I agree that basic users don't need dedicated graphics. They would also be well served with core duos or even less powerful chips like p4s and pent ds. If a machine gets core 2 it makes sense to me that it would also get a graphics card. At this time core 2 is a high end chip.
Why do consumers need dedicated graphics? 80% of the PC market gets along with integrated graphics fine. No matter which dedicated card Apple put in it gamers will complain that their is a better one.
The point of the mini tower should be to have Conroe, 3.5 inch HDD, GPU choices, one open PCI-e slot.
All they would need to do is bring back The Cube with Conroe. That was a great computer.
Cube with some expandibility would be cool, but i'd much rather have a tower so I could just put in a couple huge SATA drives
Not necessarily. I believe Apple would transition all current models to Intel first, before introducing new models. The transition is complete, so now we can wait to see what new models will be offered. I would not be surprised to see a mini tower by MWSF, but also not surprised if I don't see it.
Exactly. It made total sense to start with a dual Woodcrest MP. No case redesign, the completion of the Intel transition, and an adequate supply of chips (unlike Conroe, given the enormous demand for it).
I don't know if I can wait til MWSF though. Hopefully it'll be out before the holidays.
They would also be well served with core duos or even less powerful chips like p4s and pent ds. If a machine gets core 2 it makes sense to me that it would also get a graphics card. At this time core 2 is a high end chip.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
Quote:
3 PCIe slots
a couple huge SATA drives
2 optical drives
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
OK! Time to clue me in on circuits!
Why is a rig with two dual core processors significantly different from a rig with a single quad core processor?
My impression is that the differrence is going to become, if it hasn't already, more or less insignificant. In other words, to deobfuscate myself, I don't see how, from a software perspective, actually using two or more physical sockets is any better if you still have the same number of cores available.
I would dare to say that it's inevitable that the days of single core programming are over. We've effectively hit the GHz barrier, so now the most significant speed gains will come from good MP programming which scales acording to the number of available processing cores, and by increasing the number of cores. It's cluster time, baby!!!!
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
I disagree. The thing that would make the MP competitive over the mini-tower would be power, not an extra slot here and there. People that wanted an MP would buy it because of 1. Xeon instead of Conroe, 2. quad-core vs. dual-core, and 3. really fast RAM. The point of the MP is performance - giving the mini-tower a second optical drive slot and a couple of open PCI-E slots wouldn't kill the MP.
Not that I care. If there were a second hard disk bay and a second PCI-E slot, that would be something, at least.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
That may be true but I can't help but feel that if one doesn't need dedicated graphics then they probably will be well served by a core duo or pent d processor.
I disagree. The thing that would make the MP competitive over the mini-tower would be power, not an extra slot here and there. People that wanted an MP would buy it because of 1. Xeon instead of Conroe, 2. quad-core vs. dual-core, and 3. really fast RAM. The point of the MP is performance - giving the mini-tower a second optical drive slot and a couple of open PCI-E slots wouldn't kill the MP.
I agree with you. The MP is about top performance. Two or three open PCI-e slots would not hurt the MP, and neither would a second optical drive bay. I now think it's a good thing to be able to add a second optical bay. More people have been asking for two than I expected, and most Windows mini towers seem to have two. To keep the mini tower size down, two HDDs is probably the limit however.
1) Maybe I'm showing my age, but when I hear "plain old Macintosh" I think of a cute little all-in-one desktop. To the extent that anything in Apple's lineup is, the iMac is a "plain old Macintosh."
2) What the replies in this thread indicate is that there is no market for a mid-level headless Mac. There are, however, hundreds or thousands of very small markets for hundreds or thousands of mid-level headless Macs, each optimized for specific wants or needs, and each priced to specific budgets. The first person to offer a realistically priced configuration that wins a quorum in one of these threads (and which is not the Mac Mini, as Apple already makes that) will have stumbled onto a design that Apple could seriously consider.
3) I have read now from multiple sources across many months that the Mac Mini is the best thing that ever happened to the iMac in terms of sales. The appeal of "all this in one tidy package" is almost universal in consumer products. So, if you satisfy the challenge in point #2, how would your machine not be a niche product whose main value lies in spurring people to buy iMacs, as the Mac Mini is.
(I'm not bashing the Mini. I love the little bugger, personally. But the ever-increasing pile of anecdotes I'm aware of suggest that its price brings people into the store, and many of those people walk out with iMacs.)
1) Maybe I'm showing my age, but when I hear "plain old Macintosh" I think of a cute little all-in-one desktop. To the extent that anything in Apple's lineup is, the iMac is a "plain old Macintosh."
Agreed. It would be up to Apple's marketing department to come up with a good name for it (or a not so good name, given recent history - MacBook Pro? Eesh). No one in this thread has really come up with a good name yet, but just "Mac" is definitely not a good idea.
It's too bad "Mac mini" is already taken, because that would have been a good name. Should've called that tiny thing the Mac nano. Oh well.
Quote:
2) What the replies in this thread indicate is that there is no market for a mid-level headless Mac. There are, however, hundreds or thousands of very small markets for hundreds or thousands of mid-level headless Macs, each optimized for specific wants or needs, and each priced to specific budgets. The first person to offer a realistically priced configuration that wins a quorum in one of these threads (and which is not the Mac Mini, as Apple already makes that) will have stumbled onto a design that Apple could seriously consider.
I disagree - the whole point of the mini-tower is that you can configure it to make the exact specific headless Mac model that you need for your particular niche, as you will. Heck, they could just offer one base model like the Mac Pro and let you BTO it to your heart's content. They don't need to make a discrete model for every possible configuration anyone could want.
Quote:
3) I have read now from multiple sources across many months that the Mac Mini is the best thing that ever happened to the iMac in terms of sales. The appeal of "all this in one tidy package" is almost universal in consumer products. So, if you satisfy the challenge in point #2, how would your machine not be a niche product whose main value lies in spurring people to buy iMacs, as the Mac Mini is.
I'm not sure how to argue one way or the other on this point. Some people in here argue that a mini-tower wouldn't sell and that the iMac would kill it (as you are doing), others argue that it would sell so well that it would kill the iMac. It's obviously just a lot of speculation. I can point to the posts in this thread by people who have said they absolutely do not want an AIO machine, and also to the overwhelming majority of PC desktops that are in the tower format, as evidence that there definitely exists a market for a mini-tower.
I'll say this, Apple's lineup is fine if they want to keep exactly what they have. The computer market has expanded dramatically over the past decade. Apple hasn't. Their choices to play it safe have kept them kicking, bur preventing them from being anything but a niche player. In the PowerPC days, it wasn't that bad of an idea. What's changed? Intel. Apple is in a much better position than it was. Make no mistake about it, Apple's lineup is designed to cater to the wants of the ~5% it already has. If Apple is to expand, new Machines are needed. Such as:
-Integrated graphics (edu) iMac to full retail to truly replace eMac. Put this in a box at best buy or Wal-Mart and it would sell like crazy.
-Headless iMac. Same features, no display. Possibly PCI-Express x16 slot if it doesn't take up too much room.
-Mac Pro Core 2 Duo. Yes there is room for a high end Core 2 desktop. Infact, an all Xeon lineup might actually be a disadvantage for Apple.
-15" Macbook (not pro). 15" intergrated notebooks are the best selling on the market and Apple is the only company without one. If you think Apple notebooks are selling well now, just think if something like this were sold.
(I'm not bashing the Mini. I love the little bugger, personally. But the ever-increasing pile of anecdotes I'm aware of suggest that its price brings people into the store, and many of those people walk out with iMacs.)
Except they're not walking out with iMacs. Desktop sales are down and the Mac mini and the iMac were the first to change to the Intel Core Duo.
Except they're not walking out with iMacs. Desktop sales are down and the Mac mini and the iMac were the first to change to the Intel Core Duo.
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie. There is no cheap PowerMac any more for precisely that reason.
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs—unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
People make fun of Microsoft for the huge mess that is Windows drivers, but that's a natural consequence of the, uh, tangled bank that is the Windows hardware ecology. Nothing is free.
[edit: HTML entities don't work here anymore? What is this, Communism?]
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
If we're talking about mid range desktop computers, the iMac is all Apple has to offer at the moment. Some of believe they'd be walking out with mini towers if such a Mac were available.
Quote:
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie.
Ever-shrinking pie? That would be so only if Apple's market share did not grow, or shrank. The whole idea of a mid range mini tower is to increase Apple's market share.
Quote:
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs?unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see any difference between offering many configurations of a mini tower or of the Mac Pro. It doesn't seem to cause a problem with the MP and a mini tower could be marketed in the same general way. Regarding PCI-e cards, it's not Apple's responsibility to test every card made. The onus is on the card vendor to to test it in the Mac that they are selling it for. Apple may test a few cards that they wish to sell through the Apple Store.
GAR!!!!!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN ECONOMICS AS A PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (unless we're talking about a bakery)
Pie arguments presume that the existing resources, money, customers, number of units that can be sold, are written in stone. This is a totally false assumption. Customers go where they want, and if they see a compelling product, they will buy it. So if there really were a pie, it would constantly be overfilling and deflating as the market changed.
It's similar to the mistaken perception that the economy as a whole is a pie, and that if rich people have lots of money, they must be hoarding it all, and no one else is getting their fair share. That's a very communistic and logically unsound perspective.
As I heard one guy put it, "Rich people don't take your share of the pie. They go out and build bakeries, and make more pies."
Pie arguments, while useful for conveying the idea that there is a limited amount of something, are patently false in cases where there really ISN'T a limited amount of something, such as potential customers for an Apple desktop.
You DO have to make sure, as a manufacturer, that you are providing what the market wants to buy, but there AINT NO STINKIN PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
More likely they're just plain walking out and buying a PC.
Quote:
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie. There is no cheap PowerMac any more for precisely that reason.
There's no cheap PowerMac anymore because nobody wanted a basically a full ATX-size computer with a single optical drive, 2 hard drive bays, and a slow PowerPC CPU for $1499.
Quote:
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs—unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
Really, the smallest PC maker can pull it off.
Quote:
People make fun of Microsoft for the huge mess that is Windows drivers, but that's a natural consequence of the, uh, tangled bank that is the Windows hardware ecology. Nothing is free.
You do know that the Mac platform has to have about 85% of those same drivers don't you? It's time we updated our stereotypes past 1996.
Apple has three options.
1. They expand their lineup to meet the needs of a bigger audience.
2. They keep their present lineup, but license the OS to grow the platform.
3. They keep their present lineup and remain a small niche player despite better technology.
I really don't understand the iMac, I'll be honest. I know alot of you like it but I just don't see the appeal whatsoever. A totally inflexable computer build with half laptop componants. Can someone explain to me what there is to like about it?
Maybe some of you just have money to blow on niche products like this but personally when I have to buy a new computer it takes me a couple of months of saving the extra money. So when I go to buy a computer I'm looking for the most bang for my buck.
So if I want an all-in-one system the first thing I would think about is a laptop. Because I can use it on my desk or take it with me. Sounds versatile and that's good. I could buy a macbook for $1100, and then a nice 19" LCD for $250 and for $50 more then the 17" imac I would have a computer with pretty much the same power/potential, portability to take anywhere I want and a 2" bigger screen when I use it on my desk.
However if I want a desktop system I don't plan to take anywhere, I'm looking for something a little more expandable. I want to be able to upgrade the graphics card, maybe throw a few more hard drives or components in there. Make it a nice little work horse for one of my hobbies without spending a fortune.
The imac on the other hand is like the worst of a desktop and the worst of a laptop all thrown together into one machine.
Comments
I agree that basic users don't need dedicated graphics. They would also be well served with core duos or even less powerful chips like p4s and pent ds. If a machine gets core 2 it makes sense to me that it would also get a graphics card. At this time core 2 is a high end chip.
Why do consumers need dedicated graphics? 80% of the PC market gets along with integrated graphics fine. No matter which dedicated card Apple put in it gamers will complain that their is a better one.
The point of the mini tower should be to have Conroe, 3.5 inch HDD, GPU choices, one open PCI-e slot.
All they would need to do is bring back The Cube with Conroe. That was a great computer.
Cube with some expandibility would be cool, but i'd much rather have a tower so I could just put in a couple huge SATA drives
Not necessarily. I believe Apple would transition all current models to Intel first, before introducing new models. The transition is complete, so now we can wait to see what new models will be offered. I would not be surprised to see a mini tower by MWSF, but also not surprised if I don't see it.
Exactly. It made total sense to start with a dual Woodcrest MP. No case redesign, the completion of the Intel transition, and an adequate supply of chips (unlike Conroe, given the enormous demand for it).
I don't know if I can wait til MWSF though. Hopefully it'll be out before the holidays.
They would also be well served with core duos or even less powerful chips like p4s and pent ds. If a machine gets core 2 it makes sense to me that it would also get a graphics card. At this time core 2 is a high end chip.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
3 PCIe slots
a couple huge SATA drives
2 optical drives
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
OK! Time to clue me in on circuits!
Why is a rig with two dual core processors significantly different from a rig with a single quad core processor?
My impression is that the differrence is going to become, if it hasn't already, more or less insignificant. In other words, to deobfuscate myself, I don't see how, from a software perspective, actually using two or more physical sockets is any better if you still have the same number of cores available.
I would dare to say that it's inevitable that the days of single core programming are over. We've effectively hit the GHz barrier, so now the most significant speed gains will come from good MP programming which scales acording to the number of available processing cores, and by increasing the number of cores. It's cluster time, baby!!!!
These three compete too closely to the MP. There would only be one HDD slot, one optical drive, and we'd be lucky to to have one open PCIe expansion slot.
I disagree. The thing that would make the MP competitive over the mini-tower would be power, not an extra slot here and there. People that wanted an MP would buy it because of 1. Xeon instead of Conroe, 2. quad-core vs. dual-core, and 3. really fast RAM. The point of the MP is performance - giving the mini-tower a second optical drive slot and a couple of open PCI-E slots wouldn't kill the MP.
Not that I care. If there were a second hard disk bay and a second PCI-E slot, that would be something, at least.
In over all system performance you get more bang for you buck with two processors than one processor and dedicated graphics.
That may be true but I can't help but feel that if one doesn't need dedicated graphics then they probably will be well served by a core duo or pent d processor.
I disagree. The thing that would make the MP competitive over the mini-tower would be power, not an extra slot here and there. People that wanted an MP would buy it because of 1. Xeon instead of Conroe, 2. quad-core vs. dual-core, and 3. really fast RAM. The point of the MP is performance - giving the mini-tower a second optical drive slot and a couple of open PCI-E slots wouldn't kill the MP.
I agree with you. The MP is about top performance. Two or three open PCI-e slots would not hurt the MP, and neither would a second optical drive bay. I now think it's a good thing to be able to add a second optical bay. More people have been asking for two than I expected, and most Windows mini towers seem to have two. To keep the mini tower size down, two HDDs is probably the limit however.
2) What the replies in this thread indicate is that there is no market for a mid-level headless Mac. There are, however, hundreds or thousands of very small markets for hundreds or thousands of mid-level headless Macs, each optimized for specific wants or needs, and each priced to specific budgets. The first person to offer a realistically priced configuration that wins a quorum in one of these threads (and which is not the Mac Mini, as Apple already makes that) will have stumbled onto a design that Apple could seriously consider.
3) I have read now from multiple sources across many months that the Mac Mini is the best thing that ever happened to the iMac in terms of sales. The appeal of "all this in one tidy package" is almost universal in consumer products. So, if you satisfy the challenge in point #2, how would your machine not be a niche product whose main value lies in spurring people to buy iMacs, as the Mac Mini is.
(I'm not bashing the Mini. I love the little bugger, personally. But the ever-increasing pile of anecdotes I'm aware of suggest that its price brings people into the store, and many of those people walk out with iMacs.)
1) Maybe I'm showing my age, but when I hear "plain old Macintosh" I think of a cute little all-in-one desktop. To the extent that anything in Apple's lineup is, the iMac is a "plain old Macintosh."
Agreed. It would be up to Apple's marketing department to come up with a good name for it (or a not so good name, given recent history - MacBook Pro? Eesh). No one in this thread has really come up with a good name yet, but just "Mac" is definitely not a good idea.
It's too bad "Mac mini" is already taken, because that would have been a good name. Should've called that tiny thing the Mac nano. Oh well.
2) What the replies in this thread indicate is that there is no market for a mid-level headless Mac. There are, however, hundreds or thousands of very small markets for hundreds or thousands of mid-level headless Macs, each optimized for specific wants or needs, and each priced to specific budgets. The first person to offer a realistically priced configuration that wins a quorum in one of these threads (and which is not the Mac Mini, as Apple already makes that) will have stumbled onto a design that Apple could seriously consider.
I disagree - the whole point of the mini-tower is that you can configure it to make the exact specific headless Mac model that you need for your particular niche, as you will. Heck, they could just offer one base model like the Mac Pro and let you BTO it to your heart's content. They don't need to make a discrete model for every possible configuration anyone could want.
3) I have read now from multiple sources across many months that the Mac Mini is the best thing that ever happened to the iMac in terms of sales. The appeal of "all this in one tidy package" is almost universal in consumer products. So, if you satisfy the challenge in point #2, how would your machine not be a niche product whose main value lies in spurring people to buy iMacs, as the Mac Mini is.
I'm not sure how to argue one way or the other on this point. Some people in here argue that a mini-tower wouldn't sell and that the iMac would kill it (as you are doing), others argue that it would sell so well that it would kill the iMac. It's obviously just a lot of speculation. I can point to the posts in this thread by people who have said they absolutely do not want an AIO machine, and also to the overwhelming majority of PC desktops that are in the tower format, as evidence that there definitely exists a market for a mini-tower.
-Integrated graphics (edu) iMac to full retail to truly replace eMac. Put this in a box at best buy or Wal-Mart and it would sell like crazy.
-Headless iMac. Same features, no display. Possibly PCI-Express x16 slot if it doesn't take up too much room.
-Mac Pro Core 2 Duo. Yes there is room for a high end Core 2 desktop. Infact, an all Xeon lineup might actually be a disadvantage for Apple.
-15" Macbook (not pro). 15" intergrated notebooks are the best selling on the market and Apple is the only company without one. If you think Apple notebooks are selling well now, just think if something like this were sold.
1)
...
(I'm not bashing the Mini. I love the little bugger, personally. But the ever-increasing pile of anecdotes I'm aware of suggest that its price brings people into the store, and many of those people walk out with iMacs.)
Except they're not walking out with iMacs. Desktop sales are down and the Mac mini and the iMac were the first to change to the Intel Core Duo.
Except they're not walking out with iMacs. Desktop sales are down and the Mac mini and the iMac were the first to change to the Intel Core Duo.
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie. There is no cheap PowerMac any more for precisely that reason.
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs—unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
People make fun of Microsoft for the huge mess that is Windows drivers, but that's a natural consequence of the, uh, tangled bank that is the Windows hardware ecology. Nothing is free.
[edit: HTML entities don't work here anymore? What is this, Communism?]
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
If we're talking about mid range desktop computers, the iMac is all Apple has to offer at the moment. Some of believe they'd be walking out with mini towers if such a Mac were available.
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie.
Ever-shrinking pie? That would be so only if Apple's market share did not grow, or shrank. The whole idea of a mid range mini tower is to increase Apple's market share.
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs?unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see any difference between offering many configurations of a mini tower or of the Mac Pro. It doesn't seem to cause a problem with the MP and a mini tower could be marketed in the same general way. Regarding PCI-e cards, it's not Apple's responsibility to test every card made. The onus is on the card vendor to to test it in the Mac that they are selling it for. Apple may test a few cards that they wish to sell through the Apple Store.
one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie.
#include <rant>
using namespace pie;
int main ()
{
/*
GAR!!!!!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN ECONOMICS AS A PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (unless we're talking about a bakery)
Pie arguments presume that the existing resources, money, customers, number of units that can be sold, are written in stone. This is a totally false assumption. Customers go where they want, and if they see a compelling product, they will buy it. So if there really were a pie, it would constantly be overfilling and deflating as the market changed.
It's similar to the mistaken perception that the economy as a whole is a pie, and that if rich people have lots of money, they must be hoarding it all, and no one else is getting their fair share. That's a very communistic and logically unsound perspective.
As I heard one guy put it, "Rich people don't take your share of the pie. They go out and build bakeries, and make more pies."
Pie arguments, while useful for conveying the idea that there is a limited amount of something, are patently false in cases where there really ISN'T a limited amount of something, such as potential customers for an Apple desktop.
You DO have to make sure, as a manufacturer, that you are providing what the market wants to buy, but there AINT NO STINKIN PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*/
return 0;
}
If they're walking out with desktops, they're walking out with iMacs. Is that better?
More likely they're just plain walking out and buying a PC.
It's true that laptops are commanding a greater and greater share of the overall market. What that means is that any new desktop you want Apple to introduce will be one more product vying for a piece of an ever-shrinking pie. There is no cheap PowerMac any more for precisely that reason.
There's no cheap PowerMac anymore because nobody wanted a basically a full ATX-size computer with a single optical drive, 2 hard drive bays, and a slow PowerPC CPU for $1499.
The reason I mention "hundreds or thousands" of models is that configurability is pricey if it's done right. The more options you offer, the more the whole thing costs—unless you've just sourced all the options without testing them. Most of the people who want an expandable Mac want a low price point and a significant number of options at the board level (i.e., they really want multiple SKUs). That's not at all easy to pull off.
Really, the smallest PC maker can pull it off.
People make fun of Microsoft for the huge mess that is Windows drivers, but that's a natural consequence of the, uh, tangled bank that is the Windows hardware ecology. Nothing is free.
You do know that the Mac platform has to have about 85% of those same drivers don't you? It's time we updated our stereotypes past 1996.
Apple has three options.
1. They expand their lineup to meet the needs of a bigger audience.
2. They keep their present lineup, but license the OS to grow the platform.
3. They keep their present lineup and remain a small niche player despite better technology.
.
1. They expand their lineup to meet the needs of a bigger audience.
hmm....... yeah BUT..... just changing their lineup can do that too. Change or expand. either/or/and.
hmm....... yeah BUT..... just changing their lineup can do that too. Change or expand. either/or/and.
Why change? What they have works great for its intended audience.
Maybe some of you just have money to blow on niche products like this but personally when I have to buy a new computer it takes me a couple of months of saving the extra money. So when I go to buy a computer I'm looking for the most bang for my buck.
So if I want an all-in-one system the first thing I would think about is a laptop. Because I can use it on my desk or take it with me. Sounds versatile and that's good. I could buy a macbook for $1100, and then a nice 19" LCD for $250 and for $50 more then the 17" imac I would have a computer with pretty much the same power/potential, portability to take anywhere I want and a 2" bigger screen when I use it on my desk.
However if I want a desktop system I don't plan to take anywhere, I'm looking for something a little more expandable. I want to be able to upgrade the graphics card, maybe throw a few more hard drives or components in there. Make it a nice little work horse for one of my hobbies without spending a fortune.
The imac on the other hand is like the worst of a desktop and the worst of a laptop all thrown together into one machine.