Apple Halting Mac Component Orders Due to Overestimated Demand?

[iSayuSay]

Margins too

If Apple's sole goal here was to sell a ton of iMacs it could sell them @ cost. But Apple has goals: a) sell a ton of iMacs at b) a price that retains a healthy margin.

This report is from Digitimes so most intelligent people here take the news with a dusting of salt... a grain would be far too large. But for sake of argument let's say it is true. The problem is with estimating demand. What did Tim Cook not see?

We know generally that PC sales have been plummeting even as Mac sales have slight growth. Are Macs now catching "down" with PCs? If so its likely not a price point issue, but rather consumers tastes turning further from desktops to laptops and tablets.

Well Apple's margin is far more than healthy, it's hefty. Especially with their add-ons and high end options.

• retina MBP
• 768GB SSD on iMac
• RAM upgrade pricing
• 64GB and 128GB storage option on iPhone/iPod/iPad

They're really something to "WTFFFF" about..

Purely highway robbery. This kind of news (assuming it's true) is a good show that there is actually a limit of how much money people would pay for iSomething.

 

[pcd109]

overpriced

that's it. macs are extremely overpriced; at least in Europe. i was in the market for a macpro, but switched to windows 7. it's difficult for me, i have more then 10 years with Apple, BUT. the base imac(21,5"- witch you can't upgrade) costs 2000$ in Europe. this is because the greedy apple put the prices like this: 1299$=1299EU. well, actually 1,3$=1EU. so it's already 1688,7$ for the base imac! if you add the VAT, voilla, the base imac it's 2000$ ! it gets even worse on macpro. the base model(now they are not even sell them in EU) it's a bit over 3000$ and the dual 2,4 ghz 12 core it's something like 6000$. no wonder nobody buys the freaking things anymore. on this economic fall down i can't justify the prices for apple equipment. i mean, if i move to imac, well i can't even upgrade the RAM and hard disk and i don't have odd, and this is for at least 2k. i don't know what the folks at apple thinks about europe, but i don't have money growing in the tree in my backyard. for the price of the top model imac i can get a 12 core HP z620(300$ + for hp). for the price of middle 21,5" imac i can get a single xeon(1650 witch obliterates out off the water the core i7-3770K) z420 hp workstation. now, i guess apple don't give a squat about computers anymore. so if they can full some old loyalists to get they overpriced, under powered but oh so thin machines, ok. if not, they have itoys.

 

[fr33 loader]

Apple thrives on name perception and has built its image to be of a "premium" one. Sadly, we will never see it come down to regular Windows PC prices, either you can afford one or not. It'll forever be a niche product. It's currently enjoying huge popularity due to trickle effect of the iOS momentum. The only way to make Macs more attractive to more people without lowering their "premium" prices would be to add value to their product. They could add Blu-Ray, increase the RAM, increase the hard drive, add remote, extra cable, etc, etc.. and keep the same premium price. More appealing to customers while they keep their brand image of an expensive luxury item.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Apple thrives on name perception and has built its image to be of a "premium" one. ...

The ironic thing is that as PC makers push ultrabooks into mba pricing, apple becomes less of a premium company, and I think this lack of premiumness is also starting to hurt.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Well Apple's margin is far more than healthy, it's hefty. Especially with their add-ons and high end options.

• retina MBP
• 768GB SSD on iMac
• RAM upgrade pricing
• 64GB and 128GB storage option on iPhone/iPod/iPad

The point of my response was that Apple needs to keep those healthy margins. Sure it could lower prices to PC level to pump up sales volume, and kill its margins in the process. Stock price would tank and Apple quality would be shot. So do you really have a point to make? I don't see it.

 

[ggibson913]

It could be True

I bought my current MBP in November of 2011 and I can tell you that there aren't many compelling reasons for me to switch out. The reality is the only things I am 'lacking' is USB 3.0 support, a Retina Display, and perhaps an SSD drive. My little MBP does everything I need it to and still running strong. Apple builds quality products so with that comes and extended useful life.

I have been tempted to upgrade but frankly there isn't much need.

 

[LeandrodaFL]

Macmini is out of stock for several months now in my country in all the official retailers.....what the?

 

[HenryDJP]

I think I've used this example before, but very few people in their 20s today allocate a large amount of space for computer equipment unless it's a complex work related system. Obviously if you have hardware raid + backup + multiple displays + etc. that's different. Most just have a notebook that they set down anywhere or a small niche for whatever machine. In the case of Apple probably an imac. I'm not counting those with things like 5+ year old Windows boxes. It makes more sense to look at what people would purchase today if they are buying a machine and haven't yet decided where it will sit. I wonder how many people even remember the original cube. I'm only aware of it because of this site. I owned a G4 powerbook which was underpowered for my uses at the time then went back to a desktop when the G5s debuted.

They'd have to have a compelling reason to buy the Cube today over the iMac. I've been on Mac for over 15 years so I know the remember G4 Cube very well. It was a beautiful piece of art to look at and extremely expensive and very limited on ports due to it's design. Today's buyers aren't looking for the "headless iMac" as they may have touted years back. If that was the case the G4 Cube would've been successful. It wasn't. Apple had problems with it along with limited sales. The usual techie people like to upgrade machines way too often and keep up with the latest displays, especially since displays don't seem to have a long shelf life, so it wouldn't matter if they had a separate screen from the computer which is why the iMac has been selling so well.

The hilarious part about consumers is they only want what isn't "here", once it gets here they complain about it and don't buy it after all. Personally I was hoping Apple would've revamped the Cube about 5 years ago because I think it would've fit in at the time. Today, not so much.

----------

that's it. macs are extremely overpriced; at least in Europe. i was in the market for a macpro, but switched to windows 7. it's difficult for me, i have more then 10 years with Apple, BUT. the base imac(21,5"- witch you can't upgrade) costs 2000$ in Europe. this is because the greedy apple put the prices like this: 1299$=1299EU. well, actually 1,3$=1EU. so it's already 1688,7$ for the base imac! if you add the VAT, voilla, the base imac it's 2000$ ! it gets even worse on macpro. the base model(now they are not even sell them in EU) it's a bit over 3000$ and the dual 2,4 ghz 12 core it's something like 6000$. no wonder nobody buys the freaking things anymore. on this economic fall down i can't justify the prices for apple equipment. i mean, if i move to imac, well i can't even upgrade the RAM and hard disk and i don't have odd, and this is for at least 2k. i don't know what the folks at apple thinks about europe, but i don't have money growing in the tree in my backyard. for the price of the top model imac i can get a 12 core HP z620(300$ + for hp). for the price of middle 21,5" imac i can get a single xeon(1650 witch obliterates out off the water the core i7-3770K) z420 hp workstation. now, i guess apple don't give a squat about computers anymore. so if they can full some old loyalists to get they overpriced, under powered but oh so thin machines, ok. if not, they have itoys.

So why are you here on a Mac forum?

 

[Eidorian]

Today's buyers aren't looking for the "headless iMac" as they may have touted years back. If that was the case the G4 Cube would've been successful. It wasn't. Apple had problems with it along with limited sales.

I am sure it was not the price compared to the Power Mac G4 towers and iMac at the time. Mini-ITX is extremely popular. Lian Li and Silverstone have new Mini-ITX cases yearly. It is so popular even the crowded funded NCASE greatly exceeded its original goal. There is great interest in SSF computers, especially since you can drop in a GTX Titan into something that portable.

The usual techie people like to upgrade machines way too often and keep up with the latest displays, especially since displays don't seem to have a long shelf life, so it wouldn't matter if they had a separate screen from the computer which is why the iMac has been selling so well.

Display technology is one of the slowest unless you are looking for 120/144 Hz. 2560x1600 has been the gold standard for the upper limit of displays ever since the first 30" LCD rolled out. We are just now getting to higher resolution displays.

 

[thekev]

They'd have to have a compelling reason to buy the Cube today over the iMac. I've been on Mac for over 15 years so I know the remember G4 Cube very well. It was a beautiful piece of art to look at and extremely expensive and very limited on ports due to it's design. Today's buyers aren't looking for the "headless iMac" as they may have touted years back. If that was the case the G4 Cube would've been successful. It wasn't. Apple had problems with it along with limited sales.

It looks like it was pretty but underspecced and as you mentioned very limited on ports.

The usual techie people like to upgrade machines way too often and keep up with the latest displays, especially since displays don't seem to have a long shelf life, so it wouldn't matter if they had a separate screen from the computer which is why the iMac has been selling so well.

The hilarious part about consumers is they only want what isn't "here", once it gets here they complain about it and don't buy it after all. Personally I was hoping Apple would've revamped the Cube about 5 years ago because I think it would've fit in at the time. Today, not so much.

Well screens vary. Cheaper ones do go fast. Some of the higher end displays can retain good profiles, uniformity, and usable brightness levels for 10-20k hours. They're just expensive. Gaming displays have improved on refresh rates and pixel response times. If you're looking at professional quality displays, the quality hasn't gotten much better in the past 5 years. Prices are lower and the average display sizes are larger. It might be a little different in something super specific like broadcast or displays aimed at medical fields. I don't know that most people would replace them quickly unless they break or noticeably degrade in quality. Some of the older imac displays did not age well, so I could see them being replaced quickly even if they were separate purchases. The early lcd cinema displays also had horrible failure rates, especially compared to the aperture grill crts they replaced.

 

[Denzo]

Im a bit of an Apple whore.. but tbh.. the upgrades now across the industry are just not worth while.. I cant speak for the professionals who do art work or whatever.. but when I bought my iMac 27 in 2010 - I hadnt seen anything like it before. It was beautiful. It was fast. It did everything I needed. The computer it replaced was a piece of **** in comparison.

Thing is, the iMac still lives today, and there is no good reason to drop another $2500 on a new one. It plays all the games I need via windows, (EG BF3 at max res medium/high settings), and if it didn't id use my gaming PC for that.

But more importantly, it is still lightning quick for all the things I actually needed it for (university) and currently need it for (email, web browsing, videos, youtube, dropbox, iTunes, and the odd FaceTime session.

For me to want to drop another small fortune on a computer, it would have to be something vastly different to what I have already. And I suspect it would be the same thing for people with anything post 2006-ish.. If making your boot time go from 1 min to 30 sec is that important to you - fine - spend your months left over salary.. otherwise just buy an SSD drive and be done with it.

I dont think its Apples problem but its the PC in general - it got very good very fast and now they do what they should.

Also, to make a good brand, and to make people actually pay the 2xcost of a cheapie budget PC you have to build them well, so they actually last (otherwise no one will pay the premium) which gives you a good brand name, but I guess makes buying one an even bigger issue.

When you look at the old big pre LCD computers and you look at the current ones out there you say "wow".. and that "wow" occurred quite a while ago now, and hasn't really changed for a while..

This is just my opinion of course but Id like to think Im the average consumer if not more so.. but yeah im over upgrading every 2 years.. I did it with the Apple laptops, and what blew me away? My sisters 09 white macbook - chucked in an SSD and the thing is fine, just fine. Cost $200 to do.

I see prices coming down long term - just like it did for tapes, then CDs.. etc..

 

[Razeus]

Im a bit of an Apple whore.. but tbh.. the upgrades now across the industry are just not worth while.. I cant speak for the professionals who do art work or whatever.. but when I bought my iMac 27 in 2010 - I hadnt seen anything like it before. It was beautiful. It was fast. It did everything I needed. The computer it replaced was a piece of **** in comparison.

Thing is, the iMac still lives today, and there is no good reason to drop another $2500 on a new one. It plays all the games I need via windows, (EG BF3 at max res medium/high settings), and if it didn't id use my gaming PC for that.

But more importantly, it is still lightning quick for all the things I actually needed it for (university) and currently need it for (email, web browsing, videos, youtube, dropbox, iTunes, and the odd FaceTime session.

For me to want to drop another small fortune on a computer, it would have to be something vastly different to what I have already. And I suspect it would be the same thing for people with anything post 2006-ish.. If making your boot time go from 1 min to 30 sec is that important to you - fine - spend your months left over salary.. otherwise just buy an SSD drive and be done with it.

I dont think its Apples problem but its the PC in general - it got very good very fast and now they do what they should.

Also, to make a good brand, and to make people actually pay the 2xcost of a cheapie budget PC you have to build them well, so they actually last (otherwise no one will pay the premium) which gives you a good brand name, but I guess makes buying one an even bigger issue.

When you look at the old big pre LCD computers and you look at the current ones out there you say "wow".. and that "wow" occurred quite a while ago now, and hasn't really changed for a while..

This is just my opinion of course but Id like to think Im the average consumer if not more so.. but yeah im over upgrading every 2 years.. I did it with the Apple laptops, and what blew me away? My sisters 09 white macbook - chucked in an SSD and the thing is fine, just fine. Cost $200 to do.

I see prices coming down long term - just like it did for tapes, then CDs.. etc..

Pretty much. I don't think HP and Dell realize that computers don't need much upgrading these days. Especially if you bought one in the last couple of years. It's not a PC problem, it's not a Windows 8 problem. It's just that 95% of the consumers that use a computer, the common tasks are: 1) Facebook 2) email 3) iTunes/music listending 4) storing photos. You don't need Windows 8 or an 8 core CPU to do that. CPU's/GPU's are at a plateau and does more than they need to with plenty of headroom.

 

[Ma1Garv]

not upgrading

Hello everyone,

I'm currently using a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 4G of ram.
It operates nearly 24/7 and it still runs like a champ.

Photoshop CS4, FCPX and several other graphic arts programs work fine and get the job done.

The machine is in great shape and does what I want it to do.

I can say the same for my 4-year old mini and 3-year old IMac.

I'd like to get a new MacBook; it would be nice to have the speed boost but I don't have 2k. Apple has slowly angered me over the past couple of years. I've had problems with customer support and I do not want to be committed to the Apple ITunes ecosystem. The Apple way or the highway is getting old.

The company seems to me to be more about gizmos then computers and the drive to shave an ounce or two has become ridiculous.

Been using Apple since the 80's and I have a Woz in the attic and a bucket full of adapters.

Anyway… just looking for a diversion from what’s going on outside. I live in Boston.

Take care.

 

[pcd109]

Henry DJP:
[/COLOR]

So why are you here on a Mac forum? [/QUOTE]

because i still have several macs and a ton of software and works from 10+ years on this platform???

 

[Macboy Pro]

What else NEEDS to be cutting edge exactly? You have a manufacturer that is making a device that NO ONE else is making a year down the road (Yes I realize that FINALLY Google did it, and now Toshiba is joining in, but seriously it's like a year later and neither of them have matched the 15 inch resolution yet), and you can actually still have ground to call them stagnant? And it's not just thin, it's impossibly thin and light and has ridiculous battery life, all while powering an unprecedented leap in display tech. Oh it also runs quiet and cool due to asymmetrical fans. Oh and while they were at it, they made the speakers smaller, and better than the previous model. Apple can't help the blind. All they can do is continue being incredibly good at producing brilliant hardware.

Lol, ok Tim! Its a WAY overpriced laptop at current pricing and was absolutley embarrassingly priced when they first were announced.

 

[cmChimera]

Lol, ok Tim! Its a WAY overpriced laptop at current pricing and was absolutley embarrassingly priced when they first were announced.

Real substantial argument you made! There's currently no other computer like it, so define overpriced.

 

[tom vilsack]

Maybe the big money got this right? With apple shares in free fall,the smart money was telling us months ago that apple was not selling as much product as everyone thought.

 

[marialeon]

Nice one thanks for this.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Real substantial argument you made! There's currently no other computer like it, so define overpriced.

$1299 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1699 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

$1499 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1999 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

If you educate yourself on the price of laptops, I wont't need to. If you think that adding a retina screen to a laptop allows you to charge twice that of a comparable laptop, you must work for Apple.

You can disagree, but just remember, Apple figured it out to a point and backed off their original pricing due to lack of demand.

 

[pirg]

$1299 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1699 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

$1499 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1999 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

If you educate yourself on the price of laptops, I wont't need to. If you think that adding a retina screen to a laptop allows you to charge twice that of a comparable laptop, you must work for Apple.

You can disagree, but just remember, Apple figured it out to a point and backed off their original pricing due to lack of demand.

Agreed. Still nowhere near as bad as the chromebook pixel pricing. Now THAT is hilarious.

 

[cmChimera]

$1299 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1699 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 128GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

$1499 is a little overpriced is a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
$1999 is embarrassing for a 13" laptop with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.

If you educate yourself on the price of laptops, I wont't need to. If you think that adding a retina screen to a laptop allows you to charge twice that of a comparable laptop, you must work for Apple.

You can disagree, but just remember, Apple figured it out to a point and backed off their original pricing due to lack of demand.

Again, stating your conclusion doesn't actually prove your point. I'm also pretty familiar with laptop prices. You're disregarding the reasons why the retina MacBooks cost so much, and it's likely that you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Here's a link to an upcoming Toshiba laptop that competes with the Macbook Pro with Retina display. Notice that the starting price is actually MORE expensive. http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4235660/toshibas-high-res-kirabook-takes-on-the-macbook-air-and-pro-all-at

 

[adnbek]

Maybe the big money got this right? With apple shares in free fall,the smart money was telling us months ago that apple was not selling as much product as everyone thought.

Um... no.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/16/mac_profits_are_high_too_high.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...res_apple_and_samsung_have_the_whole_pie.html

 

[cat3600]

Again, stating your conclusion doesn't actually prove your point. I'm also pretty familiar with laptop prices. You're disregarding the reasons why the retina MacBooks cost so much, and it's likely that you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Here's a link to an upcoming Toshiba laptop that competes with the Macbook Pro with Retina display. Notice that the starting price is actually MORE expensive. http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4235660/toshibas-high-res-kirabook-takes-on-the-macbook-air-and-pro-all-at

More expensive justifiable IMHO as it does have a touch screen, which Macs don't have and touchscreen have to be comparably more expensive vs a regular screen for the same resolution!!

 

[cmChimera]

More expensive justifiable IMHO as it does have a touch screen, which Macs don't have and touchscreen have to be comparably more expensive vs a regular screen for the same resolution!!

That particular article doesn't seem to mention it, but the starting price does not include the touchscreen. Additionally, The Verge states that viewing angles are bad.

 

[class77]

More expensive justifiable IMHO as it does have a touch screen, which Macs don't have and touchscreen have to be comparably more expensive vs a regular screen for the same resolution!!

I don't know about you, but I want no part of a touchscreen computer! It's certainly not worth a premium