or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 27

post #1041 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

All Apple has to do is have its Sales Associates mark off the reason a customer didn't buy a computer. I would bet that "it doesn't have 3 or more PCIe slots" or "it doesn't have a second hard drive bay" or "I can't change out the video card" are very near the bottom of the resulting list, if those reasons even appear at all.

Sure, there are people for whom those things are important. There just aren't very many of those people who aren't already in the Pro market. The Pros would be getting the Mac Pro anyway. Slots, special video cards and extra hard drives all point to Pro users doing 3-D rendering, capturing, maybe data acquisition.

Except the gamers, of course. With virtually no games on the Mac, gamers would want to run Windows games. The only ones who would buy a Mac are those who also prefer OS X for non-game computing. Who knows - this market may be larger than Apple thinks, and I am assuming they are sizing it up.

I think you summed it up well. There is a third group, those that want to get a cheap box that they can upgrade to save money (get a video card from NewEgg, etc.), save their monitor from iteration to iteration, maybe even change a motherboard... again, to keep current. I've done that on the PC side for years... but I don't think that gives Apple a good profit, or any control over the Mac experience.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #1042 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

A market that's disappearing, as has been pointed out numerous times.

The 50% number for proportion of the market that are desktops has been bandied-about, I don't know if that's worldwide or U.S. only. How fast is it shrinking? Care to make a prediction? Is it actually shrinking worldwide? Are unit numbers shrinking or is it just that laptops are growing faster than desktops? At what point should you stop producing desktops altogether? I would think that as the desktop market shrinks, it becomes even more important to offer what people actually want (assuming the disappearance takes at least 3 years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Expandability was important in days where PCs didn't even ship with a sound card, let alone a network card. These days, with so many on-board components, not so much.

Like many of the "mini-tower" nay-sayers, you have ignored that it's not just about expandability. The one PCIe slot I suggest is so that more expensive ($799+) configs can have a decent video card whilst the motherboard has integrated graphics for the cheaper options. The "mini-tower" is also (and more significantly) about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform and using desktop parts which are faster and/or higher capacity and/or cheaper than their laptop counterparts.

Since you seem to enjoy implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to point out that as I was looking back over the thread, I noticed this post of mine, in which I state "I reckon DELL could sell a version of the proposed $999 Apple tower for $799. It's just that they've got a lot of Pentium Ds to shift right now. In 3 - 4 months, I reckon we'll see $799 Conroe towers from DELL." The post was made just under 3 months ago, and was poo-pooed by Vinea at the time. Dell's XPS 410 (1.86 GHz Conroe) without monitor or external amplified speakers is $809. (Was $799 a couple of weeks ago but the price went up)
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1043 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

All Apple has to do is have its Sales Associates mark off the reason a customer didn't buy a computer. I would bet that "it doesn't have 3 or more PCIe slots" or "it doesn't have a second hard drive bay" or "I can't change out the video card" are very near the bottom of the resulting list, if those reasons even appear at all.

Yep.

Quote:
Except the gamers, of course. With virtually no games on the Mac, gamers would want to run Windows games. The only ones who would buy a Mac are those who also prefer OS X for non-game computing. Who knows - this market may be larger than Apple thinks, and I am assuming they are sizing it up.

But how many of "the gamers"
1) care to have a machine they can tinker with and mod to the extreme
2) can afford to do such tinkerings, including the latest and greatest graphics cards all the time
3) can, at the same time, not afford to also have a regular computer for actual work?

I'd say not a lot. The "gamers" I know either don't care to have a Mac-type computer at all; i.e. they *don't mind* it when their computer has the occasional BSoD, blown-up power supply unit, non-working this-and-that, because they enjoy tinkering with it enough to fix things (if only temporarily). Or, they have enough money to, secondarily, also have a "serious" computer: one that they can trust to work, and one they can tinker with.

The "serious" computer does *not* need much customizability at all. An iMac will do. Heck, a Mac mini will probably do. And the "tinker" one wouldn't have any brand-name components, because they are more expensive, which rules Apple out anyway; it would have the cheapest, most overclock-able, most bleeding(!)-edge components, which Apple will never offer anyway.
post #1044 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

extra hard drives all point to Pro users doing 3-D rendering, capturing, maybe data acquisition.

As has been brought up before: Time Machine?

And, as Apple and others push for people's video libraries as well as audio libraries to be stored on their machines, the capacity required goes up enormously. Laptop HDDs are heavily restricted in this area relative to their desktop counterparts.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1045 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

The 50% number for proportion of the market that are desktops has been bandied-about, I don't know if that's worldwide or U.S. only. How fast is it shrinking? Care to make a prediction? Is it actually shrinking worldwide?

No, I don't care to make a prediction, but do feel free to look at the statistics from Gartner, IDC and the sorts, and you'll see that, yes, it's a world-wide process.

Quote:
Are unit numbers shrinking or is it just that laptops are growing faster than desktops?

Laptops are growing faster.

Quote:
I would think that as the desktop market shrinks, it becomes even more important to offer what people actually want (assuming the disappearance takes at least 3 years).

You should take a look at the Mac product line, it's actually pretty close to what people want. Now you might think I'm talking out of my behind, but I do tech support, software development and network administration, so yes, I do know a thing or two about what people "want". And as lundy said, it's not having more PCIe slots than the neighbor's computer does.

Quote:
Like many of the "mini-tower" nay-sayers, you have ignored that it's not just about expandability.

It is.

Quote:
The one PCIe slot I suggest is so that more expensive ($799+) configs can have a decent video card whilst the motherboard has integrated graphics for the cheaper options.

And how, exactly, is that not "expandability"?

Quote:
The "mini-tower" is also (and more significantly) about lowering the cost of entry to the Mac platform and using desktop parts which are faster and/or higher capacity and/or cheaper than their laptop counterparts.

But Apple doesn't *care* to lower the cost of entry, because unlike most hardware suppliers, they want to have a *profit margin*. A low-cost Mac does not *have* that. You *have* to cripple your low-end products (e.g., iPod shuffle, Mac mini) to an extent in order to entice people to buy something *higher*-end, so you make a *higher* profit margin.

Quote:
Since you seem to enjoy implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to point out that as I was looking back over the thread, I noticed this post of mine, in which I state "I reckon DELL could sell a version of the proposed $999 Apple tower for $799. It's just that they've got a lot of Pentium Ds to shift right now. In 3 - 4 months, I reckon we'll see $799 Conroe towers from DELL." The post was made just under 3 months ago. Dell's XPS 410 (1.86 GHz Conroe) without monitor or external amplified speakers is $809. (Was $799 a couple of weeks ago but the price went up)

See above.
post #1046 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

MIDI, sound, and TV tuners are almost exclusively Firewire/USB now-a-days.

Particularly for sound cards: you don't want those in a computer because there's two much electrical noise, all the high-end cards are external.

Someone who bought an iMac or a Mac mini isn't going to spend $500 on a fibre channel card.

Wireless USB will have to be standard before it can take off.

That leaves eSATA and 11n, which would be nice upgrades, but will both probably be standard before PCI slots are.

You're wrong especially for sound cards, Firewire/USB is for entry level products, PCI/PCIe for high-end: Digidesign HD series, Apogee Symphony, MOTU PCI 424, RME, etc... for audio I/Os and some DSP, and there are DSP-only card from Universal Audio, TC PowerCore, etc... And while some of these exist in Firewire form (USB is a joke for Pro Audio), bandwith is very limited with Firewire vs. PCIe. The same with SATA drives vs. Firewire drive, as far as I know old ATA66 drives perform better than external FW400 drives.

I'd rather spend $1500 in a computer than can handle a PCIe audio card and a PCIe DSP card and a couple of SATA drives, than to buy an $1500 iMac and have to use less performant and sometimes more expensive Firewire audio interface, DSP processing and storage.

That's one of the reasons why another expandable (but cheaper) Mac would be a nice addition to Apple's line-up: Home studio, small audio/video facilities, additional editing rooms. From what I've seen so far, expect for a couple of PowerMacs (or Mac Pro), most of these facilities are now PC-based or mixed-environments at best. Audio and now Video are Apple's playground, they should pay more attention to the needs of these markets. As Apple's audio/video software is Mac-only (Logic Pro, FCP...) having PCs in these facilities doesn't even add software sales, people will buy ProTools, Cubase or Nuendo that run on Mac and PCs.

PCI/PCIe audio is high-end, USB/Firewire audio is for hobbyists. But because of the power inside the cards, you don't need a powerful computer, you just need PCI slots. I know a lot of recording facilities that still run on G4 PowerMacs with Digidesign ProTools and Mix (old gen) cards.

Now that Conroe is available (and soon Kensfield), I really hope that Apple will make another expandable mid-range Mac in the $999-1999 price range, a couple of hard drive bays, 3 PCIe slots. I don't even care for the form factor.
post #1047 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

As has been brought up before: Time Machine?

As has been brought up before, a secondary internal disk drive is not a proper backup solution. When the computer gets stolen / set on fire / whatever, your backup is gone as well, and then what's the use?

Whereas, an external drive can easily be put in a safe, in your in-laws' house, or wherever. That's a backup. Or, once feasible, storing remotely on a web service like S3/JungleDisk or whathaveyou.

Quote:
And, as Apple and others push for people's video libraries as well as audio libraries to be stored on their machines, the capacity required goes up enormously. Laptop HDDs are heavily restricted in this area relative to their desktop counterparts.

Yes, agreed, that is a problem.
post #1048 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

You're wrong especially for sound cards, Firewire/USB is for entry level products, PCI/PCIe for high-end: Digidesign HD series, Apogee Symphony, MOTU PCI 424, RME, etc... for audio I/Os and some DSP, and there are DSP-only card from Universal Audio, TC PowerCore, etc... And while some of these exist in Firewire form (USB is a joke for Pro Audio), bandwith is very limited with Firewire vs. PCIe. The same with SATA drives vs. Firewire drive, as far as I know old ATA66 drives perform better than external FW400 drives.

I'd rather spend $1500 in a computer than can handle a PCIe audio card and a PCIe DSP card and a couple of SATA drives, than to buy an $1500 iMac and have to use less performant and sometimes more expensive Firewire audio interface, DSP processing and storage.

That's one of the reasons why another expandable (but cheaper) Mac would be a nice addition to Apple's line-up: Home studio, small audio/video facilities, additional editing rooms. From what I've seen so far, expect for a couple of PowerMacs (or Mac Pro), most of these facilities are now PC-based or mixed-environments at best. Audio and now Video are Apple's playground, they should pay more attention to the needs of these markets. As Apple's audio/video software is Mac-only (Logic Pro, FCP...) having PCs in these facilities doesn't even add software sales, people will buy ProTools, Cubase or Nuendo that run on Mac and PCs.

PCI/PCIe audio is high-end, USB/Firewire audio is for hobbyists. But because of the power inside the cards, you don't need a powerful computer, you just need PCI slots. I know a lot of recording facilities that still run on G4 PowerMacs with Digidesign ProTools and Mix (old gen) cards.

Now that Conroe is available (and soon Kensfield), I really hope that Apple will make another expandable mid-range Mac in the $999-1999 price range, a couple of hard drive bays, 3 PCIe slots. I don't even care for the form factor.

Wait, what? First you're talking about audio solutions that require more bandwidth than FireWire provides (read: very high-end). Then you mention $1500 computers (read: not very high-end). And then you come up with Cubase as an example?

Sheesh.
post #1049 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

A low-cost Mac does not *have* that.

Wrong! wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Now, if you believe a $399/499 machine will cannibalise more expensive Macs, that's one thing, but don't come in here saying a $399/499 machine will necessarily have no profit margin when that is demonstrably not the case.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1050 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

You should take a look at the Mac product line, it's actually pretty close to what people want.

Really? It that's the case why haven't the major PC manufacturers cottened on to this and started offering AIOs and SFFs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

And as lundy said, it's not having more PCIe slots than the neighbor's computer does.

I've never said that that's what it's about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

And how, exactly, is that not "expandability"?

Oh dear. We are having a reading comprehension problem. I said "it is not just about expandability".
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1051 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker


A market that's disappearing, as has been pointed out numerous times. Expandability was important in days where PCs didn't even ship with a sound card, let alone a network card. These days, with so many on-board components, not so much.

From what you say, I'll guess you speak of general purpose desktops with PCI/PCIe expansions slots, and not workstations, AIOs or SFF desktops. On the Mac side these have already disappeared, and this thread is about bringing them back! So I'll take it you speak of the whole computer market, which is mostly Windows towers.

How long do you expect it will take for these to disappear? Consider that we have had USB printers, keyboards and mice for a long time, but these towers continue to have parallel printer ports and old style IBM keyboard and mouse connectors. Things on that side don't move swiftly. Meanwhile, the Mac platform has nothing like the most popular Windows case style, to lure switchers over to the Mac side -- not to mention that many Mac users also want a general purpose tower.
post #1052 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

From what you say, I'll guess you speak of general purpose desktops with PCI/PCIe expansions slots, and not workstations, AIOs or SFF desktops.

Correct.

Quote:
On the Mac side these have already disappeared, and this thread is about bringing them back!

No, this thread is about whether it's the right idea to bring them back. Check the topic: it's a question, not an assertion.

Quote:
How long do you expect it will take for these to disappear? Consider that we have had USB printers, keyboards and mice for a long time, but these towers continue to have parallel printer ports and old style IBM keyboard and mouse connectors. Things on that side don't move swiftly. Meanwhile, the Mac platform has nothing like the most popular Windows case style,

Apple has always been relatively more progressive than most other manufacturers, in getting rid of legacy standards and deploying new ones. (Cf. first iMac for the most extreme example.)

You can argue whether that's right or wrong about them, but it's simply who and how they are. It's not gonna change.

And yes, quite frankly, I cringe every time I see a PC shipped with a PS/2 keyboard. It's still happening today. They save, what, two cents? Meanwhile you've got lots of people that I have to explain to that, no, they cannot plug or unplug PS/2 devices on the fly. Yes, it will work 99% of the time, but the remaining 1%, they risk breaking the port, frying the keyboard or mouse, or worst yet, the entire mainboard. That's simply not the status quo we should have in 2006. If you really want Apple to ship a computer with PS/2 ports, let alone devices, then we have a completely different idea about the Mac platform.

Quote:
to lure switchers over to the Mac side -- not to mention that many Mac users also want a general purpose tower.

The last assertion is mere conjecture. You cannot prove it. I would argue that percentage of Mac users caring about having such a general-purpose tower is a lot, lot lower than you believe it to be.
post #1053 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Really? It that's the case why haven't the major PC manufacturers cottened on to this and started offering AIOs and SFFs?

What "major manufacturers"? Newsflash: many big companies have left the PC market entirely. You tell me where to get a PC from IBM. Why do you think they stopped making them? Why do you think they sold their laptop division to Lenovo? Could lack of profits be the reason?

And even those "major manufacturers" that still sell PCs typically aren't manufacturers (including Apple). Manufacturing has almost completely shifted to the low-cost south-east Asia region.

Don't you want to think again about how profitable selling PCs really is?

Quote:
Oh dear. We are having a reading comprehension problem. I said "it is not just about expandability".

So what else *is* it about?
post #1054 of 1658
Well, people said there was no need for a low end Mac. We got the Mac Mini.

People said 15 inches for a bubble iMac was enough because anybigger wouldt would spoil it somehow...or it wouldn't be an iMac anymore...

Arguments were had of unholy proportions about the Intel idea before it was even a twinkle in Steve's eye.

I remember the 'Macs are too expensive' threads.

And they all had one thing in common. They infected many threads. And the threads kept going...and they kept cropping up.

It clearly indicates one thing: it is important to enough people here. And if you extrapolate that? Enough to pan out into potential sales to pad out that quarterly sales report.

Yeesh. Stick some Conroes in a 'slim' tower or otherwise line of Towers beneath the quad range. Easily differentiated. See how they do. (That's in stark contrast to the 'lame entry tower' Apple did before which was just crippled.)

We have Conroe and Wood crest now. And with Octo processing a distinct possibility on th e horizon. Not everyone need pay for 'Octo' and 'Quad' would be more than enough.

With Quads maybe not going into an iMac anytime soon...then a clear differentiator between a 'gaming tower' and the 'pro range' opens up. ANd a clear differentiator between iMac and a Gaming tower opens up.

It's a perfect time to remind us that Apple haven't gone to sleep on their industrial design. It's been a while since we saw a new 'computer' from them. Though I don't see any reason for the case change. Just stick a conroe in. Charge less.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1055 of 1658
"So what else *is* it about?"

Choice.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1056 of 1658
"Why do you think they sold their laptop division to Lenovo? Could lack of profits be the reason?"

Yes. But Apple charges more for everything they make. The mini. The iMac. The Towers.

A gaming 'low end' tower wouldn't be any different. They'll make a profit on it.

Apple, even with the Intel switch, are on their own field. Even though prices are better than they have ever been for what you're getting and quite comparable now to the Dells of the the world.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1057 of 1658
"A market that's disappearing"

Why bother making Mac Pros then?

It's not going to disappear any time soon.

And there's good money to be made by people who want a Mac gaming/expando but not Workstation tower.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1058 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker


No, this thread is about whether it's the right idea to bring them back. Check the topic: it's a question, not an assertion.

Give us a break. Such nit picking about the phrasing of an idea diverts us from the topic. I suggested that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower, which is jolly well close enough. You're not the only one doing this BTW.



Quote:

And yes, quite frankly, I cringe every time I see a PC shipped with a PS/2 keyboard. It's still happening today. . . If you really want Apple to ship a computer with PS/2 ports, let alone devices, then we have a completely different idea about the Mac platform.

I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.



Quote:

The last assertion is mere conjecture. You cannot prove it. I would argue that percentage of Mac users caring about having such a general-purpose tower is a lot, lot lower than you believe it to be.

Ah, right on topic, thanks. And you cannot prove your view either. See how short my reply might have been!
post #1059 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

What "major manufacturers"? Newsflash: many big companies have left the PC market entirely. You tell me where to get a PC from IBM. Why do you think they stopped making them? Why do you think they sold their laptop division to Lenovo? Could lack of profits be the reason?

And even those "major manufacturers" that still sell PCs typically aren't manufacturers (including Apple). Manufacturing has almost completely shifted to the low-cost south-east Asia region.

Don't you want to think again about how profitable selling PCs really is?

I've got to hand it to you - that is the best evasion of a point I have ever read. You know what I meant. You contend that what Apple offers is just what people want. I'm saying that if that's the case, why aren't there more AIOs and SFFs from Dell, HP, Acer, Sony and the like?

I'm not saying we should do away with the iMac - it has its place as by far the best AIO money can buy. But most people don't want an AIO or SFF, even if those configs suit their needs better than a tower. I'm not talking about serving the present Mac installed-base better (although several people would start buying new Mac towers instead of second-hand ones), I'm talking about attracting more switchers who currently don't buy AIOs or SFFs because it's not what they want or expect from a computer.


Quote:
So what else *is* it about?

For crying out loud! I said it already, immediately after I explained the "expandability" part: Lowering cost of entry and using desktop parts instead of laptop ones. The "mini tower" also offers an enclosure for a machine that can scale all the way from $399 to $1999.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #1060 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

"So what else *is* it about?"

Choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple, even with the Intel switch, are on their own field.

I smell a contradiction.
post #1061 of 1658
Why do I bother.
post #1062 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Why do I bother.

I don't know.

Just accept the fact that the iMac and Mac mini admirably fill niche markets and that for Apple to significantly increase market share they must offer a computer that fills the expectations most people have in a computer. Apple should stop tryiing to convert the unwashed masses in the Apple way.

Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.

See, it's easy to relent.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #1063 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Why do I bother.

seriously :/
post #1064 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

As has been brought up before: Time Machine?

And, as Apple and others push for people's video libraries as well as audio libraries to be stored on their machines, the capacity required goes up enormously. Laptop HDDs are heavily restricted in this area relative to their desktop counterparts.

Time Machine: Better served by either .mac or a NAS.

Video/Audio Library: Better served by a RAID 5 NAS...or perhaps a NAS JBODed with ZFS.

2 drives is simply 2x the likelyhood you'll have a dead drive on your hands and unrecoverable data.
post #1065 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.

ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example of how long it takes for "this garbage" to disappear from the Windows PC. Now, what other garbage were you referring to in your example? Towers, no? Otherwise you weren't very on-topic yourself?

So now in the case of the old ports "garbage" you don't want Apple to copy the PC side to make it comfortable for switchers and Mac users who have an old keyboard/mouse lying around, why should you want Apple to copy the PC side tower "garbage". You called it that yourself in the above quote.

In case you're still misunderstanding (expected giving the replies you gave to Chucker, et. al.\ ),

Chucker says: towers are on the way out.
You Say: but other stuff is on the way out but sticks around for a long time in PC's. e.g. old ports

thus you are implying towers are like old ports, therefore since you wish Apple would keep on making towers, you are also implying you wish Apple had kept on making old ports (or floppy drives is another example).

And now, in the above quote, by the same connection you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.
post #1066 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Give us a break. Such nit picking about the phrasing of an idea diverts us from the topic. I suggested that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower, which is jolly well close enough. You're not the only one doing this BTW.

Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.

In any case the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.

An xMac might be nice but its not necessary and Apple is executing well and abandoning their current successful stategy to pursue the same strategy (market share) that made it a basket case a decade ago is "sub-optimal" (aka dumb).

Simply by adding a xMac doesn't imply pursuing a market share strategy but pursuing a $399/$499 price point for an xMac is. Hence I think most opponents at this point probably agree that perhaps a Conroe xMac might appear as either an expensive cube or low end Mac Pro but not as a $799-$999 tower.

Quote:
I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.

So by equating old ports to towers JUST LIKE YOU DO IN THIS PARAGRAPH you indicate that towers are obsolete.

So why exactly should Apple pursue an obsolete form factor any more than they should start sticking parallel ports on their machines again? The argument cuts both ways...there are probably more machines that ship with parallel ports than firewire. Likewise more towers than AIOs. He simply took what you said, applied logic and showed it was silly to use to justify building towers.

So, perhaps the problem isn't misquoting but poor writing and logic in the first place.

Quote:
Ah, right on topic, thanks. And you cannot prove your view either. See how short my reply might have been!

And therefore the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).

The last line in the first post is a question:

Quote:
I know there are many that would like something like this... question is, how likely is Apple to provide this solution?

My Answer: Not too likely. Possibly a cube with one slot in that price range but likely higher priced. I'm thinking $1500 now rather than $1200.

Vinea
post #1067 of 1658
Mmm...I guess I should read all the way to the bottom as Meelash said the same thing. Of course the nice thing is that it isn't just Chucker and I "mis-quoting" but perhaps rather your argument is flawed.

Vinea
post #1068 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash


ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example . . . . . [etc.]

Oh my gosh, you guys must be getting desperate to find things to criticize! I used old legacy ports on a Windows PC as an example of how long it takes things to change in the Windows world -- not as you ultimately interpret it:

Quote:
. . . you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making [them] just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.

Chucker essentially said that the common tower is disappearing, and I commented, by example, that nothing disappears rapidly on the Window side. I had no idea this statement could be so completely screwed up, as you have managed to do in this post. I'm actually very impressed, in a strange way.

I happen to believe that the mid range tower will be with us for our lifetime. Yet, even if it were disappear, it would take twenty years or more to do so. That would give Apple a lot of time to attract new customers with it, and satisfy the requests of many Mac users who want it, in my opinion.
post #1069 of 1658
Are people so afraid of the iMac being marginalized? If it gets cannibalized who cares as long as the margins are the same? I've yet to see any good reasons for not selling a midtower type system.

The desktop market is not shrinking, it's just not growing quite as fast as the laptop market. 96% of that market aren't buying AIO's. That's a lot of market Apple isn't tapping into. I say they should, others say they shouldn't. Apple will do whatever they feel they need to do. At this point they agree w/ leaving it alone, that doesn't mean they won't change their minds in the future. They are a company intent on making money after all.

Someone referred to pci slots being useless. Just because pci slots aren't used doesn't mean they're not a selling point. If something goes wrong on an AIO you can't just pop in a card to replace it. The buyer may not and likely never will do this, however they feel better knowing they can. Making a potential customer feel comfortable about their thousand+ dollar purchase certainly helps sell systems. Sure you can add some stuff over USB/Firewire, however I have to ask why did you buy an AIO? To reduce clutter? For the elegance of having everything in one nice neat package?
post #1070 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. . . . the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.

Gee, whether or not the title of this thread is stated as a question is a trivial issue. If folks simply posted YES or NO, it would not be interesting, would it? So I stated that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower. For others it is about bring back the cube. We discuss why we think it should or shouldn't be brought back, and that is fun.

When you guys nit pick like this, it take much of the fun out of it. Give us new ways to look at why you think it should not happen if you disagree with us, rather that pick away at insignificant peripheral issues. The way I see it, you are not debunking what I say, but objecting to the way I say it. You cannot debunk someone's opinion. Think about it. No one can say, "this is not what you believe." You can disagree, but you cannot change what they are thinking at that time.



Quote:

You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.

Well, I didn't try to imply you made up the value and SFF markets. If you interpreted it that way I sorry. It certainly was not my intention. I tried to explain that just looking at products built, as industry watchers do, is not very meaningful for making new product decisions. I didn't redefine terms to suit myself, but used marketing common sense. A company needs to look primarily at what customers need and want, and then design a product that gives it to them.

The rest of your post is a bit like the post meelash did, so you can read my reply there.
post #1071 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


. . . the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).

The last line in the first post is a question:

I can't understand why the title of this thread seems so important to you? The purpose of a title is usually to create interest, to get someone to read the thread, or if it's a book, to start reading the book. The title should be related to book or thread, but it need not define the book or thread. Ever read Gone With The Wind? Does that have something to do with going away with the wind? Well, in a way, but if you asked someone what the book is about, I'm pretty sure they would give you some other answer.

To me this thread is ALL about one of two things for most people -- advocacy for an xMac or advocacy against an xMac. It begs the question, should Apple build an xMac or not? Such a question is adequately answered only by explaining what you believe and why you believe it. A simple yes or no will not do.
post #1072 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

That's pro stuff. What percentage of Windows users have any of that stuff in there? It's just not something that is on the radar of a consumer buyer. Sure, there is a subset of people who might want all that expansion and would pay for it, but unless that subset is large enough AND doesn't want to run Windows, Apple isn't going to bother. Not to mention the support costs for people sticking all kinds of different stuff in there and then calling for support. I think you have to consider these issues to understand why this might not be at the top of Apple's "to do" list.

Sound cards are purchased by consumers ALL the time. Fact is on-board audio sucks. There have been a few high end motherboards that have shipped with decent sound cards, but most suck. I guess i'm guessing, but I feel a lot more sound cards are sold than people realize. Hell that's all creative did for years and years. Their mp3 players don't sell, so they must be surviving off of sound cards. Video importing, a lot more users are doing this now days than ever before. Apple doesn't sell an import card. Can you buy an external solution? yah. Is it as fast or as nice? no.

I agree that Apple wants their hardware standard, and that may play into the reasons why they don't offer more expansion to their computers. I see that as unfortunate. I also understand apple wanting to sell more hardware every 2-3 years instead of offering upgradability. There is a line though. There are people out there that want expandibility or the security of it without having to buy a server processor with server ram. I don't need ECC in my ram. I don't need a xeon for a computer. I can spend half as much on a conroe and get more performance. That is something I really don't get... and I think it's extremely fishy apple doesn't offer intel's flagship processor ...... conroe.

Oh well, I'm getting tired of dreaming and will probably get a mac pro soon as the rev b's come out. Hopefully that wont' be too long.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #1073 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea


No you were making an unfounded assertion to cover a mistake. There is no evidence that Ford or Olds thought of themselves as "personal transportation" provides over "motor vehicle" manufacturers. Certainly every company tries to understand their customer base.

Interesting. Do you claim telepathic powers? How are you able to tell when someone is covering up a mistake? Here is what I originally wrote:


"You define a market by the product that a company makes. Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history."


I have no idea what I am now supposedly trying to cover up in this statement. It is just an illustration of how a company can make serious mistakes when it has a product-oriented view of its business -- mistakes that affect its survival. A marketing or customer oriented view, on the other hand, helps a company see important changes that signal a shift in what customers might be buying in the future. It's simply the principle I was trying to illustrate.

Buggy companies didn't see the potential of the horseless carriages, which people were building in their garages. (Maybe it was their stables back then.) As a result, they did nothing, letting upstart companies take over the personal transportation market. Buggy companies likely had the resources to get into this business, but they did not, and they did not survive.

It was more than buggy companies; it was the whole industry at the time. Marketing text books are full of such examples, where a company doesn't see its business in a broad enough perspective. It's been called "marketing myopia."

As an aside, auto manufacturers may have had a product orientation too back then, but they were lucky to be in the direction that the market was moving, so it did not matter. Later, Detroit had a bigger-is-better mind set and got clobbered by the small imports. So there you go.
post #1074 of 1658
"I smell a contradiction."

Oh, but of course. Apple smells sweetly. Apple can make Quad workstations and make big profit. They sell iMacs. They make money. They're intel only. (and seem to have Intel bending over to kiss their own ass to please Apple...) Macs haven't been this good for this much money ever. And they're selling! Like hotcakes.

As Apple gets bigger. As they move away from 'life support' years of 1997...as they approach 2million in Mac sales...Apple can, more than ever...offer a slightly bigger range.

Sure, it aint going to be the Dell million models of the Gill Amelio years? But a Conroe tower and a slim line mini laptop? Meh. A couple of additional models with is the potential for significant demand?

No big deal. So what's the arguement about again?

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1075 of 1658
Towers aren't obselete yete. What with 45-55% sales? Heh.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1076 of 1658
Quote:
Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.

He said it.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1077 of 1658
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #1078 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.

Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.

As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.

This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.

I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.

Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.

Vinea
post #1079 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy

What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.

Your average user isn't going to buy anything above a Mac Mini or a low end iMac if that. This isn't for them. What this is for the higher end consumer/ low to medium end professional called the prosumer. Apple's lineup is either no frills family machines (yes, that even allies tot he 24" iMac) or full blown workstations. The iMac may look really cool, but it can't do everything an equivalent tower can, not even close. Apple didn't have a problem selling such machines a couple years ago before the outrageously big iMacs.
post #1080 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.

As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.

This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.

I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.

Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.

Vinea

Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?