Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
That car analogy makes no sense in comparison to computers.
This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.
You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?
You sir are crazy.
I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do
mini = hd, ram, display
imac, hd, ram, processor
That's why your analogy doesn't work there is no technical need for a mid size sedan computer for the vast majority of users.
They buy what seems reasonable for the their budget at the time and use that. Then one of two things happen.
1) it sits there until it's incredibly old and is a piece of shit before they're forced to replace it.
2) they place higher value on computers or have more money so they can upgrade more often.
That's it.
Round up EVERYONE you know and ask and you'll see.
I used to work at a best buy I've seen how product moves. People come in with "my computer is slow" or "my computer is old". And decide "i need a new computer". I say "maybe it just needs more ram" or "maybe you need more hard drive space" or "maybe you need a new graphics card so your daughter/son can play the sims".
They say either:
1)WTF, how do I do that?
2)What type do I need, I've got an HP(yeah like that means something)
3)I just need a new computer it's too slow/old
People live wasteful lifestyles and most people don't bother to learn what they currently own let alone, how to fix it or care for it, or make it better. I remember one time a lady came in one day and bought a printer an then came in the next and said it didn't work so she had to buy a new one(she didn't even return the printer she bought the day before)! She didn't even want to listen to me ask about drivers.
Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.
But we can't pretend it's what the market actually wants or cares about just to prove a point.
Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!
Having worked in corporate and retail environments selling computers I can vouch for Apple's actions. Do people ugrade their computers ..yes but the numbers are so small. Why do you think ATI and Nvidia kept such low stock of Mac specific SKUs? Because they hear the Mac geeks talking about upgrading their cards and yadda yadda but the sales results never matched.
The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.
i think the real issue is the ultra niched mini, who is that product for anyway?
the imac is a great product for making people switch from their old compaq and bulky crt to something mean and clean, but it's not very good for the pros that used to buy the biggest and baddest available, im talking about the pros looking for a new photoshop machine.
nowadays the mac pro is too much, the mini is too little and the imac's screen is not good enough.
I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.
I like to have an external internal drive for backups and the ability to boot from an alternate drive, I like to have a second optical drive to burn CDs a rate much faster than the Superdrive is capable of doing, without having wires all over my desktop. I would like the option to keep my monitor and purchase a computer separately. If on a whim, I want to give Apple more money to upgrade my video card at the time of purchase, for no apparent nor logical reason, I want that capability. Or if my firewire or USB ports crater why should I not have the capability to add a card with those features(I did it on the 7500 I had) And I'm not alone, I'm part of the vast majority of computer buyers.
Expandability can also mean upgrade at the time of purchase, in addition to after market upgrades. Maybe expandability is not as important as it was in the past, but consumer expectations for that capability apparently still exist and to deny it is incorrect. Remember perception is everything and looking at the vast majority of computers sold I believe consumers expect this capability.
I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer". For its' intended target market, there is no better computer at such a reasonable price. The only problem is, is that it is a niche market.
And no I won't duplicate "the obvious bait to incite angry responses" and repeat my statements 3 times.
It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
Having worked in corporate and retail environments selling computers I can vouch for Apple's actions. Do people ugrade their computers ..yes but the numbers are so small. Why do you think ATI and Nvidia kept such low stock of Mac specific SKUs? Because they hear the Mac geeks talking about upgrading their cards and yadda yadda but the sales results never matched.
The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.
I personally believe ATI and Nvidia keep not only the stock of Mac video cards low but also the number of SKU's low is because Apple only sells one line of computers that even accepts video cards. But that's just me, I could be wrong.
This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.
They quite often are the same thing, or at least intimately related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?
I'm not going to say that, but I will say that based on what is currently being purchased, the consumer overwhelmingly expects that capability.(see previous posts on Windows AIO sales)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
You sir are crazy.
I could be crazy, but that doesn't change the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are niche products. In fact, sometimes I like to think I'm crazy, because in today's world it might make life worth living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do
I'd bet that more than 1% upgrade their computer at the time of purchase. Check out Fry's, the back counter is constantly busy upgrading computers consumers have just purchased. Don't even start me on Dells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
People live wasteful lifestyles
I may be crazy, but that's a depressing thought and a very negative opinion of your fellow man/woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!
So? They bought what the wanted "or perceived what they needed or expected from a desktop". Still money in Apple's pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking
Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.
I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.
I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer".
If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.
I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk. They made a big concession to all those people and potential switchers out there not yet ready for this change by bringing out the mac mini, and I honestly believe apple hates to have to sell them.
Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.
Laptops have cleared the trail. Computers will blend away into the background and slowly but surely move out of those big grey boxes and into the fabric of life, where no consumer should need to worry about replacing or upgrading parts.
To get back to the old car analogy:
The design view apple has for consumer computer is as basic as a car:
A long time ago, when the very first car was invented, the relatives of the inventor first laid their eyes upon it.
"But where do I attach horses to it?"
"You no longer need separate horses in front of it, there is a small machine hidden inside that makes it work, and you don't need to worry about it....."
. . . It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
Yes! Apple may intend the iMac to be the mainstream consumer Mac, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so. Consumers have a mental image about what they want, and no matter what we or Apple says it will not change. No logic or reasoning is going to change them, at least quickly. Right now I believe the mini tower is what most people have in mind for a desktop computer. This can change, and maybe two or three years from now more people will want the iMac. At such a time, however, they will be buying more Windows AIOs too.
What consumers want and what they say they want are often two different things. Apple needs to look at what people buy, not what the say they want. Sure, not everyone upgrades a mini tower, but they buy them just the same.
If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.
I did, I knew, I didn't see where any one here insulted the iMac
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance
It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.
I don't think a computer can be compared to an appliance. Computer technology is increasing rapidly, software is improving rapidly. This isn't happening to my washing machine or dryer. And I can expect 10 - 20 years out of most of my appliances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics
It is if you consider the AIO TV with built in VCRs and DVD players. Niche markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.
Except, it is what the consumer expects in a computer whether or not they are a geek by any definition of a geek.
Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.
I never said it was, I only stated that someone wanted this new "Mac" to cost $800, I guess you should read abit more before you post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesSUm, I thought I've made it pretty much clear that I'm not talking about people who need workstation-class machines. In fact, I was pretty clearly talking about people for whom the entire [i
point[/i] is that they don't need workstation-class machines.
Yes I understand your point and I do agree I would love if Apple did realease one, but to compare it to a $350 Dell that offers old pentiums, about 256 MB of Ram, Intel Inetgrated Graphics and a crt moniter is just insane... and before you ask my GF and her best friend recieve those little catalogues from Dell so I know what they offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.
No it doesn't all these boxes (or atleast 90%+ ) have intel integrated graphics, that right there kill any and all expandability
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.
I agree 100% but instead of bashing Apple why not give them credit for making the ultimate Pro machine something all Pros have been asking for and not compare them to $350 boxes. Plus it might not be most users but the Pro market isin't that small either and it is very profitable one for Apple!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...
Not true when it comes to Notebooks it's quite good in my opinion (thats why Apple has a 12% market share here) and should get better if rumors are true and in the Desktop market it's really good because theres the Mac mini which is perfect for pretty much everyone, there the Mac Pro which covers the Pro market and the iMac covers another part of the home market.
Of course if Apple did release the Mac eXpress ($1599 base price) I think Apples line would be complete and would be perfect, there would be a computer for everyone.
So ya while I agree one more Desktop "might" be needed, but saying that Apples line sucks for "everyone" because you don't have a computer YOU and a few others want is a bit childish.
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk.
edit: punctuation for clarity
Will apple keep puting laptop cpus in a home system?
Will they ever put a MXM card in the AIO?
Even with a TV alot of people still need to have a cable box / dvr / vcr / sat box near it And cable card TV's don't have dvr's and cable card does not work if PVP and other new cable stuff like on demand.
It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.
BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!
Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.
It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.
The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!
Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.
"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.
You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become
Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
And a $1700 conroe mac tower changes that equation how?
The examples thus far have been cheap $350-$600 Dell towers. You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999.
How many folks that can afford a $1700 mac tower can't afford another $400 and get quad core goodness? That last $400 buys a lot of future proofing. And $1700 IS workstation pricing today. The base Dell 690 is $1729. Desktop pricing is $800 less. XPS 400 is $890.
Tell me people wont be whining to the moon if there was a $1700 Conroe mac tower when the equivalent Dell conroe tower is $900.
At best we might get a cube. There's no way that Apple is putting out a $900 tower that will kill iMac sales. There's no way a $1700 conroe workstation will fly when a quad core woodcrest workstation is $400 more.
I'd love a Conroe cube with 1 slot, a 3.5" HD, 4 DIMM slots @ maybe $1500 but I sure don't expect one. The Mac family is complete.
"Mac" has become synonymous with Apple. It is a reference point for Apple's computers, Apple software, Apple related third part software, Apple's OS, and Apple related third party Games, i.e. Mac or Windows. In a sense Mac = Apple, so when you hear Mac, you think Apple.
Hence there are different types of "Mac's", i.e. Apple Computers: Mac Mini, iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and Mac Pro.
It makes no sense to call any Apple computer in the future simply "Mac". It would be too confusing for nubies and pros alike.
It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
The Mac mini and the iMac are not niche products. They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.
What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.
The Mac Pro starts at $2,199 for two 2.0 Xeons. Take one of those out and you're only saving $350, so the Mac Cheapo would be at least $1850. Taking out some bays and ports will only save a couple bucks, if that in parts, but would cost a whole lot more in terms of marketing and production and diminished economy of scale. The same for another board supporting a cheaper chip like a Conroe.
What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.
I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.
. . . You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999. . .
Vinea
Apple is marketing their Mac Pro differently. They have one standard model that sells for essentially $2500. The $1700 price tag is just one configuration example that happens to be a round number half way between a 20 inch iMac and the Mac Pro, if we include cost of display. It was an effort to keep the example simple, and show the big price gap that exists between the iMac and Mac Pro. That price gap leaves lots of room for adjusting pricing and features.
A mini tower Mac could cover the whole price range of $1000 to $2000, and even higher with some costly built-to-order options. Discussion of what is included in a mini tower Mac could get very lengthy and not cover the essential issue of whether such a Mac is needed or not. It could be configured to be a general home computer all the way up to a mini workstation.
Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.
Apple offering an upper end consumer computer, that is not AIO, does not inhibit Apple's desire to be a trend setter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.
The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!
Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.
I contend that the reason Apple is in existence today is due to their software and not their hardware. In fact, it is a continuing theme in threads concerning this topic, that people feel like they are settling for an Apple computer in order to use Apple's software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.
You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become
No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).
Switching from Windows is an impediment because consumers have vested in learning Windows, purchased software they use is Windows that may not have Mac versions. By raising an artificial barrier with only offering niche products Apple is reducing their chances of gaining market share, and Apple has stated on more than one occasion that they want to increase market share.
No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).
Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.
They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat
What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.
No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat
What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.
The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat
I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.
I can't argue this, because I can't parse what you are saying.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.
Right, and niche products are only good if they're high-margin. A cheapo computer is not high margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.
No, the vast majority of consumers buy computers with consumer chips, like in the Mac mini or the iMac. Just because Dell doesn't bother putting them into smaller packages doesn't mean that the user is ever going to upgrade it. Also, as I pointed out, most of the computers in the price range you specify use unupgradable integrated graphics.
Comments
Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
That car analogy makes no sense in comparison to computers.
This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.
You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?
You sir are crazy.
I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do
mini = hd, ram, display
imac, hd, ram, processor
That's why your analogy doesn't work there is no technical need for a mid size sedan computer for the vast majority of users.
They buy what seems reasonable for the their budget at the time and use that. Then one of two things happen.
1) it sits there until it's incredibly old and is a piece of shit before they're forced to replace it.
2) they place higher value on computers or have more money so they can upgrade more often.
That's it.
Round up EVERYONE you know and ask and you'll see.
I used to work at a best buy I've seen how product moves. People come in with "my computer is slow" or "my computer is old". And decide "i need a new computer". I say "maybe it just needs more ram" or "maybe you need more hard drive space" or "maybe you need a new graphics card so your daughter/son can play the sims".
They say either:
1)WTF, how do I do that?
2)What type do I need, I've got an HP(yeah like that means something)
3)I just need a new computer it's too slow/old
People live wasteful lifestyles and most people don't bother to learn what they currently own let alone, how to fix it or care for it, or make it better. I remember one time a lady came in one day and bought a printer an then came in the next and said it didn't work so she had to buy a new one(she didn't even return the printer she bought the day before)! She didn't even want to listen to me ask about drivers.
Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.
But we can't pretend it's what the market actually wants or cares about just to prove a point.
Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!
The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.
the imac is a great product for making people switch from their old compaq and bulky crt to something mean and clean, but it's not very good for the pros that used to buy the biggest and baddest available, im talking about the pros looking for a new photoshop machine.
nowadays the mac pro is too much, the mini is too little and the imac's screen is not good enough.
in a situation what can you do but to go to dell?
Allow me to quote this. 3 times, for effect.
I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.
I like to have an external internal drive for backups and the ability to boot from an alternate drive, I like to have a second optical drive to burn CDs a rate much faster than the Superdrive is capable of doing, without having wires all over my desktop. I would like the option to keep my monitor and purchase a computer separately. If on a whim, I want to give Apple more money to upgrade my video card at the time of purchase, for no apparent nor logical reason, I want that capability. Or if my firewire or USB ports crater why should I not have the capability to add a card with those features(I did it on the 7500 I had) And I'm not alone, I'm part of the vast majority of computer buyers.
Expandability can also mean upgrade at the time of purchase, in addition to after market upgrades. Maybe expandability is not as important as it was in the past, but consumer expectations for that capability apparently still exist and to deny it is incorrect. Remember perception is everything and looking at the vast majority of computers sold I believe consumers expect this capability.
I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer". For its' intended target market, there is no better computer at such a reasonable price. The only problem is, is that it is a niche market.
And no I won't duplicate "the obvious bait to incite angry responses" and repeat my statements 3 times.
It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
Having worked in corporate and retail environments selling computers I can vouch for Apple's actions. Do people ugrade their computers ..yes but the numbers are so small. Why do you think ATI and Nvidia kept such low stock of Mac specific SKUs? Because they hear the Mac geeks talking about upgrading their cards and yadda yadda but the sales results never matched.
The iMac isn't for everyone. If you need more then Apple gives you the good Desktop stuff. Not cosumer chipsets but the workstation stuff.
I personally believe ATI and Nvidia keep not only the stock of Mac video cards low but also the number of SKU's low is because Apple only sells one line of computers that even accepts video cards. But that's just me, I could be wrong.
...
This isn't about speed or power, it's about expandability.
They quite often are the same thing, or at least intimately related.
You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that there are 295,734,134 americans and that the majority of them actually even open, let alone upgrade their machines?
I'm not going to say that, but I will say that based on what is currently being purchased, the consumer overwhelmingly expects that capability.(see previous posts on Windows AIO sales)
You sir are crazy.
I could be crazy, but that doesn't change the fact that the iMac and Mac mini are niche products. In fact, sometimes I like to think I'm crazy, because in today's world it might make life worth living.
I guarantee that probably about %1 of computer owners upgrade their machines, especially beyond the capability of what a mini or imac can do
I'd bet that more than 1% upgrade their computer at the time of purchase. Check out Fry's, the back counter is constantly busy upgrading computers consumers have just purchased. Don't even start me on Dells.
People live wasteful lifestyles
I may be crazy, but that's a depressing thought and a very negative opinion of your fellow man/woman.
Hell people would probably buy the mid-range tower mac, and still never upgrade it!
So? They bought what the wanted "or perceived what they needed or expected from a desktop". Still money in Apple's pocket.
Both you and ME would like a mid range prosumer(or whatever name you want) tower mac.
I like the term upper end consumer model.
I have not insulted the iMac, ever. Heck, I even own one, a 20" G5.
I never said,"iMac is a low capability computer".
If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.
I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk. They made a big concession to all those people and potential switchers out there not yet ready for this change by bringing out the mac mini, and I honestly believe apple hates to have to sell them.
Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.
Laptops have cleared the trail. Computers will blend away into the background and slowly but surely move out of those big grey boxes and into the fabric of life, where no consumer should need to worry about replacing or upgrading parts.
To get back to the old car analogy:
The design view apple has for consumer computer is as basic as a car:
A long time ago, when the very first car was invented, the relatives of the inventor first laid their eyes upon it.
"But where do I attach horses to it?"
"You no longer need separate horses in front of it, there is a small machine hidden inside that makes it work, and you don't need to worry about it....."
edit: punctuation for clarity
. . . It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
Yes! Apple may intend the iMac to be the mainstream consumer Mac, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so. Consumers have a mental image about what they want, and no matter what we or Apple says it will not change. No logic or reasoning is going to change them, at least quickly. Right now I believe the mini tower is what most people have in mind for a desktop computer. This can change, and maybe two or three years from now more people will want the iMac. At such a time, however, they will be buying more Windows AIOs too.
What consumers want and what they say they want are often two different things. Apple needs to look at what people buy, not what the say they want. Sure, not everyone upgrades a mini tower, but they buy them just the same.
Jerry
If you would have read my original post, you would have seen that this was a reply to noah93, but nevermind that.
I did, I knew, I didn't see where any one here insulted the iMac
I have to disagree with you on your basic assumption, that it would be a good idea for apple to sell a mainstream desktop tower.
The idea behind apple's consumer desktops (and laptops, for that matter) is to set a new standard for what a computer can and should be:
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance
It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.
I don't think a computer can be compared to an appliance. Computer technology is increasing rapidly, software is improving rapidly. This isn't happening to my washing machine or dryer. And I can expect 10 - 20 years out of most of my appliances.
put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics
It is if you consider the AIO TV with built in VCRs and DVD players. Niche markets.
Now I CAN relate as to why geeks (I consider anyone that visits a website about computers such as this a geek which would include me....) want direct access to the electronics of your favorite playthingie, but for the average non-geek consumer, the apple strategy for consumer computers just is the best.
Except, it is what the consumer expects in a computer whether or not they are a geek by any definition of a geek.
Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.
I never said it was, I only stated that someone wanted this new "Mac" to cost $800, I guess you should read abit more before you post
point[/i] is that they don't need workstation-class machines.
Yes I understand your point and I do agree I would love if Apple did realease one, but to compare it to a $350 Dell that offers old pentiums, about 256 MB of Ram, Intel Inetgrated Graphics and a crt moniter is just insane... and before you ask my GF and her best friend recieve those little catalogues from Dell so I know what they offer.
Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.
No it doesn't all these boxes (or atleast 90%+ ) have intel integrated graphics, that right there kill any and all expandability
Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.
I agree 100% but instead of bashing Apple why not give them credit for making the ultimate Pro machine something all Pros have been asking for and not compare them to $350 boxes. Plus it might not be most users but the Pro market isin't that small either and it is very profitable one for Apple!
Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...
Not true when it comes to Notebooks it's quite good in my opinion (thats why Apple has a 12% market share here) and should get better if rumors are true and in the Desktop market it's really good because theres the Mac mini which is perfect for pretty much everyone, there the Mac Pro which covers the Pro market and the iMac covers another part of the home market.
Of course if Apple did release the Mac eXpress ($1599 base price) I think Apples line would be complete and would be perfect, there would be a computer for everyone.
So ya while I agree one more Desktop "might" be needed, but saying that Apples line sucks for "everyone" because you don't have a computer YOU and a few others want is a bit childish.
If you would have read my original post,
A household product that just works, WITH THE ELECTRONICS PART HIDDEN AWAY.
to function in such a way appliance, it should be a device with AS FEW SEPARATE PARTS AS POSSIBLE. This is a Major design focus behind apple's consumer computers. It is the reason and motivation for every AIO apple has ever made. According to this design philosophy it would be just as crazy to put the electronics of your TV in separate box next to your screen than it is for the computer-electronics to live in a separate box/tower under or on your desk.
edit: punctuation for clarity
Will apple keep puting laptop cpus in a home system?
Will they ever put a MXM card in the AIO?
Even with a TV alot of people still need to have a cable box / dvr / vcr / sat box near it And cable card TV's don't have dvr's and cable card does not work if PVP and other new cable stuff like on demand.
It's a whole heck of a lot easier to sell a customer what they want, than to teach them what you(Apple in this case) thinks they need. In fact, some people might just find this a very arrogant attitude on Apple's part.
BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!
Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.
It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.
The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!
Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.
"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.
You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become
Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
And a $1700 conroe mac tower changes that equation how?
The examples thus far have been cheap $350-$600 Dell towers. You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999.
How many folks that can afford a $1700 mac tower can't afford another $400 and get quad core goodness? That last $400 buys a lot of future proofing. And $1700 IS workstation pricing today. The base Dell 690 is $1729. Desktop pricing is $800 less. XPS 400 is $890.
Tell me people wont be whining to the moon if there was a $1700 Conroe mac tower when the equivalent Dell conroe tower is $900.
At best we might get a cube. There's no way that Apple is putting out a $900 tower that will kill iMac sales. There's no way a $1700 conroe workstation will fly when a quad core woodcrest workstation is $400 more.
I'd love a Conroe cube with 1 slot, a 3.5" HD, 4 DIMM slots @ maybe $1500 but I sure don't expect one. The Mac family is complete.
Vinea
Hence there are different types of "Mac's", i.e. Apple Computers: Mac Mini, iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and Mac Pro.
It makes no sense to call any Apple computer in the future simply "Mac". It would be too confusing for nubies and pros alike.
It is so obvious the Mac mini an iMac are niche market products, I find it hard to believe people defend them as an answer to Apple's repeated statements they want to increase market share, or that as posters on Mac centric web sites we shouldn't be able to state the obvious, that Apple is ignoring the largest profitable segment of the buying public, namely the upper end of the consumer desktop market.
The Mac mini and the iMac are not niche products. They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.
What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.
The Mac Pro starts at $2,199 for two 2.0 Xeons. Take one of those out and you're only saving $350, so the Mac Cheapo would be at least $1850. Taking out some bays and ports will only save a couple bucks, if that in parts, but would cost a whole lot more in terms of marketing and production and diminished economy of scale. The same for another board supporting a cheaper chip like a Conroe.
What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.
I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.
. . . You guys argue for the $1700 tower but what you really want is that tower to be a heck of a lot closer to $999. . .
Vinea
Apple is marketing their Mac Pro differently. They have one standard model that sells for essentially $2500. The $1700 price tag is just one configuration example that happens to be a round number half way between a 20 inch iMac and the Mac Pro, if we include cost of display. It was an effort to keep the example simple, and show the big price gap that exists between the iMac and Mac Pro. That price gap leaves lots of room for adjusting pricing and features.
A mini tower Mac could cover the whole price range of $1000 to $2000, and even higher with some costly built-to-order options. Discussion of what is included in a mini tower Mac could get very lengthy and not cover the essential issue of whether such a Mac is needed or not. It could be configured to be a general home computer all the way up to a mini workstation.
Jerry
BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!
Apple is - and wants to be - a trendsetter in design and usability of hardware and software. Therefore apple indeed wants to show (and sell!) people what a computer should be like! Sure that gives them a tendency to come across as arrogant.
Apple offering an upper end consumer computer, that is not AIO, does not inhibit Apple's desire to be a trend setter.
It is also the exact and very reason for their survival to this day.
The reason why apple (a computer company, for heaven's sake) has the extremely loyal and supporting fanbase it has!!
Not selling "what the consumer expects in a computer" but instead selling the consumer what apple believes is best for him/her is exactly what makes apple apple.
I contend that the reason Apple is in existence today is due to their software and not their hardware. In fact, it is a continuing theme in threads concerning this topic, that people feel like they are settling for an Apple computer in order to use Apple's software.
"what the consumer expects in a computer" is a grey/black box with a grey/black monitor, a grey/black keyboard and a grey/black mouse. Running windows.
You could not have described any better what apple is not and should never become
No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).
Switching from Windows is an impediment because consumers have vested in learning Windows, purchased software they use is Windows that may not have Mac versions. By raising an artificial barrier with only offering niche products Apple is reducing their chances of gaining market share, and Apple has stated on more than one occasion that they want to increase market share.
No, I contend that consumers desiring a computer in the ~$800 - ~$1400 range expect some expansion capabilities and the ability to upgrade at the time of purchase. They do not expect nor want an AIO. It would be interesting to see what market share the Windows AIO captured. I don't have a clue but guess that at best it is the range of 2% - 5% of the Windows market. Any one with numbers feel free to correct me(on thin ground here).
Dell's computers in that price range use integrated graphics... so the only things you can upgrade are the processor, hard drive, and RAM... oh wait, you can do that with the faster Mac mini for a lot less money.
The Mac mini and the iMac are not niche products.
Yes they are, look at the sales numbers.
They're mainstream products. They serve 99% of the population's needs flawlessly. When you call that niche, people point and laugh at you because you're a retard.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
What you are looking for, a customizable tower with a shitty processor, is niche, because anyone interested in performance will just go for the Mac Pro. I really can't think of anyone that seriously wants a shitty computer to upgrade later. Unless you get a really good processor later, it's still gonna be a shitty computer with a shitty motherboard. I can't think of a more niche product.
No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.
What you people are asking for IS NOT FEASIBLE or even useful.
The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.
I also don't know of anyone that's going to go over to Dell over $350, especially when the Dell's in the price range don't even compare to the Mac Pro.
I can't argue this, because I can't parse what you are saying.
Yes they are, look at the sales numbers.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
You really think Apple releasing a boring Dell look-a-like is going to instantly change Apple's marketshare?
No I'm not looking for a $&*^^y processor nor a $&*^^y computer. You are totally confusing the definition of "niche". Being a niche product is not bad, it means that a product only targets a small segment of the market or only a small segment of the market is buying the product.
Right, and niche products are only good if they're high-margin. A cheapo computer is not high margin.
The vast majority of consumers disagree with you when they purchase computers.
No, the vast majority of consumers buy computers with consumer chips, like in the Mac mini or the iMac. Just because Dell doesn't bother putting them into smaller packages doesn't mean that the user is ever going to upgrade it. Also, as I pointed out, most of the computers in the price range you specify use unupgradable integrated graphics.