I have often wondered if apple was working on a home server product and this product could potentially fill that niche. Waht touch of this thinking was the family liscense for the Mac OS. Although it is not MacOSX Server what home would need all of the features of Server. Maybe A Server "Lite" version of the OS coupled with this product makes the family OS Liscense make more sense to a lot more families.
I think really there are two different trains of thought here. One group wants a per-say headless iMac (pizza box) the other wants to add more computational power to an existing system.
What if a new line of Apple computers could cover both. Like master and slave pizza boxes. If they ran real cool, you could stack them in a section of your desk or have a special Apple rack for them. Maybe the slave nodes only go in the rack that can be tucked away unseen, and there is just one connector between the rack and slave to deliver power and networking (if you don't need the rack is does come with an adapter). This way they are small enough to add around the house. I think a 17" pizza box slab would be perfect, you would have plenty of room in that case, lets not squeez the death out of it.
A total distributed network in your house.
Maybe they would need blue tooth for remote functions ( if it were in the stereo rack, or next to a tv).
ETA>>>I almost forgot. A master could also attach directly to the back of any Apple display.
I don't see server nodes for the home. I do see a slim component-like computer, especially with the adoption of HDTV, though that would only be an option, you could run said computer in a tradional desktop with regular monitor etc etc...
One interesting possibility of iBook like mini-slabs is expansion.
If I'm not mistaken, PCI-Express can be carried inexpensively over a small plug with all the two way bandwidth of an internal slot.
If that's true, you can break the "computer" itself into "components"
The main unit would always be self contained (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, Optical, and I/O) but you would just plug in an identical looking drive module for extra drives, or expansion module for extra "cards" like a newer/specialized GPU, audio processing, even secondary CPU's!
They might even 'click' together like lego -- no wires at all!
One iBook-like slab is small, but two or three identical slabs stacked together is still quite tiny by desktop standards.
Now the system would be whatever you needed, and you only buy as much "system" (as many modules) as you need for your purposes.
I don't see server nodes for the home. I do see a slim component-like computer, especially with the adoption of HDTV, though that would only be an option, you could run said computer in a tradional desktop with regular monitor etc etc...
One interesting possibility of iBook like mini-slabs is expansion.
If I'm not mistaken, PCI-Express can be carried inexpensively over a small plug with all the two way bandwidth of an internal slot.
If that's true, you can break the "computer" itself into "components"
The main unit would always be self contained (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, Optical, and I/O) but you would just plug in an identical looking drive module for extra drives, or expansion module for extra "cards" like a newer/specialized GPU, audio processing, even secondary CPU's!
I really see the uMac as a kind of a headless iMac/iBook crossover with a little xServe and yet unseen HDTV software thrown in. Principal characteristic: cheapness, so it can be deployed to any use without thinking about cost.
The market for this is tech-savvy people & home-sized businesses who want a zero-maintenance solution to a range of small but real problems. Not a small niche by any means.
uMac does not need more processing power or expansion (besides memory/HD upgrades), since it's not a "desktop workstation" nor a "computing server" - Powermacs and xServes are, respectively. There is nothing in Apple's lineup that this competes with directly. eMac and xServe are closest in spirit, eMac in technology, iBook in form factor.
If it were possible to configure the uMac from the Apple Store without optical drive, that would cut cost even further and release the drive bay for second Serial ATA drive.
Ideally the uMac could be configured to serve most of its intended roles without ever attaching it to a screen, and so that the installation as a (for example) file server would still only be a few mouseclicks and a passphrase away, Apple style.
I think the wires should go into the back so it could go in a desk w/o wire being everywhere and also the CD thingy should be in the front... I hope Jobs is reading this ;-)
With the exception of the eight or so that Apple might sell to the people in this thread, I don't see any market for this whatsoever. Basically it boils down to either a laptop with no screen and no battery, or an underpowered desktop with no expansion and a weak videocard. Not a lot of market for either of these.
If we learned anything from the The Cube it is this: when it comes to desktops smaller isn't better. If you make it smaller you have to either 1) limit its power and expandability or 2) try to jam a lot of power & expansion into a small package, which drives up the price (remember how shocked people were at the price of the Cube? The small size made little difference)
I think I know what you're going for. You think stripping down a laptop will give you a small, cheap Mac. And it will. But people who want cheap don't necessarily care if it's small. In fact, when price is the big concern, people just shop eBay.
Honestly, I'm willing to bet that of the eight or so people here who say they'd buy one, six would change their minds before their credit card was halfway out of it's holster. "Hmmm....so for $199 more I can get an all-in-one eMac, with a new monitor and built-in speakers..."
If you read my post on the Master/slave idea, you would see that the slaves could be used with the master but could also be used with other Macs.
Now I did not make clear enough the idea of a slave. There would be two different flavors of slave. The first would be for pure added CPU power shared by all compatible macs on the system. You would not need firewire, USB, optical drive, video, or audio. If designed right this slave wouldn't even need a hard drive. Just RAM, multiple CPU's and a GigE connection or two.
The second slave would be an AV slave in a stereo rack or next to the TV. Still no need for USB/Firewire. This one would have no hard drive either. The Idea is that you eliminated things that are redundent and not needed. The AV version could use bluetooth for wireless KB&M for
direct direct control, or it could be remotely controlled from another Mac on the system, or basic functions could be put in a simple remote control device. And these devices could also add extra CPU cycles to the overall network.
This is a radical idea, but the foundations of the technology already exists. It takes a company who can Think Different and take a chance
and show us how to do it right.
With the Technologies that are about to be released this year, you might see in the future, user replacable video cards on Laptops and AIO's. PCI-E will allow for this, because, it allows for designs not imaginable with other PCI/AGP flavours. Video cards will be able to take different forms. It takes a company who can Think Different and take a chance and show us how to do it right.
That company is Apple. If any company can do it it is Apple.
The whole House concept is just starting to take shape, I hope and pray that Apple can see that.
And, why do you say "without restrictions?" A PowerBook is without restrictions. A slab-like desktop is with restrictions - you can't use it on a plane or on your lap because you have to use an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse.
The market for primary computing devices is pretty saturated. Really everybody who wants one - has one already. Prices are already low. In case no one has noticed, Apple really isn't doing terribly well in increasing market share of these monsters. If Apple wants market share - it is better off if it looks to new markets. Or even better, *creates* entirely new ones.
The primary comupting device market is stale - margins are razor thin. Customers are obsessed with numbers and less obsessed with the quality of the experience. This market is also dominated by Windows machines which puts Apple at a disadvantage despite having better technology.
The idea behind this uMac proposal is to create a new market. A secondary computer. (not a primary) - small, cheap devices, capable of multiple functions, but cheap enough for dedicated use. With the right price point and the right set of functions it is possible to envisiage homes buying 2-4 units and offices buying tens of these items to serve specific goals.
This is a new market, and Apple is much better placed to take advantage of it than others. Rendezvous, Airport Extreme, proper Bluetooth, Superdrive and Firwire are all technologies which would aid developing this market.
A couple of years ago - if someone had proposed a tiny laptop which has no keyboard, no monitor, and just runs a cut-down version of iTunes I am sure people would have mocked it. But the iPod is precisely such a device. And it should be noted that this "limited" device has contributed to Apple's profitability.
I used to have 3 PCs. One for the office. One at home and a laptop for travelling. I switched just like the campaign said - and got myself a Powerbook. Which takes the place of all three!
One nice functional Apple laptop serves *all* my primary computing needs. So I don't need any more primary computer. G5- too big - too loud - don't need it. iMac- what would I want one for?
But I do like to run an always-on mailserver in my house. Currently that is a gigantic P90 box which used to be my Office server. A uMac would be a welcome replacement for that. Probably save money on the Electicity bill.
I use a TiVo - but a uMac PVR would be a lot more useful - because I could program it remotely - and record shows to DVD. An Emac would look stupid underneath my TV.
I have all my music in digital form - but the one place I can't listen to it - is on my home theater - because there is no box sitting there which holds my collection and is easily accessible. A G5 Powermac would not be a good choice for this role.
Other members of my family use a collection of hand-me-down PCs - but uMacs would be better because it would save me the pain of configuring multiple configurations. No, I don't want an Emac. They are huge. And I don't want an iMac because I already own some nice TFT monitors.
In an office context the possibilites are even greater...
Imagine a dedicated iChat station in the board room for video conferencing.
uMacs would make excellent intranet webservers or mailservers.
In my office we often find ourselves wanting to dedicate a utility machine to a specfic task. Whether that be fax server, or shared scanning machine - or machine which has a bunch of hard drives for an daily quick backup.
So forget primary - Dell has won already. Big heavy Dinosaurs. Will go extinct. Think secondary. Think subversive. Tiny agile mammals. That's the future.
Carniphage, I gotta say, you might think you're droppin' science but your uMac has been proposed ad infinitum on AI and elsewhere. So far Apple hasn't shown any interest in a headless iMac, no matter what the form factor.
I like this idea of a uMac and I'd definitely buy at least a couple for all the reasons people have given here.
The arguments back and forth remind me of what people thought about computers back in the 60's and 70's. There were many that said the entire world only needs about 8-10 networked supercomputers to handle the computing workload. Yeah, that worked out.
I think the next frontier is in local area networks. Right now, most people can only envision two or three computers in their home/office and don't see a use for any more. I can see a day coming where tens of small utility computers will surpass the need for primary "workstation" computers. Most computer users don't even begin to use the power potential of their workstation computers. Aside from sheer processing power, there are savings from space, power conservation (multiple 300W+ computers really jack up the power bill), not to mention cost. We still have supercomputers, but personal computers have taken over the world. No doubt we'll continue to need powerful workstations, but the same revolution is coming, this time in LANs.
If Apple goes with something like this, I see them pre-configuring uMacs into general areas of use and leaving them extensible within those uses.
uMac A/V (with inputs and outputs for HDTV, digital audio, etc.)
uMac Data (small servers, storage, firewalls, routers, etc.)
uMac Console (basic workstation usage)
Hmm, "extensible computing" has a nice sound to it, or maybe I'm just using up my geek points for the day.
I think the next frontier is in local area networks. Right now, most people can only envision two or three computers in their home/office and don't see a use for any more. I can see a day coming where tens of small utility computers will surpass the need for primary "workstation" computers. Most computer users don't even begin to use the power potential of their workstation computers. Aside from sheer processing power, there are savings from space, power conservation (multiple 300W+ computers really jack up the power bill), not to mention cost. We still have supercomputers, but personal computers have taken over the world. No doubt we'll continue to need powerful workstations, but the same revolution is coming, this time in LANs.
...
uMac A/V (with inputs and outputs for HDTV, digital audio, etc.)
uMac Data (small servers, storage, firewalls, routers, etc.)
uMac Console (basic workstation usage)
This is pretty much what I'm talking about, except it's evolution not revolution. A home appliance (like a VCR) has always been a computer. When it reaches a certain level of sophistication, it's easier to build on a multipurpose platform, possibly with dedicated hardware components, instead of 100% dedicated hardware. Then the characteristics of multipurpose computers (networking, fast/experimental software development) bring out new ways of use and start changing the expectations people have for the device. All this is gradual, not a revolution. The uMac's point is that currently no one is selling an "appliance computer" designed as such. Hobbyists either use old PC tower wrecks or spend quite a bit more money on building mini-PC boxes from new parts.
I am curious about the psychology here. This is a $500 Mac made with an iBook body, and the response is mostly enthusiastic approval. Previous threads about Apple offering a low-end Mac in this price range have been met with disdain from half the replies. "It will kill sales of more profitable Macs," is probably the biggest of the many, many objections to a low-end Mac without monitor. Yet here is the uMac receiving so much praise! A bad idea becomes good if Apple makes it cute? I'm just asking critics of all the previous proposals for a low-end Mac.
In my opinion, the idea of Apple selling a small, low-cost, dedicated utility Mac is good, but nobody took it seriously until Carniphage suggested using an iBook body. Well, if it took a sleek look to sell the idea -- good going Carniphage! Personally, I think it should be a little bigger and use standard components, more like danko's graphics.
Right now, Apple covers the need of a typical computer user reasonably well. Also, the very high end market is looking good. Why relinquish the utility computer market to the Intel PC? If Apple had such a Mac, there would be a Mac for almost every possible use, and the Mac platform would be taken more seriously. Now, only the Intel PC covers all the bases.
I am curious about the psychology here. This is a $500 Mac made with an iBook body, and the response is mostly enthusiastic approval. Previous threads about Apple offering a low-end Mac in this price range have been met with disdain from half the replies. "It will kill sales of more profitable Macs," is probably the biggest of the many, many objections to a low-end Mac without monitor. Yet here is the uMac receiving so much praise! A bad idea becomes good if Apple makes it cute? I'm just asking critics of all the previous proposals for a low-end Mac.
In my opinion, the idea of Apple selling a small, low-cost, dedicated utility Mac is good, but nobody took it seriously until Carniphage suggested using an iBook body. Well, if it took a sleek look to sell the idea -- good going Carniphage! Personally, I think it should be a little bigger and use standard components, more like danko's graphics.
Right now, Apple covers the need of a typical computer user reasonably well. Also, the very high end market is looking good. Why relinquish the utility computer market to the Intel PC? If Apple had such a Mac, there would be a Mac for almost every possible use, and the Mac platform would be taken more seriously. Now, only the Intel PC covers all the bases.
No, I don't want the ibook body, I want the frame bigger like the 17" PB. I could stand to be a touch thicker and have thicker rubber feet on the bottom so they could be stackable.
Comments
Originally posted by danko
imagine iPod connectivity thrue bluetooth!! but that is a different story...
Well I wouldn't be too thrilled. Bluetooth is only 768Kbit, about 12 times slower than USB 1.1 and 500 times slower than Firewire..
Originally posted by Smircle
Well I wouldn't be too thrilled. Bluetooth is only 768Kbit, about 12 times slower than USB 1.1 and 500 times slower than Firewire..
Now, make that iPod syncing over 802.15 ("wireless firewire") and you're talking. 8)
What if a new line of Apple computers could cover both. Like master and slave pizza boxes. If they ran real cool, you could stack them in a section of your desk or have a special Apple rack for them. Maybe the slave nodes only go in the rack that can be tucked away unseen, and there is just one connector between the rack and slave to deliver power and networking (if you don't need the rack is does come with an adapter). This way they are small enough to add around the house. I think a 17" pizza box slab would be perfect, you would have plenty of room in that case, lets not squeez the death out of it.
A total distributed network in your house.
Maybe they would need blue tooth for remote functions ( if it were in the stereo rack, or next to a tv).
ETA>>>I almost forgot. A master could also attach directly to the back of any Apple display.
One interesting possibility of iBook like mini-slabs is expansion.
If I'm not mistaken, PCI-Express can be carried inexpensively over a small plug with all the two way bandwidth of an internal slot.
If that's true, you can break the "computer" itself into "components"
The main unit would always be self contained (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, Optical, and I/O) but you would just plug in an identical looking drive module for extra drives, or expansion module for extra "cards" like a newer/specialized GPU, audio processing, even secondary CPU's!
They might even 'click' together like lego -- no wires at all!
One iBook-like slab is small, but two or three identical slabs stacked together is still quite tiny by desktop standards.
Now the system would be whatever you needed, and you only buy as much "system" (as many modules) as you need for your purposes.
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't see server nodes for the home. I do see a slim component-like computer, especially with the adoption of HDTV, though that would only be an option, you could run said computer in a tradional desktop with regular monitor etc etc...
One interesting possibility of iBook like mini-slabs is expansion.
If I'm not mistaken, PCI-Express can be carried inexpensively over a small plug with all the two way bandwidth of an internal slot.
If that's true, you can break the "computer" itself into "components"
The main unit would always be self contained (CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, Optical, and I/O) but you would just plug in an identical looking drive module for extra drives, or expansion module for extra "cards" like a newer/specialized GPU, audio processing, even secondary CPU's!
I really see the uMac as a kind of a headless iMac/iBook crossover with a little xServe and yet unseen HDTV software thrown in. Principal characteristic: cheapness, so it can be deployed to any use without thinking about cost.
The market for this is tech-savvy people & home-sized businesses who want a zero-maintenance solution to a range of small but real problems. Not a small niche by any means.
uMac does not need more processing power or expansion (besides memory/HD upgrades), since it's not a "desktop workstation" nor a "computing server" - Powermacs and xServes are, respectively. There is nothing in Apple's lineup that this competes with directly. eMac and xServe are closest in spirit, eMac in technology, iBook in form factor.
If it were possible to configure the uMac from the Apple Store without optical drive, that would cut cost even further and release the drive bay for second Serial ATA drive.
Ideally the uMac could be configured to serve most of its intended roles without ever attaching it to a screen, and so that the installation as a (for example) file server would still only be a few mouseclicks and a passphrase away, Apple style.
Originally posted by Carniphage
I think the wires should go into the back so it could go in a desk w/o wire being everywhere and also the CD thingy should be in the front... I hope Jobs is reading this ;-)
If we learned anything from the The Cube it is this: when it comes to desktops smaller isn't better. If you make it smaller you have to either 1) limit its power and expandability or 2) try to jam a lot of power & expansion into a small package, which drives up the price (remember how shocked people were at the price of the Cube? The small size made little difference)
I think I know what you're going for. You think stripping down a laptop will give you a small, cheap Mac. And it will. But people who want cheap don't necessarily care if it's small. In fact, when price is the big concern, people just shop eBay.
Honestly, I'm willing to bet that of the eight or so people here who say they'd buy one, six would change their minds before their credit card was halfway out of it's holster. "Hmmm....so for $199 more I can get an all-in-one eMac, with a new monitor and built-in speakers..."
Just my $0.02
Originally posted by Michael Grey
Just my $0.02
Thanks for your two cents.
If you read my post on the Master/slave idea, you would see that the slaves could be used with the master but could also be used with other Macs.
Now I did not make clear enough the idea of a slave. There would be two different flavors of slave. The first would be for pure added CPU power shared by all compatible macs on the system. You would not need firewire, USB, optical drive, video, or audio. If designed right this slave wouldn't even need a hard drive. Just RAM, multiple CPU's and a GigE connection or two.
The second slave would be an AV slave in a stereo rack or next to the TV. Still no need for USB/Firewire. This one would have no hard drive either. The Idea is that you eliminated things that are redundent and not needed. The AV version could use bluetooth for wireless KB&M for
direct direct control, or it could be remotely controlled from another Mac on the system, or basic functions could be put in a simple remote control device. And these devices could also add extra CPU cycles to the overall network.
This is a radical idea, but the foundations of the technology already exists. It takes a company who can Think Different and take a chance
and show us how to do it right.
With the Technologies that are about to be released this year, you might see in the future, user replacable video cards on Laptops and AIO's. PCI-E will allow for this, because, it allows for designs not imaginable with other PCI/AGP flavours. Video cards will be able to take different forms. It takes a company who can Think Different and take a chance and show us how to do it right.
That company is Apple. If any company can do it it is Apple.
The whole House concept is just starting to take shape, I hope and pray that Apple can see that.
"Mobility without restrictions unleashed."
And, why do you say "without restrictions?" A PowerBook is without restrictions. A slab-like desktop is with restrictions - you can't use it on a plane or on your lap because you have to use an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse.
The primary comupting device market is stale - margins are razor thin. Customers are obsessed with numbers and less obsessed with the quality of the experience. This market is also dominated by Windows machines which puts Apple at a disadvantage despite having better technology.
The idea behind this uMac proposal is to create a new market. A secondary computer. (not a primary) - small, cheap devices, capable of multiple functions, but cheap enough for dedicated use. With the right price point and the right set of functions it is possible to envisiage homes buying 2-4 units and offices buying tens of these items to serve specific goals.
This is a new market, and Apple is much better placed to take advantage of it than others. Rendezvous, Airport Extreme, proper Bluetooth, Superdrive and Firwire are all technologies which would aid developing this market.
A couple of years ago - if someone had proposed a tiny laptop which has no keyboard, no monitor, and just runs a cut-down version of iTunes I am sure people would have mocked it. But the iPod is precisely such a device. And it should be noted that this "limited" device has contributed to Apple's profitability.
I used to have 3 PCs. One for the office. One at home and a laptop for travelling. I switched just like the campaign said - and got myself a Powerbook. Which takes the place of all three!
One nice functional Apple laptop serves *all* my primary computing needs. So I don't need any more primary computer. G5- too big - too loud - don't need it. iMac- what would I want one for?
But I do like to run an always-on mailserver in my house. Currently that is a gigantic P90 box which used to be my Office server. A uMac would be a welcome replacement for that. Probably save money on the Electicity bill.
I use a TiVo - but a uMac PVR would be a lot more useful - because I could program it remotely - and record shows to DVD. An Emac would look stupid underneath my TV.
I have all my music in digital form - but the one place I can't listen to it - is on my home theater - because there is no box sitting there which holds my collection and is easily accessible. A G5 Powermac would not be a good choice for this role.
Other members of my family use a collection of hand-me-down PCs - but uMacs would be better because it would save me the pain of configuring multiple configurations. No, I don't want an Emac. They are huge. And I don't want an iMac because I already own some nice TFT monitors.
In an office context the possibilites are even greater...
Imagine a dedicated iChat station in the board room for video conferencing.
uMacs would make excellent intranet webservers or mailservers.
In my office we often find ourselves wanting to dedicate a utility machine to a specfic task. Whether that be fax server, or shared scanning machine - or machine which has a bunch of hard drives for an daily quick backup.
So forget primary - Dell has won already. Big heavy Dinosaurs. Will go extinct. Think secondary. Think subversive. Tiny agile mammals. That's the future.
C.
The arguments back and forth remind me of what people thought about computers back in the 60's and 70's. There were many that said the entire world only needs about 8-10 networked supercomputers to handle the computing workload. Yeah, that worked out.
I think the next frontier is in local area networks. Right now, most people can only envision two or three computers in their home/office and don't see a use for any more. I can see a day coming where tens of small utility computers will surpass the need for primary "workstation" computers. Most computer users don't even begin to use the power potential of their workstation computers. Aside from sheer processing power, there are savings from space, power conservation (multiple 300W+ computers really jack up the power bill), not to mention cost. We still have supercomputers, but personal computers have taken over the world. No doubt we'll continue to need powerful workstations, but the same revolution is coming, this time in LANs.
If Apple goes with something like this, I see them pre-configuring uMacs into general areas of use and leaving them extensible within those uses.
uMac A/V (with inputs and outputs for HDTV, digital audio, etc.)
uMac Data (small servers, storage, firewalls, routers, etc.)
uMac Console (basic workstation usage)
Hmm, "extensible computing" has a nice sound to it, or maybe I'm just using up my geek points for the day.
Comments? Rebuttal?
Originally posted by sunrein
I think the next frontier is in local area networks. Right now, most people can only envision two or three computers in their home/office and don't see a use for any more. I can see a day coming where tens of small utility computers will surpass the need for primary "workstation" computers. Most computer users don't even begin to use the power potential of their workstation computers. Aside from sheer processing power, there are savings from space, power conservation (multiple 300W+ computers really jack up the power bill), not to mention cost. We still have supercomputers, but personal computers have taken over the world. No doubt we'll continue to need powerful workstations, but the same revolution is coming, this time in LANs.
...
uMac A/V (with inputs and outputs for HDTV, digital audio, etc.)
uMac Data (small servers, storage, firewalls, routers, etc.)
uMac Console (basic workstation usage)
This is pretty much what I'm talking about, except it's evolution not revolution. A home appliance (like a VCR) has always been a computer. When it reaches a certain level of sophistication, it's easier to build on a multipurpose platform, possibly with dedicated hardware components, instead of 100% dedicated hardware. Then the characteristics of multipurpose computers (networking, fast/experimental software development) bring out new ways of use and start changing the expectations people have for the device. All this is gradual, not a revolution. The uMac's point is that currently no one is selling an "appliance computer" designed as such. Hobbyists either use old PC tower wrecks or spend quite a bit more money on building mini-PC boxes from new parts.
In my opinion, the idea of Apple selling a small, low-cost, dedicated utility Mac is good, but nobody took it seriously until Carniphage suggested using an iBook body. Well, if it took a sleek look to sell the idea -- good going Carniphage! Personally, I think it should be a little bigger and use standard components, more like danko's graphics.
Right now, Apple covers the need of a typical computer user reasonably well. Also, the very high end market is looking good. Why relinquish the utility computer market to the Intel PC? If Apple had such a Mac, there would be a Mac for almost every possible use, and the Mac platform would be taken more seriously. Now, only the Intel PC covers all the bases.
Originally posted by snoopy
I am curious about the psychology here. This is a $500 Mac made with an iBook body, and the response is mostly enthusiastic approval. Previous threads about Apple offering a low-end Mac in this price range have been met with disdain from half the replies. "It will kill sales of more profitable Macs," is probably the biggest of the many, many objections to a low-end Mac without monitor. Yet here is the uMac receiving so much praise! A bad idea becomes good if Apple makes it cute? I'm just asking critics of all the previous proposals for a low-end Mac.
In my opinion, the idea of Apple selling a small, low-cost, dedicated utility Mac is good, but nobody took it seriously until Carniphage suggested using an iBook body. Well, if it took a sleek look to sell the idea -- good going Carniphage! Personally, I think it should be a little bigger and use standard components, more like danko's graphics.
Right now, Apple covers the need of a typical computer user reasonably well. Also, the very high end market is looking good. Why relinquish the utility computer market to the Intel PC? If Apple had such a Mac, there would be a Mac for almost every possible use, and the Mac platform would be taken more seriously. Now, only the Intel PC covers all the bases.
No, I don't want the ibook body, I want the frame bigger like the 17" PB. I could stand to be a touch thicker and have thicker rubber feet on the bottom so they could be stackable.