No, it'd be more like Ferrari making a hydrogen engine and not letting anyone else have it. In the end everyone loses except the oil companies (aka Microsoft).
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
just a thought: hydrogen isn't really all that dangerous. Much safer, in some respects, when compared to gasoline. For example, what would happen in a fuel tank rupture + ignition?
Hydrogen: a jet of fire that goes out in one direction and, depending on the size of the hole, is very intense and goes out quickly, or is small and lasts a while. Hydrogen, being a light gas, will naturally rise toward the upper atmosphere.
Gasoline: fire EVERYWHERE. Gasoline is a liquid and will spread all over the place.
and yes, I've seen a video of it.
Perhapse hydrogen gets a bad rap as a dangerous materal because of the Hindenburg?
Also, remember that most (of what I've seen anyway) of the hopes for hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline involve fuel cell tech, not internal compustion engines. Here's another thing: The US Army is heavily researching fuel cell technology... as a power source for each individual soldier. That's right, a can o' hydrogen strapped to your butt, and a Darth Vader looking fuel cell strapped to your chest!
And, no, I have no sources to back that up. I AM the source.
*edit* dang it, I hate it when I post before I'm done thinking.
another example of hydrogen:
Lets say you have a tank of hydrogen under pressure. Now lets say that, for some bizzare reason, there is a small electronic device inside that tank which, when a button on the exerior of the tank is pressed, produces a spark.
Trackin?
Good. Now push the button.
Nothing happened.
Why? because Hydrogen combusts by combining with oxygen in the air to create water: 2H2 + 02 -> 2H2O
In the absense of oxygen or any other potential reactants (which the tank material is not) no chemical reaction can take place, regardless of how hot the spark is. The perfect example of this is... The Sun! It's a giant ball of hydrogen (with innert, aka totally non-reactive, helium mixed in) whose temperature is in the millions of degrees, and yet NO COMBUSTION takes place. The sun produces heat and energy by nuclear fusion, which is not possible under eartly conditions. takes massive pressure and heat to make it happen. but I digress (hee hee, I've always wanted to say that!), the point is that there are massive ammounts of hydrogen at very high temperatures all in one place and it's not exploding, for the sole reason that there is nothing to make it explode. No oxygen (again, ignoring other possible reactants), no explosion.
Coincidentally, I think it would be really fun to ask Bill Nigh The Science Guy, "Why doesn't the sun explode?" Would be a great episode!
This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.
Specs:
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.
And to answer his question, the reason there isn't one is because it would be expensive, and a feature that hardly anyone would use. You can get external Firewire solutions.
Could you tell me what this solution is ?I've Googled this and everything points to there being no solution.
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
You might want to read the post in the figurative sense instead of literal. It was pick an alternative fuel engine and hydrogen was the first thing that came to mind.
This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.
Specs:
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.
Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.
Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.
An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
. . . An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
Vinea
You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.
Here, read this again:
Quote:
Apple can price a Mac mini tower however they wish. If the price is too low, it will take sales from other Macs. If it is too high, a mini tower will not sell. Any particular model Mac is not competing with its Windows equivalent model. The competition between Macs and Windows PCs is a platform wide competition. A particular model Mac, or model Windows PC, competes within its own platform environment.
Now, concerning platform competition, the selection of models within a platform could influence a consumers decision to switch or not to switch. So, let's say a guy has been using Windows, but is looking at Macs. If he happens to like or need a professional, high performance workstation, he will look at what the Mac Pro offers. If he wants a mini tower and Mac doesn't have one, it presents a hurdle. He must see whether there is another model Mac that would satisfy him. Needless to say, the prospect of him switching to a Mac is less in this situation.
Since such a large number of Windows users seem to prefer a mini tower, the lack of a Mac mini tower means Apple is not getting the number of switcher that they could. However, Mac users will mostly stay Mac users and figure out the best way to cope, if they happen to want a mini tower. Some will just pay the difference and get more than they need in a Mac Pro. Others will be reconciled with an iMac or Mac Mini. Still others will make do with an older Mac from eBay or live with what they already have.
And they will never get much more than 5% because of it no matter how much better they are than Microsoft.
Yeah, right...because the Windows market is dominated by $1500 dollar desktops and not $500 desktops.
If it bothers you that much run ubuntu on a mini-tower instead. Jobs is almost as much an idealist as RMS except that he doesn't come across as a nutjob. Railing against his vision of computing will be as productive as railing against RMS' vision of free software.
Besides, Vista wont be that bad. There are plenty of very smart folks working very hard in Redmond. I'm sure it will be an adequate 80% solution.
Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.
Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.
An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
Vinea
Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.
Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.
You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.
Here, read this again:
If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience?
Other folks proposing the mini-tower IS using switcher sales as the rationale for a mini-tower so skip the "you don't get it" line. We get it. We simply don't agree and neither do some of your allies.
That a mini-tower will increase sales to some degree is hard to argue with. The real question is to what degree and it is sufficiently more profitable to move Jobs?
As I said earlier, he's an idealist and has some vision of computing. Yes, it can limit market share, but its also what makes Apple what it is.
[QUOTE=snoopy]You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.
With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. It's not a big market relative to the overall PC market, but it's definitely worth two, three, or maybe five percentage points, which means it can kick up Mac sales to over 7%.
But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly. For some of us a Pro is not a good idea. There is the cost issue, but there is also space and power consumption. If you are a green this is an issue, and separate monitor configurations are also an advantage since you don't need to obsolete a perfectly working monitor in order to get a newer machine. In a work environment the idea that you lose access to your machine if your monitor dies is also bad. It's much better to quickly swap the monitor and keep working. With the iMac you have to service the entire unit.
Don't get me wrong; I love the iMac. It's a great setup for home users and students, and it is a great piece of design. My dad bought one on my advice. But it has certain limitations in other environments and you shouldn't have to get something as powerful and large as a pro when all you want is a bit of flexibility.
Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.
Really? The Powermac G4 (Firewire 800) was $1499. It appeared from January of 2003 and discontinued by June of 2003 and replaced by the PowerMac G5. The earlier Quicksilvers, G4 and G3s were $1599 at the low end. The white PowerMacs like the 6500 were $1,700. $1599 barely fits your "range" and many years the lowest end were more expensive.
What were the expandable $1200 mini-towers? You have to go back to the Sculley days for a $1200 headless mac in the Mac LC/Performa series. It was hardly a mini tower and had 1 PDC slot though some later ones had additional comm and TV slots (today built into the mini or via USB).
Quote:
Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.
Countered as they did with "Compare to the equivalent Dell it's $XXX cheaper". Almost every current model Apple makes is price competitive with the equivalent Dell.
Apple has just been very choosy where to do the competing. Sorry, I prefer the Jobs vision over the Sculley vision.
If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience? . . .
You make some assertions that you do not demonstrate or prove. You claim a Mac mini tower would cannibalize iMacs and Mac Pros sales. Not necessarily so. Apple can price a mini tower so it does not. A mini tower equipped like an iMac should sell for more. The iMac will continue to sell because it is a better deal for those who want that level of performance and don't need expandability.
However, let me give you a personal example of Mac sales that would be severely impacted by a new Mac mini tower. A few month ago, I switched from Digital Performer to Logic for a music workstation. My music computer did not meet the system and performance requirements. I needed another Mac, and would have gladly purchased a mini tower if it had been available. It was not, but I found a Mirror Drive Doors PowerMac, the newest model with quiet fans, on eBay. It has dual 1.25 G4 CPUs. I am satisfied with my 'newer' Mac from eBay, and it will be sufficient for several more years I'm sure. It was a lost sale for Apple however.
So it seems that Apple is not selling what potentially could be sold to 'this already captive audience.' Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons.
...
But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly.
Eh...I'll have a 17" MBP KVM'd to a 24" or 30" WS Dell monitor alongside a Precision 670.
Depending on what you do a NAS might be better for more storage. Some folks hate external storage so I won't even suggest firewire.
Would I have gotten the iMac? Probably not. I have need for a powerful laptop and a powerful desktop for work.
At home? Probably if there was a 23" WS iMac. Coupled with my existing Dell 19" I can span to 2 monitors. As is, for home, I'll likely go the route of a Mini with the next gen integrated graphics.
With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. . .
Sorry, you are right. I don't get your point at all. The discussion is about Apple hardware, I believe, so what is your point of bringing up Bootcamp and Macs running Windows apps? A Mac mini tower would do that too. Toward the end of your post you also seem to be agreeing with me?
Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.
Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column.
Have fun with your MDD. Its still a nice machine if it meets your needs and it should have been very inexpensive.
Can someone answer me this. If the imac is built out of laptop parts and uses a 17" screen why isn't there a 17" laptop available for $1299? There is no purpose to owning a desktop that has no upgradablity. Not in this day and age. You should be able to take that on the go with you. Think about it.
There is total room for a an upgradable desktop on the low end.
Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column. . .
Vinea
Don't misunderstand me. Steve is the best CEO Apple ever had. I just believe he makes his share of mistakes, like everyone. Having blind spots and making mistakes does not stop anyone from being great.
Comments
No, it'd be more like Ferrari making a hydrogen engine and not letting anyone else have it. In the end everyone loses except the oil companies (aka Microsoft).
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
just a thought: hydrogen isn't really all that dangerous. Much safer, in some respects, when compared to gasoline. For example, what would happen in a fuel tank rupture + ignition?
Hydrogen: a jet of fire that goes out in one direction and, depending on the size of the hole, is very intense and goes out quickly, or is small and lasts a while. Hydrogen, being a light gas, will naturally rise toward the upper atmosphere.
Gasoline: fire EVERYWHERE. Gasoline is a liquid and will spread all over the place.
and yes, I've seen a video of it.
Perhapse hydrogen gets a bad rap as a dangerous materal because of the Hindenburg?
Also, remember that most (of what I've seen anyway) of the hopes for hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline involve fuel cell tech, not internal compustion engines. Here's another thing: The US Army is heavily researching fuel cell technology... as a power source for each individual soldier. That's right, a can o' hydrogen strapped to your butt, and a Darth Vader looking fuel cell strapped to your chest!
And, no, I have no sources to back that up. I AM the source.
*edit* dang it, I hate it when I post before I'm done thinking.
another example of hydrogen:
Lets say you have a tank of hydrogen under pressure. Now lets say that, for some bizzare reason, there is a small electronic device inside that tank which, when a button on the exerior of the tank is pressed, produces a spark.
Trackin?
Good. Now push the button.
Nothing happened.
Why? because Hydrogen combusts by combining with oxygen in the air to create water: 2H2 + 02 -> 2H2O
In the absense of oxygen or any other potential reactants (which the tank material is not) no chemical reaction can take place, regardless of how hot the spark is. The perfect example of this is... The Sun! It's a giant ball of hydrogen (with innert, aka totally non-reactive, helium mixed in) whose temperature is in the millions of degrees, and yet NO COMBUSTION takes place. The sun produces heat and energy by nuclear fusion, which is not possible under eartly conditions. takes massive pressure and heat to make it happen. but I digress (hee hee, I've always wanted to say that!), the point is that there are massive ammounts of hydrogen at very high temperatures all in one place and it's not exploding, for the sole reason that there is nothing to make it explode. No oxygen (again, ignoring other possible reactants), no explosion.
Coincidentally, I think it would be really fun to ask Bill Nigh The Science Guy, "Why doesn't the sun explode?" Would be a great episode!
This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.
Specs:
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.
He said input not output.
And to answer his question, the reason there isn't one is because it would be expensive, and a feature that hardly anyone would use. You can get external Firewire solutions.
Could you tell me what this solution is ?I've Googled this and everything points to there being no solution.
It's Mazda that has the Hydrogen engine, and the reason that they are the only one with an internal combustion engine that burns hydrogen is that they are the only company that has a rotery engine which has unique properties that allows it to burn hydrogen gas. And neither Mazda nor any other car company will release an interna combustion engine that runs on hydrogen due to the volatility of the presureized gas that they would have to put on the car. But the consumer is'nt really going to loose out becouse contrary to popular belief hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hopefully Apple won't be the hydrogen of the computer world.
You might want to read the post in the figurative sense instead of literal. It was pick an alternative fuel engine and hydrogen was the first thing that came to mind.
This is what I would like, and what some people here are talking about.
Specs:
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. About three grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
As Apple grows market share, a more finely grained product mix is a no-brainer, and the engineering for this machine would be very simple indeed.
I like.
Now true, it might be an image issue if the Apple mid-tower cost more than a Dell mid-tower, but 1) Apple seems to have shown that they can compete with Dell with the Mac Pro at least, and 2) there's already an image issue, because switchers are going to compare what Apple would give them to what they could get from Dell, and currently for a mid-range desktop user that'll be about $1000 vs. $2124. No contest.
Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.
Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.
An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
Vinea
. . . An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
Vinea
You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.
Here, read this again:
Apple can price a Mac mini tower however they wish. If the price is too low, it will take sales from other Macs. If it is too high, a mini tower will not sell. Any particular model Mac is not competing with its Windows equivalent model. The competition between Macs and Windows PCs is a platform wide competition. A particular model Mac, or model Windows PC, competes within its own platform environment.
Now, concerning platform competition, the selection of models within a platform could influence a consumers decision to switch or not to switch. So, let's say a guy has been using Windows, but is looking at Macs. If he happens to like or need a professional, high performance workstation, he will look at what the Mac Pro offers. If he wants a mini tower and Mac doesn't have one, it presents a hurdle. He must see whether there is another model Mac that would satisfy him. Needless to say, the prospect of him switching to a Mac is less in this situation.
Since such a large number of Windows users seem to prefer a mini tower, the lack of a Mac mini tower means Apple is not getting the number of switcher that they could. However, Mac users will mostly stay Mac users and figure out the best way to cope, if they happen to want a mini tower. Some will just pay the difference and get more than they need in a Mac Pro. Others will be reconciled with an iMac or Mac Mini. Still others will make do with an older Mac from eBay or live with what they already have.
And they will never get much more than 5% because of it no matter how much better they are than Microsoft.
Yeah, right...because the Windows market is dominated by $1500 dollar desktops and not $500 desktops.
If it bothers you that much run ubuntu on a mini-tower instead. Jobs is almost as much an idealist as RMS except that he doesn't come across as a nutjob. Railing against his vision of computing will be as productive as railing against RMS' vision of free software.
Besides, Vista wont be that bad. There are plenty of very smart folks working very hard in Redmond. I'm sure it will be an adequate 80% solution.
Vinea
Apple competes with Dell on price only in those segments that are profitable. That they can sell a workstation that is price competitive simply means those models have the largest margins in the industry.
Likewise with notebooks. Both MBP and MB are relatively high end.
An Apple mid-tower will not be easily price competititve and keep Apple's margins healthy. There are simply too many other mid-towers out there to compare against. It would be an easy target to market against and reinforces that "Apple is a bad value" perception.
Vinea
Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.
Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.
You guys just don't get it. An Mac mini tower does not compete with a Windows mini tower. Those looking for low to mid priced Windows computers will buy Windows. Those looking for a low to mid priced Mac desktop can choose a Mac Mini or an iMac today. A Mac mini tower would only compete against these.
Here, read this again:
If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience?
Other folks proposing the mini-tower IS using switcher sales as the rationale for a mini-tower so skip the "you don't get it" line. We get it. We simply don't agree and neither do some of your allies.
That a mini-tower will increase sales to some degree is hard to argue with. The real question is to what degree and it is sufficiently more profitable to move Jobs?
As I said earlier, he's an idealist and has some vision of computing. Yes, it can limit market share, but its also what makes Apple what it is.
Vinea
With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. It's not a big market relative to the overall PC market, but it's definitely worth two, three, or maybe five percentage points, which means it can kick up Mac sales to over 7%.
But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly. For some of us a Pro is not a good idea. There is the cost issue, but there is also space and power consumption. If you are a green this is an issue, and separate monitor configurations are also an advantage since you don't need to obsolete a perfectly working monitor in order to get a newer machine. In a work environment the idea that you lose access to your machine if your monitor dies is also bad. It's much better to quickly swap the monitor and keep working. With the iMac you have to service the entire unit.
Don't get me wrong; I love the iMac. It's a great setup for home users and students, and it is a great piece of design. My dad bought one on my advice. But it has certain limitations in other environments and you shouldn't have to get something as powerful and large as a pro when all you want is a bit of flexibility.
Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business.
Really? The Powermac G4 (Firewire 800) was $1499. It appeared from January of 2003 and discontinued by June of 2003 and replaced by the PowerMac G5. The earlier Quicksilvers, G4 and G3s were $1599 at the low end. The white PowerMacs like the 6500 were $1,700. $1599 barely fits your "range" and many years the lowest end were more expensive.
What were the expandable $1200 mini-towers? You have to go back to the Sculley days for a $1200 headless mac in the Mac LC/Performa series. It was hardly a mini tower and had 1 PDC slot though some later ones had additional comm and TV slots (today built into the mini or via USB).
Again, having to spend over $2100 for a machine with any expandability at all reinforces the "Apple is a bad value" perception far more than any mini-tower would, no matter how they priced the mini-tower. As it is, you have to pay over twice as much for an expandable Mac as you would for an expandable PC. So what if you get a killer quad-processor setup, expensive RAM, etc.? If you're not going to actually use those features, then all they amount to is a waste of money.
Countered as they did with "Compare to the equivalent Dell it's $XXX cheaper". Almost every current model Apple makes is price competitive with the equivalent Dell.
Apple has just been very choosy where to do the competing. Sorry, I prefer the Jobs vision over the Sculley vision.
Vinea
If all it does is cannibalize sales of iMacs and Mac Pros what is the huge incentive for Apple who is already selling what they want to sell to this already captive audience? . . .
You make some assertions that you do not demonstrate or prove. You claim a Mac mini tower would cannibalize iMacs and Mac Pros sales. Not necessarily so. Apple can price a mini tower so it does not. A mini tower equipped like an iMac should sell for more. The iMac will continue to sell because it is a better deal for those who want that level of performance and don't need expandability.
However, let me give you a personal example of Mac sales that would be severely impacted by a new Mac mini tower. A few month ago, I switched from Digital Performer to Logic for a music workstation. My music computer did not meet the system and performance requirements. I needed another Mac, and would have gladly purchased a mini tower if it had been available. It was not, but I found a Mirror Drive Doors PowerMac, the newest model with quiet fans, on eBay. It has dual 1.25 G4 CPUs. I am satisfied with my 'newer' Mac from eBay, and it will be sufficient for several more years I'm sure. It was a lost sale for Apple however.
So it seems that Apple is not selling what potentially could be sold to 'this already captive audience.' Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons.
...
But among our legacy stuff we've got plenty of nice new monitors purchased during the past year or two, and we are also used to swapping disk drives or adding storage space quickly.
Eh...I'll have a 17" MBP KVM'd to a 24" or 30" WS Dell monitor alongside a Precision 670.
Depending on what you do a NAS might be better for more storage. Some folks hate external storage so I won't even suggest firewire.
Would I have gotten the iMac? Probably not. I have need for a powerful laptop and a powerful desktop for work.
At home? Probably if there was a 23" WS iMac. Coupled with my existing Dell 19" I can span to 2 monitors. As is, for home, I'll likely go the route of a Mini with the next gen integrated graphics.
Vinea
With all due respect, I think you don't get it. It's about bootcamp and virtualization and the rest of it. It is now possible to move to the Mac without losing that one special application/game or whatever that has you stuck in Windows.
What 100% Mac users don't understand is that there are plenty of us working in mixed environments where we need Windows for legacy or client reasons. Intel Macs + bootcamp are real game changers for this market. . .
Sorry, you are right. I don't get your point at all. The discussion is about Apple hardware, I believe, so what is your point of bringing up Bootcamp and Macs running Windows apps? A Mac mini tower would do that too. Toward the end of your post you also seem to be agreeing with me?
Steve is the one who doesn't get it. Not only losing sales to Mac users but sales to potential switchers. Throughout history, there have been great generals who had blind spots that keep them from being all they could have been.
Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column.
Have fun with your MDD. Its still a nice machine if it meets your needs and it should have been very inexpensive.
Vinea
There is total room for a an upgradable desktop on the low end.
Riiiight. I'm pretty sure that Steve's place in computer history is pretty well set and it ain't in the "loser" or "might have been" column. . .
Vinea
Don't misunderstand me. Steve is the best CEO Apple ever had. I just believe he makes his share of mistakes, like everyone. Having blind spots and making mistakes does not stop anyone from being great.