Even though the AIO is probably the best solution for most people, the problem is that most people don't think it is. People always think they'll want to upgrade their monitor later, or keep it around for the next computer, or worry that it might go South, leaving them with a useless computer. The fact that none of this ever comes to pass is irrelevant. And this is probably even worse in the non-geek crowd... the people for whom the AIO is especially good: They might like the simplicity of an AIO, but they ask their (PC-using?) geek friends for advice, and are resoundingly told to get everything separate. The geeks must know best, they think, so the newbie buys some bundle with separate, cheap components.
Apple shouldn't ditch the AIO iMac, or even the eMac, for that matter. The AIO machines should show off Apple's design flair and, particularly the iMac, should be highly desirable. However, there should be a headless machine alongside the AIOs to satisfy the majority of customers who think they need to get everything separately, regardless of which solution is actually best for them.
Plus, Apple could make the AIOs slightly cheaper than a bundled headless Mac and monitor with similar specs. Of course, that would assume they sell their AIOs at a reasonable price/performance level, which is certainly not the case right now.
While it's laudable that Apple tries to make what people really need, rather than what they think they need, they're missing out on tons of sales that way. And that's especially true when it comes to switchers... while you want to offer them something better than what they're used to, you don't want to force something totally alien down their throat, because they'll just choke and buy another Dell.
With Apple's focus on pricey LCDs, I don't want to HAVE to buy one, especially now. I want to upgrade my base unit and keep my current monitor. I'm one of those if it isn't broke, don't fix it kind of guys. I can afford to spend $1000 or so for a new base unit. I cannot afford to spend 1800, no matter how good a deal it it. It's that simple for me.
I think Apple makes awesome AIOs, they're called iBooks and PowerBooks. I fawned over iMac2 and considered getting one, but I personally can't get over the whole monitor comes and goes with the base unit deal. Like I said, I've had my 17" monitor for quite some time now. If I want to replace it with another 17" CRT that would cost <200. If the iMac3 is an AIO, I have to take what Apple gives me.
They may think they know what's right for me, but I'm the one making the decisions whether or not to spend the $$$.
I want to go totally Apple / OS X at home, especially now that I'm developing (free) Mac software. But, if they can't give me a reasonably priced headless G5 then I'm not buying. My PowerBook isn't a year old yet so it has a few more years to go before it's obsolete (to me).
IMO, Apple has a choice; either they can give me a headless G5 and get my $$$ next month or they can put out an AIO iMac3 and wait a few more years before they get any more $$$ from me.
Even though the AIO is probably the best solution for most people, the problem is that most people don't think it is. People always think they'll want to upgrade their monitor later, or keep it around for the next computer, or worry that it might go South, leaving them with a useless computer. The fact that none of this ever comes to pass is irrelevant. And this is probably even worse in the non-geek crowd... the people for whom the AIO is especially good: They might like the simplicity of an AIO, but they ask their (PC-using?) geek friends for advice, and are resoundingly told to get everything separate. The geeks must know best, they think, so the newbie buys some bundle with separate, cheap components.
This is what the Apple Stores are for: Bypass the geeks — who only know or care about what they want — let people see the machines and use them for themselves, ask any questions they have, and should the screen in their AIO die, they can bring it there to have it fixed or replaced.
By your own description, this is a win/win: Consumers learn that they can actually buy what they're inclined toward, they don't have to worry about irrelevant things, and they get a machine that's better tailored to what they need.
In a sense, you're saying that Apple should forget its design roots — because brilliant design is rooted absolutely in utility — and come up with some conventional crap that reinforces irrelevant and incorrect assumptions in the service of needless complexity. That's not Apple, it's condescending to consumers, and it would probably cost Apple dearly to be seen as no less complex, no more elegant, not obviously different than any other box maker.
Quote:
Apple shouldn't ditch the AIO iMac, or even the eMac, for that matter. The AIO machines should show off Apple's design flair and, particularly the iMac, should be highly desirable. However, there should be a headless machine alongside the AIOs to satisfy the majority of customers who think they need to get everything separately, regardless of which solution is actually best for them.
Again, think about this: You're asking Apple to abandon the whole premise they were founded on!
Quote:
While it's laudable that Apple tries to make what people really need, rather than what they think they need, they're missing out on tons of sales that way. And that's especially true when it comes to switchers... while you want to offer them something better than what they're used to, you don't want to force something totally alien down their throat, because they'll just choke and buy another Dell.
Perhaps. Personally, I think Apple loses far more in market share to fear of incompatibility, and to unfamiliarity than they do to having AIO machines. A headless machine would solve none of those problems.
And, finally, I can't really believe that people are demanding that a company not make the best product they can for a target market. People buy computers to use them. Usage is therefor the absolute #1 consideration in designing a computer. Any stupid myths that get in the way have to be dispelled, and the sooner the better. I don't believe most consumers really believe those myths anyway: They're all buying "desknotes".
I fawned over iMac2 and considered getting one, but I personally can't get over the whole monitor comes and goes with the base unit deal.
You and the 90%+ other personal computer buyers out there. It's simple. When your computer gets old, it doesn't mean the accompanying display does too. The display will probably still be good for another PC lifecycle, and you shouldn't be forced to get rid of it and buy a new one.
Personally, I think Apple loses far more in market share to fear of incompatibility, and to unfamiliarity than they do to having AIO machines. A headless machine would solve none of those problems.
This argument has no proof. Apple has not sold a headless system in a consumer price range since Steve Jobs' return. The cheapest headless system they've sold has been $1999 and at times $1799. They won't know what to expect unless they try... and with barely 3% marketshare, what do they have to lose?
And as a counter-argument to yours, I'd say that I personally know and heard of many PC users that would love to use OS X and get off Windows, but can't justify Apple's inferior, inflexible, overpriced hardware.
In a sense, you're saying that Apple should forget its design roots ? because brilliant design is rooted absolutely in utility ? and come up with some conventional crap that reinforces irrelevant and incorrect assumptions in the service of needless complexity. That's not Apple, it's condescending to consumers, and it would probably cost Apple dearly to be seen as no less complex, no more elegant, not obviously different than any other box maker.
I'm not saying they should make a typical beige box. They should still make it stylish, useful, and everything else Apple stands for.
However, if you're doing what you think is right, but the vast majority of the buying public aren't biting, maybe it's time to offer something they might be more inclined to buy. And while there are plenty of Mac users who want a headless consumer Mac, I'm talking mostly about switchers here. Apple needs to remove all barriers to entry that they possibly can. If that means making a cheap, powerful, and stylish (all relatively-speaking, BTW) headless machine, then great.
Once someone has joined the Apple fold, getting them onto the AIO that you think is better for them is a lot easier. The decision they're faced with now is: "Slightly more future-proof headless Mac" vs. "simple and oh-so-cool AIO Mac", rather than the decision they used to have to make: "The flexible Dell box I'm used to using" vs. "the AIO Mac that will lock me in".
The fact that all consumer Macs are AIOs obviously isn't the only thing holding switchers back, but I'm sure it's a consideration. Remember: Switchers haven't yet succumbed to RDF.
Comments
Apple shouldn't ditch the AIO iMac, or even the eMac, for that matter. The AIO machines should show off Apple's design flair and, particularly the iMac, should be highly desirable. However, there should be a headless machine alongside the AIOs to satisfy the majority of customers who think they need to get everything separately, regardless of which solution is actually best for them.
Plus, Apple could make the AIOs slightly cheaper than a bundled headless Mac and monitor with similar specs. Of course, that would assume they sell their AIOs at a reasonable price/performance level, which is certainly not the case right now.
While it's laudable that Apple tries to make what people really need, rather than what they think they need, they're missing out on tons of sales that way. And that's especially true when it comes to switchers... while you want to offer them something better than what they're used to, you don't want to force something totally alien down their throat, because they'll just choke and buy another Dell.
I think Apple makes awesome AIOs, they're called iBooks and PowerBooks. I fawned over iMac2 and considered getting one, but I personally can't get over the whole monitor comes and goes with the base unit deal. Like I said, I've had my 17" monitor for quite some time now. If I want to replace it with another 17" CRT that would cost <200. If the iMac3 is an AIO, I have to take what Apple gives me.
They may think they know what's right for me, but I'm the one making the decisions whether or not to spend the $$$.
I want to go totally Apple / OS X at home, especially now that I'm developing (free) Mac software. But, if they can't give me a reasonably priced headless G5 then I'm not buying. My PowerBook isn't a year old yet so it has a few more years to go before it's obsolete (to me).
IMO, Apple has a choice; either they can give me a headless G5 and get my $$$ next month or they can put out an AIO iMac3 and wait a few more years before they get any more $$$ from me.
Originally posted by TrevorD
Even though the AIO is probably the best solution for most people, the problem is that most people don't think it is. People always think they'll want to upgrade their monitor later, or keep it around for the next computer, or worry that it might go South, leaving them with a useless computer. The fact that none of this ever comes to pass is irrelevant. And this is probably even worse in the non-geek crowd... the people for whom the AIO is especially good: They might like the simplicity of an AIO, but they ask their (PC-using?) geek friends for advice, and are resoundingly told to get everything separate. The geeks must know best, they think, so the newbie buys some bundle with separate, cheap components.
This is what the Apple Stores are for: Bypass the geeks — who only know or care about what they want — let people see the machines and use them for themselves, ask any questions they have, and should the screen in their AIO die, they can bring it there to have it fixed or replaced.
By your own description, this is a win/win: Consumers learn that they can actually buy what they're inclined toward, they don't have to worry about irrelevant things, and they get a machine that's better tailored to what they need.
In a sense, you're saying that Apple should forget its design roots — because brilliant design is rooted absolutely in utility — and come up with some conventional crap that reinforces irrelevant and incorrect assumptions in the service of needless complexity. That's not Apple, it's condescending to consumers, and it would probably cost Apple dearly to be seen as no less complex, no more elegant, not obviously different than any other box maker.
Apple shouldn't ditch the AIO iMac, or even the eMac, for that matter. The AIO machines should show off Apple's design flair and, particularly the iMac, should be highly desirable. However, there should be a headless machine alongside the AIOs to satisfy the majority of customers who think they need to get everything separately, regardless of which solution is actually best for them.
Again, think about this: You're asking Apple to abandon the whole premise they were founded on!
While it's laudable that Apple tries to make what people really need, rather than what they think they need, they're missing out on tons of sales that way. And that's especially true when it comes to switchers... while you want to offer them something better than what they're used to, you don't want to force something totally alien down their throat, because they'll just choke and buy another Dell.
Perhaps. Personally, I think Apple loses far more in market share to fear of incompatibility, and to unfamiliarity than they do to having AIO machines. A headless machine would solve none of those problems.
And, finally, I can't really believe that people are demanding that a company not make the best product they can for a target market.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I fawned over iMac2 and considered getting one, but I personally can't get over the whole monitor comes and goes with the base unit deal.
You and the 90%+ other personal computer buyers out there. It's simple. When your computer gets old, it doesn't mean the accompanying display does too. The display will probably still be good for another PC lifecycle, and you shouldn't be forced to get rid of it and buy a new one.
Originally posted by Amorph
Personally, I think Apple loses far more in market share to fear of incompatibility, and to unfamiliarity than they do to having AIO machines. A headless machine would solve none of those problems.
This argument has no proof. Apple has not sold a headless system in a consumer price range since Steve Jobs' return. The cheapest headless system they've sold has been $1999 and at times $1799. They won't know what to expect unless they try... and with barely 3% marketshare, what do they have to lose?
And as a counter-argument to yours, I'd say that I personally know and heard of many PC users that would love to use OS X and get off Windows, but can't justify Apple's inferior, inflexible, overpriced hardware.
In a sense, you're saying that Apple should forget its design roots ? because brilliant design is rooted absolutely in utility ? and come up with some conventional crap that reinforces irrelevant and incorrect assumptions in the service of needless complexity. That's not Apple, it's condescending to consumers, and it would probably cost Apple dearly to be seen as no less complex, no more elegant, not obviously different than any other box maker.
I'm not saying they should make a typical beige box. They should still make it stylish, useful, and everything else Apple stands for.
However, if you're doing what you think is right, but the vast majority of the buying public aren't biting, maybe it's time to offer something they might be more inclined to buy. And while there are plenty of Mac users who want a headless consumer Mac, I'm talking mostly about switchers here. Apple needs to remove all barriers to entry that they possibly can. If that means making a cheap, powerful, and stylish (all relatively-speaking, BTW) headless machine, then great.
Once someone has joined the Apple fold, getting them onto the AIO that you think is better for them is a lot easier. The decision they're faced with now is: "Slightly more future-proof headless Mac" vs. "simple and oh-so-cool AIO Mac", rather than the decision they used to have to make: "The flexible Dell box I'm used to using" vs. "the AIO Mac that will lock me in".
The fact that all consumer Macs are AIOs obviously isn't the only thing holding switchers back, but I'm sure it's a consideration. Remember: Switchers haven't yet succumbed to RDF.