I understand your point, but it is not correct. Dell makes its money off all of that crap it installs on your computer. The last I heard, Wintel OEMs receive $70/machine for every third-party icon on the Windows Desktop. When you consider how many anti-spyware utility demos and other annoyances you deal with on your new Dell, at $70 each it adds up. I presume that the high end machines don't have the crap. If this is the case, Dell either charges a much higher price or takes a bath.
I really have my doubt's on the $70 stuff...do you really think it make sense to pay 70 bucks to dell to put a demo that may or may not lead to a potential sale of less than $70? considering that the probability of buy should be arround 1% to 5%, and the average software demoed is valued at arround $35, it's seems more reasonable that the fee would be around the 70 cents per machine. Not that that wouldn't pile up to a lot of money, but $70 per app per machine is a bit to much for me to believe .
I don't think $2,499 is that much for what your getting. All these people are asking for a midrange tower, but they should just get a Mac Pro. Its an amazing computer, and $800 less then Dell's version of it. So stop griping, and if you want, just downgrade it a little. Make it around 1,900 by getting rid of some stuff.
... the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen).
Great, now I have images of a box of Frosted Flakes with a big bright splash on the front, "FREE 17" Digital Paper Display inside!"
Stuff's getting cheeper, and we may actually begin to see disposable displays in the near future, especially on disposable digital cameras, pill bottles (using that digital paper tech) and other small stuff. Heck, basic digital watches that used to cost massive $$$ back in the ... um, whenever they first started appearing... now I'm showing MY age... we now get from vending machines for $.50. In a little plastic egg.
not too far fetched.
Hallmark?
Newspapers?
Paperbacks?
The world will be a very different place by the time I die. Just ask the Old People! ;D
I don't think $2,499 is that much for what your getting. All these people are asking for a midrange tower, but they should just get a Mac Pro. Its an amazing computer, and $800 less then Dell's version of it. So stop griping, and if you want, just downgrade it a little. Make it around 1,900 by getting rid of some stuff.
Thats just IMO though.
Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.
3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.
Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.
3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.
Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.
Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.
Vinea
Where did I compare the XPS 700 to a Mac Pro?
No, I define the mid to upper end consumer line, without a monitor, to extend from $799 to $1299+
The fact that Dell currently does not offer a comparable machine to the ones at Tiger Direct, without a Monitor bundled, makes comparisons hard. The XPS 410 comes bundled with a 20" monitor, 500 GB hard drive, 2 GB ram. These machines are more for the professional market as is the XPS 700.
It appears the currently Dell is pushing the Pentium D cpus for the mid to upper end consumer lines.
For clarity, I define the price ranges, without monitors, to be roughly
~$300 - ~$700 budget to low end
~$700 - ~$1600 mid to upper end consumer
~$1600 - ~$3000 professional
~$2000 - ~$6000+ workstation
These ranges are not absolute and open for a lot of argument, but I think consistent with what most people would expect. Though, maybe not.
Where Dell and the analysts were talking about the effect on margins was the low end, budget computers.
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.
Well, some people in this thread are talking about $1500 to $1700, but that's just too expensive (and unnecessary to achieve 28% profit margin) for a Conroe tower with limited expandability. There is no reason the line couldn't start at $999.
I think a lot of people who say, "if you're thinking of $1500 - $1700, why not spend a little more?" don't consider two things:
1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).
2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".
come on: Macpro case but smaller, 2 HDD bays, 2 optical drive slots, 1 16xPCIe, 1 standard PCIe, Core 2 duo and 1GB ram for $1299, it is the logical step for the slew of people who want something with more power than the Mini, yet cannot justify 2 xeons, buffered ECC RAM, and the huge price tag.
The argument that the iMac is middle ground is bullshit: can you put an iMac next to your PC tower for easy KVMing? can an iMac be upgraded with desktop optical drives like the forthcoming BluRay or HDDVD? can the iMac use the cheaper desktop RAM? can the iMac even use a desktop CPU and GPU? nope.
Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.
Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.
Actually, it is a little more than a stationary laptop. It uses a desktop HDD, desktop optical drive, desktop GPU chip (although it's probably under-clocked to reduce heat) and the screen backlighting is better than on a laptop.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.
Read the thread (or just my posts) and you will discover that you don't have to convince me.
1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).
2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".
If thats the most their willing to spend, then why are they getting the tower? Their still gonna need a display.
I see your point, and that is more then a little bit. If I were in the market for a mid range tower, I would certainly think $500 more is a considerable amount more. And theres still the display.
I guess when I think of someone buying a Mac Pro, I think of Professional Photographers, Visual Effects Engineers etc... And when it costs $1000 just to go to a confrence about the new commputer your gonna get, $2500 doesn't seem like alot for a buisness. But for the average Jo to small buisness owner, it is alot to spend on a computer.
Apple should make a deal, that if you buy a Mac Pro, you get a discount on all displays, say $200 off? Idk just a idea.
So maybe it is a good idea for Apple to make a Mid Range tower.... Wow this has really changed my thoughts on this...
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, . . .
Since I'm the one who first mentioned $1700 I should fess up! (Later someone modified this to $1500 to $1700.) My post is in this thread and responds to fears that a mini tower would hurt sales of both the iMac and Mac Pro, so I crudely established a price between them.
Quote: "Arguments against a midrange Mac are a lot of wind with no substance. A 20 inch iMac is essentially $1700. A Mac Pro with a 20 inch display is $3200. There is ample room for a mini tower Mac at $1700, which is about in the middle, and costs $2400 with a 20 inch display. Now, who is going to argue that such a Mac will take sales away from the iMac or Mac Pro?"
So this price originated as a mid point, which could also be the mid point for a mini tower that sells from say $1000 to $2400 depending on how it is configured.
That's like the base price, then you can upgrade it up to like $2000?
As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999:
Mini Tower Enclosure
2 HDD bays
2 PCI-e slots (one for graphics)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor
512 MB RAM
160 GB HDD
Draw-loading Combo Drive
ATI-X1600
If Apple offered the usual options for wireless, HDD, RAM, optical drive, GPU, and the choice between 1.83 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz Conroe, this could realistically scale up to $2499. (The Core 2 Duo extreme 2.93 GHz Conroe costs $999 just by itself)
Comments
I understand your point, but it is not correct. Dell makes its money off all of that crap it installs on your computer. The last I heard, Wintel OEMs receive $70/machine for every third-party icon on the Windows Desktop. When you consider how many anti-spyware utility demos and other annoyances you deal with on your new Dell, at $70 each it adds up. I presume that the high end machines don't have the crap. If this is the case, Dell either charges a much higher price or takes a bath.
I really have my doubt's on the $70 stuff...do you really think it make sense to pay 70 bucks to dell to put a demo that may or may not lead to a potential sale of less than $70? considering that the probability of buy should be arround 1% to 5%, and the average software demoed is valued at arround $35, it's seems more reasonable that the fee would be around the 70 cents per machine. Not that that wouldn't pile up to a lot of money, but $70 per app per machine is a bit to much for me to believe .
Thats just IMO though.
... the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen).
Great, now I have images of a box of Frosted Flakes with a big bright splash on the front, "FREE 17" Digital Paper Display inside!"
Stuff's getting cheeper, and we may actually begin to see disposable displays in the near future, especially on disposable digital cameras, pill bottles (using that digital paper tech) and other small stuff. Heck, basic digital watches that used to cost massive $$$ back in the ... um, whenever they first started appearing... now I'm showing MY age... we now get from vending machines for $.50. In a little plastic egg.
not too far fetched.
Hallmark?
Newspapers?
Paperbacks?
The world will be a very different place by the time I die. Just ask the Old People! ;D
hmmm, someone mentioned that very few midtower pc owners acutally upgrade their comp at all.
That was me
I don't think $2,499 is that much for what your getting. All these people are asking for a midrange tower, but they should just get a Mac Pro. Its an amazing computer, and $800 less then Dell's version of it. So stop griping, and if you want, just downgrade it a little. Make it around 1,900 by getting rid of some stuff.
Thats just IMO though.
Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.
3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.
Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.
3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.
Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.
Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.
Vinea
Where did I compare the XPS 700 to a Mac Pro?
No, I define the mid to upper end consumer line, without a monitor, to extend from $799 to $1299+
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=188
The fact that Dell currently does not offer a comparable machine to the ones at Tiger Direct, without a Monitor bundled, makes comparisons hard. The XPS 410 comes bundled with a 20" monitor, 500 GB hard drive, 2 GB ram. These machines are more for the professional market as is the XPS 700.
It appears the currently Dell is pushing the Pentium D cpus for the mid to upper end consumer lines.
For clarity, I define the price ranges, without monitors, to be roughly
~$300 - ~$700 budget to low end
~$700 - ~$1600 mid to upper end consumer
~$1600 - ~$3000 professional
~$2000 - ~$6000+ workstation
These ranges are not absolute and open for a lot of argument, but I think consistent with what most people would expect. Though, maybe not.
Where Dell and the analysts were talking about the effect on margins was the low end, budget computers.
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.
Well, some people in this thread are talking about $1500 to $1700, but that's just too expensive (and unnecessary to achieve 28% profit margin) for a Conroe tower with limited expandability. There is no reason the line couldn't start at $999.
I think a lot of people who say, "if you're thinking of $1500 - $1700, why not spend a little more?" don't consider two things:
1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).
2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".
They better be afraid of losing a customer who has used their products since about 1992.
And one who switched 1.5 years ago and has talked their family into going Mac next time around
The argument that the iMac is middle ground is bullshit: can you put an iMac next to your PC tower for easy KVMing? can an iMac be upgraded with desktop optical drives like the forthcoming BluRay or HDDVD? can the iMac use the cheaper desktop RAM? can the iMac even use a desktop CPU and GPU? nope.
Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.
Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.
Actually, it is a little more than a stationary laptop. It uses a desktop HDD, desktop optical drive, desktop GPU chip (although it's probably under-clocked to reduce heat) and the screen backlighting is better than on a laptop.
1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.
Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.
Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...
Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...
Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.
Read the thread (or just my posts) and you will discover that you don't have to convince me.
1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).
2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".
If thats the most their willing to spend, then why are they getting the tower? Their still gonna need a display.
I see your point, and that is more then a little bit. If I were in the market for a mid range tower, I would certainly think $500 more is a considerable amount more. And theres still the display.
I guess when I think of someone buying a Mac Pro, I think of Professional Photographers, Visual Effects Engineers etc... And when it costs $1000 just to go to a confrence about the new commputer your gonna get, $2500 doesn't seem like alot for a buisness. But for the average Jo to small buisness owner, it is alot to spend on a computer.
Apple should make a deal, that if you buy a Mac Pro, you get a discount on all displays, say $200 off? Idk just a idea.
So maybe it is a good idea for Apple to make a Mid Range tower.... Wow this has really changed my thoughts on this...
I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, . . .
Since I'm the one who first mentioned $1700 I should fess up! (Later someone modified this to $1500 to $1700.) My post is in this thread and responds to fears that a mini tower would hurt sales of both the iMac and Mac Pro, so I crudely established a price between them.
Quote: "Arguments against a midrange Mac are a lot of wind with no substance. A 20 inch iMac is essentially $1700. A Mac Pro with a 20 inch display is $3200. There is ample room for a mini tower Mac at $1700, which is about in the middle, and costs $2400 with a 20 inch display. Now, who is going to argue that such a Mac will take sales away from the iMac or Mac Pro?"
So this price originated as a mid point, which could also be the mid point for a mini tower that sells from say $1000 to $2400 depending on how it is configured.
$999 would be a great price for a small tower.
That's like the base price, then you can upgrade it up to like $2000?
That's like the base price, then you can upgrade it up to like $2000?
As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999:
Mini Tower Enclosure
2 HDD bays
2 PCI-e slots (one for graphics)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor
512 MB RAM
160 GB HDD
Draw-loading Combo Drive
ATI-X1600
If Apple offered the usual options for wireless, HDD, RAM, optical drive, GPU, and the choice between 1.83 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz Conroe, this could realistically scale up to $2499. (The Core 2 Duo extreme 2.93 GHz Conroe costs $999 just by itself)
As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999:
I hadn't read that post before. Wow, you really do your research. I'm impressed.
I am being completely serious here, no sarcasm what so ever.
Not everyone feels as you do. You also probably want something simple, yet powerful. In that regard the iMac excels.
What exactly is so difficult to understand in a sentence like "I don't want an AIO"?
And if the iMac had dual Woodcrest and 4 PCIe slots and 4 HDD bays: I don't want an AIO!