http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iOS...les,14733.html
125,000,000 or so total Mac sales in 28 years? I knew it was low but I had no idea it was that low. One good point is people do tend to change phones frequently and computers very infrequently.
Printable View
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iOS...les,14733.html
125,000,000 or so total Mac sales in 28 years? I knew it was low but I had no idea it was that low. One good point is people do tend to change phones frequently and computers very infrequently.
Macs also stay in standard operation much longer than PCs I've found. There are still a lot of operational Power Books and Power Macs out there. Power Mac G5s from '05/'06 still go for $500.
You standard consumer grade Dell/Acer crapbook will literally start to fall apart at the hinges after two years.
Since replacement cost is so much lower for a PC and the hardware evolves so much faster people are more likely to just replace a PC instead of keeping the one they have working properly. I still have PII's and PIII's that work fine. I replaced them because they are slow not because they don't work. How much faster are current MAC's compared to 2005? A 2005 PC got you a single core A64 or a P4 with 8xx series ATI graphics or 7xxx Nvidia graphics. The reason there is no resale value is because current PC's are infinitely faster. A system with the slowest most inexpensive parts still blow away a 2005 spec computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
My professor still uses a G5 as his workstation. He programs, runs simulations, etc and it is still powerful enough to do those basic things. When he sends me code, my computer runs it ~20x faster though. :D
The Power Mac G5 was introduced with three models, sharing the same physical case, but differing in features and performance. The 1.6 GHz model shipped with 256 megabytes (MB) of RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, and could hold a maximum of 4 GB of RAM, and an nVidia GeForce 5200 graphics card with 64 MB VRAM with one ADC output and one DVI output. The 1.8 and dual-processor and 2.0 GHz models shipped with 512 MB of RAM, and could employ a maximum of 8 gigabytes (GB) of RAM. The dual-processor model came with an ATI Radeon 9600 graphics card with a Radeon 9800 as an option. The physical case of the Power Mac G5 was very different and unusual compared to any other computer at that time. Many potential buyers, though, were surprised to find that the attractive case, while somewhat larger than the G4 tower it replaced, had room inside for only one optical, and two hard drives.
Ummm 500 for this?
No way you can get top of the line g5 for about 200. The first year Mac pros go for 500+ though because they still compatible with newer oses.
At least $500.Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
There are like a bazillion Power Mac G5s on ebay for around $200. Can't find cheap Intel based Mac Pros, though (those are $500+).Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
Maybe the early ones. If it's quad core and in good condition, $500 is pretty reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_B
My point was that the Mac desktop has the exact OPPOSITE revenue model as the iPod/iOS devices. Apple's goal is to get people to buy a new iPod/iPhone/iPad every year. So when you look at the insane sales numbers you have to understand that a good portion of those sales are not "new customers".
The Mac is exactly the opposite. The units stay in circulation for a very, very long time compared to your average consumer-grade PC desktop or notebook. It's one of the many reasons the platform hasn't been terribly successful ever, and growth is a huge problem. Showing revenue growth is really difficult because the market for used Macs is huge. The market for used iPods is basically nothing.
Dell was able to do so well for so long because most of what they sold in volume was garbage that would need to be replaced in 24 months. They were so cheap there was basically no used market. They were selling new desktops for like $299 at some point.
They are trying to fix this with the MacBook Air, to some extent, but it's still way to expensive at $999. If they can get that down to $599, which may be impossible, then I could see the Mac finally becoming a high revenue product.
There are a few things Apple can do to get the Mac to consumer level. They need a small entry level laptop like the Mac Mini. Make a 13" Mac with an i2300, 2-4GB ram, 500GB HDD, decent quality TN panel, and a plastic case. They could easily get that out the door for 599 and retain a healthy profit. The plastic case and TN panel will not take long term abuse, so they could be good to go.
Apple doesn't care about lower price points. They are about obscene profit margins. That's why they are sitting on $100B cash while other PC manufacturers struggle to survive.
The market is coming to Apple's price points, not the other way around. Mac sales continue to increase year-on-year and they are amongst the very few PC manufacturers posting sales gains.
Yes, but it is time to cash in on the name they have been building for themselves over the last 15 years. Think of it this way, Dell, HP, and others fight each other for the low end price point (400-700.) If Apple struts in with a decent quality laptop with some of the high end features nipped off like the aluminum chassis, high end display, etc, then they could still make the same profit at a lower price point of 599-699. That leaves no room at all for the other guys. I mean, who would buy a dell when you can get an apple for around the same price?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
They would fly off the shelves. I think apple may be quite different in the coming years with Steve gone, RIP. I think he really pushed for the actual high end position and quality of Apple, but the new management may only push for the high end branding of Apple, which opens up new doors and endless money if done correctly.
[QUOTE=ImaNihilist;2760931]Maybe the early ones. If it's quad core and in good condition, $500 is pretty reasonable.
My point was that the Mac desktop has the exact OPPOSITE revenue model as the iPod/iOS devices. Apple's goal is to get people to buy a new iPod/iPhone/iPad every year. So when you look at the insane sales numbers you have to understand that a good portion of those sales are not "new customers".
The Mac is exactly the opposite. The units stay in circulation for a very, very long time compared to your average consumer-grade PC desktop or notebook. It's one of the many reasons the platform hasn't been terribly successful ever, and growth is a huge problem. Showing revenue growth is really difficult because the market for used Macs is huge. The market for used iPods is basically nothing.
Dell was able to do so well for so long because most of what they sold in volume was garbage that would need to be replaced in 24 months. They were so cheap there was basically no used market. They were selling new desktops for like $299 at some point.
Apple's desktop model is a complete failure by corporate standards. 125,000,000 units in 28 years? If tomorrow the news came out that projected 2012 PC sales were 125,000,000 units there would be endless article about the demise of the industry. The "quality" arguement doesn't hold water. Dell, HP, etc all produced inexpensive computer not because they decided too but because that's what the market wanted. There were plenty of PC's that had the same build quality as a MAC and a similar price tag. They didn't sell huge numbers either. I am sure that's why most people here build their own. They wanted good build quality but didn't want to pay outrageous prices. The other point is a 2 year old PC is hopelessly obsolete that's why there is no resale value. The build quality has little to do with it. A pristine Pentium 4 is still worth close to nothing.
That's because with PC sales it's a revenue game. With Mac sales it's a profits game.Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
Most companies outside of oil have to play the revenue game because the profits game is too competitive, and revenue growth is what needs to happen to put upward pressure on the stock price. Apple was in trouble for years because all they could do was play the per unit profits game, but their fixed costs were so high they generated losses. Then the iPod comes around and plays the revenue game and suddenly the profits from the Mac seem good.
Look at Apple's last fiscal quarter.
That's exactly my point. Apple only started making money when they dumped their desktop computer sales model. Trying to convince people to pay twice as much for a computer as they had too for some perceived privilege of owning a MAC didn't work. What sells computers is faster CPU's, bigger hard drives, more memory and better graphics. They stopped being a desktop computer company and now they are a phone/gadget company.for the most part. And they did it by using the same model as PC's; constantly coming out with newer and faster products so people replace something that may still work fine, I heard a rumor that the next Power MAC will be the last. If Apple is smart they they will port their OS to run on any PC. That is essentially all the Power MAC is at this point, a PC that runs Apple's OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
They never dumped their desktop computer sales. Sales of the Mac have been profitable for a very long time. It's almost always been a good business. It was everything else that was the problem. They dumped everything else. It was things like the Newton that weren't profitable. Most people don't remember, but Apple used to make disk drives, modems, printers, scanners, speakers, Trinitron displays, and a bunch of other crap. They even made a digital camera and a console. They tried to diversify their portfolio looking for a high revenue item to drive their stock price, and they never found it until Jobs returned and invented the iPod.Quote:
Originally Posted by drdoom
What sells PCs is price. The amount of people who have cared about technical specifications of hardware has always been slim. This forum is not representative of the larger population.Quote:
What sells computers is faster CPU's, bigger hard drives, more memory and better graphics.
I hate to tell you this, but Dell and HP didn't become empires selling good computers. They became empires winning huge corporate and government contracts for 50,000 low-tier workstations at $299. Apple wasn't even part of that market. The only place Apple was ever able to compete was in areas where the POWER PC architecture was superior—and there are a lot of areas where that was true—it just wasn't the home desktop or corporate workstation. POWER is still used today by IBM.
While few consumers cared about technical specifications in the 90s, it's even worse today because no one cares outside of some enthusiasts. Most enthusiasts became engineers and they now care the least of all because the usability of software has trumped raw power of hardware. The MHz race ended long ago. Steve Jobs bet on this back in 1999 and everyone thought he was a bit mad, but he turned out to be right in the long run.
You really can't make the argument that the Mac is a bad business. If you look at pretty much every year end, the Mac has almost always done well as a business unit. A few slipped quarters here and there with the IIGS and early PowerBook IIRC, but that's about it. The Cube was unusually expensive to build for some reason too, I forget why.
Without the Macintosh, Apple would be gone. They probably will get rid of the Mac Pro at some point, because the reality is that it's no longer necessary. The tower is completely obsolete from a technology perspective. If raw horsepower or storage is needed locally it can be sold as an add-on Thunderbolt device. I have a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and there are few times where I need more processing power and can't get it. This isn't 1998 where the only solution is to buy a new machine. I can just push calculations onto a platform like Amazon AWS and get the work done in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost.
The only problem with getting rid of the Mac Pro is video rendering. Notebooks aren't quite there yet. Fixable with a small Thunderbolt rendering box though.
Mac isn't going anywhere any time soon. IMO, they can't get rid of the Mac Pro workstation because high end studios use those and they are the ones that push software innovation. As long as Macs are known for content generation, there will always be a place for the workstation. You simply can't shove an 2x6 core board with 64GB of ram into a notebook.
I find it strange Apple still hasn't upgrade to SB cpus for their Mac Pros. Hard to stomach spending that much on a 2-3 year old processor. BTW 700 dollars for a raid card lol.
I could see them getting rid of the Mac Pro and just releasing a flat slab of aluminum that looks something like a 1U rack with two Thunderbolt ports, a power button and an optional 1U mounting kit (for $199 of course).
It wouldn't surprise me to see Mac take over 25% of the US market share within 2 years. People don't give a crap about PCs anymore and iDevices are pushing more and more people into the Mac ecosystem.
Then again if Mountain Lion is any indication, OSX/iOS convergence is only about 2 releases away. Maybe 3 years?
Probably has more to do with high I/O, larger capacity storage than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
I could totally see that in 3 years. Plug your iPhone into power nearby the monitor. Works with the BT keyboard and trackpad. Works with the display wirelessly or via Thunderbolt. Runs desktop apps.
If the next iPad is really able to run applications at 2048x1536 it will be pretty incredible.
ARM processors are quickly approaching the computing power necessary for normal desktop operation. This is why MS is going quickly to ARM support with Windows 8. The tower will be pretty much dead in 3 years (it is arguably already dead except for enthusiasts and schools/businesses.) Graphics cards can be linked through a thunderbolt equivalent for gaming.
It will be sad to see the tower go eventually, but there are plenty of other things to tinker with for the enthusiasts (like raspberry pi.)
People have been saying this for over a decade now, and Apple have been smart to not do it. As soon as they cash in on the name by releasing a cheap crappy product, people will know. That's why Dell and HP's reputations are where they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timman_24
Apple doesn't make computers for everyone, but in a market of this size you don't need to serve everyone to make a profit.
IMO it's never going to happen. The difference between touch input and non-touch input is just too important, no matter how good the trackpad gesture stuff gets. What will happen is exactly what Steve said (I think it was at the D interview with Bill Gates), iOS will be the car and MacOS will be the truck.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
RE: video editing - a lot of the video people I know who currently use Mac Pros can't wait to ditch them for iMacs and MacBook Pros with external screens. I don't know enough about Thunderbolt to judge if it could be used to juggle a bunch of 5K raw video files from RED cameras in Final Cut Pro, but if it can and an external render box thing gets released you can be sure that the Mac Pro's days will be numbered.
What sells PCs is price. The amount of people who have cared about technical specifications of hardware has always been slim. This forum is not representative of the larger population.
I hate to tell you this, but Dell and HP didn't become empires selling good computers. They became empires winning huge corporate and government contracts for 50,000 low-tier workstations at $299. Apple wasn't even part of that market. The only place Apple was ever able to compete was in areas where the POWER PC architecture was superior—and there are a lot of areas where that was true—it just wasn't the home desktop or corporate workstation. POWER is still used today by IBM.
Once again you make my point. That 299 dollar computer has become exponentially faster and stayed the same price. That's why they sell not just because they are cheap. Even when you are buying low tier computers you still upgrade when you need something faster not when the computer "wears" out. I have Dell PIII's that work fine. They just slow as crap.
Actually Dell and HP high tier workstations and low tier PC's sell better than any Apple products because of better functionality and bang for the buck.
I've consulted at engineering companies that threw out Apple in favor of Dell's running BSD Unix. Apple's OS is BSD under the covers. There is nothing very special about it other than a few proprietary enhancements.
hmmm i wonder how selling $300 boxes loaded with crapware to consumers is working out for dellQuote:
Originally Posted by drdoom