There's still the issue of the ever evasive mid-range tower. That's probably exactly what iMacFan would want:
- more expansion than the iMac, e.g. ability to change the graphics card for a better one or ability to add a physics co-processor
- room for another internal HD
- no need to pay for a built-in screen (if you already have one)
Looking at the price range of today's G5 PowerMacs there's definitely an opening for a mid-range Mac Pro.
And then there's the issue of cores:
From today's point of view, if you want to buy a machine that will last you 3 years, it should be a dual, dual-core machine IMHO. Mac OS X is very well laid out for parallel processing and OS X 10.5 will be even more so. Dual-core is nice, but by this time next year Intel will have likely shipped its quad core CPUs (at least according to their press release ?Kentsfield?, the quad-core "Conroe" successor, is "expected to ship in the first quarter of 2007").
So in 2 years time I assume many PCs will have dual quad-core CPUs, that's 8 cores total. If you're stuck with 2 cores at that point you won't be happy. I doubt any dual-core machine would last you more than 2 years as cores will ramp up quickly since speeds can no more.
HobBIT - I think that you are exactly right - both on the mid tower point and the dual dual point.
What I failed to say originally is that I'm not just talking about the bare starting price point, but the extremely poor value that the current towers are - no better than the current entry iMac, and if you get a screen as well - twice the price!
For Apple to remain competitive they will have to modify their lineup. Here's what I'd suggest for the latter 2006.
Entry Level
Mac mini solo
$499
ICS 1.67Ghz
60GB hard drive 512MB RAM
Combo Drive
AP, BT, GigE
Mac mini duo
$599
ICD 1.86Ghz
80GB hard drive 512MB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
Midrange
iMac 17"
$999
ICD 2Ghz
128MB of Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
iMac 20"
ICD 2.13
256MB of Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
Workstation
Mac Pro 1.86
$1499
Conroe 1.86 Ghz
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro 2.4
$1899
Conroe 2.4 Ghz
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Quads
Mac Pro DC 2.33
$2499
Woodcrest 2.4 Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro DC 2.66
$2999
Woodcrest 2.66 Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro DC 3.0
$3499
Woodcrest 3Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 2GB of RAM
Dual GigE
That would round the line out. Apple could base the Edu Mac on a 17" or 20" imac with integrated graphics.
This would be excellent. Covers all price points with competitive models. Would like to see Conroe in the iMac but faster ICD and lower price is nice alternative. Hope Apple works their way in this direction.
I'm pretty sure Apple's Pro starting point has always been US$1799-$1999.
Januari 1999 Powermac G3 BW 300Mhz was $1,599 and slower than the 333Mhz iMac except for the 100Mhz bus.
September 1999 Powermac G4 400Mhz Yikes also was $1,599 and was shortly there after replaced by a slower 350Mhz Yikes.
Even August 2002 G4 2x867Mhz was just $1,699 and it hurts Apples highend tower sales so hard due to the fact it was Apples cheapest dual processor to date and $800 cheaper than the next best thing; the G4 2x1Ghz.
They never had $800 price differences between the good-better-best configurations again.
The Januari 2003 G4 1Ghz SP was $1,499 while the 2x 1,25Ghz was $1,999.
Finally october 2004 Powermac G5 1.8Ghz SP was $1,499 (and it sucked hard).
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
This would be excellent. Covers all price points with competitive models. Would like to see Conroe in the iMac but faster ICD and lower price is nice alternative. Hope Apple works their way in this direction.
I don't believe Apple will lower the price of the iMac 17" with $300.
$999 is integrated graphics territory.
I also don't think Apple will give us the 20" iMac for free.
A 540Mhz jump from 1.83Ghz Conroe to 2,4Ghz Conroe (and probally other higher specs and features) for only $400 makes no sence.
Up the low end specs, increase the 2,4Ghz Conroe Mac Pro prize or lower it specs.
Apple can't afford to raise the entry Pro tower over 2000$. It's one of those psychological barriers. Apple would be alienating a huge crowd by going from 1999 to 2099 or 2199.
You mean like the $500 psychological barrier for the Mac mini?
Or the $1000 psychological barrier for the iBook/MacBook?
No...just the $2000 psychological barrier.
edit: allow me to clarify...unless the tower is getting a facelift and the internal design changes significantly, it would be ridiculous to see the Mac Pro come in at 2099 or 2199.
There isn't a whole lot of R&D to cover (unless the case is completely redesigned)...the mobos are made by Intel, Apple is probably getting massive discounts for 1) deciding to partner with Intel and 2) for going Intel across the line and 3) buying 2 dual-cores per machine they build.
If they can't get 2 dual-core Woodcrests @ 2.0GHz or 2.3GHz in that sucker for under 2000 dollars, my name is Steve Balmer.
I think the main reason why the current PowerMacs are so expensive (and actually had their prices increased) is their rather big liquid cooling system. That one can't be cheap.
If the new lower-power Intel chips produce less heat perhaps Apple can get rid of the liquid cooling system altogether again. If so I'm sure prices can drop substantially. Back to the old PowerMac G4 price range.
But it would also provide an opening for a mid range tower. If Apple would go dual quad-core or quad dual-core on the high-end PowerMacs perhaps Mac Pros will be 'workstation' class machines where a new mid-range tower could be introduced.
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Agree 100%, I think though, that they will price ith what we see currently with the G5's
Agree 100%, I think though, that they will price ith what we see currently with the G5's
Same...Apple would be seen as a crook if it raised the entry-level Pro tower by 200 dollars.
It has been proven that the Mac mini and MacBook are excellent deals by people who have taken them apart.
It would be highway robbery to see Mac Pro towers made of commodity desktop parts and no significant redesign start off at 2199. They would be taken apart and people would realize that they're composed of maybe 1300 worth of parts (especially considering that the low end pro towers have historically had shitty videocards.)
Apple's workstation lineup is too narrow. They had the ability to get away with it previously because they were using PPC chips. However know we have the ability to do direct comparisons between Apple hardware and PC hardware. This means....
If Apple sells the first Powermac for $2000 then its specs must be commensurate with a PC workstation that would be $1700 or above. Some people have mentioned the price hikes of the mini and Macbooks as some testament to price hikes in the Powermac. The Powermac line was Apple's margin king and the pricing of the G5 based components vs Intel is closer than G4 vs Intel. If you look all the price increases happened when Apple went from the dirt cheap G4 procs to Intel. That should tell you how cheap the G4 1.25 and 1.42 chips really were.
Apple needs a Powermac to start out where the 20" iMac leaves. So the decision clients have is AIO capable system or Mac Pro system with future upgradability but at a more expensive cost.
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Which is why if Apple doesnt lower their MacBook prices, I will be looking elsewhere...
A buddy and former schoolmate of mine who happens to be a dell and HP reseller and I got talking about the "core duo/centreno duo" laptops...and we came to one conclusion, get the dell that uses the same MOBO chipset, GPU, well everything else except the wifi chip manufacturer is prety close to identical, for $799, bump it to 2 gig ram after you get it, and order the biggest HDD you can as a factory option then just buy the retail OSX fat bin and run it.
the EULA means nothing, I bought the right to use the software, I can use it on whatever device that I want to; I think this logic could easily win in court given a good enough lawyer, so it is just a matter of time.
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Yes, and that's absolutely great. I think that's more of a testament to how terrible the Powerbook G4s were performance-wise. But heck, if the Mac Pro is the same price with two times the speed, then great.
I hope they price the fastest dual-core at $2500 and the quad-cores above that.
I can deal with not having four cores but I can't deal with not having the fastest MHz rating
the EULA means nothing, I bought the right to use the software, I can use it on whatever device that I want to; I think this logic could easily win in court given a good enough lawyer, so it is just a matter of time.
A EULA does mean something. It's a legally binding contract between you and the product vendor. The "good enough lawyer" to win such a case would cost you 10x the savings you received buying a Dull over a MB.
It would be highway robbery to see Mac Pro towers made of commodity desktop parts and no significant redesign start off at 2199. They would be taken apart and people would realize that they're composed of maybe 1300 worth of parts (especially considering that the low end pro towers have historically had shitty videocards.)
I think you over setimate the cost of components in a low end PM/MP
second-or-third fastest intel chip+mobo $300
case and PSU $150
video card $40-$60
RAM $50
HDD $70
DVD burner $50
MISC cables and wires $20 (assume OEM components dont ship with cabmes)
keyboard/mouse $25
box/papers/packing $5
so that is ~720
NOW factor in an OEM OS, lets just for the sake of this say that both WinXP or OSX cost $150
Comments
I remember buying my entry level 7200 at $2299 Canadian, and that was with $100. off.
It would be nice if Apple started at $1599., and they'd sell a lot more pro macs.
But Apple, and Jobs in particular, has always resisted any lowering of margins and I can't see why they'd make an exception now.
That's doubly true since they will likely be debuting an all new form factor and matching displays.
Pro Mac Towers will start at $1999.
- more expansion than the iMac, e.g. ability to change the graphics card for a better one or ability to add a physics co-processor
- room for another internal HD
- no need to pay for a built-in screen (if you already have one)
Looking at the price range of today's G5 PowerMacs there's definitely an opening for a mid-range Mac Pro.
And then there's the issue of cores:
From today's point of view, if you want to buy a machine that will last you 3 years, it should be a dual, dual-core machine IMHO. Mac OS X is very well laid out for parallel processing and OS X 10.5 will be even more so. Dual-core is nice, but by this time next year Intel will have likely shipped its quad core CPUs (at least according to their press release ?Kentsfield?, the quad-core "Conroe" successor, is "expected to ship in the first quarter of 2007").
So in 2 years time I assume many PCs will have dual quad-core CPUs, that's 8 cores total. If you're stuck with 2 cores at that point you won't be happy. I doubt any dual-core machine would last you more than 2 years as cores will ramp up quickly since speeds can no more.
What I failed to say originally is that I'm not just talking about the bare starting price point, but the extremely poor value that the current towers are - no better than the current entry iMac, and if you get a screen as well - twice the price!
David.
Originally posted by Frank777
Pro Mac Towers will start at $1999.
I tend to dissagree.
If the Mac Pro will sport a Core2 Duo Conroe it will never start with a steep pricepoint like that.
If it gets a Xeon instead of a Conroe I think it's pretty obvious though.
But Conroe is such a nice and powerfull processor. It would be a shame not to use it in a tower model.
Originally posted by hmurchison
For Apple to remain competitive they will have to modify their lineup. Here's what I'd suggest for the latter 2006.
Entry Level
Mac mini solo
$499
ICS 1.67Ghz
60GB hard drive 512MB RAM
Combo Drive
AP, BT, GigE
Mac mini duo
$599
ICD 1.86Ghz
80GB hard drive 512MB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
Midrange
iMac 17"
$999
ICD 2Ghz
128MB of Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
iMac 20"
ICD 2.13
256MB of Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
AP, BT and GigE
Workstation
Mac Pro 1.86
$1499
Conroe 1.86 Ghz
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro 2.4
$1899
Conroe 2.4 Ghz
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Quads
Mac Pro DC 2.33
$2499
Woodcrest 2.4 Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
250GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro DC 2.66
$2999
Woodcrest 2.66 Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 1GB of RAM
Dual GigE
Mac Pro DC 3.0
$3499
Woodcrest 3Ghz x2
256MB PCI-Express Graphics
500GB hard drive with 2GB of RAM
Dual GigE
That would round the line out. Apple could base the Edu Mac on a 17" or 20" imac with integrated graphics.
This would be excellent. Covers all price points with competitive models. Would like to see Conroe in the iMac but faster ICD and lower price is nice alternative. Hope Apple works their way in this direction.
Originally posted by Frank777
I'm pretty sure Apple's Pro starting point has always been US$1799-$1999.
Januari 1999 Powermac G3 BW 300Mhz was $1,599 and slower than the 333Mhz iMac except for the 100Mhz bus.
September 1999 Powermac G4 400Mhz Yikes also was $1,599 and was shortly there after replaced by a slower 350Mhz Yikes.
Even August 2002 G4 2x867Mhz was just $1,699 and it hurts Apples highend tower sales so hard due to the fact it was Apples cheapest dual processor to date and $800 cheaper than the next best thing; the G4 2x1Ghz.
They never had $800 price differences between the good-better-best configurations again.
The Januari 2003 G4 1Ghz SP was $1,499 while the 2x 1,25Ghz was $1,999.
Finally october 2004 Powermac G5 1.8Ghz SP was $1,499 (and it sucked hard).
Originally posted by backtomac
This would be excellent. Covers all price points with competitive models. Would like to see Conroe in the iMac but faster ICD and lower price is nice alternative. Hope Apple works their way in this direction.
I don't believe Apple will lower the price of the iMac 17" with $300.
$999 is integrated graphics territory.
I also don't think Apple will give us the 20" iMac for free.
A 540Mhz jump from 1.83Ghz Conroe to 2,4Ghz Conroe (and probally other higher specs and features) for only $400 makes no sence.
Up the low end specs, increase the 2,4Ghz Conroe Mac Pro prize or lower it specs.
Also: next gen Mac mini will be Dual core only.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Apple can't afford to raise the entry Pro tower over 2000$. It's one of those psychological barriers.
You mean like the $500 psychological barrier for the Mac mini?
Or the $1000 psychological barrier for the iBook/MacBook?
Originally posted by CharlesS
You mean like the $500 psychological barrier for the Mac mini?
Or the $1000 psychological barrier for the iBook/MacBook?
No...just the $2000 psychological barrier.
edit: allow me to clarify...unless the tower is getting a facelift and the internal design changes significantly, it would be ridiculous to see the Mac Pro come in at 2099 or 2199.
There isn't a whole lot of R&D to cover (unless the case is completely redesigned)...the mobos are made by Intel, Apple is probably getting massive discounts for 1) deciding to partner with Intel and 2) for going Intel across the line and 3) buying 2 dual-cores per machine they build.
If they can't get 2 dual-core Woodcrests @ 2.0GHz or 2.3GHz in that sucker for under 2000 dollars, my name is Steve Balmer.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
No...just the $2000 psychological barrier.
Which will be broken with the next release. Good job misinterpreting his post or playing dumb.
If the new lower-power Intel chips produce less heat perhaps Apple can get rid of the liquid cooling system altogether again. If so I'm sure prices can drop substantially. Back to the old PowerMac G4 price range.
But it would also provide an opening for a mid range tower. If Apple would go dual quad-core or quad dual-core on the high-end PowerMacs perhaps Mac Pros will be 'workstation' class machines where a new mid-range tower could be introduced.
We will see.
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Placebo
God I would love that.
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Agree 100%, I think though, that they will price ith what we see currently with the G5's
Originally posted by hypoluxa
Agree 100%, I think though, that they will price ith what we see currently with the G5's
Same...Apple would be seen as a crook if it raised the entry-level Pro tower by 200 dollars.
It has been proven that the Mac mini and MacBook are excellent deals by people who have taken them apart.
It would be highway robbery to see Mac Pro towers made of commodity desktop parts and no significant redesign start off at 2199. They would be taken apart and people would realize that they're composed of maybe 1300 worth of parts (especially considering that the low end pro towers have historically had shitty videocards.)
If Apple sells the first Powermac for $2000 then its specs must be commensurate with a PC workstation that would be $1700 or above. Some people have mentioned the price hikes of the mini and Macbooks as some testament to price hikes in the Powermac. The Powermac line was Apple's margin king and the pricing of the G5 based components vs Intel is closer than G4 vs Intel. If you look all the price increases happened when Apple went from the dirt cheap G4 procs to Intel. That should tell you how cheap the G4 1.25 and 1.42 chips really were.
Apple needs a Powermac to start out where the 20" iMac leaves. So the decision clients have is AIO capable system or Mac Pro system with future upgradability but at a more expensive cost.
Originally posted by Placebo
Also, as I have said before in this thread and on many occasions, they can't pull price bullshit now that comparing a Mac and a PC is not, as it once was, comparing apples and oranges.
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Originally posted by backtomac
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Which is why if Apple doesnt lower their MacBook prices, I will be looking elsewhere...
A buddy and former schoolmate of mine who happens to be a dell and HP reseller and I got talking about the "core duo/centreno duo" laptops...and we came to one conclusion, get the dell that uses the same MOBO chipset, GPU, well everything else except the wifi chip manufacturer is prety close to identical, for $799, bump it to 2 gig ram after you get it, and order the biggest HDD you can as a factory option then just buy the retail OSX fat bin and run it.
the EULA means nothing, I bought the right to use the software, I can use it on whatever device that I want to; I think this logic could easily win in court given a good enough lawyer, so it is just a matter of time.
Originally posted by backtomac
Alas I think they already are. Have you configured a laptop at dell lately and compared it to MBP?
Yes, and that's absolutely great. I think that's more of a testament to how terrible the Powerbook G4s were performance-wise. But heck, if the Mac Pro is the same price with two times the speed, then great.
I hope they price the fastest dual-core at $2500 and the quad-cores above that.
I can deal with not having four cores but I can't deal with not having the fastest MHz rating
the EULA means nothing, I bought the right to use the software, I can use it on whatever device that I want to; I think this logic could easily win in court given a good enough lawyer, so it is just a matter of time.
A EULA does mean something. It's a legally binding contract between you and the product vendor. The "good enough lawyer" to win such a case would cost you 10x the savings you received buying a Dull over a MB.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It would be highway robbery to see Mac Pro towers made of commodity desktop parts and no significant redesign start off at 2199. They would be taken apart and people would realize that they're composed of maybe 1300 worth of parts (especially considering that the low end pro towers have historically had shitty videocards.)
I think you over setimate the cost of components in a low end PM/MP
second-or-third fastest intel chip+mobo $300
case and PSU $150
video card $40-$60
RAM $50
HDD $70
DVD burner $50
MISC cables and wires $20 (assume OEM components dont ship with cabmes)
keyboard/mouse $25
box/papers/packing $5
so that is ~720
NOW factor in an OEM OS, lets just for the sake of this say that both WinXP or OSX cost $150
total cost: $870
and that is at consumer prices, not bulk