There has, of course, been much previous discussion of this topic. It seems to me that Apple has tried this twice, once with the Cube, and again with the single processor G5 tower. Neither was successful. I think that there are 2 reasons. One is that I think that the price of these machines would be higher than most people would think acceptable. A 20" iMac minus the screen would cost $1700 - $400 = $1300. From there, add the costs of more memory slots, or upgradeable graphics, or a faster PowerMac-like CPU, or FW800, or whatever PowerMac feature you think the computer should have, and the computer will cost nearly as much as a PowerMac. The second reason is that no two people agree exactly which features should be present. While you want the graphics, others want more memory slots and, in G5 days, a PowerMac-speed FSB. Apple apparently has concluded that they can't make money designing & selling this computer.
The single cpu tower failed because the way Apple decided to impliment it was bound to have that result.
The entire machine was designed around the idea of two chips. From the power supply to the case.
If Apple designed a tower for one chip, it would have been smaller, cooler, lighter, and cheaper.
The single cpu tower failed because the way Apple decided to impliment it was bound to have that result.
The entire machine was designed around the idea of two chips. From the power supply to the case.
If Apple designed a tower for one chip, it would have been smaller, cooler, lighter, and cheaper.
Of the items in your list, smaller and cheaper would seem to be most important for potential buyers. A re-designed single-cpu tower would have been smaller, but the initial price would have had to reflect the cost of the re-design. More important, I think, is that many "I want a PowerMac-like computer" requesters wanted 2 CPUs (in those days there were no duals) but fewer PCI slots and perhaps fewer memory slots to make it smaller. There wasn't enough agreement on what the computer really should be for enough units to be sold.
Of the items in your list, smaller and cheaper would seem to be most important for potential buyers. A re-designed single-cpu tower would have been smaller, but the initial price would have had to reflect the cost of the re-design. More important, I think, is that many "I want a PowerMac-like computer" requesters wanted 2 CPUs (in those days there were no duals) but fewer PCI slots and perhaps fewer memory slots to make it smaller. There wasn't enough agreement on what the computer really should be for enough units to be sold.
I've gone through this in the past.
I came up with a design (I used to own a hi end pro audio manufacturing company) that I sent to my friends in Apple engineering management that they though was doable, but that upper management wouldn't be interested in.
You don't need to eliminate slots. The mobo is 3 1/2 inches taller than it needs to be for only one chip. That can be cut dowm. Allow 4GB RAM. That's enough for anyone needing a one chip machine.
The power supply is then too large for this machine, and can be made smaller as well.
Remove the handles, top, and feet on the bottom. That is VERY expensive metal work.
Those, and some other changes could have brought the machine to $999, a price that would have had them walking out the door by themselves.
I came up with a design (I used to own a hi end pro audio manufacturing company) that I sent to my friends in Apple engineering management that they though was doable, but that upper management wouldn't be interested in.
Uh-huh.
M-hm.
Yeah, I remember when I governed a country, led a $50 billion dollar company and frequently chatted with the bosses of Apple and HP and sent them some designed I thought up. It got boring after a while, so I decided to frequent AppleInsider instead.
You're speaking about build to order options from these companies? Not user replaceable boards.
The largest part of the PC market doesn't change their graphics cards. Whatever comes with the machine, dies with the machine,.
1) I was talking about both user replacable/upgradable, and BTO options.
2) But the largest portion of consumers isn't stuck with an ATI Radeon X1600 graphics as their "only" option either. Sure it maybe possible that what comes with a machine dies with a machine, but those who do buy bought it knowing full well that the choice was theirs, and they also had the choice to use a better card BTO that in many of those cases would have died with that machine. So it really depends what they chose to put in that machine to die with it doesn't it?
You seem to be referring to surfing, and email only consumers as your majority. I really was not. It seems your also referring to the largest portion that will also keep a system for 10+ years on end. I was not.
The portion I am referring to actually buys computers, and/or parts regularly. The people who's thoughts on systems, and personal reviews influence new buyers, and other companies purchases based on the reliability of these systems. The upgradeable, and pro market is far more vocal, and influential than any other. The creative professional, and gamer is the reason companies pushed for extreme advancements in graphics, and speed over the past 20 years. And is probably solely responsible for the existence of Nvidia, and other specialized tech companies.
Weather a person decides to upgrade the system or not is irrelevant anyways. Knowing it's there is what makes the PC market more attractive on the hardware side.
Macs have red flags all over them saing that this and that are not available to you if you make this choice.
The portion I am referring to actually buys computers, and/or parts regularly.
The portion of the market that you are referring to, i.e. those who tinker with their systems and prefer to build together component by component,
is not interesting for Apple, because it prefers quantity (low price) over quality, whereas Apple is a company shooting for high margin, and, as such, quality over quantity. It does not value the attention to detail which is one of Apple's pivotal strengths.
does not care very much about complete systems, which is the only thing Apple has ever sold, currently sells and will likely continue to exclusively sell
is exaggerated in volume, i.e. there's far fewer such people than these threads kinds of threads would have you believe.
That's why the "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis is a tired, pointless one. Apple won't do that because there's no way they could maintain a high margin while at the same time attracting the very customers that want this machine so much. And even if they could, such buyers would be few and far between, despite what it may seem like.
I think hardware multithreading is pretty much relegated to a niche server market, the only place where it could be of real value, and you won't see it on personal computers again anytime soon.
Considering that the next Intel chip in the Core Duo lineage has hyperthreading (as do all projected chips after it), I'd say you're wrong. Adding MT support takes very little circuitry, especially on Intel's chips, and can help performance substantially in some situations -- particularly in an OS where there are lots of threads running. It is all about improving utilization of the on-chip resources due to inefficient software, and most software is inefficient so most of the time it pays off and when it doesn't a smart OS can turn it off at little cost.
Quote:
Why have multithreading when so many cores could be available in 2 to 4 years? On a high-end 2 socket system, that could be 8 to 16 cores. What sort of software needs that many threads? (Other than server related stuff.)
Because it is cheap to do, and if your software is supporting >2 cores it probably supports 8-16 just as well. Hardware usually leads software. Software guys typically will not implement something until the hardware support is widespread. This means that until the hardware guys put it out there and evangelise the crap out of it, software isn't going to pay any attention. If they do put it out there and flog it, then eventually software will follow.
Quote:
So, there are few of things holding multithreading back on personal computers: multi-cores are and will be available, the system architecture will be I/O bound for multi-cores let alone MT multi-cores, and software development cycles seem to operate over longer durations that fab development cycles.
Bad assumption: multi-cores tend to be about applying more brute force, MT tends to be about applying the brute for more efficiently in the face of bottlenecks. So in this light MT is more sensible that multi-core. The best answer is typically a mix.
Quote:
MT is nice for servers where I/O bandwidth is more plentiful (and more expensive), where lots of small chunks of CPU time are required to be delivered. Intel may bring MT back in Woodcrest, but I don't see anything driving it in personal computers. It may even be multi-cores (CMP) drive MT out of server processors.
If I/O bandwidth is more plentiful then servers would rather have more cores. Servers like MT because it maximizes their utilization in environments where the bottlenecks are external and the tasks at hand are typically inefficient little pieces of code.
Quote:
As for Cell and Xenon/Waternoose, I see that as a freebie courtesy of IBM, or something that they hope pans out 3 to 4 years into the future. Ie, the mission of game consoles is to sell games. New games can gradually tap the resources of the hardware translating to more games being sold, and a game console sold at a big loss is no problem as users continue to buy 3 or 4 games a year (or pay subscription fees). So, MT eventually will be useful.
You're right in that it is a freebie (or nearly so).
The portion of the market that you are referring to, i.e. those who tinker with their systems and prefer to build together component by component,is not interesting for Apple, because it prefers quantity (low price) over quality, whereas Apple is a company shooting for high margin, and, as such, quality over quantity. It does not value the attention to detail which is one of Apple's pivotal strengths. does not care very much about complete systems, which is the only thing Apple has ever sold, currently sells and will likely continue to exclusively sell is exaggerated in volume, i.e. there's far fewer such people than these threads kinds of threads would have you believe.
That's why the "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis is a tired, pointless one. Apple won't do that because there's no way they could maintain a high margin while at the same time attracting the very customers that want this machine so much. And even if they could, such buyers would be few and far between, despite what it may seem like.
I don't know where you guy's get off with this "Apple is all about high margins" BS. Have you priced an Apple vs. a PC with similar specs in the past 2 to 3 years? Because of it you also contradict your self when you start rambling on about how Apple likes "low prices" (Quantity) rather than (Quality) so the high margin line is not fooling anyone. The list of three "excuses" is absolute rubbish because[list=a][*] Apple already offers BTO options on computers, and will continue to sell BTO systems. (contrary to your beliefs) [*] Because of A - It's hardly a problem for them to offer options on graphics cards in a future MacBook, or the iMac. This move starts in the design phase, and what the current design has means nothing. [*] How few people there are in need of a better solution that use this board is completely irrelevant. This board is completely atypical, and has no absolute user demographic. [/list=a]
Ok, so I bashed on your excuses for not offering graphics options in iMacs, and MacBooks a bit, but this is because of the ridiculous " "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis ". Even though I agree it's a tired, and pointless case there are big holes in the Apple lineup. The iMac isn't suitable for a 3D hobbyist and average, or above average gaming because there are stricter, and tighter graphics requirements with every crop of new games. The life of the iMac is over after one season for gamers, and the iMac life for 3D hobbyists doesn't even exist. That is a big hole especially now with boot-camp, and for that kind of money it shouldn't be. If Apple want's to use boot-camp to gather windows switchers to the platform via average gamers, without a BTO, and an upgradable future for graphics in the iMac; this will always leave an empty space for the headless Mac argument.
I personally think its a better idea to improve the lineup they have to make it look more attractive rather than cutting off existing lines with a "half way there" computer that will cut into both the PowerMac, and the iMac lines.
There has existed a hole in Apple's line-up for quite some time. Hopefully, Apple has had some valid reason???, but now that they appear to be more aggressively courting more market share they will introduce a new model aimed directly at me.
Apple already offers BTO options on computers, and will continue to sell BTO systems. (contrary to your beliefs)
Apple offers far fewer BTO options than most vendors do. Just go ahead and compare the options you get with an MBP to the ones you get with a Dell Latitude. Apple also charges very high margins for these very BTO options, be it RAM, hard disk upgrades, or something else (granted, so do other manufacturers, but that's not the point).
Quote:
Because of A - It's hardly a problem for them to offer options on graphics cards in a future MacBook, or the iMac. This move starts in the design phase, and what the current design has means nothing.
Except that they never have, and there's no reason to believe they will change this. You can't currently order a MacBook Pro 1.83 with 256 MB VRAM, nor a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 128 MB VRAM. Heck, you can't even order a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 512 MB of RAM; it's 1 GB or more. You totally can't go for a different GPU, such as something nVidia-branded. And while the iMac's CPU is socketed, Apple offers you no replacement options for that either. Same thing again.
Quote:
How few people there are in need of a better solution that use this board is completely irrelevant. This board is completely atypical, and has no absolute user demographic.
That, if you missed it, was precisely my point.
Quote:
there are big holes in the Apple lineup.
If Apple intended to fill them, why haven't they? There hasn't been a consumer-type non-AIO customizable desktop in almost a decade, namely the Performa/PowerMac 6x00. That's pre-G3, folks. It's also pre-iMac. It's also pre-anything-OS X. And perhaps most importantly, it's at the very beginning of Jobs, so it's not hard to connect the dots and conclude that Jobs personally doesn't care to see that line continued or revived.
Quote:
The iMac isn't suitable for a 3D hobbyist and average, or above average gaming because there are stricter, and tighter graphics requirements with every crop of new games.
Nobody argues that.
Quote:
If Apple want's to use boot-camp to gather windows switchers to the platform via average gamers,
Why would they? A gamer is not a lucrative customer for Apple. A gamer wants cheap options, a gamer has no brand loyalty whatsoever, a gamer doesn't care about the OS as long as it runs the games, and a gamer doesn't care about the hardware either as long as it works fast. Apple offers no cheap options, being brand, Apple requires strong brand loyalty from its customers (the iPod is clear proof of this), Apple very much builds upon its OS and Apple also very much builds upon its hardware's design and specifics.
Why do you see any kind of similarities between gamers and Apple? Why do you see a gamer wanting to become an Apple customer, and why do you see Apple wanting to adjust for gamers?
Actually, the latest crop of iMacs have made some pretty nice strides in how competent the machiens are for gaming. Mac OS X is not an operating system particularly designed for, or good at, gaming, however, it runs Windows games quite spectacularly and is a system that I feel comfortable recommending to anybody who isn't an upgrade freak.
You bring up some good points re: gamers. I've sold computers for quite some time and honestly I've seen Gamers hyped a bit too much as far as being a force that must be catered to.
If you're a gamer..er Hardcore Gamer then you're not on Mac. If you enjoy the light and midrange games then a Mac might work out for your needs.
Runrate business is what pays the bills. Developing and maintaining relationships and you've hit the bullseye about lack of loyalty. Gamers are loyal to speed and the neverending quest.
I don't think Apple really needs a lowend headless upgradable tower as much anymore. Primarily because in the iMac you have the ability to run a larger monitor now via spanning. If consumers maintained their computers via some sort of life cycle they'd not have to worry about upgrades as much. Grab Applecare which is 3yrs at the end of the warranty sell the computer and purchase a new one. Eventually the hot and "must have" item is integrated on the motherboard.
Yeah, I remember when I governed a country, led a $50 billion dollar company and frequently chatted with the bosses of Apple and HP and sent them some designed I thought up. It got boring after a while, so I decided to frequent AppleInsider instead.
Dude, what are you trying to prove?
What kind of asinine post was that supposed to be?
Without a doubt there is some segment of the market that could use a small cheaper tower with two expansion slots. The PowerMac is too expensive, too big, and has more capability than what's really needed, the iMac is not expandable and you have no choice of which monitor you can use, the Mac mini is not expandable and limits on its component upgradeability because of its small size.
Without a doubt there is some segment of the market that could use a small cheaper tower with two expansion slots. The PowerMac is too expensive, too big, and has more capability than what's really needed, the iMac is not expandable and you have no choice of which monitor you can use, the Mac mini is not expandable and limits on its component upgradeability because of its small size.
The iMac will support on up to a 23" LCD so I'd have to disagree about the monitor choice. You have no choice in eschewing a monitor with an iMac purchase but you do indeed have the choice to add another.
Apple offers far fewer BTO options than most vendors do. Just go ahead and compare the options you get with an MBP to the ones you get with a Dell Latitude. Apple also charges very high margins for these very BTO options, be it RAM, hard disk upgrades, or something else (granted, so do other manufacturers, but that's not the point).
Actually you lost the point. That doesn't even address what I summarized in my paragraph. You can try to make it look like it does by tearing it up into pieces, but it doesn't give a recapitulation of the facts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Except that they never have, and there's no reason to believe they will change this. You can't currently order a MacBook Pro 1.83 with 256 MB VRAM, nor a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 128 MB VRAM. Heck, you can't even order a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 512 MB of RAM; it's 1 GB or more. You totally can't go for a different GPU, such as something nVidia-branded. And while the iMac's CPU is socketed, Apple offers you no replacement options for that either. Same thing again.
Which was an opposition on logical consequence from other facts. What they offered in the current MBP was never my point. What they don't offer also serves to set up a ground reason why they should offer it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
If Apple intended to fill them, why haven't they? There hasn't been a consumer-type non-AIO customizable desktop in almost a decade, namely the Performa/PowerMac 6x00. That's pre-G3, folks. It's also pre-iMac. It's also pre-anything-OS X. And perhaps most importantly, it's at the very beginning of Jobs, so it's not hard to connect the dots and conclude that Jobs personally doesn't care to see that line continued or revived.
Personally I think the "why" is obvious. Apple is in the business of selling to the customers they believe they can; based on projections.
Now that they have switched to intel (something comfortable with the other 95+% of the computer buying public) Then add in the popularity of the iPod, and iTunes music store that has given the Apple name far more credibility, and popularity with this other 95+%, (PC users), and to top it off now the introduction of Boot-Camp. Apples projected selling strategy of previous machines went completely out the door. They have far more areas that they can take advantage of, and early adopters/switchers are going to be their best advertisement that they play well in any field, and are making absolutely fabulous products that meet the needs of the possible switcher.
And it sure as shit doesn't hurt to satisfy the ache that current existing Mac user base has had.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Why would they? A gamer is not a lucrative customer for Apple. A gamer wants cheap options, a gamer has no brand loyalty whatsoever, a gamer doesn't care about the OS as long as it runs the games, and a gamer doesn't care about the hardware either as long as it works fast. Apple offers no cheap options, being brand, Apple requires strong brand loyalty from its customers (the iPod is clear proof of this), Apple very much builds upon its OS and Apple also very much builds upon its hardware's design and specifics.
We are not talking about hardcore gamers, strictly "I buy a computer only to play games on" gamers (if there is such a thing- and seems to be the user your talking about) or home build gamers. Home builders probably never look at Apple, HP, or DELL as their provider, but I'm sure there is a small percentage that would like to use Mac OS if there entire life was not all about gaming.
There is a huge percentage of PC users that either plays games regularly, occasionally, or just plays the hottest game on the market at a particular time to see what all the fuss is about. (that one is me) Like Half LIfe 2, UT2K7, DOOM, QUAKE.
Included in this group is a lot of Mac users that I watched switch to PC because the wanted to play the occasional game, and at least have the option of upgrading available to them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Why do you see any kind of similarities between gamers and Apple? Why do you see a gamer wanting to become an Apple customer, and why do you see Apple wanting to adjust for gamers?
Because Apple opened a door to let them in with Boot-Camp, and it's obvious they introduced Boot-Camp to attract more users to the platform. To attract as many users as possible they'll need good word of mouth advertisement, and they will need to make minor adjustments to their lineup to meet the demand, or be damned, and let the once possible Mac sale they could have had go elsewhere.
Anyway. I have to cut it short because Ms. Marvell #2, and Super Skrull #1 comes out Today. See yas.
It really seems like this topic comes up repeatedly on almost all Mac centric sites I visit. Around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows, well...er ... umm... yea, it'll stop when Apple begins selling a reasonably priced SFF/tower that isn't overpriced.
An argument can be made that the vast majority of computer buyers, for whatever reason, do not want an AIO and do want some upgradability. The Windows world has tried the AIO, it didn't sell. AOpen now has a Mac Mini clone, albeit priced $100 more than the equivalently equipped Mac Mini, it was just introduced so the jury is out on this direct comparison.
If the above argument holds any validity, I think it does, and Apple does actually intend to aggressively go after increased market share they will have to introduce a computer to fill this void.
And I believe Apple does intend to try and increase market share aggressively. It was about two years ago that, I believe it was Schiller, Apple voiced their desire to increase market share in a quarterly report. Now, Apple has explicitly stated that to some extent Bootcamp is an attempt to increase market share. It is my contention that if Apple is truly serious about market share they need to offer a model that, IMHO, targets the largest market segment that buys computers and it isn't AIO nor mini.
By the way, I own a G5 iSight iMac, but it isn't nor would be my first choice if Apple filled this void in their line-up, however, I'm addicted to OS X and don't have any choice. If you're reading this Steve, options are good, I like options too.
Comments
Originally posted by theapplegenius
Watercooling is great, I have it in my PC. But it shouldn't be necessary.
Like so many other things in this world.
Originally posted by dh87
There has, of course, been much previous discussion of this topic. It seems to me that Apple has tried this twice, once with the Cube, and again with the single processor G5 tower. Neither was successful. I think that there are 2 reasons. One is that I think that the price of these machines would be higher than most people would think acceptable. A 20" iMac minus the screen would cost $1700 - $400 = $1300. From there, add the costs of more memory slots, or upgradeable graphics, or a faster PowerMac-like CPU, or FW800, or whatever PowerMac feature you think the computer should have, and the computer will cost nearly as much as a PowerMac. The second reason is that no two people agree exactly which features should be present. While you want the graphics, others want more memory slots and, in G5 days, a PowerMac-speed FSB. Apple apparently has concluded that they can't make money designing & selling this computer.
The single cpu tower failed because the way Apple decided to impliment it was bound to have that result.
The entire machine was designed around the idea of two chips. From the power supply to the case.
If Apple designed a tower for one chip, it would have been smaller, cooler, lighter, and cheaper.
Originally posted by melgross
The single cpu tower failed because the way Apple decided to impliment it was bound to have that result.
The entire machine was designed around the idea of two chips. From the power supply to the case.
If Apple designed a tower for one chip, it would have been smaller, cooler, lighter, and cheaper.
Of the items in your list, smaller and cheaper would seem to be most important for potential buyers. A re-designed single-cpu tower would have been smaller, but the initial price would have had to reflect the cost of the re-design. More important, I think, is that many "I want a PowerMac-like computer" requesters wanted 2 CPUs (in those days there were no duals) but fewer PCI slots and perhaps fewer memory slots to make it smaller. There wasn't enough agreement on what the computer really should be for enough units to be sold.
Originally posted by dh87
Of the items in your list, smaller and cheaper would seem to be most important for potential buyers. A re-designed single-cpu tower would have been smaller, but the initial price would have had to reflect the cost of the re-design. More important, I think, is that many "I want a PowerMac-like computer" requesters wanted 2 CPUs (in those days there were no duals) but fewer PCI slots and perhaps fewer memory slots to make it smaller. There wasn't enough agreement on what the computer really should be for enough units to be sold.
I've gone through this in the past.
I came up with a design (I used to own a hi end pro audio manufacturing company) that I sent to my friends in Apple engineering management that they though was doable, but that upper management wouldn't be interested in.
You don't need to eliminate slots. The mobo is 3 1/2 inches taller than it needs to be for only one chip. That can be cut dowm. Allow 4GB RAM. That's enough for anyone needing a one chip machine.
The power supply is then too large for this machine, and can be made smaller as well.
Remove the handles, top, and feet on the bottom. That is VERY expensive metal work.
Those, and some other changes could have brought the machine to $999, a price that would have had them walking out the door by themselves.
Originally posted by melgross
I came up with a design (I used to own a hi end pro audio manufacturing company) that I sent to my friends in Apple engineering management that they though was doable, but that upper management wouldn't be interested in.
Uh-huh.
M-hm.
Yeah, I remember when I governed a country, led a $50 billion dollar company and frequently chatted with the bosses of Apple and HP and sent them some designed I thought up. It got boring after a while, so I decided to frequent AppleInsider instead.
Dude, what are you trying to prove?
Originally posted by melgross
You're speaking about build to order options from these companies? Not user replaceable boards.
The largest part of the PC market doesn't change their graphics cards. Whatever comes with the machine, dies with the machine,.
1) I was talking about both user replacable/upgradable, and BTO options.
2) But the largest portion of consumers isn't stuck with an ATI Radeon X1600 graphics as their "only" option either. Sure it maybe possible that what comes with a machine dies with a machine, but those who do buy bought it knowing full well that the choice was theirs, and they also had the choice to use a better card BTO that in many of those cases would have died with that machine. So it really depends what they chose to put in that machine to die with it doesn't it?
You seem to be referring to surfing, and email only consumers as your majority. I really was not. It seems your also referring to the largest portion that will also keep a system for 10+ years on end. I was not.
The portion I am referring to actually buys computers, and/or parts regularly. The people who's thoughts on systems, and personal reviews influence new buyers, and other companies purchases based on the reliability of these systems. The upgradeable, and pro market is far more vocal, and influential than any other. The creative professional, and gamer is the reason companies pushed for extreme advancements in graphics, and speed over the past 20 years. And is probably solely responsible for the existence of Nvidia, and other specialized tech companies.
Weather a person decides to upgrade the system or not is irrelevant anyways. Knowing it's there is what makes the PC market more attractive on the hardware side.
Macs have red flags all over them saing that this and that are not available to you if you make this choice.
Originally posted by onlooker
The portion I am referring to actually buys computers, and/or parts regularly.
The portion of the market that you are referring to, i.e. those who tinker with their systems and prefer to build together component by component,
- is not interesting for Apple, because it prefers quantity (low price) over quality, whereas Apple is a company shooting for high margin, and, as such, quality over quantity. It does not value the attention to detail which is one of Apple's pivotal strengths.
- does not care very much about complete systems, which is the only thing Apple has ever sold, currently sells and will likely continue to exclusively sell
- is exaggerated in volume, i.e. there's far fewer such people than these threads kinds of threads would have you believe.
That's why the "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis is a tired, pointless one. Apple won't do that because there's no way they could maintain a high margin while at the same time attracting the very customers that want this machine so much. And even if they could, such buyers would be few and far between, despite what it may seem like.Originally posted by THT
I think hardware multithreading is pretty much relegated to a niche server market, the only place where it could be of real value, and you won't see it on personal computers again anytime soon.
Considering that the next Intel chip in the Core Duo lineage has hyperthreading (as do all projected chips after it), I'd say you're wrong. Adding MT support takes very little circuitry, especially on Intel's chips, and can help performance substantially in some situations -- particularly in an OS where there are lots of threads running. It is all about improving utilization of the on-chip resources due to inefficient software, and most software is inefficient so most of the time it pays off and when it doesn't a smart OS can turn it off at little cost.
Why have multithreading when so many cores could be available in 2 to 4 years? On a high-end 2 socket system, that could be 8 to 16 cores. What sort of software needs that many threads? (Other than server related stuff.)
Because it is cheap to do, and if your software is supporting >2 cores it probably supports 8-16 just as well. Hardware usually leads software. Software guys typically will not implement something until the hardware support is widespread. This means that until the hardware guys put it out there and evangelise the crap out of it, software isn't going to pay any attention. If they do put it out there and flog it, then eventually software will follow.
So, there are few of things holding multithreading back on personal computers: multi-cores are and will be available, the system architecture will be I/O bound for multi-cores let alone MT multi-cores, and software development cycles seem to operate over longer durations that fab development cycles.
Bad assumption: multi-cores tend to be about applying more brute force, MT tends to be about applying the brute for more efficiently in the face of bottlenecks. So in this light MT is more sensible that multi-core. The best answer is typically a mix.
MT is nice for servers where I/O bandwidth is more plentiful (and more expensive), where lots of small chunks of CPU time are required to be delivered. Intel may bring MT back in Woodcrest, but I don't see anything driving it in personal computers. It may even be multi-cores (CMP) drive MT out of server processors.
If I/O bandwidth is more plentiful then servers would rather have more cores. Servers like MT because it maximizes their utilization in environments where the bottlenecks are external and the tasks at hand are typically inefficient little pieces of code.
As for Cell and Xenon/Waternoose, I see that as a freebie courtesy of IBM, or something that they hope pans out 3 to 4 years into the future. Ie, the mission of game consoles is to sell games. New games can gradually tap the resources of the hardware translating to more games being sold, and a game console sold at a big loss is no problem as users continue to buy 3 or 4 games a year (or pay subscription fees). So, MT eventually will be useful.
You're right in that it is a freebie (or nearly so).
Originally posted by Chucker
The portion of the market that you are referring to, i.e. those who tinker with their systems and prefer to build together component by component,is not interesting for Apple, because it prefers quantity (low price) over quality, whereas Apple is a company shooting for high margin, and, as such, quality over quantity. It does not value the attention to detail which is one of Apple's pivotal strengths.
does not care very much about complete systems, which is the only thing Apple has ever sold, currently sells and will likely continue to exclusively sell
is exaggerated in volume, i.e. there's far fewer such people than these threads kinds of threads would have you believe.
That's why the "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis is a tired, pointless one. Apple won't do that because there's no way they could maintain a high margin while at the same time attracting the very customers that want this machine so much. And even if they could, such buyers would be few and far between, despite what it may seem like.
I don't know where you guy's get off with this "Apple is all about high margins" BS. Have you priced an Apple vs. a PC with similar specs in the past 2 to 3 years? Because of it you also contradict your self when you start rambling on about how Apple likes "low prices" (Quantity) rather than (Quality) so the high margin line is not fooling anyone. The list of three "excuses" is absolute rubbish because[list=a][*] Apple already offers BTO options on computers, and will continue to sell BTO systems. (contrary to your beliefs) [*] Because of A - It's hardly a problem for them to offer options on graphics cards in a future MacBook, or the iMac. This move starts in the design phase, and what the current design has means nothing. [*] How few people there are in need of a better solution that use this board is completely irrelevant. This board is completely atypical, and has no absolute user demographic. [/list=a]
Ok, so I bashed on your excuses for not offering graphics options in iMacs, and MacBooks a bit, but this is because of the ridiculous " "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis ". Even though I agree it's a tired, and pointless case there are big holes in the Apple lineup. The iMac isn't suitable for a 3D hobbyist and average, or above average gaming because there are stricter, and tighter graphics requirements with every crop of new games. The life of the iMac is over after one season for gamers, and the iMac life for 3D hobbyists doesn't even exist. That is a big hole especially now with boot-camp, and for that kind of money it shouldn't be. If Apple want's to use boot-camp to gather windows switchers to the platform via average gamers, without a BTO, and an upgradable future for graphics in the iMac; this will always leave an empty space for the headless Mac argument.
I personally think its a better idea to improve the lineup they have to make it look more attractive rather than cutting off existing lines with a "half way there" computer that will cut into both the PowerMac, and the iMac lines.
There has existed a hole in Apple's line-up for quite some time. Hopefully, Apple has had some valid reason???, but now that they appear to be more aggressively courting more market share they will introduce a new model aimed directly at me.
\\/ \\/ \\/ \\/
Originally posted by onlooker
Apple offers far fewer BTO options than most vendors do. Just go ahead and compare the options you get with an MBP to the ones you get with a Dell Latitude. Apple also charges very high margins for these very BTO options, be it RAM, hard disk upgrades, or something else (granted, so do other manufacturers, but that's not the point).
Except that they never have, and there's no reason to believe they will change this. You can't currently order a MacBook Pro 1.83 with 256 MB VRAM, nor a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 128 MB VRAM. Heck, you can't even order a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 512 MB of RAM; it's 1 GB or more. You totally can't go for a different GPU, such as something nVidia-branded. And while the iMac's CPU is socketed, Apple offers you no replacement options for that either. Same thing again.
That, if you missed it, was precisely my point.
there are big holes in the Apple lineup.
If Apple intended to fill them, why haven't they? There hasn't been a consumer-type non-AIO customizable desktop in almost a decade, namely the Performa/PowerMac 6x00. That's pre-G3, folks. It's also pre-iMac. It's also pre-anything-OS X. And perhaps most importantly, it's at the very beginning of Jobs, so it's not hard to connect the dots and conclude that Jobs personally doesn't care to see that line continued or revived.
The iMac isn't suitable for a 3D hobbyist and average, or above average gaming because there are stricter, and tighter graphics requirements with every crop of new games.
Nobody argues that.
If Apple want's to use boot-camp to gather windows switchers to the platform via average gamers,
Why would they? A gamer is not a lucrative customer for Apple. A gamer wants cheap options, a gamer has no brand loyalty whatsoever, a gamer doesn't care about the OS as long as it runs the games, and a gamer doesn't care about the hardware either as long as it works fast. Apple offers no cheap options, being brand, Apple requires strong brand loyalty from its customers (the iPod is clear proof of this), Apple very much builds upon its OS and Apple also very much builds upon its hardware's design and specifics.
Why do you see any kind of similarities between gamers and Apple? Why do you see a gamer wanting to become an Apple customer, and why do you see Apple wanting to adjust for gamers?
You bring up some good points re: gamers. I've sold computers for quite some time and honestly I've seen Gamers hyped a bit too much as far as being a force that must be catered to.
If you're a gamer..er Hardcore Gamer then you're not on Mac. If you enjoy the light and midrange games then a Mac might work out for your needs.
Runrate business is what pays the bills. Developing and maintaining relationships and you've hit the bullseye about lack of loyalty. Gamers are loyal to speed and the neverending quest.
I don't think Apple really needs a lowend headless upgradable tower as much anymore. Primarily because in the iMac you have the ability to run a larger monitor now via spanning. If consumers maintained their computers via some sort of life cycle they'd not have to worry about upgrades as much. Grab Applecare which is 3yrs at the end of the warranty sell the computer and purchase a new one. Eventually the hot and "must have" item is integrated on the motherboard.
Originally posted by Programmer
Considering that the next Intel chip in the Core Duo lineage has hyperthreading (as do all projected chips after it), I'd say you're wrong.
I think Justin Rattner doesn't agree with you.
And he should know it!
Originally posted by Chucker
Uh-huh.
M-hm.
Yeah, I remember when I governed a country, led a $50 billion dollar company and frequently chatted with the bosses of Apple and HP and sent them some designed I thought up. It got boring after a while, so I decided to frequent AppleInsider instead.
Dude, what are you trying to prove?
What kind of asinine post was that supposed to be?
Originally posted by TenoBell
Without a doubt there is some segment of the market that could use a small cheaper tower with two expansion slots. The PowerMac is too expensive, too big, and has more capability than what's really needed, the iMac is not expandable and you have no choice of which monitor you can use, the Mac mini is not expandable and limits on its component upgradeability because of its small size.
The iMac will support on up to a 23" LCD so I'd have to disagree about the monitor choice. You have no choice in eschewing a monitor with an iMac purchase but you do indeed have the choice to add another.
Originally posted by Chucker
Apple offers far fewer BTO options than most vendors do. Just go ahead and compare the options you get with an MBP to the ones you get with a Dell Latitude. Apple also charges very high margins for these very BTO options, be it RAM, hard disk upgrades, or something else (granted, so do other manufacturers, but that's not the point).
Actually you lost the point. That doesn't even address what I summarized in my paragraph. You can try to make it look like it does by tearing it up into pieces, but it doesn't give a recapitulation of the facts.
Originally posted by Chucker
Except that they never have, and there's no reason to believe they will change this. You can't currently order a MacBook Pro 1.83 with 256 MB VRAM, nor a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 128 MB VRAM. Heck, you can't even order a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 512 MB of RAM; it's 1 GB or more. You totally can't go for a different GPU, such as something nVidia-branded. And while the iMac's CPU is socketed, Apple offers you no replacement options for that either. Same thing again.
Which was an opposition on logical consequence from other facts. What they offered in the current MBP was never my point. What they don't offer also serves to set up a ground reason why they should offer it.
Originally posted by Chucker
If Apple intended to fill them, why haven't they? There hasn't been a consumer-type non-AIO customizable desktop in almost a decade, namely the Performa/PowerMac 6x00. That's pre-G3, folks. It's also pre-iMac. It's also pre-anything-OS X. And perhaps most importantly, it's at the very beginning of Jobs, so it's not hard to connect the dots and conclude that Jobs personally doesn't care to see that line continued or revived.
Personally I think the "why" is obvious. Apple is in the business of selling to the customers they believe they can; based on projections.
Now that they have switched to intel (something comfortable with the other 95+% of the computer buying public) Then add in the popularity of the iPod, and iTunes music store that has given the Apple name far more credibility, and popularity with this other 95+%, (PC users), and to top it off now the introduction of Boot-Camp. Apples projected selling strategy of previous machines went completely out the door. They have far more areas that they can take advantage of, and early adopters/switchers are going to be their best advertisement that they play well in any field, and are making absolutely fabulous products that meet the needs of the possible switcher.
And it sure as shit doesn't hurt to satisfy the ache that current existing Mac user base has had.
Originally posted by Chucker
Why would they? A gamer is not a lucrative customer for Apple. A gamer wants cheap options, a gamer has no brand loyalty whatsoever, a gamer doesn't care about the OS as long as it runs the games, and a gamer doesn't care about the hardware either as long as it works fast. Apple offers no cheap options, being brand, Apple requires strong brand loyalty from its customers (the iPod is clear proof of this), Apple very much builds upon its OS and Apple also very much builds upon its hardware's design and specifics.
We are not talking about hardcore gamers, strictly "I buy a computer only to play games on" gamers (if there is such a thing- and seems to be the user your talking about) or home build gamers. Home builders probably never look at Apple, HP, or DELL as their provider, but I'm sure there is a small percentage that would like to use Mac OS if there entire life was not all about gaming.
There is a huge percentage of PC users that either plays games regularly, occasionally, or just plays the hottest game on the market at a particular time to see what all the fuss is about. (that one is me) Like Half LIfe 2, UT2K7, DOOM, QUAKE.
Included in this group is a lot of Mac users that I watched switch to PC because the wanted to play the occasional game, and at least have the option of upgrading available to them.
Originally posted by Chucker
Why do you see any kind of similarities between gamers and Apple? Why do you see a gamer wanting to become an Apple customer, and why do you see Apple wanting to adjust for gamers?
Because Apple opened a door to let them in with Boot-Camp, and it's obvious they introduced Boot-Camp to attract more users to the platform. To attract as many users as possible they'll need good word of mouth advertisement, and they will need to make minor adjustments to their lineup to meet the demand, or be damned, and let the once possible Mac sale they could have had go elsewhere.
Anyway. I have to cut it short because Ms. Marvell #2, and Super Skrull #1 comes out Today. See yas.
An argument can be made that the vast majority of computer buyers, for whatever reason, do not want an AIO and do want some upgradability. The Windows world has tried the AIO, it didn't sell. AOpen now has a Mac Mini clone, albeit priced $100 more than the equivalently equipped Mac Mini, it was just introduced so the jury is out on this direct comparison.
If the above argument holds any validity, I think it does, and Apple does actually intend to aggressively go after increased market share they will have to introduce a computer to fill this void.
And I believe Apple does intend to try and increase market share aggressively. It was about two years ago that, I believe it was Schiller, Apple voiced their desire to increase market share in a quarterly report. Now, Apple has explicitly stated that to some extent Bootcamp is an attempt to increase market share. It is my contention that if Apple is truly serious about market share they need to offer a model that, IMHO, targets the largest market segment that buys computers and it isn't AIO nor mini.
By the way, I own a G5 iSight iMac, but it isn't nor would be my first choice if Apple filled this void in their line-up, however, I'm addicted to OS X and don't have any choice. If you're reading this Steve, options are good, I like options too.