AppleCare: I understand that,but we have many different models, which one do you have?
Customer: A MAC STUPID.
Customer hangs up out of frustration, customer service satisfaction tanks. I can see this, but not sure that it would be as much a problem as most people think.
OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple
it's quite simple:
on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.
What do you not understand?
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
If it weren't so sad, it'd be comical. This very same topic reappears over and over again on virtually all Mac centric web sites, especially before and after Apple events.
It's deja vu isn't it and that's what I propose we call this missing link, I say we call it the Mac Deja Vu.
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?
Noah
Just to agree with you, here's something I wrote elsewhere today (prices are in US$ not CAD$, sorry...):
Now that the transition is "over", I think the next big thing for Apple is MARKET SHARE. We can already see improvements in the notebooks area (12% in june in the US), but the desktop area has been very slow for the last few YEARS. Really, I don't care if a new headless Apple computer will cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac/Mac Pro as long as it also cannibalize sales of Dell/HP/Gateway mid-tower PCs. Conroe (core 2 Duo desktop) is the perfect chip to realize that. Let the mini and iMac stay with Yonah (Core Duo) and Merom (Core 2 Duo mobile) so they keep being cool and silent, great in a room, small office... Keep the Mac Pro with 2x2 cores be the ultimate WORKSTATION, and bring some mid-range power to the masses, small and big businesses, schools, etc...
I wouldn't mind the same concept as the Mac Pro: one "standard" configuration and up and down BTO options: Conroe 2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, 160 HD, Superdrive, keyboard and mouse, nvidia 7300GT for $1299?
Differences with the Mac Pro: only 1 optical drive, only 2 HD spaces, only 4 RAM slots, DDR2 RAM, maybe only 3 PCIe slots, and only one processor, smaller case (at least in height).
Price examples:
1.86GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-125-100)=$1074
2.13GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-75-100)=$1124
2.13GHz, 1GB RAM (1299-75)=$1224
2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, HD160 = $1299
2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+250) = $1549
2.93GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+700) = $1999
Nothing here would cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac, add a 20" Apple display to any configuration and you're more expensive than the 20" iMac. As for the Mac Pro, the quad 2.0GHz is only $200 more...
Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.
Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.
Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.
Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.
Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.
Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.
/shrug
Vinea
You may be right, I don't know. But with Apple now using x-86, the options for model variation/differentiation have increased dramatically. I'm hoping Apple can find the right mix to offer a computer more in line what the typical upper end consumer expects.
Also, if Apple stays with its' current product mix, they should quit making statements in press releases and at quarterly conference calls about how they want to increase market share. They should instead pound home the fact that in their niche market profits are excellent and stress that they will produce more entertainment devices to satiate the stock holders desire for potential future growth.
OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple
it's quite simple:
on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.
There are ~$1000 PCs with a PentiumD, PCIe GPU, 3.5 inch desktop HDDs, and one extra HDD slot: these are NOT pro/workstation features: they are DESKTOP features...
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?
Noah
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
No it's not! Even if what you want existed, it had better have a beter name than "Mac" or Macintosh. It's like saying we need just a "Pod".
It's not creative, if a "Mac" existed the entire marketing team that came up with that name would need to be shot.
True; "the macintosh" started as a computer: it has exploded into a platform: at this point naming a product "mac" would be like naming a car "Ford" or "Buick"
The Conroe "headless" Mac is coming. Steve is just trying to figure out how to add enough Apple pixie dust and RDF to make people think that it isn't just another "PC". Remember that there was an iMac that never saw the light of day because it did not meet Steve's approval.
Extreme Edition Conroes were immediately available back in July when Intel first announced the Conroe but the other Conroe chips werent. At the local Fry's these chips were advertised to be available on August 7th. A date that doesn't sound like an accident. Maybe a date that was set between Intel and Apple back when Apple first announced that WWDC would be pushed back a month.
Intel is giving Apple a sweet deal on Woodcrest chips (2499 for a machine that Dell sells for 3200?) and Intel and Apple agreed on a release date for the Conroe chips so that Apple could announce new Macs on the release date of the chips. Something happened on the way to the Forum.
The new "smaller motherboard" and single chip Mac Pro or headless Macs with Conroe chips missed the party. I will bet that there is some scrambling going on in Cupertino or Oregon.
Besides WWDC isn't over yet until "One more thing".
I like it, but I think your prices are too low on the high end: specifically, the 2.93ghz from Intel is $999 per unit in quantities of 1,000. Now, I know Apple orders in higher quantities than that (and thus gets higher discounts), but that's a good baseline to take into consideration Apple's margin requirements.
$999, for simplicity's sake, is 50% of $1999. That leaves Apple $1000 with which to build a computer, and maintain, let's say, 30% margins on it AFTER labor. 30% margin would be about $600. So my question to you folks who know something is: could Apple build a computer (that sells for $1999) to complement a $999 processor for $400, and assemble and ship it, too?
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.
There is a huge gap between a Yonah in a non-expandable enclosure and a Dual-Woodcrest set-up.
And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:
Mac Mini [both]: An entry level, budget system, based on laptop components, with no [very difficult] expandability; for replacing granny's dell
iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability
Mac Pro: A quad-core, über high end workstation/server for high end video studios/people with lots of money to waste.
Now where is there expandability in that list, aside from the Mac Pro? And here's a fact, I don't need a quad-core production house, nor does most anyone else buying this machine. People are buying it because it is what they offer.
I am looking for a US$1699 Mac Pro Mini. It is priced the same as the 20" iMac, and would likely yeild a higher margin and it is desktop components, rather than laptop, and does not include a screen. So if it canniablizes 20" iMacs, Apple would be happy.
To me, and any other business man with decent sense, More $$$ == better.
And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?
No. He understands Apple's business model. You don't.
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.
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.
Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.
Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.
If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.
If no one else wanted all those customers, then it wouldn't be that every company other than Apple lets people have those features at normal, sane prices. Hell, even Apple used to offer a Power Mac G4 for $1299.
edit: I should point out for the reading-comprehension impaired that I am not trying to argue that Apple should have a mini-tower for $350. What I am pointing out is that a feature is not a high-end feature, or even close to one, if all the competitors are offering it in their $350 machines.
If apple was really the so called personal computer of the average or "cool" guy as the tv campaign has us believe, they would offer a computer with a kickass everything at a very reasonable price. It makes a lot of sense to offer reasonable computing power for a relatively cheap price, if your out there to benefit people. The mini is a piece of crap, the imac is really pushing how much apple can get away with. The mac pro is just some lame extremist's machine that will make all these apple lemings work till they die just to get a reasonable apple machine. I hope all you lemings of the apple community don't use up your left nut getting a mac pro. Apple computer tower for 1400. Im the first one to get it.
Comments
not again.
...
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.
Who said anything about cheap?
The original post mentioned a price of $1200. Do you consider that cheap? Heck, the Mac mini isn't even cheap, it's just a niche product.
A Mac Pro is a Mac. A Macbook is a Mac.
Too much confusion.
AppleCare: Hello how can I help you?
Customer: My Mac won't boot up.
AppleCare: Which model do you have?
Customer: A Mac.
AppleCare: Yes I know, but which model?
Customer: A MAC.
AppleCare: I understand that,but we have many different models, which one do you have?
Customer: A MAC STUPID.
Customer hangs up out of frustration, customer service satisfaction tanks. I can see this, but not sure that it would be as much a problem as most people think.
not again.
OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple
it's quite simple:
on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.
What do you not understand?
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?
Noah
If it weren't so sad, it'd be comical. This very same topic reappears over and over again on virtually all Mac centric web sites, especially before and after Apple events.
It's deja vu isn't it and that's what I propose we call this missing link, I say we call it the Mac Deja Vu.
What do you not understand?
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?
Noah
Just to agree with you, here's something I wrote elsewhere today (prices are in US$ not CAD$, sorry...):
Now that the transition is "over", I think the next big thing for Apple is MARKET SHARE. We can already see improvements in the notebooks area (12% in june in the US), but the desktop area has been very slow for the last few YEARS. Really, I don't care if a new headless Apple computer will cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac/Mac Pro as long as it also cannibalize sales of Dell/HP/Gateway mid-tower PCs. Conroe (core 2 Duo desktop) is the perfect chip to realize that. Let the mini and iMac stay with Yonah (Core Duo) and Merom (Core 2 Duo mobile) so they keep being cool and silent, great in a room, small office... Keep the Mac Pro with 2x2 cores be the ultimate WORKSTATION, and bring some mid-range power to the masses, small and big businesses, schools, etc...
I wouldn't mind the same concept as the Mac Pro: one "standard" configuration and up and down BTO options: Conroe 2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, 160 HD, Superdrive, keyboard and mouse, nvidia 7300GT for $1299?
Differences with the Mac Pro: only 1 optical drive, only 2 HD spaces, only 4 RAM slots, DDR2 RAM, maybe only 3 PCIe slots, and only one processor, smaller case (at least in height).
Price examples:
1.86GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-125-100)=$1074
2.13GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-75-100)=$1124
2.13GHz, 1GB RAM (1299-75)=$1224
2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, HD160 = $1299
2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+250) = $1549
2.93GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+700) = $1999
Nothing here would cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac, add a 20" Apple display to any configuration and you're more expensive than the 20" iMac. As for the Mac Pro, the quad 2.0GHz is only $200 more...
PS: US$1299 is 1449CAD...
It's deja vu isn't it and that's what I propose we call this missing link, I say we call it the Mac Deja Vu.
I like it.
Conroe uses much cheaper ram.
Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.
Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.
Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.
/shrug
Vinea
Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.
Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.
Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.
/shrug
Vinea
You may be right, I don't know. But with Apple now using x-86, the options for model variation/differentiation have increased dramatically. I'm hoping Apple can find the right mix to offer a computer more in line what the typical upper end consumer expects.
Also, if Apple stays with its' current product mix, they should quit making statements in press releases and at quarterly conference calls about how they want to increase market share. They should instead pound home the fact that in their niche market profits are excellent and stress that they will produce more entertainment devices to satiate the stock holders desire for potential future growth.
not again.
OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple
it's quite simple:
on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.
There are ~$1000 PCs with a PentiumD, PCIe GPU, 3.5 inch desktop HDDs, and one extra HDD slot: these are NOT pro/workstation features: they are DESKTOP features...
What do you not understand?
We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.
Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?
Noah
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?
No it's not! Even if what you want existed, it had better have a beter name than "Mac" or Macintosh. It's like saying we need just a "Pod".
It's not creative, if a "Mac" existed the entire marketing team that came up with that name would need to be shot.
No it's not! Even if what you want existed, it had better have a beter name than "Mac" or Macintosh. It's like saying we need just a "Pod".
It's not creative, if a "Mac" existed the entire marketing team that came up with that name would need to be shot.
True; "the macintosh" started as a computer: it has exploded into a platform: at this point naming a product "mac" would be like naming a car "Ford" or "Buick"
Extreme Edition Conroes were immediately available back in July when Intel first announced the Conroe but the other Conroe chips werent. At the local Fry's these chips were advertised to be available on August 7th. A date that doesn't sound like an accident. Maybe a date that was set between Intel and Apple back when Apple first announced that WWDC would be pushed back a month.
Intel is giving Apple a sweet deal on Woodcrest chips (2499 for a machine that Dell sells for 3200?) and Intel and Apple agreed on a release date for the Conroe chips so that Apple could announce new Macs on the release date of the chips. Something happened on the way to the Forum.
The new "smaller motherboard" and single chip Mac Pro or headless Macs with Conroe chips missed the party. I will bet that there is some scrambling going on in Cupertino or Oregon.
Besides WWDC isn't over yet until "One more thing".
Price examples:
1.86GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-125-100)=$1074
2.13GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-75-100)=$1124
2.13GHz, 1GB RAM (1299-75)=$1224
2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, HD160 = $1299
2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+250) = $1549
2.93GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+700) = $1999
I like it, but I think your prices are too low on the high end: specifically, the 2.93ghz from Intel is $999 per unit in quantities of 1,000. Now, I know Apple orders in higher quantities than that (and thus gets higher discounts), but that's a good baseline to take into consideration Apple's margin requirements.
$999, for simplicity's sake, is 50% of $1999. That leaves Apple $1000 with which to build a computer, and maintain, let's say, 30% margins on it AFTER labor. 30% margin would be about $600. So my question to you folks who know something is: could Apple build a computer (that sells for $1999) to complement a $999 processor for $400, and assemble and ship it, too?
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.
There is a huge gap between a Yonah in a non-expandable enclosure and a Dual-Woodcrest set-up.
And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:
Mac Mini [both]: An entry level, budget system, based on laptop components, with no [very difficult] expandability; for replacing granny's dell
iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability
Mac Pro: A quad-core, über high end workstation/server for high end video studios/people with lots of money to waste.
Now where is there expandability in that list, aside from the Mac Pro? And here's a fact, I don't need a quad-core production house, nor does most anyone else buying this machine. People are buying it because it is what they offer.
I am looking for a US$1699 Mac Pro Mini. It is priced the same as the 20" iMac, and would likely yeild a higher margin and it is desktop components, rather than laptop, and does not include a screen. So if it canniablizes 20" iMacs, Apple would be happy.
To me, and any other business man with decent sense, More $$$ == better.
And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?
Are you effin retarded?
No. He understands Apple's business model. You don't.
No. He understands Apple's business model. You don't.
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.
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.
Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.
Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.
If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.
If no one else wanted all those customers, then it wouldn't be that every company other than Apple lets people have those features at normal, sane prices. Hell, even Apple used to offer a Power Mac G4 for $1299.
edit: I should point out for the reading-comprehension impaired that I am not trying to argue that Apple should have a mini-tower for $350. What I am pointing out is that a feature is not a high-end feature, or even close to one, if all the competitors are offering it in their $350 machines.