Hole in Mac lineup?

[Clive At Five]

No mystery. There's no way to cool a desktop CPU (and its power supply) in an iMac package.

That's nonsense. If they could fit a G5 in there, why wouldn't they have been able to fit a lower-watt desktop-grade Core Duo in there? I don't have exactr stats, but I do know that the dual G5's power output was nearly identical to that of the Quad Xeon... thus the desktop-grade CPU has a much smaller power output.

I can't speak for the new iMac design, but that's why I said this:

Again, Apple needs to reinvest in design so that they can either use desktop CPUs in desktops or make us a freaking xMac already.

And honestly, who cares if the iMac is 1/2 inch thick or 4? It's all behind the screen and off the desk.

I also said this:

Thin is in, yeah, yeah, I get it, but the Mini is anorexic. Please, Apple, put a little weight on her! I think most of us prefer a "girl" with a little more meat than one who's only skin and bones.

-Clive

 

[Clive At Five]

Why should Apple go after gamers? The niche market that continues to drift towards consoles and is more often dependent on Windows?
Yeah, there's a good marketing strategy.

Pardon? Gaming is a niche? Is that why 67% of American heads-of-household play video games?

And since when is gaming "drifting" towards the console? Nearly every game that's popular on the consoles moves to the PC. The opposite is almost never true. This makes the PC the most versatile gaming platform there is. Period.

So explain to me again why Apple shouldn't go for this market?

Is it because Apple refuses to compete and would surely embarrass themselves by trying?

Oops, did I say that out loud?

Let me just finish by saying that I find it absolutely pathetic that Apple makes a Mac (the Mini) that cannot play The Sims 2 A KIDS GAME at high settings.

Pathetic.

-Clive

 

[CalBoy]

What part of "power user" don't you get?

The part you've decided to ad-lip with the following qualifiers:

We're not talking professional users who need a borderline server-class machine in a box. (It's a Mac Pro, right? Meaning for professional users.) We're talking about home users who want something a little beefier and a little more customizable than the iMac.

This seems to be a very narrow and awfully specific definition of a "power user."
You're attempting to assert 3 critical things:
1) Power users can't use an iMac or MBP for various reasons, all related to the power of the chip or other hardware limitations.

2) Power users don't need the chip in a Mac Pro (or any of the variants therein).

3) Power users need the ability to customize, but again not to the level of a Mac Pro.

Once again, this is limited to "home" users (as you have written in that quote yourself).

So, we're talking about "power users" defined by the 3 characteristics above, who are also "home" users.

Then you make the following (and statistically wrong) assertion:

That group of people exist and they exist in very large numbers.

You expect me (or anyone) to believe that this very narrowly tailored group (with all 4 qualifiers) exists in large numbers?
Why then do most consumers (Apple customers in particular) purchase notebooks in such high numbers?
Why then is the iMac such a hit for Apple (and continues to be so)?
Why then are PC competitors attempting to compete directly with the iMac by releasing such strikingly similar designs?
Why then, do Mac sales continue to grow faster than the market quarter, after quarter, after quarter?
I suppose you know something Apple's marketing team doesn't.

They are not a niche group

Seems to me that they are, since most home users are gravitating towards notebooks.
Unless you plan on asserting that you speak for the entire market?

and they are not looking to spend +$2400 plus the cost of a display.

I agree. They don't want to spend $2300 for a desktop.

I don't think you fully appreciate how many potential switchers from that group look at Apple's line-up and say, "Yeah, OS X is great, but the iMac... meh. Oh well, maybe someday Apple will offer a really compelling home computer. Until then, back to my PC."

What exactly about the iMac isn't a compelling home computer? It offers a lot for most "home" users (I've put 'home' in quotation marks because what a "home" user is hasn't been firmly established yet, but traditionally one thinks of it as a general consumer who checks email, surfs the web, listens to music, works on Office documents, and maintains a photo/video library of family events, so I'll use this definition for now, until you provide an objection).
I can't think of a thing an average "home" user can't do on an iMac (or macbook for that matter). The iMac is even a fair computer for photo or video editing (albeit not the best, but adequate).

So, a potential switcher comes along, being an average "home" user as you mentioned above, and looks at Apple's offering. What exactly would s/he find disappointing in the iMac? Does this switcher have a particular program need that can't be served by the iMac? If so, is it fair to call him the average "home" user anymore?

The flaw in this line of reasoning is that consumers who want a low- or mid-range tower Mac are some kind of niche market when the reality is that this comprises the majority of the individual computer buyers out there.

Umm, no, they do not. This old article long predicted that notebooks would overtake desktops, and since it was written, the shift only accelerated (more and more home users continued the trend of notebook buying). Apple was always ahead of this trend (notebooks had been not sellers for Apple even before Intel), and considering that Apple doesn't really target corporate environments (which still rely on desktops for standard office setups) I think we're safe in assuming that notebooks are now king in the personal computer market.

I suspect that when a lot of switchers or Mac users buy an iMac or a Mac Mini, they view it as an acceptable compromise for getting OS X.

Which means that Apple's marketing strategy is working well. If people get most (or even some) of what they want, and are willing to buy the machine, then Apple has made a sale. What market force would force Apple to do more to convince a customer they already have?

Imagine if Appe coupled OS X with a machine that consumers actually wanted.

From the way I see it (with robust earnings, high sales growth, etc) consumers are already getting the machines they want. It seems only a few of you are unsatisfied.
Unless you're going to argue with 1st Quarter Earnings.
This part in particular is interesting:

2,319,000 Macs shipped (44% unit growth and 47% revenue growth)

Think of this way: how many people do you know who are picking up iMacs or Mac Minis to run Linux or Windows exclusively? Virtually none. And why? Because the hardware alone is not compelling enough to sell itself. And that's a damn shame because Apple could fix that very easily.

Then you've obviously missed the point of the entire "switcher campaign" Apple is waging. Bootcamp is but a cheap gimmick thrown out there to give Windows users a sense of safety. The real idea is to get them to use OS X so they become addicted to it. Hence, they'll be "full converts" and won't bother with Windows in the future.

Apple can't reasonably be expected to offer every possible hardware configuration for every possible consumer, so Apple prioritizes and choose to provide those models it has determined (through careful analysis and market research by the way) are going to attract the most possible consumers.

Apple doesn't decide to omit a particular type of tower just to infuriate you, it's a careful business decision. Apple has concluded (up to this point) that the tower you seek wouldn't bring in the same percentage of revenue that its current lineup does.

Or, are you going to attempt to assert that you know Apple's market better than professionals?

Why does "we do it all for you" (which I agree is a selling point for many) have to translate into "you can't do it your self"?

I'm not sure, but Apple has always seen things this way. I mean, how many of us notebook users download SMC Fan Control? That could be such an easy add-on for OS X, yet Apple refuses to do it.

I don't defend the practice, but it's the only logical explanation I can provide you.

From what I hear aside from RAM the new iMac's locked up tighter than Fort Knox.

I see what you're saying. Gold Finger would be able to find his way in!

Pardon? Gaming is a niche? Is that why 67% of American heads-of-household play video games?

Nice number there, but how many of them play their games on a computer?
And, of that number, how many of them build custom towers for premium games?
And, how many say "f-this, I'm buying a Wii!"?

And since when is gaming "drifting" towards the console?

Since consoles could provide better tactile interface and better view options (not to mention better multiplayer for get-togethers).

Nearly every game that's popular on the consoles moves to the PC.

If PC gaming is so great, why don't games start with the PC?
Obviously the console is a more desirable market for games to debut with, and the PC market is a secondary concern.

The opposite is almost never true. This makes the PC the most versatile gaming platform there is. Period.

The opposite is almost never true because consoles are the primary market. If you're a game creator, you market your product for the largest market first, and then develop for the secondary (and tertiary) market.

So explain to me again why Apple shouldn't go for this market?

Because the market is always in need of constantly faster and superior hardware. Not to mention the fact that not all gamers are willing to write for OS X, and the fact that there is already a stigma in the gaming market against OS X, which when added together, makes the market much less desirable.

Much rather go for the college student or the family that just wants to share family pictures.

Is it because Apple refuses to compete and would surely embarrass themselves by trying?

Yes. Apple knows it can't out compete Dell or HP or <insert gaming tower makers here> in price and features. Thus, Apple doesn't try.

Would you rather Apple Zuned the whole thing up?

 

[Clive At Five]

Nice number there, but how many of them play their games on a computer?
And, of that number, how many of them build custom towers for premium games?
And, how many say "f-this, I'm buying a Wii!"?

But if Apple offered a gaming solution no one would have to build a tower, would they?

Since consoles could provide better tactile interface and better view options (not to mention better multiplayer for get-togethers).

Totally subjective. I personally prefer playing with a keyboard and mouse (with exception of a couple Wii games. I suck with d-pads and joysticks, and find arrow keys and mousing to be the most optimal.

If PC gaming is so great, why don't games start with the PC?
Obviously the console is a more desirable market for games to debut with, and the PC market is a secondary concern.

Uh, the only reason I didn't mention this because I thought it was implied: Do you know how many games never make it to consoles? There are extremely popular PC-only games. The Sims*, World of Warcraft, Half Life / Counter Strike, WarCraft, StarCraft, Myst, Diablo, Civilization, Crysis, SimCity*, Quake... all of these games are award-winners that have never seen the light of day on consoles. *These games had feature-reduced versions for consoles, which suck heavily.

Yes, there are a few great games on consoles that aren't on PCs... The Mario and Sonic games, notably, but most games that are popular on consoles get ported to PCs.

This prompts your comment:

The opposite is almost never true because consoles are the primary market. If you're a game creator, you market your product for the largest market first, and then develop for the secondary (and tertiary) market.

Wrong. Developers develop for consoles first because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo pay them huge money to develop a game for their system. Do you think Rockstar wouldn't be releasing GTA IV for the PC if they didn't have an exclusivity contract with Sony? They would but, instead, they'll pull in a boatload of cash from Sony and in eight months, they'll release it for PC, just as they did with GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas.

There is no such incentive for PC games, thus, it is more lucrative for developers to release their products exclusively for a platform for a given amount of time. This happens very frequently.

Because the market is always in need of constantly faster and superior hardware. Not to mention the fact that not all gamers are willing to write for OS X, and the fact that there is already a stigma in the gaming market against OS X, which when added together, makes the market much less desirable.

...Apple knows it can't out compete Dell or HP or <insert gaming tower makers here> in price and features. Thus, Apple doesn't try.

Would you rather Apple Zuned the whole thing up?

This is a persistent misconception that mac-users give to justify Apple's lack of a foray into the gaming market. Most gamers DO NOT upgrade their hardware every 6 to 8 months. A top-of-the-line card bought today will remain very capable for 3 years. Even power-gamers won't upgrade their cards more than once a year... and I don't think it's too much to ask for Apple to offer one new card a year.

I do, however, know it's too much to ask for Apple to price this card reasonably.

-Clive

 

[furious]

I think is apple is spending tens of millions on R&D they can spare a few million on market research.

Don't frett guys apple has the ship in order.

 

[takao]

oh yeah gaming is something nobody does at home compared to video editing (which software apple happily provides with every imac despite a very small niche doing that)

of course with playing games you need to replace hardware every year... if you are too rich for your own good or bought the crap cards ati and nvidia shovel out like the 8600 or hd2600
of course those age way faster than the better ones

also thanks to the apple "no upgrade philosophy" the apple add-on expansion market is dying unless you look at really expensive cards since it simply isn't financial viable to develop stuff for it
not even talking about the crap drivers for graphics cards (and all connected problems like underclocked cards.. screen issues etc.)

looks like that "all in ones lead to better working computers with less flaws" isn't working like intended ... because nobody really has to make an effort to beat the "other suppliers out there" either in terms of hardware or drivers

and laptops doing better than desktops ? pretty obvious if you look at how great the desktop lineup is
also the laptops are closer priced and power to the current windows sided laptops than the desktops are.. also people look at different things in laptops... portability, design... nobody expects great performance

also about people buying a new screen with a new computer: you said that before and i can say again: welcome to 10-15 years ago .. nowadays the lineup in a brick and mortar stores mostly consists of 1 screen + PC+ printer set for around 600-700 bucks (and boy are those components crap) and on the rest of the shelf there are 7-9 towers priced from 400 to 999 bucks (sometimes even a PC priced over that)

and apple doesn't ship a hd2600 in the lowest imac models.. it's only the hd2400 there..

that said i have nothing against the imac ... i have no problem recommending it to my mother or uncle and others who don't really know what they want in a computer and with limited needs but for myself ? not gonna happen .... and sooner and later that generations who grew up without computers will fade away in the market and become smaller and smaller


you gotta love it.. people on a _mac_ forum talking about games on computers being a niche...

 

[takeabyteoutta]

Apple's business plan and line up is fine. If they wanted to make a move into the mid-range market, they probably would of introduced it alongside the MBA. But you can keep hoping for August or maybe next macworld.

 

[barijazz]

I know I'm beatin a dead horse here, but that "hole" would be filled nicely by a quad core 30" imac pro, with HDMI / Video INPUTs, BRDVD / FW3200 2 HDDs and Nvidia 8800 GPU.


Yeah, it's an iMac wet dream, but I still want it.

Same here brothya. I'm also hoping the MBP updates come out with intel xeon chips!

 

[Clive At Five]

Apple's business plan and line up is fine. If they wanted to make a move into the mid-range market, they probably would of introduced it alongside the MBA. But you can keep hoping for August or maybe next macworld.

What? Since when has Apple EVER released two new computers in the same event? Not any time I can remember and I've been following them for a very long time.

My hope is that since they've been pushing the MacPro higher and higher in price and spec, they're actually trying to create a space for an xMac.

Apple isn't stupid, they know there are a plethora of advanced users that don't need all the power of a MacPro. What are they going to do, though? Drop an xMac, shove the iMac down, and push the MacPro up all in one day? No. They're going to do it gradually by pulling the iMac and MacPro apart, then releasing a unit.

Plus, of course Apple would never admit that there's anything wrong with their product line today when there isn't yet a solution for it. That's just begging for bad publicity. When they're ready to release it, they'll make themselves sound like heros by saying, "we've been listening to all of you who want a smaller tower, and today we're saying, 'yes!' " when actually it was THEY who had the deficiency all along.

-Clive

 

[Leon Kowalski]

There are people on this site who will argue to their dying breath
that a lack of choice from Apple is somehow benefiting you.

LOL! Kinda ironic that "switchers" simply trade Bill's paternalistic,
"we know what's best for you" software, for Steve's paternalistic,
"we know what's best for you" hardware.

...a pox on both their houses,

LK

 

[Clive At Five]

LOL! Kinda ironic that "switchers" simply trade Bill's paternalistic,
"we know what's best for you" software, for Steve's paternalistic,
"we know what's best for you" hardware.

...a pox on both their houses,

LK

It is ironic!

(Note, I'm not actually a switcher, as I've been using both since the beginning.)

I love Steve's software, I really do! But "Bill's" hardware is so much more versatile! I need both!

-Clive

 

[CalBoy]

<gaming>

I don't care to continue this discussion because I feel I've laid out the logical reasons why Apple hasn't engaged in this market fairly well.

I sympathize with those of you who want this tower, and I think you should demand one as Apple customers, but I also understand the market forces which are denying you your tower.

If you'd like to go on believing that you have better market data and information than a multi-billion dollar corporation, that's fine; I don't have the energy to argue such a fruitless point.

I'd like to leave on a positive note, however, so I encourage all of you who want a tower to write a letter and request one. That's how corporations get in touch with their markets. If enough of you do write, email, call, etc, you might just get what you want.

Best of luck.

 

[takao]

If you'd like to go on believing that you have better market data and information than a multi-billion dollar corporation, that's fine; I don't have the energy to argue such a fruitless point.



the same multi billion dollar corporation which released the ipod hifi ? ...

i gotta remember that argument for the next discussion about how crappy vista is... "but they are a multi multi billion dollar corporation how can they be wrong"
it didn't help other companies either to make stupid decisions (like MB buying the Chrysler)

I'd like to leave on a positive note, however, so I encourage all of you who want a tower to write a letter and request one. That's how corporations get in touch with their markets. If enough of you do write, email, call, etc, you might just get what you want.

i'm from europe thus apple doesn't listen to me no matter what

 

[CalBoy]

i gotta remember that argument for the next discussion about how crappy vista is... "but they are a multi multi billion dollar corporation how can they be wrong"

That's a different analogy altogether. Microsoft didn't make an error in determining its market (it already knows who it wants to buy Vista and why), it made a mistake by releasing a poor product.

The Apple equivalent would be releasing a tower that you want, but one that is of poor quality.

it didn't help other companies either to make stupid decisions (like MB buying the Chrysler)

That's also a different type of business error.

I'm not saying you can't criticize bad business moves, they happen all the time. However, in Apple's case, there has been continous explosive growth with the lineup that's available at the moment. Note that this is after the $1500 tower disappeared.

Clearly Apple knows what it's doing at the moment.

If you want to rehash this point again, wait until Apple reports a quarter of poor sales performance. Then we can discuss whether or not this tower is a necessity.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Note, I'm not actually a switcher, as I've been using both since the beginning.

I'm sorta in the same boat -- new to Apple, long-time unix hacker.

...that's a photo of me (with the suspenders),

LK

 

[takao]

I'm not saying you can't criticize bad business moves, they happen all the time. However, in Apple's case, there has been continous explosive growth with the lineup that's available at the moment. Note that this is after the $1500 tower disappeared.

make that "after apple introduced intel chips.. which they just ridiculed years before"

Clearly Apple knows what it's doing at the moment.

gadgets and US marketing yes
computers + world wide not so sure about that

If you want to rehash this point again, wait until Apple reports a quarter of poor sales performance. Then we can discuss whether or not this tower is a necessity.

yeah like releasing a niche product like the macbook air isn't enough ... seriously that thing is way more niche than any midi tower (which is BTW the best selling form factor by far) can possibly be

also it is going on my nerves that while apple is successful they are putting the money in the bank instead of actually bringing more computer products forward
NOW microsoft is struggeling in the operating system market not in five years... apple could have cashed in so many users if they came up with something half a year ago but they are missing a great window of opportunity again ... seriously nearly everybody i know buys new computers at the moment or have done so the last 3 months because currently it is a phase where price/performance is really great... all those computers will last again for more than 3-5 years

seriously if you look what you can get in parts for 800 bucks you simply have to cry if you look at the apple offerings if you imagine what apple (with getting rebates at suppliers) could build and offer for 1200-1500

 

[CalBoy]

make that "after apple introduced intel chips.. which they just ridiculed years before"

True enough, but I think the intention was to eliminate a few models with the transition (the eMac also disappeared) and the tower might have either been a poor seller or didn't have strong enough margins for Apple to keep it around.

Either way, Apple doesn't seem to have suffered in the market (the bulk of that does belong to the Intel switch, but there are always other factors like iPod converts and such), so I think it's safe to assume for the moment that the correct market decision was made.

Granted a portion of consumers lost, but all things being equal, some portion of the consumer market will always be disappointed, no matter what move Apple makes. It can't be expected that a single hardware producer will be able to satisfy the hardware needs of every potential customer. No company attempts this (every company picks and chooses, even companies like HP) because it would be too costly or would reduce margins to a ridiculous degree.

So, once again, by all means, cry out and say that you want a tower.

But, please don't assert that Apple is making a poor business decision, because all current data is pointing out that you are flat out wrong.

gadgets and US marketing yes
computers + world wide not so sure about that

Apple's world-wide sales are up as well, so Apple is effectively expanding its marketshare pretty much everywhere.

As for gadgets, how do you suppose so many new switchers are attracted to the platform? The Halo Effect is quite effective.

<mba stuff>

I think the Air is really aiming for a future market for Apple (business travelers). Apple has been historically weak in this area, so it makes sense that this market now be tapped.
We still have to wait and see if it was a good business decision though.

<remainder of post>

I'm sorry, but this seems to be general frustrations that aren't really targeted at me or have much to do with the thread.

I'll just pretend it made sense and hope you feel better.

 

[inkswamp]

If you'd like to go on believing that you have better market data and information than a multi-billion dollar corporation, that's fine; I don't have the energy to argue such a fruitless point.

You chalk it all up to Apple following the dictates of marketing data (which you have yet to prove) when some of us are arguing from what we see everyday, right in front of our faces. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. The biggest selling computer is the low- and mid-range tower. That's what most consumers buy. That's what most people own. Discussing this with you is like discussing bikes vs. cars with someone who demands to see proof that cars are a more popular means of transportation than bikes. There's no data to prove this. It's all around you.

If you refuse to believe it, consider why there is a thriving OSX86 project to get OS X running on plain Jane PCs. That's not a project aimed at high-end consumers. Those are hackers who would like to see OS X running on a run-of-the-mill PC boxes. Why do you think that's happening? Do you think that's some kind of aberration? Are they doing it just because...?

Anyway, I understand what you're saying when you say you don't have the "energy" to argue this anymore. If I were arguing against what is plainly obvious to most people, I might get a little fatigued as well.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

The biggest selling computer is the low- and mid-range tower.

Without iron-clad proof, that's just a theory...

...kinda like gravity,

LK

 

[CalBoy]

You chalk it all up to Apple following the dictates of marketing data (which you have yet to prove) when some of us are arguing from what we see everyday, right in front of our faces.

On an individual level, you can draw many fallacious conclusions.

For example, in my lecture at this very moment, more than half the notebooks being used are macbooks of one kind or another.
Based on this casual observation, I might be tempted to conclude that macbooks represent 50% of the notebook market in the world, or even at my campus.

Both would be flat wrong.

I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

There's nothing obvious about it. You're just saying it is so because you want to desperately prove the point that Apple "must" create a tower.

The biggest selling computer is the low- and mid-range tower. That's what most consumers buy.

No, that's what offices buy.
Please link me an article/story/source of any kind that shows that 50% of the consumer market (ie, individuals) purchase towers.

Thanks.

That's what most people own.

That doesn't mean that that's what people are going to buy.
Computer makers don't care what people have; they want to know what people are going to want in the near future.

Discussing this with you is like discussing bikes vs. cars with someone who demands to see proof that cars are a more popular means of transportation than bikes. There's no data to prove this. It's all around you.

Except I can see auto sales and see the booming business that Toyota is enjoying. I've examined Apple's booming sales figures as well.

I fail to see how Apple is failing in the market.

If you refuse to believe it, consider why there is a thriving OSX86 project to get OS X running on plain Jane PCs. That's not a project aimed at high-end consumers. That's average people out there who would like to see OS X running on a run-of-the-mill PC boxes. Why do you think that's happening? Do you think that's some kind of aberration?

Please link me the story.

In addition, I find it hard to believe that a lot of home users would go out of their way to load OS X on old hardware; home users would find it much easier just to go out and buy a mini, macbook, or iMac.

Unless you want to change the definition of "home user." I'm just going off of the one I used above.

 

[Pope Jawn Pawl]

The macbook air posts bring up a good point. Apple releases a product that no one was really asking for, most people were longing for either a tablet or a 13" macbook pro.

Seriously though, this is ridiculous. The parts & technology for a midtower is there and readily available, and would require little to no R&D. All Apple would need to do is design a case, price it, and be done with it.

 

[CalBoy]

The macbook air posts bring up a good point. Apple releases a product that no one was really asking for, most people were longing for either a tablet or a 13" macbook pro.

It is a strange move, and I think it's an attempt to enter a whole new market by "wowing" people into it.

Only time will tell if the Air is really a good product.

Seriously though, this is ridiculous. The parts & technology for a midtower is there and readily available, and would require little to no R&D. All Apple would need to do is design a case, price it, and be done with it.

No one questions the ability of Apple to make one, the question is if Apple can maintain its 30% margins with one. That's all Apple is motivated by (sales and profit), so Apple probably figures it can make more money elsewhere (and let's face it; Apple is making plenty of money at the moment).

 

[t0mat0]

Apple and Dell taken as examples. Apple plays the high margin game, producing a product that's taken as professional (looking), stylish. People pay a premium for this and the OS. They don't need to sell a lot to make a lot of profit. Sell a few at a high margin, versus lots at a much smaller margin. If Apple is perfectly content with selling more simple products at a greater number (iPod being an example).

Why does Apple not want to do a low end Desktop? Precisely the above I would argue. You're going to have all the overheads for kit breaking down, malfunctions, returns, with people assuming the same level of support for a cheaper desktop as a Mac Pro.
Cars might be a more popular transport than bikes, but there may be a better margin to be made from say nice quality hand made bikes, than there is in cars.

What's wrong with niche if it sells, and at a decent margin? Ultimately, Apple is a company, and it's ultimate boss is the shareholders. And they want to see profit. E.g. MacBook Air - Might be very niche, but it also has already got a lot of press, and is going to possibly make margin hand over fist (SSD anyone?).

Putting money in the bank, at a time when the US is a hair's breadth from a technical recession, with teh world about to catch that cold, is financially prudent I would think. It puts Apple in a strong position. Microsoft has just the same cash in the bank attitude.

Microsoft struggling? Well, yes and no. Vista sucks, but if it's not being put on a system, it's XP. Which is also Microsoft. And then bundled with Office, Microsoft Office... Last I heard Microsoft wasn't doing too badly at turning a profit.

Are they missing a great window of opportunity? There are only so many Apple can take at one time. It can't spread itself too thinly, and the iPod venture has allowed it to take the iPhone leap. As the reward for this gamble pays off, it can simultaneously update it's desktop and laptop areas.

Apple like any company works on a put up or shut up policy. yes it's expensive. if you can't afford it, save up or don't get one. If it works for you, great. but you gotta buy Apple if you want Apple's OS.

 

[Pope Jawn Pawl]

Since you bring up sales & profit margins, do you happen to know what the margins are on the mini? What are the sales trends?

 

[CalBoy]

Since you bring up sales & profit margins, do you happen to know what the margins are on the mini? What are the sales trends?

I don't know off hand the margins for the mini, but previous quarterly results implied that the lowest profit margin on a Mac for Apple was ~22%. The highest profit margins were around 35%. Since the mini uses older parts and hasn't really seen much of a dramatic change since the Intel switch, I think we can be safe in assuming at least 25%.

I have no idea what the sales trends are though. I think the mini is useful for Apple because it gets rid of excess macbook internals.

And t0mat0 I enjoyed your post.