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 8

post #281 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

It doesn't matter what you and I think, it is what Windows buyers expect in a computer.... If it's what they want, it's what they'll buy....

Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.

"But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers." My family and I have both Mac and Microsoft. Three Desktops, two (microsoft), and a G4 power mac. And two laptops, both macs. We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.

I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.
post #282 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.

"But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers." My family and I have both Mac and Microsoft. Three Desktops, two (microsoft), and a G4 power mac. And two laptops, both macs. We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.

I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.

i like the idea of having the comp. in the monitor
post #283 of 1658
me too.
post #284 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky


We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.

I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.


I don't think there is much difference between Mac and Windows users when it comes to monitors. Those with towers will typically buy a monitor when it's broke or when they want a bigger, better or bigger and better one. We recently replaced some old CRT monitors with larger LCD displays.
post #285 of 1658
Yeah, I mean I knew you could replace them if you wanted to. But I just didn't think most people would.
post #286 of 1658
If I may add my 2 cents...

Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.

However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong

Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.

1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed

2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.

3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.

In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.

In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars
post #287 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by jApple

If I may add my 2 cents...

Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.

However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong

Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.

1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed

2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.

3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.

In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.

In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars


In the old world there was just Apple all by itself on the PPC platform. So a definite product heirarchy was needed to prevent one product from taking sales away from another. Afterall with basically the same number of customers you have to find a way to mazimize your profit out of them. Especailly if you don't expect alot of fresh blood coming in. Today they share the same hardware platform as every other PC so things are different. They have a good chance to make more inroads with average PC users who previously were scared at the thought of switching to completely different hardware. New hardware, new software, ect and who knows if you're even going to like this Mac OS thing. At least now people know that if they don't like OSX they can install windows on that pretty mac box they just bought and it's just a regular PC in a fancier box. And Apple even made it easy for them to do so.

So even if a low end tower cuts into the sale of a higher end tower the chances of that cheaper tower bringing more people to the platform is worth the gamble. If they like the quality of the product they might upgrade to the higher end when they need to. This is what they were hoping the mini would do. I'm just not sure it's worked as well as they had hoped, no matter what they say. Because as nice as it is, it's not the machine PC users had in mind when they were asking for a cheaper mac to switch to. But I guess it should be expected that if you're going to switch to a mac you're going to also need to switch your mindset of what a computer should be, and I don't think a lot of PC users really want to do that. Hence the midmac is needed and Apple is dragging it's feet because they don't really want to and I think they're holding off and hoping things will turn around more before they actaully need to.
post #288 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Really? The Powermac G4 (Firewire 800) was $1499. It appeared from January of 2003 and discontinued by June of 2003 and replaced by the PowerMac G5. The earlier Quicksilvers, G4 and G3s were $1599 at the low end. The white PowerMacs like the 6500 were $1,700. $1599 barely fits your "range" and many years the lowest end were more expensive.

What were the expandable $1200 mini-towers? You have to go back to the Sculley days for a $1200 headless mac in the Mac LC/Performa series. It was hardly a mini tower and had 1 PDC slot though some later ones had additional comm and TV slots (today built into the mini or via USB).

I'm pretty sure I already linked to this one in the thread, but here it is again:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._1.25_mdd.html

A MDD G4, no slouch at all at the time, 2003, Jobs era, $1299.

No, $1299's not the same as $1200, but then my post that you were quoting didn't say $1200. It said $1299.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #289 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv2playtenis

i like the idea of having the comp. in the monitor

Not everyone feels as you do. You also probably want something simple, yet powerful. In that regard the iMac excels.
post #290 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by jApple


2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales.

They better be afraid of losing a customer who has used their products since about 1992.
post #291 of 1658
I prefer the separate monitor as the CPU/monitor ratio I want to have can vary quite a lot. I had a 17" CRT with a 7200 back in the days when the 17" CRT costed at least 1000 dollars. In other cases a 15" is enough for a dual CPU box. Different needs and different mixes. Something like the B&W tower would be nice.

I once had a 6100/60 at work. I had to cram in a full lenght nubus card so the HD was moved to the CD space. I then had the computer, extenal ZIP, external HDs, external CDdrive. As icing on the cake the 6100 had a video connector that did not fit any monitors on the planet including Apples own monitors. As I used a VGA monitor I had to use two adapters in serie to connect them, that monster made up a one foot long dongle hanging in the back of the computer...

I promised to never buy a computer without expansion abilites and now I got a mini mac sitting beside me...
post #292 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by jApple

MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.

Yep, it is coming. But I doubt it will come at MWSF, or at the Paris Expo. Mac Pro is too new to build a MidMac
post #293 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

I'm pretty sure I already linked to this one in the thread, but here it is again:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._1.25_mdd.html

A MDD G4, no slouch at all at the time, 2003, Jobs era, $1299.

No, $1299's not the same as $1200, but then my post that you were quoting didn't say $1200. It said $1299.

So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.

Mmkay...lets ignore Apple's pattern for the other 8.5 years of the Jobs decade and call this normal (and years is a slight exaggeration) But you're right, Apple did offer a $1299 tower. Today the equivalent would be a $1299 G5 single CPU tower as stopgap as folks transition to Intel.

Vinea
post #294 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

...
Countered as they did with "Compare to the equivalent Dell it's $XXX cheaper". Almost every current model Apple makes is price competitive with the equivalent Dell.
...
Vinea

I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).
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 #295 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.

Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was:

"Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business."

Lessee, how many machines has Apple sold between $1299 and $1599:

(I'm starting with the blue-and-white G3, the first tower to be uniquely of the Jobs era. I could go farther back than this if I wanted to)

300 MHz Blue G3 - $1600 (okay, one dollar more than my $1599. Bite me), Jan 1999.

450 MHz G4 - $1600, Oct 1999.

450 MHz G4 - $1600, Jul 2000.

2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.

800 MHz Quicksilver - $1599, Jan 2002.

August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.

1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.

1.25 GHz MDD - $1299, June 2003.

So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #296 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was:

"Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business."

Lessee, how many machines has Apple sold between $1299 and $1599:

(I'm starting with the blue-and-white G3, the first tower to be uniquely of the Jobs era. I could go farther back than this if I wanted to)

300 MHz Blue G3 - $1600 (okay, one dollar more than my $1599. Bite me), Jan 1999.

450 MHz G4 - $1600, Oct 1999.

450 MHz G4 - $1600, Jul 2000.

2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.

800 MHz Quicksilver - $1599, Jan 2002.

August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.

1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.

1.25 GHz MDD - $1299, June 2003.

So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?

In other words, while most computers have gotten cheaper, Apple's professional line has progressively gone higher end and more pricey. Apple really doesn't play in the same market they did when I got my Blue and White G3.
post #297 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Has Apple caught on to this? I really don't know. I seem to remember Apple switching ads on TV recently. In any case, it will take a while for the general public to change their way of thinking IMHO. The average Joe still thinks of either Windows or Mac, and never the two shall meet.

Good point. Perception of Reality hasn't caught up with Reality yet.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #298 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was...

If you want to do the "reading comprehension" game then my statement was:

Quote:
Really? The Powermac G4 (Firewire 800) was $1499. It appeared from January of 2003 and discontinued by June of 2003 and replaced by the PowerMac G5. The earlier Quicksilvers, G4 and G3s were $1599 at the low end. The white PowerMacs like the 6500 were $1,700. $1599 barely fits your "range" and many years the lowest end were more expensive.

So yes, I covered all the machines that you relisted.

I took exception to the range as it implies what you tried to imply...which is there was often a cheap tower in the lineup closer to the $1000 mark than the $2000 mark.

A more accurate statement is: "Apple sold low-end version of their pro towers in the $1599-$1799 range with a few models that ranged as low as $1299". There were two: the $1499 G4 MDD and the $1299 G4 MDD both at the end of the G4 line.

Is a $1599-$1799 Mac Pro possible? Yes. Yes, although IMHO more likely at the $1799 than $1599 price.

Is a $1299 Mac Mini-Tower likely? No. Cube? Eh...probably higher priced. Maybe $1499 if we're lucky.

And if you want to be pendantic these aren't mini-towers anyway but Powermacs in full Powermac enclosures with lesser/slower/fewer CPUs. Just like there are low end Precision Workstations there were low end Powermac workstations.

The point that you reponded to when you posted that statement (i.e. the context) has more to do with the viability and likelyhood of mini/mid/tower macs in the $1000 range that you advocate and are more price competitive with non-workstation Dell models. Not the $1599-$1799 range.

I think many folks are in agreement that a lesser Mac Pro in that $1599-$1799 range is possible perhaps even probable (though not likely IMHO by Paris). But the family is "complete". There might be a low end Mac Pro or a bigger Mac Mini (a la cube) but not likely a "plain Macintosh" tower.

Vinea
post #299 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).

Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.

Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.

Vinea
post #300 of 1658
hmmm, someone mentioned that very few midtower pc owners acutally upgrade their comp at all. Don't know if this is true. I do wonder though, if that is the case, how many of them just got the tower because of some vague fuzzy feeling that, "Well, it looks faster than this desktop... and I think I heard someone say something about upgrading... I wish I knew what that was...." and get them lemming style.

I can see them in the best buy right now!

But what really happened to the old flat profile desktop? Why has it died out so thoroughly in comparison with the tower style? Is it because towers just 'look cooler' or because people actually want the added utility of a tower?

Personally, one of the best designs I've seen in recent years from Apple was the Flat Panel iMac... the one that looked like a desk lamp. It looks really goofy online, but my school has a lab full of them in the language department, and I tell you they are SMOOTH! the pivoting of the display 'is like butta!' Very nice design. definately had a couple of bugs in it, but very nice. As someone else said though, probably 'too foreign' looking.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #301 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.

Actually, the "box and screen" concept is not Microsoft's at all. This dates back to the Altair, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and especially the Apple II.

Why especially? Because the basic PC architecture of a box with a mainboard and a series of slots for flexible expansion was introduced by the Apple II. The closest previous concept was something called the S-100 bus, but it was designed on a dumb backplane, where the CPU would be on one of the cards.

(OK, so I'm showing my age)

Box and screen makes a lot of sense because the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen). It has been so for 25 years now and I see no sign that it will change. Not only is it shorter, but it also has different timing. For instance, Intel CPU's had been stuck around the same performance between 2003 and 2005 (not to mention the PowerPC architecture), while screens improved a great deal and large sizes became common. Now Intel is rolling out very significant processors but we are at a screen plateau.

The "blob and screen" can even have aesthetic advantages depending on the environment. A single screen is more elegant and has fewer cables coming out of it than a full computer connected to the network and various peripherals, while the box can be neatly hidden away, unless it's a really big box like the Pro.

The box can be any size and shape. Call it a "blob" if you will. But "blob and screen" architecture is here to stay for a long, long time, and Apple should cover a full range of price points with it, rather than just the extremes.

I think those people who say Jobs doesn't like this are just guessing. Jobs naturally took care of existing product lines first, so it is only in the next year or so that we will find out Jobs is really against the MidMac concept.

Time will tell.
post #302 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me

I understand your point, but it is not correct. Dell makes its money off all of that crap it installs on your computer. The last I heard, Wintel OEMs receive $70/machine for every third-party icon on the Windows Desktop. When you consider how many anti-spyware utility demos and other annoyances you deal with on your new Dell, at $70 each it adds up. I presume that the high end machines don't have the crap. If this is the case, Dell either charges a much higher price or takes a bath.

I really have my doubt's on the $70 stuff...do you really think it make sense to pay 70 bucks to dell to put a demo that may or may not lead to a potential sale of less than $70? considering that the probability of buy should be arround 1% to 5%, and the average software demoed is valued at arround $35, it's seems more reasonable that the fee would be around the 70 cents per machine. Not that that wouldn't pile up to a lot of money, but $70 per app per machine is a bit to much for me to believe .
post #303 of 1658
I don't think $2,499 is that much for what your getting. All these people are asking for a midrange tower, but they should just get a Mac Pro. Its an amazing computer, and $800 less then Dell's version of it. So stop griping, and if you want, just downgrade it a little. Make it around 1,900 by getting rid of some stuff.

Thats just IMO though.
post #304 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

... the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen).


Great, now I have images of a box of Frosted Flakes with a big bright splash on the front, "FREE 17" Digital Paper Display inside!"

Stuff's getting cheeper, and we may actually begin to see disposable displays in the near future, especially on disposable digital cameras, pill bottles (using that digital paper tech) and other small stuff. Heck, basic digital watches that used to cost massive $$$ back in the ... um, whenever they first started appearing... now I'm showing MY age... we now get from vending machines for $.50. In a little plastic egg.

not too far fetched.

Hallmark?
Newspapers?
Paperbacks?

The world will be a very different place by the time I die. Just ask the Old People! ;D
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #305 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn

hmmm, someone mentioned that very few midtower pc owners acutally upgrade their comp at all.

That was me
post #306 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

I don't think $2,499 is that much for what your getting. All these people are asking for a midrange tower, but they should just get a Mac Pro. Its an amazing computer, and $800 less then Dell's version of it. So stop griping, and if you want, just downgrade it a little. Make it around 1,900 by getting rid of some stuff.

Thats just IMO though.

Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.

1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.

2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.

3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #307 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

Congratulations! You win today's "missing the point" prize.

1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.

2.) The lowest non-discounted price you can reach with the Mac Pro is $2124 (not $1900 as you suggest), which is 113% more than $999 (which is the price that I have demonstrated that Apple could produce a Mini Tower for and still hit at least 28% profit margin). Telling the majority of the market to suck it up and spend $2124 when it wants to spend something more in the region of $999 is really not clever.

3.) People are not advocating a Mac Pro on the cheap. We are advocating a machine with considerably less CPU power and expandability. A significantly less capable machine for significantly less money.

I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.
post #308 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.

Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.

Vinea

Where did I compare the XPS 700 to a Mac Pro?

No, I define the mid to upper end consumer line, without a monitor, to extend from $799 to $1299+
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=188
The fact that Dell currently does not offer a comparable machine to the ones at Tiger Direct, without a Monitor bundled, makes comparisons hard. The XPS 410 comes bundled with a 20" monitor, 500 GB hard drive, 2 GB ram. These machines are more for the professional market as is the XPS 700.

It appears the currently Dell is pushing the Pentium D cpus for the mid to upper end consumer lines.

For clarity, I define the price ranges, without monitors, to be roughly
~$300 - ~$700 budget to low end
~$700 - ~$1600 mid to upper end consumer
~$1600 - ~$3000 professional
~$2000 - ~$6000+ workstation
These ranges are not absolute and open for a lot of argument, but I think consistent with what most people would expect. Though, maybe not.

Where Dell and the analysts were talking about the effect on margins was the low end, budget computers.
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 #309 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, so I was just saying that for what your getting why not spend a little more, and get an extraordinary computer? But when I posted I had forgotten the price of display, and that when you downgrade it only comes to $2124. Good points and thanks for letting me win something, I almost never win anything.

Well, some people in this thread are talking about $1500 to $1700, but that's just too expensive (and unnecessary to achieve 28% profit margin) for a Conroe tower with limited expandability. There is no reason the line couldn't start at $999.

I think a lot of people who say, "if you're thinking of $1500 - $1700, why not spend a little more?" don't consider two things:

1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).

2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #310 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

They better be afraid of losing a customer who has used their products since about 1992.

And one who switched 1.5 years ago and has talked their family into going Mac next time around
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #311 of 1658
come on: Macpro case but smaller, 2 HDD bays, 2 optical drive slots, 1 16xPCIe, 1 standard PCIe, Core 2 duo and 1GB ram for $1299, it is the logical step for the slew of people who want something with more power than the Mini, yet cannot justify 2 xeons, buffered ECC RAM, and the huge price tag.

The argument that the iMac is middle ground is bullshit: can you put an iMac next to your PC tower for easy KVMing? can an iMac be upgraded with desktop optical drives like the forthcoming BluRay or HDDVD? can the iMac use the cheaper desktop RAM? can the iMac even use a desktop CPU and GPU? nope.

Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #312 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

Face it, iMac is a stationary laptop...nothing more.

Actually, it is a little more than a stationary laptop. It uses a desktop HDD, desktop optical drive, desktop GPU chip (although it's probably under-clocked to reduce heat) and the screen backlighting is better than on a laptop.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #313 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

1.) No-one in this thread has said that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. As you say, it is an amazing deal and you get considerable bang for your buck.

Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...

Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...

Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #314 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

Yes, it is but there is no middle ground...

Think of it like a vehicle: Lets say I want to tow a travle-trailer -- I go to the dealer and my only two options are the Dodge decoda/Ford Ranger, which is too small, or a semi, which is way over kill...Whit I need is an F-250 or a Ram 1500...

Apples only option is to buy a full RV (the iMac) whos trim (monitor) isnt as good as the one i have.

Read the thread (or just my posts) and you will discover that you don't have to convince me.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #315 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

1.) If someone is thinking of spending $1500 - $1700, that might already be pushing it (i.e., they are considering $1500 - $1700 because that's the most they can afford/are willing to spend).

2.) $2124 is 42% more than $1500 and 25% more than $1700. I do not consider either 42% or 25% to be "a little bit".

If thats the most their willing to spend, then why are they getting the tower? Their still gonna need a display.

I see your point, and that is more then a little bit. If I were in the market for a mid range tower, I would certainly think $500 more is a considerable amount more. And theres still the display.

I guess when I think of someone buying a Mac Pro, I think of Professional Photographers, Visual Effects Engineers etc... And when it costs $1000 just to go to a confrence about the new commputer your gonna get, $2500 doesn't seem like alot for a buisness. But for the average Jo to small buisness owner, it is alot to spend on a computer.

Apple should make a deal, that if you buy a Mac Pro, you get a discount on all displays, say $200 off? Idk just a idea.

So maybe it is a good idea for Apple to make a Mid Range tower.... Wow this has really changed my thoughts on this...
post #316 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

I had read in other threads (and I probably shoud have posted that in another thread) that they wanted a mid range tower about 1500-1700, . . .


Since I'm the one who first mentioned $1700 I should fess up! (Later someone modified this to $1500 to $1700.) My post is in this thread and responds to fears that a mini tower would hurt sales of both the iMac and Mac Pro, so I crudely established a price between them.

Quote: "Arguments against a midrange Mac are a lot of wind with no substance. A 20 inch iMac is essentially $1700. A Mac Pro with a 20 inch display is $3200. There is ample room for a mini tower Mac at $1700, which is about in the middle, and costs $2400 with a 20 inch display. Now, who is going to argue that such a Mac will take sales away from the iMac or Mac Pro?"

So this price originated as a mid point, which could also be the mid point for a mini tower that sells from say $1000 to $2400 depending on how it is configured.
post #317 of 1658
$999 would be a great price for a small tower.
post #318 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi

$999 would be a great price for a small tower.

That's like the base price, then you can upgrade it up to like $2000?
post #319 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by playcrackthesky

That's like the base price, then you can upgrade it up to like $2000?

As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999:

Mini Tower Enclosure
2 HDD bays
2 PCI-e slots (one for graphics)
1.86 GHz E6300 Conroe processor
512 MB RAM
160 GB HDD
Draw-loading Combo Drive
ATI-X1600

If Apple offered the usual options for wireless, HDD, RAM, optical drive, GPU, and the choice between 1.83 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz Conroe, this could realistically scale up to $2499. (The Core 2 Duo extreme 2.93 GHz Conroe costs $999 just by itself)
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #320 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

As I outlined in this post, Apple could easily achieve the following spec. for $999:

I hadn't read that post before. Wow, you really do your research. I'm impressed.


I am being completely serious here, no sarcasm what so ever.
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?