A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 6

IMHO next APPLE event has all the answers

whether with Leopard announcement OR MWSF 2008, if we do not see xMac by then forgot about it. PERIOD.

then it left with nVidia/ATI to bring the real Graphic card to iMac (make it thinner and better,less heat)

Well, duh.

Because the 8 way 'Pro' Macs could have 8 cores. Are server chips. Could have workstation gpus with them etc. BIgger HDs, more ram...etc.

The Conroes would be quad core. Consumer class gpu eg 8800gtx... etc.

It's never been easier since the PPC debacle to differentiate a 'Mac' from a Mac 'Pro' line.

And that's what I'd like the new consumer tower to be called.

'Mac'.

Easy.

So yeas, I'm asking for a cheaper Mac Pro.

If you use Conroe? Easy. Have you seen the price of Conroe Quad chips chips vs the Xeon ones? The duo Conroes vs the 7800 2.8 gig laptop chip? Or the Dual COnroes vs the Xeons?

There's enormous room for a consumer tower 'Mac' under the Mac Pro. Have a tower start at £1400 is nothing short of ludricrous. And is an idionsyncracy of Apple's.

Give me a Conroe Quad, 2 gigs of ram. 500 gig HD. No monitor. GTX 8800 for £1200-ish? Done. £790-1200. Choice of 3. Ram. HDs. Monitors are dirt cheap these days. It's only Apple and Dell that are over charging for them...

Lemon Bon Bon.

Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.

Price? £1295, I think.

Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?

Can pay for it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.

That's not surprising, I just checked Intel's price list and in July they halved the price of the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad down to just $266. That's on the same level as the 2GHz mobile Core 2 Duo. For anyone who thinks that the phrase 'a proper desktop' is meaningless, just let that figure sink in. A mobile dual CPU @ 2 GHz is $241 and a desktop quad CPU @ 2.4GHz is $266.

Heck the Core 2 Extreme mobile CPU is $851. Where the hell is the sense in selling a desktop computer with that chip when a quad is so much cheaper?? Look right down the price list and all the mobile CPUs are at least double the price of the equivalent desktop model.

Using the desktop equivalent CPU of the one in the iMac chops $250 off straight away so people may laugh at the price points we come up with but the prices are there for everyone to see.


I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options.


Yeah but it's a good point though. Basically, PC users can configure a pretty high end system in the price range that we are asking, which could easily be from the iMac price or below (£700-800) up to the lowest end Mac Pro, which is £1400. These people will be buying retail parts so Apple can probably build them cheaper and add on a decent margin.

Nobody expects Apple to build the same kind of machine PC enthusiasts build because they have to keep them cool too but if they can build high end machines at this price then Apple can build ones a bit lower and sell them at the same price.

I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.



Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.



You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.



No, it's not.



Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.



You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.



I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.


You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.

Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.

The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.

You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.

Blind assumption, and extrapolation of your personal, empirical research on a small-scale into market demographics. This is why you're thick. You have nothing. No proof of anything. The entire argument that Apple would be better off having a low cost tower is empty, empty EMPTY -- as in, devoid of substance.

I don't claim that Apple shouldn't release a cheap tower, just that they haven't, and that the group here that blindly assumes they know better than Apple about Apple's markets are fools. This, as you might realize, is much easier to prove.

Lastly, I'm not sure why you are laboring on-and-on to discuss your wet dream on an internet forum. You would be better off writing to Apple. None of us can build you a cheap mac tower.

Splinemodel,

I don't think AI members have gotten the idea of a Mid Tower out of their system. However, there have only been 208 posts, including yours. Have you seen the thread: Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2007)? That has 3,370 replies
(89,877 views). AND it's still going strong. I tried to keep up with it, but .... Talk about beating a dead horse.

I think the fact that a) Apple has only 6% of the market despite have the best OS and b) that despite the meteoric rise in Mac laptop sales, Mac desktop sales are stagnant proves they are doing something very wrong in the desktop market. The Mac laptops are what every laptop owner expects in a upper level thin and light. The iMac is not even to close to what higher end desktop users expect despite what a small vocal minority who thinks they have the right to choose for everyone might think.

This is what desktop users expect in a premium desktop:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....prd76700050015

Maybe yes, maybe no.

But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams. Before you can be so matter-of-fact, you need to do some real market research, and not just extrapolate the market based on no relevant evidence whatsoever. You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.

To a different poster: the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate is very different in nature. It's mostly filled with speculation and guessing, since the products themselves are known, but there's no winner yet. It's the same kind of thing as the iPod v. Zune threads, except that there's a lot more uncertainty there. This thread is filled with manifesto: no speculation.

I post on this thread because, as I've said, I think a cheap tower mac would be nice. However, I don't claim that it's realistic product, or that Apple are hurting themselves by not releasing one. Chances are, it's not an economically feasible project, but maybe.

Everyone else finds economically feasible. Smaller companies like velocity Micro who cater to the medium to high end find it quite profitable. But hey, Apple is all knowing and perfect right. Everybody else must be wrong.

and all that comes from you guys are insults and sound-bytes that you repeat over and over in a bid to dissuade us from having an opinion that differs from yours.

Why should we trust Apple so blindly as you all do? Apple's research showed them that PPC and OS 9 was the way forward at one point and look what happened to them not to mention the hardware flops Apple has made. Apple isn't always right about product development.

Also, I think we need to start drawing a line between what is good for the company and what is good for the consumer. Clearly Apple making the most money it can is good for Apple but not good for the consumer. If you think that overpriced novelty desktops are so great simply because they ensure the financial stability of the company then you're a brainwashed fool.

I'm not saying that the long term survival of the company is something we shouldn't care about but there's a limit to how far you can take that and when they remove desktop components from all their machines under £1500, you should be asking whether or not we're being taken for a ride.


Why would that be exactly? If a competitor sells a lot of products and you sell a few, can't you derive that their model is better suited to what people want? It doesn't strike you as just a little odd that Apple's share is so small when they have no consumer desktops and that's pretty much all their competition is selling? You can try and pass it off as a coincidence if you like but it seems like one hell of a coincidence to me.

Do you have a business degree? Are you a market analyst? Neither am I. But at least I realize there are many, many variables, and that a layman's understanding is ignorant of most of them.

You also keep mistaking me for an Apple apologist. This quarrel has little to do with Apple. It's me telling you that you're naive, and you narcissistically refusing to accept that possibility.

"terrorize" other users? Wow, someone's touchy.



I don't recall saying that, but OK. the iMac and mini are different machines for different markets. It doesn't compare well.


Oh blah. "Ages?" Let me ask you...do you have a few extra monitors sitting around if something happens? Most people don't. And yes, it has laptop parts. It doesn't make it all that much more expensive, not looking at the current prices. Laptop parts get cheaper all the time.


I saw a refurb for $1899 I think. I've seen them around...they're out there. Give it 6 months and they'll be many more.


What would be the point of that? So you've have the same power as a mini? No one wants that, especially not the midpro market who constantly insist they need more machine than an iMac, which is more powerful than a mini.


Majority was a bad choice of words on my part. A good portion of Mac buyers are impressed with it. Overall it sells well. That's what I'm saying.

[quote]

Of course that assumes the only people who want it are prosumers but add in the gamers and PC users who have displays already but want a more powerful machine then the market suddenly gets pretty big.[quote]

If you're a gamer you need more than a midpro.


People such as?


Why is the Mac Pro not ideal? For anyone that doesn't have a monitor, it's a great choice. If one has a monitor, the mini should be fine for most any use. If you need more, than buy a Mac pro. Granted, there might be a small number of people that need something with iMac level of power but have their own monitor. I just don't see there being very many.


It's not going to do so well with a machine with iMac power then.


You mean crippled in terms of expandability? Honestly, I don't think most people really care about PCI slots or what not. That explains the explosion in laptop sales in part. It's a small market (outside of true pros) that needs these capabilities. Now, I would agree with a lower end Mac pro. One processor, etc. Perhaps that is a good compromise.


So people buy PCs because they don't like what Apple has to offer? Are you kidding? a lot people still don't even know about Apple. A computer to them runs windows. Many will choose Mac when they see one in action. I've never seen anyone considering a Mac that bails out and gets a PC because Apple "doesn't offer what they want." Not once, other than on the issue of raw price since Macs still tend to be more expensive.


It's not that different, apparently. Apple hasn't released either.


Man, you REALLY want this machine, hmm? Think it through...do you REALLY need this machine, or has it just become your cause? With all respect, I really don't see why your needs wouldn't be met by a Mac Pro. If you saved up and bought the low end Pro, you'd have an awesome desktop machine that has all the features/power you want.


How many people really do that? How many people really, honestly want PCI slots and want to replace the monitor but not the computer, and why can't those people be happy with a Mac Pro?


Apple's prices for RAM have always been crazy. $100 is not unreasonable for a gig. And you can get it a little cheaper than that anyway.

[quote]
the mini only has fire wire 400 and usb 2.0 the Imac adds fire wire 800.

ext cases add more clutter then Internal ones also Internal runing at the full disks full speed and the macs do not have e-sata.[/quote[

So we're down to "clutter?"



1. Not for several years. The current cards for the iMac are not bad. If you're really a gamer (which on a Mac, you shouldn't be) you need a pro machine.
2. Not an issue for 99% of people. It's just not.
3. See #2
4. See #3

Anyone with kinds of add-on wants needs a pro system. Almost not consumer is going to want to do those things.


They're well powered for their market segments.

How EXACTLY am I in the "minority opinion" among consumers? You clearly have no idea what the average Joe Schmo thinks about computers. None. They buy what's out there. The Windows side has never been big on AIOs for lots of reasons. People have "desktop or laptop" ingrained in their psyches at this point. Now look at Apple. They've made a go of the iMac for 10 years. How did that happen?


Oooohh! NUMBERS! Your numbers are worthless because everyone knows them. They don't support your argument in the slightest. Your central premise is that there IS a market for the mid pro. Your numbers don't do that. No, you've SPECULATED that the reason they are selling more laptops is because "people aren't happy with the other choices." It's not a bad guess, but it's NOT supportable. Show me a well done surveyr supporting you supposition, and that will be something else.


First, they are switching to desktops, just not in the same numbers as for laptops. Don't exaggerate.

Second, Apple laptops might have the same basic components/form factor, but that doesn't make them the same. Their design is not the same. It's one of Apple's strengths.


Yup, it is!


Maybe, maybe.


My statements were clearly suppositions. I don't know about subjective....I suppose that's true. Subjective is not automatically a bad thing though. Most people, I think, would agree, especially given your numbers.


Of course it has to do with risk. Everything Apple does is high profile. Everything fits their design philosophy. If they release what you want them too (which is basically the same as the Windows beige boxes), they might well take a PR beating at least.


It doesn't necessarily have advantages for everyone. It's another piece of equipment to buy. It creates clutter. It's an advantage for SOME, not for all.

[quote]

Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.[/quite]

I'l agree that it's expensive. But that's why there are two other options if one must have a desktop. I'd like to see a cheaper version with one processor. That might make sense. A whole different machine does not.


Well, most consumers don't have that many external devices. I had one and didn't have that many...not even close. I do agree that the ports being on the back can be a pain.


I don't really get where you're going with that, not exactly. Apple has low priced options, mid priced options, and high priced options in both it's laptop and desktop lines. What you're saying is that someone is going to walk into an Apple store and see they don't have a midpro type product for $999-1599 or whatever and walk out and buy a PC. I don't think that's supportable. The vast majority of people are going to be fine with either an iMac or laptop. If we're talking raw power needs, the mini is just fine for most. I would like to see it include a keyboard standard, but that's a minor thing.

Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.

I think this is partially true.

But if the iMac was more configurable... Had a slightly thicker case for a Conroe chip...and a 8800GTX? 2.4 or 2.6 gig? It wouldn't take much for me.

Thermal considerations..? Perhaps.

Scratches head. HD? Big enough. Memory? 4 gigs. That takes care of most people's worries. So for me? The big thing that holds me back from an iMac purchase (*and believe me, I think the current iteration is the best desktop Apple has made. It's beautiful in person...) But maybe if they offered a true power option to go with that 2.8 extreme chip? Or...if they stuck a quad at 2.66 in a 30 incher with a decent gpu eg 8800GTS.

It's the cpu and the gpu that are deal breakers. Quads are starting to go in towers for around a £1000 and less with decent gpus and APple's in the £1400 range.

I know lots of PC gamers that aren't convinced about the 'Mac' option due to the lack of consumer tower.

£1400 with a crap 7300 outdated GPU? They give me looong looks.

I think Leopard will sort out the Open GL poor performance on Barefeats. But Apple has to offer a decent range of GPUS from Ati AND Nvidia.

What's annoying about the iMac? No GPU option on the top end model for the Extreme 2.8 chip! If you're going to have a chip that expensive and high clocked in an iMac, then why can't we get a more powerful gpu options? Er...you can even fit in a terrabyte hd!!! Why is the GPU the weak link? Especially when the 24 inch offers such a high resolution? (Who's going to use any of those horrible 'blurred' things that purport to be 'other' resolutions...?) The Radeon 2600Pro is a weak gpu to me. The XT or slightly higher would have been better.

In answer to your question, Onlooker, A true Desktop Class Mac could well BE another Cube...but one that is slightly bigger. To me? Apple got the original dimensions wrong. So you can't fit standard components. 8x8 or 9x9 or a Cuboid shape or mini-Mac Pro tower shape. The original Cube failed because it was a white elephant. It was too small for its own good and was priced almost directly alongside the Powermac. IT was suicide.

Nobody knows what Apple thinks. But we can guess. The Cube failed and the lower priced Mac Pro tower (Power Mac in the day...) option got yanked. So. The iMac covers this market. Thing is, the iMac when it started to get popular largely covered the £600-£1200 market.

Where is the £800-£1400 market? THere's a tower market minus monitor right there. (Though you can get a beautiful Samsung 22 incher for £200! So that aint a bank breaker either...) THat easily gets you a Conroe and a decent GPU. The rest of the components are peanuts right now.

I guess we'll have to bombard Apple directly if we want this? Or get a petition going.

It's either that or petition them to Quad and GPU the iMac. A Cube game/creation station quad/gpu beast for £1000-1200 would keep me happy. I just see a gaping hole in Apple's Desktop strategy. I don't like laptops. My PC Gamer friend feels the same way. Apple has the mac mini. And it doesn't sell an astronomical amount of those. Why not just tier teh Mac Pro with Conroe range of quads to go cheaper with a decent GPU. That would be their cheapest option to test the market.

Would this stop 'Pros' buying the Mac Pro Octo? Nope. Just like PC buyers out there buy £2000 plus PC gaming rigs.

I look at the Mini now as a failed Cube rebirth. It is something that could have been a consumer towr that scaled £695-£1200 and used desktop components and really configurable. But it's just an iMac with no screen and intergrated crappics.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Meh. It's semantics to me. A less hulking tower with similar aluminium design. I don't need 4 hds. 2 would be ok. I don't need sli. But an 8800GTX would do me fine. I don't need 16gigs of ram. 4 would do.

Apple can trim off huge savings from not using Xeon chips to create a new line of towers that mortals, PC switchers and aspiring iMac owners can switch to/consider. GIven the price of INtel's Conroe Quads. It's ridiculous that it's not even an option that you can select on Apple's Uber configurable (their words...) Mac Pro. Sure, I can have a Spanish keyboard...but if I wan a Conroe Chip and a 8800GTX that could scythe several hundred off Mac Pro price? Guess what? Yer outta luck, pal.

It's like the 2600Pro is just fine for the iLife/email argument.

Looks skyward.

Lemon Bon Bon.

While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

In this forum you are a minority. In the desktop market AIOs are a minority. You've yet to explain this, if indeed consumers only need AIO or Mac minis(re: that place a huge premium on size). You only explain this away saying that the consumers don't know what the need or want.



Yes they do support my argument and denying it without any reasons other than people that prefer OS X also prefer laptops, or that people don't know what they need or want or not valid arguments.



I only have Apple's number to go by. Desktop sales are flat, have been for awhile. If they are getting switchers at their reported rate of 50% then that only indicated current Apple consumers are not buying their desktops.

I fit into that category 3.5 years ago. Apple didn't offer a desktop I wanted so I bought a laptop, mostly for work. I really only needed a Macbook but I went ahead and got a Powerbook, so I could still use Final Cut Express for home videos. I did this with the expectation that Apple would eventually sell a consumer desktop, I was wrong. I ended up with an iMac, with all its' disadvantages, I live and deal with it. I basically like the iMac, I don't like dealing with its' disadvantages.


People swear by Sony's laptops and their design. Ultimately, it is the same form factor.



What you said was,"So let me get this straight...I'm posting just to piss people off? That's what flame bait is, champ."
My response was,"Your reasons are known only to you, the results are obvious."
This was not "Rhetorical nonsense". It is simply stating a fact that is obvious that posters here have gotten angered by some of your posts and the way in which you post.


If it is maybe true, IMHO it is worth it to Apple to take a relatively low risk option(re: when compared to the risks of an iPod or iPhone) and introduce an xMac.



Eveyone is subjective about appearance, elegance, etc. Subjective values lead to contention and disagreement that can not resolve themselves.

I own an iMac and do believe it has an attractive appearance and a certain wow factor in "is that really the whole computer". This doesn't make me blind to its' disadvantages and desire the flexibility of a tower.



I leave the design in Apple's more than capable hands to distinguish it from the run of the mill Windows boxes.



We agree.


We partially agree.



We agree.



Yes, the Mac mini will satisfy the needs of many consumers. However, it appears to not sell very well.


We partially agree.

I will say that I don't expect Apple to ever introduce an xMac after Steve Jobs' statements recently concerning AIO. Me, I'll stay with Apple and do the best I can to satisfy my desires with Apple products, be they new or used. Maybe in 5 -10 years AIO and/or the Mac mini will more than surpass any software demands and it won't mattter, we'll see. I'll still want an xMac though.

Are you a psychoanalyst?

If you actually want to answer the points instead of further throwing insults then great, otherwise you're just reducing the discussion to playground level.


'Ages' as in at least a couple of weeks.


No but I can get another one within 24 hours. I'm talking about downtime.


You must have missed when I said a Core 2 Extreme mobile was $851 and the Core 2 Quad desktop was $266. That's quite a huge difference if you ask me.


That's always the way on the Mac side though. PC users can get this now and I need it now.


It wouldn't have iMac power, it could start at the same iMac power and by using desktop parts, it's $250 less straight away. Take out the screen and it's even less. By the time you get to the imac price, its more powerful and you could have the ability for more drives, which helps a lot.


Nope in terms of choice. Only GMA and a single laptop HD in the Mini and 2 ATI GPUs, one HD and a sealed screen in the imac.


You might be close to seeing one right here. I've been using Macs for 15 years. About 7 years ago, I was ready to bail after using Linux but when I heard about OS X, I stuck with them. Now it's getting to the point again where I'm thinking they still haven't made any significant changes to their hardware model and I'm still seeing PC users get much better hardware options sooner.

I don't mind not getting the latest hardware, I simply want a consumer desktop and Apple don't sell one. The Mini and iMac are technically both laptops.


I know but I do my work on these kind of towers and they are huge. I don't have an Apple Store near me and having to cart such a heavy machine around isn't something I want to do. Like I said before, it takes two people to move the towers we have. I actually find the imacs a bit awkward too.

Also, I don't need the expansion, so it seems unnecessary to pay for it. You're right though, a Mac Pro is the closest to what I *need* but for a variety of reasons, I'd *want* a smaller form factor. If I can find a used Mac Pro in that price range then I guess that's what I'll have to go for but in the same way I wouldn't be happy with the iMac, I wouldn't be completely happy with the Mac Pro. Honestly, if a used Mac Pro was the same price as a small tower, which was likely slightly less powerful, I'd take the smaller machine any day simply due to the form factor.

I have an idea about why Apple are doing this though. Moore's Law says computing power doubles every 18 months. This exponential increase is very quickly driving the computer industry growth into a brick wall. I think Apple are trying to avoid hitting this as long as possible. How can they do this though if computing power is developing so rapidly?

Simply use components that are slower and more expensive and on top of that, instead of upgrading components, all you need to do is bundle a different type of component and let its development cycle prolong that of the rest of the machine. Consider the new iMac. It's been over a year since the last one and how much faster is it? You get a bigger display for the same price but that's still holding Moore's Law at bay. You haven't really gained anything despite technology moving on.

Nintendo are trying the same by repackaging a Gamecube as a Wii but people aren't stupid. When they can't play the same games as the Xbox and PS3 and the graphics look the same as the previous generation then something's not quite right and yet they are being coerced into paying the same amount.

It's the same with using Flash media. As soon as a consumer buys a product that is more than they could ever need, then the market is dead. So now that consumers can buy terrabyte drives, bring in HD media but use flash storage in portable devices. Flash has advantages over hard drives and so instead of marketing storage, you market battery life, heat, noise etc and then in a few years, it gets back to storage.

This seems to me why Apple are moving into portable devices because they have a long way to go.

My objection to this is that they are doing so at the expense of allowing us to use the better desktop technology already available. Why don't they give us an iMac and a mid-range tower and see which one wins out then kill off the least successful model?


I agree entirely with that.

This is someone over at Macrumors.

The demand of a 'sane' Mac Tower are everywhere.

It's not rocket science.

Apple can beat Dell on Workstation prices. They can compete on Laptops.

It's ludicrous they don't have a 'consumer' tower option. Their whole push is towards the consumer with the mini, iPod, iPHone, iMac...laptops...I'd just like them to make a consumer version of the tower. And they could do it so affordably. Displays, HDs, Ram are all dirt cheap right now. The only costly components are the cpu and gpu. And INtel's Cpu Quad models are dirty cheap also...so that leaves the GPU. But if you look on Apple's website...the Ati card is very affordable too.

Is is demand?

Well. The PC Tower market is at least 45-50%? Apple almost have 7% of the American market?

Take Alien Ware. The gamer style market. 200k machines sold annually? Take 10 %. That's about 20K machines. Canibalise 10% of iMac sales for frustrated Tower users. That's about 20-30k machines. Take another 10K thousand of Switchers who are 'used' to the tower format or want to 'role' their own consumer tower. That's at least 50 thousand Tower users there. Not enough? Well, 20% of people who can't afford the Mac Pro...

That's another 20k. So far? 70-80 thousand machines. As much as the Mac Pro or Mini...I'd guess... And to new Apple users in Apple stores? I'm sure they could get another 20K per quarter new users to cough up for a consumer tower. I'd say the market for a Mac Consumer tower is at least 100k. That's almost a fifth of all their desktop sales. I'd say this figure is a conservative estimate... Just pulling stuff out the air.

I don't see why Apple has to lock us into a desktop market with no upgradeable cpu/gpu unless you spend £1400!!!



Waiting for an iPhone inspired Tower and Display consumer model that fits my demographic.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."

The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.

The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.

Who said anything about a crappier CPU? The 3.0ghz conroe is $50 less than the 2.4ghz merom.


The Mac Pro and old Quadra series weren't desktops, they are workstations. I would expect those enlightened enough to buy a Mac to be smart enough to tell the different. The again you guys just to take everything Jobs says as gospel and sort everybody into two very narrow blanket groups of "consumer" and "professional" with no thought or understanding of gradient.


In the hardcore Mac market, yes. However, you guys are the exception to the rule and not the rule. You need to wake up and figure there are potential users outside the group. Desktop sales have dropped somewhat, but not the dramatic drop off Apple has seen. Mostly you see a light duty laptop pared with a desktop (not workstation) for the heavier stuff. However, when your "desktop" is an immobile laptop CPU and your laptop has a better GPU and an actual slot for expansion there is no point to buy a desktop like the iMac.

No, the mini does not "have" the low end, and the iMac does not "have" the midrange. They're niche products, that cater well or not so well to their niche, but they do not satisfy every need. People here are objecting to the fact that any need you have above the content in the mini (or the iMac) means you need to shell out $2500 for a pro.

All I want is mini specifications with a good screen, 4GB of memory and a large disk. Can't get the disk and memory in the mini, can't get the screen in an iMac, so what? I need a Mac Pro?


When you can get a PC for $800 that does everything you need (hardware-wise) but to get that in a Mac means paying for the low-end Mac Pro ($2500) that's a bad thing. PCs were also more expensive in the Quadra and IIci days. Times have changed.


Apple may be selling more laptops than desktops. The general market still has 60% of computers as desktops. You'll always get better disks and screens in a desktop.

Well said!

Well guys, it's really become as pissing contest at this point. I think it still boils down to this:

---There is no large, demonstrable market for the product. There just isn't. If there was, Apple would clearly release one.

---Most people don't actually "need" the machine. They might want one for reasons of varying importance and sensibility. I do respect the person who has iMac power level needs, has a nice LCD panel, and doesn't have the $2K for a Mac Pro. But the problem is, that specific market isn't large enough for the product, apparently.

So you guys still want it desperately, and I still think it makes no sense. Whatever. Hopefully you can find what you need from what's out there at present.

There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.

It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.




I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.

Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.

I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.

The lack of a mid-priced, mid-range tower is a gaping hole in Apple's product lineup. Their only options right now are to buy top of the line, or buy a laptop. iMacs and Minis are just laptops that are chained to the desk. I don't want a laptop, I want a consumer desktop.

I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.

Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.

I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system

This is the crux of the matter. All that Apple needs to do is reboot the Mini's form factor to allow easy consumer access to the RAM, hard drive and graphics card. That's it. End of discussion.

There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.

It's not about market segments or even entirely about protecting the Pro line. This is about Jobs and his personality. While he's mellowed since he was thrown out of Apple, he still has issues about control that show up in the hardware he greenlights.

I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.

Amen.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You can now get Terrabyte hard drives for £200-ish. Yes. A terrabyte.

1T HD. £200.
Quad 2.4 gig. 2.66 gig? £300?
GTX 8800. £300?
2gigs of Ram? £80?
Samsung 22inch monitor. £250

These wouldn't be the prices Apple pay?

It's easy for them to offer a sub-Pro tower. Easy.

Components have never been this cheap for so much more.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?

I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.

Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.

Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.

Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.

I see iMacs around here with a second display. In any case, the ACDs aren't really all that competitive. The Dell 30" (HC...the one with the W-CCFL) is better than the ACD 30"...or at least better then the 30" ACD I have...

But at $1299 vs $1799 its a wonder that Apple sells many 30" ACDs at all.

By the book, the LC had the same service stipulations, and lacked any notable user expansion. The mini is much better than the LC was, since the mini comes with the same Core 2 Duo as most of the other macs. The LC had no FPU, no MMU, and a 16 bit bus. Kind of shit. The mini is much less compromised.

I think the mini would be better served by being cheaper, first and foremost. 3.5" disks are cheaper, so that makes sense, as does using a cheaper Core chip. I think it's much more likely that we'll simply see a cheaper mini that's otherwise very similar to today's mini than we will see one with PCIe.

What kind of twisted logic is this?

People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?

People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?

You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.