Originally posted by Chucker
No, it's a terrible idea. This "Mac" would not only be a hugely confusing brand name ("What do you have?" _"A Mac" _"Oh, you mean like, the platform? Or the model? Or?"); it would also severely eat into the iMac's sales, because it would inevitably be priced at the exact same levels. Apple's mid-range desktop is an all-in-one. Deal with it.
I agree that it needs a better name than just Mac. I haven't heard any suggestions I really like. "Mac Medium"? Maybe follow the software naming and go with "Mac Express"? But it would be a GREAT addition to the line. I don't buy "deal with it" as an argument...it's the same thing people said before the mini was announced, and look how wrong they were.
Who cares if it eats into iMac sales, as long as it's just as profitable and increases mac sales overall?
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, for one, they can sell the entire thing (the iMac) at a higher prices than they could a headless, because there's less competition in that segment, so consumers will have less comparison, so they'll have less of a chance of pointing out (and/or choosing) an alternative product that's more affordable _there likely isn't any. (In fact, the same is the case for the Mac mini. The only halfway serious Mac mini competitor is the creatively named MiniPC, which is actually more expensive and has lower specs.)
But more importantly, an AIO provides for higher revenues because it is purchased more frequently. Hard drive, screen, optical drive or CPU not good enough for the customer any more? Rather than upgrade one or multiple components, they're more likely to simply get a complete new computer.
Apple chooses their prices and their margins. A midtower may not compare as well to a dell, but it will still make some mac buyers very happy. I don't think more frequent purchases are much of a factor, most people are ready for a new monitor at about the same time they're ready for a new computer. Look at all the PC bundles where people already have a monitor but get a new one anyway just because prices have dropped so much since their last purchase.
Originally posted by Apparatus
Power Supply on top makes no sense.
Why not? What's the problem?
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
If a Mac Pro at $2000 gets you a 2.0 GHz Quad, it'll beat a 2.4GHz 4x4 (based on Conroe vs. FX benchmarks) for the same price. It'll be the cheapest Quad on the workstation market (by a mile), hurting Dell (who has 30-40 percent workstation mark-ups to cover for single-digit margins on $400 boxes).
If a Mac Pro at $2000 gets you a 2.66 GHz Conroe, it'll look over-priced next to the "same-spec" XPS at $1500-1600 (which'll also have SLI or Crossfire BTO). It'll also mean a different Motherboard (which is a SKU issue for Apple, a relatively low-volume company).
If a Mac Pro at $2000 gets you any sort of single Woodcrest, it'll be underperforming compared to XPS and 4x4 (2.0 GHz or 2.33 GHz WC) or it'll be more expensive than a 2.0 GHz Quad (2.66 GHz WC).
I don't think apple can do quad for $2K. But I think they can do conroe for $1500, maybe even less if they go minitower on the low end. Apple needs speed on the high end. On the low end, price is way more important than speed - people will complain more about a base model being too expensive than it not being fast enough.