Because, as has been said before, it would cannabalize sales of the iMac. Why should Apple render one product line defunct by making another computer that undercuts it in price and beats it in specs?
Because iMac and a cheap dual core tower cater to markets with very little overlap.
People who want to get an iMac will still get an iMac, people who want a tower will still get a tower.
Also you'll get a lot more switchers then as well.
I think Apple doesn't want to do it because they don't want to deal with all of the problems peeps are going to run into when they go upgrading their "under warranty" boxes with non-apple "approved" hardware.
. . . I think Apple doesn't want to do it because they don't want to deal with all of the problems peeps are going to run into when they go upgrading their "under warranty" boxes with non-apple "approved" hardware.
How would this differ from the what goes on with a new Mac Pro? Most people install third party drives and memory already. Apple expects it. If you take it in for warranty service, the third party components are not covered.
Regarding the post you replied to, I think many on this forum have shown that iMac sales would be hurt only if Apple were dumb enough to price a mini tower far too low. If prices are set well, the iMac would always be just a little better deal than the mini tower.
Because iMac and a cheap dual core tower cater to markets with very little overlap.
People who want to get an iMac will still get an iMac, people who want a tower will still get a tower.
Also you'll get a lot more switchers then as well. [snipperdesnipsnip]
I don't believe that people would switch because of a $1,000-$1,700 mini-tower sans screen. Which I still don't believe will arrive, anyway. I support the Conroe-based Mac Pro concept.
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers.
The fact that most of them buy mini-towers doesn't automatically mean that they prefer them. Windows based mini-towers are dirt cheap (you can get one for free with a 2 year cellphone subscription) and every alternative for that concept (if there is any) is expensive and/or ugly.
That's the most important reason why mini-towers are the top-selling desktop computer in the Windows world.
Most Windows-based computer owners don't even bother to look at the Mac because they feel comfy and save with what they have. Software and malware for free, just like everybody else has. It's good to be average.
As average as a mini-tower.
If a Windows owner considers a Mac anyway, the fact there is no mini-tower option won't be a problem.
This person has already taken a step to change the way he computes.
He is already more critical, he will inform himself about the options and the pros and cons of being a Mac-user. (Otherwise he wouldn't consider a Mac in the first place) He won't be bothered by the fact that his options are limited to cheap, not so cheap and quite expensive.
And maybe the fact he doesn't have another box on his desk will actually help him in, instead of scare him away.
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers. . .
It is an interesting theory, but I don't agree.
Yes, there are very cheap Windows mini towers that those who just do email and surf the web buy because they are cheap. I have some friends like that. There are also Windows mini towers that sell for $800 and up, which have a higher performing CPUs and graphics card. These are two different markets, and Apple needs to go after the upper one -- those who want a tower, but are not not ready for a dual Xeon workstation class tower.
I don't believe Apple would want to offer a castrated version of their flagship Mac to fill this market. Beside, the Mac Pro has some expenses built into its design that are not needed for the mini tower market, and cost more to produce.
However, a mini tower is not all Apple needs. They need to go after the cheap Windows computers with something customers want more than a Mac Mini. The Mini has shortcomings, and it is not necessarily in performance, but other features. This is a topic for a different thread, however, so I'll stop here.
How would this differ from the what goes on with a new Mac Pro?
The first reason is because Apple needs to have a presence is a pro market.
However, very few people buy Mac Pros because of the price and most of those people don't upgrade either or will upgrade with Apple authorized parts. Mac Pro is not a cheap enthusiast machine.
You release a $1000 tower and a lot of gaming junkies are going to buy it so they can dual boot Windows/ Mac OS, mod it, overclock it... and that's when the hell will break loose.
Quote:
Regarding the post you replied to, I think many on this forum have shown that iMac sales would be hurt only if Apple were dumb enough to price a mini tower far too low.
How exactly did "many on this forum" show this? And what is "far too low" exactly?
Quote:
If prices are set well, the iMac would always be just a little better deal than the mini tower.
Deal for what? The two PC are very different, so idea of a "better deal" is not so well defined in this case.
Quote:
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers.
I wouldn't know, I'm not a Mac user... although I take care of a few for a couple of peeps.
Quote:
The fact that most of them buy mini-towers doesn't automatically mean that they prefer them. Windows based mini-towers are dirt cheap (you can get one for free with a 2 year cellphone subscription) and every alternative for that concept (if there is any) is expensive and/or ugly.
While many people "on the PC side" are quick to say this, not a lot of people actually buy a $399 or $499 tower. I've seen a lot of people buy PCs when I was in college and grad school. Some knew a lot about PCs, most didn't. However, very very few bought a stock "stripper" configuration. And those that did, ended up upgrading the components anyway. If you go to Dell website, for example, and order a "mainstream" configuration, it'll run you ~$1k without a monitor.
The reason why Dell and HP are always quick to advertise $400 PC is the same why car dealers always have a "below cost stripper" on the lot that they advertise... to get you in the store!
The reason why minitowers sell well is that they offer a good balance of space efficiency, cost, and upgradability.
Quote:
He won't be bothered by the fact that his options are limited to cheap, not so cheap and quite expensive.
Why not? Choices are a good thing.
Quote:
And maybe the fact he doesn't have another box on his desk will actually help him in, instead of scare him away.
Hmm... unless Apple started making computers in a sphere or pyramid, the box will still be there... it'll be just a different box.
. . . However, very few people buy Mac Pros because of the price and most of those people don't upgrade either or will upgrade with Apple authorized parts. Mac Pro is not a cheap enthusiast machine.
Well, that may be your experience, but not mine. I don't know anyone who bought a better Mac tower and then went to Apple for "authorized" parts, for their upgrades, especially memory upgrades.
Quote:
You release a $1000 tower and a lot of gaming junkies are going to buy it so they can dual boot Windows/ Mac OS, mod it, overclock it... and that's when the hell will break loose.
Over-clocking voids the warranty, but I could be mistaken about this.
Quote:
How exactly did "many on this forum" show this? And what is "far too low" exactly? . . . [Better] Deal for what? The two PC are very different, so idea of a "better deal" is not so well defined in this case.
Sorry I replied in just two sentences. If Apple prices a mini tower with monitor a $100 dollars cheaper than an iMac with the same performance and features, it should be obvious that potential iMac customers will seriously consider buying a mini tower instead. It's just economics. If two products have equal appeal, then the cheaper one will usually sell better. Now, if Apple prices the mini tower so that the equivalent iMac is $100 cheaper, then the iMac has the advantage, as it should. It is an AIO and can be manufactured at a little lower cost. Also Steve likes it and doesn't want to hurt its sales.
Yet, there are many who do not want an AIO, or who need the expandability of the mini tower. The iMac will not hurt the sales of those customers. To them, the bigger power supply alone is worth the extra cost, and it is needed to have an expandable computer.
Okay, that's the end of what you quoted from me. I'm finished.
However, your reply is confusing, because you reply to two different people and do not distinguish between them in your post. It is difficult for the reader to tell who said what.
Would you consider editing your post and adding the names to your quote? In that way, it will read "Original post by . . ." in the forum.
Well, that may be your experience, but not mine. I don't know anyone who bought a better Mac tower and then went to Apple for "authorized" parts, for their upgrades, especially memory upgrades.
Over-clocking voids the warranty, but I could be mistaken about this.
Sorry I replied in just two sentences. If Apple prices a mini tower with monitor a $100 dollars cheaper than an iMac with the same performance and features, it should be obvious that potential iMac customers will seriously consider buying a mini tower instead. It's just economics. If two products have equal appeal, then the cheaper one will usually sell better. Now, if Apple prices the mini tower so that the equivalent iMac is $100 cheaper, then the iMac has the advantage, as it should. It is an AIO and can be manufactured at a little lower cost. Also Steve likes it and doesn't want to hurt its sales.
Key words: equal and appeal. The other 95% don't think the same as Mac users. At $1300 which is clearly in the prosumer range, the customer is going to want expansion options. We're not talking about people who only read emails at this price.
. . . At $1300 which is clearly in the prosumer range, the customer is going to want expansion options. We're not talking about people who only read emails at this price.
Yes, I completely agree, but I don't understand how your statement applies to the posting you quoted? My post is mainly re-explaining how proper pricing of a "prosumer" model can prevent it from impacting iMac sales too badly.
Who's talking about selling mini towers at "at next to no profit?" Not me. Apple can sell with their usual profit margin and do fine. An Apple mini tower wouldn't be competing with all the Windows mini towers out there. (I am sounding like a broken 33 RPM LP on this point.) Windows mini towers DO NOT RUN Mac OS X. Period.
Brilliant.
Of course what Windows mini towers have over Apple is that they'll sell for lower margin, so you'll get the old "more expensive Mac" dog rearing it's ugly head.
Period.
PS- The only people who really think OS X is so superior that it'll entice any buyer who just looks at it are already converted.
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
Well, they have increased the relative power and price of the Mac Pro beyond the historic market for that computer, that cannot be denied.
The reasons for this could be many, from loosing connection with their user base (it wouldn't be the first time that a large corporation has fallen into this, thinking that they know what their customers want instead of finding out what they will buy, just look at GM and Ford) to changing the focus of their marketing for the computer.
It could be that they put out a very high end Pro with the intention of releasing a lower end tower later when the Conroe chips become more widely available or that they believe that the 20" iMac suits the traditional market for the lower end towers.
They also might be planning on releasing a 23" iMac that would better fit the needs of Graphics Professionals that don't need the power and expansion of a full blown Mac Pro but do need a larger monitor than the current 20" iMac.
It could also be that this is a segment of the market that they just don't want to compete in at this point in time. They have done this in the past, particularly when they released the G4 iMac knowing that they were leaving the low end consumer market that the G3 iMac covered and that they could not get an AIO down low enough in price to compete in the sub $1000 market.
What cannot be denied is that the Mac Pro does not cover the $1299-$1999 price range that the low end PowerMacs sold for, or that most computer's on the market are some form of towers. It may be that AIO's are better for consumers, but no matter how much Apple says this as long as people are not convinced of this fact then they will not sell computers to these people unless they are settling for these systems simply for the OS.
I'd like to ask everyone who believes Apple NEEDS a mini tower to answer this question:
Coward! Just kidding of course.
Maybe I need to take Expository Writing 101. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding me lately. I was switching subjects when I wrote, "They need to go after the cheap Windows computers with something customers want more than a Mac Mini." I wasn't referring to a Mac mini tower here, but saying that the Mac Mini doesn't address the low end market a well as it could. It's too much of a boutique computer. It certainly has a certain charm, but those who want basic computer functionality cheap don't take it seriously. This is of course just my opinion of the Mac Mini.
If Apple had a low cost, practical box when I needed a better office computer, I would have purchased it. As it was, I got a used 733 MHz Quicksilver PowerMac that I am typing on right now. I wanted something with low cost component so I could cheaply upgrade or replace things like hard drives. I also wanted a case that I could easily open, not a tiny box that takes special tools to get inside.
Quote:
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
Now are we talking about a Mac mini tower? I don't really know why Apple would ignore a market like the one being discussed, and I'm hoping Apple now has something in the works to address it.
Of course what Windows mini towers have over Apple is that they'll sell for lower margin, so you'll get the old "more expensive Mac" dog rearing it's ugly head. . .
So what? People will be saying that about Apple no matter what they do. If Macs sold for only $50 more, people would continue to sing the same song. Those who are seriously considering switching to a Mac, however, will look more closely at what they get for $100 or $200 more.
Your argument is flawed in other ways too if you are thinking people will compare a $1200 Mac mini tower with a $499 Windows tower. These are two different markets for Windows computers. The cheap stuff is selling to different customers than a $999 Windows mini tower.
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
..
I don't know, but Apple gives the impression that they don't want to compete on price and that perhaps they can't offer design feateures that justify prices which give them their historically high profit margins.
Well all I know is that I've got a mac laptop and a PC tower. I'm looking to replace my tower but it has 3 hard drives in it and a couple of optical drives. I'm looking to gut it and put those things in a mac tower. But I'm not going to pay $2500 because I don't need that Xeon power and high memory cost. And I'm also not going to put those drives into external USB enclosures, because that just clutters my desk with external drives and it's not as fast of a transfer rate. So I'll wait a little longer in hopes that Apple releases a mid range tower. But I tell you what, those new intel chips are looking just as good on the PC side even if I have to use windows.
I may not be your typical computer stupid consumer, but I have a feeling there are a good number of people out there like me. At least as many as would buy a niche product like an imac.
Comments
Sorry, but i have no english page available.
I'd like something like this, but with Conroe: www.apple.com/macpro
Got me
Because, as has been said before, it would cannabalize sales of the iMac. Why should Apple render one product line defunct by making another computer that undercuts it in price and beats it in specs?
Because iMac and a cheap dual core tower cater to markets with very little overlap.
People who want to get an iMac will still get an iMac, people who want a tower will still get a tower.
Also you'll get a lot more switchers then as well.
I think Apple doesn't want to do it because they don't want to deal with all of the problems peeps are going to run into when they go upgrading their "under warranty" boxes with non-apple "approved" hardware.
. . . I think Apple doesn't want to do it because they don't want to deal with all of the problems peeps are going to run into when they go upgrading their "under warranty" boxes with non-apple "approved" hardware.
How would this differ from the what goes on with a new Mac Pro? Most people install third party drives and memory already. Apple expects it. If you take it in for warranty service, the third party components are not covered.
Regarding the post you replied to, I think many on this forum have shown that iMac sales would be hurt only if Apple were dumb enough to price a mini tower far too low. If prices are set well, the iMac would always be just a little better deal than the mini tower.
Because iMac and a cheap dual core tower cater to markets with very little overlap.
People who want to get an iMac will still get an iMac, people who want a tower will still get a tower.
Also you'll get a lot more switchers then as well. [snipperdesnipsnip]
I don't believe that people would switch because of a $1,000-$1,700 mini-tower sans screen. Which I still don't believe will arrive, anyway. I support the Conroe-based Mac Pro concept.
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers.
The fact that most of them buy mini-towers doesn't automatically mean that they prefer them. Windows based mini-towers are dirt cheap (you can get one for free with a 2 year cellphone subscription) and every alternative for that concept (if there is any) is expensive and/or ugly.
That's the most important reason why mini-towers are the top-selling desktop computer in the Windows world.
Most Windows-based computer owners don't even bother to look at the Mac because they feel comfy and save with what they have. Software and malware for free, just like everybody else has. It's good to be average.
As average as a mini-tower.
If a Windows owner considers a Mac anyway, the fact there is no mini-tower option won't be a problem.
This person has already taken a step to change the way he computes.
He is already more critical, he will inform himself about the options and the pros and cons of being a Mac-user. (Otherwise he wouldn't consider a Mac in the first place) He won't be bothered by the fact that his options are limited to cheap, not so cheap and quite expensive.
And maybe the fact he doesn't have another box on his desk will actually help him in, instead of scare him away.
Anyways,
my two eurocent, again.
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers. . .
It is an interesting theory, but I don't agree.
Yes, there are very cheap Windows mini towers that those who just do email and surf the web buy because they are cheap. I have some friends like that. There are also Windows mini towers that sell for $800 and up, which have a higher performing CPUs and graphics card. These are two different markets, and Apple needs to go after the upper one -- those who want a tower, but are not not ready for a dual Xeon workstation class tower.
I don't believe Apple would want to offer a castrated version of their flagship Mac to fill this market. Beside, the Mac Pro has some expenses built into its design that are not needed for the mini tower market, and cost more to produce.
However, a mini tower is not all Apple needs. They need to go after the cheap Windows computers with something customers want more than a Mac Mini. The Mini has shortcomings, and it is not necessarily in performance, but other features. This is a topic for a different thread, however, so I'll stop here.
How would this differ from the what goes on with a new Mac Pro?
The first reason is because Apple needs to have a presence is a pro market.
However, very few people buy Mac Pros because of the price and most of those people don't upgrade either or will upgrade with Apple authorized parts. Mac Pro is not a cheap enthusiast machine.
You release a $1000 tower and a lot of gaming junkies are going to buy it so they can dual boot Windows/ Mac OS, mod it, overclock it... and that's when the hell will break loose.
Regarding the post you replied to, I think many on this forum have shown that iMac sales would be hurt only if Apple were dumb enough to price a mini tower far too low.
How exactly did "many on this forum" show this? And what is "far too low" exactly?
If prices are set well, the iMac would always be just a little better deal than the mini tower.
Deal for what? The two PC are very different, so idea of a "better deal" is not so well defined in this case.
I think there is a misinterpretation by Mac users why Windows owners buy mini-towers.
I wouldn't know, I'm not a Mac user... although I take care of a few for a couple of peeps.
The fact that most of them buy mini-towers doesn't automatically mean that they prefer them. Windows based mini-towers are dirt cheap (you can get one for free with a 2 year cellphone subscription) and every alternative for that concept (if there is any) is expensive and/or ugly.
While many people "on the PC side" are quick to say this, not a lot of people actually buy a $399 or $499 tower. I've seen a lot of people buy PCs when I was in college and grad school. Some knew a lot about PCs, most didn't. However, very very few bought a stock "stripper" configuration. And those that did, ended up upgrading the components anyway. If you go to Dell website, for example, and order a "mainstream" configuration, it'll run you ~$1k without a monitor.
The reason why Dell and HP are always quick to advertise $400 PC is the same why car dealers always have a "below cost stripper" on the lot that they advertise... to get you in the store!
The reason why minitowers sell well is that they offer a good balance of space efficiency, cost, and upgradability.
He won't be bothered by the fact that his options are limited to cheap, not so cheap and quite expensive.
Why not? Choices are a good thing.
And maybe the fact he doesn't have another box on his desk will actually help him in, instead of scare him away.
Hmm... unless Apple started making computers in a sphere or pyramid, the box will still be there... it'll be just a different box.
. . . However, very few people buy Mac Pros because of the price and most of those people don't upgrade either or will upgrade with Apple authorized parts. Mac Pro is not a cheap enthusiast machine.
Well, that may be your experience, but not mine. I don't know anyone who bought a better Mac tower and then went to Apple for "authorized" parts, for their upgrades, especially memory upgrades.
You release a $1000 tower and a lot of gaming junkies are going to buy it so they can dual boot Windows/ Mac OS, mod it, overclock it... and that's when the hell will break loose.
Over-clocking voids the warranty, but I could be mistaken about this.
How exactly did "many on this forum" show this? And what is "far too low" exactly? . . . [Better] Deal for what? The two PC are very different, so idea of a "better deal" is not so well defined in this case.
Sorry I replied in just two sentences. If Apple prices a mini tower with monitor a $100 dollars cheaper than an iMac with the same performance and features, it should be obvious that potential iMac customers will seriously consider buying a mini tower instead. It's just economics. If two products have equal appeal, then the cheaper one will usually sell better. Now, if Apple prices the mini tower so that the equivalent iMac is $100 cheaper, then the iMac has the advantage, as it should. It is an AIO and can be manufactured at a little lower cost. Also Steve likes it and doesn't want to hurt its sales.
Yet, there are many who do not want an AIO, or who need the expandability of the mini tower. The iMac will not hurt the sales of those customers. To them, the bigger power supply alone is worth the extra cost, and it is needed to have an expandable computer.
Okay, that's the end of what you quoted from me. I'm finished.
However, your reply is confusing, because you reply to two different people and do not distinguish between them in your post. It is difficult for the reader to tell who said what.
Would you consider editing your post and adding the names to your quote? In that way, it will read "Original post by . . ." in the forum.
Well, that may be your experience, but not mine. I don't know anyone who bought a better Mac tower and then went to Apple for "authorized" parts, for their upgrades, especially memory upgrades.
Over-clocking voids the warranty, but I could be mistaken about this.
Sorry I replied in just two sentences. If Apple prices a mini tower with monitor a $100 dollars cheaper than an iMac with the same performance and features, it should be obvious that potential iMac customers will seriously consider buying a mini tower instead. It's just economics. If two products have equal appeal, then the cheaper one will usually sell better. Now, if Apple prices the mini tower so that the equivalent iMac is $100 cheaper, then the iMac has the advantage, as it should. It is an AIO and can be manufactured at a little lower cost. Also Steve likes it and doesn't want to hurt its sales.
Key words: equal and appeal. The other 95% don't think the same as Mac users. At $1300 which is clearly in the prosumer range, the customer is going to want expansion options. We're not talking about people who only read emails at this price.
. . . At $1300 which is clearly in the prosumer range, the customer is going to want expansion options. We're not talking about people who only read emails at this price.
Yes, I completely agree, but I don't understand how your statement applies to the posting you quoted? My post is mainly re-explaining how proper pricing of a "prosumer" model can prevent it from impacting iMac sales too badly.
Who's talking about selling mini towers at "at next to no profit?" Not me. Apple can sell with their usual profit margin and do fine. An Apple mini tower wouldn't be competing with all the Windows mini towers out there. (I am sounding like a broken 33 RPM LP on this point.) Windows mini towers DO NOT RUN Mac OS X. Period.
Brilliant.
Of course what Windows mini towers have over Apple is that they'll sell for lower margin, so you'll get the old "more expensive Mac" dog rearing it's ugly head.
Period.
PS- The only people who really think OS X is so superior that it'll entice any buyer who just looks at it are already converted.
They need to go after the cheap Windows computers with something customers want more than a Mac Mini.
I'd like to ask everyone who believes Apple NEEDS a mini tower to answer this question:
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
..
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
Well, they have increased the relative power and price of the Mac Pro beyond the historic market for that computer, that cannot be denied.
The reasons for this could be many, from loosing connection with their user base (it wouldn't be the first time that a large corporation has fallen into this, thinking that they know what their customers want instead of finding out what they will buy, just look at GM and Ford) to changing the focus of their marketing for the computer.
It could be that they put out a very high end Pro with the intention of releasing a lower end tower later when the Conroe chips become more widely available or that they believe that the 20" iMac suits the traditional market for the lower end towers.
They also might be planning on releasing a 23" iMac that would better fit the needs of Graphics Professionals that don't need the power and expansion of a full blown Mac Pro but do need a larger monitor than the current 20" iMac.
It could also be that this is a segment of the market that they just don't want to compete in at this point in time. They have done this in the past, particularly when they released the G4 iMac knowing that they were leaving the low end consumer market that the G3 iMac covered and that they could not get an AIO down low enough in price to compete in the sub $1000 market.
What cannot be denied is that the Mac Pro does not cover the $1299-$1999 price range that the low end PowerMacs sold for, or that most computer's on the market are some form of towers. It may be that AIO's are better for consumers, but no matter how much Apple says this as long as people are not convinced of this fact then they will not sell computers to these people unless they are settling for these systems simply for the OS.
I'd like to ask everyone who believes Apple NEEDS a mini tower to answer this question:
Coward! Just kidding of course.
Maybe I need to take Expository Writing 101. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding me lately. I was switching subjects when I wrote, "They need to go after the cheap Windows computers with something customers want more than a Mac Mini." I wasn't referring to a Mac mini tower here, but saying that the Mac Mini doesn't address the low end market a well as it could. It's too much of a boutique computer. It certainly has a certain charm, but those who want basic computer functionality cheap don't take it seriously. This is of course just my opinion of the Mac Mini.
If Apple had a low cost, practical box when I needed a better office computer, I would have purchased it. As it was, I got a used 733 MHz Quicksilver PowerMac that I am typing on right now. I wanted something with low cost component so I could cheaply upgrade or replace things like hard drives. I also wanted a case that I could easily open, not a tiny box that takes special tools to get inside.
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
Now are we talking about a Mac mini tower? I don't really know why Apple would ignore a market like the one being discussed, and I'm hoping Apple now has something in the works to address it.
Brilliant.
Of course what Windows mini towers have over Apple is that they'll sell for lower margin, so you'll get the old "more expensive Mac" dog rearing it's ugly head. . .
So what? People will be saying that about Apple no matter what they do. If Macs sold for only $50 more, people would continue to sing the same song. Those who are seriously considering switching to a Mac, however, will look more closely at what they get for $100 or $200 more.
Your argument is flawed in other ways too if you are thinking people will compare a $1200 Mac mini tower with a $499 Windows tower. These are two different markets for Windows computers. The cheap stuff is selling to different customers than a $999 Windows mini tower.
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
..
I don't know, but Apple gives the impression that they don't want to compete on price and that perhaps they can't offer design feateures that justify prices which give them their historically high profit margins.
I'd like to ask everyone who believes Apple NEEDS a mini tower to answer this question:
Why do you believe Apple willfully disregards a segment of the market that it can clearly be an important and profitable player in?
..
To protect their margins. It's clearly a risk aversion policy. Next question.
I may not be your typical computer stupid consumer, but I have a feeling there are a good number of people out there like me. At least as many as would buy a niche product like an imac.