Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > [WISH] 13" Aluminum MBP 2009 (Calpella)

[WISH] 13" Aluminum MBP 2009 (Calpella)
Thread Tools
bikeboy
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2008, 01:27 PM
 
My theory is a little long-winded, so bear with me.

Apple, like any company, can increase profit by increasing the price of its computers or by decreasing its costs. In this era, raising the price of its hardware is out of the question, so reducing costs is the way to go. Pressure is also coming from environmentalists, hence the move to highly recyclable aluminum. Lastly, there appears to be a demand for smaller machines.

So, I'm wondering if Apple could address all these pressures by consolidating their consumer and pro laptop lines by using the aluminum cases for both, and simply spec them with consumer and pro parts. To illustrate, we now have an aluminum 13" Macbook, but no pro equivalent, a 15" MBP, but no consumer model of equivalent size. Doesn't it make sense that they're shifting everything to a single manufacturing process - aluminum unibody - instead of having separate lines for consumer (plastic) and pro (aluminum)?

As someone with a much loved, but ageing 12" PowerBook, I'm hoping I'll be able to buy a new 13" Calpella-based MBP in 2009. Wishful thinking on my part?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2008, 01:31 PM
 
Yeah, wishful thinking. You'll never see a 12 or 13" professional laptop from Apple again. The new MB line is the closest you'll get.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
bikeboy  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2008, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yeah, wishful thinking. You'll never see a 12 or 13" professional laptop from Apple again. The new MB line is the closest you'll get.
Ok, your point of view is clear, but what's your argument? Mine: 1) lower costs 2) address environmental concerns 3) trend towards smaller form factor.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2008, 03:40 PM
 
The argument is a 0.95" machine is going to have some compromises. The 12" PB wasn't 0.95" thick.

If Apple did make a 13" MBP, they'd want to keep it at least that thin, so it'd either be extremely hot, extremely expensive, or both. And, like the VAIOs, it'd probably fall apart from the thermal footprint it'd generate.
     
fisherKing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2008, 03:45 PM
 
i just want a better screen, and firewire...not unreasonable.
i just got a 13" alu macbook, and love it (despite the screen, and no FW).
i would PAY more for better specs (altho i'd rather not... )

apple could make the whole line 'pro' (ie 13", 15" 17") and offer an entry level macbook (like the white macbook)..
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 04:33 AM
 
I've been using the new MacBook 2.4Ghz for just over a month now. It's a great machine aesthetically, but there are a couple of things that can be improved imo:
-Size...The bezel around the screen and keyboard can and should be reduced.
-IR Port needs to be incorporated into the bezel of the screen or somewhere inconspicuous, the current location of the IR Port sort of breaks the seamless look of the unibody.
-Dare i say, they could anodize the shell using some different colors to distinguish the consumer and professional lines. They're doing it for the iPod lines, so i guess it can be done on the notebooks.
-Better screen would be nice, maybe a higher resolution.
-The CPU speeds are idea, they should focus on smaller chips at the same clock rate, bus speed is fine. faster HDD maybe.

Cheers
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 05:36 AM
 
Yes, I'm afraid that is wishful thinking.

• The 13" lacks the 9600M GT for heat/power/cost reasons.
• The 13" lacks FW for space reasons.
• The 13" has a crappier screen to keep cost down.

A 13" MBP would likely be hot, bigger, and expensive. Not something Apple would want to sell. The current 13" unibody MB with its 9400M is probably closer to the pro portable than any previous 12"/13" portable Mac has ever been! And this is about as close as Apple is likely going to let it get.

Personally, I'd like to see the MB get a better screen, but I guess this was a necessary compromise to keep price down (Apple 'tradition') and margins sound. I would like to see the bezel width reduced, but actually the MBA would need that much more.

I think once the white MB is phased out and unibodies cover the entire $1099 to $1499 price range the MB will be positioned perfectly. I think it's the MBA that needs some more effort (reduce width/depth). And I think Apple should then start seriously thinking about a netbook Mac. Although I do know that is not very likely to happen anytime soon.
     
thechidz
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 06:06 AM
 
It wont happen because apple doesnt not really respond to what the customer wants. people have been pleading for a 13 inch mbp and a minitower of some sort for a long time
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by thechidz View Post
It wont happen because apple doesnt not really respond to what the customer wants. people have been pleading for a 13 inch mbp and a minitower of some sort for a long time
The MacBook WAS, for all intents and purposes, a "pro" machine except for the graphics/screen.

And Apple DOES respond to what "the customer" wants.

You just aren't "the customer" that buys most of their machines. "The customer" is more than happy with Apple's decisions.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 06:53 PM
 
How do you know that "the customer" base wouldn't be expanded if customers like thechildz were made happier by Apple's choices?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
bikeboy  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Yes, I'm afraid that is wishful thinking.

• The 13" lacks the 9600M GT for heat/power/cost reasons.
• The 13" lacks FW for space reasons.
• The 13" has a crappier screen to keep cost down.

A 13" MBP would likely be hot, bigger, and expensive. Not something Apple would want to sell. The current 13" unibody MB with its 9400M is probably closer to the pro portable than any previous 12"/13" portable Mac has ever been! And this is about as close as Apple is likely going to let it get.

Personally, I'd like to see the MB get a better screen, but I guess this was a necessary compromise to keep price down (Apple 'tradition') and margins sound. I would like to see the bezel width reduced, but actually the MBA would need that much more.

I think once the white MB is phased out and unibodies cover the entire $1099 to $1499 price range the MB will be positioned perfectly. I think it's the MBA that needs some more effort (reduce width/depth). And I think Apple should then start seriously thinking about a netbook Mac. Although I do know that is not very likely to happen anytime soon.
So far this is the best rebuttal, however cost isn't an issue since people who want a pro laptop are prepared to pay more - having a better display for the pro version for more $ wouldn't be a problem. Lack of firewire may not be an issue with the advent of USB 3.0 (yes, firewire has some advantages, but speed isn't one of them).

I can't speak for anyone else, but this is one customer that wouldn't squawk if Apple offered me a 13" MBP that was a couple of millimetres thicker than the consumer version. Then again I'll probably be the first in line to buy the first Calpella-based MBP to roll off the line, regardless of size.
     
redhot_nyc
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2008, 10:52 PM
 
"Calpella" refers to the sixth-generation Centrino platform
The MacBooks never had a complete Centrino platform (chipset, CPU, WiFi). Now that Apple has ditched the Intel chipset, can we drop the Centrino names and start using the Nehalem names? (Clarksfield, Auburndale)
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 03:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by bikeboy View Post
So far this is the best rebuttal, however cost isn't an issue since people who want a pro laptop are prepared to pay more - having a better display for the pro version for more $ wouldn't be a problem.
I agree with that. But I think this is where Apple's business considerations come in. They have a marketing interest in keeping a certain segmentation in the portable line in terms of pricing and features.

Sure they could offer a high-end MB with a better screen and some other improvements, but they would then likely end up around $1799. That clouds the product line because now you have a MB that's priced like a MBA and a 'pro-ish' MB very close to the $1999 Mac Book Pro. This is not necessarily bad and I'm all for offering people choices, but Apple has always put strong emphasis on a clear and simple lineup. This pro MB would probably go against their idea of keeping it simple.

I'm not saying Apple is right, but I do think we can follow their reasoning.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
How do you know that "the customer" base wouldn't be expanded if customers like thechildz were made happier by Apple's choices?
There is no doubt that the customer base might be expanded by a handful of users.

But most people who use Mac laptops will continue to do so, and choose between the available options rather than continue to whine about something that's not going to happen and jump ship.
The number of people who absolutely will not or cannot live with Apple's current product lines is absolutely miniscule, particularly in light of the fact that the white MacBook is still available, and cheaper than ever.


And: it's not about the absolute gain of a few thousand users, or even a few ten-thousand users; it's about selling the maximum number of machines per machine line to offset development and tooling cost and make as much profit as possible.

Removing Firewire from the MacBook means
1.) a lot more MacBook Pros sold,
2.) a sleeker and sexier MacBook that sells and sells while
3.) cutting the cost of an additional controller and port, and
4.) a lot more profit generated.

End of story.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 08:50 AM
 
The product lines are overlapping to an extent as it is, adding a pro level 13" machine or a consumer level 15" would just decrease sales in their existing line.

The difference between a MB and MBP has gotten razor thin with the unibody MacBook [pro] and then there's the MBA which is as close to the OP's request as anything. its a pro level 13" laptop, but because of the thickness (or lack there of) there's been significant sacrifices.
~Mike
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 03:06 PM
 
I'd probably be content if Apple adds the option for a high-quality screen. I'd get a MacBook in a heartbeat as a next machine.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
There is no doubt that the customer base might be expanded by a handful of users. But most people who use Mac laptops will continue to do so, and choose between the available options rather than continue to whine about something that's not going to happen and jump ship. The number of people who absolutely will not or cannot live with Apple's current product lines is absolutely miniscule, particularly in light of the fact that the white MacBook is still available, and cheaper than ever.
What about the xMac market?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 07:50 PM
 
There's virtually no margin on those machines, and the market trend (as we've discussed at length in another thread) is definitely moving AWAY from low end towers to all-in-ones, and, even more so, towards portable machines.

There is absolutely no reason for Apple to enter a diminishing, cut-throat market, other than to blow losses for tax purposes.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
There's virtually no margin on those machines,
Yes there is, as was discussed in the other thread.

and the market trend (as we've discussed at length in another thread) is definitely moving AWAY from low end towers to all-in-ones, and, even more so, towards portable machines.
Moving towards portables: yes, for certain market segments.

Moving towards all-in-ones: what are you smoking?

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2008, 11:23 PM
 
apple bong for sure...




i keed i keed
maybe
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Yes there is, as was discussed in the other thread.


Moving towards portables: yes, for certain market segments.

Moving towards all-in-ones: what are you smoking?
The iMac is the ONLY desktop machine whose market share has been *increasing*.

All other desktops have been dropping in favor of portables.

IOW, the market is moving towards portables, and what's left of the desktop market is shifting towards the iMac.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 03:12 AM
 
Only if "the market" == Apple.

In the other 95% of the market, AIOs are almost unheard of. They're only popular on the Mac platform because the iMac is the only somewhat viable "desktop" (I use quote marks because it's really more of a non-portable laptop than a desktop) that Apple offers. Other than it, you basically have a neglected machine with outdated parts and an extremely poor price/performance ratio (the Mac mini) and a huge space heater workstation that's complete overkill for 99% of users and costs over twice what most would be willing to pay.

I dare you to point to one example where users move from minitowers (or anything, really) toward all-in-ones if actually given a choice.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Dec 10, 2008 at 03:19 AM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 04:31 AM
 
I'm definitely with CharlesS on this one. Deep down everybody here knows the iMac is not taking over the desktop world. PCs are there 90% of the time and even though their share is diminishing we all know very well that it will be years before they're gone. Sure Apple is doing very well. But does that mean they can't improve - especially on the desktop? Not at all.

The funny thing about discussions like these is that some people will argue all day long that Apple's lineup is exactly what people want/need and that conventional PCs (towers in the desktop area, cheap notebooks with large screens, etc.) are totally against what people really want. It's always interesting to see certain people tell other people what it is that they should want.

IMHO that's pure ideology. When we look around we see the real world. PCs everywhere. Especially on the desktop. Sure Macs are becoming more popular, but if a 5% market grows 25% more than the market average it will still take over a decade for the situation to invert. That's over a decade of at least 25% annual growth!

The point is not that Apple isn't growing. The point is that even though they are strong, loaded with cash, and full of ideas, they chose to a priori exclude a huge amount of potential customers from OS X. There's no b/s'ing around the fact that 90% of the people do not chose an Apple when they buy a computer. Are those all idiots or is it rather that Apple simply does not offer a lot of people what they are looking for in terms of hardware selection on the desktop?
( Last edited by Simon; Dec 10, 2008 at 04:42 AM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Only if "the market" == Apple.

In the other 95% of the market, AIOs are almost unheard of. They're only popular on the Mac platform because the iMac is the only somewhat viable "desktop" (I use quote marks because it's really more of a non-portable laptop than a desktop) that Apple offers. Other than it, you basically have a neglected machine with outdated parts and an extremely poor price/performance ratio (the Mac mini) and a huge space heater workstation that's complete overkill for 99% of users and costs over twice what most would be willing to pay.

I dare you to point to one example where users move from minitowers (or anything, really) toward all-in-ones if actually given a choice.
It doesn't matter at all.

Fact is, the minitower market is IN DECLINE and has been for a while. It makes NO sense for Apple to develop a new machine for a shrinking market, when its all-in-one desktop is the only one that's bucking the trend towards portables. They're obviously doing something right - and arguably doing a better job of it than the minitower vendors.

Also, the minitower market is one of extremely low margins, which is the sort of market Apple has absolutely no business with.


Apple is probably MAKING (i.e. saving) more money by NOT diversifying their product lines, than they are losing to the small handful of people who absolutely cannot arrange themselves with Apple's offerings.

I certainly haven't met anyone so far who's prepared to leave the platform because Apple won't be offering a 13" machine with Firewire in a good year's time (never mind that they actually still do at the moment).
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 01:32 PM
 
People aren't moving to AIOs (outside the Mac world), they're moving to laptops. Whether they'd move to AIOs if there were any good options is an academic question, because there are very few AIOs other than the iMacs that don't suck and are not meant to be a combination computer/TV. I'd suspect that if you polled all people who bought towers why they bought that, the top two answers would be 1) it was cheap and 2) it's what I've always had. But I digress, and Simon and I had something very close to this discussion recently. Fact is that the minitower market is being reduced to bargain basement and gaming, while laptops - particularly low-end laptops - are gaining share.

OK, so the MB doesn't have Firewire - it didn't fit. It has a decent GPU and is the display really that bad? I will confess to not having worked with one, but it's LED backlit, and viewing angles are usually less of an issue on smaller panels. Frankly, the current MB is the closest we've been to a small pro laptop since the Intel switch.
     
fisherKing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
People aren't moving to AIOs (outside the Mac world), they're moving to laptops. Whether they'd move to AIOs if there were any good options is an academic question, because there are very few AIOs other than the iMacs that don't suck and are not meant to be a combination computer/TV. I'd suspect that if you polled all people who bought towers why they bought that, the top two answers would be 1) it was cheap and 2) it's what I've always had. But I digress, and Simon and I had something very close to this discussion recently. Fact is that the minitower market is being reduced to bargain basement and gaming, while laptops - particularly low-end laptops - are gaining share.

OK, so the MB doesn't have Firewire - it didn't fit. It has a decent GPU and is the display really that bad? I will confess to not having worked with one, but it's LED backlit, and viewing angles are usually less of an issue on smaller panels. Frankly, the current MB is the closest we've been to a small pro laptop since the Intel switch.
really, i like my new macbook, for a lot of good reasons, but i would still prefer having firewire (if it fit on the 12" pb, apple could fit it here), and the colors ARE washed out, on an overly-reflective screen); will get my work done, but the 13" could and should be a better machine...
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Fact is, the minitower market is IN DECLINE and has been for a while. It makes NO sense for Apple to develop a new machine for a shrinking market, when its all-in-one desktop is the only one that's bucking the trend towards portables. They're obviously doing something right - and arguably doing a better job of it than the minitower vendors.
The desktop market makes up roughly half of computer sales. The minitower market pretty much == the desktop market. By your logic, Apple shouldn't be making desktops at all. Yet somehow it makes sense for them to compete in the AIO market, which is effectively zero.

People are buying the iMac because of the platform, not because it's AIO. Apple's been doing a good job lately with marketing the advantages of OS X, people are sick of viruses, don't like Vista, etc. The iMac sells because it's the only "desktop" that's close to being viable for most users that come to the platform. It would probably sell more if it were in a form factor that people actually want. Take away the Mac OS X platform and make the iMac a regular PC running Windows in that case, and watch it tank.

Also, the minitower market is one of extremely low margins, which is the sort of market Apple has absolutely no business with.
So is the PC laptop market, the PC all-in-one market (oh wait, there is no PC all-in-one market), etc. Dell laptops start at $350 - are you gonna tell me that has a large margin? Apple always overprices everything, and a minitower would be no exception. They'd almost certainly have a larger margin than the iMac, due to the fact that using regular desktop components and not needing to use the iMac's excessively overly engineered case would bring the costs way down. This was all mentioned over and over in the other thread, which incidentally is where this discussion belongs - not here.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
The desktop market makes up roughly half of computer sales.
In units, but not in revenue and certainly not in profit.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Take away the Mac OS X platform and make the iMac a regular PC running Windows in that case, and watch it tank.
We won't know until someone tries it. Yes, that's xMac argument turned on its head - how do you like it?

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
So is the PC laptop market, the PC all-in-one market (oh wait, there is no PC all-in-one market), etc. Dell laptops start at $350 - are you gonna tell me that has a large margin?
No, but it's larger. Desktop average margin is between 5 and 6 %. Laptop average margin is around 9%. Apple's are higher because they don't pay directly for the OS and the included software.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Apple always overprices everything, and a minitower would be no exception. They'd almost certainly have a larger margin than the iMac, due to the fact that using regular desktop components and not needing to use the iMac's excessively overly engineered case would bring the costs way down. This was all mentioned over and over in the other thread, which incidentally is where this discussion belongs - not here.
Then don't bring it here. Spheric Harlot makes two general statements (tower volumes are dropping, and their margins are slim) about the commodity desktop market. Both are inarguably true, and without contradicting either you manage to start arguing the xMac point again. They're also used to argue against the xMac - that doesn't make them any less true.

As for the rest of your reasoning, see the other thread. A slim Dell plus display came to almost exactly the same as the low-end iMac once you added the same software to it.

really, i like my new macbook, for a lot of good reasons, but i would still prefer having firewire (if it fit on the 12" pb, apple could fit it here), and the colors ARE washed out, on an overly-reflective screen); will get my work done, but the 13" could and should be a better machine...
The 12" pb is thicker. Thicker lets you put the ports (especially USB) standing up, so you fit more along the motherboard edge - I believe the PB did that. Take a look at the motherboard (linked lots of times around the forum) - it's pretty full. Does anyone have a pic of the 12" PB motherboard?
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
We won't know until someone tries it. Yes, that's xMac argument turned on its head - how do you like it?
I like it just fine. People have tried it. Dell and Gateway both offer all-in-one machines. They don't sell. This has been posted in the other thread.

No, but it's larger. Desktop average margin is between 5 and 6 %. Laptop average margin is around 9%. Apple's are higher because they don't pay directly for the OS and the included software.
And if Apple were to do it, they would have a higher margin. Apple currently seems to find the iMac to be worthy of its time, and the iMac almost certainly has a much lower margin than a minitower Mac would - if you match the iMac's specs but use a desktop CPU, desktop GPU, desktop RAM, and a less expensive enclosure that doesn't need to be paper thin, and then you put it at a similar price point, then bam, you're making a larger margin than the iMac. THIS HAS BEEN POSTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE OTHER THREAD.

Then don't bring it here. Spheric Harlot makes two general statements (tower volumes are dropping, and their margins are slim) about the commodity desktop market. Both are inarguably true, and without contradicting either you manage to start arguing the xMac point again. They're also used to argue against the xMac - that doesn't make them any less true.
You know the funny thing about Internet forums? They have this weird thing called the "scroll bar", by which you can look up and see what's already been posted in the thread, and then you can see whether I brought the discussion here or not before you start accusing people and making an ass of yourself.

As for the rest of your reasoning, see the other thread. A slim Dell plus display came to almost exactly the same as the low-end iMac once you added the same software to it.
See the other thread also for the rebuttal to that, posted countless times.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
The desktop market makes up roughly half of computer sales. The minitower market pretty much == the desktop market. By your logic, Apple shouldn't be making desktops at all. Yet somehow it makes sense for them to compete in the AIO market, which is effectively zero.
Considering that iMac sales are GROWING, they must be doing something right, no?

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
People are buying the iMac because of the platform, not because it's AIO.
I'm going to stop arguing after this post, because we've basically both made our points, but I will respond to this one point, because it is patently false.

People buy NOT WINDOWS because they want away from Windows, but most of my customers who buy iMacs do so because they're ****ING COOL. Pretty much unanimously.

Seriously: Don't underestimate how many customers buy iMacs precisely *because* they're NOT towers.

The trend away from desktops towards laptops is NOT because most people need a machine for the road: It's because the machine disppears into a desk drawer or a bookshelf, where it doesn't look like ****, when people are done with it.

Computers are becoming so ubiquitous that getting one that isn't an annoying mess of cables and boxes is a *big* thing - Apple had this down back in the iMac commercials in 1998, but it's not some imaginary hype: it's truer than ever.


In a nutshell:

The iMac is selling great for exactly the same reason the rest of the desktop market is in such decline: precisely because people *don't* want towers. They want living-room machines.

Admittedly, this is from my limited perspective of selling Macs to people who want them, and from the googling and reading I did for that other thread, but this is what I'm seeing, and I think Apple foresaw this with their whole "digital hub" strategy.


Personally I'd love a 24" iMac in the living room - we just threw out our TV and replaced it with the 17" G5 iMac from the study, that's now hooked up to the stereo and used for TV, radio, videos, as my wife's general-purpose computer, and music playback.

The only other option would be a large TV and a Mac mini hooked up to that, but a tower? The Mac mini *disappears*.

But a boxy tower? My wife would lynch me - cables and gear stuff are confined to the studio around here - she'll have none of it in the living room.
     
dimmer
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 09:13 PM
 
then bam, you're making a larger margin than the iMac
While the margin may be slightly higher, you are also taking in less real money: better to make 5% on a $1000 box than 1% on a $250 box. Also if you sell the computer and screen all in one, how much extra do you make from selling both items locked together vs. conjoined?

Does anyone really think Apple hasn't considered such an obvious product, researched it, and come to a conclusion? The conclusion being that it's a bad idea?

The market for desktop/tower/minitower computers is in decline: laptops are pretty much it. By reusing technology from the portable line in the iMac just makes sense. Veering off into hacker land would be pointless, expensive, and futile.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Thicker lets you put the ports (especially USB) standing up, so you fit more along the motherboard edge - I believe the PB did that.
It did not.

     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2008, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by dimmer View Post
While the margin may be slightly higher, you are also taking in less real money: better to make 5% on a $1000 box than 1% on a $250 box. Also if you sell the computer and screen all in one, how much extra do you make from selling both items locked together vs. conjoined?
You may not be familiar with the debate we've had about the "xMac." No one is suggesting Apple make a $250 or even $750 mini-tower. We're suggesting an xMac mini-tower priced near the midrange and high-end of the iMac price spectrum, say $1300-$1900. The margins for those machines would definitely be higher than the iMac's margins for the reasons Charles enumerated. Regarding your contention, I would be absolutely shocked and incredulous if the LCD portion of the iMac were so high margin that it could compensate for the use of the iMac's higher cost (and lower relative performance) laptop components and over-engineering to fit everything in that tight space.

The xMac would use higher performance desktop chips, just like the rest of the computer industry uses for their desktops. The problem seems to be that SJ has always had a hard-on for AIOs since the original Mac. 90% of the computer market sells regular desktops, and most of those corporations do so profitably. Even Dell manages profitability despite its across the board cutthroat pricing. If you walk into any doctor's office, chances are good you'll see a Dell desktop sitting there. If you walk into any library, chances are good you'll see PC desktops there. Towers still account for most of the computer market despite the growth of laptops, as Charles points out. Charles also cogently points out that people only buy iMacs because they're the only passable general desktop-like solution Apple provides right now. The traditional tower market is one of the biggest computer market segments, and Apple has chosen to ignore it ever since it got rid of the entry-level G4 towers. The xMac would be a very popular and profitable machine unless Apple somehow managed to screw it up. But Apple and SJ will do what they will do, and we will continue buying Macs either way because those of us substantially invested in the platform represent a captive audience. It's just too bad that Apple refuses the chance to make some bold choices like the xMac that could pay off handsomely and quickly and in the name of further expanding the platform's market share.

You know, it sort of reminds me of Apple's early 1990s mindset. Apple then was arrogant. Windows was retarded, and Apple was happy and complacent with sales as they were. Market share was small, but Apple was fat and happy with what it had at the time - including its fat margins. Apple's creativity and innovation stopped, Windows became usable with 95, and Apple lost out big for the next several years. Now Apple is more profitable than ever but seems content to largely rest on its laurels as far as the Mac hardware platform goes. We could have so much more than we have now if only Apple would play ball. The ~8% we have now? What about 15%? 20%? At that point few software publishers would refuse to seriously consider the platform. Mac users would be first class software citizens. But Apple doesn't want to be bold. Apple doesn't want to take chances. What's the risk of releasing an xMac? Very little R&D effort would be required. Release it and see how things go. If it cannibalizes more profitable lines or doesn't sell well, put it on ice like the Cube was. But what harm would it do to try?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Dec 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The problem seems to be that SJ has always had a hard-on for AIOs since the original Mac. 90% of the computer market sells regular desktops, and most of those corporations do so profitably. Even Dell manages profitability despite its across the board cutthroat pricing. If you walk into any doctor's office, chances are good you'll see a Dell desktop sitting there. If you walk into any library, chances are good you'll see PC desktops there. Towers still account for most of the computer market despite the growth of laptops, as Charles points out.
Wrong.

Laptops, notebooks taking more of the PC market share from desktop computers - Wichita Business Journal:

And even if it were true, that desktops "still account" for a large part of the market means it's probably not a good idea to invest millions into an entirely new product line that caters to a rapidly dwindling market.

Oh, and Dell hasn't been doing so hot, btw.

At least, not nearly as well as Apple, who coincidentally don't bother with cut-throat markets.
     
dimmer
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 04:25 AM
 
You may not be familiar with the debate we've had about the "xMac".
God I only wish it were so. "We want a cheap Mac with at most two free slots that we can bitch about our new "card doesn't work" and that is somehow Apple's issue.
( Last edited by dimmer; Dec 11, 2008 at 04:27 AM. Reason: bad parsing.)
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Admittedly, this is from my limited perspective of selling Macs to people who want them...
I think so, yes. Your argument seems to be mainly based on the fact that Apple and the iMac are doing very well. But you fail to see that nobody is contesting that. What people are saying is Apple could be doing better. Yet they chose to lock out a huge part of the market as if they couldn't come up with an idea how to make profits in that segment.

The iMac is selling great for exactly the same reason the rest of the desktop market is in such decline: precisely because people *don't* want towers. They want living-room machines.
That's not even entirely true in the home computer market. And business, academia, and higher education are entirely different. The bare truth is that if you look at desktop computers you see a huge majority of PCs, mostly mini towers. The iMac isn't even close at matching the numbers. And it would take years of incredibly strong growth to invert the situation.

Considering that iMac sales are GROWING, they must be doing something right, no?
Again, nobody is contesting that. But what you are essentially saying is that as long as Apple's market share is increasing they shouldn't change a thing. An that's what people here object to. Just because the iMac is doing well does not mean Apple can't come up with something better.

And actually your statement can be turned around just as easily: Considering Apple holds only a tiny share of the market, they must be missing something, no?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 06:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by dimmer View Post
By reusing technology from the portable line in the iMac just makes sense.
No, actually it doesn't. The reason the iMac uses a mobile CPU and chipset is because of its ultra-slim design. Had Apple not put themselves into this anorexic design corner they could be saving a lot of money in production. Either pass it on to customers and lower the iMac price or pocket it and increase revenue.

Fact is that every Penryn/Crestline iMac costs Apple on the order of $250 more to produce than if they had used similarly clocked Kentsfield/Bearlake. And that's already factoring in extra discounts they get due to large volume purchase of mobile components.

As long as Apple can waste almost $300 on every iMac sold for design purposes only I'd say business reasoning has taken second seat to anorexic design.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 06:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Wrong.
His point still stands. Even if today half the computers are notebooks the other half are still desktops. And even if they are on the decline there are still millions of new ones sold every year. And the real issue is that if you look around (just as Big Mac tried pointing out to you) in businesses, libraries, universities, government offices, etc. what you will see are PC desktops, not iMacs.

Is that because the iMac sucks? No. It's because Apple doesn't have a true desktop. They have two non-portable notebooks and a monster workstation. The huge space in between which incidentally makes up the largest chunk of the desktop market is left totally unattended. No wonder you see Dells everywhere.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by dimmer View Post
Does anyone really think Apple hasn't considered such an obvious product, researched it, and come to a conclusion? The conclusion being that it's a bad idea?
I'm 100% sure they have actually.

What I question is their motivation for thinking it's a bad idea. If in the end it boils down to Steve throwing a fit about how 'ugly' desktops are, I think that is a very bad reason. As an Apple stockholder the only thing I think counts is the amount of money the make. I believe they could make more and I think Steve's ego is in the way of that.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 06:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I like it just fine. People have tried it. Dell and Gateway both offer all-in-one machines. They don't sell. This has been posted in the other thread.
All of Dell's AIOs have TV tuners are intended as dual-role boxes, which is why they're more expensive niche models.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
And if Apple were to do it, they would have a higher margin.
Of course. The margin statement was in response to your comment on PC laptop margins.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Apple currently seems to find the iMac to be worthy of its time, and the iMac almost certainly has a much lower margin than a minitower Mac would - if you match the iMac's specs but use a desktop CPU, desktop GPU, desktop RAM, and a less expensive enclosure that doesn't need to be paper thin, and then you put it at a similar price point, then bam, you're making a larger margin than the iMac. THIS HAS BEEN POSTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE OTHER THREAD.
Actually it wasn't. At a price from the high end of the iMac range up to just under the MP range, you can build a very powerful desktop box, mainly because you can stuff it with GTX2x0 and Radeon 48x0 cards that have no direct comparison in the laptop space. If you move the comparison to the lower-end of the range, however, the iMac stands up well - a Dell box plus a display at the same price is almost identical in performance to the low-end iMac. Neither of this was really under discussion - the discussion centered on whether the market for a $1600 box was large enough to warrant Apple's attention.

Note that laptop RAM costs the same as desktop RAM these days. While a laptop GPU may be more expensive (we don't really know) you don't have to spend the money on a slot and an extra PCB.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
You know the funny thing about Internet forums? They have this weird thing called the "scroll bar", by which you can look up and see what's already been posted in the thread, and then you can see whether I brought the discussion here or not before you start accusing people and making an ass of yourself.
Yes, Big Mac threw in a torch and then apparently stepped back to admire the flames. I missed that bit. You still didn't answer the arguments that you quoted.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
See the other thread also for the rebuttal to that, posted countless times.
No, it wasn't. In fact, that particular pricing example went almost without comment. At the price-ranges where most computers are sold today, laptop parts stand up well at a small if any premium. At the higher end, there is still a discrepancy, but the market is tiny there.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
At the higher end, there is still a discrepancy, but the market is tiny there.
As we already established in the other thread, this is a claim of yours. It's not a fact. Other here will claim the opposite is true.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 07:00 AM
 
People, this discussion is about a hypothetical 13" (Pro)Book (some say it already exists, others say it hasn't existed ever since cancelling the 12" PowerBook).

The discussion on the xMac belong in another thread. Please continue your discussion there.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
What people are saying is Apple could be doing better. Yet they chose to lock out a huge part of the market as if they couldn't come up with an idea how to make profits in that segment.
I suspect that may be, as I've more or less clearly stated above (the half of my argument that YOU fail to see) that this may be due to the fact that they couldn't come up with an idea how to make profits LONG-TERM in that segment.

New product lines COST MONEY first and foremost. R&D, tooling, machining, prototyping, market research, design, advertising. It takes quite a while until those costs are hauled in and the line starts making money.

A new xMac line would cost Apple millions up front and would be thrown at a shrinking market. Strike one.

What will remain of that market might well be mostly a corporate niche five years from now, which is price-driven and cutthroat business. Goodbye margins. Strike two.


In the case of the 13" Macbook Pro: nobody's going to jump ship rather than opt for one of the existing models - white MB, alu MB, MBP. Seriously.

Apple sells everybody their machine, everybody has a nice machine that does what they need at a livable compromise (just like every machine they've ever had before), and everybody wins.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 12:37 PM
 
Spoken like a true salesman.

I just don't buy all this "hallelujah Apple is doing the best they possibly could" as long as their market share is as small as it is.
( Last edited by Simon; Dec 11, 2008 at 04:21 PM. Reason: typo)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
As we already established in the other thread, this is a claim of yours. It's not a fact. Other here will claim the opposite is true.
Well, the current market is tiny above $1500. Apple has two thirds of everything above $1000, and their market share isn't that large, as you keep reminding us. Assuming a reasonably normal distribution, the market over $1500 can't be more than 1% of the total, or thereabouts. I thought the debate was more on if Apple could grow this segment if they made an xMac.

And since Oreo wants us to shut up now, I'll leave this entry reasonably short.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
It did not.

Thanks for the pic, that was interesting to compare to this. The new motherboard is smaller - looks like the difference is in the space the battery takes. Possibly a tradeoff for the replaceable battery, then.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 01:48 PM
 
I'm pretty sure the 12" PowerBook had a replaceable battery.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
fisherKing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
I'm pretty sure the 12" PowerBook had a replaceable battery.
really. if apple had WANTED firewire on the new macbook, it would be there (wish they'd asked me what i NEEDED first).

apple made a choice to leave FW off this book (and chose an inferior screen), pushing 'pro' users to the mbp. the new mb is great overall, just wish it were even better...
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by fisherKing View Post
really. if apple had WANTED firewire on the new macbook, it would be there (wish they'd asked me what i NEEDED first).
So you would have sacrificed a bit of battery volume to get the space for an extra FW port. Others wouldn't have wanted to give up any battery lifetime.

No matter what Apple chose some people would have been disappointed. Only time will tell if they made the right call.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2008, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
So you would have sacrificed a bit of battery volume to get the space for an extra FW port. Others wouldn't have wanted to give up any battery lifetime.

No matter what Apple chose some people would have been disappointed. Only time will tell if they made the right call.
Personally the lack of FW was not the deciding factor of my choosing MBP over the MB. The screen and GPU. If apple had provided a better display panel on the MB, I probably could have made a case to buy that over the 15" MBP.

I have no regrets but I really like the 13" form factor. Most of the time its plugged into my monitor, but on occasions when its not, I think the difference in the screen quality over the better size would give me buyers remorse.
~Mike
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,