Really it is as simple as that. They do pretty good on the laptop side where they implement new ideas in rather fine fashion as can be seen with the new AIRs and even the unibody concept. This has driven a lot of business Apples way even from businesses. On the desktop side of the line things are and have been stagnet for a long time. This impacts sales and the limited reasonable selection turns people off. Plus some of the hardware they offer up just makes them look lazy --> for example the Mini Server. The Mini server likely leaves more people with a negative impression of Apple than the Mac Pro. This is because the Mac Pro does what it is designed to do very well. The Mini server on the otherhand is an example of of an idea that had merit that gets trashed by a company looking for a cheap way to deliver.
What i'm saying is there is a place for small inexpensive servers. But servers need to be servicable and not overly fashion conscious. The Mini is a great little product, that got stretched a little thin when configured for server duty.
So you may be asking: Dave what is all this rambling about? Simple there is a market for a chassis that is slightly larger than the Mini and significantly smaller than the Mac Pro. Call it XMac if you want but if properly realized could be effectively configured for many duties including that of a server, desktop general purpose computer or as a limited work station where the Pro isn't needed. The goal should be performance centered between the Mini and the Pro, which means modest desk top class parts.
&&&&&&&&&&&
In any event I think one big mistake would be for Apple to manage it's Mac Lineup like it has in the past. The dark days are gone, the interested parties are more than just the faithful. Apple is now on solid ground growing sales. Well at least in laptops, desktops suffer from a significant inability to meet the needs of a wide range of users. Adjustments to the desktop lineup are needed.
Still not that significant a difference as you say and it leaves an extra $340 to the $500 margin I mentioned above on the entry Mac Pro. $1650 worth of parts in a machine priced at $2500 and that's with the chassis estimated at $400 and the PSU at $300. You get 1kW PSUs for under $150. There are other parts like bluetooth, wifi that would make up $100 or so but the margin on top would appear to be over $800. Free shipping of a 20kg machine will take a small amount as well as packaging $800 is excessive.
This is what happens when products don't sell. The original iPhone was priced way too high and then they started selling a lot of them and the price came down. It wouldn't be worth the effort making Mac Pros if they only made $300 profit on each one.
But that goes to show that if they weren't selling enough at $1999 then the large market clearly doesn't want towers like the Mac Pro because those people have to buy screens on top whereas they get a $1000 screen included with the iMac for the same price.
That's why I think the only way they can do this is to build a unique tower machine like the Cube. But if they can't do that due to the size restrictions and because it would affect the iMac line then it won't ever happen. The Mini is the last hope there is for an affordable headless machine and I think it's enough. If people just want i7 performance now then next year's Mini with Ivy Bridge can reach 80% of that.
That would confirm the huge margin. It allows them to price the entry Mac Pro anywhere between $1800 and $2500 and still be in profit.
You're right there. I'm sorry I said $1,000...I was thinking that the total cost of a system should be offered starting at $1,000 less. I bought my Power Mac G4 933MHz system and Apple display at the time for under $2,300. I can't even get the tower at this point for that. So I'm struggling to understand how Apple's current line-up is better & more affordable.
X58 boards start at $165, with dual 16X PCIe slots and more, H55 (not i7, since those don't support Core i7-9xx series) boards (starting at $65) come with one 16x PCIe slot and a couple of shitty slots. Anyway H55 is limited to DMI-based cpus (up to Core i7-8xx series, up to QC 3.06GHz), so no 6C for you, and if with slower cpus it is a more affordable solution, it is not overall the case with the Core i7-8xx series.
If you go 2.80 and 3.06, it's overall cheaper to go X58 (compared to a very low-end $65 H55 board), and you can offer even faster models, up to 6C.
This may change (or not) with SB cpus, Intel is being very agressive in terms of pricing on the DMI-based Core ix-2000 series, but details are yet to be released on the QPI-based models (Summer 2011).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
#2 no easy access to internal storage, and few storage options.
There are some devices that simply don't exist in USB, Enet or FW format. Not just for production where the cost of the computer doesn't always matter, but also for education/training where the funding is much more limited.
If and when Light Peak is released into lower cost Macs, it may solve some of the issues since LP supports PCIe up to 4x on a single port, but that means that current PCIe devices must also be released in LP format... or PCIe expansion cases with LP port(s). It could take a lot of time.
At one time the PM G4 with PCI slots started at $1299, those were excellent machines for PCI-based audio/video production/training (up to 3 or 4 I/O/DSP cards, and up to 4 internal HDDs) and the "slower" cpu didn't matter much since most of the processing was handled by the cards themselves.
#2 no easy access to internal storage, and few storage options
Access to storage is the main part of the iMac I don't like but there are other issues like the headphone port and others being at the back, the screen glare and not being able to adjust the screen beyond tilt. I like displays that can turn into portrait mode.
Cost of ownership is another issue as one part failing, even dead pixels means your whole machine needs sent away to be repaired.
Once they migrate everything to SSD chips, I doubt we will have access to the storage anyway and you likely couldn't add anything to the mini-SATA port.
There is a teardown of the 27" iMac:
It almost seems like there are more parts than would fit inside the 27" chassis. That stuff likely wouldn't fit in a mini desktop without some seriously good engineering skills. Sony would be able to fit all that into a small box but I don't think Apple could.
If the display panel was $600, then Apple could sell a screen-less 27" iMac for $1399.
They wouldn't make it like the Mac Pro though because they would have an entry model over $1000 cheaper than the Xeon and no reason for the difference in price.
They can't make it a small desktop as the parts won't fit.
The iMac is the best design for them to spread out the parts and also keep costs down.
If they'd just improve the iMac, it wouldn't be such a big deal. With Light Peak as mentioned, external PCI speed is possible so while internal cards are better in some cases, I'm sure they will come up with a solution. They could offer an affordable display and logic board repair service to take some worry out of repairs outside of warranty and allow you to easily remove the panel itself and ship it back for replacement.
They could allow access to storage in the same way as RAM. There's no more risk of someone stealing the drive than from a Mac Pro, less so if it's screwed in.
They can put headphone sockets on their keyboards so that people with short iPhone-length headphones can use them easily.
They can make the display a bit more adjustable. It would be so neat if they went back to the original swivel iMac design but with a smaller base. Like the parts from the i5 iMac in a short dome with the Mini footprint connected to a 21.5" display that is styled like the Cinema display but offering an anti-glare option like the MBP - they just leave out the glass. They couldn't make a 27" option with that design though.
Sony would be able to fit all that into a small box but I don't think Apple could.
Uhh, what? You really can't be serious. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Apple has FAR more experience with Micro-Engineering than Sony does. The iMac itself is testament to that, as is the Macbook Air and the Macbook Pro, the iPhone, and iPad, etc. Really, EVERY Apple product with the exception of the Mac Pro is an example of an extremely high degree of low-profile engineering, placing far more components in a space where they shouldn't fit and then doing so with very few (if any) fans. Sony may as well be Dell when it comes to this sort of thing.
EVERY Apple product with the exception of the Mac Pro is an example of an extremely high degree of low-profile engineering, placing far more components in a space where they shouldn't fit and then doing so with very few (if any) fans. Sony may as well be Dell when it comes to this sort of thing.
Nah, they have better engineering. The 13" Vaio Z is 24mm thick vs 17mm in the Air. It weighs 1.47kg vs 1.06kg. But they pack in:
dual-core 2.8GHz Core i7
6GB RAM
256GB quad-raid 0 SSD (twice as fast as Apple's SSD)
Blu-Ray drive
1920 x 1080 resolution
NVidia GT 330M (same as the MBP, no actually it has 1GB VRAM)
3 x USB 2 ports
HDMI, VGA
ExpressCard
Gigabit ethernet
802.11n, 3G
carbon fibre shell
Now it's expensive but that example alone shows they can fit higher performance parts into a smaller form factor than Apple can. That machine is almost as thin and light as the Air but the Air uses shrunk down low voltage Core 2 Duos, Sony's uses the i7 in the MBP. Apple can't even put a dedicated GPU in anything less than a 15" laptop, which is why the entire low-end is stuck on Core 2 Duo.
The day Apple get even an i5 and a dedicated GPU into the Air will be the day they start to catch up to Sony and I don't have my hopes up for this year.
Nah, they have better engineering. The 13" Vaio Z is 24mm thick vs 17mm in the Air. It weighs 1.47kg vs 1.06kg. But they pack in:
dual-core 2.8GHz Core i7
6GB RAM
256GB quad-raid 0 SSD (twice as fast as Apple's SSD)
Blu-Ray drive
1920 x 1080 resolution
NVidia GT 330M (same as the MBP, no actually it has 1GB VRAM)
3 x USB 2 ports
HDMI, VGA
ExpressCard
Gigabit ethernet
802.11n, 3G
carbon fibre shell
Now it's expensive but that example alone shows they can fit higher performance parts into a smaller form factor than Apple can. That machine is almost as thin and light as the Air but the Air uses shrunk down low voltage Core 2 Duos, Sony's uses the i7 in the MBP. Apple can't even put a dedicated GPU in anything less than a 15" laptop, which is why the entire low-end is stuck on Core 2 Duo.
The day Apple get even an i5 and a dedicated GPU into the Air will be the day they start to catch up to Sony and I don't have my hopes up for this year.
Those are completely different machines in completely different price categories. Comparison is null.
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
Seriously if you need a desktop type chassis the iMac simply doesn't cut the mustard. You can fill in the blank with whatever you want but it doesn't take much effort to see that many things won't go into an iMac. In fact pretty much nothing goes into the Mac as an expansion capability.
As to why, I guess you would have to get out in the real world and see how PCs are put to use. It is not unusual to add Ethernet cards, USB or RS232 cards or special purpose cards to a chassis. Not to mention a few drive slots go a long way to justifying a desktop chassis for many users.
The current Mac Pro is an excellent machine for what it is. It is not however an economical desktop platform. The problem is most people think of a Mac Pro as desktop and honestly it isn't. At least not in the sense of what most people need.
The problem is most people think of a Mac Pro as desktop and honestly it isn't. At least not in the sense of what most people need.
You're right, it's not what most people need. Most people don't need any expansion at all. Hence the iMac. Most people never open up their machines and those who do are growing fewer all the time. Computers are becoming more and more like appliances and that trend will continue. For those who actually need expansion for work, there is the Mac Pro. The price should not be a hinderance to pros.
Those who do upgrades on their home computer outside of RAM represent a minority class of hobbyists who like to tinker. And if you're the tinkering type then the Mac platform is probably not for you. Build a PC and install Ubuntu.
Those are completely different machines in completely different price categories. Comparison is null.
Obviously the spec cost is similar to a MBP but they managed to fit that spec into a MBA size so it's a valid engineering comparison.
I don't mind the Blu-Ray drive, I don't mind the 1080p display, I don't mind the i5/i7 chips, I don't mind the quad SSD, I don't mind the 6GB RAM, I don't mind the extra ports. The one thing I do mind is when Sony can fit all those parts into that chassis and Apple still can't put a dedicated GPU in their design.
The CPUs they use in the Air, Mini and 13" MBP came out Q3 2008. This is 2011 now and the reason we have over 2 year-old hardware is because their engineers don't put a dedicated GPU in the machines.
All they have to do is put the Radeon 6550 in the low-end and 6770 in the higher end and we can have all the latest CPUs that cost the same as the 2 year-old ones.
We have to wait until late February to see what they decide to do but they could have done a lot more already. The Macbook Air is a good design for all future laptops but it's not going to be very good if they keep using such old hardware. The design can be small and light and not compromise the parts that can go inside it as Sony has shown numerous times.
Obviously the spec cost is similar to a MBP but they managed to fit that spec into a MBA size so it's a valid engineering comparison.
Ah...you specified a laptop that is 3 times thicker. That's not nearly a fair comparison. The Air is 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm while the Vaio is 2.54 cm to 3.3 cm. Width and height is bigger too...the MBA is only 29.95 cm x 19.2 cm vs 31.49 cm x 21 cm.
Size wise the Vaio Z is much more the size of the 13" MBP (2.4cm) and even there its still thicker.
You can argue that the 13" MBP is underspec'd with a C2D but it's not because Apple can't cram more stuff in as opposed to how they want their line up to work.
The MBA is the ultra light exec laptop, the MBP 13" is the uber battery life laptop and there is no performance 13" in their line up. Each is spec'd for the upsell, not because of some engineering deficiency.
You're right there. I'm sorry I said $1,000...I was thinking that the total cost of a system should be offered starting at $1,000 less. I bought my Power Mac G4 933MHz system and Apple display at the time for under $2,300. I can't even get the tower at this point for that. So I'm struggling to understand how Apple's current line-up is better & more affordable.
Adjusted for 2010 money? Assuming you got the Power Mac G4 Quicksilver in 2002 that $2,300 is $2,787 today.
The base Mac Pro is $2499. That leaves around $300 for a monitor. Okay, that won't get you a Apple monitor but you can get a decent 23"-24" monitor (TN, not IPS) from somewhere.
Note that the MSRP for the G4/933 was $2,299. If you got it for under $2300 including an ACD you got quite a deal.
Ah...you specified a laptop that is 3 times thicker.
2.4cm is not 3x 1.7cm - tapered edges don't count. You're right it is the same as the 13" MBP but the MBP is really the problem area anyway, which Sony have surpassed them on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You can argue that the 13" MBP is underspec'd with a C2D but it's not because Apple can't cram more stuff in as opposed to how they want their line up to work.
I don't think so. I highly doubt that Apple want their highest selling model of computer to be stuck using over 2-year-old CPUs. The problem being caused by Intel of course. If Intel had allowed NVidia or AMD to build chipsets for their processors then the 13" MBP would have an i5 chip in it right now, likely with an IGP 50% faster than the 320M.
Apple may be waiting out the technology shifts going on but everyone else adapts to them and makes it better for the consumer.
It's clear from Sandy Bridge that the IGP won't improve on the 320M so a hybrid between the 13" Air and 13" MBP would have allowed them to build an i5 model last year with a dedicated GPU and this year we'd get the latest chips with a powerful GPU too.
Weight is the most important factor, not thickness. The MBA would only need to be a bit thicker to take a standard i5 and the impact to the battery would be minimal - their batteries far outclass PCs so no one would even notice.
We'll see, February 20th is when they choose if they put a dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP. If they stick with the Sandy Bridge IGP, it's getting marked as an engineering fail because it doesn't make sense for them to go this route, likewise if it's C2D again with a 320M. It's not fair to blame them entirely as it's clear CPUs and GPUs will merge so it's smart to wait it out but by missing the intermediary steps, it creates a very bad gap between and it can be avoided.
Say for example they stick with C2D in the 13" MBP and decide to hold out for Ivy Bridge, that jump will be quite large from this generation to the next and almost make the current ones instantly obsolete as the Ivy Bridge ones will be quad-core with double the GPU performance - overall, a 300% speedup over the C2D model.
The concept of waiting out technology improvements I don't mind but the intermediate steps are so tiresome. Same goes for the Mac Pro and smaller desktops. As time goes on, they make less and less sense because the low-end gets ever more powerful but the need won't disappear until a few years further down the line and the computer makers keep wanting to switch the form factors so that it holds people back from reaching that point of complete satisfaction.
You're right, it's not what most people need. Most people don't need any expansion at all. Hence the iMac.
I mentioned this somewhere else but will repeat here, it is very common for people to expand their machines. They may not do it themselves and frankly may not even understand completely what is being done. What they do is take the machine to a trusted repair tech. If the complaints revolve around speed or storage space upgrades are often done. That can mean more RAM or a bigger HD.
I know of at least two guys that do this regularly. One has even established himself as a parttime business. At the other end of the commercial spectrum local stores do similar trade all the time. Demand for more storage and the snappy is always there.
Quote:
Most people never open up their machines and those who do are growing fewer all the time.
Actually I think this is BS too. People may not open their machines personally but they do get updated. Mainly because hardware isn't advancing as fast as it has in the past. At least not relative to their processor needs.
Quote:
Computers are becoming more and more like appliances and that trend will continue. For those who actually need expansion for work, there is the Mac Pro. The price should not be a hinderance to pros.
Actually price is a huge factor. If you have a project involving a hundred PCs it is foolish not to look at price. In any event the types of desktops we are talking about here range in price from $400 to $1000 each so yeah the Mac Pro is very expensive. Especially if you can't work a deal.
Note here that their is something I disagree with. Corporate buyers are often more concerned about initial costs than anything long term. What makes sense to the corporate world seldom makes sense to the wider world.
Quote:
Those who do upgrades on their home computer outside of RAM represent a minority class of hobbyists who like to tinker. And if you're the tinkering type then the Mac platform is probably not for you. Build a PC and install Ubuntu.
Again I really think this is BS but won't go any farther.
The MacPro may not be all that expensive considering its parts and the build quality, but the single-CPU base model does need to come down in price. I think $1999 is not too much of a stretch.
I'd agree that the MacPro seems on its way out. It's a pity for the few who still need a workstation-class machine, but the writing's on the wall.
And what did SJ say again? "Our strategy is: price it aggresively, and go for volume. That has worked really well for Apple."
Comments
What i'm saying is there is a place for small inexpensive servers. But servers need to be servicable and not overly fashion conscious. The Mini is a great little product, that got stretched a little thin when configured for server duty.
So you may be asking: Dave what is all this rambling about? Simple there is a market for a chassis that is slightly larger than the Mini and significantly smaller than the Mac Pro. Call it XMac if you want but if properly realized could be effectively configured for many duties including that of a server, desktop general purpose computer or as a limited work station where the Pro isn't needed. The goal should be performance centered between the Mini and the Pro, which means modest desk top class parts.
&&&&&&&&&&&
In any event I think one big mistake would be for Apple to manage it's Mac Lineup like it has in the past. The dark days are gone, the interested parties are more than just the faithful. Apple is now on solid ground growing sales. Well at least in laptops, desktops suffer from a significant inability to meet the needs of a wide range of users. Adjustments to the desktop lineup are needed.
The Intel X58 is listed as $260 on Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-502-_-Product
The i7 boards are under $100:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-396-_-Product
Still not that significant a difference as you say and it leaves an extra $340 to the $500 margin I mentioned above on the entry Mac Pro. $1650 worth of parts in a machine priced at $2500 and that's with the chassis estimated at $400 and the PSU at $300. You get 1kW PSUs for under $150. There are other parts like bluetooth, wifi that would make up $100 or so but the margin on top would appear to be over $800. Free shipping of a 20kg machine will take a small amount as well as packaging $800 is excessive.
This is what happens when products don't sell. The original iPhone was priced way too high and then they started selling a lot of them and the price came down. It wouldn't be worth the effort making Mac Pros if they only made $300 profit on each one.
But that goes to show that if they weren't selling enough at $1999 then the large market clearly doesn't want towers like the Mac Pro because those people have to buy screens on top whereas they get a $1000 screen included with the iMac for the same price.
That's why I think the only way they can do this is to build a unique tower machine like the Cube. But if they can't do that due to the size restrictions and because it would affect the iMac line then it won't ever happen. The Mini is the last hope there is for an affordable headless machine and I think it's enough. If people just want i7 performance now then next year's Mini with Ivy Bridge can reach 80% of that.
That would confirm the huge margin. It allows them to price the entry Mac Pro anywhere between $1800 and $2500 and still be in profit.
I guess where the rubber meets the road for me is that a pro desktop Mac used to be way more affordable. Now it isn't.
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
I like the iMac, but I'd prefer a tower and display. And enough with this Hackintosh crap.
Let's get the facts right
You're right there. I'm sorry I said $1,000...I was thinking that the total cost of a system should be offered starting at $1,000 less. I bought my Power Mac G4 933MHz system and Apple display at the time for under $2,300. I can't even get the tower at this point for that. So I'm struggling to understand how Apple's current line-up is better & more affordable.
The Intel X58 is listed as $260 on Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-502-_-Product
The i7 boards are under $100:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-396-_-Product
X58 boards start at $165, with dual 16X PCIe slots and more, H55 (not i7, since those don't support Core i7-9xx series) boards (starting at $65) come with one 16x PCIe slot and a couple of shitty slots. Anyway H55 is limited to DMI-based cpus (up to Core i7-8xx series, up to QC 3.06GHz), so no 6C for you, and if with slower cpus it is a more affordable solution, it is not overall the case with the Core i7-8xx series.
H55 motherboard $65 2.80 Core i7-860 $284 = $349
X58 motherboard $165 2.80 Core i7-930 $294 = $459 (+$110)
and
H55 motherboard $65 2.93 Core i7-870 $294 = $359
but:
X58 motherboard $165 3.06 Core i7-950 $294 = $459
H55 motherboard $65 3.06 Core i7-880 $583 = $648 (+$189)
and
X58 motherboard $165 3.20 Core i7-960 $562 = $727 (+$79)
If you go 2.80 and 3.06, it's overall cheaper to go X58 (compared to a very low-end $65 H55 board), and you can offer even faster models, up to 6C.
This may change (or not) with SB cpus, Intel is being very agressive in terms of pricing on the DMI-based Core ix-2000 series, but details are yet to be released on the QPI-based models (Summer 2011).
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
For me:
#1 no PCIe slots.
#2 no easy access to internal storage, and few storage options.
There are some devices that simply don't exist in USB, Enet or FW format. Not just for production where the cost of the computer doesn't always matter, but also for education/training where the funding is much more limited.
If and when Light Peak is released into lower cost Macs, it may solve some of the issues since LP supports PCIe up to 4x on a single port, but that means that current PCIe devices must also be released in LP format... or PCIe expansion cases with LP port(s). It could take a lot of time.
At one time the PM G4 with PCI slots started at $1299, those were excellent machines for PCI-based audio/video production/training (up to 3 or 4 I/O/DSP cards, and up to 4 internal HDDs) and the "slower" cpu didn't matter much since most of the processing was handled by the cards themselves.
For me:
#1 no PCIe slots.
#2 no easy access to internal storage, and few storage options
Access to storage is the main part of the iMac I don't like but there are other issues like the headphone port and others being at the back, the screen glare and not being able to adjust the screen beyond tilt. I like displays that can turn into portrait mode.
Cost of ownership is another issue as one part failing, even dead pixels means your whole machine needs sent away to be repaired.
Once they migrate everything to SSD chips, I doubt we will have access to the storage anyway and you likely couldn't add anything to the mini-SATA port.
There is a teardown of the 27" iMac:
It almost seems like there are more parts than would fit inside the 27" chassis. That stuff likely wouldn't fit in a mini desktop without some seriously good engineering skills. Sony would be able to fit all that into a small box but I don't think Apple could.
If the display panel was $600, then Apple could sell a screen-less 27" iMac for $1399.
They wouldn't make it like the Mac Pro though because they would have an entry model over $1000 cheaper than the Xeon and no reason for the difference in price.
They can't make it a small desktop as the parts won't fit.
The iMac is the best design for them to spread out the parts and also keep costs down.
If they'd just improve the iMac, it wouldn't be such a big deal. With Light Peak as mentioned, external PCI speed is possible so while internal cards are better in some cases, I'm sure they will come up with a solution. They could offer an affordable display and logic board repair service to take some worry out of repairs outside of warranty and allow you to easily remove the panel itself and ship it back for replacement.
They could allow access to storage in the same way as RAM. There's no more risk of someone stealing the drive than from a Mac Pro, less so if it's screwed in.
They can put headphone sockets on their keyboards so that people with short iPhone-length headphones can use them easily.
They can make the display a bit more adjustable. It would be so neat if they went back to the original swivel iMac design but with a smaller base. Like the parts from the i5 iMac in a short dome with the Mini footprint connected to a 21.5" display that is styled like the Cinema display but offering an anti-glare option like the MBP - they just leave out the glass. They couldn't make a 27" option with that design though.
Sony would be able to fit all that into a small box but I don't think Apple could.
Uhh, what? You really can't be serious. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Apple has FAR more experience with Micro-Engineering than Sony does. The iMac itself is testament to that, as is the Macbook Air and the Macbook Pro, the iPhone, and iPad, etc. Really, EVERY Apple product with the exception of the Mac Pro is an example of an extremely high degree of low-profile engineering, placing far more components in a space where they shouldn't fit and then doing so with very few (if any) fans. Sony may as well be Dell when it comes to this sort of thing.
EVERY Apple product with the exception of the Mac Pro is an example of an extremely high degree of low-profile engineering, placing far more components in a space where they shouldn't fit and then doing so with very few (if any) fans. Sony may as well be Dell when it comes to this sort of thing.
Nah, they have better engineering. The 13" Vaio Z is 24mm thick vs 17mm in the Air. It weighs 1.47kg vs 1.06kg. But they pack in:
dual-core 2.8GHz Core i7
6GB RAM
256GB quad-raid 0 SSD (twice as fast as Apple's SSD)
Blu-Ray drive
1920 x 1080 resolution
NVidia GT 330M (same as the MBP, no actually it has 1GB VRAM)
3 x USB 2 ports
HDMI, VGA
ExpressCard
Gigabit ethernet
802.11n, 3G
carbon fibre shell
Now it's expensive but that example alone shows they can fit higher performance parts into a smaller form factor than Apple can. That machine is almost as thin and light as the Air but the Air uses shrunk down low voltage Core 2 Duos, Sony's uses the i7 in the MBP. Apple can't even put a dedicated GPU in anything less than a 15" laptop, which is why the entire low-end is stuck on Core 2 Duo.
The day Apple get even an i5 and a dedicated GPU into the Air will be the day they start to catch up to Sony and I don't have my hopes up for this year.
Nah, they have better engineering. The 13" Vaio Z is 24mm thick vs 17mm in the Air. It weighs 1.47kg vs 1.06kg. But they pack in:
dual-core 2.8GHz Core i7
6GB RAM
256GB quad-raid 0 SSD (twice as fast as Apple's SSD)
Blu-Ray drive
1920 x 1080 resolution
NVidia GT 330M (same as the MBP, no actually it has 1GB VRAM)
3 x USB 2 ports
HDMI, VGA
ExpressCard
Gigabit ethernet
802.11n, 3G
carbon fibre shell
Now it's expensive but that example alone shows they can fit higher performance parts into a smaller form factor than Apple can. That machine is almost as thin and light as the Air but the Air uses shrunk down low voltage Core 2 Duos, Sony's uses the i7 in the MBP. Apple can't even put a dedicated GPU in anything less than a 15" laptop, which is why the entire low-end is stuck on Core 2 Duo.
The day Apple get even an i5 and a dedicated GPU into the Air will be the day they start to catch up to Sony and I don't have my hopes up for this year.
Those are completely different machines in completely different price categories. Comparison is null.
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
Seriously if you need a desktop type chassis the iMac simply doesn't cut the mustard. You can fill in the blank with whatever you want but it doesn't take much effort to see that many things won't go into an iMac. In fact pretty much nothing goes into the Mac as an expansion capability.
As to why, I guess you would have to get out in the real world and see how PCs are put to use. It is not unusual to add Ethernet cards, USB or RS232 cards or special purpose cards to a chassis. Not to mention a few drive slots go a long way to justifying a desktop chassis for many users.
The current Mac Pro is an excellent machine for what it is. It is not however an economical desktop platform. The problem is most people think of a Mac Pro as desktop and honestly it isn't. At least not in the sense of what most people need.
The problem is most people think of a Mac Pro as desktop and honestly it isn't. At least not in the sense of what most people need.
You're right, it's not what most people need. Most people don't need any expansion at all. Hence the iMac. Most people never open up their machines and those who do are growing fewer all the time. Computers are becoming more and more like appliances and that trend will continue. For those who actually need expansion for work, there is the Mac Pro. The price should not be a hinderance to pros.
Those who do upgrades on their home computer outside of RAM represent a minority class of hobbyists who like to tinker. And if you're the tinkering type then the Mac platform is probably not for you. Build a PC and install Ubuntu.
Those are completely different machines in completely different price categories. Comparison is null.
Obviously the spec cost is similar to a MBP but they managed to fit that spec into a MBA size so it's a valid engineering comparison.
I don't mind the Blu-Ray drive, I don't mind the 1080p display, I don't mind the i5/i7 chips, I don't mind the quad SSD, I don't mind the 6GB RAM, I don't mind the extra ports. The one thing I do mind is when Sony can fit all those parts into that chassis and Apple still can't put a dedicated GPU in their design.
The CPUs they use in the Air, Mini and 13" MBP came out Q3 2008. This is 2011 now and the reason we have over 2 year-old hardware is because their engineers don't put a dedicated GPU in the machines.
All they have to do is put the Radeon 6550 in the low-end and 6770 in the higher end and we can have all the latest CPUs that cost the same as the 2 year-old ones.
We have to wait until late February to see what they decide to do but they could have done a lot more already. The Macbook Air is a good design for all future laptops but it's not going to be very good if they keep using such old hardware. The design can be small and light and not compromise the parts that can go inside it as Sony has shown numerous times.
Obviously the spec cost is similar to a MBP but they managed to fit that spec into a MBA size so it's a valid engineering comparison.
Ah...you specified a laptop that is 3 times thicker. That's not nearly a fair comparison. The Air is 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm while the Vaio is 2.54 cm to 3.3 cm. Width and height is bigger too...the MBA is only 29.95 cm x 19.2 cm vs 31.49 cm x 21 cm.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...tegoryId=16154
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html
Size wise the Vaio Z is much more the size of the 13" MBP (2.4cm) and even there its still thicker.
You can argue that the 13" MBP is underspec'd with a C2D but it's not because Apple can't cram more stuff in as opposed to how they want their line up to work.
The MBA is the ultra light exec laptop, the MBP 13" is the uber battery life laptop and there is no performance 13" in their line up. Each is spec'd for the upsell, not because of some engineering deficiency.
You're right there. I'm sorry I said $1,000...I was thinking that the total cost of a system should be offered starting at $1,000 less. I bought my Power Mac G4 933MHz system and Apple display at the time for under $2,300. I can't even get the tower at this point for that. So I'm struggling to understand how Apple's current line-up is better & more affordable.
Adjusted for 2010 money? Assuming you got the Power Mac G4 Quicksilver in 2002 that $2,300 is $2,787 today.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc....002&year2=2010
The base Mac Pro is $2499. That leaves around $300 for a monitor. Okay, that won't get you a Apple monitor but you can get a decent 23"-24" monitor (TN, not IPS) from somewhere.
Note that the MSRP for the G4/933 was $2,299. If you got it for under $2300 including an ACD you got quite a deal.
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/quicksilver...power-mac.html
Yes, there is no equivalent to the $1600 PowerMac but it's been that way for years.
Yes, there is no equivalent to the $1600 PowerMac but it's been that way for years.
And it should cease to be that way!
Ah...you specified a laptop that is 3 times thicker.
2.4cm is not 3x 1.7cm - tapered edges don't count. You're right it is the same as the 13" MBP but the MBP is really the problem area anyway, which Sony have surpassed them on.
You can argue that the 13" MBP is underspec'd with a C2D but it's not because Apple can't cram more stuff in as opposed to how they want their line up to work.
I don't think so. I highly doubt that Apple want their highest selling model of computer to be stuck using over 2-year-old CPUs. The problem being caused by Intel of course. If Intel had allowed NVidia or AMD to build chipsets for their processors then the 13" MBP would have an i5 chip in it right now, likely with an IGP 50% faster than the 320M.
Apple may be waiting out the technology shifts going on but everyone else adapts to them and makes it better for the consumer.
It's clear from Sandy Bridge that the IGP won't improve on the 320M so a hybrid between the 13" Air and 13" MBP would have allowed them to build an i5 model last year with a dedicated GPU and this year we'd get the latest chips with a powerful GPU too.
Weight is the most important factor, not thickness. The MBA would only need to be a bit thicker to take a standard i5 and the impact to the battery would be minimal - their batteries far outclass PCs so no one would even notice.
We'll see, February 20th is when they choose if they put a dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP. If they stick with the Sandy Bridge IGP, it's getting marked as an engineering fail because it doesn't make sense for them to go this route, likewise if it's C2D again with a 320M. It's not fair to blame them entirely as it's clear CPUs and GPUs will merge so it's smart to wait it out but by missing the intermediary steps, it creates a very bad gap between and it can be avoided.
Say for example they stick with C2D in the 13" MBP and decide to hold out for Ivy Bridge, that jump will be quite large from this generation to the next and almost make the current ones instantly obsolete as the Ivy Bridge ones will be quad-core with double the GPU performance - overall, a 300% speedup over the C2D model.
The concept of waiting out technology improvements I don't mind but the intermediate steps are so tiresome. Same goes for the Mac Pro and smaller desktops. As time goes on, they make less and less sense because the low-end gets ever more powerful but the need won't disappear until a few years further down the line and the computer makers keep wanting to switch the form factors so that it holds people back from reaching that point of complete satisfaction.
You're right, it's not what most people need. Most people don't need any expansion at all. Hence the iMac.
I mentioned this somewhere else but will repeat here, it is very common for people to expand their machines. They may not do it themselves and frankly may not even understand completely what is being done. What they do is take the machine to a trusted repair tech. If the complaints revolve around speed or storage space upgrades are often done. That can mean more RAM or a bigger HD.
I know of at least two guys that do this regularly. One has even established himself as a parttime business. At the other end of the commercial spectrum local stores do similar trade all the time. Demand for more storage and the snappy is always there.
Most people never open up their machines and those who do are growing fewer all the time.
Actually I think this is BS too. People may not open their machines personally but they do get updated. Mainly because hardware isn't advancing as fast as it has in the past. At least not relative to their processor needs.
Computers are becoming more and more like appliances and that trend will continue. For those who actually need expansion for work, there is the Mac Pro. The price should not be a hinderance to pros.
Actually price is a huge factor. If you have a project involving a hundred PCs it is foolish not to look at price. In any event the types of desktops we are talking about here range in price from $400 to $1000 each so yeah the Mac Pro is very expensive. Especially if you can't work a deal.
Note here that their is something I disagree with. Corporate buyers are often more concerned about initial costs than anything long term. What makes sense to the corporate world seldom makes sense to the wider world.
Those who do upgrades on their home computer outside of RAM represent a minority class of hobbyists who like to tinker. And if you're the tinkering type then the Mac platform is probably not for you. Build a PC and install Ubuntu.
Again I really think this is BS but won't go any farther.
I'd agree that the MacPro seems on its way out. It's a pity for the few who still need a workstation-class machine, but the writing's on the wall.
And what did SJ say again? "Our strategy is: price it aggresively, and go for volume. That has worked really well for Apple."
Not sure how that applies to the MacPro.