Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.
"But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers." My family and I have both Mac and Microsoft. Three Desktops, two (microsoft), and a G4 power mac. And two laptops, both macs. We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.
I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.
i like the idea of having the comp. in the monitor
We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.
I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.
I don't think there is much difference between Mac and Windows users when it comes to monitors. Those with towers will typically buy a monitor when it's broke or when they want a bigger, better or bigger and better one. We recently replaced some old CRT monitors with larger LCD displays.
Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.
However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong
Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.
1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed
2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.
3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.
In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.
In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars
Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.
However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong
Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.
1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed
2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.
3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.
In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.
In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars
In the old world there was just Apple all by itself on the PPC platform. So a definite product heirarchy was needed to prevent one product from taking sales away from another. Afterall with basically the same number of customers you have to find a way to mazimize your profit out of them. Especailly if you don't expect alot of fresh blood coming in. Today they share the same hardware platform as every other PC so things are different. They have a good chance to make more inroads with average PC users who previously were scared at the thought of switching to completely different hardware. New hardware, new software, ect and who knows if you're even going to like this Mac OS thing. At least now people know that if they don't like OSX they can install windows on that pretty mac box they just bought and it's just a regular PC in a fancier box. And Apple even made it easy for them to do so.
So even if a low end tower cuts into the sale of a higher end tower the chances of that cheaper tower bringing more people to the platform is worth the gamble. If they like the quality of the product they might upgrade to the higher end when they need to. This is what they were hoping the mini would do. I'm just not sure it's worked as well as they had hoped, no matter what they say. Because as nice as it is, it's not the machine PC users had in mind when they were asking for a cheaper mac to switch to. But I guess it should be expected that if you're going to switch to a mac you're going to also need to switch your mindset of what a computer should be, and I don't think a lot of PC users really want to do that. Hence the midmac is needed and Apple is dragging it's feet because they don't really want to and I think they're holding off and hoping things will turn around more before they actaully need to.
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).
I'm pretty sure I already linked to this one in the thread, but here it is again:
I prefer the separate monitor as the CPU/monitor ratio I want to have can vary quite a lot. I had a 17" CRT with a 7200 back in the days when the 17" CRT costed at least 1000 dollars. In other cases a 15" is enough for a dual CPU box. Different needs and different mixes. Something like the B&W tower would be nice.
I once had a 6100/60 at work. I had to cram in a full lenght nubus card so the HD was moved to the CD space. I then had the computer, extenal ZIP, external HDs, external CDdrive. As icing on the cake the 6100 had a video connector that did not fit any monitors on the planet including Apples own monitors. As I used a VGA monitor I had to use two adapters in serie to connect them, that monster made up a one foot long dongle hanging in the back of the computer...
I promised to never buy a computer without expansion abilites and now I got a mini mac sitting beside me...
A MDD G4, no slouch at all at the time, 2003, Jobs era, $1299.
No, $1299's not the same as $1200, but then my post that you were quoting didn't say $1200. It said $1299.
So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.
Mmkay...lets ignore Apple's pattern for the other 8.5 years of the Jobs decade and call this normal (and years is a slight exaggeration) But you're right, Apple did offer a $1299 tower. Today the equivalent would be a $1299 G5 single CPU tower as stopgap as folks transition to Intel.
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.
...
Vinea
I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).
So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.
Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was:
"Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business."
Lessee, how many machines has Apple sold between $1299 and $1599:
(I'm starting with the blue-and-white G3, the first tower to be uniquely of the Jobs era. I could go farther back than this if I wanted to)
300 MHz Blue G3 - $1600 (okay, one dollar more than my $1599. Bite me), Jan 1999.
2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.
August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.
1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.
So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?
2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.
August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.
1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.
So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?
In other words, while most computers have gotten cheaper, Apple's professional line has progressively gone higher end and more pricey. Apple really doesn't play in the same market they did when I got my Blue and White G3.
Has Apple caught on to this? I really don't know. I seem to remember Apple switching ads on TV recently. In any case, it will take a while for the general public to change their way of thinking IMHO. The average Joe still thinks of either Windows or Mac, and never the two shall meet.
Good point. Perception of Reality hasn't caught up with Reality yet.
Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was...
If you want to do the "reading comprehension" game then my statement was:
Quote:
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.
So yes, I covered all the machines that you relisted.
I took exception to the range as it implies what you tried to imply...which is there was often a cheap tower in the lineup closer to the $1000 mark than the $2000 mark.
A more accurate statement is: "Apple sold low-end version of their pro towers in the $1599-$1799 range with a few models that ranged as low as $1299". There were two: the $1499 G4 MDD and the $1299 G4 MDD both at the end of the G4 line.
Is a $1599-$1799 Mac Pro possible? Yes. Yes, although IMHO more likely at the $1799 than $1599 price.
Is a $1299 Mac Mini-Tower likely? No. Cube? Eh...probably higher priced. Maybe $1499 if we're lucky.
And if you want to be pendantic these aren't mini-towers anyway but Powermacs in full Powermac enclosures with lesser/slower/fewer CPUs. Just like there are low end Precision Workstations there were low end Powermac workstations.
The point that you reponded to when you posted that statement (i.e. the context) has more to do with the viability and likelyhood of mini/mid/tower macs in the $1000 range that you advocate and are more price competitive with non-workstation Dell models. Not the $1599-$1799 range.
I think many folks are in agreement that a lesser Mac Pro in that $1599-$1799 range is possible perhaps even probable (though not likely IMHO by Paris). But the family is "complete". There might be a low end Mac Pro or a bigger Mac Mini (a la cube) but not likely a "plain Macintosh" tower.
I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).
Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.
Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.
hmmm, someone mentioned that very few midtower pc owners acutally upgrade their comp at all. Don't know if this is true. I do wonder though, if that is the case, how many of them just got the tower because of some vague fuzzy feeling that, "Well, it looks faster than this desktop... and I think I heard someone say something about upgrading... I wish I knew what that was...." and get them lemming style.
I can see them in the best buy right now!
But what really happened to the old flat profile desktop? Why has it died out so thoroughly in comparison with the tower style? Is it because towers just 'look cooler' or because people actually want the added utility of a tower?
Personally, one of the best designs I've seen in recent years from Apple was the Flat Panel iMac... the one that looked like a desk lamp. It looks really goofy online, but my school has a lab full of them in the language department, and I tell you they are SMOOTH! the pivoting of the display 'is like butta!' Very nice design. definately had a couple of bugs in it, but very nice. As someone else said though, probably 'too foreign' looking.
Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.
Actually, the "box and screen" concept is not Microsoft's at all. This dates back to the Altair, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and especially the Apple II.
Why especially? Because the basic PC architecture of a box with a mainboard and a series of slots for flexible expansion was introduced by the Apple II. The closest previous concept was something called the S-100 bus, but it was designed on a dumb backplane, where the CPU would be on one of the cards.
(OK, so I'm showing my age)
Box and screen makes a lot of sense because the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen). It has been so for 25 years now and I see no sign that it will change. Not only is it shorter, but it also has different timing. For instance, Intel CPU's had been stuck around the same performance between 2003 and 2005 (not to mention the PowerPC architecture), while screens improved a great deal and large sizes became common. Now Intel is rolling out very significant processors but we are at a screen plateau.
The "blob and screen" can even have aesthetic advantages depending on the environment. A single screen is more elegant and has fewer cables coming out of it than a full computer connected to the network and various peripherals, while the box can be neatly hidden away, unless it's a really big box like the Pro.
The box can be any size and shape. Call it a "blob" if you will. But "blob and screen" architecture is here to stay for a long, long time, and Apple should cover a full range of price points with it, rather than just the extremes.
I think those people who say Jobs doesn't like this are just guessing. Jobs naturally took care of existing product lines first, so it is only in the next year or so that we will find out Jobs is really against the MidMac concept.
Comments
Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.
"But that's just not true. When it comes to desktop computers, consumers typically want towers and they want to be able to buy new monitors without buying new computers." My family and I have both Mac and Microsoft. Three Desktops, two (microsoft), and a G4 power mac. And two laptops, both macs. We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.
I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.
i like the idea of having the comp. in the monitor
We have never bought new monitors for our desktops. So unless you have researched the statistics, I didn't think most people would buy new monitors for their computers.
I might be wrong, I've only been a Mac fan for a couple of years.
I don't think there is much difference between Mac and Windows users when it comes to monitors. Those with towers will typically buy a monitor when it's broke or when they want a bigger, better or bigger and better one. We recently replaced some old CRT monitors with larger LCD displays.
Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.
However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong
Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.
1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed
2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.
3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.
In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.
In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars
If I may add my 2 cents...
Normally, I would say there's no way in hell apple would release a midMac. When I think of Apple under Jobs, I think brilliant and visionary, but close-minded and stubornly stupid.
However, lately there have been a number of signs that Jobs may be stubborn, but he's not immovable and will change course when it truely is an obvious good idea. Some examples:
•Selling a mac under 600$ without a keyboard or monitor => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Switching the entire platform from PowerPC to Intel as in the Intel in wIntel => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Selling a two-button mouse (granted a "hybrid 1 or 2" mouse) => me "no way in hell" = wrong
•Making it so that windows can be run on a Mac => me "NO WAY IN HELL!!" = wrong
Therefore, I think a midMac will surface in about 2 years. For now, I think there are 3 "problems" preventing it from happening.
1. Chip supply. I remember reading somewhere that Apple was having a hard time getting the chips it needed
2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales. I think it is tremedously profitable for Apple to trap its Pro users into paying top dollar for top end towers. I remember reading that when Apple introduced its "lower" end towers like the G5 rev 1 or something for 1699-ish it was by far the biggest seller, but at the expense of sales of the pricer (and more profitable) 2000+ models.
3. Market share. I think Apple believes that there isn't enough of a market of buyers for midMac to make another line of products economical. Also, I don't think there is enough of "stuff" to change in the MidMac. Apple doesn't have the market share to intice 3rd parties to offer add-ons like windows does. For example, there's hard drives for macs, but not much in the way of dvd writers, graphics cards, tv tuners, etc.
In conclusion, I think both sides are right in a way. MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.
In fact, if my prediction track record serves as a guide, I will be wrong again, and Apple will anounce a midMac at MacWorld Jan. But I swear it will be 1499 and everyone will bitch and moan that it must be under 1000 dollars
In the old world there was just Apple all by itself on the PPC platform. So a definite product heirarchy was needed to prevent one product from taking sales away from another. Afterall with basically the same number of customers you have to find a way to mazimize your profit out of them. Especailly if you don't expect alot of fresh blood coming in. Today they share the same hardware platform as every other PC so things are different. They have a good chance to make more inroads with average PC users who previously were scared at the thought of switching to completely different hardware. New hardware, new software, ect and who knows if you're even going to like this Mac OS thing. At least now people know that if they don't like OSX they can install windows on that pretty mac box they just bought and it's just a regular PC in a fancier box. And Apple even made it easy for them to do so.
So even if a low end tower cuts into the sale of a higher end tower the chances of that cheaper tower bringing more people to the platform is worth the gamble. If they like the quality of the product they might upgrade to the higher end when they need to. This is what they were hoping the mini would do. I'm just not sure it's worked as well as they had hoped, no matter what they say. Because as nice as it is, it's not the machine PC users had in mind when they were asking for a cheaper mac to switch to. But I guess it should be expected that if you're going to switch to a mac you're going to also need to switch your mindset of what a computer should be, and I don't think a lot of PC users really want to do that. Hence the midmac is needed and Apple is dragging it's feet because they don't really want to and I think they're holding off and hoping things will turn around more before they actaully need to.
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).
I'm pretty sure I already linked to this one in the thread, but here it is again:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._1.25_mdd.html
A MDD G4, no slouch at all at the time, 2003, Jobs era, $1299.
No, $1299's not the same as $1200, but then my post that you were quoting didn't say $1200. It said $1299.
i like the idea of having the comp. in the monitor
Not everyone feels as you do. You also probably want something simple, yet powerful. In that regard the iMac excels.
2. MacPros. I think Apple is afraid of losing not iMac sales, but MacPro sales.
They better be afraid of losing a customer who has used their products since about 1992.
I once had a 6100/60 at work. I had to cram in a full lenght nubus card so the HD was moved to the CD space. I then had the computer, extenal ZIP, external HDs, external CDdrive. As icing on the cake the 6100 had a video connector that did not fit any monitors on the planet including Apples own monitors. As I used a VGA monitor I had to use two adapters in serie to connect them, that monster made up a one foot long dongle hanging in the back of the computer...
I promised to never buy a computer without expansion abilites and now I got a mini mac sitting beside me...
MidMac is coming, but not quite yet.
Yep, it is coming. But I doubt it will come at MWSF, or at the Paris Expo. Mac Pro is too new to build a MidMac
I'm pretty sure I already linked to this one in the thread, but here it is again:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl..._1.25_mdd.html
A MDD G4, no slouch at all at the time, 2003, Jobs era, $1299.
No, $1299's not the same as $1200, but then my post that you were quoting didn't say $1200. It said $1299.
So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.
Mmkay...lets ignore Apple's pattern for the other 8.5 years of the Jobs decade and call this normal (and years is a slight exaggeration) But you're right, Apple did offer a $1299 tower. Today the equivalent would be a $1299 G5 single CPU tower as stopgap as folks transition to Intel.
Vinea
...
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.
...
Vinea
I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).
So for a period of 1 year for the G4 MDD which I missed and 6 months for the Firewire 800 you say Apple has sold cheap mid towers for years? One of which is a OS9 stopgap machine per your link.
Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was:
"Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business."
Lessee, how many machines has Apple sold between $1299 and $1599:
(I'm starting with the blue-and-white G3, the first tower to be uniquely of the Jobs era. I could go farther back than this if I wanted to)
300 MHz Blue G3 - $1600 (okay, one dollar more than my $1599. Bite me), Jan 1999.
450 MHz G4 - $1600, Oct 1999.
450 MHz G4 - $1600, Jul 2000.
2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.
800 MHz Quicksilver - $1599, Jan 2002.
August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.
1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.
1.25 GHz MDD - $1299, June 2003.
So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?
Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was:
"Again, Apple sold mini-towers in the $1299-$1599 range for years, and they didn't go out of business."
Lessee, how many machines has Apple sold between $1299 and $1599:
(I'm starting with the blue-and-white G3, the first tower to be uniquely of the Jobs era. I could go farther back than this if I wanted to)
300 MHz Blue G3 - $1600 (okay, one dollar more than my $1599. Bite me), Jan 1999.
450 MHz G4 - $1600, Oct 1999.
450 MHz G4 - $1600, Jul 2000.
2001 was a bad year for inexpensive G4s, with this model taking over in July 2001. Still, the low-end price then was $1699, still a lot better than today.
800 MHz Quicksilver - $1599, Jan 2002.
August 2002 was another anomalous half-year at $1699.
1.0 GHz dual MDD - $1499, Jan 2003. Remember when tower prices used to actually get lower over time? I remember those days. Those were good days... good days.
1.25 GHz MDD - $1299, June 2003.
So a period of time stretching from 1999 to 2004 (the date that last one was discontinued), minus two half-years of the price being $1700, and you have four whole years where you could get an expandable Mac tower in the $1300-$1600 range. If that doesn't qualify as "for years", then what does?
In other words, while most computers have gotten cheaper, Apple's professional line has progressively gone higher end and more pricey. Apple really doesn't play in the same market they did when I got my Blue and White G3.
Has Apple caught on to this? I really don't know. I seem to remember Apple switching ads on TV recently. In any case, it will take a while for the general public to change their way of thinking IMHO. The average Joe still thinks of either Windows or Mac, and never the two shall meet.
Good point. Perception of Reality hasn't caught up with Reality yet.
Some basic reading comprehension would help a lot. I didn't say they had a $1299 machine "for years" - my exact quote was...
If you want to do the "reading comprehension" game then my statement was:
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.
So yes, I covered all the machines that you relisted.
I took exception to the range as it implies what you tried to imply...which is there was often a cheap tower in the lineup closer to the $1000 mark than the $2000 mark.
A more accurate statement is: "Apple sold low-end version of their pro towers in the $1599-$1799 range with a few models that ranged as low as $1299". There were two: the $1499 G4 MDD and the $1299 G4 MDD both at the end of the G4 line.
Is a $1599-$1799 Mac Pro possible? Yes. Yes, although IMHO more likely at the $1799 than $1599 price.
Is a $1299 Mac Mini-Tower likely? No. Cube? Eh...probably higher priced. Maybe $1499 if we're lucky.
And if you want to be pendantic these aren't mini-towers anyway but Powermacs in full Powermac enclosures with lesser/slower/fewer CPUs. Just like there are low end Precision Workstations there were low end Powermac workstations.
The point that you reponded to when you posted that statement (i.e. the context) has more to do with the viability and likelyhood of mini/mid/tower macs in the $1000 range that you advocate and are more price competitive with non-workstation Dell models. Not the $1599-$1799 range.
I think many folks are in agreement that a lesser Mac Pro in that $1599-$1799 range is possible perhaps even probable (though not likely IMHO by Paris). But the family is "complete". There might be a low end Mac Pro or a bigger Mac Mini (a la cube) but not likely a "plain Macintosh" tower.
Vinea
I agree, totally. I just extend this a step further. If Apple can compete with Dell in price/performance with the current line-up and still maintain margins, then by extension Apple logically can compete in the mid to upper end consumer desktop market. This is the market that Dell has used to maintain its' profit margins while churning dollars with little or no profit in the low end market(re: heck Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly report).
Sure, if you define the high end consumer desktop market to be closer to the XPS 700 ($2000) or XPS 410 ($1600) line than the lower end XPS 400 and Dimension lines.
Comparing the Mac Pro to the XPS 700 doesn't help much though.
Vinea
I can see them in the best buy right now!
But what really happened to the old flat profile desktop? Why has it died out so thoroughly in comparison with the tower style? Is it because towers just 'look cooler' or because people actually want the added utility of a tower?
Personally, one of the best designs I've seen in recent years from Apple was the Flat Panel iMac... the one that looked like a desk lamp. It looks really goofy online, but my school has a lab full of them in the language department, and I tell you they are SMOOTH! the pivoting of the display 'is like butta!' Very nice design. definately had a couple of bugs in it, but very nice. As someone else said though, probably 'too foreign' looking.
Microsoft has engrained the idea that a computer is a box and a screen, so when a windows user sees a Mac it confuses them.
Actually, the "box and screen" concept is not Microsoft's at all. This dates back to the Altair, the Radio Shack TRS-80, and especially the Apple II.
Why especially? Because the basic PC architecture of a box with a mainboard and a series of slots for flexible expansion was introduced by the Apple II. The closest previous concept was something called the S-100 bus, but it was designed on a dumb backplane, where the CPU would be on one of the cards.
(OK, so I'm showing my age)
Box and screen makes a lot of sense because the lifecycle of the box is shorter than the screen (unless it's a low-quality screen). It has been so for 25 years now and I see no sign that it will change. Not only is it shorter, but it also has different timing. For instance, Intel CPU's had been stuck around the same performance between 2003 and 2005 (not to mention the PowerPC architecture), while screens improved a great deal and large sizes became common. Now Intel is rolling out very significant processors but we are at a screen plateau.
The "blob and screen" can even have aesthetic advantages depending on the environment. A single screen is more elegant and has fewer cables coming out of it than a full computer connected to the network and various peripherals, while the box can be neatly hidden away, unless it's a really big box like the Pro.
The box can be any size and shape. Call it a "blob" if you will. But "blob and screen" architecture is here to stay for a long, long time, and Apple should cover a full range of price points with it, rather than just the extremes.
I think those people who say Jobs doesn't like this are just guessing. Jobs naturally took care of existing product lines first, so it is only in the next year or so that we will find out Jobs is really against the MidMac concept.
Time will tell.