. . . 2nd. Release Vinea model maybe with a slightly smaller case...
Now you have a mini tower that many of us want. It's a new case design, rather than using the existing Mac Pro components. That's fine with me and many others here I'm sure. The demand will be high enough to warrant the added development cost IMHO.
. . . Apple has gained significantly in notebook purchases for the past 90 days, up 3 percentage points to a new all-time high of 12 percent.??"Since the initial rollout of the Intel Macs, Apple?s share has climbed steadily -- from 4 percent in January 2006 to 12 percent currently," the firm wrote in its report. "We do note that Apple?s share of desktop purchases over the past 90 days (7 percent) declined 4 points." . . .
Notebooks are up to an all time high; desktops are down. When will Apple get the message that most of us, except for professionals users, want something other than an iMac or Mac Mini? Remember the Detroit cars, in the '60s I think. They just kept getting bigger and bigger, like the iMac. There is just a certain number of people this appeals to, but the smaller imports made great headway at that time. Come on Apple. Give the buyers what they are asking for, not what you think they should have.
Apple not having a Consumer Tower is pretty stupid, people want video cards and a couple of slots but people dont want to have to mortgage the house to buy a MacPro that has a standard crap ass 7300 video card. Apple just keeps pushing the Mini vs iMac game and the iMac vs Workstation game. Apple needs to sell to the consumer and stop the games. Every Pc maker offers a midrange tower. Stop the games Apple this crap might have worked in the 90s not now. The world has millions of displays allready and that kills iMac for many.
Apple not having a Consumer Tower is pretty stupid, people want video cards and a couple of slots but people dont want to have to mortgage the house to buy a MacPro that has a standard crap ass 7300 video card. Apple just keeps pushing the Mini vs iMac game and the iMac vs Workstation game. Apple needs to sell to the consumer and stop the games. Every Pc maker offers a midrange tower. Stop the games Apple this crap might have worked in the 90s not now. The world has millions of displays allready and that kills iMac for many.
I look at it this way, Apple needs every user it can get. Turning people who want to be here away, just because they don't happen to agree with the all in one concept is bad business. I don't know what kind of math they're using, but if you give up five tower/cube sales to not cannibalize one iMac sale, you're loosing money. Apple should be in the business of including, not excluding.
You people are clueless. And the 20 page-old, resurrected-9 times thread on the same lame topic is very annoying. If you get kicks out of reading about the arguments pro and con mac prosumer/mid-tower/blah blah, read some of the other 20 pages in this thread. I'm sure you haven't just said something that's not already been said, multiple times already....
The original post in this thread asks for a plain old Macintosh, and many of us interpret this to be a small tower of some kind. Just like a common Windows PC only very good looking. Others say we don't need it, and we have over 25 pages of debating about it. I don't know of anyone who has changed his or her mind on the topic, and we have probably exhausted the possible configurations of a Mac mini tower in the process. So, I propose we change directions a little bit.
The arguments against building a simple mini tower seems to be two fold:
1. The iMac and Mac Mini adequately cover the market below the Mac Pro.
2. Making yet another model of a desktop Mac is a bad idea.
What I suggest, if anyone is interested, is to speculate how might Apple cover the market below the Mac Pro even better, with just two models of desktop Macs? Maybe these would be two very innovative types of computers, or maybe two familiar types. I do have an idea, but I'm too sleepy to describe it now. I'll eventually post it. It will be interesting to see what others come up with, beside "The iMac and Mac Mini are perfect."
I've felt for a long time that these two computers don't do a very good job of meeting most everyone's needs and wants, below the Mac Pro model. Surely Apple can do better. The PC vendors do well with just towers, essentially, all sizes. Sure there are good arguments against the PC approach, but at least they are selling well. Apple desktop sales dropped in the last 90 days.
The arguments against building a simple mini tower seems to be two fold:
1. The iMac and Mac Mini adequately cover the market below the Mac Pro.
2. Making yet another model of a desktop Mac is a bad idea.
.
And if they were true, we wouldn't be asking for another model. In my opinion, the Mac community has devolved from "Think different" to "Think exactly like us you PC loving heathen (who has used pretty much only Macs for 15 years)." If anyone finds the company who built the Blue and White PowerMac G3, let me know.
Quote:
What I suggest, if anyone is interested, is to speculate how might Apple cover the market below the Mac Pro even better, with just two models of desktop Macs? Maybe these would be two very innovative types of computers, or maybe two familiar types. I do have an idea, but I'm too sleepy to describe it now. I'll eventually post it. It will be interesting to see what others come up with, beside "The iMac and Mac Mini are perfect."
I've felt for a long time that these two computers don't do a very good job of meeting most everyone's needs and wants, below the Mac Pro model. Surely Apple can do better. The PC vendors do well with just towers, essentially, all sizes. Sure there are good arguments against the PC approach, but at least they are selling well. Apple desktop sales dropped in the last 90 days.
I'd release two models and see which one does better. The First would be a cube or low profile desktop based on the 24" iMac. The Second would be a Core 2 Duo/P965 version of the Mac pro.
I think that folks that don't advocae the NEED for a tower mac simply disagree with the two assertions used to INSIST on a tower:
a) the mac market is too small to be sustainable. This is patently false as its been sustained for the last decade with low market share and has several best of breed software packages unique to the Mac platform.
b) Apple needs a mid-tower mac to grow market share. Current statistics indicate this is also untrue. There is no mid-tower in the line up but market share is up to 6% in the US.
I doubt anyone would be too upset if a mid-tower/cube appeared. The arguments are simply that they feel unlikely given Apple's actions in the past and Apple is performing awesome at the moment so there isn't a pressing need for Apple to change from a winning desktop/laptop strategy to one that will have obvious impact on their current product lineup.
Plus, many are flipping tired of mid-tower whining on any thread that talks about iMacs, Minis, Mac Pros, marketshare or desktop macs in general.
Personally, I'd rather see a tablet or umpc Apple product over either a cube or conroe Mac Pro. Something that Apple can go toe to toe against HP and Dell on an even footing or even an advantage.
b) Apple needs a mid-tower mac to grow market share. Current statistics indicate this is also untrue. There is no mid-tower in the line up but market share is up to 6% in the US.
Vinea, market share is increasing due to portable sales, not desk top sales. The desktop sales were weak in Apple's recent filing.
Decreasing desktop share hasn't hurt Apple total share and Apple share is increasing in the segment with the best margins (ie laptops). What desktop share they do have also exists in this upper end segment.
So the importance of increasing desktop share with a lower cost Tower is minimal in comparison to corporate emphasis/concentration on the growth market (laptops) and potential emerging markets (iTV, umpc, etc) with also large growth potential.
IMHO iTV and other similar technology will have more impact on platform viability and growth than a $1700 tower or $1200 cube. Why is it imperative for Apple to go chasing after a shrinking market with entrenched competitors like HP and Dell with far better economies of scale when they can grow share in the market segments they care about with laptops (edu, home) and high end workstations (content creation)?
The mini is a work in progress waiting for Santa Rosa as far as I'm concerned. If the GMA X3000 works as we hope it does the mini will be a nice well rounded entry level machine/home entertainment hub. I'm curious what market share Apple has of the total SFF computer market. Probably a distant 2nd or 3rd to Shuttle and whomever #2 is. If you believe Shuttle the SFF market will increase at the expense of the ATX form factor market.
"Like other markets across the globe, the SFF PC market in the Middle East is also on the surge. “We do expect the total SFF market share to grow faster than ever in the next couple of years. According to market's prediction, SFF market share will expand while ATX tower market share will shrink,” says Ken Huang, Shuttle's Vice President of System Development. “This is because with all necessary functions built onboard already, the need for ATX towers isn't as apparent and users are likely to turn to smaller chassis. As Shuttle's name has always been associated with “small computers”, we are very excited to see such transition.”
In any case, I hope more for a good cube over a cheap tower. A $1200-$1500 cube wouldn't be as horridly overpriced as the original cube and would hopefully do well in an expanding SFF market.
Decreasing desktop share hasn't hurt Apple total share and Apple share is increasing in the segment with the best margins (ie laptops). What desktop share they do have also exists in this upper end segment.
So the importance of increasing desktop share with a lower cost Tower is minimal in comparison to corporate emphasis/concentration on the growth market (laptops) and potential emerging markets (iTV, umpc, etc) with also large growth potential.
These are very good points. It all depends upon the rate at which the desktop market is shrinking. It may well not be worth Apple's effort. We will see.
In any case, I hope more for a good cube over a cheap tower. A $1200-$1500 cube wouldn't be as horridly overpriced as the original cube and would hopefully do well in an expanding SFF market.
Prove it. Just like I can't prove that if Apple offered a SFF computer there would be a significant increase in market share.
What I do know is, that it is much easier to sell a consumer what they want or expect. The significance of Apple's increased US market share, to me at least, means they can be very competative with laptops because the laptops meet or exceed customers expectations of what they expect in a laptop. Apple's laptops are a huge success and are more than making up for the less than stellar desktop sales, ...., I have to wonder why.
My instinct tells me that the biggest reason Apple doesn't sell the proverbial xMac is they are protecting their margins. Which if true and their market research supports this, then fine, I accept that as a business decision. But I don't want to hear them giving lip service to trying to improve market share in any public comments either in press releases or quarterly statements or conference calls.
Comments
Eh...I still think the most likely tower is a Mac Pro tower with a Conroe for $1699. Just like the Dell Precisions have a P4 in the lower end.
Now that is a good way for them to dip their toes in the market, again.
1st. Wait 2-3 months for every last Mac Pro possible buyer to cave in.
2nd. Release Vinea model maybe with a slightly smaller case.. some more waiting....
3rd. if it's a bib, big success go for the next level down at $1399.
4th Killer shot. Release a matte black one in time for christmas for extra $$!
. . . 2nd. Release Vinea model maybe with a slightly smaller case...
Now you have a mini tower that many of us want. It's a new case design, rather than using the existing Mac Pro components. That's fine with me and many others here I'm sure. The demand will be high enough to warrant the added development cost IMHO.
. . . Apple has gained significantly in notebook purchases for the past 90 days, up 3 percentage points to a new all-time high of 12 percent.??"Since the initial rollout of the Intel Macs, Apple?s share has climbed steadily -- from 4 percent in January 2006 to 12 percent currently," the firm wrote in its report. "We do note that Apple?s share of desktop purchases over the past 90 days (7 percent) declined 4 points." . . .
Notebooks are up to an all time high; desktops are down. When will Apple get the message that most of us, except for professionals users, want something other than an iMac or Mac Mini? Remember the Detroit cars, in the '60s I think. They just kept getting bigger and bigger, like the iMac. There is just a certain number of people this appeals to, but the smaller imports made great headway at that time. Come on Apple. Give the buyers what they are asking for, not what you think they should have.
I have waitet now for at least two years to get a well priced minitower from apple.
At the end of january I will buy a Dell, EXCEPT Apple releases it.
Apple not having a Consumer Tower is pretty stupid, people want video cards and a couple of slots but people dont want to have to mortgage the house to buy a MacPro that has a standard crap ass 7300 video card. Apple just keeps pushing the Mini vs iMac game and the iMac vs Workstation game. Apple needs to sell to the consumer and stop the games. Every Pc maker offers a midrange tower. Stop the games Apple this crap might have worked in the 90s not now. The world has millions of displays allready and that kills iMac for many.
I look at it this way, Apple needs every user it can get. Turning people who want to be here away, just because they don't happen to agree with the all in one concept is bad business. I don't know what kind of math they're using, but if you give up five tower/cube sales to not cannibalize one iMac sale, you're loosing money. Apple should be in the business of including, not excluding.
toodles!
. . the 20 page-old, resurrected-9 times thread on the same lame topic is very annoying. . .
Why on earth do you read it?
The arguments against building a simple mini tower seems to be two fold:
1. The iMac and Mac Mini adequately cover the market below the Mac Pro.
2. Making yet another model of a desktop Mac is a bad idea.
What I suggest, if anyone is interested, is to speculate how might Apple cover the market below the Mac Pro even better, with just two models of desktop Macs? Maybe these would be two very innovative types of computers, or maybe two familiar types. I do have an idea, but I'm too sleepy to describe it now. I'll eventually post it. It will be interesting to see what others come up with, beside "The iMac and Mac Mini are perfect."
I've felt for a long time that these two computers don't do a very good job of meeting most everyone's needs and wants, below the Mac Pro model. Surely Apple can do better. The PC vendors do well with just towers, essentially, all sizes. Sure there are good arguments against the PC approach, but at least they are selling well. Apple desktop sales dropped in the last 90 days.
The arguments against building a simple mini tower seems to be two fold:
1. The iMac and Mac Mini adequately cover the market below the Mac Pro.
2. Making yet another model of a desktop Mac is a bad idea.
.
And if they were true, we wouldn't be asking for another model. In my opinion, the Mac community has devolved from "Think different" to "Think exactly like us you PC loving heathen (who has used pretty much only Macs for 15 years)." If anyone finds the company who built the Blue and White PowerMac G3, let me know.
What I suggest, if anyone is interested, is to speculate how might Apple cover the market below the Mac Pro even better, with just two models of desktop Macs? Maybe these would be two very innovative types of computers, or maybe two familiar types. I do have an idea, but I'm too sleepy to describe it now. I'll eventually post it. It will be interesting to see what others come up with, beside "The iMac and Mac Mini are perfect."
I've felt for a long time that these two computers don't do a very good job of meeting most everyone's needs and wants, below the Mac Pro model. Surely Apple can do better. The PC vendors do well with just towers, essentially, all sizes. Sure there are good arguments against the PC approach, but at least they are selling well. Apple desktop sales dropped in the last 90 days.
I'd release two models and see which one does better. The First would be a cube or low profile desktop based on the 24" iMac. The Second would be a Core 2 Duo/P965 version of the Mac pro.
a) the mac market is too small to be sustainable. This is patently false as its been sustained for the last decade with low market share and has several best of breed software packages unique to the Mac platform.
b) Apple needs a mid-tower mac to grow market share. Current statistics indicate this is also untrue. There is no mid-tower in the line up but market share is up to 6% in the US.
I doubt anyone would be too upset if a mid-tower/cube appeared. The arguments are simply that they feel unlikely given Apple's actions in the past and Apple is performing awesome at the moment so there isn't a pressing need for Apple to change from a winning desktop/laptop strategy to one that will have obvious impact on their current product lineup.
Plus, many are flipping tired of mid-tower whining on any thread that talks about iMacs, Minis, Mac Pros, marketshare or desktop macs in general.
Personally, I'd rather see a tablet or umpc Apple product over either a cube or conroe Mac Pro. Something that Apple can go toe to toe against HP and Dell on an even footing or even an advantage.
Vinea
b) Apple needs a mid-tower mac to grow market share. Current statistics indicate this is also untrue. There is no mid-tower in the line up but market share is up to 6% in the US.
Vinea, market share is increasing due to portable sales, not desk top sales. The desktop sales were weak in Apple's recent filing.
There is no mid-tower in the line up but market share is up to 6% in the US. . .
Apple is performing awesome at the moment so there isn't a pressing need for Apple to change from a winning desktop/laptop strategy . . .
Uhh . . . Apple's laptop share is way up, to an all time high of 12 percent, but Apple's desktop share is down.
Decreasing desktop share hasn't hurt Apple total share and Apple share is increasing in the segment with the best margins (ie laptops). What desktop share they do have also exists in this upper end segment.
So the importance of increasing desktop share with a lower cost Tower is minimal in comparison to corporate emphasis/concentration on the growth market (laptops) and potential emerging markets (iTV, umpc, etc) with also large growth potential.
IMHO iTV and other similar technology will have more impact on platform viability and growth than a $1700 tower or $1200 cube. Why is it imperative for Apple to go chasing after a shrinking market with entrenched competitors like HP and Dell with far better economies of scale when they can grow share in the market segments they care about with laptops (edu, home) and high end workstations (content creation)?
The mini is a work in progress waiting for Santa Rosa as far as I'm concerned. If the GMA X3000 works as we hope it does the mini will be a nice well rounded entry level machine/home entertainment hub. I'm curious what market share Apple has of the total SFF computer market. Probably a distant 2nd or 3rd to Shuttle and whomever #2 is. If you believe Shuttle the SFF market will increase at the expense of the ATX form factor market.
"Like other markets across the globe, the SFF PC market in the Middle East is also on the surge. “We do expect the total SFF market share to grow faster than ever in the next couple of years. According to market's prediction, SFF market share will expand while ATX tower market share will shrink,” says Ken Huang, Shuttle's Vice President of System Development. “This is because with all necessary functions built onboard already, the need for ATX towers isn't as apparent and users are likely to turn to smaller chassis. As Shuttle's name has always been associated with “small computers”, we are very excited to see such transition.”
http://www.pcmag-mideast.com/article...ZFkFAkARpVEfYx
PCMag has a mid-east edition? Cool.
In any case, I hope more for a good cube over a cheap tower. A $1200-$1500 cube wouldn't be as horridly overpriced as the original cube and would hopefully do well in an expanding SFF market.
Vinea
Decreasing desktop share hasn't hurt Apple total share and Apple share is increasing in the segment with the best margins (ie laptops). What desktop share they do have also exists in this upper end segment.
So the importance of increasing desktop share with a lower cost Tower is minimal in comparison to corporate emphasis/concentration on the growth market (laptops) and potential emerging markets (iTV, umpc, etc) with also large growth potential.
These are very good points. It all depends upon the rate at which the desktop market is shrinking. It may well not be worth Apple's effort. We will see.
In any case, I hope more for a good cube over a cheap tower. A $1200-$1500 cube wouldn't be as horridly overpriced as the original cube and would hopefully do well in an expanding SFF market.
I could live with that.
. . . A $1200-$1500 cube wouldn't be as horridly overpriced as the original cube and would hopefully do well in an expanding SFF market.
Vinea
SFF?
I guess the response is "so what"?
Decreasing desktop share hasn't hurt Apple ....
Vinea
Prove it. Just like I can't prove that if Apple offered a SFF computer there would be a significant increase in market share.
What I do know is, that it is much easier to sell a consumer what they want or expect. The significance of Apple's increased US market share, to me at least, means they can be very competative with laptops because the laptops meet or exceed customers expectations of what they expect in a laptop. Apple's laptops are a huge success and are more than making up for the less than stellar desktop sales, ...., I have to wonder why.
My instinct tells me that the biggest reason Apple doesn't sell the proverbial xMac is they are protecting their margins. Which if true and their market research supports this, then fine, I accept that as a business decision. But I don't want to hear them giving lip service to trying to improve market share in any public comments either in press releases or quarterly statements or conference calls.
SFF?
I think he means small form factor.