Or PVC piping? Because that's not Apple's business.
. . . As for a MacPC, why doesn't Apple make dishwashers? Or cars? Or PVC piping? Because that's not Apple's business.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Barto, I like your zeal for the Mac, but we have drastically different goals. I'm guessing that your top goal is for the Mac to outshine other computers, and you hate to see the Mac image tainted with a low cost model. My top goal is for the Mac platform to increase in popularity, and Apple to do well financially. I want Apple to always be there making great computers. Ah, life would be dull if we all thought alike.
Just a comment. Dishwashers would not help the Mac platform. A MacPC would increase market share and help keep the Mac platform attractive to developers.
<strong>There is no way that Apple could make a complete Power Mac for $1000. It would have to be single processor, have bad graphics, low RAM, low storage space, no superdrive, what would be the point?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, actually... I think Apple could build such a machine. [EDIT: note that the graphics wouldn't be "bad", the RAM can be expandable, drives options can be had] It would use essentially the iMac motherboard, come in a really boring box with a run-of-the-mill power supply, HD, and optical drive. They could offer options of 600 through 1000 MHz processors with and without L3 cache. This isn't the problem.
The problem is that it would cannabilize the sales of their other machines where the margins are larger. Apple wouldn't make much money on the above machine, that's pretty much the whole point. That means any tower sales they currently have would dry up, and iMac sales would probably be severely impacted as well. Bad things happen to companies whose profit margins suddenly go away.
When Apple can build a machine that is significantly improved over the iMac's internal architecture, then they also have the freedom to provide the iMac in a form that overlaps the feature set of their tower lineup. A few years ago the towers had 604 processors and the consumer lineup had 603 processors. Anybody who wanted performance would pay the money for the 604.
Apple has also (almost) always tied expandability to price, but not necessarily modularity. The key thing a tower provides is room for PCI cards, but the number of people who actually need PCI cards is actually quite small -- and it has been shrinking over the last 10 years as more functionality is built in, and as the external buses improve (USB, FireWire). The biggest remaining use of a slot is for the graphics card, so a pizza box (like the Xserve) would ideally provide the graphics on a card which makes for a nice BTO option. Other than that the pizza box should have lots of DIMM slots, a processor ZIF slot, a drive bay or two, optical drive bay, USB ports, FireWire ports, Ethernet port, and a slot for the optional AirPort/Bluetooth card. Most potential customers for this machine would prefer it to be smaller, rather than having a bunch of unused PCI slots. Cheap, some configuration options, small, utilitarian, and no intrinsic display.
I think we might see Apple build such a machine when (or shortly after) the 970 arrives in the towers. They need such a thing for the education/academic market, and it would no doubt find its way into all sorts of other places. Its form factor will either be like the 660av from years ago, or like a ressurected Cube. In order to share development costs its internal architecture will follow the same path that the iMac2 & iBook are -- most likely G4 based with an eventual migration to RapidIO-based G4s or G3s. The PowerMac and PowerBook will eventually both use the 9x0 lineage.
. . . I think we might see Apple build such a machine when (or shortly after) the 970 arrives in the towers. They need such a thing for the education/academic market, and it would no doubt find its way into all sorts of other places. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is a market for what you describe, considering the number of requests for a small consumer tower, pizza box or cube enclosure, depending on the writer's preference. There seem to be many who do not want an AIO consumer Mac. But as you point out, it would likely cannibalize the sales of more profitable Macs if the price was very low. The easier it is to upgrade a low cost product, the harder it is to keep it in the intended markets. For this reason, price may have to be a little higher.
Regarding the quote above, I don't know what price goal you had in mind, but for classroom or general offices use, price must be very low. On the other hand, these customers do not need the performance I think you are suggesting, and do not care about AGP video cards for upgrading. So, I'm not convinced the same Mac could effectively serve both markets. Your design would likely do well in higher grades and universities, where added performance can be appreciated, and they are willing to pay a little more for it.
I hate to point out an obvious point in this discussion. Apple makes money by selling products that give an impression of quality! Apples main selling point is
1. OS X
2. It works straight out of the box and most important - all the time!
3. It looks like a product of high quality
4. It Feels like a high quality product
5. The free iApps and bundled apps
They dont sell computers because its cheap. Sure, they would probably sell a lot of cheap low margin computers, but it would ruin Apples business model, which could hurt them even more.
This is why most car companies that sell expensive cars have cheaper models under a different brand name. Lexus is very different from a Toyota, for instance. Thats only because Lexus wouldt sell if people connected the name to a 'cheap' Toyota.
Argue all you want, but if Apple wanted to sell a $599 machine, it would have though clones. The only problem is that any clone - even cheap once - would eat away from Apples sales. I dont think Clones would be a good way to go untill Apple has more than 10% ov the market share.
<strong>Regarding the quote above, I don't know what price goal you had in mind, but for classroom or general offices use, price must be very low. On the other hand, these customers do not need the performance I think you are suggesting, and do not care about AGP video cards for upgrading. So, I'm not convinced the same Mac could effectively serve both markets. Your design would likely do well in higher grades and universities, where added performance can be appreciated, and they are willing to pay a little more for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The advantage (to Apple) of using a AGP slot, and a processor slot is that they can sell the same machine to different customers -- this helps economies of scale and inventory issues. It also helps in terms of repairs in case some components fail (and a school can be a nasty environment for computers). The last thing Apple needs is to be building large piles of low performance, low margin hardware that it can't sell to anyone.
The advantage (to Apple) of using a AGP slot, and a processor slot is that they can sell the same machine to different customers -- this helps economies of scale and inventory issues. It also helps in terms of repairs in case some components fail (and a school can be a nasty environment for computers). The last thing Apple needs is to be building large piles of low performance, low margin hardware that it can't sell to anyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I see your point, provided an AGP slot does not add much cost and Apple can get a really low cost board for lower performance markets, like grade school classrooms and general office use. It would indeed be very nice to have common hardware that can be configured for different markets. I agree. Maybe I'm too hung up on the ability to upgrade the cheapest, lowest margin Mac into a high performance machine, and thereby hurt sales in the higher margins. But as you said before, maybe this concern will go away when there is an IBM 970 in the PowerMacs. It may then be easier to keep performance of low end Macs from crossing the line.
Regarding your concern about performance being too low in my proposal, I always intended it to be plenty good for the intended markets. Right now Apple is selling G3 iBooks to schools, so I figure that level of performance, maybe a little higher, is good enough for a bottom end MacPC, no? As you pointed out, higher performance parts do not always cost more. It makes sense to get the most performance you can, once you determine the lowest cost point.
I hate to point out an obvious point in this discussion. Apple makes money by selling products that give an impression of quality!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to point out that Apple appears to be losing market share badly in schools and small business. Apple cannot simply ignore this point. Also, the "impression" of quality can sometimes be free, when some thought is put into it.
You do bring up some very good points in your posting. Of the five items you list, a low cost computer could provide the first four, at least to some degree. The iApps are not needed in the low end markets however.
Regarding your point about using a different brand name. Good idea. Maybe Apple should start their own clone division, for low end markets.
<strong>I hate to point out that Apple appears to be losing market share badly in schools and small business. Apple cannot simply ignore this point. Also, the "impression" of quality can sometimes be free, when some thought is put into it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me share my events from the past week. I setup and installed 4 PowerMacs (Dual 1.25s) for our Marketing dept all with 17" ASDs. While the end users and everyone who walked past my office noted, they are beautiful - they loved the looks, the small innovative features, the OS, everything about them. My boss wrote the purchase order, and his gripe was about price. To quote, "I could've bought 20 PCs for the price of those 4 Macs." While that is true, the intended market for the types of PCs he is talking about is quite different. The end users struggled for at least the 3 years I have been employed here, and probably more. It took me 3 years of convincing and showing my boss and that it would be a wise investment.
No matter what the end user wants or gripes for, it is, in the end, the person who approves the purchase that decides whether to buy a $599 Dull or a $2000 Mac. And those are the types of people who Apple needs to target. I like the switch campaign, but it's goal cannot be to edge further into business environments. I think it would be wise for Apple, once the Xserve is well entrenched and stable and all, and once they have a decent and stable product supply chain (read: NOT Motorola), to target IT managers, not end users or office types. The IT manager needs to understand the wonderful abilities that a Mac opens up. And Apple needs to understand the wonderful opportunites they could have, if only they produced a proper business machine. Do you want to buy an iMac for business. It is probably the closest thing they have to a general business computer, but that just isn't where an iMac fits.
I can see a small (I hate the term but what the hell) pizza-box type desktop to do that. Small, smaller, smallest works for me. LCDs are getting to be the purchase norm, so no need for an AIO to muck up the design. These are businesses who won't buy an AIO or an expensive Apple display. Apple needs to realize and accept this. They are going after cheap, cheap, cheap ways of thinking, so screw the monitor altogether. Let the IT manager buy his own brand, or release a cheap 17" LCD with DVI only. ACD is for the Mac - subtle innovation. DVI or DB15 for business.
That said, 1 (whatever is cheap and fast) processor, 256MB of RAM, 2 DIMM slots, options for HD sizes, CD (no RW or Superdrive needed), integrated NIC and optional Airport. That's it - businesses don't need firewire, modems, etc. Plain-jane. And don't, I repeat DON'T call it anything-Mac. Xstation, XPC, Xclient, whatever - it needs to be distinguished as completely different than a Mac and it's way of thinking.
An iMac just would not work.
Xserve serves a purpose and so should this machine - and market it so that you do not cannibalize your Mac lineups (laptops included, although that's another topic). No iApps and the other software goodies. This isn't a Mac - if you want a digital hub, oh yes, we've got that for you...it's called a Mac. This is a plain-jane machine, that runs OS X, but a no frills version.
I'm glad you posted your remarks, since you see business computer needs first hand. It is easy for others, like me, to get ideas about what might sell in the business computer market, but it takes someone like you to provide a reality check. I like what you say and propose. I agree.
I was hoping others would pickup on what you started here, but I see a new topic has started on market share. Since market share is the reason for this discussion, I'm glad to see it continuing somewhere.
Comments
<strong>
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><hr></blockquote>
There is such a case... el capitain and its revisions. that is an outstnading case.
<strong>
. . . Apple has...computers. They also have a huge software division to support that makes next-to-no money, and can't rely on investment income to cover ALL their expenses. If you aren't willing to massively skmip on features (and we all seem agreed on this), then Apple cannot make its computers much cheaper without their becoming X-boxes. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I basically agree with what you say too. Just don't gloss over a low end Mac too quickly. As Programmer pointed out, reducing the cost of a component by accepting lower performance only works up to a point. Going still lower in performance does not save a thing. Today, the lowest cost parts would have adequate performance for markets that a low end Mac would serve. Check out my MacPC posting if you missed it at the end of page one. These markets could be served by an extremely cheap G3 processor. Programmer would know, but my guess is that 600 MHz is sufficient, and going to a lower clock rate would be no cheaper. If we forget my former idea to have a couple PCI slots, the motherboard should be very cheap. I am guessing that Apple would make a small but reasonable profit at a $599 selling price.
The biggest challenge in building a low cost "MacPC" would be keeping its sales confined to the intended markets. It would have to be plenty good for low end markets, where Apple sells next to nothing today. Yet, it must not be easily upgraded, so it does not take many sales from the more profitable Macs. The more profitable Macs are supporting OS X development and other overhead, which PC makers do not have. If these sales can be kept intact, the small but reasonable profit from a MacPC would be real profit, and Apple's market share would go up.
Programmer, if Apple goes all G4s and better for Macs in the near future, how much do you think Apple could buy the cheapest G3 for, to use in something like a MacPC? Six dollars?
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>
There is such a case... el capitain and its revisions. that is an outstnading case.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the tip, but Apple does not have the $170 motherboard to go with it.
Apple is about dragging the computer world into the light. Not selling second rate, generations old technology.
Barto
It would be for the geek market, schools and businesses. It would NOT be a beautiful Power Mac for $1000. The only way that would happen is if Matsu owned Apple, and sent the company bankrupt.
Barto
<strong>A kit Macintosh for ~$1000 would be able to function as a digital hub. You can build it yourself, and add what you choose. Your choice of case and drives, add more RAM.
It would be for the geek market, schools and businesses. It would NOT be a beautiful Power Mac for $1000. The only way that would happen is if Matsu owned Apple, and sent the company bankrupt.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but Apple could make a simpler case and sell a complete powerMac for $999. And make money off it. Single processor, smaller motherboard.
Also, they would make a $499 PowerMac way before they would EVER make a kit PowerMac. That's just a geek's wet dream.
[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
<strong>
If a Macintosh can't function as a digital hub, then it's not a godamed Macintosh in my view.
Apple is about dragging the computer world into the light. Not selling second rate, generations old technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was thinking about some of your comments when I got the idea to call a low cost Mac the MacPC. It must be differentiated from the MacDH, so to speak. Maybe most of us in this discussion want a Mac that can be used as a digital hub. It's too bad that so many computer buyer do not feel the same. Almost everyone I know owns a Windows PC now. A number of these are former Mac users who switched in the last couple years. They didn't need or want the digital hub. They wanted something new with just a little better performance than their old 180 MHz G3 or 66 MHz 68040. They also wanted a bigger hard drive and more RAM. You know, all the stuff you get with today's computers. These folks couldn't see spending a whole lot more for a Mac, though they had been satisfied with the Mac's quality and OS.
The Mac exodus in schools and small business goes on too. It's a good thing that Apple has the new iMac, and that the switch campaign is working. There are many PC users who want the digital hub and all the Mac has to offer. I love it. But Apple can't just ignore the market and still bring home the bacon. Apple seems to say, "They want bread? Let them eat cake. That's all we've got."
People who want expansion also want high performance.
A "headless" Mac (so called pizza-box) would be different, letting users pick a monitor. I don't think it would be viable with eMacs and iMac 17s, with their already great monitors however.
A kit Mac is also different, as it offers users customizability without free-for-all (like an Apple motherboard would).
The product manager of the Xserve said that if users demand something (reasonable), Apple would be stupid not to build it. This applies to a kit Macintosh.
As for a MacPC, why doesn't Apple make dishwashers? Or cars? Or PVC piping? Because that's not Apple's business.
Barto
<strong>
. . . As for a MacPC, why doesn't Apple make dishwashers? Or cars? Or PVC piping? Because that's not Apple's business.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Barto, I like your zeal for the Mac, but we have drastically different goals. I'm guessing that your top goal is for the Mac to outshine other computers, and you hate to see the Mac image tainted with a low cost model. My top goal is for the Mac platform to increase in popularity, and Apple to do well financially. I want Apple to always be there making great computers. Ah, life would be dull if we all thought alike.
Just a comment. Dishwashers would not help the Mac platform. A MacPC would increase market share and help keep the Mac platform attractive to developers.
Barto
<strong>We'll amicably agree to disagree then
What?!?
You can't do that, I'm sure it violates either the first law of thermodynamics or the posting guidelines!
<strong>There is no way that Apple could make a complete Power Mac for $1000. It would have to be single processor, have bad graphics, low RAM, low storage space, no superdrive, what would be the point?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree, actually... I think Apple could build such a machine. [EDIT: note that the graphics wouldn't be "bad", the RAM can be expandable, drives options can be had] It would use essentially the iMac motherboard, come in a really boring box with a run-of-the-mill power supply, HD, and optical drive. They could offer options of 600 through 1000 MHz processors with and without L3 cache. This isn't the problem.
The problem is that it would cannabilize the sales of their other machines where the margins are larger. Apple wouldn't make much money on the above machine, that's pretty much the whole point. That means any tower sales they currently have would dry up, and iMac sales would probably be severely impacted as well. Bad things happen to companies whose profit margins suddenly go away.
When Apple can build a machine that is significantly improved over the iMac's internal architecture, then they also have the freedom to provide the iMac in a form that overlaps the feature set of their tower lineup. A few years ago the towers had 604 processors and the consumer lineup had 603 processors. Anybody who wanted performance would pay the money for the 604.
Apple has also (almost) always tied expandability to price, but not necessarily modularity. The key thing a tower provides is room for PCI cards, but the number of people who actually need PCI cards is actually quite small -- and it has been shrinking over the last 10 years as more functionality is built in, and as the external buses improve (USB, FireWire). The biggest remaining use of a slot is for the graphics card, so a pizza box (like the Xserve) would ideally provide the graphics on a card which makes for a nice BTO option. Other than that the pizza box should have lots of DIMM slots, a processor ZIF slot, a drive bay or two, optical drive bay, USB ports, FireWire ports, Ethernet port, and a slot for the optional AirPort/Bluetooth card. Most potential customers for this machine would prefer it to be smaller, rather than having a bunch of unused PCI slots. Cheap, some configuration options, small, utilitarian, and no intrinsic display.
I think we might see Apple build such a machine when (or shortly after) the 970 arrives in the towers. They need such a thing for the education/academic market, and it would no doubt find its way into all sorts of other places. Its form factor will either be like the 660av from years ago, or like a ressurected Cube. In order to share development costs its internal architecture will follow the same path that the iMac2 & iBook are -- most likely G4 based with an eventual migration to RapidIO-based G4s or G3s. The PowerMac and PowerBook will eventually both use the 9x0 lineage.
Of course, that's just a guess.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
<strong>
. . . I think we might see Apple build such a machine when (or shortly after) the 970 arrives in the towers. They need such a thing for the education/academic market, and it would no doubt find its way into all sorts of other places. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is a market for what you describe, considering the number of requests for a small consumer tower, pizza box or cube enclosure, depending on the writer's preference. There seem to be many who do not want an AIO consumer Mac. But as you point out, it would likely cannibalize the sales of more profitable Macs if the price was very low. The easier it is to upgrade a low cost product, the harder it is to keep it in the intended markets. For this reason, price may have to be a little higher.
Regarding the quote above, I don't know what price goal you had in mind, but for classroom or general offices use, price must be very low. On the other hand, these customers do not need the performance I think you are suggesting, and do not care about AGP video cards for upgrading. So, I'm not convinced the same Mac could effectively serve both markets. Your design would likely do well in higher grades and universities, where added performance can be appreciated, and they are willing to pay a little more for it.
1. OS X
2. It works straight out of the box and most important - all the time!
3. It looks like a product of high quality
4. It Feels like a high quality product
5. The free iApps and bundled apps
They dont sell computers because its cheap. Sure, they would probably sell a lot of cheap low margin computers, but it would ruin Apples business model, which could hurt them even more.
This is why most car companies that sell expensive cars have cheaper models under a different brand name. Lexus is very different from a Toyota, for instance. Thats only because Lexus wouldt sell if people connected the name to a 'cheap' Toyota.
Argue all you want, but if Apple wanted to sell a $599 machine, it would have though clones. The only problem is that any clone - even cheap once - would eat away from Apples sales. I dont think Clones would be a good way to go untill Apple has more than 10% ov the market share.
Just my view on this matter...
.: BoeManE :.
<strong>Regarding the quote above, I don't know what price goal you had in mind, but for classroom or general offices use, price must be very low. On the other hand, these customers do not need the performance I think you are suggesting, and do not care about AGP video cards for upgrading. So, I'm not convinced the same Mac could effectively serve both markets. Your design would likely do well in higher grades and universities, where added performance can be appreciated, and they are willing to pay a little more for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The advantage (to Apple) of using a AGP slot, and a processor slot is that they can sell the same machine to different customers -- this helps economies of scale and inventory issues. It also helps in terms of repairs in case some components fail (and a school can be a nasty environment for computers). The last thing Apple needs is to be building large piles of low performance, low margin hardware that it can't sell to anyone.
<strong>
The advantage (to Apple) of using a AGP slot, and a processor slot is that they can sell the same machine to different customers -- this helps economies of scale and inventory issues. It also helps in terms of repairs in case some components fail (and a school can be a nasty environment for computers). The last thing Apple needs is to be building large piles of low performance, low margin hardware that it can't sell to anyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I see your point, provided an AGP slot does not add much cost and Apple can get a really low cost board for lower performance markets, like grade school classrooms and general office use. It would indeed be very nice to have common hardware that can be configured for different markets. I agree. Maybe I'm too hung up on the ability to upgrade the cheapest, lowest margin Mac into a high performance machine, and thereby hurt sales in the higher margins. But as you said before, maybe this concern will go away when there is an IBM 970 in the PowerMacs. It may then be easier to keep performance of low end Macs from crossing the line.
Regarding your concern about performance being too low in my proposal, I always intended it to be plenty good for the intended markets. Right now Apple is selling G3 iBooks to schools, so I figure that level of performance, maybe a little higher, is good enough for a bottom end MacPC, no? As you pointed out, higher performance parts do not always cost more. It makes sense to get the most performance you can, once you determine the lowest cost point.
<strong>
I hate to point out an obvious point in this discussion. Apple makes money by selling products that give an impression of quality!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to point out that Apple appears to be losing market share badly in schools and small business. Apple cannot simply ignore this point. Also, the "impression" of quality can sometimes be free, when some thought is put into it.
You do bring up some very good points in your posting. Of the five items you list, a low cost computer could provide the first four, at least to some degree. The iApps are not needed in the low end markets however.
Regarding your point about using a different brand name. Good idea. Maybe Apple should start their own clone division, for low end markets.
<strong>I hate to point out that Apple appears to be losing market share badly in schools and small business. Apple cannot simply ignore this point. Also, the "impression" of quality can sometimes be free, when some thought is put into it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let me share my events from the past week. I setup and installed 4 PowerMacs (Dual 1.25s) for our Marketing dept all with 17" ASDs. While the end users and everyone who walked past my office noted, they are beautiful - they loved the looks, the small innovative features, the OS, everything about them. My boss wrote the purchase order, and his gripe was about price. To quote, "I could've bought 20 PCs for the price of those 4 Macs." While that is true, the intended market for the types of PCs he is talking about is quite different. The end users struggled for at least the 3 years I have been employed here, and probably more. It took me 3 years of convincing and showing my boss and that it would be a wise investment.
No matter what the end user wants or gripes for, it is, in the end, the person who approves the purchase that decides whether to buy a $599 Dull or a $2000 Mac. And those are the types of people who Apple needs to target. I like the switch campaign, but it's goal cannot be to edge further into business environments. I think it would be wise for Apple, once the Xserve is well entrenched and stable and all, and once they have a decent and stable product supply chain (read: NOT Motorola), to target IT managers, not end users or office types. The IT manager needs to understand the wonderful abilities that a Mac opens up. And Apple needs to understand the wonderful opportunites they could have, if only they produced a proper business machine. Do you want to buy an iMac for business. It is probably the closest thing they have to a general business computer, but that just isn't where an iMac fits.
I can see a small (I hate the term but what the hell) pizza-box type desktop to do that. Small, smaller, smallest works for me. LCDs are getting to be the purchase norm, so no need for an AIO to muck up the design. These are businesses who won't buy an AIO or an expensive Apple display. Apple needs to realize and accept this. They are going after cheap, cheap, cheap ways of thinking, so screw the monitor altogether. Let the IT manager buy his own brand, or release a cheap 17" LCD with DVI only. ACD is for the Mac - subtle innovation. DVI or DB15 for business.
That said, 1 (whatever is cheap and fast) processor, 256MB of RAM, 2 DIMM slots, options for HD sizes, CD (no RW or Superdrive needed), integrated NIC and optional Airport. That's it - businesses don't need firewire, modems, etc. Plain-jane. And don't, I repeat DON'T call it anything-Mac. Xstation, XPC, Xclient, whatever - it needs to be distinguished as completely different than a Mac and it's way of thinking.
An iMac just would not work.
Xserve serves a purpose and so should this machine - and market it so that you do not cannibalize your Mac lineups (laptops included, although that's another topic). No iApps and the other software goodies. This isn't a Mac - if you want a digital hub, oh yes, we've got that for you...it's called a Mac. This is a plain-jane machine, that runs OS X, but a no frills version.
That would work!
I'm glad you posted your remarks, since you see business computer needs first hand. It is easy for others, like me, to get ideas about what might sell in the business computer market, but it takes someone like you to provide a reality check. I like what you say and propose. I agree.
I was hoping others would pickup on what you started here, but I see a new topic has started on market share. Since market share is the reason for this discussion, I'm glad to see it continuing somewhere.