Mac Pro Arrived! Pics Included

[Evangelion]

II think all of them are ugly, flat and ugly.

That's a matter of opinion. And what do you mean "flat"? You want triangular computers?

The way the mini is designed it won't take a monitor comfortably on it's top. So yes apple will have to take into consideration the weight of the monitor.

The Mini, perhaps. But there are about zillion pizzaboxes out there where this is NOT an issue. And since Mini is not a pizzabox-computer, and it hasn't been designed to to be used under a monitor, the point is moot.

 

[furious]

10% cut in MARGINS, not profits!

check your definitions

some would same margins and profit are the same . some would say they are similar. some would even go as far as saying there are interchangeable

 

[Evangelion]

Noun
margin (plural: margins)

(finance): the yield or profit; the selling price minus the cost

*sigh* margins on the product. Actual term being "gross margins". I'll try explaining this again:

Suppose Mac Pro has margins of $1000 (that is, Apple get $1000 profit for each machine sold), and they sell 200.000 of them. That equal raw profit of $1000 x 200.000 = 200 million dollars. All clear so far?

Now, suppose that they lower the price of the machine, or improve the specs in such a way, that their margins on the product drop from $1000 to $900. But while they do that, they also make the product more appealing to consumers, and as as result, they now sell 230.000 of them. And that equals raw profits of $900 x 230.000 = 207 million dollars. So their profits just increased by 7 million dollars.

Do you NOW understand it?

 

[Evangelion]

Whoops, double post

 

[furious]

*sigh* margins on the product. Actual term being "gross margins". I'll try explaining this again:

Suppose Mac Pro has margins of $1000 (that is, Apple get $1000 profit for each machine sold), and they sell 200.000 of them. That equal raw profit of $1000 x 200.000 = 200 million dollars. All clear so far?

Now, suppose that they lower the price of the machine, or improve the specs in such a way, that their margins on the product drop from $1000 to $900. But while they do that, they also make the product more appealing to consumers, and as as result, they now sell 230.000 of them. And that equals raw profits of $900 x 230.000 = 207 million dollars. So their profits just increased by 7 million dollars.

Do you NOW understand it?

i see were you are coming form but no matter how many units they sell they are still loosing 10% profit or *gross margin* compared to if they sold more at the original price. *sigh*

working 13% harder for 3% more profit

margin and profit can be interchangeable in this instance. you even did it yourself *see bold*

 

[Evangelion]

i see were you are coming form but no matter how many units they sell they are still loosing 10% profit or *gross margin* compared to if they sold more at the original price. *sigh*

Are you just TRYING to not get the point I'm making here? If the product costs less or has better specs, it would appeal to a wider audience. So they could sell more. Of course it would be great for Apple if they could sell zillion machines at ultra-high margins. But real-life doesn't usually work that way. Usually consumers will look at the high price and think "there's no way I'm paying that amount, I'm buying something else instead!". With those high margins, they would not be able to sell as many products, since consumers would refuse to pay that much. Of course lowering the margins doesn't automatically mean that the amount of money they earn would go up. The increase in sales might not be able to compensate for the lower margins.

You keep using that word, "if". If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You also say that they would be "working harder". Are you saying that Apple should just sell handful of computer every year, but they should sell them at few million dollars a piece? That way they wouldn't be "working hard". Yes, selling 1000 items usually takes more work than selling 500 items. And still companies want to sell as many items as possible, for maximum profit. Even if they had to "work harder".

 

[furious]

but the example you proposed showed apple would have to work 13% harder for 3% more profit

extrapolating from that would show that apple would be paying 13% more for only 3% more profit meaning they are actually loosing 10%. remember you proposed a 10% decrease in cost to sell more and therefore a higher profit. but look they have not done this in your example. they are selling more and making less.

 

[Evangelion]

but the example you proposed showed apple would have to work 13% harder for 3% more profit

So what? Companies want profit. Profits are the reason they exist. Here's a shocker for you: If Apple wants to increase sales, market-share and profits, they will have to work harder.

No, they wouldn't necessarily be paying 13% more. Hell, some days I have very little work to do, some other days I have lots of work to do. And my salary does not change based on the amount of work I do.

 

[furious]

that is true but you are paid a salary not a wage

but remember it will take 13% more time to sell 13% more in theory

meaning 13% more in wages, travel, vehicle expenses, and other expenses incurred.

 

[Evangelion]

that is true

but remember it will take 13% more time to sell 13% more in theory

No it doesn't, if they sell faster. And that is the idea behind increasing sales. When they sell more products in a year than they did previously, it also means that they are selling them faster. If it takes Apple 6 months to sell one Mac Pro, they would sell two of them every year. If it takes them 1 month to sell one, they can sell 12 Mac Pro's a year. And so forth.

meaning 13% more in wages, travel, vehicle expenses, and other expenses incurred.

No it does not. Or are you saying that if they increase their sales, their expenses increase by exactly the same amount? By that logic, they should try to eliminate 99% of their sales, then their profits would skyrocket. Is THAT what you are saying?

 

[panoz7]

Suppose Mac Pro has margins of $1000 (that is, Apple get $1000 profit for each machine sold), and they sell 200.000 of them. That equal raw profit of $1000 x 200.000 = 200 million dollars. All clear so far?

I get where you're coming with all this, and your logic makes sense with this example, but I don't think it applies so well to the current situation with the MacPros.

There's no way that apple is making that much profit (or margins or whatever the right word is) on each MacPro... especially the 2.6 ghz model. My guess is that its closer to $300 per computer, maybe even lower. If they lower the price by $100 they now have to sell alot more to make the same total amount.

Do you think apple is really stupid enough to have priced these machines incorrectly? The prices might not be the best for consumers, which is what I think you were objecting to earlier in the thread, but they are most likely what is best for apple.

 

[Evangelion]

There's no way that apple is making that much profit (or margins or whatever the right word is) on each MacPro

The number I used were examples . But I don't think they are that far-fetched.

Do you think apple is really stupid enough to have priced these machines incorrectly?

That's not what I'm saying. But it wouldn't be the first time (The Cube, anyone?). I don't think that "The company XXXX is smart, they know what they are doing", is a valid argument. The history is full of spectacular erros made by companies.

 

[furious]

No it doesn't, if they sell faster. And that is the idea behind increasing sales. When they sell more products in a year than they did previously, it also means that they are selling them faster. If it takes Apple 6 months to sell one Mac Pro, they would sell two of them every year. If it takes them 1 month to sell one, they can sell 12 Mac Pro's a year. And so forth.



No it does not. Or are you saying that if they increase their sales, their expenses increase by exactly the same amount? By that logic, they should try to eliminate 99% of their sales, then their profits would skyrocket. Is THAT what you are saying?

show a manager the pricing you stated earlier in the thread. reduce the price by 10% we are going to sell 13% units and be making 3% more profit. they would like to know how it is possible that costs to sell those 13% more units would not increase even 3% negating your increase in profit

it is a balance

apple would have spent months coming up with a price point. you think the one massively customizable Mac-Pro is a guess. they know what the target market is likely to pay and what features they expect and need. that is why bluetooth and airport are BTO. but i digress

 

[Evangelion]

show a manager the pricing you stated earlier in the thread. reduce the price by 10% we are going to sell 13% units and be making 3% more profit. they would like to know how it is possible that costs to sell those 13% more units would not increase even 3% negating your increase in profit

The numbers I used in the thread were examples. You are now hanging on to my hypothetical numbers and arguing against those, instead of the actual point behind them.

Go and take a look at Apple's (for example) quarterly reports. You can see that their sales increased by (for example) 50% while the cost of sales (the expenses you have mentioned) increased by only 20% (for example). How can that be, since according to you, 13% increase in sales increases expenses by 13%?

 

[furious]

but prices were not cut 10%

 

[Evangelion]

but prices were not cut 10%

It is not my intention to insult you, but: why are you being so obtuse? The fact that they did not cut prices is irrelevant. According to you, increasing sales means that they have to work harder and that increases expenses. And it seems that you are thinking that sales and expenses increase 1:1. Regardless that do they cut prices to increase sales, fact remains that according to you, increased sales means increased work, and that means increases expenses.

 

[Multimedia]

AnandTech Benchmarks Review Skips Quad G5 Comparison

Wow. I just studied the new AnandTech Mac Pro Review Part Two that came out yesterday. What a disappointment. They compare the Mac Pro to only two OLD 2004 single core Dual 2 and 2.5GHz PowerMacs. What a BUMMER. I can't believe they didn't have a Quad G5 to compare with.

I really want to see a set of benchmarks bewteen the 2GHz Mac Pro and the Quad G5. Please let us know if you find one. Thanks.

 

[MovieCutter]

Wow. I just studied the new AnandTech Mac Pro Review Part Two that came out yesterday. What a disappointment. They compare the Mac Pro to only two OLD 2004 single core Dual 2 and 2.5GHz PowerMacs. What a BUMMER. I can't believe they didn't have a Quad G5 to compare with.

I really want to see a set of benchmarks bewteen the 2GHz Mac Pro and the Quad G5. Please let us know if you find one. Thanks.

Barefeats.com has the 2.66 vs. G5 Quad...

 

[paulvee]

Wow. I just studied the new AnandTech Mac Pro Review Part Two that came out yesterday. What a disappointment. They compare the Mac Pro to only two OLD 2004 single core Dual 2 and 2.5GHz PowerMacs. What a BUMMER. I can't believe they didn't have a Quad G5 to compare with.

I really want to see a set of benchmarks bewteen the 2GHz Mac Pro and the Quad G5. Please let us know if you find one. Thanks.

Barefeats has the comparison between the 2.6 and the Quad. For me, though, it's perfect, as I'm moving up from the old Dual 2.0 to the 3.0. If I had the Quad, I would not care because I would be able to comfortably wait for Rev. B MacPro. Since my Dual 2.0 G5 is getting long in the tooth, though, I like this comparison.

Anyway, benchmarks are fun to a point, but I have work to do and can't wait to get the extra horses.

 

[Multimedia]

Particularly Interested In 2GHz Mac Pro Vs. Quad G5 Comparison

Barefeats has the comparison between the 2.6 and the Quad. For me, though, it's perfect, as I'm moving up from the old Dual 2.0 to the 3.0. If I had the Quad, I would not care because I would be able to comfortably wait for Rev. B MacPro. Since my Dual 2.0 G5 is getting long in the tooth, though, I like this comparison.

Anyway, benchmarks are fun to a point, but I have work to do and can't wait to get the extra horses.

Thanks. Yes I saw that one yesterday. What I really want to know is if the 2GHz Mac Pro downgrade compares favorably over the Quad G5 or not. Since I am really waiting for a Dual Clovertown OctoCore Mac Pro, I would like to know if getting the cheapest Mac Pro meanwhile would be worth it or not.

 

[furious]

It is not my intention to insult you, but: why are you being so obtuse? The fact that they did not cut prices is irrelevant. According to you, increasing sales means that they have to work harder and that increases expenses. And it seems that you are thinking that sales and expenses increase 1:1. Regardless that do they cut prices to increase sales, fact remains that according to you, increased sales means increased work, and that means increases expenses.

yep rolf

so the more units you sell the less expenses you pay? that is what you are saying? no?

do you work?

every manager would tell you "to sell more product you need to work harder"

we are not talking about volume buying but selling

i sell oranges

my is cost 0.50$ to buy

i sell them for 1$

i sell 2 oranges making 1$ profit. my cost was 1$

next day i sell 3 oranges making 1.50$ profit. my cost was 1.50$

no matter how many oranges i sell my cost price is always 0.50$



another example

workers in McDonalds

first hour: they sell 6 burgers

second hour: they sell 24 burgers

in the second hour they worked harder than the first hour? yes they did

 

[janstett]

i sell oranges right?

i sell them for 1$

i am sell 10

making 10$

i decide that if i reduce my price to 90c i will sell more

next day i sell 10

that means i made 9$

see were i am coming from? no matter how many oranges i sell i am still loosing the 10% i cut my price by

if i sell 50 at .9$ i can i make 45$

if i sold 50 at 1$ i would make 50$

it is not possible to make up that 10% profit by selling more units at a lower price. simple math.

You're confusing potential with reality, and missing a basic fact of economics -- making something more expensive discourages people from buying it, making it cheaper encourages people to buy it. What matters is revenue (which is number of units sold times price), and profit (revenue minus costs) is derived from that.

If you sell 50 oranges at $1, by dropping the price to $.90 you are hoping to sell more oranges to make up the lost profit. What if $.90 is the sweet spot and now you sell 100 oranges.

To use your logic, sell one orange at $50. Then you do 1/10th the work and make 4900% profit. Now the problem is, who the heck is going to buy an orange for $50? Nobody. You will go out of business. So there is a bell curve science to it. Set your price too high, and nobody will buy. Set your price too low and you could sell lots of units, but make little profit on each. The key is to find the sweet spot, where you still make some profit but sell enough units that it's worth it. Apple has traditionally been in the high end of the bell curve -- expensive with small market share.

Something badly missing from your example is how much your wholesale costs are for those oranges. Let's say it is $.75. Sell 50 oranges at $1 each and your revenue is $50, your costs $37.50, thus your profit is $12.50. Drop the price to $.90 and say that's the magic point where people buy tons of them and you sell 100 oranges, your revenue is $90, your costs $75, thus your profit is $15. You're now making more money by selling your product at a cheaper price. Very simple.

 

[furious]

You're confusing potential with reality, and missing a basic fact of economics -- making something more expensive discourages people from buying it, making it cheaper encourages people to buy it. What matters is revenue (which is number of units sold times price), and profit (revenue minus costs) is derived from that.

If you sell 50 oranges at $1, by dropping the price to $.90 you are hoping to sell more oranges to make up the lost profit. What if $.90 is the sweet spot and now you sell 100 oranges.

To use your logic, sell one orange at $50. Then you do 1/10th the work and make 4900% profit. Now the problem is, who the heck is going to buy an orange for $50? Nobody. You will go out of business. So there is a bell curve science to it. Set your price too high, and nobody will buy. Set your price too low and you could sell lots of units, but make little profit on each. The key is to find the sweet spot, where you still make some profit but sell enough units that it's worth it. Apple has traditionally been in the high end of the bell curve -- expensive with small market share.

Something badly missing from your example is how much your wholesale costs are for those oranges. Let's say it is $.75. Sell 50 oranges at $1 each and your revenue is $50, your costs $37.50, thus your profit is $12.50. Drop the price to $.90 and say that's the magic point where people buy tons of them and you sell 100 oranges, your revenue is $90, your costs $75, thus your profit is $15. You're now making more money by selling your product at a cheaper price. Very simple.

apple don't have sales on their products? yet you buy their products; yes? you would say there product are of a higher quality; yes? meaning they have a better product than there competition in your eyes so you will pay more?

what you are saying is to increase market share you have to cut prices

look at dell they cut prices left right and center yet their market share does not grow substantially year upon year. yet they have sales of 25%, 50% off and there market share does not grow much. it is not feasible for the market share of any company to grow like that from sales alone. many factors are involved product, price, position, distribution channels and so many more.

 

[Trekkie]

To put what I believe are the 'finishing touches' on this pricing argument I offer this as proof it doesn't always work

And I quote:

Dell blamed its strategy of cutting prices in a slow market for a profit of just US$502 million in the second quarter, 51 percent below the same period last year.

See you can only lower prices so far because if things change in your market dynamic the raw volume you need to maintain a respectable profit tank. Because once you open up the low price monster, you can't just raise your prices back up.

However if you're not just fire selling everything and charging a margin your profit can go down, but you still have strong fundamentals and your stock won't tank a couplea bucks like others do.

Just a thought.

 

[Gurutech]

Oh my god...
Someone really REALLY needs a BASIC economic lesson.
you know.. trying to depend Apple.. sometimes makes some of you outrageously ridiculous.