or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple ever make this machine?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple ever make this machine? - Page 7

post #241 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.

As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/tr...el/M2-100-106/

To do the work of one of these:
http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/index.html

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea
post #242 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

Well that Open Letter to Steve Jobs on digg's website is up to 3541 duggs.

At least those of us that have posted our desire for a mythical xMac can console ourselves that we're not alone, and not the "few pot bangers" that has been suggested here and on other threads.


http://www.digg.com/news/popular/24hours

I Support Kevin Rose and Digg

House Speaker Pelosi wants to hear your opinion on Bush/Cheney impeachment

ASTOUNDING: New Power Station Makes the Air Glow in Spain (PICS!)

Open Letter To Steve Jobs: Please Build The Missing Mac

10 Reasons Why It Doesnt Pay To Be The Computer Guy

Vegan Parents Starve Baby to Death on Soy Milk/Apple Juice Diet

School Dean Sends Home Letter to Students Filled with Spelling Errors [PIC]

You know there was a time when Digg was cool and dugg articles were...I dunno...relevant...interesting? Finding 3000 other anonymous folks that think xMacs are cool doesn't seem much harder than finding 3000 other anonymous folks think that criminally stupid vegan parents or spelling errors from a school letter is important...

When you get to 100K Apple might take note.

Vinea
post #243 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly. Most of us who want a prosumer tower would be happy with a single Xeon Mac Pro, except for price. It's been mentioned over and over that a Mac Pro has excess cost built into it, in the form of a more expensive CPU, more costly RAM, four HDD bays when two would be enough, and an overkill power supply for a single CPU mini tower.

If Apple made a prosumer tower and priced it with typical Apple margins, it would provide a lot more value for Mac users who only need and/or want a prosumer tower. Why should we pay for a workstation just to get 3 PCIe cards, two HDDs and two optical drives? If Apple offered a mini tower, fewer people would point to what Dell, IBM, HP, etc. offer. And yes, it will increase Mac market share.

Does Apple know something that we don't? No, but they're in denial.


To put it in perspective
CPU list prices
2.4ghz conroe: $316
2.33ghz woodcrest: $455

Motherboard prices (Newegg)
Intel P965motherboard: $110
5000X motherboard: $400

1GB 667 memory (2x512mb)
DIMM $63
FB-DIMM $120 on sale ($170 regular price)

Power supply:
Coolermaster 500W: $100
1000W: $350

Total:
Core 2 Duo: $589
Xeon: $1325
Difference: $736 or 2.25 times the component price. I don't know what kind of discounts Apple is getting, but I can bet nowhere near that kind of price difference. Going with workstation components would only add a lot of uncescesary cost on to the user for a machine that does performs sightly slower. That doesn't seem like that good of a deal to me.
post #244 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea

Huh? If you object having to pay $1000 in extra workstation parts just to get the same capability as a high end PC, you are cheap? This platform is not reserved only for the super wealthy.
post #245 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Both prices are from crucial.



Which means the 4GB set for the Mac Pro from Crucial is the same price.

So much for insanely expensive.

And no, no-name ram from new egg is not the same as comparing ram from crucial. The price delta is a $100.

Vinea

c-r-u-c-i-a-l, let's see here: $111 2x 1GB
post #246 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.

Vinea

No it's not and your argument above is silly. Quit acting like Apple makes BMW's, they make mid to upper end consumer computers with the same insides as the other mid to upper end manufacturers, except they make AIO and Mac mini that are less flexible. They get their parts, cpus, harddrives, video chips, wireless chips etc. from the same manufacturers as Dell and HP.
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 #247 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

To put it in perspective
CPU list prices
2.4ghz conroe: $316
2.33ghz woodcrest: $455

Motherboard prices (Newegg)
Intel P965motherboard: $110
5000X motherboard: $400

1GB 667 memory (2x512mb)
DIMM $63
FB-DIMM $120 on sale ($170 regular price)

Power supply:
Coolermaster 500W: $100
1000W: $350

Total:
Core 2 Duo: $589
Xeon: $1325
Difference: $736 or 2.25 times the component price. I don't know what kind of discounts Apple is getting, but I can bet nowhere near that kind of price difference. Going with workstation components would only add a lot of uncescesary cost on to the user for a machine that does performs sightly slower. That doesn't seem like that good of a deal to me.

Your response above is so logical as to be painful. Why people don't get it is beyond all rational thought.

And the digg article is now over 3600 and increasing at what appears to be ~20 every 5 minutes or so.
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 #248 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

Your response above is so logical as to be painful. Why people don't get it is beyond all rational thought.

And the digg article is now over 3600 and increasing at what appears to be ~20 every 5 minutes or so.

I would also like to point out that the products listed are not some bargain base whitebox stuff, but from quality makers like intel, crucial, Coolmaster, and Tyan.
post #249 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post


Your response above is so logical as to be painful. Why people don't get it is beyond all rational thought.


I'll second that.

post #250 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganT View Post


So far it looks like 1077 people would like it.

http://www.digg.com/apple/Open_Lette...he_Missing_Mac

From the description, it is what some have called a Mac Super Mini. It, along with a Mac Mini Tower, is what Apple needs in its product line. If Apple would make the Super Mini, the current Mini would not survive. Folks would get better performance and features for the equivalent price.

I'll put in another plug for making it only a little taller than a current Mini, but making it wider and slightly deeper. I'd like to set my LCD display on top of it.

post #251 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Huh? If you object having to pay $1000 in extra workstation parts just to get the same capability as a high end PC, you are cheap? This platform is not reserved only for the super wealthy.

Mmm...you mean like super wealthy high school kids that can clear $3K in a summer flipping burgers to get an uber gaming rig (or a really beat up car)?

Those super wealthy folks?

But yes, Apple is a premium brand and more pricey. Not Gulfstream IV pricey though.

Vinea
post #252 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

OSX is worth a lot, but it isn't worth twice the price of a high end PC.

Because $2499 is double the price over $1499? And the Mac Pro will be faster than the "high end" PC you listed with faster clock speed and double the cores.

Or you can get a mini for $600.

Vinea
post #253 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Mmm...you mean like super wealthy high school kids that can clear $3K in a summer flipping burgers to get an uber gaming rig (or a really beat up car)?

Those super wealthy folks?

But yes, Apple is a premium brand and more pricey. Not Gulfstream IV pricey though.

Vinea

Those high school kids don't have bills to pay like rent/mortage, college loans, auto loan, health insurance, car insurance, food, fuel, water, heat, electrical, cable, phone, cell phone, etc. It would really go up if I had kids. ...and if you want a tower, it's more like Gulfstream V
post #254 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

No it's not and your argument above is silly.

Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.

Quote:
Quit acting like Apple makes BMW's, they make mid to upper end consumer computers with the same insides as the other mid to upper end manufacturers, except they make AIO and Mac mini that are less flexible. They get their parts, cpus, harddrives, video chips, wireless chips etc. from the same manufacturers as Dell and HP.

And you say I'm negative about Apple. Yes, I equate Apple to BMW in terms of quality, attention to detail and performance. BMW offers a "driving experience" as Apple offers a "computing experience".

There will always be folks that whine that BMW doesn't offer a car like the WRX that, spec wise, blows the doors off a BMW and is cheaper.

The Mac Pro is powerhouse with the fastest clocked Xeons available on custom EFI motherboards in an elegant case running a superbly tuned operating system.

Damn straight Apple is the BMW or Porsche of the computing world. Power with refinement. If you guys don't even believe that we really have no common ground.

Vinea
post #255 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.

Vinea

The Mac Pro is a heavy lifter, it's a lot like a commercial duty truck.
post #256 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.



And you say I'm negative about Apple. Yes, I equate Apple to BMW in terms of quality, attention to detail and performance. BMW offers a "driving experience" as Apple offers a "computing experience".

There will always be folks that whine that BMW doesn't offer a car like the WRX that, spec wise, blows the doors off a BMW and is cheaper.

The Mac Pro is powerhouse with the fastest clocked Xeons available on custom EFI motherboards in an elegant case running a superbly tuned operating system.

Damn straight Apple is the BMW or Porsche of the computing world. Power with refinement. If you guys don't even believe that we really have no common ground.

Vinea

I'm not negative about Apple, heck I have stock in the company, but I'm not blind and I can see failings in Apple.
You're negativity revolves around what Apple can't do. My optimism revolves around what Apple can do, but for reasons neither you nor I know, seems that Apple at present is unwilling to do.
It's silly because you keep using the word whining. It's silly because you keep saying the iMac and Mac mini can be compared to BMWs, when in fact any Windows computer with the same hardware features can be considered BMWs. It's the software that keeps many of us staying with Apple. Many of us do appreciate the build quality of Apple computers, we just object to the narrow focus of Apple's consumer line and are optimistic that Apple could indeed increase market share without sacrificing margins to accomplish this.

The fact that the iMac and Mac mini place a very large part of their focus on desktop space does not make them BMWs and to make this assertion is silly.
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 #257 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

I'm not negative about Apple, heck I have stock in the company, but I'm not blind and I can see failings in Apple.
You're negativity revolves around what Apple can't do. My optimism revolves around what Apple can do, but for reasons neither you nor I know, seems that Apple at present is unwilling to do.
It's silly because you keep using the word whining. It's silly because you keep saying the iMac and Mac mini can be compared to BMWs, when in fact any Windows computer with the same hardware features can be considered BMWs. It's the software that keeps many of us staying with Apple. Many of us do appreciate the build quality of Apple computers, we just object to the narrow focus of Apple's consumer line and are optimistic that Apple could indeed increase market share without sacrificing margins to accomplish this.

The fact that the iMac and Mac mini place a very large part of their focus on desktop space does not make them BMWs and to make this assertion is silly.

In fact, a better designed Mac Mini and a Core 2 Tower with the same margins as Apple's other machines would only enhance the profits as more would be inclined to buy them.
post #258 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

In fact, a better designed Mac Mini and a Core 2 Tower with the same margins as Apple's other machines would only enhance the profits as more would be inclined to buy them.

And I, for one, will buy on eBay until Apple does offer such models as these.

post #259 of 362
I just checked. Over 4000 responses to digg.com open letter to Steve. By the way, I'm not too bright when it comes to some problems with applications. Whenever I go to digg.com I get a spinning beach ball for a long time. The quickest solution is to force quit Safari and relaunch it. Any suggestions?



Both Safari and Camino have this problem, but not FireFox. Well, maybe FireFox will soon be my browser of choice.
post #260 of 362
There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

The Xeon is specifically designed for machines with two or more processors. The extra cost doesn't add to speed, or much anything else in a single processor machine, just to a higher cost. The high end Conroe's have the same bus speeds as well, so you don't gain anything there either.

While I have nothing against choice, and if manufacturers wish to offer them, that's fine by me, but I don't see any good reason for buying one.

But, Apple could offer a machine for $999 with one Conroe, two memory slots, two card slots, spaced apart so that a double slot space graphics card could be fit. and many of the other features they have now.

A machine like that can use a 425 watt power supply instead of the 980 watt one, which would be enough for even the highest end video card, with enough left over for everything else. It can have room for two HD, and one external drive slot.

Apple can produce a machine like this. It's only because they don't want to that they don't.

How many times have we gone over this?

Perhaps it's time for Apple to discontinue their 17" iMac, except for schools, and offer these instead. There is also no excuse for Apple's lack of presence in the low cost monitor business.

The stubbornness of Apple here is absurd. It's difficult to believe that they don't see all of the sales they are losing in monitors because they refuse to compete in the biggest monitor segment. I know PC people who would not hesitate to buy a $200 17", or a $350 22" from Apple. They don't have to be in aluminum, they can be in aluminum colored plastic.

How many people buying a Mini who don't have a computer already, or have an old crt they want to get rid of, will buy a current Apple monitor? Why should all of these other companies get those sales?

It makes no sense.

A mini tower would cover a lot of ground.

The truth is that if Apple does come out with these machines and monitors, and it does impact on iMac sales, what's the difference?

Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.

If they kept the 24", and possibly the 20", with the 17" reserved for schools, insomuch as few people will spend that much for a 17" machine for home these days, at that price, particularly for an all-in-one, they might not lose much in sales at all.

These machines wouldn't be competing directly with the higher end iMacs, which are being bought specifically because they are all-in-one's, for a fashion statement, as much as for any other reason.

The box could go for $799 to perhaps $1,099. Any higher, and they might begin to compete too much with the iMacs, though, again, it might not matter, because those are very likely two entirely different buying groups.

Pro's on the lower rungs of the ladder would prefer these machines as well. As they couldn't afford Apple's Mac Pro's, there would be little, if no, impact there.

The machine impacted the most would possibly be the high end Mini. But the Mini's don't seem to be selling that well anyway.
post #261 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

The Xeon is specifically designed for machines with two or more processors. The extra cost doesn't add to speed, or much anything else in a single processor machine, just to a higher cost. The high end Conroe's have the same bus speeds as well, so you don't gain anything there either.

While I have nothing against choice, and if manufacturers wish to offer them, that's fine by me, but I don't see any good reason for buying one.

But, Apple could offer a machine for $999 with one Conroe, two memory slots, two card slots, spaced apart so that a double slot space graphics card could be fit. and many of the other features they have now.

A machine like that can use a 425 watt power supply instead of the 980 watt one, which would be enough for even the highest end video card, with enough left over for everything else. It can have room for two HD, and one external drive slot.

Apple can produce a machine like this. It's only because they don't want to that they don't.

How many times have we gone over this?

Perhaps it's time for Apple to discontinue their 17" iMac, except for schools, and offer these instead. There is also no excuse for Apple's lack of presence in the low cost monitor business.

The stubbornness of Apple here is absurd. It's difficult to believe that they don't see all of the sales they are losing in monitors because they refuse to compete in the biggest monitor segment. I know PC people who would not hesitate to buy a $200 17", or a $350 22" from Apple. They don't have to be in aluminum, they can be in aluminum colored plastic.

How many people buying a Mini who don't have a computer already, or have an old crt they want to get rid of, will buy a current Apple monitor? Why should all of these other companies get those sales?

It makes no sense.

A mini tower would cover a lot of ground.

The truth is that if Apple does come out with these machines and monitors, and it does impact on iMac sales, what's the difference?

Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.

If they kept the 24", and possibly the 20", with the 17" reserved for schools, insomuch as few people will spend that much for a 17" machine for home these days, at that price, particularly for an all-in-one, they might not lose much in sales at all.

These machines wouldn't be competing directly with the higher end iMacs, which are being bought specifically because they are all-in-one's, for a fashion statement, as much as for any other reason.

The box could go for $799 to perhaps $1,099. Any higher, and they might begin to compete too much with the iMacs, though, again, it might not matter, because those are very likely two entirely different buying groups.

Pro's on the lower rungs of the ladder would prefer these machines as well. As they couldn't afford Apple's Mac Pro's, there would be little, if no, impact there.

The machine impacted the most would possibly be the high end Mini. But the Mini's don't seem to be selling that well anyway.

Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.

The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.

At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.

Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.
post #262 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.

Quote:
Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.

Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.

Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:

Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.

IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.

Vinea
post #263 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.

The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.

At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.

Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.

I basically agree with that.

I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.

19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.

I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.

We might see gamers buy this machine, as well as home users, businesses, and for some school users, as well as for low end pro customers. I think the price should be kept below that as well, certainly in the beginning.

My ideas on this is that it should end up below the cost of the 20 and 24" iMacs once a low cost Apple monitor is added.
post #264 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.

Besides the $500-1000 in added expenses a single xeon adds over a single conroe

Quote:
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

That isn't saying much considering the sad state of Mac desktops. The Mac Mini is completely uncompetitive due to the exclusive use of laptop parts and buying a workstation to get a desktop takes fanatical loyalty.
post #265 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I basically agree with that.

I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.

I think something has to be said for a smaller package, but it also has to be useful to the user. I think my idea is a happy balance between the two.

Quote:
19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.

Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.

Quote:
I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.

Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.
post #266 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.

There is, because as far as I know, it requires a different mobo entirely. That would drive the cost up too much for the limited numbers they would sell into.

Don't forget there is nothing drop-in about the Xeono vs the Conroe.

Quote:
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

That's probably a decent estimate, but it's a small number, and one that doesn't seem to be doing any real growth. In other words, it's stagnent. Apple has to shake up their desktop segment.

Quote:
Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.

I don't think so. The Mini doesn't have a high ASP, neither do the iPods, and probably the ATv doesn't either.

Besides, the more machines Apple sells, the more software they sell, and software has a VEERY high ASP. It could easily make up for it.

Quote:
Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:

Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.

IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.

Vinea

I would have to think more about it to give a complete answer.

But, there is no reason why a tower doesn't have to be a decent profit center. There is nothing special about any type of model that ensures that. It's merely a matter of cost vs selling price.

The iMacs are not cheap to produce, and may have a higher return rate because of the defects that can come with the built-in screen.

Also, most PC manufacturers offer many accessories with the computers at the point of sale. Speakers, printers, monitors, and other gadgets are often given away for free, or at almost free prices. Apple doesn't do that. Those giveaways are so often what drives the profitability of these systems down. They also change their models much more often then Apple does, lowering prices as they go on current models. Something that starts out at $1,295 may cost $999 several months later, and $795 before it is replaced. These companies also tend to offer many SKU's. Apple hasn't done that for its consumer machines, the options are much more limited. That keeps the cost up for them, and down for Apple, ergo, greater profitability.

Many people may say that an all-in-one will cost more to produce, and so should lead to lower profitability.

I don't see, from my experience as both an electronics designer, and manufacturer, why Apple could not come out with a machine in that price range, and make a decent profit on it.
post #267 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.

I doubt Apple is losing sales because they don't have a tightly bunched series of machines. It's less confusing this way.

It's one thing to sell monitors in many sizes, but selling an entire machine that way is, I think, not helpful. The pricing would have to be too close, and the size of the machines would be too similiar.

Quote:
Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.

I never said cube. I said mini tower. I've been saying the exact same thing since the first G5 tower came out. It would be a mini version of that, minus the handles and feet, as well as being smaller all around.
post #268 of 362
I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:

Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB

MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB

The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.

I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.

If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.

My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #269 of 362
Some folks believe that



is this:



instead of this:



I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links.

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
post #270 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:

Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB

MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB

The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.

I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.

If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.

My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.

The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.

Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.
post #271 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Some folks believe that



is this:



instead of this:



I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links. Ask the people at ILM or those running photoshop for a living if they buy Apple as a kind of luxury item. They buy it because OSX is the best tool for the job.

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...

Yeah that sound about right. You're looking some kind decadent show of wealth. We're looking for a better tool.
post #272 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...

There's no time limitation here, unless, when you go away for more than a day or so, you leave the old discussions, as I do.
post #273 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.

Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.

4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.
post #274 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.

I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...
post #275 of 362
People who buy Mac Pros buy them like a commodity item.

They buy them to do a job, and they really don't give a toss whether the machine has a beautiful aircraft-grade aluminium enclosure or not. I've yet to meet a business owner who bought a Mac Pro because of its enclosure. They buy Mac Pros because it's the best tool for the job. Stick the guts of a Mac Pro in a tupperware box and slash $100 of the price and they'd buy them instead.

There are a very small number of people who buy a Mac Pro so they can sit in their room and rub their cock all over it. But the fact of the matter is that regardless of how Apple markets the Mac Pro, and regardless of how they art direct the marketing photography, the Mac Pro isn't an M series BMW it's a JCB.

It's the people who recognise the Mac Pro as a JCB, that drive M series cars in real life...
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #276 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.

I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...

Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.
post #277 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it.

I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.

What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.

4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #278 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.

Ok, good to know.

This is where we come to the mini tower. As I said, if you need the memory, then you have to pay for it. If you are paying $1,600 to over $2,000 for an iMac, and you really need the memory, another $100 shouldn't be a problem.

But, if you also need upgradability, and expandability, with the mini tower you get both, as well as cheaper memory, as long as the machine has a Conroe.

But, Intel is rapidly moving to DDR3, where the prices will be higher for a while.
post #279 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.

What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.

4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.

Well, I can go with that.

The Mac Pro is just what the name implies.

A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. I wouldn't label it as a pro machine, though it could be used that way.

The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?

4 GB IS out of the ordinary now. Most people are just beginning to think about 2 Gb.

Even two years from now, 4 Gb RAM would be more than enough for most people. For many pro purposes, even 4 GB is more than enough.

It would be a cost/performance issue, as it always is.
post #280 of 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


The Mac Pro is just what the name implies. . . . A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. . .

The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?


Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple ever make this machine?