Component report pins MacBook overhaul for third quarter - Page 2

Originally Posted by allblue

The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.

Originally Posted by kb9uwu

BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.

Originally Posted by bobo28

Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.

Originally Posted by allblue

There is so much to admire about Apple, and watching the Jobs Plan for World Domination unfold is fascinating as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. However, they are ruthless at times. They know their market extremely well, and their desktop range shows this. The minis for entry level or second computer, the iMac for consumers and the pro range for professionals, and as the large majority of their customers fit into one of those broad categories it works well for both parties. However, if you sit in between two of those categories it is something of a dilemma, as is the case with me. I produce artwork on my aged (but beloved) G4 iMac, and could be described as a serious hobbyist/prosumer. What I do is for my own creative satisfaction, and for friends, and perhaps in time there may be some modest commercial possibilities with what I do. The top of the range iMac (which this was when I bought it) is the ideal machine for me, except that I really do not want a glossy screen, because accurate colour is essential to my work. On the other hand, I really cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro and decent monitor so I am stuck betwixt and between, hence by default my trusty G4 has to keep trundling away.

I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.

Originally Posted by Macd-to-death

I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.

Originally Posted by paxman

...the kind of people who upgrade their computers are also the ones that hang out in places like this (forums) and complain...

But, seriously, how many of the millions of Apple and PC users upgrade their computers beyond RAM and possibly a hard disk...

Originally Posted by MFago

We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.

The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...

Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!

Originally Posted by reallynotnick

The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability but it's power/price ratio.
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.

Originally Posted by zanshin

Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.

...The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.

Originally Posted by suhail

Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.

If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.

Originally Posted by Dunks

As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost.

Originally Posted by Dunks

But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault).

Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image.

Originally Posted by Dunks

Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by MFago

I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.

Originally Posted by Bowser

Let's put this all together, shall we?

Reason #1 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:


__________________________________________________ ________

Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.



If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
__________________________________________________ _________

Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
__________________________________________________ __________

Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



See comment #2 above.

If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.

If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.

Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.



Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.



Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.

The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.

Originally Posted by Dunks

As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts...

Originally Posted by aresee

Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?

Originally Posted by KD86

Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.

Originally Posted by Bowser

Let's put this all together, shall we?

If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.

If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.

Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.

The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.

As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).

Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.

A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).

Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

1. The mini is over priced and under powered.

2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.

3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.

4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000

5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000

Originally Posted by bsenka

Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

Originally Posted by aaple

Until software is more widely available for download and movies are available at faster speeds, I just don't see it. As it stands, to install most software, you would need either a second computer (which most users don't have) or an external optical drive (which is annoying). Again, I think it's coming, but not for a few years. No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?

Originally Posted by a_greer

Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER

Originally Posted by bsenka

Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

Sorry but you're seeing it wrong.

Originally Posted by Dunks

I felt my comments were logical. Care to clarify?

Originally Posted by aaple

95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Why is that?

Originally Posted by bsenka

I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.

Originally Posted by a_greer

1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.

2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.

4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates

OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER

Originally Posted by vinea

Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?

Originally Posted by a_greer

1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.

2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.

3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates

Originally Posted by bsenka

I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

Originally Posted by bsenka

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it at a fairer price, right? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than drop in a $50 USB 3 card?

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.

You Mac that?

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.


I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.

A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty

Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.

Originally Posted by Haggar

"AppleTV 1.0 was not what people wanted" - Steve Jobs

Originally Posted by delreyjones

I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!

Originally Posted by delreyjones

I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!