Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
generik said:
Trouble is...

The conroe chips costs less, the Meroms indirectly contribute to unnecessarily high cost of the imac (and possibly Mini).

The Conroe runs off a new chipset (i965) that is full 64 bit compatible, unlike the current iMac which is still using a 32 bit chipset (napa).

Does the iMac even need to be so small? Same with the Mini.

Would it hurt to make them bigger? Contrary to your belief this will actually score them more sales, so many people are looking for a in-between machine that is not All-In-One and has upgradeable slots, but not as powerful as the Mac Pro.

The iMac is not overpriced, the 24'' Model is 1999, Apple sells a 23'' screen alone for half of that. Think of it that way..now find a Core 2 based Computer with these specs? For 999 USD

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD±RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote(it can be any old remote)
iSight


Also the 24'' iMac can be upgraded with a Video Card, CPU and RAM and harddrive. Those are some of the biggest upgrades for a computer.


Also were is you source for people wanting a mid-range Mac? Even if all the people on MR said they want it, we are not the average consumer. I would bet the average computer users, never upgrade the GPU(gamers mostly) or the CPU, they buy a new compute. There is a market for one, but Apple is making people who want "Pro" options pay for a "Pro" Mac(aka Mac Pro) Apple might still be afraid of it after the G4 Cube bombed


I'd be all for it honestly, but what is stopping someone from buying a Mac Pro with a 2.0Ghz, and selling one chip. That brings the price of a Mac Pro down into iMac land. I personal think Apple should have something with a Conroe in it..there is room, but it might eat up iMac sales, which is Apple main desktop Mac.
 

skoker

macrumors 68000
Aug 6, 2005
1,839
0
MacBoySeattle said:
What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.

Read:

Thanks for the laugh.

Ditto.

The Intel mini's have only been out for 5-6 months, not even close to a whole year making them über-obsolete.

When you decide to "laugh", come with some facts.

I appreciate your opinion, and welcome your to MacRumors, but if you've got something to say or a claim to make like you did we're going to need some better cases than what you've presented.
 

Demoman

macrumors regular
Mar 29, 2005
194
0
Issaquah, WA
MacBoySeattle said:
What makes it a rip off? Are you joking? They're using a defunct Core 1 Duo chip that costs 1/2 less than it did when they offered it in their original Core Duo line up 1 year ago. Every outdated component in those machines is now worth about 1/2 as much as it did, and yet the price remains the same. The 512 mb of ram shouldn't even be standard on any modern computer anymore, and 1 GB of ram is easily the same price of 512 a year ago. The integrated graphics are cr*p. The Core 1 Duo 1.83 Upgrade (while something, better than nothing) is selling now for less than the 1.66 core duo did when it came out. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 is the same price as the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when they put it in the Mac Mini! It's an absolute RIP OFF at $799.

That leaves people like me leaning now towards an iMac because we have no other options. Which is probably Apple's scheme.

If you do not like the deal, make a different one. And I seriously doubt you have any clue as to what the actual COGS is for the Mini. So, quit projecting yourself like an informed cost analyst. The forums allow for the expression of personal opinions. But, you will often gain more respect by acting (and writing) like someone who is not trying to vent and start a personal crusade. But, maybe I am reading you all wrong. So, here is manufacturing purchasing 301.

Apple: We need to be competitive with our prices, so we need to spend the same for your processors as Dell does.

Intel: Sure, that makes sense, Steve. However, Dell sells a lot more computers than you do and they purchase our entire product line.

Apple: I understand that, but we still buy a lot of processors. But, we are not going to try and offer every configuration Dell does. As you know, we have a nice line that pretty much covers the market. We figure we have about 80%-85% coverage right now. But, to keep offering the best technology, engineering and service AND still remain profitable we can probably only aspire to 95% coverage until we get up to 12% total market share. But, there is no way we can put a Celeron in a Mac. They would kill me on MacRumors for THAT!

Intel: Right. But, we still need some way to amortize the engineering and fabrication cost AND still make a profit for every processor we make. Do you have any data on your projected usage?

Apple: Yes. I have it with me.

Intel: Thanks. It looks very comprehensive. Let me take it to my analysts and see what kind of an offer we can make.

LATER:

Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.

Apple: The price is great, just what we hoped for. But, I am not happy wanting to buy the same number of processors after obsolesces.

Intel: Steve, we are allowing you to NOT buy over 1/3 of our entire line. We are selling you what are, or will be, our most popular processors. By taking more of these processors, we can get more profit by amortizing the GOGS by increasing total sales. That is how we can make this deal work.

And so the deal was reached.......

Now, this is all fiction. But, it is a very real way business is done in the world of manufacturing. I spent 18 years in manufacturing. Over that period of time, 15%-20% of my time was IT and the rest was in operations. I was in charge of production control and strategic planning/implemention. I was there for the rise and proliferation of the modern Fixed-term/Fixed-price B2B contracts. I would be beyond shocked if Apple and Intel do not have some contractual, purchasing statement of work with Intel. It is only 9 months since 'the announcement'. Eventually, a good analyst will be able to guess fairly accurately how it is put together.

Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.
 

MacBoySeattle

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 2, 2006
74
1
zap2 said:
The iMac is not overpriced, the 24'' Model is 1999, Apple sells a 23'' screen alone for half of that. Think of it that way..now find a Core 2 based Computer with these specs? For 999 USD

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor1
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive2
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD±RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote(it can be any old remote)
iSight

Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.
 

aquajet

macrumors 68020
Feb 12, 2005
2,386
10
VA
MacBoySeattle said:
I don't know your definition of defunct, but when a product's successor is out, it makes that product defunct.

Try looking it up again.
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
Would this mean Apple will bump the Mini to a Core Duo 2.0Ghz chip before having it have Core 2 Duo?

Demoman said:
If you do not like the deal, make a different one. And I seriously doubt you have any clue as to what the actual COGS is for the Mini. So, quit projecting yourself like an informed cost analyst. The forums allow for the expression of personal opinions. But, you will often gain more respect by acting (and writing) like someone who is not trying to vent and start a personal crusade. But, maybe I am reading you all wrong. So, here is manufacturing purchasing 301.

Apple: We need to be competitive with our prices, so we need to spend the same for your processors as Dell does.

Intel: Sure, that makes sense, Steve. However, Dell sells a lot more computers than you do and they purchase our entire product line.

Apple: I understand that, but we still buy a lot of processors. But, we are not going to try and offer every configuration Dell does. As you know, we have a nice line that pretty much covers the market. We figure we have about 80%-85% coverage right now. But, to keep offering the best technology, engineering and service AND still remain profitable we can probably only aspire to 95% coverage until we get up to 12% total market share. But, there is no way we can put a Celeron in a Mac. They would kill me on MacRumors for THAT!

Intel: Right. But, we still need some way to amortize the engineering and fabrication cost AND still make a profit for every processor we make. Do you have any data on your projected usage?

Apple: Yes. I have it with me.

Intel: Thanks. It looks very comprehensive. Let me take it to my analysts and see what kind of an offer we can make.

LATER:

Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.

Apple: The price is great, just what we hoped for. But, I am not happy wanting to buy the same number of processors after obsolesces.

Intel: Steve, we are allowing you to NOT buy over 1/3 of our entire line. We are selling you what are, or will be, our most popular processors. By taking more of these processors, we can get more profit by amortizing the GOGS by increasing total sales. That is how we can make this deal work.

And so the deal was reached.......

Now, this is all fiction. But, it is a very real way business is done in the world of manufacturing. I spent 18 years in manufacturing. Over that period of time, 15%-20% of my time was IT and the rest was in operations. I was in charge of production control and strategic planning/implemention. I was there for the rise and proliferation of the modern Fixed-term/Fixed-price B2B contracts. I would be beyond shocked if Apple and Intel do not have some contractual, purchasing statement of work with Intel. It is only 9 months since 'the announcement'. Eventually, a good analyst will be able to guess fairly accurately how it is put together.

Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.
 

MacBoySeattle

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 2, 2006
74
1
Demoman said:
Bottomline: Apple may have had move processors they were committed to buy (intended for iMacs) somewhere else - like a small upgrade for the Mini? But, they still are committed to the contract's price for ? period of time. Who knows? I doubt you do. So, before screaming about a 'rip-off', make damn sure you know it is a rip-off. If you are not knowledgeable of the facts, but are bummed by the result, just make your point and tone it down.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out. Go look at my Dell Core 2 Duo above and try to ask them how they did that. Don't try to mask Apple's inability to compete in the new constantly upgrading components and systems market with a lot of words. PC manufacturers have been doing it for 10 years. The components Apple is now using are IDENTICAL to those that Dell or HP or 1000 other smaller PC manufacturers are using. From motherboards to processors to graphics cards. When they are using a previous generation chip and charging the same price when the next generation is out at the same price, that's a rip off. By your logic, the resellers of Panasonic plasmas would have to charge the same $4000 today that they charged for a 50 inch plasma 2 months ago even tho prices have fallen by about $1000 in the last 2 months. I'm calling BS.
 

freebooter

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2005
1,253
0
Daegu, South Korea
MacBoySeattle said:
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

What kind of software comes with that PC? The iMac comes with hundreds of dollars ($5-600?) of smoothly integrated software.

Even if you get XP, I would consider the cost of maintaing that o.s. a tremendous additional burden in money (anti-virus ware), time (un-crashing, extra maintainance and de-virusing) and aggravation (Windows is still a fragile, unpleasant operating system) which ought to be factored into the final tally. It's easy to just look at a few spec.s on paper, but it's day to day use that really matters, to the mind and the wallet.

I'm sure, though, you all know that. ;)

Anyhoo, I think the post which mentions the excess left-over CD chips may be onto something, although couldn't Apple just sell them?

I agree with those who say a price drop was in order.

But, if they are just using up the old CD chips, then they will have another upgrade, to C2D, fairly soon. They would then have to raise the price again. i think Apple likes to keep their prices fairly stable.
 

aquajet

macrumors 68020
Feb 12, 2005
2,386
10
VA
freebooter said:
What kind of software comes with that PC? The iMac comes with hundreds of dollars ($5-600?) of smoothly integrated software.

Something that is all too often overlooked by those who are obsessed with comparing every little hardware specification between machines.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,195
0
sitting on your shoulder
MacBoySeattle said:
Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out....I'm calling BS.
There's no need to be an ass just because someone disagrees with you, and actually has something to back it up. Get a damn dictionary, read the post, and actually counter it with a real argument. You sound like certain politicians.
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
freebooter said:
I agree with those who say a price drop was in order.

A price drop would definitely be welcome, but to those who are making straight comparisons between the Mini and similarly specced PCs, perhaps they forgot one thing, the size. Before the Mini came out VIA used to make these underpowered CPU + mini-ITX mainboard solutions that are priced at the same price the whole mini is going for today.

Fancy paying $600 for a Pentium 3 class processor and a tiny mainboard? I certainly don't. If anything Apple brought pricing down in this area.
 

thebeephaha

macrumors 6502
Sep 4, 2006
300
0
Seattle WA
MacBoySeattle said:
Ok imagine this. As fast as your Core Duo 1.66 is. The Core 2 Duo 1.66 ghz is somewhere between 10-20% faster at the exact same clock speed. Furthermore, the Core 2 Duo 1.66 is available at the same price that the Core 1 Duo 1.66 was when it was released. You can tell me about how a "certain amount of power is enough for us" until you're blue in the face, but that chip is now one generation old, 10%-20% slower than the current chip, and being sold at the same price. That's a rip off.

They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

MacBoySeattle, you can keep arguing the Core Duo is now a POS chip all you want but it's not going to phase many people... Just because a new chip comes out doesn't automatically and simultaneously make the old one suck.

Go take a walk outside, breathe, and if you don't like the Mini's dont get one and leave it at that.
 

Demoman

macrumors regular
Mar 29, 2005
194
0
Issaquah, WA
generik said:
Would this mean Apple will bump the Mini to a Core Duo 2.0Ghz chip before having it have Core 2 Duo?

This is 100% conjecture and I wrote it based on my actual experience analyzing and negotiating contracts, and what I would anticipate as possible negotiable issues between Apple and Intel. However, there are certainly industry specific issues I not experienced in.

I basically wrote this to show the thread's owner that there are many possible reasons for things being the way they are, but are not part of a conspiracy to "screw him". It was a wasted effort. Way too much anger.
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,029
6,048
Bay Area
MacBoySeattle said:
They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

Gotta agree with this. The mini was a bad deal when it was 1.5/1.66 dual, and it's a bad deal now. It's the one computer in apple's lineup I can't imagine purchasing.
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
QCassidy352 said:
Gotta agree with this. The mini was a bad deal when it was 1.5/1.66 dual, and it's a bad deal now. It's the one computer in apple's lineup I can't imagine purchasing.

It is not that bad a deal, at least the lower model is worth buying now with the core duo processor.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
MacBoySeattle said:
Oh, I wish you hadn't asked me to do that :D Um I'm sorry, as much as I hate PCs, I saw this this morning.

$949 with a 19" LCD and 2.4 ghz Conroe Core 2 Duo:

2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
4MB L2 Cache
1 Gb Dual channel DDR 2 SDRAM at 667 mhz
160 gb Hard drive
16X DVD Burner with CD-RW
19" LCD (beats the Imacs 17")
256mb Nvidia Geforce Graphics Card

Don't believe me?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=3d92h6&s=bsd

Hell of a deal.

That is a good deal, however it lacks stuff the iMac has..iSight, FrontRow, iLife '06(to get something as good as that in OS X, its more then 79) Duel Layer SuperDrive.., AirPort and Blue-Tooth plus the drop dead sexyness of the iMac! The Dell is better priced, but still the iMac has its extras
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
zap2 said:
That is a good deal, however it lacks stuff the iMac has..iSight, FrontRow, iLife '06(to get something as good as that in OS X, its more then 79) Duel Layer SuperDrive.., AirPort and Blue-Tooth plus the drop dead sexyness of the iMac! The Dell is better priced, but still the iMac has its extras

If you are comparing the "EDU" iMac with that Dell the comparison looks more pathetic. Comparing Macs to PCs on a price proposition is a losing argument to start with.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,816
1,994
Lard
MacBoySeattle said:
Blah, Blah, Blah. Maybe all that wordy mumbo jumbo means something in Issaquah or to the company in Bellevue that pays you way too much to complexify things beyond any rational basis. The bottom line is it ain't just Dell. When the Core 2 Duo (Merom) came out, and supplanted the Yonah at the exact same price, every PC manufacturer from Dell to HP and on down the line put in or announced the lower end Meroms in certain computers which had the Yonah in and didn't jack up the price. How do you explain that? Go take your MBA BS and figure that one out. Go look at my Dell Core 2 Duo above and try to ask them how they did that. Don't try to mask Apple's inability to compete in the new constantly upgrading components and systems market with a lot of words. PC manufacturers have been doing it for 10 years. The components Apple is now using are IDENTICAL to those that Dell or HP or 1000 other smaller PC manufacturers are using. From motherboards to processors to graphics cards. When they are using a previous generation chip and charging the same price when the next generation is out at the same price, that's a rip off. By your logic, the resellers of Panasonic plasmas would have to charge the same $4000 today that they charged for a 50 inch plasma 2 months ago even tho prices have fallen by about $1000 in the last 2 months. I'm calling BS.

I was thinking the same thing about you, unless you're an accountant or inventory specialist at Apple.

You're guessing. You don't know what parts Apple uses exactly. You know that they're using Intel processors and that they use certain standard hardware interfaces. That doesn't mean that they're using the same parts.

Do you have the Bill of Materials for the mini, with the line item costs? Do you have the same for HP and Dell?
 

generik

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2005
4,116
1
Minitrue
aquajet said:
Can we oversimplify this any further?

There is nothing to simplify? The VIA EPIA at over 1Ghz performs worse than a Pentium II processor at 300Mhz? How hard is it to grasp?
 

vv-tim

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2006
366
0
MacBoySeattle said:
They want to keep the Yonahs in the Mac Minis? Fine! Keep the Yonahs in, make it a 1.83, but bump the ram to 1 gb, and charge $699 and not $799. That would be about right using a generation old chip.

Well, if I remember right... Pentium D 9xx series processors didn't cost that much more than 8xx series processors.

One generation doesn't mean that much sometimes.
 

Lollypop

macrumors 6502a
Sep 13, 2004
829
1
Johannesburg, South Africa
Demoman said:
Intel: Steve, we have looked at this closely and think we can make you a very nice offer. Our folk have come up with statement of work and contract which should work for both companies. As you can see, we are going to want a 12 month fixed-price for this group of processors. It is the same deal Dell is getting. However, we will require you to purchase the same number of obsolete processors as Dell is required to buy.


I like your entire arguement, but it bothers me that a manufacturer can contracually enforce a price on someone for a period.. is that completely legal? What will happen to the contractual price if the entire processor lines price drops??

The only things that really bothers me with the mini... the integrated graphics and the dual channel memory, the PPC minis allowed me to upgrade to 2gigs with cheaper memory and without a performance penalty when using unmacthed sizes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.