A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 3

the lack of choice

Look, I'd like Apple to start Mac Pro pricing at $1799. just as much as everyone else.

However, it's important to note that Apple does see a limited market for cheaper Mac Pros.
That's why they have a Clearance section on the Apple Store.

If you time if right and purchase just after the next major rev, you'll likely get a real Mac Pro close to the price you're looking for.

You can't be serious. Are you? OK, let's assume you really are....

Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience. People buy them because that's what's available in large part. Often, when they see the advantages of the AIO (e.g. the iMac), they opt for it. Windows is one thing and the Mac is another. It's just the way things are.

And no, it's not just another platform. That's not how most people look at it. It's how you look at it. It's how I look at it. But to most people there are computers and then there are Macs. You simply cannot compare the two for a great many things, with some exception of course.

If Apple sees a real market for the midpro, they'll build one. But the cons outweigh the pros right now. It could convolute the product line (4 desktops?) and cannibalize Mac Pro sales. They're not going to take those risks unless they're damn sure it's going to sell very well. Since they haven't released one for years, they obviously don't think it's a good idea.

Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative. You're asking for a new product, not me. Think about it. Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea. It's the way business works. They're not going to say..."gee...nice idea, just prove to us that isn't not a market and we'll pull the trigger." Come on. Surely you see this.

Look, I have no doubt that there are number of posters her who want a midpro. But 1) They don't constitute a large enough market apparently and 2) most of them want it for reasons that are really not all that solid.

And the fact that it's limited by cooling limitations of the all in one design. The iMac is best as a relatively high end family computer. Apple and the Mac community makes it out to be more than it really is.

What cons? The chance that some of the other 94% might want to come on board? That Apple could be be an even larger company than they are now. That the world's best OS might not be wasted on a bunch of narrow minded extremists?

Apple's hardware offerings are fine if they are only a niche computer maker in a larger, more diverse market. Since Apple won't let anyone else lay with their toys, they are the platform.

It's not unwise to buy a machine that you need. If they have the money and need the power, they should buy the Mac Pro. If they don't have the money, they should save. If they don't need the power, they should buy an iMac.


Once again, Apple's revenue stream is not your problem. I don't know about you, but Im not in the corporate welfare biz.


Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter.


Great.


"Needs" is the operative word. I submit that people don't want to buy what they need, but what they want. They want it for a variety of reasons, few of which are meaningful.


Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.


I don't get that. What don't you need,,,the quad core? Or the dual? You can get a new dual for $2000 or so. Used, you can pick up one for $1700-1800. That's what you'd pay for your tower anyway, or close to it.


You're not talking about much difference anyway. And if you really don't need that much power, a MB would do you fine.


So basically an iMac without the monitor. What do you envision this thing costing? With the slots and drive bays, you have to be looking at $1500. You'll have a very small market for this, though I'll concede you're as close a person as I've found that really might "need" one. The problem is there aren't that many people like you.


Exactly.

In other words, if I don't have the money for a an 18-wheeler, haul my goods in the back of a civic instead. That's about how wise the gap is.


Apple's revenue stream is everybody's business as they are a publicly traded company. the stockowners own the company, not Jobs.

[quote]Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter. [/qupte]

Only if you're willing to accept it as it with all its flaws.


If were by what people actually need to run the software, the entire lineup would consist of a 19" integrated graphics machine with a small laptop hard drive and a 500 series celeron. It will run the software. However, the devil is really in the details. The market is driven by what the consumer wants to buy, not what steve wants to sell you.



Which once again only gives you outdated tech and earns Apple $0



The server motherboard, FB-DIMMS, and second CPU which add about $1000 to the bottom line, but no advantages to a high end consumer or low end pro.




Really. if you don't need the power of a workstation you need a low end IG laptop instead. That just upped the anti. Its now going from a Fit to an 18-wheeler.

I think the used market does help Apple financially!

Every time I sell my current Mac, I go and buy a new Mac. The people who have always bought my Macs have said they always wanted a Mac, but couldn't afford or wouldn't spend the money it would take them to buy a new Mac.

I can't speak for REM#1, but:

• It's glossy
• It's wide (and doesn't rotate)
• it's tilted upwards (I need it to tilt down as well)
• The 20" is low-quality

If I believed what you say, then I would conclude that Apple responds to market demands, and Wintel makers do not.. (Earlier you said essentially that Apple would make a mini tower if there were a big demand for one.) Since most business have educated marketing people, you are obviously wrong.

One classic case is explained in a book that was required reading in the MBA program. It's called Marketing Myopia. Don't make buggy whips when the customer base is driving cars. Wintel makers know what customers want as well as Apple.

I believe Apple knows, but has chosen to not respond. It's a little like playing with fire.




True, of course. Yet if competition were selling carloads of product A, and your company were making product B because the CEO believes this is what people want, then you have a logical right, even duty, to ask for proof that there is no market for product A. It works both ways.




Maybe you are thinking of the fact that you cannot prove a theory true, but can only prove it false? Think scientists. They do not look for reasons that their theory works. Scientist spend their time and energy trying to disprove it. The idea is that the more failed attempts to disprove it build confidence in it being true. I don't believe that marketing folks go to this extreme.

I started out with Macs buying new machines. Now I have moved into buying them used. It makes sense seeing how Apple keeps the new machine entry prices inflated, always dropping the low end models just before they would have to become affordable, and caps the performance of its lineup by using mobile parts on everything.

As soon as you realize every Intel dualcore based Mac is more or less equivalent to all the others - yes, I mean that newest shiny machine in the store is mostly equivalent to the one year old used Core Duo unit that is half the price - you start saving. Lots.

Back in the G4 stagnation days, the situation was somewhat similar due to genuine technical trouble but at least in the face of the competitors' stronger hardware Apple had to lower prices and an equilibrium of sorts was preserved.

I suppose the used market has helped Apple in my case, since like you say, me selling cheap machines has lowered the entry point for some. On the other hand, without the ability to sell and buy used I'd have probably already ditched Apple whereas I'm now buying computers off people, enabling them to go buy new ones, possibly from Apple.

iBook was good value for me, but nothing else has been at new prices. Quite simply, I'm tolerating the hardware and its pricing because of the software. It's definitely good and competetive hardware in general, but not in line with my needs.

Ok, I signed up just to point this out.

As a PC power user and a Mac user, there is one key difference that has not yet really been touched upon:
PC parts are more cost effective than laptop parts. What does this mean? you can essentially a) make a pc with the same price as a Mini or iMac with more power. This is why towers are more widely produced than AIO's and SSF's, NOT because it's what they "always have" made, as SDW2001 said; and b) you can make a pc with the same amount of power the average power user would need from a Mac Pro for half the cost JUST because you are not using a server processor, motherboard and RAM.
Also, THIS is the reason why PC's are not only cheaper, but more widely produced. There is a wider profit margin because they do not have a vertical monopoly like Apple does. Apple controls how everything is used together, whereas Microsoft leaves alot to the manufacturers of hardware, software, and peripherals (which is one reason for such varying performance and compatibility).
Also, Mac-specific parts are generally more expensive.

Next arguement: You don't want a used Mac Pro because the "tech is outdated?" You're kicking yourself. Anything on a consumer or prosumer level is using technology that has been in use for a while before reaching the average prosumer level. Case in point: HP uses Voodoo PC, a boutique specialty PC builder, to test new high-end technologies before they become cost effective enough for the regular consumer market. Dual Core? That WAS high end pro-level stuff over a year ago, but now it's the bare minimum people will consider in a new PC. Quad Core will be the same in a year or two, if not less.

An expandable Mac? Great idea! just upgrade a few of the parts you need to rather than buying a whole new system. Why not get a Mac Pro? Same reason you would get a Corvette rather than a Ferrari. More cost effective for the performance level (similar performance and rougher finish for 1/3 the cost), and more aftermarket support to make it better in the long run even if it still isn't as polished and high-end.

In truth, to equate the performance of an iMac, it would be at a much lower cost for a PC-based system. Why? because the iMac uses more expensive laptop parts. A PC is cheaper to upgrade in the future than an iMac, and can be done so in stages as budget allows. Also, the wider variety of parts available and the varying price/performance of parts allows for more versatility than what Apple allows. You want to game? spend $2000 or less and you can still get dual-core, 2-3GB of RAM, and dual GOOD QUALITY graphics cards.

Let's face it: Because Macs are unopposed in the hardware field solely because the Mac vs. PC rivalry is Apples to Oranges, Apple is not as inclined to introduce better technology at a competitive price. Case in point: MacBooks still use CCFL backlit displays even though Windows laptops are starting to make the transition to LED backlit screens, which are not only more environmentally safe, but slimmer and more efficient, not to mention brighter too.

Don't forget that internal HD's are faster than external HD's. PCs can have more internal HD's than an iMac. THIS IS A VALID POINT. The reason for an iMac being AIO is to reduce clutter; this is moot when you need an external HD or audio card, or USB hub, or all three. Also, iMac speakers are okay, but high-quality external speakers will always be better.

Me? I would go build a PC with an OSX hack (like OSX86) so it'll run OSX and Vista/XP. Let's face it, for everything Macs can do better than a PC, and for all of the inherent faults of PCs, there are still some things that only a PC can do. Macs come with ComicLife, but don't even include a basic Painting/Drawing program to go with it? That's BS. Windows Media Player lets you fullscreen anything out of the box, but you have to pay $30 for Quicktime to do the same? I don't think so. Apple does alot of things right, but they need to get some of their other priorities in order.

To better understand the argument, those of you sufficiently versed in history should compare Microsoft and Apple to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, respectively for the whole Vertical vs. Horizontal monopoly thing.

As a side note, ALL computer manufacturers used proprietary hardware/technology in desktops up until the early 90's where the common and universal ATX form factor was put into service. This ultimately brought down prices to the point where a PC could be a common household item. Proprietary (like Mac) = high price.

p.s. For there to be a mass migration from Windows to Mac, the price difference needs to go away. You can get a PC with a monitor for $500 or under, or one without for less than $400. A mac w/o is still $700, because they use propriety&notebook technology instead of basic desktop tech. A Windows laptop can also be had for as little as $400.

On another note, last time I checked, iMacs (last generation included) could tilt their screens downward about 5 or more degrees, similar to regular desktop monitors. Am I wrong?

That's a dumb analogy. It's not how wide the gap is at all. The Mac Pro is not some bloated supercomputer out of reach of the consumer.



That is so obtuse I almost don't know where to begin. The point is you can't base a computer purchase decision on what's good for Apple. I mean, really. You can't be serious.



Grasping at straws. What flaws would that be exactly?


I don't really know what that means. I never claimed that all people need to do is run the software. But there are machines that run it quite well, and none of the are midpro towers.


First, stop talking about how much money Apple earns. You sound ridiculous. That should not be a factor. I just bought a mattress today. Do you think I care how much money the manufacturer made? Seriously...you're just being emotional. Secondly, I thought the Mac Pro was too much computer? Why would it matter if it's 6 months or a year old? It's still more expandable. It's not outdated in any way that would matter. It's still more powerful than any midpro you would buy.



So again, you basically want an iMac. Gotcha.


Again, dumb analogy. The Mac Pro at the bottom end is what you're looking for.

I've been trying to figure out what you mean by this. It's rather convoluted, so I'll just boil down my point and ask you to try again.

1) Apple would respond to overwhelming demand for a mid pro tower. They know the market better than you do.

2) It's a potentially false assumption to believe that because there are lots of Wintel towers, there is demand for an Apple tower too. The markets are different.

3) Beyond #2, Apple is different. They're not going to release a product just because Wintel does. They often try to do something totally different.


Well first, that doesn't follow the example. But let's put that aside. Wintel's market is not quite the same as Apple's. So there's your answer.


It's nothing like playing with fire actually, nor does your assertion make any sense. Apple is not going to let a truly blank market segment stay that way very long. Why would they do that? Just to be dicks? They're going to do what's profitable and what drives their bran forward. They also have good reasons for the structure of their product matrix. If they saw a clear opening, they'd make the product.


Silly, flawed analogy. Apple is selling millions upon millions of Macs and profiting in record fashion. They're not making a product no one wants. That is, unless they release another cube, aka mid pro.


One cannot prove a negative. That's what I'm thinking. For example, prove UFOs don't exist. Prove that I'm not watching Every Loves Raymond right now. Prove that the mid pro doesn't have a market.


You're getting nutso now. That might sound good, but in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product. At least the companies that make money.

actually that is exactly what it is. Why do you think you don't see high end gaming machine using xeons?


That seems to be what's happening more and more.


That I have to put a big ugly box on my desk if i want to have time machine support or yet another big ugly box if i don't want a nice break if I burn a disc or transfer files from one or that I'm limited to this lower mid range 2600 Pro, or that I have have the RAM potential of a real desktop or that if a new connection technologies comes along I have to buy a new computer. If I'm just reading emails or letting Apple make all my decisions for me this is fine.


You seem to base all your conclusions off the ability to run the run iLife and other Apple software and complete dismissing how fast or how well a user want to run his/her software. Based on that a low end celeron machine with a small hard drive.


Not in consumer apps. The only difference between a 2.66ghz core 2 Mac and a 2.66ghz Mac Pro would be a grand.



I have it and I find it very disappointing. Great family machine though.

You're basically displaying two things here:

1) You think in two very generals terms with no concept degree: Professionals who need a Mac Pro and consumers who need an iMac. You assume that all users in those two groups do basically the same things and thus all need roughly the same computer.

2) You have no way to gather information rather than what comes out of Steve's mouth at keynotes and unquestionably take it as the undeniable truth.

Excellent point. I didn't get into that much detail, which I should have.


Another good point. Though Apple uses many more industry standard parts than it used to.


Another excellent point! The tech is not going to be "outdated" per se. Not in any meaningful way.


I can shed some light on this. It's because we have a lot of folks here that base their self worth and image on what computer they have. They think they have special "needs" when in fact they have "wants." They don't want a used machine. They don't want a plebeian iMac! They're POWER USERS! They're PROSUMERS! I bet most of them don't even really need expandability like they think they do.


Well said.


Generally good point, though Apple is now making the LED transition.


It's not really valid because Apple offers the Mac Pro.


Not many things, if any.


Those are minor quibbles. I do agree about QuickTime.


There are a lot of points there, and mostly good ones at that. However, Apple really isn't going to get rid of the price difference completely. They don't need to. Apple looks at itself as the BMW of computers. They don't need to compete with Chevy.

I would like a 30" monitor, a video card that has more memory, and the ability to have 2 1TB internal hard drives.

Can't do any of that with an iMac.

Chain. Being Pulled.

deleted because of multiple replys

Deleted because of Multiple posts

The Mac Pro takes up a great deal more room than the model I propose. Many people are don't have the room or need for expandability.

I have worked and supported macs since 1987 and in that time outside of people in the music or film industries I can count on ALL of my digits the machines I have installed more than 2 expansion cards. and may of them were ethernet cards before Ethernet was standard or RAID cards


Since when does an iMac have any PCI slots I want 2
more than 2 Memory slots I want 4
more than 1 internal hard Drive I want 2
More than 1 Optical drive bay I want 2
the ability to change video card I want to

I only used my cheepo 4-year-old P4 PC for basic things and found the upradability very important. Added a hard drive and RAM (quite easily I might add) and a video card to encode and store video
and play low-graphics intense games (like unreal Tournament 2004, Sims 2, and Eve Online).


Not fast enough.


It's totally valid, and here's why: The upgrade was made with salvaged parts (except the video card) from an older computer. 2 things about this: a) this cost me around $150, maybe $300 if all the parts were new and b) the computer, which cost $500 when new, has similar functionality performance wise to a G5 iMac, if a little better, with a total value of half what a comparable G5 cost new. The problem with getting an older Mac Pro or Power Mac is that by the time it gets to a comparable used value as my PC, the tech is so outdated that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade because of the hardware limitations. A G5 power mac still costs over $1k and still has half the power my expanded PC has.


2 major things Macs can't do:
a) be a good gamer rig (you'd get laughed at, seriously, though I know this hardly applies to people here)
b)be a good entry level option for people buying their first computer or are on a tight budget partly because they would have no idea where to look for a used one let alone think to look for a used one.


They are, true, but it kind of bothers me that the computer that does everything out of the box doesn't come with a productivity suite free of charge, seeing as how most people need it and they include iLife for free.


Really, you couldn't compare Apple with BMW because a) BMW's are nowhere near as user friendly (Have you tried to use iDrive?) and b) being innovators of computer technology, they would be better compared to Audi, which invented the dual-clutch tiptronic/manumatic gearbox, the W12 engine, first implemented all-wheel-drive in most of its cars, actually has appealingly designed cars, are slightly over-engineered and, since they own VW, are people-oriented (VW and Apple are now in cahoots for a future product by the way). They also are strongly linked with Porsche and have business interests with Lamborghini, though that's beside the point. However, like Apple, their hardware is outmatched in overall quality/durability/reliability by the Japanese (such as Lexus and most given computer makers in the land of the Rising Sun), no matter what creature-comforts they offer. Secondly, the entry-level market is huge; Apple has every incentive to dive in, because huge profit can be made there, since bulkier hardware can be cheaper they can still have a slight premium over the cheapest boxes (like $50, for the privilege of a superior operating system with more built in) and still have a huge profit margin. This is where Apple could really use a VW equivalent right now.

You can. It's called the Mac Pro. Have you heard of it?

Who's nutso? You say, one cannot prove a negative. Nonsense. You must look at each situation by itself. For example, I can prove I DON'T HAVE brown eye, and that I DO HAVE blue eyes. I does not matter. Both positive and negative are provable.

I figured you had heard about scientists trying to prove a theory false, so they can build confidence in it being true. I guess that's not the case.

I would challenge your statement that, ". . . in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product." It is not easy, and maybe impossible, to prove there is a market before releasing a product. Chrysler, over 50 years ago, did extensive studies to find what kind of car people really want. The result? The Chrysler Airflow design across the product line. Not many people bought them. So much for proof that there is a market before releasing a product.




So you haven't figured out what I meant in my last post. I was pointing out that you imply Apple listens to customers, while other computer makers do not. I disagree with this implication.

You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.

You claim the markets are different somehow. I just see computer users trying to buy what is best of their own use. One uses Mac OS X, the other Windows. It doesn't make that much difference on the hardware side.




Apple is doing quite well, at least in the laptops. Yet it has nothing to do with my statement, and Apple could be doing better by offering, say, a mini tower. Since we see that these are selling well on the Wintel side, it's up to the opposition to show why these would not sell on the Mac side as well.

I don't think anyone is bashing the iMac as a poor product. It's just not mainstream. Apple has perfected the iMac in many ways, and should continue to offer it.

As it is now, however, I get the feeling of being forced to buy either a Mini or Mac Pro. There is nothing in between. For me the iMac is not an option. I have very good LCD displays and will not buy a computer with yet another LCD permanently attached. It is not negotiable for my personal use.

I do like how the iMac looks, and if I needed a computer for say a secretary, it would probably be an iMac.

Mac Pro. Say it with me.


Not really. I will give you credit for that one example. I suppose some negatives can be proven. However, one can't prove that something doesn't exist.


I have, I just don't think it applies here.


You're extrapolating too far. Obviously despite the best research, products fail. It happens. But I'm sorry, there is no room to disagree on companies demonstrating that there is a market for a product before releasing it. It's basic business.


Then you disagree with your implication, not mine. I implied nothing. You inferred.

You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.[/quote]

Then you're not thinking. Why would Apple blatantly ignore a segment if it was profitable and mass marketable? I will grant you my Windows statement was not very detailed. There are reasons, as another poster pointed out, that Windows computers are like they are.


I agree, but most people don't think that way. It's how we think. But we don't represent the vast majority of computer buyers.


This is what I'm saying....PROVE IT. You're just speculating.


Look, I understand that argument. But the fact is that on the Windows side there is not a compelling alternative...an integrated solution like the iMac. They have basic towers, mid towers, and pro towers. The clear choice for the prosumer is the mid tower. The Mac side is different. The iMac fills the midpro need. For those that need more, the Mac Pro is there.


It's not mainstream? WTF? It's THE mainstream computer? What is wrong with you? That's just an utterly absurd statement.


But what is wrong with the Mac Pro? I really don't see the problem. It's exactly what you need.


There is that image thing again.

Use Mac Pro. That's the ticket.


Whatever. I don't know what the means. What is "fast enough?" By the end of 2008 they'll be all LED I would imagine.


That's bullshit. A used Mac Pro will be able to be upgraded for years. It will last at last as long as a new midpro with a single processor.


Depends how much you want to spend. You're probably right though.


The entry level person won't buy a used Mac Pro. They'll buy an iMac or Mini.


I agree with that. I should include iWork.
The point is not the car. It's the brand and market position.


Huh? How is Apple outmatched, any by whom?


I disagree. Apple has no need for this market. Even the mini is questionable in my mind. Even that has come up in price considerably. There isn't enough margin for them there. They're doing great without that segment.
__________________________________________________ __________________________


General Mid Pro Comment

I want to point out that IF the mini disappears, I could see a mid pro tower. It would make more sense then, but only if it's priced low enough not to compete with the iMac. I'm talking a $999-$1299 minitower, single processor but upgradable with 2 PCI, 2 HDD bays, etc. I might be able to see that actually.
I just can't see a $1599 mid pro competing with the same price machine that comes with a 20" monitor.

Why does the Mac Mini sell so slowly (proof lying in the fact that it was only recently upgraded to 64-bit and without announcement due to existing supply)? Because it is not a cost effective entry-level computer, for Apple or for the Consumer. Thus, the market is slim. This is a perfect example of Apple not doing enough market research, thus why they would not think to make a small tower using common components. Also, at that price point, many computers come with a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers.
Another key point from history that proves that Steve hasn't learned from all of his mistakes: In the 80's Steve refused to put a fan in the Mac to aid cooling because it would add noise, making it unappealing. Result: many Macs became big beige plastic toasters, Steve gets kicked out of the company. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why doesn't the Mac Mini sell? Because its so small that the computer itself costs more than an entry computer with everything. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why does the iMac sell, then? because it is an OK ratio of form over function because it does include everything you need.

Given that Steve Jobs has made the same mistake twice, some twenty years apart, I think it is safe to say that Steve has not learned his lesson, and thus would indeed be likely to ignore a potential market such as a low-cost small- or mid-tower. To be neutral, I neither agree nor refute that a large enough market exists for this product, because it is hard to compare what works for Wintel will work for Apple. However, to counter, I believe that if this market does exist in a large enough scale, that a) it is diminishing rapidly as laptops with their AIO design and dropping prices in addition to their portability take a larger ratio of the industry. They will soon hold over 50% of the market share. b) It would indeed cut in to the iMac sales as it would be a cheaper entry to the Mac platform, though apple has already sort of done this by starting the Mac Book at a lower price than the iMac. Although, I believe Apple once said that their notebooks already outsell their desktops, though I don't remember where I heard it from. c)Given that the majority of the market is not computer savvy enough to upgrade a computer, let alone open it without fear of explosion, they have two options when a computer becomes so obsolete they can't or don't want to use it anymore: 1) they throw it away, sell it, or give it away to family/charity, or 2) they take it to a computer specialist (such as Geek Squad) to upgrade their hardware on a budget to make it sufficient for a somewhat extended period of time.

It's sad but it's true. While many towers will have cards for extended capabilities such as added ports and whatnot, many more come from the factory like that as a base, as do laptops and AIO's. The fact that most people ditch older, still usable computers for newer ones instead of upgrading internals is one of the reasons laptops are becoming more popular. As more and more ignorant people enter the market, they slowly become the majority and outweigh the number of people who need the expandability options of a tower. This limits the market to large companies with IT professionals who could and would actually upgrade computers instead of outright replacing them given the opportunity in an effort to reduce costs. However, since the only major upgrade they would make would be RAM or a harddrive, both being upgradeable for the most part in a laptop (although corporations would use server storage instead of local storage mostly), this once again nullifies the argument of practical upgradeability for the majority of the market.

So far, the only reasons for a smaller tower are a) low cost for both Apple and Consumer (nullified because of the sales it would undermine the iMac and Mac Book, both of which Apple has invested alot of money into developing) b) they are slightly harder to steal, c) less limited upgradeability, and d) to use pre-existing peripherals.

All of B, C, and D are reasons to introduce a budget version of the Mac Pro in mid/full tower form. A small tower would likely require a proprietary or otherwise high-cost motherboard. Despite how much a mini tower can hold, it is still very hard to work with, has limited space, and cooling can be problematic. This eliminates A as a good reason.
Both B and C, along with part of D would be a good reason to make an easy-open iMac with or without mouse and keyboard. With more options for consumer-installed upgrades, this would suit most of you just fine (except those of you who don't like the screen, who would go with the first one).

Other reasons directly against a small tower would be, as mentioned before, development and part costs. Designing a whole new aluminum case (given Apple's current design trends) would also be more expensive to produce even with more standardized larger-scale internals.

To me, I see a niche of users who need affordable upgradeability. The most cost-effective solution for Apple would be to offer a relatively bare system using a Mac Pro tower, an ATX (standard) motherboard, and offer all levels of processors, RAM, harddrives, and disk drives. Or perhaps a steel and plastic version of the case, to keep base costs below $500. This way, you're not just buying your own parts and spending money on non-Apple stuff if they can help it. This plastic and steel regular tower could be called just plain old "Mac." iMac for Integrated Mac, Mac Pro for Professional Mac. Then they should offer some smaller displays. However, this would still take sales away from the iMac. The only reason for the price premium would be for the ease of setup of an AIO.

It would make business sense for Apple to have a lower-priced Tower, but only if they dropped the iMac, because then it would become a niche market. Frugality dictates "go cheaper of you don't need everything." That's one of the reasons desktop AIO's are more or less exclusive to Apple; they generate the market because iMac the easiest way to Mac OS, except the Mac Book.

Apple makes alot of money on people's ignorance. People buy iPods because they're easy to use and are more common than other players, despite being a middle-of-the-road choice in most cases. For some things, there are better ones out there. Another way is that they overcharge for upgrades. It costs $150 to upgrade from 1 GB to 2GB of RAM (in the Mini, which actually can be opened if you know how)? Try $90 before buyback of the lesser RAM. Oh, and the iPod Mini, people who don't care about a color screen or size have replaced their own batteries and upgraded the Compact Flash HD with a 16GB unit. That's pretty good savings over a newer, lesser capacity Nano.

If this whole thing sounds contradictory not only to itself but my earlier post, that's because it is. What would sell better and what Apple is willing to sell without becoming contradictory to their pitch of simplicity, are two conflicted ideas. Apple doesn't want to drop the iMac in favor of a mid tower because that would eliminate one of they key points of Mac-iness of the company, not to mention a large business investment in a product that would become completely unnecessary. Not only that, but that market is rapidly shrinking due to laptops, as mentioned earlier. Giving people options means a higher cost of production for each one vs. how much profit it can make. Flat out, Apple doesn't want to invest in something that's going to go away and is not, in their view, in their best interests. Their only option? Drop prices of everything in varying degrees from $100's to $1000's of dollars. But that would ruin their profit margin. Since this is a losing proposition for Apple, it would be best for super-savvy users who know better and have the skills to make their own solution, since it would be a lose-lose situation for Apple to solve it for you. What do you do? Build your own computer with what you really need and use a hack like OSX86, and buy your OS. If certain components don't work, you would have had that problem with an Apple-made tower anyway. The only way to make a less expensive tower that would not compete with the iMac would be to price it in the mid $1000 range or higher. Problem is, a surplus of those exist in the used market already.
Oh, and those of you who still want an attractive design, you should see the selection of cases available online from an e-tailer like Newegg.com.

Q: How many times can one man go in circles contradicting himself and over-explaining/analyzing why something is or is not?
A: As many times as the late Douglas Adams did, except he made it entertaining.

EDIT:


Ok, now you're just being ignorant. The whole point of the statement is that the Mac Pro is not cost effective for the application. My whole setup costs well less than $700 new, is perfectly sufficient, and a used Mac Pro that's still worth a damn (performs anywhere close to my setup) costs over $1000 without peripherals. Not to mention my games don't even run on Mac.


I'm saying relatively, they should have already introduced LED backlights to their products. They were the first ones to put dual-core in a mainstream laptop, and they were the first ones to put 64-bit dual core into a laptop. Not only that, but they did so while maintaining a form factor little more than an inch thin. To stay competitive, they need to have LED in laptops now and work their way up. End of 2008 is a little late in the game.


That's the thing, not only would a mid-pro be dual core instead of a single core older Pro/Power tower, but in the PC market upgradeability to extend life life is somewhere on the order of 5-8 years starting under $1000.


Again, cost effectiveness. Entry level is less than $600 for a complete system that does all the basics, even burning DVD's. Macs start at $600 for an incredibly inferior Mini that has less than half the power and can't even burn DVD's.


The point is totally the car. Audi is a direct competitor to BMW (placing it in the same exact bracket for brand/market position), and produces better cars that do more things right than a BMW. All BMW's can do is drive well, and in the rain they can't even do that much (Thus they are compared to Alienware). That makes Apple more like Audi. Talk about metaphors that don't apply.


I said specifically the hardware was outdone. For one, the Japanese/Koreans make far better screens and disk drives. Samsung and Sony for example. Also, take a look at the kind of laptops they use in Japan, and you'll see why they are so far superior in hardware quality, limited only by their OS. Try Dynamism.com, and ignore the prices; that's because they are pretty much the only importers to the US and have a monopoly on the import market, so they can jack up the price alot more than they would in Japan. Toshiba and Panasonic are particularly good examples of superior hardware.


Well, above I explained why I believe they are not in that market segment and why the Mini sucks. Particularly, the cost to make and buy is too high because it uses laptop parts instead of desktop parts, because that would make it "big and unsightly," even though it would put price/performance back into proportion. The Mini is an anachronistic attempt to make an entry-level computer.

You appear to have limited knowledge/experience with windows-based PCs as well as the automotive industry. You should do a little more research before blindly supporting 90% of Apple's decisions, i.e. why everyone who whines here needs a Mac Pro when price vs. performance wise in the prosumer segment it doesn't make sense and is a totally unreasonable choice.

Most can. The universe is not shrinking, for example. Just state the opposite of the positive, or something mutually exclusive. If you prove one side, and you've proved the other. Maybe that's cheating. Hee, hee.




Well, I'd do it that way too, but there are stories of successful companies that spend nothing on market research. The owner understands the market well enough, and makes all the marketing decisions.




I've been asking myself that question for years now!




I've given a reasonable proof, but you don't accept it. The Windows mini tower sells quite well, so a Mac mini tower should also. I contend that hardware preferences of Mac users is essentially the same as Windows users. You see it differently.

You say that on the Windows side there is no compelling alternative . . . an equivalent of the iMac. I say it is not there because there is insufficient market for the AIO. That is why I said the iMac is not mainstream.

Sure there is more of a Mac market for an AIO. It has been around for years now. On the Windows side, if one company were to push an AIO like Apple does, it would sell about like the iMac, I expect. Why isn't anyone doing it? The market is not big enough to tempt an HP or Dell.

We are at an impasse here, so the whole discussion is deadlocked. Neither of us will budge on this point.



I really like it, especially since the redesign. and I'll probably get one some day. Right now it is not high on my priority list. I actually can afford it, but I also just paid for a cruise to Alaska, which put a dent in the wallet. We're leaving Thursday for Vancouver to board. So we've got to wind down the discussion.

The nice thing about opinions - one can be completely convicted of them - and by them.

Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.

And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.

You apparently don't personally know any of the posters here and could not know what their needs or wants truly are.

The comment above has to be one of the most condescending arrogant posts I've ever seen in the years I've visited Appleinsider.

I think there are users who definitely have a unique need that is best filled by a mid range tower which Apple currently do not offer. I hope Apple will release one to satisfy these users.

Having said that, I do see other vendors moving towards AIOs a la iMac. I believe that they see that most users, or at least many users, have needs that are well served by such machines. How they end up selling is anyones guess. The fact that they offer them suggests to me that there is a a bigger demand than what you think exists. I suspect they are more than niche machines. I think many buyers are simply conditioned to buy a tower over an AIO computer even though they would be better served by an AIO. My parents are a good example.

Personally I think that towers are for serious work stations (Mac Pro) and enthusiasts (x Mac). Everyone else is best served by the iMac and mini. IMO.

They don't sell because they are very poorly designed and the components are usually poor quality to help keep the cost at a price point that PC users are accustomed to. By doing this their products are nothing short of crap. That is why they don't sell.

Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.

I would tend to agree, however The All In Ones that are being sold are currently a little too high end in both feature and price for most users and the prosumers who aid entry level users in their purchases are almost exclusively using windows towers.


I agree, but value is a subjective term. In both the higher end family market and the workstation market, Apple provides great value. When it comes to the entry level market, and the prosumer market, Apple doesn't provide much value at all. Compared to similar entry level PCs, the Mini is more expensive has a much smaller hard drive and the entry level model still has a combo drive. In the Prosumer market, to get a machine that gives me the same capability that my B&W G3 did Back in 1999, I have to spend $500 more. Keep in mind that component costs have been nearly cut in half during that time. To those who bought the G4 and G5 PowerMacs for $1299, this is even worse. During those days you could have a machine with a fast CPU, plenty of expansion, and a high end CPU for the the workstation class Mac Pro starts at.

Well I don't really follow how the pc vendors are pricing their AIOs. If they are pricing them high that's good for Apple.

You make a good point about how prosumers steer buyers towards towers. I'll bet most of these users would be better served by AIOs. Again the 'deck is stacked' against AIOs.

Sony, Dell, and HP price their all in ones the stratosphere. But I am mainly talking about Apple here. The all in one form factor is more for family users who really aren't tech savvy and the inherent drawbacks really aren't all that bad (unless they have a DVD camcorder). The pricing however and power of the machine is rather high for them though. To go from a $600 celeron machine to a $1200 core 2 duo machine is quite the jump in both price and performance. Rather than the Mini which is pretty much only good for setting size records, they would be better off with a modern version of the eMac.


From being a prosumer and having an aluminum iMac I can say this is definitely not the case. From the lack of front ports to the slot loading notebook DVD drive to the lack of RAM expansion I find it very frustrating at times. The iMac is a machine for people who want reasonable power while being set up and go. This contradicts with prosumers who want power and flexibility which the iMac has very little. I have to say that the only reason I bought this over a machine from Velocity Micro is Mac OS X. I find windows even more frustrating than all in ones.

The iMac isn't for prosumers. I think I've confused you with my previous post. I think most casual computer users are best served by a mini or an iMac. Both are very capable for this kind of user. Contrary to your opinion I think the mini is a fine machine for many users. Hell if you don't game it's more than likely all the power you'll need. It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.

I completely agree


The Mini is a good machine, but it gets held back by the laptop hard drive. If It were slightly larger and held a 3.5" drive it would be a fantastic machine. Apple took a few too many turns on the wrench to see how small they could make it.

Oh? The iMac is great for power users who don't need PCI expansion. That amounts to MOST power users. The iMac's specs are as good as those of the stratospheric workstations of 2 years ago, and, in most cases, the use-cases of power users haven't changed that much since then.

I think you'd be surprised to find just how much stuff gets designed on laptops. Even laptop HD's, which seem to be a point of discontention, don't really hold much back if you've put enough memory in it (which would seem to be an apt choice for a power user). The iMac is at least as powerful a tool as any laptop.



Also, still no takers on the home-brew CheapMac. I'm serious about this. If you guys really want an affordable, decent looking mac desktop, the best way is to design your own. I'm told it can be done.