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.
Sorry no - 534 million to 463 million - Dell spends less on R&D than Apple. Of course they are dwarfed by HP at 3.5 billion - but most of that is obviosuly not PC based.
The only real design flaw in the Mini was the decision to use 2.5" notebook hard drives instead of 3.5" desktop hard drives. Apple tried to make the smallest computer they could with either no consideration for the future or an incorrect assumption that 2.5" notebook drive would scale up the way desktop drives have. Would anyone have complained if the machine had been 8x8x3.5? Note really. It still would have been by far the smallest entry level PC on the market.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
These are recent figures. The situation is changing now that Apple's revenue is increasing. I believe that historically (e.g. over the last 6 years or so), DELL's R&D has been higher than Apple's.
Having said that, it wasn't really the main thrust of my point. If DELL's R&D has been higher, it isn't by much. It is more that Apple's and DELL's R&D are in the same ball-bark; I was responding to a comment that DELL didn't spend much on R&D.
I'm convinced that Steve Jobs will never abandon the iMac, but Apple definitely needs what you say, a reasonably priced tower, which I believe should also be smaller than the Mac Pro for marketing reasons. Such a tower would compete in the same performance space as the iMac, but would catch all those wayward Mac users who keep buying from eBay, like me.
If we got a mini tower, we would see how much appeal the iMac really has. The Mini, however, should simply be replaced by a larger, more practical Mini.
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. What I'm basically looking for is a Conroe/P965 version of the Mac Pro. I like having two optical drives and more than two DIMM slots. The 4 hard drive bays would appeal to me if I run a main Mac drive, a time machine backup, and a bootcamp windows drive. I also like the double width PCI-E slot. However, the second xeon CPU, the workstation class motherboard, and the 8 FB-DIMM aren't worth the $1000 markup in price nor is the 24" display in my other option. But to be honest, I'd settle for something based on the 24" iMac with a single PCI-Express x16 slot at this point.
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. What I'm basically looking for is a Conroe/P965 version of the Mac Pro. I like having two optical drives and more than two DIMM slots. The 4 hard drive bays would appeal to me if I run a main Mac drive, a time machine backup, and a bootcamp windows drive. I also like the double width PCI-E slot. However, the second xeon CPU, the workstation class motherboard, and the 8 FB-DIMM aren't worth the $1000 markup in price nor is the 24" display in my other option. But to be honest, I'd settle for something based on the 24" iMac with a single PCI-Express x16 slot at this point.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
When making a sale, what the user wants is always more important than what they're actually going to use. It comes down to this, does Apple want to sell them to anybody except Mac users looking for a second computer?
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
Me too.
I doubt used Apple computers attract many switchers though. An xMac might.
Upgradeable if someone makes a MXM card and you're willing to take apart the iMac and it meets the thermal requirements, and you're willing to pay about three times more than a comparable regular PCI-E card. In reality, MXM just makes it easier on the manufacturers. Regular form PCI-Express cards are cheap and easy to deal with.
But, for the time being at least, second hand PowerMacs retain users who would probably bolt for the windows world due to Apple's hardware choices.
I kind of was one of those(re: I really never considered switching, MacOS is all I'd known). I bought a 7500 for $89, added a Sonnet G4 upgrade card $239, ATI Rage Pro $90 and USB/Firewire card$??? rather than buy an AIO or a crippled tower.
And no, for all that are interested, I don't consider myself a geek. The process was dead simple easy and went flawlessly. I had never ever gotten inside a computer before and did not have to consult any true geeks to perform this.
My only regret is that I never upgraded this computer to OS X.
Upgradeable if someone makes a MXM card and you're willing to take apart the iMac and it meets the thermal requirements, and you're willing to pay about three times more than a comparable regular PCI-E card. In reality, MXM just makes it easier on the manufacturers. Regular form PCI-Express cards are cheap and easy to deal with.
And you say that Apple should put a PCIe slot in the iMac and then consumers can just plug some internal DVI cable into that? That sounds very inelegant! MDX could be designed as an easy-to-utilize system IF there is enough demand from consumers to upgrade their video cards (but I bet that demand doesn't actually exist in 99% of cases).
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. . .
Sorry if I seemed to imply this. I mainly wanted to say I agree with you about a lower cost tower, but Apple would surely keep the iMac too. It would be interesting to see the relative sales between the two, however.
And you say that Apple should put a PCIe slot in the iMac and then consumers can just plug some internal DVI cable into that? That sounds very inelegant! MDX could be designed as an easy-to-utilize system IF there is enough demand from consumers to upgrade their video cards (but I bet that demand doesn't actually exist in 99% of cases).
No, what I'm saying is something headless based on the iMac guts, preferably with a PCI-E slot instead of the MXM card. An option for users who want a 7600GT but have no interest in the mandatory $800 tack on for a 24" display they have no interest in.
Sorry if I seemed to imply this. I mainly wanted to say I agree with you about a lower cost tower, but Apple would surely keep the iMac too. It would be interesting to see the relative sales between the two, however.
While there would be some crossing over, I would think most sales would come from the "second hand" ranks, Mac users who have a PC power as a second computer, or PC prosumer switchers who haven't been able to find a Mac that they like. I think the vast majority of iMac users buy the iMac because they want something stylish and powerful yet simple.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
Your are correct to question who the audience might be for the Mini. Currently it seems to be those who value a tiny computer over all other considerations. Size must be more important than HDD capacity and speed, amount of RAM that can be added, and price. All of these characteristics could be improved by making the Mini bigger, and not quite so mini mini.
You might point out that the Mini is selling today, and this is true. Yet, are people buying it because it is so tiny, or because this is all Apple offers in their price range? It is amazing what Mac users will put up with to stay with a Mac.
It would be very telling if Apple also sold a somewhat larger entry level box that had standard drives, more RAM slots, built-in power supply, a second drive bay for optional expansion, and a lower price tag, My take is that current Mini sales would dry up, and its replacement would sell twice as many units.
How do I know? Well, folk don't seem to mind adding all sorts of devices to their Mac Mini to make it what they want. They add modules with more I/O ports, and modules that offer a second hard drive. Do they complain it is too big then? No.
The current Mini is 85 cubic inches. By the time some folks add what they want, it is two to three times this size. The 15 X 3 X 8 dimensions I suggested for a Mini replacement is 360 cubic inches. By comparison, the Shuttle case, which some seem to love, is 915 cubic inches.
Why on earth would anyone want or need a 160 GB HDD you ask? From what I read, iTV will need to work with a computer that provides the storage. The Mini would be the logical choice for a minimum priced system, but even 160 GB is a little small. Folks may want 500 GB. It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this situation at the iTV launch. Do they sell a Mac Pro with every iTV?
It's apparent you are thinking of those who develop some of the more popular applications. If you have an application that sells to 10 percent of all Mac users, Apple market share would have to drop very low before you'd pull out your support for the Mac. Obviously, it's the developers of specialty software, with few customers, that will be the first to go and the last to come back.
So your assertion is that mainstream success of the Mac depends on the availability of specialty software like dental software? Personally I would think it depends on the availability of mainstream software of which Apple itself produces a few.
This comment is a year old but I don't think its so out of date yet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDailyNews
In a press release on Friday, June 3, 2005, Wizzard Software explained why they believe the Macintosh market is important as they prepare to release AT&T Natural Voices for Apple's Mac OS X:
According to a statement released earlier this year, Apple Computer reported their 2005 first quarterly revenue and net income as the highest in the history of their company, with 74% revenue growth. Apple shipped 1,046,000 Macintosh units during this quarter, representing a 26% increase in CPU units over the year-ago quarter. According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs."
18% is viable even by your metrics. So WTF is so critical about a mid-tower that someone invariably whines about it every thread?
Quote:
Do the math. How many customers would there be for dental software? Not a whole lot, but it is that kind of in depth support that makes people take a computer platform seriously.
Um...sorry, dental software and medical software in general never crossed my mind ALTHOUGH I did notice that there are a larger number of Macs in the doctor's offices I go to than exists in the general population (i.e. more than 16% of the docs had macs).
This did shift as several of the offices I saw had tablets PCs and one moved from Macs to tablet PCs recently. That doesn't say much for the need of mid-towers as much as the tablet form factor in this specialy market.
Quote:
When all the business specialty developers are supporting the Mac, its market share will be high enough. Today, the Mac is not an option for some businesses because it lacks the necessary applications. No one is developing in that area for the Mac. (I picked on dental software since I notice someone is actually developing it for OS X.)
The press release above contradicts your assertion that the Mac ecosystem is any danger of undersupport.
Quote:
No I'm not kidding for the very reasons you site. Apple has sufficiently large share in certain markets, where Macs sometimes out number Windows machines. Apple's market share in those segments may run 20 to 60 percent, which I had said is probably high enough.
So you're saying that Apple needs more share to be viable even though in the markets it competes in they have 20-60% share? There are only two areas that I see as "deficient": business software and games. Apple made a strategic decision not to pursue the business enterprise market and I believe that the onus is on you to show that this was a terrible mistake given how well Apple is executing otherwise.
Games...while it would be nice, there are some games and the PC games market appears to be stagnating vs the console market...certainly in the shelf space arena where my local retailers have drastically cut the PC shelf space to a fraction of what it was.
In any case, anyone developing software for the Mac on the expectation that Apple magically doubles their market share anytime in the near future needs to have their business plan if not their head examined. Try selling that concept to a VC...
Quote:
I can see which part of "price war" you find hard to understand. It's HP's, Dell's and Gateway's war, not Apple's. They are slugging it out in the sub-$500 category, and evidently there is not much difference between their offerings, so the low price gets the sale. Yet Apple sell the Mini for more than $500 and some folks actually buy it. Is the Mini that much faster and better than the low priced models on the Windows side? I haven't investigated, but my guess would be no. However, the Mac Mini is very unique. I believe Apple could redesign the Mini to make it more practical and cost less, yet not lose much or any of its uniqueness and appeal.
The mini is overpriced from a feature by feature comparison EXCEPT for form factor and because of that reason Apple isn't in the same value market as e-Machines as you INCORRECTLY state later. Apple does not compete in the entry-level market which Dell, HP and Gateway battle. Further, what makes that segment more appealing when Apple, for a faction of the support costs, is more profitable than Dell?
Possibly they could redesign the mini to be more Shuttle sized but that doesn't give them a tower either nor will it compete in the sub-$500 category but remain in the SFF market.
Thus far no one has determined the cost savings for Apple to have so much of its product line using mobile parts. Cannibalize that half million or so mobile based desktop sales with a Conroe mid-tower and you need to show that there's no impact to the margin on the other million or so laptops.
Given the timeframe I'm thinking its less and less likely to have a low end Conroe based Pro but instead see a pricedrop on the lowest end Woodcrests when Kentsfield shows up. That fills that $1600-$1700 tower segment.
Apple is already competing in the low priced, entry level market with the Mac Mini. But rather than a $399 or $499 model, Apple's entry is $599. Apple has been in this market for a few years now, so any argument about Apple avoiding such competition is really in vain.
This is because some folks understand that there is a difference between the value market and the SFF market. You seem to insist that you can make 28% margins in the value market...if that were possible Dell, HP and Gateway would be a whole lot more profitable.
Quote:
Not only is Apple in this market already, but some of those who say Apple cannot compete there without losing money are the ones praising the Mac Mini. It shows that Apple need not compete by the same rules as the Windows vendors appear to be following. A post above shows that people are willing to pay a little more to get Mac OS X and a higher quality computer. The key words here are "a little more."
No the argument is that a $1000 tower would cannibalize the sales of $1200, $1400 and $2000 iMacs that even if you did maintain 28% margins your TOTAL REVENUE DROPS. You have a shortfall where you need increased sales just to break even before you make more money than the current product line.
Couple that with the loss of whatever cost savings that using mobile parts across the entire line gives you the business case for a low end tower isn't all that compelling unless you can guarantee massive increased sales.
I don't see it. OSX (mac's key advantage) isn't THAT compelling and there's only so much you can do to make a mid-tower stand out from the pack (hence the AIO and SFF offerings). Snobbery aside Xp works well enough for most folks.
Quote:
Everyone talks about the market, but seems to overlook the fact that it is made up of a great many market segments. Of those segments, we count on the fingers of one hand those segments Apple does well in, having 20 percent or more market share.
This is a poor metric for success...if market share was all powerful Dell's stock would be doing a lot better.
Quote:
When I've posted about changes to the Mini previously, I didn't mention the second HDD. Now, after learning more about iTV, a second, large HDD would appear to be a worthwhile option. Also, after hearing about Sony including the power supply on-board in the PS3, I figured that would be a good idea too. The dimensions I gave before would have to increase, however. Possibly something 15 inches wide, 3 inches tall, and 8 inches deep would do the job.
2 HDD is simply double the probability of a cripping hardware failure. You're much better off with a RAID 5 NAS given the value of the purchased content vs the value of the hardware and the volume of storage required.
So your assertion is that mainstream success of the Mac depends on the availability of specialty software like dental software? Personally I would think it depends on the availability of mainstream software of which Apple itself produces a few.
Vinea, please, you put far to much effort into your replies to me. I'm nobody important. I fear you will wear yourself out, and we need all the Mac supporters we can get. I'll try to be brief.
Software is the heart of a productive computer, and the variety of applications is huge. If I didn't say it clearly, the great depth of software available on the Windows platform makes it a useful tool in any industry, business, profession, school, or home. Windows is ubiquitous, seen everywhere. The Mac platform is not, unfortunately. So it is not "mainstream success of the Mac" that I spoke of, but rather its wide acceptance everywhere, just like Windows. It is far from being on a par with Windows today.
Certainly, in those market segments where the Mac sells well, it is on a par with Windows, but these are few. Regarding software availability and development, it is simply a matter of customer base. Mac's strong market segments do not lack, and neither do the popular usage applications, which appeal to a broad range of users. It is all those little niche markets that give Windows a big edge, and why it is seen as the de-facto standard OS. The discrepancy in available application is apparent to anyone who walks into a store that sells software for both the Mac and Windows.
You do bring up one point I overlooked. It is the installed base of OS X that is important to software developers, and that is evidently growing faster than Apple's market share, possibly thanks to all those PowerMac towers people are buying from eBay because Apple has nothing like it in their product lineup.
Quote:
18% is viable even by your metrics. So WTF is so critical about a mid-tower that someone invariably whines about it every thread?
We just want one, and would buy one if Apple had it.
Quote:
In any case, anyone developing software for the Mac on the expectation that Apple magically doubles their market share anytime in the near future needs to have their business plan if not their head examined.
Well, yes, of course. That is why all those seemingly insignificant, obscure applications do not have a Mac version. Developers are not stupid or crazy.
Quote:
Apple does not compete in the entry-level market which Dell, HP and Gateway battle.
I disagree. What market does the Mac Mini compete in? The ultra tiny computer market? As far as I know, the Mini is the only entry in that market and therefore has absolutely no competition. No, the Mac Mini is Apple's entry level computer, whether we say so or not. Switchers do buy it to try out OS X, but they have no place to go next if they want a desktop will not consider an AIO. If they happen to have professional needs that the Mac Pro satisfies, that's good, but Apple has nothing in between but an AIO.
I disagree. What market does the Mac Mini compete in? The ultra tiny computer market? As far as I know, the Mini is the only entry in that market and therefore has absolutely no competition. No, the Mac Mini is Apple's entry level computer, whether we say so or not. Switchers do buy it to try out OS X, but they have no place to go next if they want a desktop will not consider an AIO. If they happen to have professional needs that the Mac Pro satisfies, that's good, but Apple has nothing in between but an AIO.
Yes...the Small Form Factor market. It's somewhat less niche than the AOI market.
There are several mini-look alikes in the windows market. AOpen had one that looked pretty much like the mini. The new AOpen one (that supports Core Duo) looks a little different (NEW WITH HORIZONTAL STRIPE!).
Shuttle has larger cube like computers at the upper end of the SFF size scale. I can see another Apple Cube entry now that SFF computers are a little more established. The Mac Pro like derivative is a possibility but I would hope that Apple comes out with something more original and yet stunning. Pricing is still key though but if it has a video slot that would solve most expansion issues and the cube form factor should be able to handle a regular drive.
I'd prefer a small tower in the $1000-1500 range,but i'd settle for the IMAC if it had video in.I just want to hook up my xbox360 or ps3 to it. Is there a major tech reason there isn't a vga or dvi input?
Violates the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid for those who didn't know).
Comments
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.
Sorry no - 534 million to 463 million - Dell spends less on R&D than Apple. Of course they are dwarfed by HP at 3.5 billion - but most of that is obviosuly not PC based.
The only real design flaw in the Mini was the decision to use 2.5" notebook hard drives instead of 3.5" desktop hard drives. Apple tried to make the smallest computer they could with either no consideration for the future or an incorrect assumption that 2.5" notebook drive would scale up the way desktop drives have. Would anyone have complained if the machine had been 8x8x3.5? Note really. It still would have been by far the smallest entry level PC on the market.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
Sorry no - 534 million to 463 million
These are recent figures. The situation is changing now that Apple's revenue is increasing. I believe that historically (e.g. over the last 6 years or so), DELL's R&D has been higher than Apple's.
Having said that, it wasn't really the main thrust of my point. If DELL's R&D has been higher, it isn't by much. It is more that Apple's and DELL's R&D are in the same ball-bark; I was responding to a comment that DELL didn't spend much on R&D.
I'm convinced that Steve Jobs will never abandon the iMac, but Apple definitely needs what you say, a reasonably priced tower, which I believe should also be smaller than the Mac Pro for marketing reasons. Such a tower would compete in the same performance space as the iMac, but would catch all those wayward Mac users who keep buying from eBay, like me.
If we got a mini tower, we would see how much appeal the iMac really has. The Mini, however, should simply be replaced by a larger, more practical Mini.
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. What I'm basically looking for is a Conroe/P965 version of the Mac Pro. I like having two optical drives and more than two DIMM slots. The 4 hard drive bays would appeal to me if I run a main Mac drive, a time machine backup, and a bootcamp windows drive. I also like the double width PCI-E slot. However, the second xeon CPU, the workstation class motherboard, and the 8 FB-DIMM aren't worth the $1000 markup in price nor is the 24" display in my other option. But to be honest, I'd settle for something based on the 24" iMac with a single PCI-Express x16 slot at this point.
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. What I'm basically looking for is a Conroe/P965 version of the Mac Pro. I like having two optical drives and more than two DIMM slots. The 4 hard drive bays would appeal to me if I run a main Mac drive, a time machine backup, and a bootcamp windows drive. I also like the double width PCI-E slot. However, the second xeon CPU, the workstation class motherboard, and the 8 FB-DIMM aren't worth the $1000 markup in price nor is the 24" display in my other option. But to be honest, I'd settle for something based on the 24" iMac with a single PCI-Express x16 slot at this point.
24" iMac supposedly has an upgradable video card.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
When making a sale, what the user wants is always more important than what they're actually going to use. It comes down to this, does Apple want to sell them to anybody except Mac users looking for a second computer?
I'd like to see some kind of study on what type of Macs get the best resale value and how many sales Apple loses to the second hand market or windows PCs because of the lack of reasonably priced tower.
Me too.
I doubt used Apple computers attract many switchers though. An xMac might.
24" iMac supposedly has an upgradable video card.
Upgradeable if someone makes a MXM card and you're willing to take apart the iMac and it meets the thermal requirements, and you're willing to pay about three times more than a comparable regular PCI-E card. In reality, MXM just makes it easier on the manufacturers. Regular form PCI-Express cards are cheap and easy to deal with.
Me too.
I doubt used Apple computers attract many switchers though. An xMac might.
But, for the time being at least, second hand PowerMacs retain users who would probably bolt for the windows world due to Apple's hardware choices.
But, for the time being at least, second hand PowerMacs retain users who would probably bolt for the windows world due to Apple's hardware choices.
I kind of was one of those(re: I really never considered switching, MacOS is all I'd known). I bought a 7500 for $89, added a Sonnet G4 upgrade card $239, ATI Rage Pro $90 and USB/Firewire card$??? rather than buy an AIO or a crippled tower.
And no, for all that are interested, I don't consider myself a geek. The process was dead simple easy and went flawlessly. I had never ever gotten inside a computer before and did not have to consult any true geeks to perform this.
My only regret is that I never upgraded this computer to OS X.
Upgradeable if someone makes a MXM card and you're willing to take apart the iMac and it meets the thermal requirements, and you're willing to pay about three times more than a comparable regular PCI-E card. In reality, MXM just makes it easier on the manufacturers. Regular form PCI-Express cards are cheap and easy to deal with.
And you say that Apple should put a PCIe slot in the iMac and then consumers can just plug some internal DVI cable into that? That sounds very inelegant! MDX could be designed as an easy-to-utilize system IF there is enough demand from consumers to upgrade their video cards (but I bet that demand doesn't actually exist in 99% of cases).
I never have and I never will advocate abandoning the iMac. It definitely has its audience. . .
Sorry if I seemed to imply this. I mainly wanted to say I agree with you about a lower cost tower, but Apple would surely keep the iMac too. It would be interesting to see the relative sales between the two, however.
And you say that Apple should put a PCIe slot in the iMac and then consumers can just plug some internal DVI cable into that? That sounds very inelegant! MDX could be designed as an easy-to-utilize system IF there is enough demand from consumers to upgrade their video cards (but I bet that demand doesn't actually exist in 99% of cases).
No, what I'm saying is something headless based on the iMac guts, preferably with a PCI-E slot instead of the MXM card. An option for users who want a 7600GT but have no interest in the mandatory $800 tack on for a 24" display they have no interest in.
Sorry if I seemed to imply this. I mainly wanted to say I agree with you about a lower cost tower, but Apple would surely keep the iMac too. It would be interesting to see the relative sales between the two, however.
While there would be some crossing over, I would think most sales would come from the "second hand" ranks, Mac users who have a PC power as a second computer, or PC prosumer switchers who haven't been able to find a Mac that they like. I think the vast majority of iMac users buy the iMac because they want something stylish and powerful yet simple.
How large must the capcity of the mini's HDD be? The target audience probably doesn't want/need a 160GB HDD. With time the hard drives will scale, and the mini isn't in need of advacing at a breakneck pace.
Your are correct to question who the audience might be for the Mini. Currently it seems to be those who value a tiny computer over all other considerations. Size must be more important than HDD capacity and speed, amount of RAM that can be added, and price. All of these characteristics could be improved by making the Mini bigger, and not quite so mini mini.
You might point out that the Mini is selling today, and this is true. Yet, are people buying it because it is so tiny, or because this is all Apple offers in their price range? It is amazing what Mac users will put up with to stay with a Mac.
It would be very telling if Apple also sold a somewhat larger entry level box that had standard drives, more RAM slots, built-in power supply, a second drive bay for optional expansion, and a lower price tag, My take is that current Mini sales would dry up, and its replacement would sell twice as many units.
How do I know? Well, folk don't seem to mind adding all sorts of devices to their Mac Mini to make it what they want. They add modules with more I/O ports, and modules that offer a second hard drive. Do they complain it is too big then? No.
The current Mini is 85 cubic inches. By the time some folks add what they want, it is two to three times this size. The 15 X 3 X 8 dimensions I suggested for a Mini replacement is 360 cubic inches. By comparison, the Shuttle case, which some seem to love, is 915 cubic inches.
Why on earth would anyone want or need a 160 GB HDD you ask? From what I read, iTV will need to work with a computer that provides the storage. The Mini would be the logical choice for a minimum priced system, but even 160 GB is a little small. Folks may want 500 GB. It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this situation at the iTV launch. Do they sell a Mac Pro with every iTV?
It's apparent you are thinking of those who develop some of the more popular applications. If you have an application that sells to 10 percent of all Mac users, Apple market share would have to drop very low before you'd pull out your support for the Mac. Obviously, it's the developers of specialty software, with few customers, that will be the first to go and the last to come back.
So your assertion is that mainstream success of the Mac depends on the availability of specialty software like dental software? Personally I would think it depends on the availability of mainstream software of which Apple itself produces a few.
This comment is a year old but I don't think its so out of date yet:
In a press release on Friday, June 3, 2005, Wizzard Software explained why they believe the Macintosh market is important as they prepare to release AT&T Natural Voices for Apple's Mac OS X:
According to a statement released earlier this year, Apple Computer reported their 2005 first quarterly revenue and net income as the highest in the history of their company, with 74% revenue growth. Apple shipped 1,046,000 Macintosh units during this quarter, representing a 26% increase in CPU units over the year-ago quarter. According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs."
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5933/
18% is viable even by your metrics. So WTF is so critical about a mid-tower that someone invariably whines about it every thread?
Do the math. How many customers would there be for dental software? Not a whole lot, but it is that kind of in depth support that makes people take a computer platform seriously.
Um...sorry, dental software and medical software in general never crossed my mind ALTHOUGH I did notice that there are a larger number of Macs in the doctor's offices I go to than exists in the general population (i.e. more than 16% of the docs had macs).
This did shift as several of the offices I saw had tablets PCs and one moved from Macs to tablet PCs recently. That doesn't say much for the need of mid-towers as much as the tablet form factor in this specialy market.
When all the business specialty developers are supporting the Mac, its market share will be high enough. Today, the Mac is not an option for some businesses because it lacks the necessary applications. No one is developing in that area for the Mac. (I picked on dental software since I notice someone is actually developing it for OS X.)
The press release above contradicts your assertion that the Mac ecosystem is any danger of undersupport.
No I'm not kidding for the very reasons you site. Apple has sufficiently large share in certain markets, where Macs sometimes out number Windows machines. Apple's market share in those segments may run 20 to 60 percent, which I had said is probably high enough.
So you're saying that Apple needs more share to be viable even though in the markets it competes in they have 20-60% share? There are only two areas that I see as "deficient": business software and games. Apple made a strategic decision not to pursue the business enterprise market and I believe that the onus is on you to show that this was a terrible mistake given how well Apple is executing otherwise.
Games...while it would be nice, there are some games and the PC games market appears to be stagnating vs the console market...certainly in the shelf space arena where my local retailers have drastically cut the PC shelf space to a fraction of what it was.
In any case, anyone developing software for the Mac on the expectation that Apple magically doubles their market share anytime in the near future needs to have their business plan if not their head examined. Try selling that concept to a VC...
I can see which part of "price war" you find hard to understand.
The mini is overpriced from a feature by feature comparison EXCEPT for form factor and because of that reason Apple isn't in the same value market as e-Machines as you INCORRECTLY state later. Apple does not compete in the entry-level market which Dell, HP and Gateway battle. Further, what makes that segment more appealing when Apple, for a faction of the support costs, is more profitable than Dell?
Possibly they could redesign the mini to be more Shuttle sized but that doesn't give them a tower either nor will it compete in the sub-$500 category but remain in the SFF market.
Thus far no one has determined the cost savings for Apple to have so much of its product line using mobile parts. Cannibalize that half million or so mobile based desktop sales with a Conroe mid-tower and you need to show that there's no impact to the margin on the other million or so laptops.
Given the timeframe I'm thinking its less and less likely to have a low end Conroe based Pro but instead see a pricedrop on the lowest end Woodcrests when Kentsfield shows up. That fills that $1600-$1700 tower segment.
Vinea
Apple is already competing in the low priced, entry level market with the Mac Mini. But rather than a $399 or $499 model, Apple's entry is $599. Apple has been in this market for a few years now, so any argument about Apple avoiding such competition is really in vain.
This is because some folks understand that there is a difference between the value market and the SFF market. You seem to insist that you can make 28% margins in the value market...if that were possible Dell, HP and Gateway would be a whole lot more profitable.
Not only is Apple in this market already, but some of those who say Apple cannot compete there without losing money are the ones praising the Mac Mini. It shows that Apple need not compete by the same rules as the Windows vendors appear to be following. A post above shows that people are willing to pay a little more to get Mac OS X and a higher quality computer. The key words here are "a little more."
No the argument is that a $1000 tower would cannibalize the sales of $1200, $1400 and $2000 iMacs that even if you did maintain 28% margins your TOTAL REVENUE DROPS. You have a shortfall where you need increased sales just to break even before you make more money than the current product line.
Couple that with the loss of whatever cost savings that using mobile parts across the entire line gives you the business case for a low end tower isn't all that compelling unless you can guarantee massive increased sales.
I don't see it. OSX (mac's key advantage) isn't THAT compelling and there's only so much you can do to make a mid-tower stand out from the pack (hence the AIO and SFF offerings). Snobbery aside Xp works well enough for most folks.
Everyone talks about the market, but seems to overlook the fact that it is made up of a great many market segments. Of those segments, we count on the fingers of one hand those segments Apple does well in, having 20 percent or more market share.
This is a poor metric for success...if market share was all powerful Dell's stock would be doing a lot better.
When I've posted about changes to the Mini previously, I didn't mention the second HDD. Now, after learning more about iTV, a second, large HDD would appear to be a worthwhile option. Also, after hearing about Sony including the power supply on-board in the PS3, I figured that would be a good idea too. The dimensions I gave before would have to increase, however. Possibly something 15 inches wide, 3 inches tall, and 8 inches deep would do the job.
2 HDD is simply double the probability of a cripping hardware failure. You're much better off with a RAID 5 NAS given the value of the purchased content vs the value of the hardware and the volume of storage required.
Vinea
So your assertion is that mainstream success of the Mac depends on the availability of specialty software like dental software? Personally I would think it depends on the availability of mainstream software of which Apple itself produces a few.
Vinea, please, you put far to much effort into your replies to me. I'm nobody important. I fear you will wear yourself out, and we need all the Mac supporters we can get.
Software is the heart of a productive computer, and the variety of applications is huge. If I didn't say it clearly, the great depth of software available on the Windows platform makes it a useful tool in any industry, business, profession, school, or home. Windows is ubiquitous, seen everywhere. The Mac platform is not, unfortunately. So it is not "mainstream success of the Mac" that I spoke of, but rather its wide acceptance everywhere, just like Windows. It is far from being on a par with Windows today.
Certainly, in those market segments where the Mac sells well, it is on a par with Windows, but these are few. Regarding software availability and development, it is simply a matter of customer base. Mac's strong market segments do not lack, and neither do the popular usage applications, which appeal to a broad range of users. It is all those little niche markets that give Windows a big edge, and why it is seen as the de-facto standard OS. The discrepancy in available application is apparent to anyone who walks into a store that sells software for both the Mac and Windows.
You do bring up one point I overlooked. It is the installed base of OS X that is important to software developers, and that is evidently growing faster than Apple's market share, possibly thanks to all those PowerMac towers people are buying from eBay because Apple has nothing like it in their product lineup.
18% is viable even by your metrics. So WTF is so critical about a mid-tower that someone invariably whines about it every thread?
We just want one, and would buy one if Apple had it.
In any case, anyone developing software for the Mac on the expectation that Apple magically doubles their market share anytime in the near future needs to have their business plan if not their head examined.
Well, yes, of course. That is why all those seemingly insignificant, obscure applications do not have a Mac version. Developers are not stupid or crazy.
Apple does not compete in the entry-level market which Dell, HP and Gateway battle.
Yes...the Small Form Factor market. It's somewhat less niche than the AOI market.
There are several mini-look alikes in the windows market. AOpen had one that looked pretty much like the mini. The new AOpen one (that supports Core Duo) looks a little different (NEW WITH HORIZONTAL STRIPE!).
old: http://maximumpc.com/2006/01/aopen_mini_pc.html
new: http://minipc.aopen.com/global/spec.htm
Shuttle has larger cube like computers at the upper end of the SFF size scale. I can see another Apple Cube entry now that SFF computers are a little more established. The Mac Pro like derivative is a possibility but I would hope that Apple comes out with something more original and yet stunning. Pricing is still key though but if it has a video slot that would solve most expansion issues and the cube form factor should be able to handle a regular drive.
Vinea
Hello from a long time reader (circa'97).
I'd prefer a small tower in the $1000-1500 range,but i'd settle for the IMAC if it had video in.I just want to hook up my xbox360 or ps3 to it. Is there a major tech reason there isn't a vga or dvi input?
Violates the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid for those who didn't know).