Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
This is exactly the opposite of everything that Apple stands for. The entire philosophy of Apple Computer, Inc. is, and has been whenever SJ's been in charge, to show people a better way of doing things than what they already know. That's why they stay ahead of the game in innovation. The whole point of the original Macintosh and the Apple II, etc. WAS educating people in new ways of thinking about getting things done. That's what macs have been/are marketed for.
Is it a "whole heck of a lot easier" to drop that philosophy and reputation and start competing with Dell, HP, Sony, et al, on THEIR terms?
Easier? Maybe logistically. Chances of success? "Whole heck of a lot" lower...
I would not say that it is patently false. The whole point of R&D is Research & Development. Testing components and seeing which ones work best is part of Development. There is no Research on their part. The list of Apple Researched items is too large just to fit on this post, but include my favorites:
MagSafe
Ambient Light Sensor
Scroll Ball (a.k.a. The Little Tit)
iMac enclosure (G3, G4, G5/Intel)
Er umm, that's quite a leap from Dell, Compac and HP spending extra R&D money on an AIO case to Apple's introduction of nifty features.
You said the Window's AIO were expensive because of R&D expense, I doubted that. So now you're saying the Window's AIOs cost more than similarly spec.'d towers because Apple spent R&D money on MagSafe, Ambient Light Sensors, Scroll Ball, etc. Maybe I missed something in your logic, but it appears they are totally unrelated.
This is exactly the opposite of everything that Apple stands for. The entire philosophy of Apple Computer, Inc. is, and has been whenever SJ's been in charge, to show people a better way of doing things than what they already know. That's why they stay ahead of the game in innovation. The whole point of the original Macintosh and the Apple II, etc. WAS educating people in new ways of thinking about getting things done. That's what macs have been/are marketed for.
Is it a "whole heck of a lot easier" to drop that philosophy and reputation and start competing with Dell, HP, Sony, et al, on THEIR terms?
Easier? Maybe logistically. Chances of success? "Whole heck of a lot" lower...
Apparently you have a very pessimistic view of Apple's capabiltiies to design an innovative desktop that would appeal to a much larger market.\
I happen to believe that Apple could design a mid to upper end desktop that would be innovative and appeal to a broader market than the very narrow focused niche markets involved with the Mac mini and iMacs.8)
edit: Thought I'd add that the innovations in which you refer to "new ways of thinking about getting things done" are almost exclusively software related, not hardware.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro and an upgraded Mac Mini into a media center Mini. Both would help close that perceived desktop gap without a mid-tower.
Vinea
-- It's gonna be a long post, I'm sorry, bold in the quote is mine, I hope it will be comprehensible for all...--
It looks like they fail last quarter, desktop sales were down around 100,000 units and if I remember well iMacs used to represent more than 75% of Apple's desktop sales (we don't know exactly for last quarter since Apple doesn't give those numbers anymore).
Even if Apple was to release and upgraded Mac mini/media center, it will IMO be a greater risk, and if it was to be done right, it would not be a $999 machine (big hard drive, better processing for full-HD, wireless streaming all over the house, HDMI, and all other standard that need to be adressed...).
Yes, they could do a cheaper Mac Pro with taking a CPU off and downgrading the HD to 160GB and even the video card (???) and sell it for $1799/1899, but now THAT will really looked over-priced even compared to the 20" 2.0GHz current iMac!
You know what, I don't even think Apple is looking into selling a lot of quad 2.0 or 3.0, they just gave the option of. The 2.66 model is really well priced (almost too good to be true) compared to the other options.
I don't know what Apple will put in the next iMac (Merom or Conroe), but I think that the only way Apple would do with only the iMac as the mid-range model, is to offer more models: below and above the current ones. It is certainly a possibility, that's just not the one I'd like to see, because it still doesn't offer more choices.
IMO, Apple needs to upgrade the iMac ASAP, the chips are (almost) here (Merom or Conroe), if they don't want to see the desktop sales sinking further. And then they have to think about a new design to address current and new customers that won't/can't buy their current designs.
Like BenRoethig says, it is possible to build a Conroe computer for less than $1000, but you can also go up to $2000 using faster chips. In fact, I believe Apple could use that chip in both the iMac and an headless Mac (which would not be the Mac mini). Carefully priced and spec'ed both designs could actually co-exist peacefully.
There's the $999 price point: it could actually be both a stripped iMac (like the iMac edu) or an entry level headless model (1.86 Conroe, this way a possible $799 1.83GHz Mac mini won't look so bad).
The $1299 price point: the 17" iMac using a faster Conroe (2.13GHz). Can be upgraded to 2.40GHz later in 2007.
The $1499 price point: mid-range headless model with a 2.66GHz Conroe. ($2499 for a 2.66 Xeon Mac, $1499 for a 2.66 Conroe Mac, I like the similarity of that.)
The $1699 price point: the 20" iMac using a 2.40GHz Conroe (while slower than the model above, it comes with a display). Can be upgraded to 2.66GHz later in 2007.
The $1999 price point: mid-range headless model with a 2.93GHz Conroe. It's only $200 less than the Quad 2.0 Mac Pro, I don't think it would change sales a lot, those who need quad core performance know who they are. Can be upgraded to Kentsfield later in 2007.
But this price point could also receive a 23" iMac with a 2.40/2.66 Conroe, then again it would be slower than the headless model, but it would come with a nice HD display.
Then again, some economy of scale, the (up to) 7 models could use the same architecture.
More so, I think it would also present better upgrade paths: speedbumps for iMacs (until Intel can come up with 65W quad-cores) and speedbumps and Kentsfield for the headless models (speedbumps and Clovertown for the Mac Pro).
Then again, I'm not saying that this will happen overnight or at AEP, but it sure would make a lot of people (and Wall Street) happy.
Er umm, that's quite a leap from Dell, Compac and HP spending extra R&D money on an AIO case to Apple's introduction of nifty features.
You said the Window's AIO were expensive because of R&D expense, I doubted that. So now you're saying the Window's AIOs cost more than similarly spec.'d towers because Apple spent R&D money on MagSafe, Ambient Light Sensors, Scroll Ball, etc. Maybe I missed something in your logic, but it appears they are totally unrelated.
No, if you read my post, I said some of my favorites were those. They spent a lot of money on case enclosures, passive cooling, better power management, etc when dealing specifically with CPU Enclosures.
Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
What? They're selling boatloads of Macs. This resurgence in the company isn't driven solely by iPod sales.
Below is the original quote I was responding to(re: see my bold referencing):
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap, 2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do, and/or 3) Are more expensive than similarly specced towers (because towers don't need any R&D money).
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
What Apple spends on R&D is irrelevant, totally unequivocally irrelevant. What Dell, Compac and HP spend is relevant. I made 2 statements
I don't know if Windows AIOs are in fact more expensive that similarly spec.d towers and
even if they are indeed more expensive, there may be other reasons Windows AIOs are more expensive that similarly spec.'d towers
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
Open a dell tower. Now open the MacPro, or the iMac, or the Mac Mini. See a difference?
Open a Dell laptop. Now open a Powerbook 12" (that's the one I have experience with). See the difference.
That's the difference between DESIGNING computers and ASSEMBLYING computers.
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
DELL spend a massive amount on R&D. In fact, it is more than Apple spends.
Most of DELL's R&D, as you pointed out, doesn't really go into designing the computers, it goes into designing the production, assembly and logistics in order to drive down costs.
What? They're selling boatloads of Macs. This resurgence in the company isn't driven solely by iPod sales.
...boatloads of MacBooks.
Desktop sales have been flat for a couple of years and decreased from around 650,000 to 530,000 units last quarter. Notebooks sales are up, and a lot up last quarter (close to 800,000 units) from around 500,000 units from the previous quarter. While the introduction of the Intel MacBook showed an increase in notebook sales, the introduction of the Intel iMac and Mac mini didn't. I think the Mac Pro will sell well, but it won't account for a lot of units (10-15% maybe).
I hope Conroe-based iMacs will help getting back to more than 600,000 desktop units, but I believe a new desktop design would help even more.
$686 is retail costs for said parts. Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write or jsut dismiss everything off hand because it doesn't come out of Steve's mouth?
Excuse me? Did you not write $1499 as a target price? Or did you actually mean $999 by asserting a build cost of $686?
No, it seems I comprehended just fine. Either we're arguing about a $200 price differential OR you're advocating a $999 Mac Pro. One is a slight difference in opinion...the other a complete strategy change for Apple to abandon AIOs.
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc.
Macs are expensive? The surprise!
Vinea
And who said apple sucks, is doomed, will never gain market share and is executing poorly?
I think everyone agrees apple is doing good, but could be doing better.
So you're saying that if the Mac Pro was magically $1600 or $999 the machine would suck and not be suitable for you? Because it would be "overkill"?
Given the fact that there's no way that Apple could build a computer with the Mac Pro's specs for $999, this is really a moot point, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Nu-uh...is so.
So what pray tell makes a Mac tower or any mac such a necessity in your life if you aren't a professional user (of any kind) that needs software that is exclusively Mac?
Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around.
Also: If someone uses a computer for their job and is on a tight budget, he may prefer a $999 mini-tower over a $600 mini. Why's that? Because that $999 mini-tower will last him for years, due to the fact that he can replace any parts that fail, upgrade any parts that no longer fit future needs, and add any ports that he end up requiring later on. Buying a $999 machine and using it for several years will be a lot cheaper than buying a $600 mini once a year. Furthermore, if his USB ports blow out, or if some hypothetical USB 3.0 or Serial ATA or some other standard becomes necessary for him to use some peripheral he needs for his job, he can add a $100 card instead of buying a new $600 machine. In doing so, he just saved $500.
Quote:
Which brings us back to the perception that some folks are complaining that Apples should be priced like Dells.
No, I'm just saying that Apple should have a machine to compete with Dell. Right now, they have absolutely nothing to compete with the single most popular desktop configuration on the market, and Apple wants to gain market share. Ask a PC user what they think about the Mac - if he/she is a desktop user, you'll probably hear something along the lines of "They cost like twice as much as PCs!" I know I've heard this one plenty of times. How could this be, when the MacBook and Mac Pro are actually priced better than the equivalent Dells? Simple, it's because these users don't consider any machine that doesn't have expansion. If a machine doesn't have expansion, they will not even look at it. Therefore, for them the options are $1000 Dell vs. $2200 Mac, and the choice is clear. This needs to be fixed if Apple expects to gain any market share.
Quote:
A $1600 low end Mac Pro fills the need for a lower priced tower but won't come close to meeting the desire for a switcher wanting expansion in a machine priced like a Mini (or less).
It's still bad, but it's a lot better than the current situation, and therefore, I'd welcome it.
Quote:
Apple is seeking market share in the laptop market which is a growth segment rather than the desktop that some analysts feel is a declining market.
The desktop market is declining slightly because the desktop users who don't need expansion have been discovering the laptop market. The desktop market is still huge, and consists of the people who do need expansion. Apple could grow much more market share if they would gain market share in both the laptop and desktop markets. This seems fairly intuitive to me...
Quote:
iMacs using notebook components may decrease Apple's cost in building laptops despite selling fewer notebooks overall than Dell with much cheaper notebooks. That might be the only compelling reason to go Merom over Conroe in the next rev iMac but I doubt Apple will do that. Sales of the iMac may suffer too much from the performance hit.
Nothing is "that simple".
Huh? When was I talking about the iMac or what processor it uses?
Quote:
Please. If you can't see that a $1000 computer is an extravagant purchase for someone living on minium wage (and not living home with mom and dad) you've never been vaguely poor.
WTF? What I said was: "A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is."
IOW, no matter how extravagant a $1000 tower is to you, a $2200 tower is far, far worse.
I'm not sure how you can argue with this fact.
Quote:
Only to folks that equate a Mac tower to a basic necessity and whine that you need to win the lottery to afford a Mac Pro which is comparatively inexpensive as a Mac tower from a historical basis. $1600 in 1995 is roughly equivalent to $2000 in 2005 (using various mechanisms compute inflation like CPI, GDP, etc).
In the old days, even the AIO and flat desktop machines had expansion slots. Some of them even had free drive bays.
Quote:
Needs or wants? I can say I need a 22 year old blond supermodel for "expansion". My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.
Nah, what would be more analogous would be if the model configurations suddenly changed so that suddenly only the 22-year-old blond supermodels had certain parts... oh never mind. I'm not gonna go there.
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
Open a dell tower. Now open the MacPro, or the iMac, or the Mac Mini. See a difference?
Open a Dell laptop. Now open a Powerbook 12" (that's the one I have experience with). See the difference.
That's the difference between DESIGNING computers and ASSEMBLYING computers.
Again, is Apple's R&D and case design have to do with Dell's, Compac's and HP's case design? You were arguing that the Windows AIO's case design made them more expensive than similarly spec.'d towers. Apple has nothing to do with this.
DELL spend a massive amount on R&D. In fact, it is more than Apple spends.
Most of DELL's R&D, as you pointed out, doesn't really go into designing the computers, it goes into designing the production, assembly and logistics in order to drive down costs.
Okay, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the point at hand. The point I was making was that Apple spends money designing computers. Dell saves that money by assemblying computers. If Dell were to design computers like Apple does, it would cost them more money than they are currently spending. Therefore they would charge more for those computers in order to keep any kind of margin, since their margins are already low. This is the situation with every PC maker who makes AIO's. That's why people buy the towers instead. If everyone had the technical know-how to build PC's from components, noone would buy the PC towers that are now the vast majority of the Windows PC market because the only advantage from those machines is that they are already assembled and working. Would you all then start clamoring for Apple to start selling components instead of OEM computers?
Edit: Rickag, I believe this answers your question as well...
Comments
Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write
You know, that is exactly what I was wondering.
Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
This is exactly the opposite of everything that Apple stands for. The entire philosophy of Apple Computer, Inc. is, and has been whenever SJ's been in charge, to show people a better way of doing things than what they already know. That's why they stay ahead of the game in innovation. The whole point of the original Macintosh and the Apple II, etc. WAS educating people in new ways of thinking about getting things done. That's what macs have been/are marketed for.
Is it a "whole heck of a lot easier" to drop that philosophy and reputation and start competing with Dell, HP, Sony, et al, on THEIR terms?
Easier? Maybe logistically. Chances of success? "Whole heck of a lot" lower...
Who would be interested in a new top of the line iMac HD?
23" screen in Black enclosure
high-end video card
special edition black wireless keyboard, mouse and remote
Optional VESA wall-mount
Only if the built-in monitor could multi task. That is, I could directly connect cable/sat tv,and game consoles.
I would not say that it is patently false. The whole point of R&D is Research & Development. Testing components and seeing which ones work best is part of Development. There is no Research on their part. The list of Apple Researched items is too large just to fit on this post, but include my favorites:
MagSafe
Ambient Light Sensor
Scroll Ball (a.k.a. The Little Tit)
iMac enclosure (G3, G4, G5/Intel)
Er umm, that's quite a leap from Dell, Compac and HP spending extra R&D money on an AIO case to Apple's introduction of nifty features.
You said the Window's AIO were expensive because of R&D expense, I doubted that. So now you're saying the Window's AIOs cost more than similarly spec.'d towers because Apple spent R&D money on MagSafe, Ambient Light Sensors, Scroll Ball, etc. Maybe I missed something in your logic, but it appears they are totally unrelated.
This is exactly the opposite of everything that Apple stands for. The entire philosophy of Apple Computer, Inc. is, and has been whenever SJ's been in charge, to show people a better way of doing things than what they already know. That's why they stay ahead of the game in innovation. The whole point of the original Macintosh and the Apple II, etc. WAS educating people in new ways of thinking about getting things done. That's what macs have been/are marketed for.
Is it a "whole heck of a lot easier" to drop that philosophy and reputation and start competing with Dell, HP, Sony, et al, on THEIR terms?
Easier? Maybe logistically. Chances of success? "Whole heck of a lot" lower...
Apparently you have a very pessimistic view of Apple's capabiltiies to design an innovative desktop that would appeal to a much larger market.
I happen to believe that Apple could design a mid to upper end desktop that would be innovative and appeal to a broader market than the very narrow focused niche markets involved with the Mac mini and iMacs.8)
edit: Thought I'd add that the innovations in which you refer to "new ways of thinking about getting things done" are almost exclusively software related, not hardware.
IMHO they wish to increase market share on their terms...which presently appear to include AIOs taking a prominent role in their desktop lineup...not increase share at all costs.
The most likely addition to the lineup is a cheaper Mac Pro and an upgraded Mac Mini into a media center Mini. Both would help close that perceived desktop gap without a mid-tower.
Vinea
-- It's gonna be a long post, I'm sorry, bold in the quote is mine, I hope it will be comprehensible for all...--
It looks like they fail last quarter, desktop sales were down around 100,000 units and if I remember well iMacs used to represent more than 75% of Apple's desktop sales (we don't know exactly for last quarter since Apple doesn't give those numbers anymore).
Even if Apple was to release and upgraded Mac mini/media center, it will IMO be a greater risk, and if it was to be done right, it would not be a $999 machine (big hard drive, better processing for full-HD, wireless streaming all over the house, HDMI, and all other standard that need to be adressed...).
Yes, they could do a cheaper Mac Pro with taking a CPU off and downgrading the HD to 160GB and even the video card (???) and sell it for $1799/1899, but now THAT will really looked over-priced even compared to the 20" 2.0GHz current iMac!
You know what, I don't even think Apple is looking into selling a lot of quad 2.0 or 3.0, they just gave the option of. The 2.66 model is really well priced (almost too good to be true) compared to the other options.
I don't know what Apple will put in the next iMac (Merom or Conroe), but I think that the only way Apple would do with only the iMac as the mid-range model, is to offer more models: below and above the current ones. It is certainly a possibility, that's just not the one I'd like to see, because it still doesn't offer more choices.
IMO, Apple needs to upgrade the iMac ASAP, the chips are (almost) here (Merom or Conroe), if they don't want to see the desktop sales sinking further. And then they have to think about a new design to address current and new customers that won't/can't buy their current designs.
Like BenRoethig says, it is possible to build a Conroe computer for less than $1000, but you can also go up to $2000 using faster chips. In fact, I believe Apple could use that chip in both the iMac and an headless Mac (which would not be the Mac mini). Carefully priced and spec'ed both designs could actually co-exist peacefully.
There's the $999 price point: it could actually be both a stripped iMac (like the iMac edu) or an entry level headless model (1.86 Conroe, this way a possible $799 1.83GHz Mac mini won't look so bad).
The $1299 price point: the 17" iMac using a faster Conroe (2.13GHz). Can be upgraded to 2.40GHz later in 2007.
The $1499 price point: mid-range headless model with a 2.66GHz Conroe. ($2499 for a 2.66 Xeon Mac, $1499 for a 2.66 Conroe Mac, I like the similarity of that.)
The $1699 price point: the 20" iMac using a 2.40GHz Conroe (while slower than the model above, it comes with a display). Can be upgraded to 2.66GHz later in 2007.
The $1999 price point: mid-range headless model with a 2.93GHz Conroe. It's only $200 less than the Quad 2.0 Mac Pro, I don't think it would change sales a lot, those who need quad core performance know who they are. Can be upgraded to Kentsfield later in 2007.
But this price point could also receive a 23" iMac with a 2.40/2.66 Conroe, then again it would be slower than the headless model, but it would come with a nice HD display.
Then again, some economy of scale, the (up to) 7 models could use the same architecture.
More so, I think it would also present better upgrade paths: speedbumps for iMacs (until Intel can come up with 65W quad-cores) and speedbumps and Kentsfield for the headless models (speedbumps and Clovertown for the Mac Pro).
Then again, I'm not saying that this will happen overnight or at AEP, but it sure would make a lot of people (and Wall Street) happy.
Apple needs two things, a $1k-2k tower profesional/consumer, and a mobile workstation to complete their lineup.
re mobile workstation, you thinking something along the lines of what Alienware has on it's top end?
Er umm, that's quite a leap from Dell, Compac and HP spending extra R&D money on an AIO case to Apple's introduction of nifty features.
You said the Window's AIO were expensive because of R&D expense, I doubted that. So now you're saying the Window's AIOs cost more than similarly spec.'d towers because Apple spent R&D money on MagSafe, Ambient Light Sensors, Scroll Ball, etc. Maybe I missed something in your logic, but it appears they are totally unrelated.
No, if you read my post, I said some of my favorites were those. They spent a lot of money on case enclosures, passive cooling, better power management, etc when dealing specifically with CPU Enclosures.
Their terms aren't working and haven't been working for years for desktops. Like I've said, and other people have said, it is easier to sell people what they want rather than educate them in what Apple believes they need. A lot easier. A whole lot easier. A whole heck of a lot easier.
What? They're selling boatloads of Macs. This resurgence in the company isn't driven solely by iPod sales.
Below is the original quote I was responding to(re: see my bold referencing):
They don't sell more because 1) They look like crap, 2) Don't fulfill the needs of customers the way Apple's AIO do, and/or 3) Are more expensive than similarly specced towers (because towers don't need any R&D money).
So yes, the only people who buy them in the Windows world have some other agenda- many times just trying to look "innovative."
What Apple spends on R&D is irrelevant, totally unequivocally irrelevant. What Dell, Compac and HP spend is relevant. I made 2 statements
I don't know if Windows AIOs are in fact more expensive that similarly spec.d towers and
even if they are indeed more expensive, there may be other reasons Windows AIOs are more expensive that similarly spec.'d towers
For manufacturers like Dell, Gateway and HP, this statement is patently false. Each of these manufacturers test the components for their towers and make decisions accordingly. I don't know if the AIOs do in fact cost more than similarly spec.'d towers and if they are, I wouldn't venture a guess as to why. Oh heck, I will: On a side note, I have read where Apple is squeezing the most they can from the Mac faithful to maintain high margins, maybe that's the reasoning in the Windows AIOs?
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
Open a dell tower. Now open the MacPro, or the iMac, or the Mac Mini. See a difference?
Open a Dell laptop. Now open a Powerbook 12" (that's the one I have experience with). See the difference.
That's the difference between DESIGNING computers and ASSEMBLYING computers.
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
DELL spend a massive amount on R&D. In fact, it is more than Apple spends.
Most of DELL's R&D, as you pointed out, doesn't really go into designing the computers, it goes into designing the production, assembly and logistics in order to drive down costs.
What? They're selling boatloads of Macs. This resurgence in the company isn't driven solely by iPod sales.
...boatloads of MacBooks.
Desktop sales have been flat for a couple of years and decreased from around 650,000 to 530,000 units last quarter. Notebooks sales are up, and a lot up last quarter (close to 800,000 units) from around 500,000 units from the previous quarter. While the introduction of the Intel MacBook showed an increase in notebook sales, the introduction of the Intel iMac and Mac mini didn't. I think the Mac Pro will sell well, but it won't account for a lot of units (10-15% maybe).
I hope Conroe-based iMacs will help getting back to more than 600,000 desktop units, but I believe a new desktop design would help even more.
$686 is retail costs for said parts. Do you ever try to comprehend what other people write or jsut dismiss everything off hand because it doesn't come out of Steve's mouth?
Excuse me? Did you not write $1499 as a target price? Or did you actually mean $999 by asserting a build cost of $686?
No, it seems I comprehended just fine. Either we're arguing about a $200 price differential OR you're advocating a $999 Mac Pro. One is a slight difference in opinion...the other a complete strategy change for Apple to abandon AIOs.
Vinea
You know, that is exactly what I was wondering.
Well, I was wondering why you never responded to the query on your car analogy double standard...
Vinea
Eh, I consider it whining when most folks discussing the topic have agreed that a $1600 tower is a Good Thing and should be offered in Apple's line up (some day soon but not likely by Paris) but some folks have moved to the OMG Apple suxxors because they don't have a $999 tower today and will never gain share, are doomed, are executing poorly, are too expensive, etc.
Macs are expensive? The surprise!
Vinea
And who said apple sucks, is doomed, will never gain market share and is executing poorly?
I think everyone agrees apple is doing good, but could be doing better.
What? They're selling boatloads of Macs. This resurgence in the company isn't driven solely by iPod sales.
I don't know what you consider boatloads, but here are some real numbers
Apple sold 1.33 million computers
Of those 798000 were laptops
That breaks down to 60% laptops and 40% desktop/servers.
Apple?s market share in the US has risen to 4.6 percent, from 4.3 percent, in the United States in the last year.
Apple's worldwide market share has hovered around 2% for a while now.
No, Apple is not capturing market share and to contend otherwise is ignoring the facts.
So you're saying that if the Mac Pro was magically $1600 or $999 the machine would suck and not be suitable for you? Because it would be "overkill"?
Given the fact that there's no way that Apple could build a computer with the Mac Pro's specs for $999, this is really a moot point, isn't it?
Nu-uh...is so.
So what pray tell makes a Mac tower or any mac such a necessity in your life if you aren't a professional user (of any kind) that needs software that is exclusively Mac?
Well, how about a graphic artist? He needs to use apps like Photoshop, 3D rendering software, and other artsy things, so he's going to want more power than the Core Solo in the Mac mini provides, but not necessarily quad-core. He'll also want a dedicated graphics card since his whole business is dealing with graphics. He's got a nice, big monitor already which he wants to use, so the iMac is out. Also, he doesn't have the money to replace the whole computer if the USB ports happen to fail on his machine. So what he needs is a mid-range machine with some basic expansion capabilities, but as an art major, he may not have $2200 just to throw around.
Also: If someone uses a computer for their job and is on a tight budget, he may prefer a $999 mini-tower over a $600 mini. Why's that? Because that $999 mini-tower will last him for years, due to the fact that he can replace any parts that fail, upgrade any parts that no longer fit future needs, and add any ports that he end up requiring later on. Buying a $999 machine and using it for several years will be a lot cheaper than buying a $600 mini once a year. Furthermore, if his USB ports blow out, or if some hypothetical USB 3.0 or Serial ATA or some other standard becomes necessary for him to use some peripheral he needs for his job, he can add a $100 card instead of buying a new $600 machine. In doing so, he just saved $500.
Which brings us back to the perception that some folks are complaining that Apples should be priced like Dells.
No, I'm just saying that Apple should have a machine to compete with Dell. Right now, they have absolutely nothing to compete with the single most popular desktop configuration on the market, and Apple wants to gain market share. Ask a PC user what they think about the Mac - if he/she is a desktop user, you'll probably hear something along the lines of "They cost like twice as much as PCs!" I know I've heard this one plenty of times. How could this be, when the MacBook and Mac Pro are actually priced better than the equivalent Dells? Simple, it's because these users don't consider any machine that doesn't have expansion. If a machine doesn't have expansion, they will not even look at it. Therefore, for them the options are $1000 Dell vs. $2200 Mac, and the choice is clear. This needs to be fixed if Apple expects to gain any market share.
A $1600 low end Mac Pro fills the need for a lower priced tower but won't come close to meeting the desire for a switcher wanting expansion in a machine priced like a Mini (or less).
It's still bad, but it's a lot better than the current situation, and therefore, I'd welcome it.
Apple is seeking market share in the laptop market which is a growth segment rather than the desktop that some analysts feel is a declining market.
The desktop market is declining slightly because the desktop users who don't need expansion have been discovering the laptop market. The desktop market is still huge, and consists of the people who do need expansion. Apple could grow much more market share if they would gain market share in both the laptop and desktop markets. This seems fairly intuitive to me...
iMacs using notebook components may decrease Apple's cost in building laptops despite selling fewer notebooks overall than Dell with much cheaper notebooks. That might be the only compelling reason to go Merom over Conroe in the next rev iMac but I doubt Apple will do that. Sales of the iMac may suffer too much from the performance hit.
Nothing is "that simple".
Huh? When was I talking about the iMac or what processor it uses?
Please. If you can't see that a $1000 computer is an extravagant purchase for someone living on minium wage (and not living home with mom and dad) you've never been vaguely poor.
WTF? What I said was: "A $1000 tower isn't nearly as extravagant a purchase as a $2200 tower, no matter what your income level is."
IOW, no matter how extravagant a $1000 tower is to you, a $2200 tower is far, far worse.
I'm not sure how you can argue with this fact.
Only to folks that equate a Mac tower to a basic necessity and whine that you need to win the lottery to afford a Mac Pro which is comparatively inexpensive as a Mac tower from a historical basis. $1600 in 1995 is roughly equivalent to $2000 in 2005 (using various mechanisms compute inflation like CPI, GDP, etc).
In the old days, even the AIO and flat desktop machines had expansion slots. Some of them even had free drive bays.
Needs or wants? I can say I need a 22 year old blond supermodel for "expansion". My wife will say I need a lot more $$$ or look like Brad Pitt to trade up.
Nah, what would be more analogous would be if the model configurations suddenly changed so that suddenly only the 22-year-old blond supermodels had certain parts... oh never mind. I'm not gonna go there.
Have you opened a Dell tower?? It's basically a generic, square case with Dell plastic slapped on the outside. Their's nothing inside you can't buy off NewEgg and slap into a case in the same way that they do. If by research and design you mean buying one and trying it out before buying ten million of them, then we have a very different idea of what R&D consists of.
Open a dell tower. Now open the MacPro, or the iMac, or the Mac Mini. See a difference?
Open a Dell laptop. Now open a Powerbook 12" (that's the one I have experience with). See the difference.
That's the difference between DESIGNING computers and ASSEMBLYING computers.
Again, is Apple's R&D and case design have to do with Dell's, Compac's and HP's case design? You were arguing that the Windows AIO's case design made them more expensive than similarly spec.'d towers. Apple has nothing to do with this.
DELL spend a massive amount on R&D. In fact, it is more than Apple spends.
Most of DELL's R&D, as you pointed out, doesn't really go into designing the computers, it goes into designing the production, assembly and logistics in order to drive down costs.
Okay, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the point at hand. The point I was making was that Apple spends money designing computers. Dell saves that money by assemblying computers. If Dell were to design computers like Apple does, it would cost them more money than they are currently spending. Therefore they would charge more for those computers in order to keep any kind of margin, since their margins are already low. This is the situation with every PC maker who makes AIO's. That's why people buy the towers instead. If everyone had the technical know-how to build PC's from components, noone would buy the PC towers that are now the vast majority of the Windows PC market because the only advantage from those machines is that they are already assembled and working. Would you all then start clamoring for Apple to start selling components instead of OEM computers?
Edit: Rickag, I believe this answers your question as well...