If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.
Apple simply isn't about commodity ATX boxes running ubiquitious OS.
As much as we like the idea of "internal" expandability the reality is most of those PC with the PCI slots and AGP slots do not get upgraded.
If I purchase an iMac I have little limitations. Sure I can't upgrade the graphics but a very small percentage of people actually upgrade their graphics. Sometimes its perceived as not worth the effort.
I can run extended desktops so dual monitor support is fine. I have USB and Firewire ports for adding more storage.
Look inside a Mac Pro. You don't get that level of engineering in a sub $1k PC. I LOVE my Mac mini. It's quiet and powerful and takes up so little space. Apple's been slowly but surely trying to redefine what people expect and want from a computer system. While many "do" want upgradability many people, after looking at their computing history, realize that they've been through multiple computers and rarely upgraded anything. Apple takes advantage of this by delivering a system that is tailored towards someone who wants a computer unencumbered by the commoditized and inflexible PC standards of today.
Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I wouldn't talk if I where you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
Why the hell cant they package a core 2 duo, 4 ram slots, 2 HDD (desktop size) bays, 1 PCIe GPU slot, one PCIe expantion slot and standard I/O be sold for the price of the dual core Mini or even $500 more?
Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price
Next time please read before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.
You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...
Quote:
At the WWDC keynote, Phil Shiller, Apple's senior VP of marketing, told us that the "standard" Mac Pro configuration is about $1,000 less than a similarly configured Dell. A Mac Pro with dual 2.6GHz Xeons, 1GB of 667MHz RAM, a 250GB hard drive spinning at 7,200rpm, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT video card with 256MB of dedicated video memory is $2,499 on Apple's site, as promised. A Dell Precision 690 workstation with the same specs except for an Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 video card will run you $3,709. An HP Workstation xw8400 with that same Quadro NVS 285 hits $3,791. So if our elementary-school arithmetic is correct, the Mac Pro is $1,210 less than the Dell and $1,292 less than the HP. With Apple's free Boot Camp utility that lets you run Windows on a Mac, it's easy to imagine folks opting for the Mac Pro even if they never plan to use Mac OS X. Obviously, Apple hopes that the price differential will get more power users onto the Mac platform to at least give OS X a spin.
See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well
btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98
Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price
Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.
Quote:
hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.
You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...
Um, I thought I've made it pretty much clear that I'm not talking about people who need workstation-class machines. In fact, I was pretty clearly talking about people for whom the entire point is that they don't need workstation-class machines.
Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.
Quote:
See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well
Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.
Quote:
btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98
Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...
iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.
It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.
It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
I agree fullheartedly.
The only thing I can think of is an stripped down Conroe sporting Mac Pro. (Mac Pro light)
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
Exactly, Games are the only reason most people upgrade machines, or more likely install beefier graphics card. Windows XP is now 5 years old, and every computer that was capable to run XP when it came out, is still capable to run it today. I think 5 year lifespan in any technology is very admirable.
Expandability would be nice but, and I think the price point around 1700$, someone suggested here earlier, is something Apple could stil afford to get reasonable profits. Let's have a poll how many of you who absolutely want this kind of apple made generic computer would be willing to pay 1700$ for it, I quess not that many.
I don't undertand why the 350$ computer always comes up in these conversations, let's face it, Apple could not afford to produce one, and according to Dells profitability, neither can they. It's there just to lure people in, they'd rather not sell it.
Apple caters high profitability niche market, If you are not in that segment, too bad for you. Sounds harch, but that is something neither you or I can change.
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. ...
I basically did the same thing, however, I did it so that I could run Mac OS X and Final Cut Express.
Also, what about those consumers that won't be able to utilize core technologies because their graphics cards don't support it? Might they be willing to invest $100 in a graphics card.
And for all those people upset that ATI and Nvidia don't offer options for their towers, well, what do you expect when the lowest %age of computers that Apple sells even have graphics cards. Not much of an incentive is it.
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
No, we want a reasonably priced upper end consumer machine with a modest amount of expandability.
Whether or not most people do indeed upgrade their computers is a moot point. Although I expect many, if not most consumers do indeed upgrade at the time of purchase. It is what is expected in a computer and it is what currently sells to the vast majority of people. Remember that perception is everything.
And if Apple's business model is to remain the same, then Apple's top executives need to stop saying they wish to increase market share, really, they do, because until they offer more that niche market products(the iMac and Mac mini) they will remain a niche player.
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
I actually can try a G3/350 such as the iMac and my Sawtooth side by side. It is not only games that is lacking. Any GUI stuff in OS X is slow on the iMac due to CPU/GPU limitations. Having 2 Mbit connection at home and then have to wait on the computer instead of a slow modem....Switching back to OS 9 is a relif with such computers. Try typing really fast Word on such an iMac and it will lagg
Current iMacs are far better also in rellative terms than than those 1999/2000 iMacs, but tell me in 20012 if you are still happy with your iMac8) . My point is not that the current iMac _now_ is not able to handle everything but rather that if it becomes unable in a couple of years there is nothing you can do about that
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
Here's the problem with this. If you purchased a 7500/100 over an iMac then you spent nigh $3000. Nothings changed...you can get an iMac if your needs are relatively modest and save money or you can spend $2500 and get the internal expandability that you need.
I have to employ dutch pears setiments. What exactly are people missing out on with the iMac. GPU upgradability the abiltity to add another internal drive. Nice features to have but for the masses not as important IMO. There's a point where people realize that they need to be sure they aren't spending half the price of a new computer upgrading something old.
Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
Frankly, I think that if the number of PCI slots on your machine is your deciding point between a Dell and an Apple computer, then you must have seriously overlooked the advantages of the Mac platform, but that's another topic.
Hacking a Dell to run OS X on it is just ugly and probably not even legal. But again, that's yet another topic.
Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.
And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:
And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?
No I am not retarded.
First understand that, in Apple's view of things, "prosumers" don't exist. Either you are a regular Joe who needs a computer that's easy to use, edit your videos from your last vacation, etc. (iMac) or you're a professional who needs expandability, PCI slots, extra hard drives and whatnot (Mac Pro). Prosumers are just geeks who want great high end tech at low prices. Not happening, remember this is Apple.
Apple won't release a desktop headless mid range macintosh because it doesn't fit any of the "user roles" I just described above. I do understand you want that machine you describe, but unfortunately that's not happening because for Apple does not care about the prosumer market. It is WAY more profitable for apple to make you buy a Mac Pro. That's smarter. A lot of people that now buy mac pros will end up SPENDING LESS and buying your headless midrange mac. That is not good business.
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Bingo. That's the Apple way. They are changing the paradigms of the consumer computers. You shouldn't have to open them to add more stuff. They should be small, lean, quiet, convenient. Not big boxes with a bunch of PCI slots and with a pound of dust inside.
Arguments against a midrange Mac are a lot of wind with no substance. A 20 inch iMac is essentially $1700. A Mac Pro with a 20 inch display is $3200. There is ample room for a mini tower Mac at $1700, which is about in the middle, and costs $2400 with a 20 inch display. Now, who is going to argue that such a Mac will take sales away from the iMac or Mac Pro?
Who would buy such a mid range Mac? First of all, those of us who already have an excellent monitor and don't want to pay for another monitor by buying an iMac. Or those who don't like the chunky look of the iMac, or for some reason simply want or need the monitor detached from the computer. Also, there are less demanding applications that require a PCI or PCI-e card or cards. An iMac does not meet such needs and a Mac Pro is overkill.
The reason this topic keeps coming up is that it's a good idea and Apple has not yet addressed this very large market. I have found a solution that works for me, but does not help Apple's financial statement. I have a dual 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMac running a music workstation that is based on Apple's Logic software. Good old eBay to the rescue.
Comments
If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.
You couldn't be more wrong.
As much as we like the idea of "internal" expandability the reality is most of those PC with the PCI slots and AGP slots do not get upgraded.
If I purchase an iMac I have little limitations. Sure I can't upgrade the graphics but a very small percentage of people actually upgrade their graphics. Sometimes its perceived as not worth the effort.
I can run extended desktops so dual monitor support is fine. I have USB and Firewire ports for adding more storage.
Look inside a Mac Pro. You don't get that level of engineering in a sub $1k PC. I LOVE my Mac mini. It's quiet and powerful and takes up so little space. Apple's been slowly but surely trying to redefine what people expect and want from a computer system. While many "do" want upgradability many people, after looking at their computing history, realize that they've been through multiple computers and rarely upgraded anything. Apple takes advantage of this by delivering a system that is tailored towards someone who wants a computer unencumbered by the commoditized and inflexible PC standards of today.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
What do you not understand?
No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
I wouldn't talk if I where you...
Why the hell cant they package a core 2 duo, 4 ram slots, 2 HDD (desktop size) bays, 1 PCIe GPU slot, one PCIe expantion slot and standard I/O be sold for the price of the dual core Mini or even $500 more?
Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price
Next time please read before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.
You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...
At the WWDC keynote, Phil Shiller, Apple's senior VP of marketing, told us that the "standard" Mac Pro configuration is about $1,000 less than a similarly configured Dell. A Mac Pro with dual 2.6GHz Xeons, 1GB of 667MHz RAM, a 250GB hard drive spinning at 7,200rpm, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT video card with 256MB of dedicated video memory is $2,499 on Apple's site, as promised. A Dell Precision 690 workstation with the same specs except for an Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 video card will run you $3,709. An HP Workstation xw8400 with that same Quadro NVS 285 hits $3,791. So if our elementary-school arithmetic is correct, the Mac Pro is $1,210 less than the Dell and $1,292 less than the HP. With Apple's free Boot Camp utility that lets you run Windows on a Mac, it's easy to imagine folks opting for the Mac Pro even if they never plan to use Mac OS X. Obviously, Apple hopes that the price differential will get more power users onto the Mac platform to at least give OS X a spin.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6625581.html
See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well
btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98
Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price
Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.
hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.
You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...
Um, I thought I've made it pretty much clear that I'm not talking about people who need workstation-class machines. In fact, I was pretty clearly talking about people for whom the entire point is that they don't need workstation-class machines.
Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.
See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well
Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.
btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98
Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...
iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.
It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
I agree fullheartedly.
The only thing I can think of is an stripped down Conroe sporting Mac Pro. (Mac Pro light)
Same casing as the MacPro, less expandable.
Same price as an similar configered iMac.
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
Exactly, Games are the only reason most people upgrade machines, or more likely install beefier graphics card. Windows XP is now 5 years old, and every computer that was capable to run XP when it came out, is still capable to run it today. I think 5 year lifespan in any technology is very admirable.
Expandability would be nice but, and I think the price point around 1700$, someone suggested here earlier, is something Apple could stil afford to get reasonable profits. Let's have a poll how many of you who absolutely want this kind of apple made generic computer would be willing to pay 1700$ for it, I quess not that many.
I don't undertand why the 350$ computer always comes up in these conversations, let's face it, Apple could not afford to produce one, and according to Dells profitability, neither can they. It's there just to lure people in, they'd rather not sell it.
Apple caters high profitability niche market, If you are not in that segment, too bad for you. Sounds harch, but that is something neither you or I can change.
OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. ...
I basically did the same thing, however, I did it so that I could run Mac OS X and Final Cut Express.
Also, what about those consumers that won't be able to utilize core technologies because their graphics cards don't support it? Might they be willing to invest $100 in a graphics card.
And for all those people upset that ATI and Nvidia don't offer options for their towers, well, what do you expect when the lowest %age of computers that Apple sells even have graphics cards. Not much of an incentive is it.
ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.
an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.
Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=49
No, we want a reasonably priced upper end consumer machine with a modest amount of expandability.
Whether or not most people do indeed upgrade their computers is a moot point. Although I expect many, if not most consumers do indeed upgrade at the time of purchase. It is what is expected in a computer and it is what currently sells to the vast majority of people. Remember that perception is everything.
And if Apple's business model is to remain the same, then Apple's top executives need to stop saying they wish to increase market share, really, they do, because until they offer more that niche market products(the iMac and Mac mini) they will remain a niche player.
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
I actually can try a G3/350 such as the iMac and my Sawtooth side by side. It is not only games that is lacking. Any GUI stuff in OS X is slow on the iMac due to CPU/GPU limitations. Having 2 Mbit connection at home and then have to wait on the computer instead of a slow modem....Switching back to OS 9 is a relif with such computers. Try typing really fast Word on such an iMac and it will lagg
Current iMacs are far better also in rellative terms than than those 1999/2000 iMacs, but tell me in 20012 if you are still happy with your iMac8) . My point is not that the current iMac _now_ is not able to handle everything but rather that if it becomes unable in a couple of years there is nothing you can do about that
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.
Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.
Here's the problem with this. If you purchased a 7500/100 over an iMac then you spent nigh $3000. Nothings changed...you can get an iMac if your needs are relatively modest and save money or you can spend $2500 and get the internal expandability that you need.
I have to employ dutch pears setiments. What exactly are people missing out on with the iMac. GPU upgradability the abiltity to add another internal drive. Nice features to have but for the masses not as important IMO. There's a point where people realize that they need to be sure they aren't spending half the price of a new computer upgrading something old.
Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?
When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
Frankly, I think that if the number of PCI slots on your machine is your deciding point between a Dell and an Apple computer, then you must have seriously overlooked the advantages of the Mac platform, but that's another topic.
Hacking a Dell to run OS X on it is just ugly and probably not even legal. But again, that's yet another topic.
Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.
And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:
And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?
No I am not retarded.
First understand that, in Apple's view of things, "prosumers" don't exist. Either you are a regular Joe who needs a computer that's easy to use, edit your videos from your last vacation, etc. (iMac) or you're a professional who needs expandability, PCI slots, extra hard drives and whatnot (Mac Pro). Prosumers are just geeks who want great high end tech at low prices. Not happening, remember this is Apple.
Apple won't release a desktop headless mid range macintosh because it doesn't fit any of the "user roles" I just described above. I do understand you want that machine you describe, but unfortunately that's not happening because for Apple does not care about the prosumer market. It is WAY more profitable for apple to make you buy a Mac Pro. That's smarter. A lot of people that now buy mac pros will end up SPENDING LESS and buying your headless midrange mac. That is not good business.
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.
Bingo. That's the Apple way. They are changing the paradigms of the consumer computers. You shouldn't have to open them to add more stuff. They should be small, lean, quiet, convenient. Not big boxes with a bunch of PCI slots and with a pound of dust inside.
Who would buy such a mid range Mac? First of all, those of us who already have an excellent monitor and don't want to pay for another monitor by buying an iMac. Or those who don't like the chunky look of the iMac, or for some reason simply want or need the monitor detached from the computer. Also, there are less demanding applications that require a PCI or PCI-e card or cards. An iMac does not meet such needs and a Mac Pro is overkill.
The reason this topic keeps coming up is that it's a good idea and Apple has not yet addressed this very large market. I have found a solution that works for me, but does not help Apple's financial statement. I have a dual 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMac running a music workstation that is based on Apple's Logic software. Good old eBay to the rescue.
Allow me to quote this. 3 times, for effect.