That's a strange conclusion to draw. The numbers you quoted state over $300 million revenue in 3 months for software. How much are you suggesting that Apple spends per quarter on software development?
If you read the "*", you see that the $300M includes ALL software sold by Apple, including all its own pro applications and all third-party software sales for which Apple functions as retailer. It also includes all AppleCare revenue and all .Mac revenue. And anything else that doesn't fit in the main categories, including eveything from Firewire royalties to vending machine sales at 1 Inifinite Loop. In other words, only a fraction of that - probably a tiny fraction - is retail sales of OS X. The fact that Apple doesn't even bother having a seperate reporting category for software, and only ever mentions specific numbers during the quarter of a OS X update rollout (and not always then), should be clues that boxed. software. does. not. matter. to. Apple. Except as it drives sales of hardware.
Why are you people trying to get a rise out of mild-mannered me?
Didn't Jobs say last year that they had sold 2 million copies of Tiger? $258 million right there, at 90% margin. Maybe it cost them more than that to pay the development team, but somehow I don't think so.
Didn't Jobs say last year that they had sold 2 million copies of Tiger? $258 million right there, at 90% margin. Maybe it cost them more than that to pay the development team, but somehow I don't think so.
That 2 million figure included "copies sold at retail, copies delivered under maintenance agreements and copies bundled with Mac® systems shipped".
It was also a post-release bolus. Like I said above, that Apple only ever offers specifics about sales/revenues of retail OS X during these post-release boluses is evidence that sales/revenues at all other times are not significant.
Edit: Just for giggles, I looked up Apple's SEC filing for the quarter of Tiger's release. The "Software, AppleCare et al." category showed $345M in revenue - in other words, not hugely different from an average quarter, despite the post-release sales.
Didn't Jobs say last year that they had sold 2 million copies of Tiger? $258 million right there, at 90% margin. Maybe it cost them more than that to pay the development team, but somehow I don't think so.
yeah but they had to advertise it too, then make up for the numerous class action suits over absolutely nothing..
and don't forget about researching and paying off all the technologies they stole (accidently or no)
plus, you have to get enough money to pay off the next revision of the OS, as you probably didn't pay for tiger with the sales of 10.3
Don't forget that the next revision will have less [free] help from the Open source community because Apple had to stop releasing a number of things for x86 in order to curb the OSx86 project.
This plays into my hands, not yours. Apple have to shave even less off in terms of component costs to bring the retail price down to $499 and maintain the same percentage profit margin.
I forgot about what Apple sells to the distributor for. Lets call that amount Y. Is it not true to state that the gross margins are ((Y - actual component costs)/Y) x 100 ?
Heh heh. I wasn't NOT playing into your hands. I know what it supports.
No. You have to add the manufacturing cost in as well. As well as all of the other costs I mentioned.
The component costs are just part of that. I can't understand why it isn't understood. Component costs might be anywhere from 25% to 75% of the cost to manufacture the goods. But normally it doesn't reach over 50%. Then add the margin.
But remember that manufacturing costs include EVERY cost the company has. Every show that Apple goes to raises the manufacturing cost on every item it makes, both hardware and software. So does the cost of the gardeners for their grounds. The cost of fixing an elevator in the building increases the cost as well.
Everyone has to stop thinking that the cost of the components constitute the cost of the product. It doesn't.
It's like buying a DVD player. It might cost $100. But the cost of the disks bought may add up to $1,000. So the cost of the player is really $1,100.
Indeed. Now that you have developed the argument, the burden of proof is on me. All along I've been talking about maintaining margins, and I meant percentage margins, rather than absolute margins.
So, if Apple sell the $599 mini to distributors for $550 (91.8 % of retail), they'd sell a $499 one to distributors for $458.18
If the $599 machine has 25% gross margins, its component costs are $412.50, and the component costs for a 25% margin $499 machine are $343.64. So I have to save $68.86.
I'm going to estimate that the cheaper stuff saves me $95 ($20 RAM, $15 wireless, $8 Apple Remote, $30 HDD, $22 optical drive) leaving $26.14 to pay for a fan, more powerful PSU and larger case.
Now, of course, the problem with all this is that it is totally hand-wavy. I have to concede this, there is no argument against it. I can only go with my feelings about how much things cost, because there's no way I can know how much Apple buys its components for. I've based my feelings on known retail prices for components such as HDDs*, RAM**, optical drives** etc., and what I know about how much transistors etc. cost in bulk (to estimate increased costs of the PSU, I concede that the number is more than $2, I wasn't thinking straight).
In conclusion, I hope that I have shown that I am at least trying to base my opinions on known facts, unlike some other people who are moaning in this thread. But ultimately, it is down to opinions, so we just have to agree to disagree about the costings.
** couldn't find 667 DDR-II SODIMMS at newegg, so compared 533 prices. Cheapest branded SO-DIMM 512 MB (2 x 256): $66; cheapest branded DIMM 512MB (2 x 256): $46. Price difference: $20
*** cheapest slim CD-RW, DVD-ROM combo drive at newegg: $53; cheapest full-size CD-RW drive at newegg: $20. Price difference: $33
Those numbers are way too high. It's impossible for Apple to sell to the distributers for $550. That would leave nothing for anyone. $450, as I mentioned before, is a more realistic figure. And the parts will never get over $300, likely less
My figures were taken directly from Apple's most recently quarterly report filed with the SEC. I may be tedious, but I do not pull numbers out of my ass. Apple's own breakdown for the three months ending 12/31/05, from page 26:Code:
Net sales by product:
Desktops $912
Portables 812
(Total Macintosh Sales 1724)
iPod 2906
Other music-related 491
Peripherals and other hardware 303
Software, services and other sales* 325
* "Includes sales of Apple-branded operating system software,
application software, third-party software,
AppleCare, and Internet services"
Apple does not make money from boxed software. Period. You must be confusing "software" with "iPod".
Except that you didn't give ALL of the figures. Now you d. I get the reports as well.
Apple sold several hundred million dollars worth of OS X last year. They did very well with it.
You have no idea whether Apple made money with their boxed software. Can you show that?
yeah but they had to advertise it too, then make up for the numerous class action suits over absolutely nothing..
and don't forget about researching and paying off all the technologies they stole (accidently or no)
plus, you have to get enough money to pay off the next revision of the OS, as you probably didn't pay for tiger with the sales of 10.3
Don't forget that the next revision will have less [free] help from the Open source community because Apple had to stop releasing a number of things for x86 in order to curb the OSx86 project.
Any of that gets averaged over all of Apple's products. Software is always going to be much more profitable that hardware. The development costs for most programs aren't as high as you may think.
That 2 million figure included "copies sold at retail, copies delivered under maintenance agreements and copies bundled with Mac® systems shipped".
It was also a post-release bolus. Like I said above, that Apple only ever offers specifics about sales/revenues of retail OS X during these post-release boluses is evidence that sales/revenues at all other times are not significant.
Edit: Just for giggles, I looked up Apple's SEC filing for the quarter of Tiger's release. The "Software, AppleCare et al." category showed $345M in revenue - in other words, not hugely different from an average quarter, despite the post-release sales.
Yes, but that number was for last June. A great many more copies had been sold by end of September. They will be sold until Leopard comes out end of this year. That's an entire year more of sales since the end of last year (September). The costs for the updates and security fixes aren't nearly as high as for the development process, as far fewer people are involved. Most have been working on Leapaed since last April.
No. You have to add the manufacturing cost in as well. As well as all of the other costs I mentioned.
Yes, of course I know that it doesn't cost nothing to build a computer, ship it, and pay for all of your staff.
But, I thought that was the point of gross margins. They didn't include any of that stuff. That's why Apple's gross margins have always been around 27% for as long as I can remember, but there were some quarters where they made hardly any profit at all. It's because gross margins don't account for that stuff.
I had a look at the SEC filing that was linked to.
We (melgross and I) are both wrong about gross margin.
I said:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Yes, of course I know that it doesn't cost nothing to build a computer, ship it, and pay for all of your staff.
But, I thought that was the point of gross margins. They didn't include any of that stuff.
Melgross said:
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But remember that manufacturing costs include EVERY cost the company has. Every show that Apple goes to raises the manufacturing cost on every item it makes, both hardware and software. So does the cost of the gardeners for their grounds. The cost of fixing an elevator in the building increases the cost as well.
the SEC filing says:
Net sales : $5,749 million
Cost of sales: $4,185 million
Gross margin: $1,564 million (which is 27.2% gross margin)
Operating expenses; R&D: $182 million
Operating expenses; selling, general and administrative: $632 million
this suggests that gross margin incorporates manufacturing and shipping costs, but not costs of shows, the gardener, elevator maintanance, support staff, development engineering staff, mangement etc... (these things do affect overall profits, just not gross margin)
oh, and also, in (kind of) support of towel, I think he's made a good point. I don't think retail sales of boxed OS X is anywhere near as high as melgross thinks it is. As towel said, whenever Apple release sales figures for OS X, they are including versions shipped with Macs, and they ship about 1.25 million Macs a quarter.
I don't believe $100 will make or break a computer sell.
What likely happened with the $499 Mac mini is that people still spent the $100 to upgrade to the features that $599 Mac mini would have.
Instead of crippling the Mac mini just to drop it to $499 price point they just leave in all of the features that people will want in a modern computer.
If a consumer knowlingly or unknowlingly bought the $499 Mac mini they would forever have a computer with fewer modern features that will be useful in the future.
Excuse me? It's objective just because you agree with it? No.
All the talk about whether a computer below $599 is necesarry for Apple, is subjective, because nobody, including myself, has brought extensive market research to the table.
My expectation is that if you went out and did some market research, you would find that there is a lot of demand for a computer from Apple that has low-end specs., and starts at $399. I believe that you would also find that there is a lot of demand for a configurable Apple computer that is less powerful than a PowerMac, but also cheaper. The machine I'd like to see Apple produce kills these two birds with one stone.
You may feel free to disagree with any of this. But you cannot prove the demand wrong unless you go out and survey tens of thousands of people, and you cannot prove my costings wrong without knowing all of Apple's costs exactly.
You could also provide good reasons why I might be wrong, I am willing to hear them, plenty have been suggested so far; they may well be right.
My expectation is that if you went out and did some market research, you would find that there is a lot of demand for a computer from Apple that has low-end specs., and starts at $399.
Then why isn't there one? Because: A) there isn't sufficient demand or the business case for a $399 Mac isn't there or C) Steve is an idiot.
I'm going to guess not C. A and B are linked...if there was extremely high demand I doubt Apple could afford to ignore it.
Quote:
I believe that you would also find that there is a lot of demand for a configurable Apple computer that is less powerful than a PowerMac, but also cheaper.
See above. IMHO if there was a shuttle like mac mini you'd either have to program in the same absolute margins as the iMacs and suffer claims that your margins are too high or suffer almost entirely cannibalizing your iMac market.
iMacs strike me as much more profitable than small towers in as much as I suspect that folks are more inclined to buy applecare for an all-in-one device than for individual replaceable components.
Plus you always have a monitor sale and you will sell a new monitor every upgrade cycle.
Quote:
The machine I'd like to see Apple produce kills these two birds with one stone.
The machine you'd like to see Apple produce likely kills the iMac as well. Your machine + a cinema display (possibly sourced from Dell) is a much better performance and value proposition than an iMac.
There's also no certainty that such a machine would increase Apple's share. Folks buy $399.00 60GB iPods. If there was a great demand to switch it appears that the disposable income exists to get a $600-$800 mini in the target demographic.
I think market research would have pointed out that 75% of people considering to buy a desktop computer would be saticfied and happy with the iMac.
Market research also would have pointed out that 0,2% of those people who said to be considering to buy a new desktop Mac always whine and complain about specs and pricing and actually never buy a new Mac.
I think market research would have pointed out that 75% of people considering to buy a desktop computer would be saticfied and happy with the iMac.
Really? Then why aren't 75% of people who buy desktops buying iMacs?
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
Market research also would have pointed out that 0,2% of those people who said to be considering to buy a new desktop Mac always whine and complain about specs and pricing and actually never buy a new Mac.
That's a big potential market for Apple.
There's no need to be facetious. The number of whiners has no bearing on which computers you should make.
For the record, my next Apple purchase will be a Merom MacBook Pro. I don't want a desktop at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Then why isn't there one? Because: A) there isn't sufficient demand or the business case for a $399 Mac isn't there or C) Steve is an idiot.
I'm going to guess not C. A and B are linked...if there was extremely high demand I doubt Apple could afford to ignore it.
Well, in this case, I do think that Steve is an idiot.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
The machine you'd like to see Apple produce likely kills the iMac as well. Your machine + a cinema display (possibly sourced from Dell) is a much better performance and value proposition than an iMac.
If an iMac is so great (which I think it is), why would this computer cannibilise it? They appeal to different markets.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
That's a strange conclusion to draw. The numbers you quoted state over $300 million revenue in 3 months for software. How much are you suggesting that Apple spends per quarter on software development?
If you read the "*", you see that the $300M includes ALL software sold by Apple, including all its own pro applications and all third-party software sales for which Apple functions as retailer. It also includes all AppleCare revenue and all .Mac revenue. And anything else that doesn't fit in the main categories, including eveything from Firewire royalties to vending machine sales at 1 Inifinite Loop. In other words, only a fraction of that - probably a tiny fraction - is retail sales of OS X. The fact that Apple doesn't even bother having a seperate reporting category for software, and only ever mentions specific numbers during the quarter of a OS X update rollout (and not always then), should be clues that boxed. software. does. not. matter. to. Apple. Except as it drives sales of hardware.
Why are you people trying to get a rise out of mild-mannered me?
Originally posted by lundy
Didn't Jobs say last year that they had sold 2 million copies of Tiger? $258 million right there, at 90% margin. Maybe it cost them more than that to pay the development team, but somehow I don't think so.
That 2 million figure included "copies sold at retail, copies delivered under maintenance agreements and copies bundled with Mac® systems shipped".
It was also a post-release bolus. Like I said above, that Apple only ever offers specifics about sales/revenues of retail OS X during these post-release boluses is evidence that sales/revenues at all other times are not significant.
Edit: Just for giggles, I looked up Apple's SEC filing for the quarter of Tiger's release. The "Software, AppleCare et al." category showed $345M in revenue - in other words, not hugely different from an average quarter, despite the post-release sales.
Originally posted by lundy
Didn't Jobs say last year that they had sold 2 million copies of Tiger? $258 million right there, at 90% margin. Maybe it cost them more than that to pay the development team, but somehow I don't think so.
yeah but they had to advertise it too, then make up for the numerous class action suits over absolutely nothing..
and don't forget about researching and paying off all the technologies they stole (accidently or no)
plus, you have to get enough money to pay off the next revision of the OS, as you probably didn't pay for tiger with the sales of 10.3
Don't forget that the next revision will have less [free] help from the Open source community because Apple had to stop releasing a number of things for x86 in order to curb the OSx86 project.
Originally posted by Mr. H
This plays into my hands, not yours. Apple have to shave even less off in terms of component costs to bring the retail price down to $499 and maintain the same percentage profit margin.
I forgot about what Apple sells to the distributor for. Lets call that amount Y. Is it not true to state that the gross margins are ((Y - actual component costs)/Y) x 100 ?
Heh heh. I wasn't NOT playing into your hands. I know what it supports.
No. You have to add the manufacturing cost in as well. As well as all of the other costs I mentioned.
The component costs are just part of that. I can't understand why it isn't understood. Component costs might be anywhere from 25% to 75% of the cost to manufacture the goods. But normally it doesn't reach over 50%. Then add the margin.
But remember that manufacturing costs include EVERY cost the company has. Every show that Apple goes to raises the manufacturing cost on every item it makes, both hardware and software. So does the cost of the gardeners for their grounds. The cost of fixing an elevator in the building increases the cost as well.
Everyone has to stop thinking that the cost of the components constitute the cost of the product. It doesn't.
It's like buying a DVD player. It might cost $100. But the cost of the disks bought may add up to $1,000. So the cost of the player is really $1,100.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Indeed. Now that you have developed the argument, the burden of proof is on me. All along I've been talking about maintaining margins, and I meant percentage margins, rather than absolute margins.
So, if Apple sell the $599 mini to distributors for $550 (91.8 % of retail), they'd sell a $499 one to distributors for $458.18
If the $599 machine has 25% gross margins, its component costs are $412.50, and the component costs for a 25% margin $499 machine are $343.64. So I have to save $68.86.
I'm going to estimate that the cheaper stuff saves me $95 ($20 RAM, $15 wireless, $8 Apple Remote, $30 HDD, $22 optical drive) leaving $26.14 to pay for a fan, more powerful PSU and larger case.
Now, of course, the problem with all this is that it is totally hand-wavy. I have to concede this, there is no argument against it. I can only go with my feelings about how much things cost, because there's no way I can know how much Apple buys its components for. I've based my feelings on known retail prices for components such as HDDs*, RAM**, optical drives** etc., and what I know about how much transistors etc. cost in bulk (to estimate increased costs of the PSU, I concede that the number is more than $2, I wasn't thinking straight).
In conclusion, I hope that I have shown that I am at least trying to base my opinions on known facts, unlike some other people who are moaning in this thread. But ultimately, it is down to opinions, so we just have to agree to disagree about the costings.
* Cheapest 60 gig 5400 rpm laptop drive from newegg: $82; cheapest 40 gig 3.5" drive from newegg: $42. Price difference: $40
** couldn't find 667 DDR-II SODIMMS at newegg, so compared 533 prices. Cheapest branded SO-DIMM 512 MB (2 x 256): $66; cheapest branded DIMM 512MB (2 x 256): $46. Price difference: $20
*** cheapest slim CD-RW, DVD-ROM combo drive at newegg: $53; cheapest full-size CD-RW drive at newegg: $20. Price difference: $33
Those numbers are way too high. It's impossible for Apple to sell to the distributers for $550. That would leave nothing for anyone. $450, as I mentioned before, is a more realistic figure. And the parts will never get over $300, likely less
Originally posted by Towel
My figures were taken directly from Apple's most recently quarterly report filed with the SEC. I may be tedious, but I do not pull numbers out of my ass. Apple's own breakdown for the three months ending 12/31/05, from page 26:Code:
Net sales by product:
Desktops $912
Portables 812
(Total Macintosh Sales 1724)
iPod 2906
Other music-related 491
Peripherals and other hardware 303
Software, services and other sales* 325
* "Includes sales of Apple-branded operating system software,
application software, third-party software,
AppleCare, and Internet services"
Apple does not make money from boxed software. Period. You must be confusing "software" with "iPod".
Except that you didn't give ALL of the figures. Now you d. I get the reports as well.
Apple sold several hundred million dollars worth of OS X last year. They did very well with it.
You have no idea whether Apple made money with their boxed software. Can you show that?
Originally posted by slughead
yeah but they had to advertise it too, then make up for the numerous class action suits over absolutely nothing..
and don't forget about researching and paying off all the technologies they stole (accidently or no)
plus, you have to get enough money to pay off the next revision of the OS, as you probably didn't pay for tiger with the sales of 10.3
Don't forget that the next revision will have less [free] help from the Open source community because Apple had to stop releasing a number of things for x86 in order to curb the OSx86 project.
Any of that gets averaged over all of Apple's products. Software is always going to be much more profitable that hardware. The development costs for most programs aren't as high as you may think.
Originally posted by Towel
That 2 million figure included "copies sold at retail, copies delivered under maintenance agreements and copies bundled with Mac® systems shipped".
It was also a post-release bolus. Like I said above, that Apple only ever offers specifics about sales/revenues of retail OS X during these post-release boluses is evidence that sales/revenues at all other times are not significant.
Edit: Just for giggles, I looked up Apple's SEC filing for the quarter of Tiger's release. The "Software, AppleCare et al." category showed $345M in revenue - in other words, not hugely different from an average quarter, despite the post-release sales.
Yes, but that number was for last June. A great many more copies had been sold by end of September. They will be sold until Leopard comes out end of this year. That's an entire year more of sales since the end of last year (September). The costs for the updates and security fixes aren't nearly as high as for the development process, as far fewer people are involved. Most have been working on Leapaed since last April.
Originally posted by melgross
No. You have to add the manufacturing cost in as well. As well as all of the other costs I mentioned.
Yes, of course I know that it doesn't cost nothing to build a computer, ship it, and pay for all of your staff.
But, I thought that was the point of gross margins. They didn't include any of that stuff. That's why Apple's gross margins have always been around 27% for as long as I can remember, but there were some quarters where they made hardly any profit at all. It's because gross margins don't account for that stuff.
We (melgross and I) are both wrong about gross margin.
I said:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Yes, of course I know that it doesn't cost nothing to build a computer, ship it, and pay for all of your staff.
But, I thought that was the point of gross margins. They didn't include any of that stuff.
Melgross said:
Originally posted by melgross
But remember that manufacturing costs include EVERY cost the company has. Every show that Apple goes to raises the manufacturing cost on every item it makes, both hardware and software. So does the cost of the gardeners for their grounds. The cost of fixing an elevator in the building increases the cost as well.
the SEC filing says:
Net sales : $5,749 million
Cost of sales: $4,185 million
Gross margin: $1,564 million (which is 27.2% gross margin)
Operating expenses; R&D: $182 million
Operating expenses; selling, general and administrative: $632 million
this suggests that gross margin incorporates manufacturing and shipping costs, but not costs of shows, the gardener, elevator maintanance, support staff, development engineering staff, mangement etc... (these things do affect overall profits, just not gross margin)
oh, and also, in (kind of) support of towel, I think he's made a good point. I don't think retail sales of boxed OS X is anywhere near as high as melgross thinks it is. As towel said, whenever Apple release sales figures for OS X, they are including versions shipped with Macs, and they ship about 1.25 million Macs a quarter.
playing with a core duo mac mini
power subtly sheathed in glowing mac goodness... mmmm
Originally posted by sunilraman
i just came back from
playing with a core duo mac mini
power subtly sheathed in glowing mac goodness... mmmm
How were the graphics? Everyone has raised a fuss about the choice of no card... in your humble opinion, how did it fare?
Did you feel that it was a good machine for the money?
Originally posted by TenoBell
As far as the $499 Mac mini.
I don't believe $100 will make or break a computer sell.
What likely happened with the $499 Mac mini is that people still spent the $100 to upgrade to the features that $599 Mac mini would have.
Instead of crippling the Mac mini just to drop it to $499 price point they just leave in all of the features that people will want in a modern computer.
If a consumer knowlingly or unknowlingly bought the $499 Mac mini they would forever have a computer with fewer modern features that will be useful in the future.
finally some objectivity to this post!
i agree 100%
eventualy the prices will drop again
p.s. i'm buying one anyways!
Originally posted by Zenga
finally some objectivity to this post!
Excuse me? It's objective just because you agree with it? No.
All the talk about whether a computer below $599 is necesarry for Apple, is subjective, because nobody, including myself, has brought extensive market research to the table.
My expectation is that if you went out and did some market research, you would find that there is a lot of demand for a computer from Apple that has low-end specs., and starts at $399. I believe that you would also find that there is a lot of demand for a configurable Apple computer that is less powerful than a PowerMac, but also cheaper. The machine I'd like to see Apple produce kills these two birds with one stone.
You may feel free to disagree with any of this. But you cannot prove the demand wrong unless you go out and survey tens of thousands of people, and you cannot prove my costings wrong without knowing all of Apple's costs exactly.
You could also provide good reasons why I might be wrong, I am willing to hear them, plenty have been suggested so far; they may well be right.
Originally posted by Mr. H
My expectation is that if you went out and did some market research, you would find that there is a lot of demand for a computer from Apple that has low-end specs., and starts at $399.
Then why isn't there one? Because: A) there isn't sufficient demand or
I'm going to guess not C. A and B are linked...if there was extremely high demand I doubt Apple could afford to ignore it.
I believe that you would also find that there is a lot of demand for a configurable Apple computer that is less powerful than a PowerMac, but also cheaper.
See above. IMHO if there was a shuttle like mac mini you'd either have to program in the same absolute margins as the iMacs and suffer claims that your margins are too high or suffer almost entirely cannibalizing your iMac market.
iMacs strike me as much more profitable than small towers in as much as I suspect that folks are more inclined to buy applecare for an all-in-one device than for individual replaceable components.
Plus you always have a monitor sale and you will sell a new monitor every upgrade cycle.
The machine I'd like to see Apple produce kills these two birds with one stone.
The machine you'd like to see Apple produce likely kills the iMac as well. Your machine + a cinema display (possibly sourced from Dell) is a much better performance and value proposition than an iMac.
There's also no certainty that such a machine would increase Apple's share. Folks buy $399.00 60GB iPods. If there was a great demand to switch it appears that the disposable income exists to get a $600-$800 mini in the target demographic.
Vinea
I think market research would have pointed out that 75% of people considering to buy a desktop computer would be saticfied and happy with the iMac.
Market research also would have pointed out that 0,2% of those people who said to be considering to buy a new desktop Mac always whine and complain about specs and pricing and actually never buy a new Mac.
That's a big potential market for Apple.
Originally posted by gar
That's odd, indeed.
I think market research would have pointed out that 75% of people considering to buy a desktop computer would be saticfied and happy with the iMac.
Really? Then why aren't 75% of people who buy desktops buying iMacs?
Originally posted by gar
Market research also would have pointed out that 0,2% of those people who said to be considering to buy a new desktop Mac always whine and complain about specs and pricing and actually never buy a new Mac.
That's a big potential market for Apple.
There's no need to be facetious. The number of whiners has no bearing on which computers you should make.
For the record, my next Apple purchase will be a Merom MacBook Pro. I don't want a desktop at all.
Originally posted by vinea
Then why isn't there one? Because: A) there isn't sufficient demand or
I'm going to guess not C. A and B are linked...if there was extremely high demand I doubt Apple could afford to ignore it.
Well, in this case, I do think that Steve is an idiot.
Originally posted by vinea
The machine you'd like to see Apple produce likely kills the iMac as well. Your machine + a cinema display (possibly sourced from Dell) is a much better performance and value proposition than an iMac.
If an iMac is so great (which I think it is), why would this computer cannibilise it? They appeal to different markets.