[Simon]

OK, we have just seen the introduction of new eMacs. They are better spec'ed than more expensive iMacs, have the PowerBook's 7447, a faster DVD-R than the PowerMacs, etc. Granted, this could all change soon (hopefully!), but fact is, this was a tremendous update for the eMac line.

Apple has basically proven that it can compete perfectly with cheap PCs in the low-end market. As long as we don't think about the monitor...

What about the switchers (that have screens) and the "corporate" Mac (Office, web, mail)?

How about the

eMac mini

- same specs as the new eMac but in a headless compact form factor (revival of the Pizza box?)
- Built in 9200 GPU (4xAGP, 32MB DDR) with VGA out
- Combo for $699, SuperDrive for $899

And to get all those switchers with their own spare equipment (and of course for companies with networks that can buy cheap small HDDs for their terminals) make a stripped version available as BTO: no built-in HDD, no optical drive. make it $549

Of course this machine wouldn't offer big margins for Apple, but it could be perfect to get people to try a Mac. And as we all know, once they get to like it, they'll never leave it. Chances are, they'll buy better spec'ed and higher margin Macs later on.

Apple's trojan horse in PC dominated homes/companies?

[sniffer]

For personal use I am no fan of pizza boxes, but for a corporate Mac it defintive can _not_ have a heavy CRT permament attached to it. Anyone that have been working at a support team knows what I am talking about. Pizza boxes is the way to go. Eventually a low end iMac kind of machine would have been very practical, but I think most companies would want the option to go with the cheapest LCD offers they can get. It is less hazle with an all in one, but corporates wants options.

[The Placid Casual]

Great idea, and although not a huge money spinner at first glance, could really increase market share and have a huge impact.

If people use Macs at work, they are then much more likely to buy one as a home machine.

This has to mean an increase in market share both in the workplace, but also in terms of home users buying new Apple machines, which has the add on effect of increasing profits as more machines are sold.

I would even be tempted to say that Apple should sell the 'work' machines at the break even point...

[zeebe]

This is a little off the topic, but Apple already has scaled down versions for schools. There is a 1GHz eMac, 256MB RAM, 40 GB Harddrive for $599
The next option is a 1GHz eMac, 256MN RAM, 40 GB Harddrive and a CD-ROM drive for $649.
These options are for educational institutions only. The one with no CD drive is weird, but I suppose it could use boot drive from a server or install software over a network.


Edit - Here are the actual specs
Low End
• 256MB SDRAM DDR333 - 1 DIMM
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
• 1GHz PowerPC G4

Next Level Up
• 256MB SDRAM DDR333 - 1 DIMM
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
• 1GHz PowerPC G4
• CD-ROM drive

[Eug Wanker]

NTA's enterprise purchase: 1200 iMacs.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
NTA's enterprise purchase: 1200 iMacs.

Saw that earlier... Pretty cool. I wonder if they are getting the current iMac's or the next version???

[sniffer]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Saw that earlier... Pretty cool. I wonder if they are getting the current iMac's or the next version???

"iMac specs
1200 Apple iMacs deployed across 140 RTA branches
OSX 10.3
1GHz PowerPC CPU
512MB RAM
Swivel-mounted, 15in LCD monitors allow easy customer viewing of photo licences
80GB HDD
DVD-R and CD R/W combo drives
Request for proposal called mid-2003, contract signed January 5 2004; rollout April/May 2004"

Since the roll-out is so late it could be the next, but my guess it's the current revision.

[Commodus]

Apple said during the conference call yesterday that they didn't have any major determination to get into the true low-end segment of the market ($399, etc.) so I suspect that the eMac won't be a real corporate Mac, at least not yet.

I do wonder what Apple wants to do with the iMac, though. The most realistic option for them would be to cut the price at the same time as they update the specs. A 1.25 GHz 15" model at $999 would do a lot for corporate purchasers. And if they had 1.6 GHz G5s, well - there would be a small renaissance.

[Eug Wanker]

At our "corporation" we eschewed the uber low-end crapbox and are now buying more expensive HPs and IBMs to do the same job. Why? Because in general the low end crapbox sucked for quality, and the companies that pitch them generally suck for support. In fact, the last supplier went out of business selling those crapboxes.

They get hundreds of machines here, and the magic price point is WELL above that. My guess is the price is probably around twice that, in eMac territory, just for the main box and not including the monitor. OTOH, this place is now almost exclusively getting LCDs. Unfortunately, iMacs are still too overpriced for what they are.

Not that it matters though, since we're still a Windows only institution. The software is custom.

[Graymalkin]

I've been seeing a lot of companies moving to higher end machines for their cube farms for the same reasons Eug enumerated. Crapboxes are cheap up front but often end up costing a company more in the long run to keep them working. Support for such machines is laughable as is the build quality and expected lifetime. Replacing a dead computer costs in terms of man-hours integrating it on the network and the up front price cost of the machine.

I don't see the need for Apple to release crap boxes but I really think they should start a business oriented sales campaign. Their eMacs would make really nice machines for smaller businesses. They're fairly inexpensive and with OSX are pretty reliable and stable machines. Many people have a perception that there's no software for the Mac and so tend to avoid them. What small business switchers find is there is software for the Mac and at times it is superior to what they would find on Windows. Apple really needs to stress that to small businesses. There's also the issue of Windows security. When a nasty worm of virus lays waste to a Windows network that is money lost in down time and repair costs.

[Simon]

OK, let's try the thread back on track.

It has been mentioned by Apple execs that they don't want to compete in the low-end cheap desktop market because they see nothing to earn there.

Well, first of all the eMac proves they can compete (price and power are just fine, especially compared top all those Celeron boxes) and since it is being bought by a lot more people than just schools it also proves that they should compete in that market.

Apple has to realize that they should engage in this market due to the volume and not the revenue. Of course they aren't a volume PC manufacturer like Dell, and they shouldn't be, but they need to find some way of getting MacOS market share back to something like 15-20%. They don't need to become the McD of computers to reach that goal, but they need to offer an inexpensive teaser.

Why are eMacs selling? Because they offer the genuine Panther experience at an affordable price. Why are they not selling? Because they try to be too much at the same time: They are all-in-ones (great for education) but also switcher bait where lots of the added-on non-removable parts are just too pricey for those that would already have them. They are low-end performers, but they also have low-end screens. Many people who do Office/web/mail would be more then fine with a 1.25GHz G4, but who wants to look a non-Trinitron CRT for 8h a day?

These are the kind of problems an eMac mini would solve. Granted, Apple wouldn't make a profit, but the risk is low and they get market share for free. And of course it's like dealing drugs: give them some for cheap and they'll come back and get the more expensive stuff before you know it. Apple will eventually make its profit and it will remain the Mercedes. Some Apple execs should start to understand this.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
NTA's enterprise purchase: 1200 iMacs.

Interesting perspective posted at Slashdot, supposedly by those involved:

reverca:

... let me say that the story doesn't do the project great justice.

The main reason for choosing iMacs over a Linux/BSD/whatever solution (which we did try side by side with plenty of others) was OH&S.

Yes, Occupational Health and Safety. They took one look at the screen design, the way each individual user could move the screen where they wanted it and they were pretty much sold. We approached another supplier for a similar solution, only to get a quote for a movable screen of equivalent specs that put it about AUD $1000 over the price of the iMacs.

We were keen to Switch to Macs from our Javastations because they make a great product, they are supported by a "big" name (the rest of our our system is Solaris), and we can perform remote admin and stuff easily.

Other big-name suppliers were pushing to get in on this but someone with the authority to make such decisions said "no Windows in registries" after Blaster/Slammer/et al took out most of the rest of the organisation while our Javastations kept on kicking on.

As with any public-facing organisation, the amount of customers we would have had to say "sorry you've waited half an hour already, please come back tomorrow, assuming we've fixed it by then" to if our registry network was taken out would have made for a bigger news story than this one by far.

On another note, the press release that seems to have made it out mixes two different things we are doing - changing to the iMacs here, which running our custom Java app (plus Mozilla and a few other bits and pieces), and investigating open-source as a general concept. There's plenty of OS there all throughout the registry network, but the corporate desktops are all still Win2k/Office/Exchange/Novell jobbies, the replacement of which is being investigated with closed and open solutions from varying vendors.

rmlane:

And as one of the guys who did a little work on the Apple bid I can confirm that the info posted by reverbca is accurate, and could have could have come from from someone within the RTA. The details of their internal IT are correct, anyway, as are the reasons Apple got the deal.

Another reason the iMac's moveable screen was such a hit was that it allows the RTA staffmember to show the customer an image of their licence photo before the licence is printed, which happens at the registry. (New South Wales driving licences are pinted on demand on a plastic card the same size and thickness as a credit card, and include a passport style picture. A transparent holographic image is then laminated on top to make them harder to forge.)

But if YOU were given a spec that looked like this: Replace our EOL'ed Javastations, must have
# LCD screen on movable arm
# fast, reliable Java implementation
# strongly prefer UNIX
# can't be Windows
# Easy integration with head office wintel software a bonus

Would you pick anything but an iMac?

[Graymalkin]

Simon I think a major flaw in your argument is that people will decide at some point to spend more money on a full featured Mac. The group of people that are interested in $499 PCs are cheapskates. There's plenty of offerings priced above $499 but they chose that offering. That means they're not willing to spend more than $499 on a computer no matter how nice of an OS it has. Apple would end up with thousands of eMac mini owners that had no interest in buying their higher margin systems nor were really interested in buying software. The entire argument for increasing the Mac market share is based around increasing the number of potential buyers of software which is an enticement for developers to stick to or move to the platform. Apple attracting thousands of cheapskates that buy little software or pirate what they do use isn't going to help them much in the long run.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Great idea, and although not a huge money spinner at first glance, could really increase market share and have a huge impact.

If people use Macs at work, they are then much more likely to buy one as a home machine.

Wrong way around.

The IBM OS/2 strategy was partner with MS and Win3.0/3.1.

OS/2 in the workplace, and Win at home.

What gets used at home is what comes into the office.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Simon I think a major flaw in your argument is that people will decide at some point to spend more money on a full featured Mac. The group of people that are interested in $499 PCs are cheapskates.

Well, actually I never mentioned 499. That would probably not even cover Apple's costs and therefore it makes no sense. I agree.

What I was talking about is Apple making a low-margin headless, the way they make a low-margin all-in-one.

If it works with the eMac I can guarantee that it will work with an eMac mini.

There's plenty of offerings priced above $499 but they chose that offering. That means they're not willing to spend more than $499 on a computer no matter how nice of an OS it has. Apple would end up with thousands of eMac mini owners that had no interest in buying their higher margin systems nor were really interested in buying software.
...
Apple attracting thousands of cheapskates that buy little software or pirate what they do use isn't going to help them much in the long run.

I think, you're misunderstanding me here. It's not about catering to cheapskates. It's about making a low-profit machine in order to finally be able to reach the "non-dogmatic" PC users. The thousands of people who have heard about a Mac, are maybe ready to believe in its superiority compared to a MS-dominated virus world, but are in no way ready to throw away all their PC hardware and shell out a thousand bucks just to test the experience on what is considered to be the lowest-end machine in Mac land.

I know half a dozen Linux guys at our lab who would gladly try a Mac as a home machine anytime, but they're just not willing to buy a G5, and they don't want all the eMac-included stuff they already own. They are not being cheap, they are actually quite reasonable.

It's in Apple's decision if they want to cater to these "open-minded" PC people or leave them to Dell's growing monopoly. It's definitely not about entering a no-margin cutthroat market just to be apart of it.

[sniffer]

I agree. I doubt the only reason the PowerMac G4 is still selling is because of it booting OS 9.

[Simon]

I just came across this old thread of mine and realized that in April of last year we had already discussed and spec'ed-out the Mac mini shipping today. At the time however, nobody believed Apple could do it for $499.

I would like to take this opportunity to pat myself on the shoulder.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Simon:
I just came across this old thread of mine and realized that in April of last year we had already discussed and spec'ed-out the Mac mini shipping today. At the time however, nobody believed Apple could do it for $499.

I would like to take this opportunity to pat myself on the shoulder.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 12 months or so. I certainly can see where potential computer buyers who are not familiar with the Mac can now start to consider a purchase. You can't understand the superior features of Mac OS X opposite Windows until you've used it for some amount of time. That requires actually buying a Mac and now that that doesn't entail spending $1000 on up there might be a greater uptake. My hunch is that those who are familiar with both OS X and Windows will want to stay with OS X, even if it might cost a little bit more. I doubt Windows user would be as loyal once they know enough about OS X to make an informed choice.