I think that we will see a $1599 or $1699 Conroe based Mac Pro at some point. I think it will still be names "Mac Pro" so the "Family is Complete" line isn't complete fabrication.
Sounds like the main concern about a mini tower is its price. If its price is right, it would take few sales from other desktop products. I'd like to suggest that we compare performance and features along with price. Since a mini tower can be configured in so many ways, price by itself is not helpful in determining its impact on other products.
Regarding iMac impact, I suggest that the Mac mini tower, with a comparable quality display, should cost between $150 and $300 more than the iMac. That should be sufficient difference to keep iMac sales healthy.
Regarding impact on the Mac Pro, I don't expect pricing to matter much. Those who need or want the power of four Xeon cores will buy the Mac Pro. Those who want expandability, and are satisfied with 2 HDD and mini tower performance, these folks will likely buy the Mac mini tower.
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
Price and form factor. You can use a MB as a digital hub but its not quite as nice. In the case of the current minis you have a slight bit more upgradability in that you might be able to drop a merom in one.
Do you want me to say that Apple desktops don't offer as much expansion as towers? Sure thing. They don't.
Does it hurt Apple desktop sales? Sure thing. They do hurt overall Apple desk top sales.
But they also don't compare directly to Dell who isn't present in the SFF or AIO markets. Apple chooses to fight Dell in the Workstation market where it is most vulnerable because thats where they make the most money. They choose to fight Dell in the edu market where Apple has a strong traditional presence...though to be honest, in terms of institutional sales I dunno that Apple is winning that contest...and its not because they don't have a $999 tower.
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
As a "focus" area.
Mkay. Because playing to your competitor's strengths is a good way to gain explosive market share...
Perhaps they would be better off going after some less well served niche markets that they can more easily dominate. Tablets come to mind. I have several and I believe that Apple can make one that dominates that niche. Small to be certain but with growth potential but lots of cube potential as well too...might be too small at present. Still Motion Computing seems profitable and growing and more tablets are seen every year.
Quote:
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Well then if you can't afford a $1600 or $2100 luxury item then buy a $999 one from someone else. The point isn't that everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper but that if you want a Mac Pro you CAN get one. It doesn't require winning the lottery and it isn't a necessity.
Just because you can't afford a McIntosh power amplifer doesn't that company have to compete with Sony in the mid range market (there I avoided cars).
Quote:
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
Heh...you argue that because 95% of the computer users use a tower that a tower is required. But when I point out that Windows is a viable OS you disagree that the market knows best.
If 95% of the market is wrong about XP and OSX perhaps 95% of the market is wrong about towers and iMacs...
Quote:
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
They apparently do care how many iMacs they sell. Until you or I are CEO of Apple neither your nor my opinion matters all that much.
If they can gain share in other arena and grow well that way I think they'll keep doing that first instead of competing with Dell/HP/Gateway directly.
Quote:
Oh, the irony...
At least when I quote you I include the very next line that addresses the point you whine that I'm ignoring.
Quote:
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on his being that hard-headed.
Yes, because the word "adaptive" means "hard-headed".
I think he will actually be a little hard-headed in this arena. A $999 tower leaves the monitor option out of Apple's control and that means iSights are less likely to be omnipresent across the Apple line where he can make his "interpersonal computing" even more of a reality.
It's one thing when only the low end Mini is without. It's different if the majority of the core desktop sales are without as well. I guess they could bundle one in and charge another $100.
Quote:
How many AIOs did NeXT sell under Jobs?
Jobs did a few other things under NeXT that were considered visionary (being moderately polite here) but not ultimately very successful (like no floppy or HD, just a MO Drive). He did eventually change but he never quite had the user base to make NeXT work out.
The original Cube was HUGE. The pizza box could have been an AIO but was not. It also didn't have any expansion slots because of the form factor. Had NeXT been allowed to expand from the workstation market you might have seen a AIO from NeXT (Apple and NeXT reached a settlement to that effect) and if NeXT lasted longer. From initial release in 1990 and ending of hardware development in 1993 there's not a whole lot of time to have a lot of different models.
Quote:
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
You act as if any of us care if we end up on your ignore list. Ignore away...
Quote:
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
Yes, perhaps Apple would still make an iMac if sales were as low as the Cubes. However, Apple isn't as broad as Sony and having a non-performer in Apple line up that required a bit of engineering would be sub-optimal
Quote:
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
There are very few.
Quote:
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
The Cube appeals to a certain type of user too. I guess they are buying Minis now.
Quote:
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
The eMac was replaced by the edu iMac as LCD prices have dropped enough. The eMac has traditionally been a lower cost iMac...and it is again.
Quote:
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
Yes, they should focus on everything. This is obvious.
Quote:
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
The closest machine will hopefully be a $1699 Mac Pro. The point is that Apple doesn't need to compete directly with low to mid range Dell towers. They haven't for years and yet they are growing, profitable and successful.
Quote:
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
Any time you wish to simply bow out you can stop clicking on the thread title. Asking for someone to shut down a playground because you don't want to play anymore isn't just childish but selfish.
Sounds like the main concern about a mini tower is its price.
Yep.
Using your criteria of $150-$300 less than a comparable iMac puts the upper end at $1600 which is about $300 more when you pay for a non-Apple 19-20" WS monitor with a $1600 Conroe tower ($1900 total vs $1600 total).
I dunno that they would offer something at the 17" iMac range of $1299. As they say in Monty Python...$999 is right out.
I'm sorry, I know it's terribly bad form and all, but there is such serious apostrophe misuse going on around here (not just in this thread, I've seen loads all over AI the last few days) and I can't take it anymore.
The uses of the apostrophe are:
1.) In conjunction with the letter 's', to indicate possession. For example iMac's indicates "belong to iMac". This is why plurals do not have apostrophes! The plural of iMac is iMacs, the plural of Mini is Minis etc. etc.
2.) To indicate that a letter or letters has/have been removed from two consecutive words and those words then concatenated. E.g. Don't = Do not.
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
I'm sorry, I know it's terribly bad form and all, but there is such serious apostrophe misuse going on around here (not just in this thread, I've seen loads all over AI the last few days) and I can't take it anymore.
Heh, don't say I never do anything for you...I went back and fixed 4 typos in my last long post and avoided the use of a car analogy (although I doubt you like the audio example much better).
I have no clue why I typed mini's rather than minis...just sloppy I guess. The two its vs it's was a typo from a last minute edit.
Heh, don't say I never do anything for you...I went back and fixed 4 typos in my last long post and avoided the use of a car analogy (although I doubt you like the audio example much better).
No, I didn't like the audio example too much better, but thanks for saving my head from exploding by not using cars again
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I have no clue why I typed mini's rather than minis...just sloppy I guess. The two its vs it's was a typo from a last minute edit.
Thanks; my post wasn't aimed just at you, loads of people have been doing it (that's why I didn't name names).
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
Okay I fixed its form in my last post, so now it's correct. You hit a sensitive nerve, since I try very hard to do this right and seldom get it wrong. Then again, maybe you were referring to somebody else.
. . . I dunno that they would offer something at the 17" iMac range of $1299. As they say in Monty Python...$999 is right out.
Vinea
Actually, why not? If you bought a $1299 mini tower with the same specifications as the iMac, you would still need to buy a display for it. That should be adequate price advantage for the iMac. Now, if we take that mini tower and put in a lower performance graphics card, a lower cost HDD, and a lower performance CPU we should be able to get to $999. Believe it or not, but many folks would be willing to use a $999 Mac mini tower just for office and internet use.
I'm sorry, I know it's terribly bad form and all, but there is such serious apostrophe misuse going on around here (not just in this thread, I've seen loads all over AI the last few days) and I can't take it anymore.
The uses of the apostrophe are:
1.) In conjunction with the letter 's', to indicate possession. For example iMac's indicates "belong to iMac". This is why plurals do not have apostrophes! The plural of iMac is iMacs, the plural of Mini is Minis etc. etc.
2.) To indicate that a letter or letters has/have been removed from two consecutive words and those words then concatenated. E.g. Don't = Do not.
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
That is all, carry on.
Preach it!!!
Its very annoying...
<elementary school humor>No, it snot !</elementary school humor>
Price and form factor. You can use a MB as a digital hub but its not quite as nice. In the case of the current minis you have a slight bit more upgradability in that you might be able to drop a merom in one.
Ah yes, I forgot about the drop-in processor slot. Turns out the mini's one advantage as a desktop computer is a very tiny bit of expandability.
Quote:
Does it hurt Apple desktop sales? Sure thing. They do hurt overall Apple desk top sales.
Well there you go.
Quote:
But they also don't compare directly to Dell who isn't present in the SFF or AIO markets. Apple chooses to fight Dell in the Workstation market where it is most vulnerable because thats where they make the most money. They choose to fight Dell in the edu market where Apple has a strong traditional presence...though to be honest, in terms of institutional sales I dunno that Apple is winning that contest...and its not because they don't have a $999 tower.
Are you sure about that?
The decline in edu sales started at about the same time that they took the expansion out of the low-end desktop line. Coincidence?
Hell, I remember reading an article back in the early days of the iMac about PCs growing in edu presence. It included a quote from a teacher at some school complaining because one of their iMacs blew its Ethernet port out and they had to replace the whole computer instead of just putting in a new Ethernet card, because "Mac (sic) designed it that way." The gist of the article was that Apple was making great strides in the consumer market at the expense of the edu market.
When I was working in the university computer lab, they didn't want to buy any machines where they couldn't swap out the hard drive easily, since when you have a whole lab full of computers, you're gonna have at least one hard drive fail at some point or other, so it was all towers. Of course they went with old G4 towers, even during the G5 era. The reason why is left as an exercise to the reader.
I did manage to talk them into getting some G5 iMacs for the lab. That was when it was at Rev. B and the back would come off giving you easy access to the internals. In other words, it was not the iSight model which pretty much requires a doctorate degree in neurosurgery.
Quote:
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), Apple doesn't need to beat Dell on price here. They just have to be in the ballpark. It'll sell more at whatever price point it's at than if the nearest tower is $2200, no matter what Dell's offering. If there's a small premium to use the Mac OS, that's better than a $1000 premium to use the Mac OS.
Quote:
Perhaps they would be better off going after some less well served niche markets that they can more easily dominate. Tablets come to mind. I have several and I believe that Apple can make one that dominates that niche. Small to be certain but with growth potential but lots of cube potential as well too...might be too small at present. Still Motion Computing seems profitable and growing and more tablets are seen every year.
Oh god, please not tablets.
Quote:
Well then if you can't afford a $1600 or $2100 luxury item then buy a $999 one from someone else. The point isn't that everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper but that if you want a Mac Pro you CAN get one. It doesn't require winning the lottery and it isn't a necessity.
It is a necessity if you require something that's not in the mini. Like a second hard drive or eSATA ports.
Quote:
Just because you can't afford a McIntosh power amplifer doesn't that company have to compete with Sony in the mid range market (there I avoided cars).
Yeah, because you could just buy a mid-range power amplifier from some other company, and it'd be compatible with all your stuff (i.e. same problem as the car analogy).
Quote:
Heh...you argue that because 95% of the computer users use a tower that a tower is required. But when I point out that Windows is a viable OS you disagree that the market knows best.
If 95% of the market is wrong about XP and OSX perhaps 95% of the market is wrong about towers and iMacs...
It's not about whether the market is "right" and "wrong". That's the kind of thinking that gets all us Mac users labeled as religious fanatics. It's about what sells computers. Telling customers to go buy a Dell doesn't help Apple's sales, and I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple's sales. Sooner or later you're bound to figure that out, seeing as how I end up pointing it out in pretty much every post.
BTW, Windows is indeed 95% of the market. That's why adding Boot Camp was a really good idea for Apple. Look what happened to Apple's sales since then. It's the same as with towers: Choice == good.
Quote:
If they can gain share in other arena and grow well that way I think they'll keep doing that first instead of competing with Dell/HP/Gateway directly.
Yeah, maybe if they're lucky they'll get another 0.3 percentage points again.
Quote:
Jobs did a few other things under NeXT that were considered visionary (being moderately polite here) but not ultimately very successful (like no floppy or HD, just a MO Drive). He did eventually change but he never quite had the user base to make NeXT work out.
He learned from his mistakes there. Hopefully he'll learn from his current mistakes too.
Quote:
Yes, perhaps Apple would still make an iMac if sales were as low as the Cubes. However, Apple isn't as broad as Sony and having a non-performer in Apple line up that required a bit of engineering would be sub-optimal
So, if you're right, the iMac dies. Big deal.
Quote:
There are very few.
Then the iMac must be a pretty crappy machine. They'd better fix that.
Quote:
The closest machine will hopefully be a $1699 Mac Pro. The point is that Apple doesn't need to compete directly with low to mid range Dell towers. They haven't for years and yet they are growing, profitable and successful.
They're growing in the laptop market. Give people what they want in a desktop, and they can grow in the desktop market too.
Quote:
Any time you wish to simply bow out you can stop clicking on the thread title. Asking for someone to shut down a playground because you don't want to play anymore isn't just childish but selfish.
Well, the problem is that if no one can bring any new points or ideas to the table, then it means that the thread has pretty much run its course. Most of your posts look like they're copied and pasted from earlier posts, and most of my replies end up having to do pretty much the same thing. It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
Hi Charles, don't give up! You're doing a great job
But yes, I'd have to agree, the argument has just been going round and round in circles for the last few pages. I'm sure that there are those of us who've made up our minds and won't change them, and others who are undecided. The undecided ones have plenty of material to go through to make up their mind if they feel it important to make their mind up about an issue they have no control over*.
* unless they're Steve Jobs of course Do you think he ever visits the forums?
. . . You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers. . .
Sorry for the late reply to this, but Apple would not be competing head to head with Dell on a mini tower. Again, it's whether each Mac must compete with like models in PC land, or whether Apple is simply competing with all Windows PCs with the Mac platform in general. It should be obvious that it's the Mac platform that competes with Windows. Individual Mac models competes for the attention of Mac buyers, not Windows buyers.
Okay, if Apple wanted to compete in the Windows mini tower market, here is how they could do it. First, design and build a beautiful mini tower. Next, do not install Mac OS X or any Mac software. Rather, install Windows OS and offer all the usual Microsoft add on software. Then put it in the stores next to all the other Windows mini towers.
If Apple did that, then they would indeed be "going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in," as you say. But Apple isn't crazy, and that's not the way they would sell a mini tower. A Mac mini tower would sell because it runs Mac OS X. A Windows mini tower sells because it runs the Windows OS.
How many way must we demonstrate this issues? Here is yet another way. Today, in the low and middle desktop market, Apple offers the Mac Mini and iMac, two models. Now for some reason people have a problem with Apple offering a third model, a Mac mini tower. "It won't sell," they say, "because Window mini towers are so much cheaper."
Let's examine this logic. Today, some Windows users are switching to a Mac desktop in the low or middle price range, and must buy either a Mini or iMac. Now, if these same folks had a third option, a mini tower, you are essentially saying these switchers will ignore it, simply because a Window equivalent sells for less. Would someone care to explain this twisted logic to the rest of us? I'm sure the flame throwers are standing by.
I'm a little confused about your opposition to a mid range tower. Are you concerned it would canabalize sales from existing models(Mac pro or iMac) or are you concerned that it would sell poorly because it would compare unfavorably with mid range pcs from Dell and the like?
I'm a little confused about your opposition to a mid range tower. Are you concerned it would canabalize sales from existing models(Mac pro or iMac) or are you concerned that it would sell poorly because it would compare unfavorably with mid range pcs from Dell and the like?
I'm confused also. As a consumer,I just don't carethat much about issues like cannibalizing sales,will PC buyers switch,will it compete with Dell,etc.I just want a mid size tower.Are those opposed all accountants,marketing consultants,stock analysts, working for Apple? It's like wringing your hands
over whether Starbucks should start selling smoothies(do they?) or not.
I'm confused also. As a consumer,I just don't carethat much about issues like cannibalizing sales,will PC buyers switch,will it compete with Dell,etc.I just want a mid size tower.Are those opposed all accountants,marketing consultants,stock analysts, working for Apple? It's like wringing your hands
over whether Starbucks should start selling smoothies(do they?) or not.
Thanks
Agreed, absolutely!
I want to buy a new mac (bought my last back in 1999, after that a PC-box till now), but a better one hardwarewise than my pc-box and no AIO (have a new Xerox-TFT and don´t wanna throw that).
Ah yes, I forgot about the drop-in processor slot. Turns out the mini's one advantage as a desktop computer is a very tiny bit of expandability.
Yes, because price, form factor and expandibility is one advantage.
Quote:
Are you sure about that?
Nope. But then I'm not dead set on my position where I need to twists words to defend my opinion.
Quote:
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), Apple doesn't need to beat Dell on price here. They just have to be in the ballpark. It'll sell more at whatever price point it's at than if the nearest tower is $2200, no matter what Dell's offering. If there's a small premium to use the Mac OS, that's better than a $1000 premium to use the Mac OS.
Neither repetition of assertion nor big fonts makes your argument any more compelling. It simply makes you look like you can't put together a coherent point.
The only reason to have a $999 tower is to attempt to gain share where Dell is strongest and where direct comparisons leave Apple looking overpriced AND bland.
Quote:
Oh god, please not tablets.
Why not? They are stylish and underserved. Perhaps a UMPC instead.
Quote:
It is a necessity if you require something that's not in the mini. Like a second hard drive or eSATA ports.
You have an odd sense of "necessity". No computer is a "necessity"...certainly not a Mac. It's a nicety. You claim to know what its like to live frugally but still claim that Macs are a necessity.
Quote:
Yeah, because you could just buy a mid-range power amplifier from some other company, and it'd be compatible with all your stuff (i.e. same problem as the car analogy).
And you can buy a mid-tower from any number of vendors and its compatible with your peripherals and has equivalents for all the software you want. Not quite as nice ones perhaps but your mid-range power amplifier isn't as clean as an audiophile one either.
You might find one or two titles with zero PC equivlalents but thats a rarity.
Quote:
It's not about whether the market is "right" and "wrong". That's the kind of thinking that gets all us Mac users labeled as religious fanatics.
No, linux users are religion fanatics. Mac users are elitist turtleneck wearing effetes.
Quote:
It's about what sells computers. Telling customers to go buy a Dell doesn't help Apple's sales, and I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple's sales. Sooner or later you're bound to figure that out, seeing as how I end up pointing it out in pretty much every post.
And I'm arguing for the soul of a company...to a degree anyway. Sales are indeed important but having a company that sucks (like say how Sony is doing today) and that doesn't suck (like say Apple) requires one that has a cohesive and successful vision that all of their employees can identify with.
Therefore I don't consider sales at all costs to be a viable vision for Apple and I don't believe that they are willing to sacrifice their vision which the iMac seems to be an icon.
Quote:
BTW, Windows is indeed 95% of the market.
Then why do you assert that Windows is not good enough for the majority of users when in fact that is the reality?
Quote:
Yeah, maybe if they're lucky they'll get another 0.3 percentage points again.
Yes, this is because competing in a saturated market with many competitors is a better strategy for explosive growth than trying to build dominate emerging markets. It was stupid for Apple to pursue...say MP3 players and they should have spent that money on developing better desktops.
Quote:
He learned from his mistakes there. Hopefully he'll learn from his current mistakes too.
Its only a mistake if he fails. Apple doesn't seem to be failing.
Quote:
So, if you're right, the iMac dies. Big deal.
Big deal to Jobs it seems. You keep trying to ignore that.
Quote:
Then the iMac must be a pretty crappy machine. They'd better fix that.
/shrug
Its not broken. It fills a niche that Jobs perhaps hopes to use to change computing to his ideal. It is elegant, the rawness of computing is hidden as much as possible and it can provide the user with a seamless computing experience.
But it certainly, in terms of paper specs, has few advantages over a tower.
In many ways its like house built by a famous architect that is a beautiful masterpiece but you can't expand and the furniture came with the house and the roof may or may not leak.
Quote:
Well, the problem is that if no one can bring any new points or ideas to the table, then it means that the thread has pretty much run its course. Most of your posts look like they're copied and pasted from earlier posts, and most of my replies end up having to do pretty much the same thing. It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
I can't help that you project your own methods on others but while it may seem we're going in circles its only because you ignore the aspects of the discussion you can't counter and return to ground aleady well traveled.
That and we don't agree on the fundamental premise of the debate.
Comments
Vinea - is the kool aid tasty?
[pc] Touché... [/pc]
I think that we will see a $1599 or $1699 Conroe based Mac Pro at some point. I think it will still be names "Mac Pro" so the "Family is Complete" line isn't complete fabrication.
Sounds like the main concern about a mini tower is its price. If its price is right, it would take few sales from other desktop products. I'd like to suggest that we compare performance and features along with price. Since a mini tower can be configured in so many ways, price by itself is not helpful in determining its impact on other products.
Regarding iMac impact, I suggest that the Mac mini tower, with a comparable quality display, should cost between $150 and $300 more than the iMac. That should be sufficient difference to keep iMac sales healthy.
Regarding impact on the Mac Pro, I don't expect pricing to matter much. Those who need or want the power of four Xeon cores will buy the Mac Pro. Those who want expandability, and are satisfied with 2 HDD and mini tower performance, these folks will likely buy the Mac mini tower.
What reason is there to get a mini vs. a MacBook? Other than its narrow, intended purpose, which is to try out a Mac cheaply with your current PC hardware, in order to experiment with it.
Price and form factor. You can use a MB as a digital hub but its not quite as nice. In the case of the current minis you have a slight bit more upgradability in that you might be able to drop a merom in one.
Do you want me to say that Apple desktops don't offer as much expansion as towers? Sure thing. They don't.
Does it hurt Apple desktop sales? Sure thing. They do hurt overall Apple desk top sales.
But they also don't compare directly to Dell who isn't present in the SFF or AIO markets. Apple chooses to fight Dell in the Workstation market where it is most vulnerable because thats where they make the most money. They choose to fight Dell in the edu market where Apple has a strong traditional presence...though to be honest, in terms of institutional sales I dunno that Apple is winning that contest...and its not because they don't have a $999 tower.
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
As a "focus" area.
Mkay. Because playing to your competitor's strengths is a good way to gain explosive market share...
Perhaps they would be better off going after some less well served niche markets that they can more easily dominate. Tablets come to mind. I have several and I believe that Apple can make one that dominates that niche. Small to be certain but with growth potential but lots of cube potential as well too...might be too small at present. Still Motion Computing seems profitable and growing and more tablets are seen every year.
You should really drop this line of argument, because you know as well as I do that it's ludicrous. Not everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper. There's a middle ground, and there are a lot of people who, due to various expenses, can barely afford something in the $999-$1399 range. Those people can't afford $2200, plain and simple. I'm not going to argue this any longer, since I think I've already made my painfully obvious point more than enough times.
Well then if you can't afford a $1600 or $2100 luxury item then buy a $999 one from someone else. The point isn't that everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper but that if you want a Mac Pro you CAN get one. It doesn't require winning the lottery and it isn't a necessity.
Just because you can't afford a McIntosh power amplifer doesn't that company have to compete with Sony in the mid range market (there I avoided cars).
Your opinion. Not shared by many on this board, I'd wager.
Heh...you argue that because 95% of the computer users use a tower that a tower is required. But when I point out that Windows is a viable OS you disagree that the market knows best.
If 95% of the market is wrong about XP and OSX perhaps 95% of the market is wrong about towers and iMacs...
They want to gain market share. Market share is a good thing. They need to sell computers. I couldn't care less how many iMacs they sell.
They apparently do care how many iMacs they sell. Until you or I are CEO of Apple neither your nor my opinion matters all that much.
If they can gain share in other arena and grow well that way I think they'll keep doing that first instead of competing with Dell/HP/Gateway directly.
Oh, the irony...
At least when I quote you I include the very next line that addresses the point you whine that I'm ignoring.
He's not a complete idiot. In fact, he's proven quite often lately that he's rather brilliant. Therefore, I wouldn't count on his being that hard-headed.
Yes, because the word "adaptive" means "hard-headed".
I think he will actually be a little hard-headed in this arena. A $999 tower leaves the monitor option out of Apple's control and that means iSights are less likely to be omnipresent across the Apple line where he can make his "interpersonal computing" even more of a reality.
It's one thing when only the low end Mini is without. It's different if the majority of the core desktop sales are without as well. I guess they could bundle one in and charge another $100.
How many AIOs did NeXT sell under Jobs?
Jobs did a few other things under NeXT that were considered visionary (being moderately polite here) but not ultimately very successful (like no floppy or HD, just a MO Drive). He did eventually change but he never quite had the user base to make NeXT work out.
The original Cube was HUGE. The pizza box could have been an AIO but was not. It also didn't have any expansion slots because of the form factor. Had NeXT been allowed to expand from the workstation market you might have seen a AIO from NeXT (Apple and NeXT reached a settlement to that effect) and if NeXT lasted longer. From initial release in 1990 and ending of hardware development in 1993 there's not a whole lot of time to have a lot of different models.
The reason for the large font size was because I'm sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over again. Here is, once more, a summary of my response to this. Make me type it again, and you end up on my ignore list.
You act as if any of us care if we end up on your ignore list. Ignore away...
1. AIOs exist on the PC side, where there are plenty of towers - they are a niche, but they still sell even though they suck compared to the iMac, and companies still make them
Yes, perhaps Apple would still make an iMac if sales were as low as the Cubes. However, Apple isn't as broad as Sony and having a non-performer in Apple line up that required a bit of engineering would be sub-optimal
2. The iMac has lots of niceties not found in the proposed consumer tower
There are very few.
3. The iMac appeals to a certain type of user, who will continue to buy the iMac
The Cube appeals to a certain type of user too. I guess they are buying Minis now.
4. Even if I'm 100% wrong about this and the iMac's sales tank due to the introduction of a new tower, then that's the iMac's fault, not the tower's, and the solution is to fix the iMac, not get rid of its competition. If this can't be done, then the iMac deserves the same fate as the eMac
The eMac was replaced by the edu iMac as LCD prices have dropped enough. The eMac has traditionally been a lower cost iMac...and it is again.
1. Serving their stockholders: Apple's doing fine with a focus on laptops, but they would do even better with a focus on laptops and desktops - this is obvious
Yes, they should focus on everything. This is obvious.
2. Toe to toe with Dell: If you were a customer looking at a $999 Dell, and the equivalent Mac was, let's say $200 more at $1199, you'd be more likely to consider it than if the closest thing was a $2200 machine. This is also obvious
The closest machine will hopefully be a $1699 Mac Pro. The point is that Apple doesn't need to compete directly with low to mid range Dell towers. They haven't for years and yet they are growing, profitable and successful.
These are also points that have been repeated over and over again. It's getting old. If no one has any new ideas, then maybe this thread should just be closed.
Any time you wish to simply bow out you can stop clicking on the thread title. Asking for someone to shut down a playground because you don't want to play anymore isn't just childish but selfish.
Vinea
Sounds like the main concern about a mini tower is its price.
Yep.
Using your criteria of $150-$300 less than a comparable iMac puts the upper end at $1600 which is about $300 more when you pay for a non-Apple 19-20" WS monitor with a $1600 Conroe tower ($1900 total vs $1600 total).
I dunno that they would offer something at the 17" iMac range of $1299. As they say in Monty Python...$999 is right out.
Vinea
The uses of the apostrophe are:
1.) In conjunction with the letter 's', to indicate possession. For example iMac's indicates "belong to iMac". This is why plurals do not have apostrophes! The plural of iMac is iMacs, the plural of Mini is Minis etc. etc.
2.) To indicate that a letter or letters has/have been removed from two consecutive words and those words then concatenated. E.g. Don't = Do not.
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
That is all, carry on.
I'm sorry, I know it's terribly bad form and all, but there is such serious apostrophe misuse going on around here (not just in this thread, I've seen loads all over AI the last few days) and I can't take it anymore.
Heh, don't say I never do anything for you...I went back and fixed 4 typos in my last long post and avoided the use of a car analogy (although I doubt you like the audio example much better).
I have no clue why I typed mini's rather than minis...just sloppy I guess. The two its vs it's was a typo from a last minute edit.
Vinea
Heh, don't say I never do anything for you...I went back and fixed 4 typos in my last long post and avoided the use of a car analogy (although I doubt you like the audio example much better).
I have no clue why I typed mini's rather than minis...just sloppy I guess. The two its vs it's was a typo from a last minute edit.
Thanks; my post wasn't aimed just at you, loads of people have been doing it (that's why I didn't name names).
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
Okay I fixed its form in my last post, so now it's correct. You hit a sensitive nerve, since I try very hard to do this right and seldom get it wrong. Then again, maybe you were referring to somebody else.
. . . I dunno that they would offer something at the 17" iMac range of $1299. As they say in Monty Python...$999 is right out.
Vinea
Actually, why not? If you bought a $1299 mini tower with the same specifications as the iMac, you would still need to buy a display for it. That should be adequate price advantage for the iMac. Now, if we take that mini tower and put in a lower performance graphics card, a lower cost HDD, and a lower performance CPU we should be able to get to $999. Believe it or not, but many folks would be willing to use a $999 Mac mini tower just for office and internet use.
I'm sorry, I know it's terribly bad form and all, but there is such serious apostrophe misuse going on around here (not just in this thread, I've seen loads all over AI the last few days) and I can't take it anymore.
The uses of the apostrophe are:
1.) In conjunction with the letter 's', to indicate possession. For example iMac's indicates "belong to iMac". This is why plurals do not have apostrophes! The plural of iMac is iMacs, the plural of Mini is Minis etc. etc.
2.) To indicate that a letter or letters has/have been removed from two consecutive words and those words then concatenated. E.g. Don't = Do not.
For the word "it", which has no plural, Its = belonging to it, It's = it is.
That is all, carry on.
Preach it!!!
Its very annoying...
<elementary school humor>No, it snot !</elementary school humor>
Price and form factor. You can use a MB as a digital hub but its not quite as nice. In the case of the current minis you have a slight bit more upgradability in that you might be able to drop a merom in one.
Ah yes, I forgot about the drop-in processor slot. Turns out the mini's one advantage as a desktop computer is a very tiny bit of expandability.
Does it hurt Apple desktop sales? Sure thing. They do hurt overall Apple desk top sales.
Well there you go.
But they also don't compare directly to Dell who isn't present in the SFF or AIO markets. Apple chooses to fight Dell in the Workstation market where it is most vulnerable because thats where they make the most money. They choose to fight Dell in the edu market where Apple has a strong traditional presence...though to be honest, in terms of institutional sales I dunno that Apple is winning that contest...and its not because they don't have a $999 tower.
Are you sure about that?
The decline in edu sales started at about the same time that they took the expansion out of the low-end desktop line. Coincidence?
Hell, I remember reading an article back in the early days of the iMac about PCs growing in edu presence. It included a quote from a teacher at some school complaining because one of their iMacs blew its Ethernet port out and they had to replace the whole computer instead of just putting in a new Ethernet card, because "Mac (sic) designed it that way." The gist of the article was that Apple was making great strides in the consumer market at the expense of the edu market.
When I was working in the university computer lab, they didn't want to buy any machines where they couldn't swap out the hard drive easily, since when you have a whole lab full of computers, you're gonna have at least one hard drive fail at some point or other, so it was all towers. Of course they went with old G4 towers, even during the G5 era. The reason why is left as an exercise to the reader.
I did manage to talk them into getting some G5 iMacs for the lab. That was when it was at Rev. B and the back would come off giving you easy access to the internals. In other words, it was not the iSight model which pretty much requires a doctorate degree in neurosurgery.
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), Apple doesn't need to beat Dell on price here. They just have to be in the ballpark. It'll sell more at whatever price point it's at than if the nearest tower is $2200, no matter what Dell's offering. If there's a small premium to use the Mac OS, that's better than a $1000 premium to use the Mac OS.
Perhaps they would be better off going after some less well served niche markets that they can more easily dominate. Tablets come to mind. I have several and I believe that Apple can make one that dominates that niche. Small to be certain but with growth potential but lots of cube potential as well too...might be too small at present. Still Motion Computing seems profitable and growing and more tablets are seen every year.
Oh god, please not tablets.
Well then if you can't afford a $1600 or $2100 luxury item then buy a $999 one from someone else. The point isn't that everyone is either Bill Gates or a minimum wage burger flipper but that if you want a Mac Pro you CAN get one. It doesn't require winning the lottery and it isn't a necessity.
It is a necessity if you require something that's not in the mini. Like a second hard drive or eSATA ports.
Just because you can't afford a McIntosh power amplifer doesn't that company have to compete with Sony in the mid range market (there I avoided cars).
Yeah, because you could just buy a mid-range power amplifier from some other company, and it'd be compatible with all your stuff (i.e. same problem as the car analogy).
Heh...you argue that because 95% of the computer users use a tower that a tower is required. But when I point out that Windows is a viable OS you disagree that the market knows best.
If 95% of the market is wrong about XP and OSX perhaps 95% of the market is wrong about towers and iMacs...
It's not about whether the market is "right" and "wrong". That's the kind of thinking that gets all us Mac users labeled as religious fanatics. It's about what sells computers. Telling customers to go buy a Dell doesn't help Apple's sales, and I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple's sales. Sooner or later you're bound to figure that out, seeing as how I end up pointing it out in pretty much every post.
BTW, Windows is indeed 95% of the market. That's why adding Boot Camp was a really good idea for Apple. Look what happened to Apple's sales since then. It's the same as with towers: Choice == good.
If they can gain share in other arena and grow well that way I think they'll keep doing that first instead of competing with Dell/HP/Gateway directly.
Yeah, maybe if they're lucky they'll get another 0.3 percentage points again.
Jobs did a few other things under NeXT that were considered visionary (being moderately polite here) but not ultimately very successful (like no floppy or HD, just a MO Drive). He did eventually change but he never quite had the user base to make NeXT work out.
He learned from his mistakes there. Hopefully he'll learn from his current mistakes too.
Yes, perhaps Apple would still make an iMac if sales were as low as the Cubes. However, Apple isn't as broad as Sony and having a non-performer in Apple line up that required a bit of engineering would be sub-optimal
So, if you're right, the iMac dies. Big deal.
There are very few.
Then the iMac must be a pretty crappy machine. They'd better fix that.
The closest machine will hopefully be a $1699 Mac Pro. The point is that Apple doesn't need to compete directly with low to mid range Dell towers. They haven't for years and yet they are growing, profitable and successful.
They're growing in the laptop market. Give people what they want in a desktop, and they can grow in the desktop market too.
Any time you wish to simply bow out you can stop clicking on the thread title. Asking for someone to shut down a playground because you don't want to play anymore isn't just childish but selfish.
Well, the problem is that if no one can bring any new points or ideas to the table, then it means that the thread has pretty much run its course. Most of your posts look like they're copied and pasted from earlier posts, and most of my replies end up having to do pretty much the same thing. It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
Hi Charles, don't give up! You're doing a great job
But yes, I'd have to agree, the argument has just been going round and round in circles for the last few pages. I'm sure that there are those of us who've made up our minds and won't change them, and others who are undecided. The undecided ones have plenty of material to go through to make up their mind if they feel it important to make their mind up about an issue they have no control over*.
* unless they're Steve Jobs of course
. . . You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers. . .
Sorry for the late reply to this, but Apple would not be competing head to head with Dell on a mini tower. Again, it's whether each Mac must compete with like models in PC land, or whether Apple is simply competing with all Windows PCs with the Mac platform in general. It should be obvious that it's the Mac platform that competes with Windows. Individual Mac models competes for the attention of Mac buyers, not Windows buyers.
Okay, if Apple wanted to compete in the Windows mini tower market, here is how they could do it. First, design and build a beautiful mini tower. Next, do not install Mac OS X or any Mac software. Rather, install Windows OS and offer all the usual Microsoft add on software. Then put it in the stores next to all the other Windows mini towers.
If Apple did that, then they would indeed be "going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in," as you say. But Apple isn't crazy, and that's not the way they would sell a mini tower. A Mac mini tower would sell because it runs Mac OS X. A Windows mini tower sells because it runs the Windows OS.
How many way must we demonstrate this issues? Here is yet another way. Today, in the low and middle desktop market, Apple offers the Mac Mini and iMac, two models. Now for some reason people have a problem with Apple offering a third model, a Mac mini tower. "It won't sell," they say, "because Window mini towers are so much cheaper."
Let's examine this logic. Today, some Windows users are switching to a Mac desktop in the low or middle price range, and must buy either a Mini or iMac. Now, if these same folks had a third option, a mini tower, you are essentially saying these switchers will ignore it, simply because a Window equivalent sells for less. Would someone care to explain this twisted logic to the rest of us? I'm sure the flame throwers are standing by.
I'm a little confused about your opposition to a mid range tower. Are you concerned it would canabalize sales from existing models(Mac pro or iMac) or are you concerned that it would sell poorly because it would compare unfavorably with mid range pcs from Dell and the like?
Vinea,
I'm a little confused about your opposition to a mid range tower. Are you concerned it would canabalize sales from existing models(Mac pro or iMac) or are you concerned that it would sell poorly because it would compare unfavorably with mid range pcs from Dell and the like?
I'm confused also. As a consumer,I just don't carethat much about issues like cannibalizing sales,will PC buyers switch,will it compete with Dell,etc.I just want a mid size tower.Are those opposed all accountants,marketing consultants,stock analysts, working for Apple? It's like wringing your hands
over whether Starbucks should start selling smoothies(do they?) or not.
I'm confused also. As a consumer,I just don't carethat much about issues like cannibalizing sales,will PC buyers switch,will it compete with Dell,etc.I just want a mid size tower.Are those opposed all accountants,marketing consultants,stock analysts, working for Apple? It's like wringing your hands
over whether Starbucks should start selling smoothies(do they?) or not.
Thanks
Agreed, absolutely!
I want to buy a new mac (bought my last back in 1999, after that a PC-box till now), but a better one hardwarewise than my pc-box and no AIO (have a new Xerox-TFT and don´t wanna throw that).
Ah yes, I forgot about the drop-in processor slot. Turns out the mini's one advantage as a desktop computer is a very tiny bit of expandability.
Yes, because price, form factor and expandibility is one advantage.
Are you sure about that?
Nope. But then I'm not dead set on my position where I need to twists words to defend my opinion.
Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), Apple doesn't need to beat Dell on price here. They just have to be in the ballpark. It'll sell more at whatever price point it's at than if the nearest tower is $2200, no matter what Dell's offering. If there's a small premium to use the Mac OS, that's better than a $1000 premium to use the Mac OS.
Neither repetition of assertion nor big fonts makes your argument any more compelling. It simply makes you look like you can't put together a coherent point.
The only reason to have a $999 tower is to attempt to gain share where Dell is strongest and where direct comparisons leave Apple looking overpriced AND bland.
Oh god, please not tablets.
Why not? They are stylish and underserved. Perhaps a UMPC instead.
It is a necessity if you require something that's not in the mini. Like a second hard drive or eSATA ports.
You have an odd sense of "necessity". No computer is a "necessity"...certainly not a Mac. It's a nicety. You claim to know what its like to live frugally but still claim that Macs are a necessity.
Yeah, because you could just buy a mid-range power amplifier from some other company, and it'd be compatible with all your stuff (i.e. same problem as the car analogy).
And you can buy a mid-tower from any number of vendors and its compatible with your peripherals and has equivalents for all the software you want. Not quite as nice ones perhaps but your mid-range power amplifier isn't as clean as an audiophile one either.
You might find one or two titles with zero PC equivlalents but thats a rarity.
It's not about whether the market is "right" and "wrong". That's the kind of thinking that gets all us Mac users labeled as religious fanatics.
No, linux users are religion fanatics. Mac users are elitist turtleneck wearing effetes.
It's about what sells computers. Telling customers to go buy a Dell doesn't help Apple's sales, and I'm arguing for what would be best for Apple's sales. Sooner or later you're bound to figure that out, seeing as how I end up pointing it out in pretty much every post.
And I'm arguing for the soul of a company...to a degree anyway. Sales are indeed important but having a company that sucks (like say how Sony is doing today) and that doesn't suck (like say Apple) requires one that has a cohesive and successful vision that all of their employees can identify with.
Therefore I don't consider sales at all costs to be a viable vision for Apple and I don't believe that they are willing to sacrifice their vision which the iMac seems to be an icon.
BTW, Windows is indeed 95% of the market.
Then why do you assert that Windows is not good enough for the majority of users when in fact that is the reality?
Yeah, maybe if they're lucky they'll get another 0.3 percentage points again.
Yes, this is because competing in a saturated market with many competitors is a better strategy for explosive growth than trying to build dominate emerging markets. It was stupid for Apple to pursue...say MP3 players and they should have spent that money on developing better desktops.
He learned from his mistakes there. Hopefully he'll learn from his current mistakes too.
Its only a mistake if he fails. Apple doesn't seem to be failing.
So, if you're right, the iMac dies. Big deal.
Big deal to Jobs it seems. You keep trying to ignore that.
Then the iMac must be a pretty crappy machine. They'd better fix that.
/shrug
Its not broken. It fills a niche that Jobs perhaps hopes to use to change computing to his ideal. It is elegant, the rawness of computing is hidden as much as possible and it can provide the user with a seamless computing experience.
But it certainly, in terms of paper specs, has few advantages over a tower.
In many ways its like house built by a famous architect that is a beautiful masterpiece but you can't expand and the furniture came with the house and the roof may or may not leak.
Well, the problem is that if no one can bring any new points or ideas to the table, then it means that the thread has pretty much run its course. Most of your posts look like they're copied and pasted from earlier posts, and most of my replies end up having to do pretty much the same thing. It's frustrating, and I'm getting sick of it really quickly.
I can't help that you project your own methods on others but while it may seem we're going in circles its only because you ignore the aspects of the discussion you can't counter and return to ground aleady well traveled.
That and we don't agree on the fundamental premise of the debate.
Vinea