should apple sell a budget tower??
would apple benefit by selling a budget tower...basically a tower with the iMac's specs but without the screen...it would be upgradable, but a single instead of a dual...could apple, while maintaining it's PM price margins, make a tower for 1299?? and would people buy it if it only had a single lets say 933 chip inside?? or would apple prefer to have people just buy the iMac?? i was just thinking that my next purchase would probably be a 17" iMac for 2000....but if i could get a tower that is upgradable and a 17" flat screen for close to the same price i would do that (i love that 17" ACD)...the iMac is really fine for the work i do, so the specs are fine...but one day i want to be like the big boys and have a tower (being in the minority, i like the new tower's looks)...oh well, bottom tower isn;t really too far off in price and seems like a good deal (education price of 1549, plus 959 for 17" screen, minus 200 rebate= 2308...plus tax and then add some ram....of course then you want to up grade the graphics card, throw in this, throw in that.....maybe i'll stick to the iMacs 
).....g
).....g
Comments
I think the big question on this issue is the cost to Apple. Putting 2 CPU's on one daughter card is not going to double the overall cost of the daughter card. Doing the R&D on one daughter card instead of 2 is going to save Apple money. Could they sell enough single processor Macs to warrent the additional cost, and how much lower would they have to price them than the towers to maintain the two product catagories. Also to figure into this equation is how many converts, as opposed to current Mac users would this bring. I'm sure that Apple has done some market research into this, and that is influencing thier current offerings.
staying behind the curve is pretty much my motto for all consumer computer purchases though.
<strong>someone needing real power probably shouldn't be looking for budget tower anyhow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo.
I'm honestly curious... why do you want a tower format?
There are three things I see you can upgrade on a tower that you can't on an iMac:
1) CPU
2) Graphics Card
3) Additional PCI cards
#1 is exceedingly rare, even for tower owners.
#3 is exceedingly rare for the Mac community, due to basically everything being built in. (FW, Gigabit Ethernet, etc)
#2 is only really going to be attractive to hardcore gamers and graphics/video professionals.
If you're in those groups, then why are you even considering a low-end machine in the first place?
So I ask the question:
If *you* are in the market for a low-end budget tower from Apple... why? What makes the tower meet your needs better than an iMac? What makes a low-end machine meet your needs?
The addition of multiple (SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER) internal HDD's and Opticals WHEN I NEED THEM!
A generally much longer life to my investment thanks to the ability to add what I need/want when it becomes available/feasible.
Ease of repair/replacement of fault drives and cards.
Take USB2.0. Except for PM's all mac owners are SOL. You can say firewire if you want, but the fact is that a multitude of cheaper consumer devices will be on USB2.0 in greater quantity and at a better price. Maybe that doesn't matter to a pro, but a consumer likes the possibility of a wide selection of "affordable"
additions.
Maybe everyone's purpose in life is not to make sure Jobs and Co. make a ton of money.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
If *you* are in the market for a low-end budget tower from Apple... why? What makes the tower meet your needs better than an iMac? What makes a low-end machine meet your needs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because when I bought my iMac Quartz Extreme hadn't been announced.
Now that it has, I'm willing to spend some money to make my machine utilize it better.
I can't.
PowerBooks also have the ability to use USB 2.0.
<a href="http://www.bixnet.com/dualporusb20.html"; target="_blank">http://www.bixnet.com/dualporusb20.html</a>;
I know it's not the greatest conselation, but you also have to remember that Firewire is Apple's technology and therefore they are going to push it. Now is the time where Firewire is either going to become a standard or yesterday's news and manufacturers might see Apple's including of USB 2.0 on it's machines as a lack of confidence.
As for cheap towers, I'd love to be able to go out and buy a 1 GHz G4 tower for $1000 but I know it's not going to happen. We've seen Apple's prices for a long time and I doubt you're going to see them change either.
Now that it has, I'm willing to spend some money to make my machine utilize it better.
I can't.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, but you knew this going in that with the iMac that the graphics card was not upgradeable. The same thing is true with my Pismo- the card is not upgradeable.
The machines that are going to last the longest are the towers, yes. But if you want to have the luxury of being able to upgrade your machine, you need to shell out the extra money. That's just the way it is.
no Hard drive
no CD drive
no video card
no RAM
Essentially, shipping an Apple motherboard with a CD of OS 10.2. Let users configure it how they want it to be. Apple could probably charge higher margins for letting users configure their machines how they want them to be.
I can't see Jobs doing this though. It is not something that can be run out of the box. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Bottom line is Apple will not likely sell consumer macs with the flexibility you are talking about because there is no margin in it and it would cannibalize the high end sales. $1699 isn't bad anyways for the enrty level PM. Or run quick and buy one of the old models before they are all cleared out. I think most places have them on deep discount right now. Good luck.
They said they think they can double marketshare and honestly I don't see how. But if the marketshare did double then Apple would have more flexibility to offer more expandable low end units.
It's interesting how the "Thin Client" PC ideology has died.
If I was looking for a budget tower, I'd be willing to pay an additional $500.00 or so for one of these.
<strong>If *you* are in the market for a low-end budget tower from Apple... why? What makes the tower meet your needs better than an iMac? What makes a low-end machine meet your needs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As Matsu mentioned, it's cheap and easy to add hard drive space to a tower. But most importantly, I get to keep my monitor. I love the new LCD iMacs, but not if I have to throw out a perfectly good LCD when I upgrade. Imagine buying a 17" widescreen LCD iMac and having to toss out that gorgeous display when you upgrade three or four years from now?
I won't mind throwing out the cheap CRT that came with my all-in-one iMac. But I would hate to throw out an FP iMac along with its LCD.
Escher
<strong>for someone looking to spend $1100 or under on a tower, I think it is better to find a good used once top-of-the-line system than to buy a budget tower (which apple does not offer). for $1100, anyone could probably nab at least a dual 500...someone needing real power probably shouldn't be looking for budget tower anyhow.
staying behind the curve is pretty much my motto for all consumer computer purchases though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So that I can get more value out of the investment that I made in a computer. I have a Cube at home. When I get another computer I dont want to get ride of my Cube, I will probably network it with my new computer. But would like it upgraded a little to take advantage of new technologies, particularly software technologies.
Quartz Etream is a good example, today the minimum supported card is a 16mb Radeon, next year it might be a 32, or even a 64 MB card. If I can upgrade the video system then I can keep up in this area. This is also important for Games, and game developers tend to push the limits of the graphics cards soon after they come out.
Then lets not forget connectivity. FireWire 2 and USB 2 are on the horizon, but are not yet in Mac's. It makes more sense to buy a $100-200 card to add this connectivity than to replace a $1000-2000 computer.
And finally, even if you dont want or need all the expansion capabilities of the tower, the ability to use your old display, or buy one the size you want is a compelling reason to purchase something other than an iMac. As a designer, I work on a 20" monitor. I have a 15" LCD at home, but dont do much design work on it. Looking at InDesign, with its plethora of floating pallets, I fell that the 20" monitor is too small for effectivly designing books. With an iMac you dont have true dual display capabilities (mirroring only as far as I know), and you cant get Svideo out (say to output your iMovies to a VCR for your friends and family who dont have a DVD), like you can on an ATI card. For this reason alone it makes sense to get a tower form factor over an iMac.
<strong>Isn't the current dual 867 is a budget tower? If I was looking for a budget tower, I'd be willing to pay an additional $500.00 or so for one of these.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. But some people, e.g. students and self-employed small business owners, might not be able to fit an additional $500 into their budget.
Staying behind the curve and buying old top-of-the-line hardware is certainly an option. But I think that buying a "brand new budget tower" would still be preferable.
Escher
<strong>it would be upgradable, but a single instead of a dual...could apple, while maintaining it's PM price margins, make a tower for 1299?? and would people buy it if it only had a single lets say 933 chip inside?? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually they do make one, and it's for education only. If I remember correctly it is a single 866 for about the price you listed (in the QS case though). With any luck it will make it to the main stream like the eMac
<strong>
Sure. But some people, e.g. students and self-employed small business owners, might not be able to fit an additional $500 into their budget.
Staying behind the curve and buying old top-of-the-line hardware is certainly an option. But I think that buying a "brand new budget tower" would still be preferable.
Escher</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is loosing potential revinue from their Apple Care program for every unqualifying old or refirbished computer sold, and this can be a huge source of revinue on computer that dont break down. Another thought is that Apple probably isnt making converts, or indeed any money off of systems that they sold 2 years ago, while they would be off of a new computer.
I agree a low-end tower should be sold for those who want to reuse monitors. That's about the only really valid point I see for the low-end tower. The expandability issue is still not too convincing to me, except for the video card issue, in which case you should be buying a more appropriate higher-end (and higher-priced) tower.
<strong>Apple sells a $1200 867. Education store.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I cant buy it, I dont qualify. And its not bieng advertised to the general public.