23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[blackstarliner]

What would be the incentive to buy? The Apple brand, OS and design can only get you so far when you're selling a product that's inferior in the most important respect.

I think this is the point. It isn't the 'most important respect' to the target market. The brand, OS, design and the thing you missed out from the list, the ability to run MS OS natively are all crucial to switchers. Switchers don't switch because of performance one way or the other. An intel mini has more than enough for most switchers (including me). See Apple's recent sales figures for evidence of this.

The fact that the intel macs can dual boot has (re)created this PC/Gamer Mac controversy. If you can run the MS OS, you can game easily. Or you could if there was a Gamer Mac. The fact that only 304 people in the world would buy one is another matter.

I say Mac plus console is the best of both worlds.

 

[Peace]

I'm repeating it often enough - soon it will be fact !

I'm actually with you on that.i'd love to see a nice looking Apple mini tower.

Redesign the cube!!

 

[50548]

That was the old PowerPC Apple.

The new Intel Apple just buys parts from Intel and others, and assembles them.

There's still R&D, but now Apple is much more like Dell than it used to be.

Please back your weak assertion with facts...otherwise you're gonna sound as glib as in your other predictions regarding the Powerbook G5 (oops, MiniTower Mac), or in your always biased view on Apple and Macs.

For a whole fiscal year, Dell invested $463 million in R&D, or a paltry 0,8% of its revenue/sales.

For just a quarter, Apple invested $182 million in R&D, a much fatter 3% of its revenue/sales (and this only because of a quick increase in sales for Q1 2006). This means Apple invests at least 3x more than Dell in research and development, compared to its revenue. And in absolute terms you may also calculate the figures...it's easy maths.

Now tell me, who invests more in R&D, EVEN considering that Dell is still much bigger than Apple in terms of units and market share? And yes, those figures come from official 10-Q forms.

Better be silent than outspoken sometimes, believe me.

 

[Peace]

Please back your weak assertion with facts...otherwise you're gonna sound as glib as in your other predictions regarding the Powerbook G5 (oops, MiniTower Mac), or in your always biased view on Apple and Macs.

For a whole fiscal year, Dell invested $463 million in R&D, or a paltry 0,8% of its revenue/sales.

For just a quarter, Apple invested $182 million in R&D, a much fatter 3% of its revenue/sales (and this only because of a quick increase in sales for Q1 2006). This means Apple invests at least 3x more than Dell in research and development, compared to its revenue. And in absolute terms you may also calculate the figures...it's easy maths.

Now tell me, who invests more in R&D, EVEN considering that Dell is still much bigger than Apple in terms of units and market share? And yes, those figures come from official 10-Q forms.

Better be silent than outspoken sometimes, believe me.

Well using simple math :

Dell spent $463 million
Apple spent $182 million

I'd say Dell spent more.

[edit] oops! you said quarter..[/edit]
Apple spent $728 million..

Apple wins!!

 

[Manic Mouse]

I think this is the point. It isn't the 'most important respect' to the target market. The brand, OS, design and the thing you missed out from the list, the ability to run MS OS natively are all crucial to switchers. Switchers don't switch because of performance one way or the other. An intel mini has more than enough for most switchers (including me). See Apple's recent sales figures for evidence of this.

The fact that the intel macs can dual boot has (re)created this PC/Gamer Mac controversy. If you can run the MS OS, you can game easily. Or you could if there was a Gamer Mac. The fact that only 304 people in the world would buy one is another matter.

I say Mac plus console is the best of both worlds.

For me, personally, the only reason to run windows on my Mac would be to play games on it so perhaps I'm letting my own needs influence my thinking too much on that issue. I have a 360 for gaming, and I agree that consoles are generally better. However there are some games that will always be better on PCs like strategy games and MMORPGs.

As for the Mac's "target audience"... Don't you think that is something that Apple are trying to expand on? Selling Macs to die hard Mac fans isn't going to get them a huge market share very quickly. And Apple have been trying to branch out to who they appeal to: First with the switch to Intel (and the iPod), next with BootCamp and finally with competitively priced MacBooks and Mac Pros. They themselves compared their products to DELLs in the WWDC keynote in relation to price vs. performance, and said they want to "bust the myth that Macs are more expensive".

 

[MikeDTyke]

Not peeved (as in ), but your statements remind me of the adage attributed to Hitler:

"repeat a lie often enough and people come to believe it as fact"​

You've repeated your assertion as fact several times, and I felt the need to ask for proof.

I don't believe any of us here (at least, no one who is posting ) know much about the actual terms and conditions of the agreements between Apple and Intel - and definitely not enough to make a knowledgeable comment as to whether the discount structure would affect any decision to use a Conroe in the upcoming mini-tower.

Ok, now i know you're a troll! comparing my statements to the most reviled man in history is not only insulting but an unfair characterisation.

I never claimed to have any insider knowledge. Its basic economics 101 and an observation of what Apple has delivered over the last 3 years. Which is the streamlining and standardisation of components to keep themselves competitive whilst preserving the fat 20%+ margins.

They don't cater to your market, and if you hold your breath waiting for the contents of your sig, well you won't be missed.

Adios

M.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Well using simple math :

Dell spent $463 million
Apple spent $182 million

I'd say Dell spent more.

[edit] oops! you said quarter..[/edit]
Apple spent $728 million..

Apple wins!!

Apple were transitioning from one processor type to a completely different one this year, don't forget. I suspect that would eat up a big chunk of that $728 R&D. Apple also have iPod R&D to account for as well, which is irrelevant to the Mac line.

 

[AidenShaw]

Now tell me, who invests more in R&D, EVEN considering that Dell is still much bigger than Apple in terms of units and market share?

My post was clearly meant to contrast the hardware R&D from the custom silicon PowerPC days, with the current situation where almost everything on the board is an off-the-shelf component.

I didn't mention anything about whether Apple or Dell spent more, so I'll skip that tangent.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/163027/[/urlhttps://forums.macrumors.com/threads/163027/[/url​

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/163027/[/url

 

[BenRoethig]

I'm not sure Apple is too concerned with direct performance comparison in the consumer space. They've not made a big deal of it the past. Pro desktops always got the benchmark lovin.

I think, and this is only an opinion, Apple is more concerned with the overall user experience of its consumer boxes and that includes the flat low profile wow designs rather than bare metal grunt. You only have to look at their graphics card choices to see that.

M.

Apple's traditional market, at least in the second jobs era, has been those more concerned about user experience than power. They have that covered brilliantly with the iMac. That being said, there is a sizable consumer/lower professional group that wants both. There are those who say this is a small group on the PC side, but remember what is considered niche on the PC side, we call mega sales.

As for the rumored 23" iMacs, it only makes sense to me if LCD prices have dropped enough to offer 20 and 23 displays at the previous price points. A super iMac with large price tag seems to me to be a niche product, even for Apple.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Apple's traditional market, at least in the second jobs era, has been those more concerned about user experience than power. They have that covered brilliantly with the iMac. That being said, there is a sizable consumer/lower professional group that wants both. There are those who say this is a small group on the PC side, but remember what is considered niche on the PC side, we call mega sales.

As for the rumored 23" iMacs, it only makes sense to me if LCD prices have dropped enough to offer 20 and 23 displays at the previous price points. A super iMac with large price tag seems to me to be a niche product, even for Apple.

+1

This man speaketh the truth!

 

[Peace]

Apple's traditional market, at least in the second jobs era, has been those more concerned about user experience than power. They have that covered brilliantly with the iMac. That being said, there is a sizable consumer/lower professional group that wants both. There are those who say this is a small group on the PC side, but remember what is considered niche on the PC side, we call mega sales.

As for the rumored 23" iMacs, it only makes sense to me if LCD prices have dropped enough to offer 20 and 23 displays at the previous price points. A super iMac with large price tag seems to me to be a niche product, even for Apple.

Apple lowered their prices on the ACD's a couple of weeks ago.

 

[blackstarliner]

As for the Mac's "target audience"... Don't you think that is something that Apple are trying to expand on? Selling Macs to die hard Mac fans isn't going to get them a huge market share very quickly. And Apple have been trying to branch out to who they appeal to: First with the switch to Intel (and the iPod), next with BootCamp and finally with competitively priced MacBooks and Mac Pros. They themselves compared their products to DELLs in the WWDC keynote in relation to price vs. performance, and said they want to "bust the myth that Macs are more expensive".

Firstly, I was surprised that they did that explicit comparison to Dell too, but they were talking about their top-end product, the one and only power-focused mac in the range. Bang for buck in products marketed as 'power' products is fair enough.
But where apple will make their money is selling more units to people like myself. If I wanted to fiddle with the hardware, play games, do benchmarking or regular security patches, I wouldn't have switched. The demographic that won't switch because of the above is a tiny and insignificant market compared with the all-in-one 'it just works', nice interface, design and interesting brand items target market that Apple has been selling shed loads of minis and imacs and books to.

It would be a sweet machine for sure, but I guarantee that within 5 minutes of the launch, everyone will be saying 'it suxx, shuld i wait for the Bloodlust chip upgrade before skool'.

BTW - I understand that some games are much better on PC. But you can put one of them together for peanuts AND have a nice mini for the rest of the good stuff (for me it's 100% now, and it's only been a couple of months).

Edit to get back on topic: I would upgrade to a 23" imac just for kicks. She can have the mini and 19" acer

 

[Squire]

Okay...I have some questions. (I trust you can answer them, AS, without too much searching.

• Conroes are cheaper than Woodies
• Conroe chipsets are cheaper than Woody chipsets
• Conroe memory is cheaper than Woody memory
• A smaller case would be cheaper than the maxi-tower
• It would be smaller - the ProMac is simply enormous
• It could be a convertible, or available in two cases - mini-tower or Home-Theatre-PC pizza-box with tuners and PVR ability

Would the Conroe components be significantly cheaper for Apple? I mean, if there are 2 lines using Woodcrest, they'd be ordering Woodcrest components in much higher volume. And weren't people originally kind of surprised at the Mac Pro's pricing, praising it for being so reasonable? Just a thought.

Using the same enormous case would save Apple money but I imagine Apple could easily come up with another, more compact case without much difficulty.

-Squire

<edit> Never mind. I see that this has already been explored in post #661.

 

[javierbds]

Apple will stick to 2 chip lines wherever it can. If the Mac mini remains on Yonah, i'll have to rethink this theory. But maybe that'll only be a temporary measure. Maybe Apple has bought enough Yonahs to last them through to MWSF07.

M.

I'm sure Apple has got the same deal with Merom as it has with Yonah (the street has got the same deal, they cost the SAME).
Yonah is a middle step, there will be almost no production of Yonahs in 2007. But the problem is that current Meroms are just a middle step too !
(Frequencies apart) You are probably right, no Conroes for Apple ... At least we will have a 7600 GT rolleyes: ) on the iMacs, I do not want an ATI GPU !
The problem with that strategy, as we are seeing, is than it leaves a huge hole in the type of systems Apple can create:
I have never bought a Xeon-type CPU and I never will (neither ever bought a Pentium, I switched to AMD). I don't care for that type of stuff, it is not my area:

* I do not want to pay through the nose for a little bit of memory. 'Server' parts are (or have been historically) much pricier and of dubiuos superior quality, because they have very low production numbers.

* I do not need 4 cores now or next year. It is going to take time for sw to really take advantage of more than a couple of cores.

* I may spare myself the capacity to significantly upgrade my system iff : the system looks like it will be able to cope with new sw for at least 3 years. I do not feel like going the eBay route every couple of years ...

The iMac staying with Merom and ATI GPUs is not going to last for more than 3 years: by next year Intel is launching Santa Rosa, so Merom as we know it now, will need new logic boards ! The iMac has not enough graphic power NOW !

Now Conroe seems to be a much more stable a line: I could get a 1.83 MHz Conroe now and replace it with a low power quad Conroe in 2008 !
With laptop parts, everything changes too fast !

 

[setek]

Oh sorry, I didn't know that the MacRumors rules included a line that the user must be 100% sold on Mac. Sorry that only my portable is a Mac.

Exactly. I visit MacRumors every day, and I'm on a PC, have been a PC user all my life, and have never owned a Mac.

What, overall, is a better compliment to a product/service:

That I have blind faith in it, and would follow it without reason?

Or

That I made a decision based on a detailed comparation of several different products/services, and I made the choice to switch over to a Mac?

I'm just waiting for a C2D iMac, happy with Merom, happy with Conroe (though I don't think that's likely), and getting a 23" if it comes out

You can bypass the "an LCD becomes obselete far slower than the rest of the computer" by simply buying something awesome and not having to upgrade anything for ages.

 

[baxterbrittle]

You know it's one thing to have a passionate discussion about Apple's product matrix, but you and some others here really show your backside when you drag out the whole "like it or lump it" - "your either with us or against us" stupidity.

Yeah I guess I can see your point but what's really beginning to bug me is everyones constant comparison between Apple and Dell. "why aren't Apple more like dell? etc" Apple are not like Dell because they are not Dell and hopefully never will be. So if you are not happy with what Apple can offer you maybe you should look else where. You cannot expect or demand that a company who can see little benefit of a particular product in their product matrix make it just because you want them to. And seeings how you like to compare to cars sooo much - it's like saying to BMW "I demand you build me a Toyota!" "Why aren't you more like Toyota?" (This is not a reference to speed/performance so don't start saying how the Dell machines are just a fast).

As a long time Mac user I respect the way Apple handle their product matrix, although I wish for different things to come out, I do not demand nor expect them to. Apple has a clearly defined product range and this helps increase brand/product awareness resale value etc... People don't know what a Dell Optiplex GX220 is but they know what an iMac is. Ever since the switch to Intl people have been treating Apple like another Dell that can run OS X. This is just absurd and then there are comments saying "all my mates would buy Macs if they had a Mini Tower, they wouldn't use OS X but they'd run windows" Why buy a Mac then? The Mac will be more expensive in the end and they'll buy a Dell instead.*

Apple is not Dell - You want a Dell type Machine go and buy a Dell.

 

[ergle2]

This is just absurd and then there are comments saying "all my mates would buy Macs if they had a Mini Tower, they wouldn't use OS X but they'd run windows" Why buy a Mac then? The Mac will be more expensive in the end and they'll buy a Dell instead.*

As far as I'm concerned, the one and only reason to go with Apple is MacOS X. Having said that, I don't recall anyone making the claim people would buy Macs to run Windows. Dualbooting, sure.

Apple is not Dell - You want a Dell type Machine go and buy a Dell.

No, they're in direct competition with Dell for the same dollars -- now more than ever.

 

[BenRoethig]

Apple is not Dell - You want a Dell type Machine go and buy a Dell.

That kind of thinking is exactly what keeps the vastly superior Mac platform at such a low marketshare.

 

[technicolor]

That kind of thinking is exactly what keeps the vastly superior Mac platform at such a low marketshare.

Good.

 

[Squire]

I'm just waiting for a C2D iMac, happy with Merom, happy with Conroe (though I don't think that's likely), and getting a 23" if it comes out

That's probably the best attitude.

You can bypass the "an LCD becomes obselete far slower than the rest of the computer" by simply buying something awesome and not having to upgrade anything for ages.

Yes, and we can probably expect the high-end iMac to have pretty good specs. The current machines are already good-- obviously not good enough for everybody, but enough to suit the needs of your average user.

iMacs are great, especially for switchers. That's what I bought many moons ago. Personally, I want a tower system for my next mac but I certainly don't plan to throw away my 1GHz iMac G4. I won't even sell it; it's worth more to me than its actual resale value.

Yeah I guess I can see your point but what's really beginning to bug me is everyones constant comparison between Apple and Dell. "why aren't Apple more like dell? etc" Apple are not like Dell because they are not Dell and hopefully never will be. So if you are not happy with what Apple can offer you maybe you should look else where.

If the people you speak of were planning on running only Windows on their machines, your argument would hold more water. I don't think they are. Buying a Dell isn't an option for someone who uses OS X!

You cannot expect or demand that a company who can see little benefit of a particular product in their product matrix make it just because you want them to. And seeings how you like to compare to cars sooo much - it's like saying to BMW "I demand you build me a Toyota!" "Why aren't you more like Toyota?" (This is not a reference to speed/performance so don't start saying how the Dell machines are just a fast).

Poor comparison. It's like someome saying, "I wish BMW would build a hybrid."

Ever since the switch to Intl people have been treating Apple like another Dell that can run OS X. This is just absurd...

From the hardware side of things, that's what they are! They make computer hardware that just happens to look pretty. How is comparing Apple hardware to Dell's offerings so ridiculous? Intel processors? Check. NVidia graphics? Check. Seagate hard drives? Check...whatever. The comparison was more of a stretch during the PPC days but now, I think it's a valid one.

Apple is not Dell - You want a Dell type Machine go and buy a Dell.

Define "Dell type machine." Do you mean a personal computer? The things Apple has been making for a few decades? Look, I'm not trying to be abrasive but people are just saying that they wish Apple had something to bridge the gap between the mac mini (or iMac, depending on your stance) and the mac pro. What's wrong with that?

-Squire

 

[baxterbrittle]

And I bet that the MPM would make quite a few PC-users in to Apple's customers. They might not use OS X, but they would use Windows instead. And since Apple is a hardware-company, there shouldn't be any issues with that since Apple would still get their money.

Well actually I think we should all have an issue with that, I mean why continue development of OS X if we really should just buy macs to run windows, lets all buy macs to run just windows Apple will still make their money!

This is what I'm talking about. But what I'm getting at is there are people out there who say "Apple should bring out this, I'd consider switching if they had that". But then said product comes out, has some minor thing missing or different and is a little more expensive, so they buy a Dell.*

Yeah they use the same HDD CPU GPU's etc. that still don't make them a Dell. Why aren't they compared with Sony more often?

Can we get a Poll on here of people who think Apple is a like for like competitor with Dell?

 

[ergle2]

Well actually I think we should all have an issue with that, I mean why continue development of OS X if we really should just buy macs to run windows, lets all buy macs to run just windows Apple will still make their money!

No-one's saying you should use Windows. Some are saying there are people who may buy Macs to run Windows. It seems likely such people would be in the minority, since most people just run whatever OS comes with their system.

Beyond that, why do you care what they do? Such buyers are still subsidising the development of OS X even if they never use it.

More to the point, even if you do care, what can you do about it?

This is what I'm talking about. But what I'm getting at is there are people out there who say "Apple should bring out this, I'd consider switching if they had that". But then said product comes out, has some minor thing missing or different and is a little more expensive, so they buy a Dell.*

Yeah they use the same HDD CPU GPU's etc. that still don't make them a Dell. Why aren't they compared with Sony more often?

Can we get a Poll on here of people who think Apple is a like for like competitor with Dell?

Because when it comes to computers, outside of the very high end, Dell is the big boy on the block, and Apple is competing for the same $$$ as some of the market segments.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

iMac + 23" Display + Core 2 Duo = me buying a new iMac

 

[cervaro]

iMac + 23" Display + Core 2 Duo = me buying a new iMac

I have to echo those sentiments.

As a long time PC user of over 20 years, I've increasingly come to realise that a switch to a Mac is the only way forward for me. Hung on for the Intel switch this year, and now waiting for the possibility of a revised Imac this month before making the investment.

Ironically, my newest PC is a Dell, and it's been the most unreliable machine I've ever had. Most of the internal components have been replaced and it still gives me problems intermittently. Kept crashing with a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse that worked fine with a Shuttle PC. I presume the Bluetooth wireless combo is a lot more stable with the Imac?

Eagerly looking forward to a new chapter as a home computer user.

 

[Evangelion]

For a whole fiscal year, Dell invested $463 million in R&D, or a paltry 0,8% of its revenue/sales.

For just a quarter, Apple invested $182 million in R&D, a much fatter 3% of its revenue/sales (and this only because of a quick increase in sales for Q1 2006). This means Apple invests at least 3x more than Dell in research and development, compared to its revenue. And in absolute terms you may also calculate the figures...it's easy maths.

Now tell me, who invests more in R&D, EVEN considering that Dell is still much bigger than Apple in terms of units and market share? And yes, those figures come from official 10-Q forms.

Well, Dell spends their R&D on computers and maybe monitors, and that's about it. Apple spends it on computers, monitors, software (OS X, Xcode, iLife etc. etc.), iPod, iPod-accessories (iPod HiFi etc.), online-services (ITMS etc.) and other stuff (Airport, Airport Express etc.). Yes, Dell doesn't spend that much money on R&D, when you really think about it, but most of their R&D-money actually goes to their computers, whereas with Apple sizeable chunk of their R&D doesn't directly go to their computer-hardware as such.