Then again, if you have an explanation about the pricing of the Mac Pro cpu options, I'll spend the time needed to read it.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
If that's the case then doesn't Apple concentrating on mobile parts and Woodcrest give them a better volume discount vis a vis Dell/HP/etc in the product segments they compete most in (ie laptops and to a much lesser extent workstations)?
If that's the case then doesn't Apple concentrating on mobile parts and Woodcrest give them a better volume discount vis a vis Dell/HP/etc in the product segments they compete most in (ie laptops and to a much lesser extent workstations)?
Vinea
Indeed. Your point about the desktops using laptops parts increasing the economies-of-scale for Apple is well made. I took the point on board and that's one of the reasons that I said ditching the Mini and replacing it with my proposed larger-than-a-mini-but-still-very-small-relative-to-most-PCs "mini-tower" would possibly result in a revenue and profits hit (although I don't think the hit would be severe) for the first year or so of its existence.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
That configuration at that price point offers another option without directly competing with the other computers.
The purpose of the $1699 Conroe is to provide some of functionality of the Mac Pro to people or businesses who do not need 4 - 8 processors or want to pay $2500.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
They main difference here is that Apple has consistent margins throughout their line. Dell sells consumer machines at a lower margin and makes up for it in the workstation and server markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That configuration at that price point offers another option without directly competing with the other computers.
The purpose of the $1699 Conroe is to provide some of functionality of the Mac Pro to people or businesses who do not need 4 - 8 processors or want to pay $2500.
And don't want to be locked into a screen or would like more than 2 DIMM-slots. Pretty much what Apple used to sell before they went iMac and SMP crazy.
Indeed. Your point about the desktops using laptops parts increasing the economies-of-scale for Apple is well made. I took the point on board and that's one of the reasons that I said ditching the Mini and replacing it . . . would possibly result in a revenue and profits hit . . .
It may be worth a small hit if the end result is more sales, at Apple's normal margins. On the other hand, we are only guessing I think. Also, with the rapid growth in Mac laptop sales, Apple may soon get more economy of scale without the help of desktop products.
Quote:
. . . ditching the Mini and replacing it with my proposed larger-than-a-mini-but-still-very-small-relative-to-most-PCs "mini-tower". . .
I like the Mac mini tower suggestion for all the reasons that have been stated already. However, I don't believe it is the proper replacement for the Mac Mini. Sure a tower could be made cheaply enough, but I would like to see the "Grown Up" Mac Mini, with standard components and a lower price, and possibly a bay for an extra HDD, but I could be talked out of that one.
A good looking Mac Mini Tower would have unnecessary costs. Its Apple designed case for example. I don't know, but suspect that a really cheap version of the mini tower would need a different motherboard, for use with a different, lower cost CPU and memory, and adding on-board graphics. If such changes are necessary, I think the effort would be better spent on designing a grown up Mini. This way, the Mini isn't abandoned, but simply changed.
I don't see how replacing the mini or developing a bigger mini really helps Apple in any way.
How many people buy the Mac Mini because it's oh-so-tiny, and how many buy it because it's the cheapest Mac? For the ones who buy it because it's oh-so-tiny, how much bigger could it be before they were put off?
Making the Mac Mini a bit bigger so that it can use desktop parts instead of laptop parts and have one (or maybe two, at a push) PCIe slots, means that the machine can start a lower price ($399) and scale all the way to $1999.
The line-up would have two motherboards: one based on the iMac MB, the other a new motherboard to support Conroe. The low-end machines would have the iMac-derived MB and use a Celeron 430M processor and integrated graphics, the PCIe slot could be used to offer higher-spec graphics on more expensive models, which would also have Meroms instead of Celerons.
The models from $799 up would have the new MB with Conroe and desktop RAM.
The machine still appeals to those who want a small machine (it would still be significantly smaller than your average PC), and there could be options to have a laptop HDD in a special rubber-padded caddy and an oversized heatsink on the CPU for those who want a silent (or near silent) machine.
Of course, if you introduced this machine, you wouldn't have to get rid of the Mac Mini, it's just that I think if it were introduced, Mac Mini sales would dry up and it wouldn't be worth producing it any more.
Graphic Card (middle range and push graphic cards in Mac Pro to top notch graphic card)
Reasonable price $1699?
Why would anyone pay $1699 for that when you can get the same specs from Dell or HP for half the price (that's not an exaggeration, it really is half the price)? A more reasonable price point for your suggestion is $1099. It's $300 (instead of $850) more than the PC competition, but, it's smaller, more elegant, runs OS X and is made by Apple. I can see those things being worth $300 to a potential switcher, but worth $850? Not likely.
Making the Mac Mini a bit bigger so that it can use desktop parts instead of laptop parts and have one (or maybe two, at a push) PCIe slots, means that the machine can start a lower price ($399) and scale all the way to $1999.
It also means that Apple would be selling a product you can get from dozens of other manufacturers.
You guys described a computer you want. That did not explain how it would benefit Apple.
Quote:
Why would anyone pay $1699 for that when you can get the same specs from Dell or HP for half the price (that's not an exaggeration, it really is half the price)?
You are speaking of the slowest cheapest Conroe options. I'm my $1699 config I'm talking about the E6700 2.67 Ghz Conroe with an ATI X1650XT.
You guys described a computer you want. That did not explain how it would benefit Apple.
The items on my list mean higher sales for the Mini. Did I forget to add that? It's true that I'm speaking of a low cost Mac Mini replacement, not a much higher performance machine.
The items on my list mean higher sales for the Mini. Did I forget to add that? It's true that I'm speaking of a low cost Mac Mini replacement, not a much higher performance machine.
That's a broad assumption.
But for the sake of argument lets say this does happen. Its not very likely Wallstreet will be to thrilled about Apple selling more numbers of less expensive computers. Wallstreet wants Apple to sell more numbers of expensive computers.
Comments
Is this "single Conroe" a dual-core chip?
All Conroes are dual-core. The only difference between them and WoodCrest is the FSB speed and the fact they can't be used in multi-processor systems.
Is this "single Conroe" a dual-core chip?
They don't make them single core.
All Conroes are dual-core. The only difference between them and WoodCrest is the FSB speed and the fact they can't be used in multi-processor systems.
And socket type. Woodcrest has 771 pins, Conroe has 775.
Then again, if you have an explanation about the pricing of the Mac Pro cpu options, I'll spend the time needed to read it.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
If that's the case then doesn't Apple concentrating on mobile parts and Woodcrest give them a better volume discount vis a vis Dell/HP/etc in the product segments they compete most in (ie laptops and to a much lesser extent workstations)?
Vinea
If that's the case then doesn't Apple concentrating on mobile parts and Woodcrest give them a better volume discount vis a vis Dell/HP/etc in the product segments they compete most in (ie laptops and to a much lesser extent workstations)?
Vinea
Indeed. Your point about the desktops using laptops parts increasing the economies-of-scale for Apple is well made. I took the point on board and that's one of the reasons that I said ditching the Mini and replacing it with my proposed larger-than-a-mini-but-still-very-small-relative-to-most-PCs "mini-tower" would possibly result in a revenue and profits hit (although I don't think the hit would be severe) for the first year or so of its existence.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
That configuration at that price point offers another option without directly competing with the other computers.
The purpose of the $1699 Conroe is to provide some of functionality of the Mac Pro to people or businesses who do not need 4 - 8 processors or want to pay $2500.
Isn't one possible solution obvious? The margins on the 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz models are higher than on the 2.66 one.
Intel have gone on the record (can't find a link anymore but I definitely read it somewhere reputable) that they don't offer anyone preferential treatment. The prices they charge are the same for everyone and depend on the number of processors being bought. i.e. if Apple and Dell are buying 150,000 Woodcrests each, they will be charged the same price.
They main difference here is that Apple has consistent margins throughout their line. Dell sells consumer machines at a lower margin and makes up for it in the workstation and server markets.
That configuration at that price point offers another option without directly competing with the other computers.
The purpose of the $1699 Conroe is to provide some of functionality of the Mac Pro to people or businesses who do not need 4 - 8 processors or want to pay $2500.
And don't want to be locked into a screen or would like more than 2 DIMM-slots. Pretty much what Apple used to sell before they went iMac and SMP crazy.
Indeed. Your point about the desktops using laptops parts increasing the economies-of-scale for Apple is well made. I took the point on board and that's one of the reasons that I said ditching the Mini and replacing it . . . would possibly result in a revenue and profits hit . . .
It may be worth a small hit if the end result is more sales, at Apple's normal margins. On the other hand, we are only guessing I think. Also, with the rapid growth in Mac laptop sales, Apple may soon get more economy of scale without the help of desktop products.
. . . ditching the Mini and replacing it with my proposed larger-than-a-mini-but-still-very-small-relative-to-most-PCs "mini-tower". . .
I like the Mac mini tower suggestion for all the reasons that have been stated already. However, I don't believe it is the proper replacement for the Mac Mini. Sure a tower could be made cheaply enough, but I would like to see the "Grown Up" Mac Mini, with standard components and a lower price, and possibly a bay for an extra HDD, but I could be talked out of that one.
A good looking Mac Mini Tower would have unnecessary costs. Its Apple designed case for example. I don't know, but suspect that a really cheap version of the mini tower would need a different motherboard, for use with a different, lower cost CPU and memory, and adding on-board graphics. If such changes are necessary, I think the effort would be better spent on designing a grown up Mini. This way, the Mini isn't abandoned, but simply changed.
"Grown Up" Mac Mini, with standard components and a lower price
I don't see how replacing the mini or developing a bigger mini really helps Apple in any way.
IMHO,
Mac Cube
--------------------------------
Conroe Based CPU
250 GB HDD
1GB RAM
Graphic Card (middle range and push graphic cards in Mac Pro to top notch graphic card)
Reasonable price $1699?
it will be just nice between Mac Mini and Mac Pro, leaving iMac to different consumers, it could be a hit with raw power it offers compared to iMac.
iMac is value machine, it will fight with Mac Cube/Towers... APPLE only knows the return of Mac Cube ...
I don't see how replacing the mini or developing a bigger mini really helps Apple in any way.
How many people buy the Mac Mini because it's oh-so-tiny, and how many buy it because it's the cheapest Mac? For the ones who buy it because it's oh-so-tiny, how much bigger could it be before they were put off?
Making the Mac Mini a bit bigger so that it can use desktop parts instead of laptop parts and have one (or maybe two, at a push) PCIe slots, means that the machine can start a lower price ($399) and scale all the way to $1999.
The line-up would have two motherboards: one based on the iMac MB, the other a new motherboard to support Conroe. The low-end machines would have the iMac-derived MB and use a Celeron 430M processor and integrated graphics, the PCIe slot could be used to offer higher-spec graphics on more expensive models, which would also have Meroms instead of Celerons.
The models from $799 up would have the new MB with Conroe and desktop RAM.
The machine still appeals to those who want a small machine (it would still be significantly smaller than your average PC), and there could be options to have a laptop HDD in a special rubber-padded caddy and an oversized heatsink on the CPU for those who want a silent (or near silent) machine.
Of course, if you introduced this machine, you wouldn't have to get rid of the Mac Mini, it's just that I think if it were introduced, Mac Mini sales would dry up and it wouldn't be worth producing it any more.
I don't see how replacing the mini or developing a bigger mini really helps Apple in any way.
I'll start a list:
1. Lower cost parts mean lower prices, more profit or a little of both.
2. Apple can offer much larger HDD options, which could be important with iTV.
3. Much more RAM.
4. More competitive feature for feature with the Windows world.
5. Internal power supply. For some reason, Sony touts its PS 3 built-in supply over the xBox 360's external.
6. Anyone else have something to add?
Mac Cube
--------------------------------
Conroe Based CPU
250 GB HDD
1GB RAM
Graphic Card (middle range and push graphic cards in Mac Pro to top notch graphic card)
Reasonable price $1699?
Why would anyone pay $1699 for that when you can get the same specs from Dell or HP for half the price (that's not an exaggeration, it really is half the price)? A more reasonable price point for your suggestion is $1099. It's $300 (instead of $850) more than the PC competition, but, it's smaller, more elegant, runs OS X and is made by Apple. I can see those things being worth $300 to a potential switcher, but worth $850? Not likely.
Making the Mac Mini a bit bigger so that it can use desktop parts instead of laptop parts and have one (or maybe two, at a push) PCIe slots, means that the machine can start a lower price ($399) and scale all the way to $1999.
It also means that Apple would be selling a product you can get from dozens of other manufacturers.
It also means that Apple would be selling a product you can get from dozens of other manufacturers.
No, it wouldn't. What I'm talking about is still a small machine, would have Apple's usual touch of industrial design class, and, hello? Run OS X.
Why would anyone pay $1699 for that when you can get the same specs from Dell or HP for half the price (that's not an exaggeration, it really is half the price)?
You are speaking of the slowest cheapest Conroe options. I'm my $1699 config I'm talking about the E6700 2.67 Ghz Conroe with an ATI X1650XT.
You guys described a computer you want. That did not explain how it would benefit Apple.
The items on my list mean higher sales for the Mini. Did I forget to add that? It's true that I'm speaking of a low cost Mac Mini replacement, not a much higher performance machine.
The items on my list mean higher sales for the Mini. Did I forget to add that? It's true that I'm speaking of a low cost Mac Mini replacement, not a much higher performance machine.
That's a broad assumption.
But for the sake of argument lets say this does happen. Its not very likely Wallstreet will be to thrilled about Apple selling more numbers of less expensive computers. Wallstreet wants Apple to sell more numbers of expensive computers.