[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Apple has not already done that it appears to me that some marketing exec has been seriously screwing up, already killing the MP line with grossly inappropriate pricing.

It actually seems intentional: causing reduced sales by overpricing (duh), then using the reduced sales as a justification to kill the MP.

Except that Apple doesn't operate this way.

Look at the industry figures again: desktops aren't selling industry-wide.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by P 

...especially if they add a matte version of the top iMac.

Seems like a no brainer. Apple has to know from the MBP display experience that there are a lot of users who find glossy displays undesirable. Maybe the same exec over-pricing the MP is the one who has been keeping matte off the iMacs.

[Waragainstsleep]

Marketing execs definitely don't make design decisions. Not at Apple.

[P]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Maybe the same exec over-pricing the MP is the one who has been keeping matte off the iMacs.

I think it is, no joke - Apple is protecting the MP from the iMac. If the MP goes, I think the iMac gets a matte option the very same day.

I think that Apple's mistake with the current model was the limited RAM slots. The MP would make a lot more sense with 6 slots per socket.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by P 

I think it is, no joke - Apple is protecting the MP from the iMac. If the MP goes, I think the iMac gets a matte option the very same day.

I think that Apple's mistake with the current model was the limited RAM slots. The MP would make a lot more sense with 6 slots per socket.

And yet no matte option on the ACD which is well out of the price range of most consumers and therefore aimed squarely at pros. I wouldn't hold your breath for a matte iMac under any circumstances.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet no matte option on the ACD which is well out of the price range of most consumers and therefore aimed squarely at pros.

Not squarely aimed at graphics pros, who mostly avoid glossy. I (and many others) used Apple displays for years for the style but stopped using Apple once they went all glossy. The decision to not offer matte boggles my mind.

And Apple has never aimed at "most" consumers. The ACD is aimed at folks who want a stylish display, are not graphics pros, and are willing to overpay for style and the Apple logo.

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Marketing execs definitely don't make design decisions. Not at Apple.

Sure they do on things like price points, offering matte options, etc. Jony Ive et. al. do not operate in a vacuum. No way you create the success Apple has without working from what the customer wants, needs, and is willing and able to buy, i.e. marketing.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Not squarely aimed at graphics pros, who mostly avoid glossy. I (and many others) used Apple displays for years for the style but stopped using Apple once they went all glossy. The decision to not offer matte boggles my mind.

I genuinely don't mean any offence by this, but I am well aware of your opinion on glossy displays, I'm surprised you aren't bored of repeating it tbh, you certainly don't have to repeat it to me.
That said, even though its mostly you and one or two others here that have the real problems with it, I have come around to think that Apple should offer a matte ACD. They do it on the MBP so they obviously know there is a market segment who will insist and even pay extra for it.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

And Apple has never aimed at "most" consumers. The ACD is aimed at folks who want a stylish display, are not graphics pros, and are willing to overpay for style and the Apple logo.

I disagree with most of this. There are many people in recent years who have broken the bank to buy Apple because they got so frustrated with Windows or just because they wanted to be trendy. These people fall well within the description of 'most consumers'. Apple just makes the best products it can and prices them to sell with a healthy margin. This only applies to certain products though. It applies to iMacs & Mac Minis, previously to MacBooks and smaller MBPs, now MBAs too. No-one buys ACDs for Mac Minis since its better and cheaper to just get an iMac. For consumers, its just as good and much, much cheaper to get an iMac than a Mac Pro with ACD. (Even ultra rich consumers tend not to buy Mac Pros anyway.)

I very rarely sold Apple displays with laptops, even the old matte ones. Not many consumers buy 15 or 17" MBPs either though since they cost 4 times a similar sized Windows machine and most consumers don't need the power they provide.

The price point means that its just dreadful value for a consumer and if money is no object, you may as well buy a 27" iMac and use it in target display mode nowadays. So I maintain its priced for professionals (lets face it, its kind of overpriced even for them) despite any distaste some might have for the glossiness. Enough pros are buying glossy MBPs so it can't be that bad for everyone.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Sure they do on things like price points, offering matte options, etc. Jony Ive et. al. do not operate in a vacuum. No way you create the success Apple has without working from what the customer wants, needs, and is willing and able to buy, i.e. marketing.

Price points are not really a design decision. Steve always followed Henry Ford's line about what customers want and I doubt Tim will go against that. In fact, everything you read about Apple says that they do pretty much the opposite of what you are claiming here. They tell the customer what they should want or need and set the price to suit themselves and even with industry leading margins pretty much across the board, people find ways to buy their products.

[Doc HM]

I had heard (from a friend with a relative inside Apple - yes I know but there you are) that Apple were considering splitting off the MacPro's and setting up a boutique company to make custom spec Pro machines for larger customers leaving the home user (and the small business I guess) with only the iMac or Mini to choose from.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I disagree with most of this. There are many people in recent years who have broken the bank to buy Apple because they got so frustrated with Windows or just because they wanted to be trendy. These people fall well within the description of 'most consumers'.

I have tried, but I find the "most consumers" terminology too be too convoluted to make sense of. The term can be used to mean just too many different things. And to compound the issue Macs have for most of the past 25 years been considered as selling to a niche (e.g. Heineken not Budweiser) anyway.

Apple just makes the best products it can and prices them to sell with a healthy margin. This only applies to certain products though. It applies to iMacs & Mac Minis, previously to MacBooks and smaller MBPs, now MBAs too.

Personally I believe that competent product development and pricing is much more complex than that. But I am curious. Why do you exclude MPs and 15/17" MBPs from your adoption of the idea that Apple just makes the best products it can and prices them to sell with a healthy margin?

Not many consumers buy 15 or 17" MBPs either though since they cost 4 times a similar sized Windows machine and most consumers don't need the power they provide.

All indications are that Apple is doing better than all other vendors at high end laptop sales. And again, terms like "not many" are hard to make sense of. That is like saying "not many consumers buy 7-series BMWs." So what.

Anecdotally, when I go into Pete's or Starbucks there are usually more MBPs than any other individual laptop. MBAs are coming on strong though now that Sandy Bridge and SSDs make them such a good product.

I maintain its priced for professionals (lets face it, its kind of overpriced even for them) despite any distaste some might have for the glossiness. Enough pros are buying glossy MBPs so it can't be that bad for everyone.

I have never said that glossy was bad for everyone, quite the contrary; what I always say is each individual should do his/her own eyeball comparison before buying. The reason I keep repeating that is because many buyers are unaware that the need to visually compare exists. And, matte is usually a CTO decision while glossy is usually stocked, so salespeople usually will try to lead folks away from matte to make the instant sale.

I specifically do not consider "pros" to mean just graphics pros. My guess is that lots of ACDs go to non-images-work professional usages.

Price points are not really a design decision. Steve always followed Henry Ford's line about what customers want and I doubt Tim will go against that. In fact, everything you read about Apple says that they do pretty much the opposite of what you are claiming here. They tell the customer what they should want or need and set the price to suit themselves and even with industry leading margins pretty much across the board, people find ways to buy their products.

I disagree with that paragraph on every level (except the part about industry-leading proft margins). It implies an amateuristic approach to design/build/marketing and Apple represents a totally professional approach. Not to mention the fact that they offer a wide range of Mac choices, not your Ford-metaphorical "just black."

Note that contrary to popular belief, high profit margin does not equal overpricing or arbitrary pricing. A firm can raise profit by being more efficient compared to the competition (e.g. Apple supply chain) while remaining at appropriate-for-the-desired-segment price points.

They tell the customer what they should want or need and set the price to suit themselves...

There is a huge difference between telling the customer what they should want or need and setting the price to suit themselves and anticipating what customers will want or need and setting the price to suit the market.

-Allen

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

a niche (e.g. Heineken not Budweiser) anyway.

I hate to break it to you, but Bud is a niche.

The number of people who wish to drink beer but buy something that isn't beer instead is fairly small, and for some reason pretty exclusive to the United States.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I hate to break it to you, but Bud is a niche.

The number of people who wish to drink beer but buy something that isn't beer instead is fairly small, and for some reason pretty exclusive to the United States.

I agree on all counts. Bud (~50% of USA beer sales) addresses a very large USA market segment, people who wish to drink beer but buy something that isn't beer (to many, including me). Niche is usually not applied to the largest segment in a huge market, but I agree that it is still just a market segment, perhaps a small one if you look worldwide.

But even worldwide Bud swill had a relatively high 13% 2006 share in... Ireland! Who would have drunk thunk it.

Note I include all versions of Dudweiser in the above data points: Bud, Bud Light, etc.

-Allen

[Waragainstsleep]

Allow me to clarify some of what I meant: I didn't mean that the MBP & MP weren't high quality, high margin, I meant that they generally aren't bought by consumers. Those consumers who broke the bank to go Mac, generally still just went entry level. I'm talking people who would buy a £300 laptop or £250 desktop box going for iMacs and MacBooks.

'Most consumers' is indeed a vague term. Apple differentiates between consumers and 'prosumers'. The prosumer is very knowledgeable about one or more particular higher end tasks be it photography with Aperture, video with FCS or music with Logic or ProTools. They typically don't mind paying extra for the computing power they know they need and have typically already spent way more money on cameras, lenses or vintage synthesisers anyway. There is a section of consumers who have to buy the biggest, flashiest kit available because they can afford it so they must and that is the rules they choose to live by. Not too many of them about, more money than sense and not what I would call 'most consumers' 'Most consumers' covers the rest of the home users, not already covered by those two cases in my book at least.

15 & 17" MBPs tend to be bought for business users, 'most consumers' just want something that will do Facebook and play DVDs and talk to their iPods. Even those with a few extra bucks to kick around don't tend to pay the premium for a slightly larger screen size which is the only benefit they are likely to notice on the higher end MBPs.

To sum up, MacBook Airs, Mac Minis and iMacs are purchased by pretty much every type of customer. Same with 13" MBPs. Bigger Pros, Mac Pros and ACDs are bought by professionals, students training to become professionals, prosumer hobbyists and rich fools. Generally speaking. Actually thats a pretty solid set of rules.


As for your thoughts on the design process, they way you describe is how everyone but Apple operates. While I doubt that Jonny Ive sets the pricing, I believe that he takes his final prototype to Steve/Tim who approves that it is indeed a great product. Then he tells them how much it costs. Time then squeezes what he can out of suppliers to cut costs where possible and then sets the retail price based on the final BOM and incorporating R&D & retooling costs etc.
There has been times where Steve will have decided on a price point that he needed to hit, but I think this is more for the iPod/iPhone/iPad than any Macs. These are times when I imagine he would have said "Its perfect, but go away and make it cheaper without making it worse."

Where other companies will chop features and/or compromise quality to save cash I think Apple just pulls the product until it can sell it at the right price. Apple is prepared to sit on technology where others will just say "well we spent this much time and cash on it, may as well go to market and recover as much as possible" *Cough* HP Touchpad *Cough*

[Veltliner]

The question is: does the Mac Pro actually lose money for Apple? I can't imagine that this should be the case.

If the Mac Pro ends, Apple will definitely lose customers at the high end.

I agree, products like the lates Cinema Displays (I'd call it a Daytime Television Display to express the quality of the displays more precisely) is for the higher end consumer.

Maybe we'll see a new line of professional products coming up. Things are changing at Apple, and it doesn't have to be for the worse.

I could imagine a real cinema display (of the quality level of the defunct 30" displays) showing up, that can match Eizo's and NEC's displays in quality (which current Daytime Television Displays can't).

[Spheric Harlot]

Edit: got confused by the fact that this thread is now happening in the Wish List thread.

[Don Pickett]

If there is another Mac Pro, Intel has--finally--unveiled the chips which will power it.

Intel demos Xeon E5 due for Mac Pro, working Knights Corner | Electronista

[Don Pickett]

More food for thought: MacBook Air now accounts for almost 1/3 of Mac sales.

MacBook Air supplies almost one-third of Apple notebook sales

[reader50]

'almost 1/3 of notebook sales' ≠ 1/3 of Mac sales.

If notebooks make up almost 2/3 of Mac sales, say 60%, and MacBook Airs make up almost 1/3 of notebook sales, say 30% -- that makes them 18% of Mac sales.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by reader50 

'almost 1/3 of notebook sales' ≠ 1/3 of Mac sales.

If notebooks make up almost 2/3 of Mac sales, say 60%, and MacBook Airs make up almost 1/3 of notebook sales, say 30% -- that makes them 18% of Mac sales.

Oops: you're right. Misread the post.

However, laptops make up about 75% of Mac sales.