1) A value Seres.
Apple may make great hardware but it is too upscale in terms of both price and performance for the overwhelming majority of users. As I said in the previous blog, they are also difficult to find for all but the most determined switcher. I propose they deal with both issues at once while retaining Apple's profits and image. by introducing a retail only value line of computers available preferably at Target. I choose Target for three main reasons. First They are present in most metropolitan and even some larger micropolitan areas. Second, they are upscale of the discount retailers like Wal-Mart and the electronics retailers. Lastly, since they do not deal in computers at the retail level as present, there would be no low paid PC zealots to steer customers to a nice HP instead. It would be in their best interest to sell the customer a Mac rather than Wal-Mart or Best Buy sell them a PC.
The computers themselves would be simple modifications of the low end Macbook, iMac, and Mac Mini. The CPU would be changed to a far cheaper single core 1.6ghz Celeron M 420, the SO-DIMMs would be 533mhz instead of 667, and in the case of the iMac, the 160 gig hard drive would be reduced to 80. The front row remote would also be extra, but the iSight camera would be retained. Since they would be retail only and not available direct from Apple, BTO configurations would not be available. Prices would be $799 for both the Macbook and iMac and $499 for the Mini. Intended consumers include budget switchers, Mac users who would like a second computer for the kiddies, or those looking for a light duty laptop as a second computer. As of current, not many of these sales are headed towards Apple.
2) A 15.4" (non-Pro) Macbook
One of the largest markets for computers these days are 15" integrated graphics notebooks. Take a guess who's missing the party? While some may argue that such a machine would steal from the MBPs, I don't believe so. Volume customers are not likely to go for the $2000 price tag of the MBP and MBP customers would not take kindly to the slower CPU and integrated graphics of the Macbook. Taking a cue from both the PC side and iBooks, the 15" Macbook would replace the second level 13" machine at the $1299 price point. the low end 13" model would drop $100 to meet the iBook's $999 price point. Both machines would be available in black for a fee. A value series (see above) 15" would come in at $999.
3) A Core 2 Duo Mac Pro
With the advent of the Mac Pro and the 24" iMac, Apple believes it has the perfect lineup to for users to trade in those old lower end PowerMacs. Unfortunately these users would be quick to disagree, let alone converts from the PC prosumer ranks. While neither computer is lacking on power or features, the Mac Pro's $2200 starting price and the nearly complete lack of expansion capabilities of the iMac make these unattractive to higher end consumers and value professionals that make up the prosumer ranks. Apple could change this somewhat easily though by releasing a Core 2 Duo variant of the Mac Pro. A Core 2 Duo/975x combination would allow a feature set similar to the current Xeon/5000x set up for a a much lower price. $500 less to be exact for a single processor 2.66ghz system using the same 1gb of 667ghz DDR2 RAM, 250GB Hard drive, 16x DVD burner and a low end quadro card using Dell's precision series.
4) A few more graphics choices for the Mac Pro would be nice.
For a professional system, the video card choices for the Mac Pro are surprisingly few graphics options. Three to be exact and only one of those is meant for graphics pros. Ironically that single card is also the most expensive on the market. Dell offers seven, all meant for professionals. If Apple, were to offer the GeForce 7600GT, Quadro FX560 Quadro , and FX1500, Apple would have its bases covered for the most part. If they want to offer a ultra high end consumer card, an option for the new GeForce 8800 series couldn't hurt.
5.) Add more options to the server line.
Nowhere does Apple's one size fits all attitude hurt them more is with servers. Yes, the xServe is a great product and it is much cheaper than Dell's equivalent offerings, but for some of a lighter fare $3000 is a lot of money. Apple needs an entry level 3000 series xServe to go with the current system. An xserve blade wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Um, why should Apple do any of this?
People buy a Mac for the quality, and reducing any computer back to a single core CPU is purely unacceptable when Quad Core is already here.
The Macbook's 13.3" screen is fine the way it is. Hell I'm using one myself here. Integrated Graphics are nothing special, and putting anymore strain on it then you have to (an extra 1.1" for example) is not needed.
The iMac may lack expansion, but it certainly makes up for it in Value. The largest iMac is ONLY $1999.00. 24" of power. Take into account people in the PC world who spend about $600 whenever a new Graphics Card comes out, $1200 if they use SLI/Crossfire, and $2400 for Quad SLI, the Mac Pro looks like a winner in that realm.
The Graphics options I do agree with. They should also support ATI a bit more and throw in more options for those, as ATI tends to have better Shader tech.
Apple's One size fits all works well with the Xserve, and considering the options in terms of Software, Services, and Hardware, as well as support, I do believe Apple has it covered. If you want extreme flexibility, Linux is the best option though. For people who only need the basics and not a massive data center, then I think the Xserve is just fine for covering pretty much everything at a reasonable price point. Not that I wouldn't mind a cheaper Xserve, I was thinking of snapping one up.
Sebastian
No offense, but the world is a hell of a lot simpler when you're in high school. You may say only $1999 or that the xServe is cheap, but you don't have overhead such as utilities, rent, inventory, etc plus home expenses. Dell can do a 2.13ghz Xeon 3000 (aka server conroe) for $1500. If Apple wants to deal with only affluent customers, their product lineup is fine. However, that will keep the Mac market share dangerously low and maybe price some long time Mac users right off the platform.
Post a Comment