Apple could really take over the market, but they won't!

[bf2008]

Hi! I really think that Apple has a very real chance of taking over the market with their amazing Apple Silicon CPUs, but unfortunately, due to their pricing strategies, they won't.
Think about it, they could really come up with affordable 16-core computers, such as a Mac Mini, or the long-awaited Mini-tower, but due to the way they overcharge for upgrades, that machine would have to be really expensive, so it won't really be a real competition to Windows machines.
Think about it, the base Mac Mini is 700 USD, but they charge 200 USD for 8gb of ram and another 200 USD for 256 gb of ssd. This pricing is much worse in Europe, where they just convert 1 USD = 1 EUR approximately.
So, if they released a Mac mini with 16 efficiency cores CPU, I think they would need to charge at least 400 USD for the upgrade.
Then if you want a Mac mini with 16 cores, 512gb ssd and 16gb of ram, you'll have to pay 1500 USD. And you still get a machine with all soldered components, not user upgradable, and with no possibility for a PCIe GPU.
Instead, you can get a cheaper Windows machine, with all upgradable components and powerful PCIe GPU.

As a fan of computers, I think that's a real pity and a missed opportunity. If they stopped charging so much for upgrades, and offered a lower entry point price, they could easily sell this 16 core mac mini for 1000 USD, at which point it would be a terrible threat to all Windows machines and would probably just take over the market.

For notebooks, perhaps it's a different story, because the M1 laptops are so much better than any Windows laptop. But to be a real competitor in the market, you need to offer also affordable and powerful desktops since those would increase the user-base of Mac OS, especially now when it's become a lot more incompatible, with their own architecture.

What are your thoughts?

 

[grahamwright1]

I think you are projecting and don't understand Apple's marketing positions. They have never produced low-cost hardware, rather have focused on creating what they feel is the best combination of features and ease-of-use for their customers (and can charge a price premium for that). Because they are very good at creating those types of products they have been very successful, but that does not mean they are suddenly going to focus on delivering products that are designed to compete with the lower cost products already out there.

It would be nice if more people could enjoy the really nice products that Apple produce, but I doubt they will ever try to compete in the low-cost market space.

 

[JeepGuy]

I think you are projecting and don't understand Apple's marketing positions. They have never produced low-cost hardware, rather have focused on creating what they feel is the best combination of features and ease-of-use for their customers (and can charge a price premium for that). Because they are very good at creating those types of products they have been very successful, but that does not mean they are suddenly going to focus on delivering products that are designed to compete with the lower cost products already out there.

It would be nice if more people could enjoy the really nice products that Apple produce, but I doubt they will ever try to compete in the low-cost market space.

I agree, apple is a premium product and the the price reflects that. Nobody wins in a race to the bottom.

 

[bobcomer]

They couldn't take over the market, even if they wanted to. (and they don't)

Sure, the M1 has a slight, and I mean slight, edge right now, but just throwing more cores into the mix wont change a thing in the bigger market.

Raw speed really doesn't mean much by itself, there's other bigger factors in what we all choose. The biggest is, does it run the software I need. The Mac is only a small player in what it can run. Cost is another biggie, and that means low end too and Apple really doesn't want to go there. (for now!)

Also remember that something like a 16 core, or 32 core PC, really isn't needed by most people and really wouldn't be faster for them. Most of those cores will just be sitting idle for most of the time, not helping anything. A 16-core machine is only about 14 times faster than eicvalent single core machine, if, and only if, it's running enough stuff to occupy all the cores, and it has enough RAM and RAM bandwidth to feed it!

I personally use virtual machines for testing and developing software, and I can't even imagine a scenario where I'd need more than an 8 core machine. I don't even have a server available with more than 8 cores, and our very fastest server on the premises has just *1* core usable and 16G of RAM. (It's an IBM i midrange computer.) It's a screaming fast DB and application server.

 

[JPack]

Economies of scale.

AMD outperformed Intel for years but hasn't been able to move the needle.

Apple has about 5% of the PC market share. This means 95% of the market is producing ATX motherboards, power supplies, and standard DDR4 DIMMs. There's a significant cost advantage to that. Whether you're a school or business, many users simply don't need the power of an M1. Look at how many Sandy Bridge or Haswell systems are out there running Windows 10.

 

[Captain Trips]

I agree, apple is a premium product and the the price reflects that. Nobody wins in a race to the bottom.

Exactly, very good point about the race to the bottom. How many PC companies that engaged in the (last) PC race to the bottom are either:

• Out of business or acquired by someone else (Gateway, Compaq for example)
• Got out of the PC business but are still around (IBM)

You also don't see, for example, automotive companies like Porsche, Mercedes, Lexus, Ferrari and so on trying to sell cars at prices that compete with oh, say, Kia.