They could, but then more pros would buy iMacs. Really, the monitor's nice, the machine's fast enough for publishing and 2D work, or even audio (as long as you don't require PCI).
This is an artificial limitation imposed by a certain supplier. Once we have a CPU family that scales up steadily and reliably, Apple will have much more to work with than they currently do. They'll still gimp lower-line machines somewhat - it seems to be a longstanding tradition in Cupertino - but they can at least do it in homage to the Performa, not to avoid embarrassing their professional line.
As for BTO being easier to update: Yeah, but you get to pick any two of: cheap, quiet, small, reliable; manufacturing costs go up, because integrated chipsets are significantly cheaper; manufacturing logistics get more complicated; and performance can go down as well, at least in budget systems. If you want to know what Dell spends their half-billion R&D budget on, this is it: Making BTO cost effective.
The Cube should be as faithful to the original model as possible, because the original model captivated everyone who saw it, and really showed what a professional creative workstation could be like. What it needs, more than anything else (including, say, a more standard 7" AGP slot or more accessible ports) is a clearly defined market and a sane price. Had Apple been just a bit smarter, the Cube would have taken over design and publishing, and even started making inroads into audio (the shortage of FW-savvy products would have hurt initially, but if it had been popular enough that problem would have solved itself).
They had a decent price before they killed it, it could have been a bit better. As for taking over publishing, I agree. The company that I work for was planning on buying Cubes for most of the design and production computers in their next upgrade cycle, but the economic conditions held that purchas up about 4 months too late. That would have been over 30 Cubes. As for the iMacs, the 17" computers do make a compelling design/production computer. I still wouldnt want one to work on every day, especially with a pallet heavy app like InDesign, but it is a very affordable, and capable computer for the job. I still much prefer a 20" + display. I think that the benefits on the extra screen realistate saves time in the long run. A harsh reality though is that production costs pressures are taking a bite out of profitability, as is globalization. The industry is looking into India as a source for low cost production work, printing is bieng sent overseas more and more, and the US cant competer with the prices of these labor markets today.
Comments
Had Apple been just a bit smarter, the Cube would have taken over design and publishing, and even started making inroads into audio
(Lament...)
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
They could, but then more pros would buy iMacs. Really, the monitor's nice, the machine's fast enough for publishing and 2D work, or even audio (as long as you don't require PCI).
This is an artificial limitation imposed by a certain supplier. Once we have a CPU family that scales up steadily and reliably, Apple will have much more to work with than they currently do. They'll still gimp lower-line machines somewhat - it seems to be a longstanding tradition in Cupertino - but they can at least do it in homage to the Performa, not to avoid embarrassing their professional line.
As for BTO being easier to update: Yeah, but you get to pick any two of: cheap, quiet, small, reliable; manufacturing costs go up, because integrated chipsets are significantly cheaper; manufacturing logistics get more complicated; and performance can go down as well, at least in budget systems. If you want to know what Dell spends their half-billion R&D budget on, this is it: Making BTO cost effective.
The Cube should be as faithful to the original model as possible, because the original model captivated everyone who saw it, and really showed what a professional creative workstation could be like. What it needs, more than anything else (including, say, a more standard 7" AGP slot or more accessible ports) is a clearly defined market and a sane price. Had Apple been just a bit smarter, the Cube would have taken over design and publishing, and even started making inroads into audio (the shortage of FW-savvy products would have hurt initially, but if it had been popular enough that problem would have solved itself).
They had a decent price before they killed it, it could have been a bit better. As for taking over publishing, I agree. The company that I work for was planning on buying Cubes for most of the design and production computers in their next upgrade cycle, but the economic conditions held that purchas up about 4 months too late. That would have been over 30 Cubes. As for the iMacs, the 17" computers do make a compelling design/production computer. I still wouldnt want one to work on every day, especially with a pallet heavy app like InDesign, but it is a very affordable, and capable computer for the job. I still much prefer a 20" + display. I think that the benefits on the extra screen realistate saves time in the long run. A harsh reality though is that production costs pressures are taking a bite out of profitability, as is globalization. The industry is looking into India as a source for low cost production work, printing is bieng sent overseas more and more, and the US cant competer with the prices of these labor markets today.