You guys described a computer you want. That did not explain how it would benefit Apple.
Incorrect. I have no interest in a desktop Mac. I'm talking about a machine that I believe would help (in conjunction with other suggestions I have made) Apple to, over a period of a couple of years, significantly increase its user base by (for the trillionth time): lowering the cost of entry to the platform (the $399 config of my suggestion) and providing a real desktop computer in the mid-range space (the $799 + configs)
Since both of these things can be achieved with the same form-factor, that lowers the development and manufacturing costs for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
OK, so why not have a $1099 option with the 1.86 GHz Conroe and a slightly less powerful GPU?
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.
And so we are back at the cannibalisation argument. Perhaps Apple are approaching a hard limit on the number of purchasers willing to buy "expensive computers"? I believe that on the desktop side, this is true and in order to expand the user base, a lower cost of entry and a real mid-range desktop are required.
I'm saying keep the iMac, add this config. Some iMac sales will be cannibalised by the cheaper systems, but I think not that heavily. You (seemingly) and others disagree. So be it.
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.
$1099 Mac Cube, i guess then Mac Mini should go back to original price of $499, $599
I think that might have something to do with the fact that the 360's power brick is about 3 times the size of my PS2.
Whoa, I didn't know that. On the other hand, maybe the Mini's supply is too small for some of the performance upgrades folks seem to want for the Mini.
Looking at a $799 computer from Dell and looking at the Mac mini. When you pull both machines out of their boxes and you are looking at them.
What is the glaring difference between those two computers?
Once you figure that out is when you will see the reason why Apple does not sell a $999 desktop
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
1.) The proposed "mini tower" is still a lot smaller than your average PC.
2.) How many people are buying the Mini specifically for its size rather than its price? How much bigger could the Mini be and still be considered small?
3.) Are you suggesting that if Apple were to replace the Mini with a "mini tower", that they would actually loose current Mac users to AOpen (who make a "PC Mini") and Dell?
4.) You must have missed the part where I said that if the "mini tower" were introduced, Apple wouldn't have to immediately discontinue the Mini. It's just that I would expect Mini sales to dry up to a point where it's not worth producing any more.
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
1.) The proposed "mini tower" is still a lot smaller than your average PC.
Say cube sized? Or Shuttle sized since that's more common than the Cube ever was.
Perhaps there would be a viable one for Apple at $1499. Perhaps even a little less.
Quote:
2.) How many people are buying the Mini specifically for its size rather than its price? How much bigger could the Mini be and still be considered small?
The thing is rather cool in its form factor. Yes, its a combination of both price and size but it is a little more elegant than the larger Shuttle. Note many of the Shuttle barebones retails for more than your proposed $399 price. The mini-sized Shuttle X100 (core duo) retails for around $999, has 3.5" drives and a mxm vid card. Its a little deeper and larger than the mini. But it certainly is no cheaper.
The conroe based XPS SD37P2 barebones kit retails for $581.
The XPC SD32G2 barebones kit is cheaper at $293.99...but is drive, CPU and OS less (and IMHO kinda ugly but that's neither here nor there).
Quote:
3.) Are you suggesting that if Apple were to replace the Mini with a "mini tower", that they would actually loose current Mac users to AOpen (who make a "PC Mini") and Dell?
No, but you would likely lose a lot of iMac purchasers to the new mini tower. And a few Mac Pro buyers.
And you'd have to show that OSX is so compelling that more folks would buy it over the OS they are used to. There are a number of "really nice apps" for the OSX platform. No "killer apps" that I'm aware of.
The only thing IMHO that would bring significant share to OSX is a UMPC or Tablet that didn't suck. A mini-tower isn't compelling.
Quote:
4.) You must have missed the part where I said that if the "mini tower" were introduced, Apple wouldn't have to immediately discontinue the Mini. It's just that I would expect Mini sales to dry up to a point where it's not worth producing any more.
And arguably you could lump the AIOs into that category as well.
Note many of the Shuttle barebones retails for more than your proposed $399 price.
How large a company is Shuttle relative to Apple? Do they have anything like the economies of scale? On top of that, I think their margins are huge. And I agree, most of their "mini towers" are rather ugly.
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
The obvious of what I was attempting to point out. Is that a $799 Dell computer comes with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. The Mac mini for the same price does not.
If one were to buy a mini along with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, you will pay more than if you purchased the lowest cost iMac. This clearly shows Apple is all about maximizing the profit of its products.
If Apple were to introduce a middle tower. It would likely follow along the same pattern in its relationship to iMac.
Which is why Apple would more likely launch a $1699 tower than a $999 tower.
If one were to buy a mini along with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, you will pay more than if you purchased the lowest cost iMac. This clearly shows Apple is all about maximizing the profit of its products.
If Apple were to introduce a middle tower. It would likely follow along the same pattern in its relationship to iMac.
Yes, I agree. If Apple do come out with a mini-tower, I'd expect it to be more expensive than an iMac. What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
I can't remember whose sig used to read "Still waiting to be included in Apple's target market," (Eugene?) but with a nod to them, I've thrown in the towel. After nearly four years of waiting for a mid-range tower (still using my old Sawtooth G4), I just bought the 24" iMac/2.33/7600. Lemon Bon Bon's link to the Barefeats framerate specs pushed me over the edge. Now I just have to figure out what to do with my two 19" LCDs.
Yes, I agree. If Apple do come out with a mini-tower, I'd expect it to be more expensive than an iMac. What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
This is based on the fact that Apple has been struggling to be profitable over the last 10 years of pursuing the current strategy vs the "Golden years" profitability of the previous market share strategy? Yes, it struggled a bit in 2002 (and in 2001 when the cube sucked).
Meh...I dunno...seems to be working over the long term well enough.
I can't remember whose sig used to read "Still waiting to be included in Apple's target market," (Eugene?) but with a nod to them, I've thrown in the towel. After nearly four years of waiting for a mid-range tower (still using my old Sawtooth G4), I just bought the 24" iMac/2.33/7600. Lemon Bon Bon's link to the Barefeats framerate specs pushed me over the edge. Now I just have to figure out what to do with my two 19" LCDs.
What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
The marketshare race is running out of steam and profits. Apple is a small computer company. Why not sell to the richest niche.
Quote:
Why not just sell the OS with a Dongle for $300? Everyone gets the computer they want and the margin on the software is huge...
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.
Comments
You guys described a computer you want. That did not explain how it would benefit Apple.
Incorrect. I have no interest in a desktop Mac. I'm talking about a machine that I believe would help (in conjunction with other suggestions I have made) Apple to, over a period of a couple of years, significantly increase its user base by (for the trillionth time): lowering the cost of entry to the platform (the $399 config of my suggestion) and providing a real desktop computer in the mid-range space (the $799 + configs)
Since both of these things can be achieved with the same form-factor, that lowers the development and manufacturing costs for Apple.
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.
OK, so why not have a $1099 option with the 1.86 GHz Conroe and a slightly less powerful GPU?
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.
And so we are back at the cannibalisation argument. Perhaps Apple are approaching a hard limit on the number of purchasers willing to buy "expensive computers"? I believe that on the desktop side, this is true and in order to expand the user base, a lower cost of entry and a real mid-range desktop are required.
I'm saying keep the iMac, add this config. Some iMac sales will be cannibalised by the cheaper systems, but I think not that heavily. You (seemingly) and others disagree. So be it.
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.
$1099 Mac Cube, i guess then Mac Mini should go back to original price of $499, $599
I'll start a list:
5. Internal power supply. For some reason, Sony touts its PS 3 built-in supply over the xBox 360's external.
I think that might have something to do with the fact that the 360's power brick is about 3 times the size of my PS2.
I think that might have something to do with the fact that the 360's power brick is about 3 times the size of my PS2.
What is the glaring difference between those two computers?
Once you figure that out is when you will see the reason why Apple does not sell a $999 desktop
Looking at a $799 computer from Dell and looking at the Mac mini. When you pull both machines out of their boxes and you are looking at them.
What is the glaring difference between those two computers?
Once you figure that out is when you will see the reason why Apple does not sell a $999 desktop
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
1.) The proposed "mini tower" is still a lot smaller than your average PC.
2.) How many people are buying the Mini specifically for its size rather than its price? How much bigger could the Mini be and still be considered small?
3.) Are you suggesting that if Apple were to replace the Mini with a "mini tower", that they would actually loose current Mac users to AOpen (who make a "PC Mini") and Dell?
4.) You must have missed the part where I said that if the "mini tower" were introduced, Apple wouldn't have to immediately discontinue the Mini. It's just that I would expect Mini sales to dry up to a point where it's not worth producing any more.
A 8" x 8" x 8" enclosure could contain:
ONE optical drive,
TWO 3.5" HDs,
THREE 7" PCIe slots,
FOUR DDR2 RAM slots.
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
1.) The proposed "mini tower" is still a lot smaller than your average PC.
Say cube sized? Or Shuttle sized since that's more common than the Cube ever was.
Perhaps there would be a viable one for Apple at $1499. Perhaps even a little less.
2.) How many people are buying the Mini specifically for its size rather than its price? How much bigger could the Mini be and still be considered small?
The thing is rather cool in its form factor. Yes, its a combination of both price and size but it is a little more elegant than the larger Shuttle. Note many of the Shuttle barebones retails for more than your proposed $399 price. The mini-sized Shuttle X100 (core duo) retails for around $999, has 3.5" drives and a mxm vid card. Its a little deeper and larger than the mini. But it certainly is no cheaper.
The conroe based XPS SD37P2 barebones kit retails for $581.
http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/SD37P2.asp
The XPC SD32G2 barebones kit is cheaper at $293.99...but is drive, CPU and OS less (and IMHO kinda ugly but that's neither here nor there).
3.) Are you suggesting that if Apple were to replace the Mini with a "mini tower", that they would actually loose current Mac users to AOpen (who make a "PC Mini") and Dell?
No, but you would likely lose a lot of iMac purchasers to the new mini tower. And a few Mac Pro buyers.
And you'd have to show that OSX is so compelling that more folks would buy it over the OS they are used to. There are a number of "really nice apps" for the OSX platform. No "killer apps" that I'm aware of.
The only thing IMHO that would bring significant share to OSX is a UMPC or Tablet that didn't suck. A mini-tower isn't compelling.
4.) You must have missed the part where I said that if the "mini tower" were introduced, Apple wouldn't have to immediately discontinue the Mini. It's just that I would expect Mini sales to dry up to a point where it's not worth producing any more.
And arguably you could lump the AIOs into that category as well.
Vinea
This is not a computer but has the name right:
A 8" x 8" x 8" enclosure could contain:
ONE optical drive,
TWO 3.5" HDs,
THREE 7" PCIe slots,
FOUR DDR2 RAM slots.
Unless it picked up some techniques from the TARDIS, that's impossible given the proposed space.
Note many of the Shuttle barebones retails for more than your proposed $399 price.
How large a company is Shuttle relative to Apple? Do they have anything like the economies of scale? On top of that, I think their margins are huge. And I agree, most of their "mini towers" are rather ugly.
The fact that you and others keep on posting arguments like this indicates that you just don't understand what I am talking about.
The obvious of what I was attempting to point out. Is that a $799 Dell computer comes with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. The Mac mini for the same price does not.
If one were to buy a mini along with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, you will pay more than if you purchased the lowest cost iMac. This clearly shows Apple is all about maximizing the profit of its products.
If Apple were to introduce a middle tower. It would likely follow along the same pattern in its relationship to iMac.
Which is why Apple would more likely launch a $1699 tower than a $999 tower.
If one were to buy a mini along with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, you will pay more than if you purchased the lowest cost iMac. This clearly shows Apple is all about maximizing the profit of its products.
If Apple were to introduce a middle tower. It would likely follow along the same pattern in its relationship to iMac.
Yes, I agree. If Apple do come out with a mini-tower, I'd expect it to be more expensive than an iMac. What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
Yes, I agree. If Apple do come out with a mini-tower, I'd expect it to be more expensive than an iMac. What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
This is based on the fact that Apple has been struggling to be profitable over the last 10 years of pursuing the current strategy vs the "Golden years" profitability of the previous market share strategy? Yes, it struggled a bit in 2002 (and in 2001 when the cube sucked).
Meh...I dunno...seems to be working over the long term well enough.
Vinea
I can't remember whose sig used to read "Still waiting to be included in Apple's target market," (Eugene?) but with a nod to them, I've thrown in the towel. After nearly four years of waiting for a mid-range tower (still using my old Sawtooth G4), I just bought the 24" iMac/2.33/7600. Lemon Bon Bon's link to the Barefeats framerate specs pushed me over the edge. Now I just have to figure out what to do with my two 19" LCDs.
You can connect a second monitor to an iMac...
What I've been trying to explain is why I think that's not a good idea and why I don't think that it's the best way to maximise profit over the long term.
I think you are making price too important of a factor. Apple ultimately needs to keep introducing sexy and desirable machines. Any object desirable enough people will pay for it.
The marketshare race is running out of steam and profits. Apple is a small computer company. Why not sell to the richest niche.
Why not just sell the OS with a Dongle for $300? Everyone gets the computer they want and the margin on the software is huge...
We've already had long discussion about that. It wouldn't work.