Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market

[AtariKee]

So when I see people rattling off a list of rational sounding reasons why Apple would never ever ever ever ever produce a mid-cost, mid-range headless Mac, I just laugh at that. Apple has shown at this point that they will elude our best guesses every damn time. Nobody can say authoritatively that such a box will never happen, but it doesn't stop people from doing so.

And you know, the day Apple releases it, those same folks will be all over these forums talking about how brilliant it was that Apple did it.

Looking at Apple's history of making products smaller, thinner, and more portable, one would see yet ANOTHER in the myriad of reasons why a headless Mac is not in their future...

 

[IJ Reilly]

When did I say Apple needed to go rock bottom and cutthroat again? They'd be making even greater margins if they had just built the iMac around desktop processors like it did in the past.

This assumes knowledge that you can't possibly possess. Only Apple knows how much they pay Intel for their processors, and the design issues involved.

 

[Eidorian]

This assumes knowledge that you can't possibly possess. Only Apple knows how much they pay Intel for their processors, and the design issues involved.

If Apple is getting desktop prices for mobile processors then it's another story. There's a problem with the current processors reporting in as E8xxx series when Apple has stuck with mobile T5/7xxx processors. Intel could be making desktop processors for the GM/PM965 platform for all we know.

Let's not even try to wonder what Apple pays for the +$1,000 Extreme processors.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If Apple is getting desktop prices for mobile processors then it's another story.

It's already another story, because you are assuming that Apple would deliberately spend more than necessary for their processors for no reason.

 

[Eidorian]

It's already another story, because you are assuming that Apple would deliberately spend more than necessary for their processors for no reason.

I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would still be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.

 

[DMann]

we wouldn't be complaining if Apple went with LGA775 in the iMac in the first place.

When did I say Apple needed to go rock bottom and cutthroat again? They'd be making even greater margins if they had just built the iMac around desktop processors like it did in the past.

For one reason, a desktop processor would overheat in the iMac's thin enclosure. Until the 45nm Yorkfield and Wolfdale chips are available, it seems mobile processors will have to do.

 

[javierbds]

A sniper

Apple selects (one can even argue 'creates') it's own markets with an ability unmatched by any other in the prosumer market. Others that try to do as Apple fail, the ones that get targeted by Apple's interest start to sell/try to pick up. So I would qualify Apple as a "sniper". I would argue that this study has selected a market Apple has targeted and shown that Apple owns that market now.

A sniper cannot target the general market, it would be swamped. As far as the sniper can differentiate among the market into groups with special needs it can deliver specific products. The market in general will always be better served by GNU/Linux (Ubuntu), Windows "Corporate" whatever or Windows/XBox "Gamer" whatnot. MS is bound to lose a lot of lower-end market (the biggest) to Ubuntu and the likes (it seems it cannot continue forcing the world to use its lower OS "offer").

It is to be seen if Apple wants to enter a mid-tower market (Mac Pro Mini): probably not; or an SFF market (Mac Mini Pro): right now Apple prefers appliances (Apple TV, ) for some of the possible uses. The mini 'created' its own market and its main deficiencies could possibly be removed in the next Intel arch upgrade: integrated gpu and memory controller.

Sadly, the *only* machine that Apple thinks users should service/upgrade themselves is a pro server grade one. On others, the freedom a consumer has to evolve is very limited.

It is as if Apple would want consumers to be frozen in carbonite, but consumers evolve and not necessarily into a pro shop. So part of Apple's "magic" is taking the general-purpose out of computing ... Which creates a nice market for 3rd parties to try to bring it back, which later Apple targets ... I have no doubt that only the high quality of what Apple produces allows it to play well this game repeatedly. When the quality suffers or the target market moves, the game breaks and Apple gets into trouble. I think this Apple (without computer) is quite different from the original one ...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.

The point is simple. Apple would not spend more for a processor if they could spend less. Either they aren't paying more, or the design issues of the iMac require that they use the mobile processors. If you've got a good alternative explanation, then I'm all ears.

 

[BongoBanger]

Apple's market isn't geeks who tinker and constantly upgrade their boxes.

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

Steve's been back at Apple for over 10 years now, and some people STILL don't get it.

Oh we do - sell expensive units to people willing to pay money for the perception of usability and reliability. Quite simple really.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

Come on, who thinks about any company's profit margins when they buy a product?

 

[DMann]

Well, no. Apple's market is clearly people who are happy contributing to Apple's 25%+ profit margin on each unit.

And that 25% premium will more than pay for itself in hours of up-time and productivity.

Oh we do - sell expensive units to people willing to pay money for the perception of usability and reliability. Quite simple really.

This perception is very real. The reliability and usability, combined with the elegance and clutter free design make this choice a more sensible one.

 

[diamond.g]

The point is simple. Apple would not spend more for a processor if they could spend less. Either they aren't paying more, or the design issues of the iMac require that they use the mobile processors. If you've got a good alternative explanation, then I'm all ears.

Intel could be giving Apple a great deal on chips like they do for everyone that stays Intel only. I would imagine Apple is paying far less than the per 1000 quantity price we see everyone else paying.


Is that what you are meaning?

 

[nick9191]

I fail to see your point. Desktop processors would still be much cheaper then their equivalents mobile variant.

The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.png

 

[Eidorian]

The point is simple. Apple would not spend more for a processor if they could spend less. Either they aren't paying more, or the design issues of the iMac require that they use the mobile processors. If you've got a good alternative explanation, then I'm all ears.

Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history! I'm sure AidenShaw is more then familiar with the Core Duo launch and Apple.

Intel could be giving Apple a great deal on chips like they do for everyone that stays Intel only. I would imagine Apple is paying far less than the per 1000 quantity price we see everyone else paying.


Is that what you are meaning?

What about getting that cut on desktop processors instead?

The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.png

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have any experience with various Intel processors?

 

[diamond.g]

Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history! I'm sure AidenShaw is more then familiar with the Core Duo launch and Apple.
What about getting that cut on desktop processors instead?
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you have any experience with various Intel processors?

No arguments from me

I think the op doesn't realize that the mobile, and desktop dies are pulled off the same wafer (usually). The server dies are different due to the (insanely) larger cache.

 

[50548]

I agree with you, but I also think that Apple should try a little harder to keep the Mini up to date and offer at least SOMETHING decent in the sub $1,000.00 range so that more people can join the Mac family. Not too much to ask I think!

Those Mini purchasers would probably buy a more expensive Mac the next time around and it would allow a lot more people to become switchers as another form of easy transition halo effect.

I do not think that Apple has ruled the Mini out completely, and am pretty sure that something is gonna come soon.

In fact, ANY update to it means the existence of a very good entry-level Apple "headless" Mac, no matter how much rabid "xMac" fans try to deny it. The fact of the matter is: not even 5% of ordinary customers ever wish to install new GPUs, HDs or whatever in their machines. This is a silly habit from the PC side, which has grown accostumed to building ugly beige boxes with spare parts.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I have been an user in the Mac realm since 1994 . Only hobbyists and hardcore gamers would like an xMac...something that 99% of customers could not care less about.

 

[inkswamp]

Looking at Apple's history of making products smaller, thinner, and more portable, one would see yet ANOTHER in the myriad of reasons why a headless Mac is not in their future...

Really? The G5 case is smaller, thinner and more portable than the G4 before it? Did the Intel-based Mac Pro becomes smaller, thinner and more portable than the G5 PowerMacs? If so, I don't see it.

How about the iMac? That has progressively gotten bigger since the first iMac. It's gotten bigger since even the last version. It may be thinner, but it's bigger and no more portable.

The Mini has remained the same size since it's original release three years ago. No obvious movement toward smaller, thinner and more portable there.

I think you're selectively picking facts to support an already weak argument.

Again: almost NOBODY in the ordinary Apple market targets cares about upgradability (apart from MacPro customers). I have NEVER upgraded anything apart from RAM. HD: portable external. Sound system: external. Wireless keyboard/mouse: external. GPU? Never. Superdrive? Never. Airport? Never. Monitor? Never.

Wow, never worked with high-end users, I take it? Upgrading is always a concern for them. It's not always about being able to do something bigger and faster, but often about tailoring the hardware to work optimally for your own needs--and that's not just limited to high-end users. Home users need the same, just in smaller ways. Just because you've never done that, doesn't mean you should extrapolate your own experiences out to the rest of the world. Clearly, judging by Dell and HP's market share when compared to Apple, there are plenty of people out there who value being able to upgrade or customize their machine.

Now tell me: apart from bragging that you have a PCI slot: what do you really use it for, as a home user? Apple //e emulator card? x86 PC on a Mac card? Perhaps a home automation system? Yep, this is so early 90s and reaaaaaaaaaally relevant for Apple.

I had a fantastic PowerMac 7500 back in the late 90s. I loved it and it ran really well. It was a great machine, but I was using it during the big switchover from SCSI to USB and I found myself looking at an ever-increasing number of peripherals that I needed or wanted but couldn't use. A $35 PCI card added USB ports to the 7500 in about 15 minutes. If you think having expansion slots is all about being able to brag or being able to run some esoteric emulator (???), then I don't know what to say to you. It seems you're very entrenched in your views on this and want very much to pigeonhole anyone whose opinion runs counter to yours.

 

[mjteix]

Apple's business strategy is to build machines for specific markets and make a profit, not jump into the bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes just because a couple thousand geeks are crying for one.

What bugs me in this thread is that most detractors assume that another headless Mac absolutly means "bottom-scraping morass of building cheapo boxes".

Desktop components are not scrap or junk, they are just cheaper than mobile parts. That makes building a computer with desktop parts less expensive than an equivalent one with mobile parts.

mobile DC 2.40GHz cpu =$241 / desktop DC 2.40GHz cpu = $113
mobile DC 2.50GHz cpu =$316 / desktop DC 2.53GHz cpu = $133
mobile DC 2.60GHz cpu =$530 / desktop DC 2.66GHz cpu = $163
mobile DC 2.80GHz cpu =$851 / desktop DC 2.83GHz cpu = $163 (same as above)
mobile QC 2.53GHz cpu = $1,038 / desktop QC 2.50GHz cpu = $266

Desktop chipsets are not worse than mobile chipsets.

The size isn't even a problem anymore, Intel has/will have G45-based mini-ITX motherboards (6.75"x6.75") just a little bigger than the Mac mini.

If Apple wanted to, they could build a desktop Mac mini a tad bigger using desktop components that would cost less to manufacture and, if priced the same as the current Mac mini, would generate more margins. It would not be a cheapo/junk Mac.

At one time, people could say that Apple was doing economy of scale in build most of its computers based on the same platform, but it is not the case anymore. Each line has it's own chipset and cpus:
Mac mini: Napa chipset (GM945) and 1.83/2.00GHz 667FSB C2D cpus
MacBook: Santa Rosa chipset (GM965) and 2.10/2.40 800FSB Penryn cpus
MacBook Pro: Santa Rosa chipset (PM965) and 2.40/2.50/2.60 800FSB Penryn cpus
iMac: Custom chipset (Montevina-like) and 2.40/2.66/2.80/3.06 1066FSB custom penryn cpus

I really don't see why another desktop Mac (replacing or not the Mac mini) couldn't have "quality and design" because it uses less expensive desktop parts or couldn't generate the same kind of margins.

 

[DMann]

The new iMac everybody!

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj27/niceveritt/imac.png

No joke - place in a few more fans, more vents, a larger power supply, and there you have it. Desktop processors simply put out more heat than mobile processors do.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple didn't want to wait for the Core 2 Duo to have Intel based desktop Macs. They settled for the Core Duo and with Intel's mobile platform. The rest is history!

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

Expensive, mobile components are part of the compromise for the form factor of the Imac and Mini-mac.

A mini-tower, of course, has more flexibility for cooling options. A cheaper, faster desktop C2D or C2Q could easily be used in a stylish mini-tower.

 

[diamond.g]

Is it? They're using the C2D now, and they could have switched to the desktop processors at any time, if that was either feasible or more cost-effective. I still haven't heard a reasoned explanation for why Apple would choose to spend more on a component when the extra cost wasn't necessary.

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.


That would be my best guess. I mean they are using a desktop chip with a mobile package that has a TDP that is only 10W lower than the normal desktop part. I don't think 10W is that big of a deal, but people argue that it is.

Does Apple solder the cpus on the iMacs?

 

[Eidorian]

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.


That would be my best guess. I mean they are using a desktop chip with a mobile package that has a TDP that is only 10W lower than the normal desktop part. I don't think 10W is that big of a deal, but people argue that it is.

Does Apple solder the cpus on the iMacs?

The iMac has socketed processors.

There's also one more thing that can't be gleaned off of Intel's TDP listing. Slower clocked processors at 65W TDP are cooler then their 65W TDP suggests. It's a little obvious but it requires some research outside Intel's specification lists or personal experience.

TDP isn't always the temperature the processor runs at. It's a suggestion for builders on the cooling requirements. It's easy to get overclocked desktop processors on air and stock heatsinks that are still running cooler then an iMac.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Expensive, mobile components are part of the compromise for the form factor of the Imac and Mini-mac.

For the iMac, I would assume heat and size are something of an issue. Using mobile parts mean less power drawn which means less power needed in the PSU, smaller (thickness) case, etc.

I would suspect so. What I would not suspect is some nefarious scheme by Apple to use more expensive components and charge more "just because they can."

 

[BongoBanger]

And that 25% premium will more than pay for itself in hours of up-time and productivity.

Well, no. Not really. My Macbook is no more stable or productive than my work's Lenovo T60 although, in fairness, Lenovo's ain't cheap.

This perception is very real. The reliability and usability, combined with the elegance and clutter free design make this choice a more sensible one.

It's not though. There is a misconception that PCs are cluttered unusable devices which are less efficient than Macs and that's exactly what it is - a misconception. In my experience they're no better nor any worse.