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 your belief is that the demographics of Apple mini purchasers is the same as that of a $275 HP tower? Or is it your belief that Apple should be pursuing this demographic?
The $500 number is an upper bound, not an average.
Quote:
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 . . ."
While the answer may be sarcastic but perhaps you can address the fallacy of the assertion that simply because the Mini is Apple's lowest price and therefore Apple's entry machine that it is in the same market as $275 entry level PCs and addressing the same customer demographics.
The Boxster is no less an entry level Porsche. It really IS what you buy when you can't afford a 911 and its positioned in Porsche's line up for just that reason. But it does not address the same customer demographic OR market segment as entry level offerings from Toyota or Honda.
In terms of relevancy I'll remind you that I'm not the one who brought up horse buggies or cars in the first place.
Quote:
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.
Perhaps if you didn't steadfastly assert things that are not true I might not have to be so sarcastic. You'll note that the first time we had this exact discussion about the Mini I simply informed you of the SFF market which you were unaware with no sarcasm whatsoever.
I take it that you don't have an adequate rejoinder to
a) apple as a corporation has not shown any great expertise at pursuing a "cheap mac strategy" nor does Jobs' personality seem all that well suited for such a strategy
b) the sub-$500 market really does exist and the sub-$500 category is being fought over by the top 3 manufacturers and no Apple really isn't participating in this segment. See a) as a possibility of why. Or it could be they see no reason to engage in this market because there's no reason to.
c) the economies of scale favors Apple with their mobile parts in desktop strategy as it makes them appear to be 50% larger than they would be. This may be detrimental to their desktop offerings but may have some effect on their ability to compete in the more lucrative laptop market.
d) the product line structure is such that direct comparisons with either entry level sub-$500 machines and $700-$1000 value machines is difficult with Apple products which are priced significantly higher than their low margin PC equivalents (in terms of spec). The only place where direct comparisons are easy is in the one area that comparisons are favorable to Apple (i.e. workstations). By not competing in the tower form factor market (either $399 or $999) but in the AIO and SFF markets they can compare favorably to Windows offerings in the same categories (ie Gateway, Sony AIOs and Shuttle, AOpen SFFs) on either price, performance or both.
They can answer shortcomings on either price or performance vis a vis entry and value towers by simply pointing their form factor. Meanwhile they gain advantages in the notebook market as a side effect.
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
And this strategy seems far more successful than the market share strategy pursued a decade ago by a completely different Apple.
d) the product line structure is such that direct comparisons with either entry level sub-$500 machines and $700-$1000 value machines is difficult with Apple products which are priced significantly higher than their low margin PC equivalents (in terms of spec). The only place where direct comparisons are easy is in the one area that comparisons are favorable to Apple (i.e. workstations). By not competing in the tower form factor market (either $399 or $999) but in the AIO and SFF markets they can compare favorably to Windows offerings in the same categories (ie Gateway, Sony AIOs and Shuttle, AOpen SFFs) on either price, performance or both.
They can answer shortcomings on either price or performance vis a vis entry and value towers by simply pointing their form factor. Meanwhile they gain advantages in the notebook market as a side effect.
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
It's all well and good that Apple is not going to battle others on price, but it's totally wrong to stay out of a whole market to avoid competition. That's defensive. You don't win in the technology market by being defensive. Certainly not by looking for excuses for shortcomings. That's something people do before they grow up. This is Apple we're talking about - the OS is key. There's no need to apologize when your box costs $200 more than something that only runs Windows and looks ugly.
An introduction of an xMac doesn't take away from the strength of the other machines. If things are as you suggest and their form factor and other characteristics make them worth the price, they will be fine. If not, some of those sales will convert into xMac sales and they get more first-time buyers.
The $400 market, obviously, is price dominated. Apple need not go there. The machine that best hits the untapped part of the market is priced the same as the low end iMac, but the part of the manufacturing and component cost that goes towards display in the iMac is spent on power and extensibility on the xMac. If Apple makes good profits off iMac, they will make good profits off this. Plus BTO options that cannot be put into an iMac. QED.
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.
Ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So your belief is that the demographics of Apple mini purchasers is the same as that of a $275 HP tower? Or is it your belief that Apple should be pursuing this demographic?
For me: no and yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The $500 number is an upper bound, not an average.
So, whilst the Mini is not a member of the "budget PC" group, surely you accept that someone who is considering a $499 PC might look at a $599 PC and think the extra $100 is worth it? So a $599 PC can compete against budget PCs. This is what Snoopy is getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I take it that you don't have an adequate rejoinder to
a) apple as a corporation has not shown any great expertise at pursuing a "cheap mac strategy" nor does Jobs' personality seem all that well suited for such a strategy
There are several reasons why this hasn't worked in the past:
1.) When the Mac platform was PPC, Apple had to do all the engineering themselves. They designed motherboard chipsets and motherboards, the former of which is especially time consuming and expensive. This had an impact on achievable price/performance of the cheaper machines and achievable margins.
2.) The range of PPC chips available to them then was far smaller than the range of Intel chips available now. Again, this had an impact on price/performance and margins.
3.) As well as offering "cheaper" Macs, the line-up was also a lot more complex. This meant that customers didn't know which machine to choose and most of the time Apple didn't even know what to recommend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
b) the sub-$500 market really does exist and the sub-$500 category is being fought over by the top 3 manufacturers and no Apple really isn't participating in this segment. See a) as a possibility of why. Or it could be they see no reason to engage in this market because there's no reason to.
I think it's dumb to ignore 51% of a market in which you compete. Apple, now that they are on the Intel hardware platform, can build profitable $399/499 computers. Yes, they will be less powerful than the Windows counterparts, but they would be significantly less ugly and run OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
c) the economies of scale favors Apple with their mobile parts in desktop strategy as it makes them appear to be 50% larger than they would be. This may be detrimental to their desktop offerings but may have some effect on their ability to compete in the more lucrative laptop market.
Short-term hit for long-term gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
If Apple offered a $399 or $499 PC, they wouldn't be entering a "pricing battle" with Dell et al. The Apple offering would have lower price/performance than the direct Windows counterparts. The draw would be form-factor elegance and OS X. Lowering the cost of entry for the Mac platform is not the same as a price war with PC makers.
Apple doesnt need a budget tower, it needs a mid level one that goes along with iMac. You want a screen get iMac, you dont want a screen then get this mid level tower. Its simple except for the marketing guys and all the games they play. How the hell do you think Apple got down to 4% marketshare? These guys are the reason, playing stupid marketing games instead of just selling a product the consumer wants. Games. Consumer is King, he showed it with Windblows,he showed it with Pcs and he has shown it with Pods. Look at Apples Pods anyflavor you want, look at Apples computers you want what? No you want that you must buy this! what you mean you have a monitor well then you Must buy this workstation or a strippo model with nothing not even a video card. Games. one Model works (pods) one model doesnt.
And for that $1700, you'll have a machine marginally faster than a $600 Mac Mini. For the same price you have have a 2.4 or 2.6ghz Conroe. Xeon's big advantage is in high end multi-threaded environments. Per mhz, it's about as fast as conroe.
Quote:
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
If by most apps, you mean Final, Cut Logic, and the like, yes. Most consumer applications or light professional apps are single or dual threaded. Having more than two cores actually changes things a little bit when it comes to programing. There is a good reason xeon workstations aren't selling like hotcakes on the PC side and it isn't user ignorance.
So, whilst the Mini is not a member of the "budget PC" group, surely you accept that someone who is considering a $499 PC might look at a $599 PC and think the extra $100 is worth it? So a $599 PC can compete against budget PCs. This is what Snoopy is getting at.
There are several reasons why this hasn't worked in the past:
1.) When the Mac platform was PPC, Apple had to do all the engineering themselves. They designed motherboard chipsets and motherboards, the former of which is especially time consuming and expensive. This had an impact on achievable price/performance of the cheaper machines and achievable margins.
2.) The range of PPC chips available to them then was far smaller than the range of Intel chips available now. Again, this had an impact on price/performance and margins.
3.) As well as offering "cheaper" Macs, the line-up was also a lot more complex. This meant that customers didn't know which machine to choose and most of the time Apple didn't even know what to recommend.
I think it's dumb to ignore 51% of a market in which you compete. Apple, now that they are on the Intel hardware platform, can build profitable $399/499 computers. Yes, they will be less powerful than the Windows counterparts, but they would be significantly less ugly and run OS X.
Short-term hit for long-term gain.
If Apple offered a $399 or $499 PC, they wouldn't be entering a "pricing battle" with Dell et al. The Apple offering would have lower price/performance than the direct Windows counterparts. The draw would be form-factor elegance and OS X. Lowering the cost of entry for the Mac platform is not the same as a price war with PC makers.
If Apple wanted to they could easily have a $499 Mac Mini and a $799 iMac using the same margins by simply replacing the CPU in the lowest model with Celeron M 420 (Yonah) running 533mhz memory, and retaining the rest of the specs.
If Apple wanted to they could easily have a $499 Mac Mini ? using the same margins by simply replacing the CPU in the lowest model with Celeron M 420 (Yonah) running 533mhz memory, and retaining the rest of the specs.
Indeed. A few people were hoping/expecting that to happen when the Intel Mini first appeared (the Celeron M 420 wasn't available then). However, the Celeron M has now been available for a while and Apple haven't brought out a cheaper mini.
Indeed. A few people were hoping/expecting that to happen when the Intel Mini first appeared (the Celeron M 420 wasn't available then). However, the Celeron M has now been available for a while and Apple haven't brought out a cheaper mini.
Two reasons: $$$ and fear. Apple's distribution isn't set up for volume machines anyway. Consumers in this category are not likely to drive three hours to an apple store to check one out.
People seem to think Apple is doing fine because they recently hit 6% marketshare. Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
And for that $1700, you'll have a machine marginally faster than a $600 Mac Mini..........
This in a round about way also indicates that on the PC/Windows side, this is where they make their profits up from the razor thin margines on the entry level machines.
I believe that this market, the $799 - $1599 + market would be the most attractive to Apple to expand in. Apple is in the unique position to offer very comptetatiively priced(re: or actually lower priced) SFF computers, in the mid to upper end computer market,than many of the PC/Windows manufacturers, precisely because Apple does not compete in the low end razor thin entry level market. The most glaring example of this is the Pro Mac, which on introduction was less expensive than Dell by several hundred dollars when compared feature for feature.
So going back the to original topic of this thread - Yes, it is time for a plain old Macintosh again.8)
People seem to think Apple is doing fine because they recently hit 6% marketshare. Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
Agreed and well said. I find this obvious in the extreme and for the life of me can not on any level see how it could be argued any other way.
This in a round about way also indicates that on the PC/Windows side, this is where they make their profits up from the razor thin margines on the entry level machines.
I believe that this market, the $799 - $1599 + market would be the most attractive to Apple to expand in. Apple is in the unique position to offer very comptetatiively priced(re: or actually lower priced) SFF computers, in the mid to upper end computer market,than many of the PC/Windows manufacturers, precisely because Apple does not compete in the low end razor thin entry level market. The most glaring example of this is the Pro Mac, which on introduction was less expensive than Dell by several hundred dollars when compared feature for feature.
So going back the to original topic of this thread - Yes, it is time for a plain old Macintosh again.8)
It shows how expensive the workstation components on the Mac Pro are. comparing part to part, there is a $1300 retail difference between a 2.66ghz quad Xeon system and a 2.67ghz Conroe system on CPUs and motherboard.
People seem to think Apple is doing fine because they recently hit 6% marketshare. Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
I agree. Apple does well in the laptop market and high end workstation because they're machines are competitive. The home desktop market and the prosumer market aren't selling as well because Apple goes after niche customers.
. . . perhaps you can address the fallacy of the assertion that simply because the Mini is Apple's lowest price and therefore Apple's entry machine that it is in the same market as $275 entry level PCs and addressing the same customer demographics.
First off, put back what else I said -- that the Mini's price is low enough, so that a fair number of those in the entry level market buy it. Mr. H. suggested a Venn diagram, which may make discussion clearer. We may dissect a market in many ways, but usually it's either by product features or customer needs.
The set of all sub-$500 towers sells to many markets. Imagine this circle, which represents low priced towers, intersecting many circles of customers, such as schools, business offices, first time buyers, and others. This is where the cheap towers go, or who buys them. There is another circle for the SFF. It intersects some of the same customer circles as does the cheap tower circle, but the intersections have different populations. That is, cheap towers may be more popular than SFFs in some markets, but not in others.
What then do first time buyers buy? What product categories does their market circle intersect? Likely it intersects cheap towers, SFF, and low-end laptops the most, but also AIO, mid-range towers and to a lesser extent other products.
Quote:
In terms of relevancy I'll remind you that I'm not the one who brought up horse buggies or cars in the first place.
I was simply illustrating why it is more important for a company to understand the needs and wants of customers, rather than how well various categories of products are selling today. It helps a company plan tomorrow's product mix.
Quote:
You'll note that the first time we had this exact discussion about the Mini I simply informed you of the SFF market which you were unaware with no sarcasm whatsoever.
Yep. It stands for small form factor, an acronym I had not heard before. It is a product that sells into several different markets, however.
Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
From what I've read most of the desktop sales are from emerging markets. Most of this growth is in China and India which both have the fastest growing middle classes in the world. They are mostly buying sub-$1000 desktops. I'm not sure if this would help Apple very much.
Quote:
I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
For Apple to continue its recent success they have to continue to bring us new and exciting computers.
For Apple to continue its recent success they have to continue to bring us new and exciting computers.
Preach on! I feel so out of place trying to decide between an iMac and a Mac Pro. Neither is what I want, so it makes choice even more difficult. I think for now I'm going to have to live with a Mac Pro because there REALLY hasn't been any news about newer towers coming out. Guess you get what you get. However, if an xMac comes out a few days after I buy my REFURB or EDU or DEV Mac Pro... then I'll sell it and get an xMac. Because that is what I want. I loved someone's signature describing the Mac Pro as a Freighliner with a pickup bed. Indeed that is what it is to most users. Why spend 100k on that when you can spend 25k on a 3/4 ton truck.
Comments
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 your belief is that the demographics of Apple mini purchasers is the same as that of a $275 HP tower? Or is it your belief that Apple should be pursuing this demographic?
The $500 number is an upper bound, not an average.
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 . . ."
While the answer may be sarcastic but perhaps you can address the fallacy of the assertion that simply because the Mini is Apple's lowest price and therefore Apple's entry machine that it is in the same market as $275 entry level PCs and addressing the same customer demographics.
The Boxster is no less an entry level Porsche. It really IS what you buy when you can't afford a 911 and its positioned in Porsche's line up for just that reason. But it does not address the same customer demographic OR market segment as entry level offerings from Toyota or Honda.
In terms of relevancy I'll remind you that I'm not the one who brought up horse buggies or cars in the first place.
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.
Perhaps if you didn't steadfastly assert things that are not true I might not have to be so sarcastic. You'll note that the first time we had this exact discussion about the Mini I simply informed you of the SFF market which you were unaware with no sarcasm whatsoever.
I take it that you don't have an adequate rejoinder to
a) apple as a corporation has not shown any great expertise at pursuing a "cheap mac strategy" nor does Jobs' personality seem all that well suited for such a strategy
b) the sub-$500 market really does exist and the sub-$500 category is being fought over by the top 3 manufacturers and no Apple really isn't participating in this segment. See a) as a possibility of why. Or it could be they see no reason to engage in this market because there's no reason to.
c) the economies of scale favors Apple with their mobile parts in desktop strategy as it makes them appear to be 50% larger than they would be. This may be detrimental to their desktop offerings but may have some effect on their ability to compete in the more lucrative laptop market.
d) the product line structure is such that direct comparisons with either entry level sub-$500 machines and $700-$1000 value machines is difficult with Apple products which are priced significantly higher than their low margin PC equivalents (in terms of spec). The only place where direct comparisons are easy is in the one area that comparisons are favorable to Apple (i.e. workstations). By not competing in the tower form factor market (either $399 or $999) but in the AIO and SFF markets they can compare favorably to Windows offerings in the same categories (ie Gateway, Sony AIOs and Shuttle, AOpen SFFs) on either price, performance or both.
They can answer shortcomings on either price or performance vis a vis entry and value towers by simply pointing their form factor. Meanwhile they gain advantages in the notebook market as a side effect.
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
And this strategy seems far more successful than the market share strategy pursued a decade ago by a completely different Apple.
Vinea
d) the product line structure is such that direct comparisons with either entry level sub-$500 machines and $700-$1000 value machines is difficult with Apple products which are priced significantly higher than their low margin PC equivalents (in terms of spec). The only place where direct comparisons are easy is in the one area that comparisons are favorable to Apple (i.e. workstations). By not competing in the tower form factor market (either $399 or $999) but in the AIO and SFF markets they can compare favorably to Windows offerings in the same categories (ie Gateway, Sony AIOs and Shuttle, AOpen SFFs) on either price, performance or both.
They can answer shortcomings on either price or performance vis a vis entry and value towers by simply pointing their form factor. Meanwhile they gain advantages in the notebook market as a side effect.
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
It's all well and good that Apple is not going to battle others on price, but it's totally wrong to stay out of a whole market to avoid competition. That's defensive. You don't win in the technology market by being defensive. Certainly not by looking for excuses for shortcomings. That's something people do before they grow up. This is Apple we're talking about - the OS is key. There's no need to apologize when your box costs $200 more than something that only runs Windows and looks ugly.
An introduction of an xMac doesn't take away from the strength of the other machines. If things are as you suggest and their form factor and other characteristics make them worth the price, they will be fine. If not, some of those sales will convert into xMac sales and they get more first-time buyers.
The $400 market, obviously, is price dominated. Apple need not go there. The machine that best hits the untapped part of the market is priced the same as the low end iMac, but the part of the manufacturing and component cost that goes towards display in the iMac is spent on power and extensibility on the xMac. If Apple makes good profits off iMac, they will make good profits off this. Plus BTO options that cannot be put into an iMac. QED.
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.
Ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
So your belief is that the demographics of Apple mini purchasers is the same as that of a $275 HP tower? Or is it your belief that Apple should be pursuing this demographic?
For me: no and yes.
The $500 number is an upper bound, not an average.
So, whilst the Mini is not a member of the "budget PC" group, surely you accept that someone who is considering a $499 PC might look at a $599 PC and think the extra $100 is worth it? So a $599 PC can compete against budget PCs. This is what Snoopy is getting at.
I take it that you don't have an adequate rejoinder to
a) apple as a corporation has not shown any great expertise at pursuing a "cheap mac strategy" nor does Jobs' personality seem all that well suited for such a strategy
There are several reasons why this hasn't worked in the past:
1.) When the Mac platform was PPC, Apple had to do all the engineering themselves. They designed motherboard chipsets and motherboards, the former of which is especially time consuming and expensive. This had an impact on achievable price/performance of the cheaper machines and achievable margins.
2.) The range of PPC chips available to them then was far smaller than the range of Intel chips available now. Again, this had an impact on price/performance and margins.
3.) As well as offering "cheaper" Macs, the line-up was also a lot more complex. This meant that customers didn't know which machine to choose and most of the time Apple didn't even know what to recommend.
b) the sub-$500 market really does exist and the sub-$500 category is being fought over by the top 3 manufacturers and no Apple really isn't participating in this segment. See a) as a possibility of why. Or it could be they see no reason to engage in this market because there's no reason to.
I think it's dumb to ignore 51% of a market in which you compete. Apple, now that they are on the Intel hardware platform, can build profitable $399/499 computers. Yes, they will be less powerful than the Windows counterparts, but they would be significantly less ugly and run OS X.
c) the economies of scale favors Apple with their mobile parts in desktop strategy as it makes them appear to be 50% larger than they would be. This may be detrimental to their desktop offerings but may have some effect on their ability to compete in the more lucrative laptop market.
Short-term hit for long-term gain.
They deflect the natural strengths of Dell, HP, Gateway and Leveno by not meeting them head on in a pricing battle by moving the contest into a niche arena where they can win on their strengths AND make good margins.
If Apple offered a $399 or $499 PC, they wouldn't be entering a "pricing battle" with Dell et al. The Apple offering would have lower price/performance than the direct Windows counterparts. The draw would be form-factor elegance and OS X. Lowering the cost of entry for the Mac platform is not the same as a price war with PC makers.
Its simple except for the marketing guys and all the games they play.
No, it's "simple" except for marketing, finances, management and the very existence of the company.
But even after 25 pages of such a ridiculous thread, that doesn't seem to get into some people's heads.
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
And for that $1700, you'll have a machine marginally faster than a $600 Mac Mini. For the same price you have have a 2.4 or 2.6ghz Conroe. Xeon's big advantage is in high end multi-threaded environments. Per mhz, it's about as fast as conroe.
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
If by most apps, you mean Final, Cut Logic, and the like, yes. Most consumer applications or light professional apps are single or dual threaded. Having more than two cores actually changes things a little bit when it comes to programing. There is a good reason xeon workstations aren't selling like hotcakes on the PC side and it isn't user ignorance.
Ever heard of a Venn Diagram?
For me: no and yes.
So, whilst the Mini is not a member of the "budget PC" group, surely you accept that someone who is considering a $499 PC might look at a $599 PC and think the extra $100 is worth it? So a $599 PC can compete against budget PCs. This is what Snoopy is getting at.
There are several reasons why this hasn't worked in the past:
1.) When the Mac platform was PPC, Apple had to do all the engineering themselves. They designed motherboard chipsets and motherboards, the former of which is especially time consuming and expensive. This had an impact on achievable price/performance of the cheaper machines and achievable margins.
2.) The range of PPC chips available to them then was far smaller than the range of Intel chips available now. Again, this had an impact on price/performance and margins.
3.) As well as offering "cheaper" Macs, the line-up was also a lot more complex. This meant that customers didn't know which machine to choose and most of the time Apple didn't even know what to recommend.
I think it's dumb to ignore 51% of a market in which you compete. Apple, now that they are on the Intel hardware platform, can build profitable $399/499 computers. Yes, they will be less powerful than the Windows counterparts, but they would be significantly less ugly and run OS X.
Short-term hit for long-term gain.
If Apple offered a $399 or $499 PC, they wouldn't be entering a "pricing battle" with Dell et al. The Apple offering would have lower price/performance than the direct Windows counterparts. The draw would be form-factor elegance and OS X. Lowering the cost of entry for the Mac platform is not the same as a price war with PC makers.
If Apple wanted to they could easily have a $499 Mac Mini and a $799 iMac using the same margins by simply replacing the CPU in the lowest model with Celeron M 420 (Yonah) running 533mhz memory, and retaining the rest of the specs.
If Apple wanted to they could easily have a $499 Mac Mini ? using the same margins by simply replacing the CPU in the lowest model with Celeron M 420 (Yonah) running 533mhz memory, and retaining the rest of the specs.
Indeed. A few people were hoping/expecting that to happen when the Intel Mini first appeared (the Celeron M 420 wasn't available then). However, the Celeron M has now been available for a while and Apple haven't brought out a cheaper mini.
Indeed. A few people were hoping/expecting that to happen when the Intel Mini first appeared (the Celeron M 420 wasn't available then). However, the Celeron M has now been available for a while and Apple haven't brought out a cheaper mini.
Two reasons: $$$ and fear. Apple's distribution isn't set up for volume machines anyway. Consumers in this category are not likely to drive three hours to an apple store to check one out.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
And for that $1700, you'll have a machine marginally faster than a $600 Mac Mini..........
This in a round about way also indicates that on the PC/Windows side, this is where they make their profits up from the razor thin margines on the entry level machines.
I believe that this market, the $799 - $1599 + market would be the most attractive to Apple to expand in. Apple is in the unique position to offer very comptetatiively priced(re: or actually lower priced) SFF computers, in the mid to upper end computer market,than many of the PC/Windows manufacturers, precisely because Apple does not compete in the low end razor thin entry level market. The most glaring example of this is the Pro Mac, which on introduction was less expensive than Dell by several hundred dollars when compared feature for feature.
So going back the to original topic of this thread - Yes, it is time for a plain old Macintosh again.8)
People seem to think Apple is doing fine because they recently hit 6% marketshare. Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
Agreed and well said. I find this obvious in the extreme and for the life of me can not on any level see how it could be argued any other way.
This in a round about way also indicates that on the PC/Windows side, this is where they make their profits up from the razor thin margines on the entry level machines.
I believe that this market, the $799 - $1599 + market would be the most attractive to Apple to expand in. Apple is in the unique position to offer very comptetatiively priced(re: or actually lower priced) SFF computers, in the mid to upper end computer market,than many of the PC/Windows manufacturers, precisely because Apple does not compete in the low end razor thin entry level market. The most glaring example of this is the Pro Mac, which on introduction was less expensive than Dell by several hundred dollars when compared feature for feature.
So going back the to original topic of this thread - Yes, it is time for a plain old Macintosh again.8)
It shows how expensive the workstation components on the Mac Pro are. comparing part to part, there is a $1300 retail difference between a 2.66ghz quad Xeon system and a 2.67ghz Conroe system on CPUs and motherboard.
People seem to think Apple is doing fine because they recently hit 6% marketshare. Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
I agree. Apple does well in the laptop market and high end workstation because they're machines are competitive. The home desktop market and the prosumer market aren't selling as well because Apple goes after niche customers.
. . . perhaps you can address the fallacy of the assertion that simply because the Mini is Apple's lowest price and therefore Apple's entry machine that it is in the same market as $275 entry level PCs and addressing the same customer demographics.
First off, put back what else I said -- that the Mini's price is low enough, so that a fair number of those in the entry level market buy it. Mr. H. suggested a Venn diagram, which may make discussion clearer. We may dissect a market in many ways, but usually it's either by product features or customer needs.
The set of all sub-$500 towers sells to many markets. Imagine this circle, which represents low priced towers, intersecting many circles of customers, such as schools, business offices, first time buyers, and others. This is where the cheap towers go, or who buys them. There is another circle for the SFF. It intersects some of the same customer circles as does the cheap tower circle, but the intersections have different populations. That is, cheap towers may be more popular than SFFs in some markets, but not in others.
What then do first time buyers buy? What product categories does their market circle intersect? Likely it intersects cheap towers, SFF, and low-end laptops the most, but also AIO, mid-range towers and to a lesser extent other products.
In terms of relevancy I'll remind you that I'm not the one who brought up horse buggies or cars in the first place.
I was simply illustrating why it is more important for a company to understand the needs and wants of customers, rather than how well various categories of products are selling today. It helps a company plan tomorrow's product mix.
You'll note that the first time we had this exact discussion about the Mini I simply informed you of the SFF market which you were unaware with no sarcasm whatsoever.
Yep. It stands for small form factor, an acronym I had not heard before. It is a product that sells into several different markets, however.
Personally I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
Yet if you really look at the numbers they could be at 9% in both desktop and laptops. Currently these two segments are nearly even in sales 49% to 50% for the rest of the industry, for Apple it is split 33% to 67%. This shows that Apple has about 9% of the laptop marketshare but only 4% of the desktops. Therefore it's obvious at least to me something is wrong with their desktop lineup.
From what I've read most of the desktop sales are from emerging markets. Most of this growth is in China and India which both have the fastest growing middle classes in the world. They are mostly buying sub-$1000 desktops. I'm not sure if this would help Apple very much.
I believe Apple already knows this and is working on something, whether it's a Mac midtower or something else altogether is yet to be seen.
For Apple to continue its recent success they have to continue to bring us new and exciting computers.
Seems to be a better method than pulling a definition out of one's nether regions.
lol. Hilarious!
For Apple to continue its recent success they have to continue to bring us new and exciting computers.
Preach on! I feel so out of place trying to decide between an iMac and a Mac Pro. Neither is what I want, so it makes choice even more difficult. I think for now I'm going to have to live with a Mac Pro because there REALLY hasn't been any news about newer towers coming out. Guess you get what you get. However, if an xMac comes out a few days after I buy my REFURB or EDU or DEV Mac Pro... then I'll sell it and get an xMac. Because that is what I want. I loved someone's signature describing the Mac Pro as a Freighliner with a pickup bed. Indeed that is what it is to most users. Why spend 100k on that when you can spend 25k on a 3/4 ton truck.
For Apple to continue its recent success they have to continue to bring us new and exciting computers.
A-new = new form factor (not a mini, not an iMac, not a Mac Pro, not a notebook), so what?
mini-tower, cube, pizzabox, component, rack,...
B-exciting =
1- more performance than current ones at the same price (vs mini/iMac)
2- good performance at half the price (vs Mac Pro)
So what is better than Yonah/Merom but not as good/expensive as a dual-Woodcrest?
... Conroe, Kentsfield...
A+B=mini-tower, cube, pizzabox, component, rack,... with ... Conroe, Kentsfield...
thank you!
PS: don't forget to make them with 2 HD bays and 3 PCIe slots (or more).