We obviously can cut to suit our opinions as well as the first half of that sentence alludes to a $1200 cube.
Your statement reads,
Quote:
$1200+ Cube II is possible. $700 tower not so much. You're converting a $1000-2000 (17"-24") sale to a $700 sale and the possibility of a monitor sale.
You do say $1200 cube, but then everything else you speak of here refers to a $700 tower. I was responding to the $700 tower, not a $1200 cube.
Quote:
Mr. H speaks of a base $999 xMac with $399/$499 versions.
jwssmiths bounds the xMac between $599 and $999.
Aurora talks about a $850 retail xMac (using his $700 Dell + $150 vidcard as baseline).
I said "very few" would suggest a tower for $700, and your list shows very few. Further, not all on your list are supporters of a mini tower. Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere. Possibly he was referring to something else, wherever you found that.
Let's face it, these are trivial points, and not main thing we should discuss. I'll reply to some more of your post, but I only do this when I have a few free minutes. It may take me a several days and posts to complete your long reply.
But a Conroe tower ain't likely at any price point IMHO. The $1699 (or perhaps even $1599) Mac Pro will likely be a bottom end Woodcrest with the rest of the Mac Pro lineup going Kentsfield. I doubt Woodcrest pricing will drop enough for Apple to offer a $1499 model.
Vinea
Woodcrest can't be had at that price. It requires the expensive 5000 series motherboard and FB-DIMMS. You could maybe see a 2.0ghz model for $1999, but it would be about as fast as a $700 HP. Then again since intel designed conroe for general computing duties, they never really though of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yah...Conroe = gamers and Woodcrest = pro...oh wait. You mean that I'm not using my Mac Pro as a desktop but as a workstation? I better uninstall MS Office and iWork...am I allowed to run photoshop? Is that desktop or workstation?
What can you do with a Conroe machine that you can't do with a Woodcrest machine?
Vinea
Applications that can't advantage of 4 cores (namely 90% of them) faster and cheaper. Like my signature says, why waste money on a semi, when a F-250 is going to do the job just as well. The other option is the Ridgeline aka iMac.
1200+ Cube II is possible. $700 tower not so much. You're converting a $1000-2000 (17"-24") sale to a $700 sale and the possibility of a monitor sale.
No, you're converting a sale for Dell or HP and Microsoft into a sale for Apple. All but the Apple faithful are going to say no thank you to Apple's current prosumer offerings.
Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere
Yes, I have suggested this. I've not talked recently about the specification it would have though. I suppose now is as good a time as any ($399 to $499 target price):
My suggested "mini tower" enclosure: just big enough for two desktop HDDs, one PCIe slot, one optical drive, motherboard with desktop RAM, built-in PSU, fan.
1.83 GHz Conroe
512 MB RAM
Integrated Graphics
80 GB HDD
Combo optical drive
No keyboard or mouse
No wireless as standard (available as option)
No Front Row (IR sensor included, remote not)
Think it's not possible for somewhere between $399 - $499? Compare to the $599 mini:
Cheaper CPU
Cheaper RAM
Cheaper HDD
Cheaper optical drive
No wireless
No apple remote
In this thread, I haven't talked much about that option. I talked more about a $999 version (same enclosure, but higher specification parts). I've talked more about $399 to $499 options in other threads, including the Mac Mini Intel thread. Vinea and others should note that there's nothing really stopping my "mini tower" being cube shaped
YOU state that you believe Apple can be profitable in the sub-$500 tower market and about lowering the price of the Mini further to $399 with a Conroe.
Whoa! What you say makes me look like an idiot. I did not say anything like that. Apple can and does compete in the same entry level market as do the sub-$500 Windows towers. Apple's entry is the Mac Mini at $599, but it still sell in this entry market. I never said or implied that Apple could be profitable selling a sub-$500 tower, which your wording suggests.
As well as proposing a $999 and up Mac mini tower, I have also advocated a big Mac Mini, or a cube if you like that shape better than flat. I proposed two models, a cheap "Mac Basic," I called it, and a Conroe higher performance model. Both are made with standard parts and are both larger than the current Mac Mini. Here is what I really said,
"the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics."
I said "possibly" since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Needless to say, the Mac Basic and the Conroe models are two different products, and I said,
"The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards."
I'm not sure how you got the two mixed up the way you did. Was I unclear?
In this thread, I haven't talked much about that option. I talked more about a $999 version (same enclosure, but higher specification parts). I've talked more about $399 to $499 options in other threads, including the Mac Mini Intel thread.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was looking back about six pages and didn't see it. I was looking in the wrong thread!
I said "very few" would suggest a tower for $700, and your list shows very few. Further, not all on your list are supporters of a mini tower. Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere. Possibly he was referring to something else, wherever you found that.
There really AREN'T that many participants in this thread.
Woodcrest can't be had at that price. It requires the expensive 5000 series motherboard and FB-DIMMS. You could maybe see a 2.0ghz model for $1999, but it would be about as fast as a $700 HP. Then again since intel designed conroe for general computing duties, they never really though of that.
Funny...I seem to be able to buy a $1687 Dual 1.60Ghz Woodcrest Precision 490 from Dell today.
Ya think maybe when Cloverton (I think I keep saying Kentsfield) shows that Intel won't stick it to AMD who is already pricing Opterons below Woodcrests?
Quote:
Applications that can't advantage of 4 cores (namely 90% of them) faster and cheaper. Like my signature says, why waste money on a semi, when a F-250 is going to do the job just as well. The other option is the Ridgeline aka iMac.
In other words nothing. With everything going multicore most apps will begin to support multi-cores much more. With Kentsfield you're going to have 4 core desktops.
Think it's not possible for somewhere between $399 - $499? Compare to the $599 mini:
Cheaper CPU
Cheaper RAM
Cheaper HDD
Cheaper optical drive
No wireless
No apple remote
How much cheaper? Apple uses mobile parts across the board. Perhaps $499. Perhaps not. But you're still losing $28 per sale that you need to make up for in additional sales.
Of course you'd sell more of these than $599 minis but you're also going to sell a lot fewer iMacs. Probably most of them. So are you really going to double desktop sales?
Meh...I don't think there are that many switchers or that it really behooves Apple to work that much harder just to make roughly the same amount of money. Perhaps there will be a nice bump in peripheral sales but how much do you think the $399/$499 crowd buys?
Whoa! What you say makes me look like an idiot. I did not say anything like that. Apple can and does compete in the same entry level market as do the sub-$500 Windows towers. Apple's entry is the Mac Mini at $599, but it still sell in this entry market. I never said or implied that Apple could be profitable selling a sub-$500 tower, which your wording suggests.
Since every time this comes up you forget that the mini isn't a value PC but a SFF PC I have to keep reminding you that Apple is not competing in the value PC market even if the cheapest Mac is $599. Which is above the sub-$500 market with $399 pricing at the lowest tier (or was it $299? No, I think those are gone now).
Here you state a belief that Apple would be competitive in this entry level market you mistakenly claim they already compete in:
Quote:
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range.
I can only gather that you believe that Apple can be as profitable as today while competing in the 51% sub-$500 desktop market segment...which I still need to refind the reference for Mr. H. Or is there some other clever interpretation of this objection to my statement?
I assume they can't. You object. Ergo...you think they can...and you say that they ALREADY DO.
Okay...Google found a different one:
Quote:
Given the huge momentum that sub-$500 desktops have, dual-core processors may be appealing enough to decelerate the mass adoption of cheap PCs. The value segment has grown from a 30% market share a year ago to today’s 51% share.
As well as proposing a $999 and up Mac mini tower, I have also advocated a big Mac Mini, or a cube if you like that shape better than flat. I proposed two models, a cheap "Mac Basic," I called it, and a Conroe higher performance model. Both are made with standard parts and are both larger than the current Mac Mini. Here is what I really said,
"the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics."
I said "possibly" since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Needless to say, the Mac Basic and the Conroe models are two different products, and I said,
Hence you believe that a $399 slightly larger mini with Conroe is possible right? And you wouldn't suggest such a machine unless you thought Apple wouldn't sell at a loss right? And you base this on the $599 price of the Mini which you believe to be high enough that the cost savings from going to desktop parts as Mr. H suggests makes a $399 price viable right?
Jeez. Don't tell me that folks aren't thinking about a $699 xMac when YOU are talking about a $399 cube with slot that's priced CHEAPER than a Shuttle barebones. Wait...you AREN'T using the lowest end Conroe in your Basic? What are you suggesting? A Celeron? Because Conroes are cheaper than Yonahs.
Quote:
"The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards."
I'm not sure how you got the two mixed up the way you did. Was I unclear?
Unclear? No, it was very clear that you thought your $399 Mac Basic was viable and it wouldn't that much huger (220 cubic in vs 85 cubic in) than the current Mini that it would replace.
How much cheaper? Apple uses mobile parts across the board. Perhaps $499. Perhaps not.
Indeed. It may be that Conroe isn't possible at that price. Celeron 430s (basically a 1.73 GHz Single-core Yonah with 1 MB L2 cache and 533 MHz FSB) are pin for pin compatible with Yonah so Apple could use an iMac-derived motherboard with Celeron 430 (costs $86 in quantities of 1000) for the $399 to $499 version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
But you're still losing $28 per sale that you need to make up for in additional sales.
Assuming all the machine does is cannibalise other Mac models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
but you're also going to sell a lot fewer iMacs.
Why would the $399/499 version of the machine suddenly cannibalise "a lot" more iMacs than the current Mac Mini?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Meh...I don't think there are that many switchers or that it really behooves Apple to work that much harder just to make roughly the same amount of money. Perhaps there will be a nice bump in peripheral sales but how much do you think the $399/$499 crowd buys?
It's all about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform, helping to increase market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers and service providers. More software and hardware availability, a reversal of OS X platform marginalisation and lower cost of entry makes the platform more attractive to users, increasing market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers? You get the idea.
At first, I think introducing my proposed "mini tower" that can scale from $399/499 upwards would possibly adversely affect revenue and profits in the short term (1 year ish), but after that would start to impact positively, providing higher revenues and profits than if the machine had never been introduced.
For you, it's all about concerns over cannibalising more expensive Macs. For me, it's all about increasing market share (something you will note the current desktops are not doing) providing long term benefits for the platform and Apple.
It's all about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform, helping to increase market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers and service providers. . .
For you, it's all about concerns over cannibalising more expensive Macs. For me, it's all about increasing market share (something you will note the current desktops are not doing) providing long term benefits for the platform and Apple.
Since every time this comes up you forget that the mini isn't a value PC but a SFF PC I have to keep reminding you that Apple is not competing in the value PC market even if the cheapest Mac is $599. Which is above the sub-$500 market . . .
First off, you define the markets differently than I do. You say there is a SFF market and a sub-$500 tower market. You define a market by the product that a company makes. Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history.
There is an entry level market, and it may well sell mostly sub-$500 towers now, on the Windows side, but that is the market the Mac Mini is in by definition. It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price to sell to those who what to try the Mac, and those who simply want a cheap Mac. Apple could do better with a lower priced Mini, one with lower cost, standard parts, and eliminating some of the unnecessary features as Mr. H. suggests.
Quote:
. . . you state a belief that Apple would be competitive in this entry level market you mistakenly claim they already compete in:
When Leopard is out and runs Windows apps natively 8) you may see a push for a more "common" Mac, but until that time you won't see much of anything. I think Apple is poised to push into the enterprise desktop space. The hospital I work for is already considering purchasing MacBook Pros and may just install Windows on them. Save the price of duplicate Windows licensing that way (since we already have an EA with MS).... I've seen so many of these threads wanting a mini-tower Mac, return of the Cube, God there are even synapses of riddles of such a thing reappearing over and over again. Apple makes lots of money on their hardware - they make little on OS X. They like to sell machines every 3-4 years. Most Mac users keep them a lot longer than that. They need to keep selling machines, so why would they jeopardize that by releasing an expandable, upgradable computer and kill their revenue? It really boils down to that.
Why would the $399/499 version of the machine suddenly cannibalise "a lot" more iMacs than the current Mac Mini?
It has a slot for a vid card better than a GMA 950...or X1600 for that matter. And for $1200 you can get it with a 24" monitor and a decent vid card for an $800 cost savings.
Okay...you need to buy an iSight too. Is the 1.86 Conroe part slower or faster than the 2.16 Merom? The FSB is certainly faster as will be your disk drive.
I can only gather that you believe that Apple can be as profitable as [they are] today while competing in the 51% sub-$500 desktop market segment . . .
I assume they can't. You object. Ergo...you think they can...and you say that they ALREADY DO.
Apple can be as profitable as they like by adjusting selling price. But you already know this. A lower price sells more, but makes less profit. To make more profit Apple sells at a higher price, but sells fewer units. Apple is doing well enough financially, so there is no need to try for maximum sales in this very competitive market. Yet many of us believe Apple needs to steadily improve market share. A price tag lower than $599, on a unit that can be manufactured at lower cost than the current Mini, will definitely help market share grow.
Quote:
Hence you believe that a $399 slightly larger mini with Conroe is possible right? And you wouldn't suggest such a machine unless you thought Apple wouldn't sell at a loss right? And you base this on the $599 price of the Mini which you believe to be high enough that the cost savings from going to desktop parts as Mr. H suggests makes a $399 price viable right?
What I said in the post you are replying to is, "the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399," since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Certainly they could sell it for something like $499.
The other thing you got wrong is the CPU in the Mac Basic, it's not a Conroe. I specifically describe two models of an oversized Mini. The higher performance model would have a Conroe plus a graphics card. The Mac Basic would have a lower cost CPU plus integrated graphics. Please read more carefully before you start criticizing someone's ideas.
First off, you define the markets differently than I do.
Yes, I use the definitions that seem common in the industry. You seem to make them up as you go along.
Quote:
You say there is a SFF market and a sub-$500 tower market.
No, the industry seems to make that claim...otherwise it would be silly for them to state that the value/entry/low-cost/budget market (aka cheap PCs under $500) has 51% share if it didn't exist. Or for Shuttle to claim that the SFF market is growing at the expense of the tower market if the category didn't exist.
Quote:
You define a market by the product that a company makes.
Seems to be a better method than pulling a definition out of one's nether regions.
Quote:
Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history.
I believe these are commonly called "car companies"...it was not the "Olds Personal Transportation Company" but the Olds Motor Vehicle Company (Olds is the oldest unit of GM). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Olds thought of themselves as makers of motor vehicles based on their name and yes, what they made.
Quote:
There is an entry level market, and it may well sell mostly sub-$500 towers now, on the Windows side, but that is the market the Mac Mini is in by definition. It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price to sell to those who what to try the Mac, and those who simply want a cheap Mac. Apple could do better with a lower priced Mini, one with lower cost, standard parts, and eliminating some of the unnecessary features as Mr. H. suggests.
So if the lowest price mac was $100,000 then it would by definition be competing against entry level Windows PC for market share? This is the equivalent as saying that the Porsche Boxster (MSRP $45,000) competes in the budget vehicle market by definition against the likes of the Toyota Yaris (MSRP $11,050) because its the cheapest car Porsche makes.
Pick any product examples you like if the dreaded car analogy makes you mad. I think the logical failings are obvious either way.
I'm sure there are lots of folks that want a cheap mac. Heck, I want a cheaper Mini. But that doesn't mean that Apple would do better as a company providing cheaper macs.
Apple can be as profitable as they like by adjusting selling price.
Really? I hadn't know it could be so easy. Apple decrees profit and it is so. I guess Michael Dell really is an idiot. He could simply adjust his pricing. WOW! You should get the Nobel in economics and teach at Harvard...
Quote:
But you already know this.
I know this how? Because OSX is so superior? MacOS enjoyed a far greater advantage over MS Dos/Windows.
Quote:
A lower price sells more, but makes less profit. To make more profit Apple sells at a higher price, but sells fewer units. Apple is doing well enough financially, so there is no need to try for maximum sales in this very competitive market.
It appears that Apple is attempting to maximize profits over sales. Given the relative execution of Dell vs Apple this isn't so bad a strategy.
Also, have you considered that the corporate culture of Apple is less capable of executing quantity than quality? That as a culture (and Jobs as a CEO) they are nothing like Dell? What makes you think that either Apple of 2006 or Jobs would do significantly better than Apple of 1996 and Spindler in executing a strategy of cheap macs?
Do you really believe that Jobs can emulate Dell or vice versa? They both have their own significant strengths but they aren't exchangable as CEOs.
Quote:
Yet many of us believe Apple needs to steadily improve market share. A price tag lower than $599, on a unit that can be manufactured at lower cost than the current Mini, will definitely help market share grow.
Apple is steadily improving market share. It simply isn't in the segement you like. So what? The primary objective is being achieved.
Quote:
What I said in the post you are replying to is, "the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399," since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Certainly they could sell it for something like $499.
You have no idea that it can be done at $399 but you are certain it can be done at $499. How about $449? Does that make it half certain for you? Or perhaps half no idea? Which amazing piece of data transforms you from no clue to completely clued?
Quote:
The other thing you got wrong is the CPU in the Mac Basic, it's not a Conroe. I specifically describe two models of an oversized Mini. The higher performance model would have a Conroe plus a graphics card. The Mac Basic would have a lower cost CPU plus integrated graphics. Please read more carefully before you start criticizing someone's ideas.
So you are advocating a Celeron or older P4. Mkay. Read more carefully? Perhaps you could be a little more specific when you say "lower cost CPU".
Can you tell me how well OSX would perform with a Celeron? Do you believe that Apple's job of maintaining brand value is easier or harder with a budget Celeron mini?
Do you believe that the Celeron mini would add or detract from the apparent strategy of moving toward the set top market and HD?
Yes, I use the definitions that seem common in the industry. You seem to make them up as you go along.
You can base a market on products. Industry likes to do that because it is easy to get numbers on such things as how many sub-$500 towers were sold. Yet, it is more meaningful for a company to base the markets on customers. Industry data watchers have no idea who is buying those sub-$500 towers, but a successful company needs to know. Entry level consumers may be buying a lot of sub-$500 towers today, but with the right product that could change.
Sales depend on customers. Those sub-$500 towers no doubt go to entry level consumers, but also to schools, business offices, and several other groups of customers, which are called markets. If a company is to know what kind of products to build and sell, both today and tomorrow, they must understand the customers who make up these markets.
Quote:
So if the lowest price mac was $100,000 then it would by definition be competing against entry level Windows PC for market share?
Cute. Your responses are growing more sarcastic and lack relevancy about what was originally posted. I said, "It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price . . ." Basically, this means the price was low enough to sell to entry level customers. If this isn't clear enough for you, please stop reading my posts and getting things so screwed up. Maybe you think you are being intelligent and clever, but I don't appreciate these diversions and put downs.
Comments
We obviously can cut to suit our opinions as well as the first half of that sentence alludes to a $1200 cube.
Your statement reads,
$1200+ Cube II is possible. $700 tower not so much. You're converting a $1000-2000 (17"-24") sale to a $700 sale and the possibility of a monitor sale.
You do say $1200 cube, but then everything else you speak of here refers to a $700 tower. I was responding to the $700 tower, not a $1200 cube.
Mr. H speaks of a base $999 xMac with $399/$499 versions.
jwssmiths bounds the xMac between $599 and $999.
Aurora talks about a $850 retail xMac (using his $700 Dell + $150 vidcard as baseline).
I said "very few" would suggest a tower for $700, and your list shows very few. Further, not all on your list are supporters of a mini tower. Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere. Possibly he was referring to something else, wherever you found that.
Let's face it, these are trivial points, and not main thing we should discuss. I'll reply to some more of your post, but I only do this when I have a few free minutes. It may take me a several days and posts to complete your long reply.
But a Conroe tower ain't likely at any price point IMHO. The $1699 (or perhaps even $1599) Mac Pro will likely be a bottom end Woodcrest with the rest of the Mac Pro lineup going Kentsfield. I doubt Woodcrest pricing will drop enough for Apple to offer a $1499 model.
Vinea
Woodcrest can't be had at that price. It requires the expensive 5000 series motherboard and FB-DIMMS. You could maybe see a 2.0ghz model for $1999, but it would be about as fast as a $700 HP. Then again since intel designed conroe for general computing duties, they never really though of that.
Yah...Conroe = gamers and Woodcrest = pro...oh wait. You mean that I'm not using my Mac Pro as a desktop but as a workstation? I better uninstall MS Office and iWork...am I allowed to run photoshop? Is that desktop or workstation?
What can you do with a Conroe machine that you can't do with a Woodcrest machine?
Vinea
Applications that can't advantage of 4 cores (namely 90% of them) faster and cheaper. Like my signature says, why waste money on a semi, when a F-250 is going to do the job just as well. The other option is the Ridgeline aka iMac.
1200+ Cube II is possible. $700 tower not so much. You're converting a $1000-2000 (17"-24") sale to a $700 sale and the possibility of a monitor sale.
No, you're converting a sale for Dell or HP and Microsoft into a sale for Apple. All but the Apple faithful are going to say no thank you to Apple's current prosumer offerings.
Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere
Yes, I have suggested this. I've not talked recently about the specification it would have though. I suppose now is as good a time as any ($399 to $499 target price):
- My suggested "mini tower" enclosure: just big enough for two desktop HDDs, one PCIe slot, one optical drive, motherboard with desktop RAM, built-in PSU, fan.
- 1.83 GHz Conroe
- 512 MB RAM
- Integrated Graphics
- 80 GB HDD
- Combo optical drive
- No keyboard or mouse
- No wireless as standard (available as option)
- No Front Row (IR sensor included, remote not)
Think it's not possible for somewhere between $399 - $499? Compare to the $599 mini:- Cheaper CPU
- Cheaper RAM
- Cheaper HDD
- Cheaper optical drive
- No wireless
- No apple remote
In this thread, I haven't talked much about that option. I talked more about a $999 version (same enclosure, but higher specification parts). I've talked more about $399 to $499 options in other threads, including the Mac Mini Intel thread. Vinea and others should note that there's nothing really stopping my "mini tower" being cube shapedYOU state that you believe Apple can be profitable in the sub-$500 tower market and about lowering the price of the Mini further to $399 with a Conroe.
Whoa! What you say makes me look like an idiot. I did not say anything like that. Apple can and does compete in the same entry level market as do the sub-$500 Windows towers. Apple's entry is the Mac Mini at $599, but it still sell in this entry market. I never said or implied that Apple could be profitable selling a sub-$500 tower, which your wording suggests.
As well as proposing a $999 and up Mac mini tower, I have also advocated a big Mac Mini, or a cube if you like that shape better than flat. I proposed two models, a cheap "Mac Basic," I called it, and a Conroe higher performance model. Both are made with standard parts and are both larger than the current Mac Mini. Here is what I really said,
"the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics."
I said "possibly" since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Needless to say, the Mac Basic and the Conroe models are two different products, and I said,
"The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards."
I'm not sure how you got the two mixed up the way you did. Was I unclear?
In this thread, I haven't talked much about that option. I talked more about a $999 version (same enclosure, but higher specification parts). I've talked more about $399 to $499 options in other threads, including the Mac Mini Intel thread.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was looking back about six pages and didn't see it. I was looking in the wrong thread!
I said "very few" would suggest a tower for $700, and your list shows very few. Further, not all on your list are supporters of a mini tower. Regarding Mr. H, I don't think he seriously suggested a $399-$499 versions anywhere. Possibly he was referring to something else, wherever you found that.
There really AREN'T that many participants in this thread.
Vinea
Woodcrest can't be had at that price. It requires the expensive 5000 series motherboard and FB-DIMMS. You could maybe see a 2.0ghz model for $1999, but it would be about as fast as a $700 HP. Then again since intel designed conroe for general computing duties, they never really though of that.
Funny...I seem to be able to buy a $1687 Dual 1.60Ghz Woodcrest Precision 490 from Dell today.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...s=bsd&kc=6W463
Ya think maybe when Cloverton (I think I keep saying Kentsfield) shows that Intel won't stick it to AMD who is already pricing Opterons below Woodcrests?
Applications that can't advantage of 4 cores (namely 90% of them) faster and cheaper. Like my signature says, why waste money on a semi, when a F-250 is going to do the job just as well. The other option is the Ridgeline aka iMac.
In other words nothing. With everything going multicore most apps will begin to support multi-cores much more. With Kentsfield you're going to have 4 core desktops.
Vinea
Think it's not possible for somewhere between $399 - $499? Compare to the $599 mini:
How much cheaper? Apple uses mobile parts across the board. Perhaps $499. Perhaps not. But you're still losing $28 per sale that you need to make up for in additional sales.
Of course you'd sell more of these than $599 minis but you're also going to sell a lot fewer iMacs. Probably most of them. So are you really going to double desktop sales?
Meh...I don't think there are that many switchers or that it really behooves Apple to work that much harder just to make roughly the same amount of money. Perhaps there will be a nice bump in peripheral sales but how much do you think the $399/$499 crowd buys?
Vinea
Whoa! What you say makes me look like an idiot. I did not say anything like that. Apple can and does compete in the same entry level market as do the sub-$500 Windows towers. Apple's entry is the Mac Mini at $599, but it still sell in this entry market. I never said or implied that Apple could be profitable selling a sub-$500 tower, which your wording suggests.
Since every time this comes up you forget that the mini isn't a value PC but a SFF PC I have to keep reminding you that Apple is not competing in the value PC market even if the cheapest Mac is $599. Which is above the sub-$500 market with $399 pricing at the lowest tier (or was it $299? No, I think those are gone now).
Here you state a belief that Apple would be competitive in this entry level market you mistakenly claim they already compete in:
Too many assumptions. You assume Apple cannot be profitable in the sub-$500 price range.
I can only gather that you believe that Apple can be as profitable as today while competing in the 51% sub-$500 desktop market segment...which I still need to refind the reference for Mr. H. Or is there some other clever interpretation of this objection to my statement?
I assume they can't. You object. Ergo...you think they can...and you say that they ALREADY DO.
Okay...Google found a different one:
Given the huge momentum that sub-$500 desktops have, dual-core processors may be appealing enough to decelerate the mass adoption of cheap PCs. The value segment has grown from a 30% market share a year ago to today’s 51% share.
http://www.currentanalysis.com/r/200...Hm-US-10-1.htm
Wording seems very similar.
As well as proposing a $999 and up Mac mini tower, I have also advocated a big Mac Mini, or a cube if you like that shape better than flat. I proposed two models, a cheap "Mac Basic," I called it, and a Conroe higher performance model. Both are made with standard parts and are both larger than the current Mac Mini. Here is what I really said,
"the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399, with more standard parts and integrated graphics."
I said "possibly" since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Needless to say, the Mac Basic and the Conroe models are two different products, and I said,
Hence you believe that a $399 slightly larger mini with Conroe is possible right? And you wouldn't suggest such a machine unless you thought Apple wouldn't sell at a loss right? And you base this on the $599 price of the Mini which you believe to be high enough that the cost savings from going to desktop parts as Mr. H suggests makes a $399 price viable right?
Jeez. Don't tell me that folks aren't thinking about a $699 xMac when YOU are talking about a $399 cube with slot that's priced CHEAPER than a Shuttle barebones. Wait...you AREN'T using the lowest end Conroe in your Basic? What are you suggesting? A Celeron? Because Conroes are cheaper than Yonahs.
"The Conroe version is clearly far ahead of any imaginable Mini in CPU performance, and can have a choice of graphics cards."
I'm not sure how you got the two mixed up the way you did. Was I unclear?
Unclear? No, it was very clear that you thought your $399 Mac Basic was viable and it wouldn't that much huger (220 cubic in vs 85 cubic in) than the current Mini that it would replace.
Vinea
How much cheaper? Apple uses mobile parts across the board. Perhaps $499. Perhaps not.
Indeed. It may be that Conroe isn't possible at that price. Celeron 430s (basically a 1.73 GHz Single-core Yonah with 1 MB L2 cache and 533 MHz FSB) are pin for pin compatible with Yonah so Apple could use an iMac-derived motherboard with Celeron 430 (costs $86 in quantities of 1000) for the $399 to $499 version.
But you're still losing $28 per sale that you need to make up for in additional sales.
Assuming all the machine does is cannibalise other Mac models.
but you're also going to sell a lot fewer iMacs.
Meh...I don't think there are that many switchers or that it really behooves Apple to work that much harder just to make roughly the same amount of money. Perhaps there will be a nice bump in peripheral sales but how much do you think the $399/$499 crowd buys?
It's all about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform, helping to increase market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers and service providers. More software and hardware availability, a reversal of OS X platform marginalisation and lower cost of entry makes the platform more attractive to users, increasing market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers? You get the idea.
At first, I think introducing my proposed "mini tower" that can scale from $399/499 upwards would possibly adversely affect revenue and profits in the short term (1 year ish), but after that would start to impact positively, providing higher revenues and profits than if the machine had never been introduced.
For you, it's all about concerns over cannibalising more expensive Macs. For me, it's all about increasing market share (something you will note the current desktops are not doing) providing long term benefits for the platform and Apple.
It's all about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform, helping to increase market share. This makes the platform more attractive to hardware and software developers and service providers. . .
For you, it's all about concerns over cannibalising more expensive Macs. For me, it's all about increasing market share (something you will note the current desktops are not doing) providing long term benefits for the platform and Apple.
Since every time this comes up you forget that the mini isn't a value PC but a SFF PC I have to keep reminding you that Apple is not competing in the value PC market even if the cheapest Mac is $599. Which is above the sub-$500 market . . .
First off, you define the markets differently than I do. You say there is a SFF market and a sub-$500 tower market. You define a market by the product that a company makes. Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history.
There is an entry level market, and it may well sell mostly sub-$500 towers now, on the Windows side, but that is the market the Mac Mini is in by definition. It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price to sell to those who what to try the Mac, and those who simply want a cheap Mac. Apple could do better with a lower priced Mini, one with lower cost, standard parts, and eliminating some of the unnecessary features as Mr. H. suggests.
. . . you state a belief that Apple would be competitive in this entry level market you mistakenly claim they already compete in:
That's right!
It has a slot for a vid card better than a GMA 950...or X1600 for that matter. And for $1200 you can get it with a 24" monitor and a decent vid card for an $800 cost savings.
Okay...you need to buy an iSight too. Is the 1.86 Conroe part slower or faster than the 2.16 Merom? The FSB is certainly faster as will be your disk drive.
Vinea
I can only gather that you believe that Apple can be as profitable as [they are] today while competing in the 51% sub-$500 desktop market segment . . .
I assume they can't. You object. Ergo...you think they can...and you say that they ALREADY DO.
Apple can be as profitable as they like by adjusting selling price. But you already know this. A lower price sells more, but makes less profit. To make more profit Apple sells at a higher price, but sells fewer units. Apple is doing well enough financially, so there is no need to try for maximum sales in this very competitive market. Yet many of us believe Apple needs to steadily improve market share. A price tag lower than $599, on a unit that can be manufactured at lower cost than the current Mini, will definitely help market share grow.
Hence you believe that a $399 slightly larger mini with Conroe is possible right? And you wouldn't suggest such a machine unless you thought Apple wouldn't sell at a loss right? And you base this on the $599 price of the Mini which you believe to be high enough that the cost savings from going to desktop parts as Mr. H suggests makes a $399 price viable right?
What I said in the post you are replying to is, "the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399," since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Certainly they could sell it for something like $499.
The other thing you got wrong is the CPU in the Mac Basic, it's not a Conroe. I specifically describe two models of an oversized Mini. The higher performance model would have a Conroe plus a graphics card. The Mac Basic would have a lower cost CPU plus integrated graphics. Please read more carefully before you start criticizing someone's ideas.
First off, you define the markets differently than I do.
Yes, I use the definitions that seem common in the industry. You seem to make them up as you go along.
You say there is a SFF market and a sub-$500 tower market.
No, the industry seems to make that claim...otherwise it would be silly for them to state that the value/entry/low-cost/budget market (aka cheap PCs under $500) has 51% share if it didn't exist. Or for Shuttle to claim that the SFF market is growing at the expense of the tower market if the category didn't exist.
You define a market by the product that a company makes.
Seems to be a better method than pulling a definition out of one's nether regions.
Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history.
I believe these are commonly called "car companies"...it was not the "Olds Personal Transportation Company" but the Olds Motor Vehicle Company (Olds is the oldest unit of GM). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Olds thought of themselves as makers of motor vehicles based on their name and yes, what they made.
There is an entry level market, and it may well sell mostly sub-$500 towers now, on the Windows side, but that is the market the Mac Mini is in by definition. It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price to sell to those who what to try the Mac, and those who simply want a cheap Mac. Apple could do better with a lower priced Mini, one with lower cost, standard parts, and eliminating some of the unnecessary features as Mr. H. suggests.
So if the lowest price mac was $100,000 then it would by definition be competing against entry level Windows PC for market share? This is the equivalent as saying that the Porsche Boxster (MSRP $45,000) competes in the budget vehicle market by definition against the likes of the Toyota Yaris (MSRP $11,050) because its the cheapest car Porsche makes.
Pick any product examples you like if the dreaded car analogy makes you mad. I think the logical failings are obvious either way.
I'm sure there are lots of folks that want a cheap mac. Heck, I want a cheaper Mini. But that doesn't mean that Apple would do better as a company providing cheaper macs.
Vinea
Apple can be as profitable as they like by adjusting selling price.
Really? I hadn't know it could be so easy. Apple decrees profit and it is so. I guess Michael Dell really is an idiot. He could simply adjust his pricing. WOW! You should get the Nobel in economics and teach at Harvard...
But you already know this.
I know this how? Because OSX is so superior? MacOS enjoyed a far greater advantage over MS Dos/Windows.
A lower price sells more, but makes less profit. To make more profit Apple sells at a higher price, but sells fewer units. Apple is doing well enough financially, so there is no need to try for maximum sales in this very competitive market.
It appears that Apple is attempting to maximize profits over sales. Given the relative execution of Dell vs Apple this isn't so bad a strategy.
Also, have you considered that the corporate culture of Apple is less capable of executing quantity than quality? That as a culture (and Jobs as a CEO) they are nothing like Dell? What makes you think that either Apple of 2006 or Jobs would do significantly better than Apple of 1996 and Spindler in executing a strategy of cheap macs?
Do you really believe that Jobs can emulate Dell or vice versa? They both have their own significant strengths but they aren't exchangable as CEOs.
Yet many of us believe Apple needs to steadily improve market share. A price tag lower than $599, on a unit that can be manufactured at lower cost than the current Mini, will definitely help market share grow.
Apple is steadily improving market share. It simply isn't in the segement you like. So what? The primary objective is being achieved.
What I said in the post you are replying to is, "the larger Mac Basic could possibly be $399," since I have no idea whether Apple could achieve that price and meet their profit goal. Certainly they could sell it for something like $499.
You have no idea that it can be done at $399 but you are certain it can be done at $499. How about $449? Does that make it half certain for you? Or perhaps half no idea? Which amazing piece of data transforms you from no clue to completely clued?
The other thing you got wrong is the CPU in the Mac Basic, it's not a Conroe. I specifically describe two models of an oversized Mini. The higher performance model would have a Conroe plus a graphics card. The Mac Basic would have a lower cost CPU plus integrated graphics. Please read more carefully before you start criticizing someone's ideas.
So you are advocating a Celeron or older P4. Mkay. Read more carefully? Perhaps you could be a little more specific when you say "lower cost CPU".
Can you tell me how well OSX would perform with a Celeron? Do you believe that Apple's job of maintaining brand value is easier or harder with a budget Celeron mini?
Do you believe that the Celeron mini would add or detract from the apparent strategy of moving toward the set top market and HD?
Vinea
Yes, I use the definitions that seem common in the industry. You seem to make them up as you go along.
You can base a market on products. Industry likes to do that because it is easy to get numbers on such things as how many sub-$500 towers were sold. Yet, it is more meaningful for a company to base the markets on customers. Industry data watchers have no idea who is buying those sub-$500 towers, but a successful company needs to know. Entry level consumers may be buying a lot of sub-$500 towers today, but with the right product that could change.
Sales depend on customers. Those sub-$500 towers no doubt go to entry level consumers, but also to schools, business offices, and several other groups of customers, which are called markets. If a company is to know what kind of products to build and sell, both today and tomorrow, they must understand the customers who make up these markets.
So if the lowest price mac was $100,000 then it would by definition be competing against entry level Windows PC for market share?
Cute. Your responses are growing more sarcastic and lack relevancy about what was originally posted. I said, "It is the lowest priced Mac sold and close enough in price . . ." Basically, this means the price was low enough to sell to entry level customers. If this isn't clear enough for you, please stop reading my posts and getting things so screwed up. Maybe you think you are being intelligent and clever, but I don't appreciate these diversions and put downs.