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
When I speak of a mid range tower, this is what I'm thinking of. A cube with some expandability and dedicated graphics. Bigger than a mini but much smaller than the traditional towers.
Prove it. Just like I can't prove that if Apple offered a SFF computer there would be a significant increase in market share.
Um...prove what? That Apple share has increased despite the lack of a tower? That should be easy.
Yes, arguably they could have gained even more share with a tower...but what would it have cost them in exchange? You suggest margins but there are other oppourtunity costs.
Umm...Apple does offer a Small Form Factor (SFF) computer.
Quote:
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.
Perhaps Apple took a close look at the demographics they wish to pursue and laptops were more important to that segment than expandable towers or cubes?
Quote:
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.
Because improving market share to 6.1% is indicative that they don't care about increasing share and they have been unsuccessful at it? Or maybe they simply disagree with you on how to increase share and the importance of share vis a vis other acknowledged corporate objectives?
Did I miss something or did they declare that their FY07 goal was share at all costs?
I'd like to make a some observations regarding the desktop market, below the Mac Pro. Apple has phased out some models in the recent past, like the eMac. They kept it when the iMac went to LCD display, because it was rugged, the CRT not easily damaged, and it was cheaper. Eventually it went away, just as I think the Mac Mini should go away.
The Mini's appeal is that it may be the worlds smallest, general purpose computer. It is a novelty as well as a computer. That sells to some, but other are turned off by its toy-like appearance. That small size has a price too, using more expensive and slower notebook components. Yet it is intended to be an entry level Mac, where low price should be one of the major goals. It's low cost, but not as low as it could be.
I'm suggesting a new model Mac to replace the Mini. The Mini might stick around just to see how it sell after its more practical replacement arrives. If it continues to sell as a novelty, it's not difficult to keep it in limited production for a while.
The Mac that would replace the Mini in this plan is about twice the size. Let's say about 11 inches wide and 8 inches deep. It might be 2 inches high like the Mini. Here are a few things the extra volume could provide:
1. The components would be standard size, permitting a cheaper and higher capacity hard drive, lower cost optical drive and more memory strips.
2. Much better cooling with a low noise blower directed at the CPU, which could then be the much desired Conroe in a high performance version. A low cost entry version could have a lesser CPU. This would be the Mac Basic, and the top performing CPU would be in the Mac Plus. Just to give them a name for now.
3. Space for a good graphics card, although the low cost version might have Intel on-board graphics.
4. Last but not least, this model Mac could sport an LCD display, of various sizes, attached to the top cover. This would be an option that could replace the iMac. The top cover would have the LCD display support permanently attached, and might look like a Cinema Display sitting on top of the Mac Plus version. It could simply be the next iteration of the iMac.
The bottom line of all this is that the Mac Basic, Mac Plus and new iMac would simply be different option of the same model computer. These are relatively minor difference when viewed from a manufacturing process point of view. So, if this is just one model desktop Mac, guess what the other prosumer desktop Mac would be?
Um...no, I think I'd rather have the mini and hope for a cube. What is the advantage of eliminating the only non-pro model without a screen? Plus the iMac looks more elegant than a screen sitting on top of a box.
A mini twice the size is not much of a mini...especially not one 8x11. I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accomodate non-laptop drives (ie more Shuttle sized). Probably Merom over Conroe still though.
Um...no, I think I'd rather have the mini and hope for a cube. What is the advantage of eliminating the only non-pro model without a screen?
It's not eliminating a model without a screen. This model would be standard without the display. If someone wants a display they get the iMac, which would be the higher performance package with an LCD display attached to the top. Remember the G4 iMac? It had a base with computer components and an LCD display on top. The difference is this one has no swivel arm, but has a support that looks like the Cinema Display foot.
Quote:
A mini twice the size is not much of a mini...especially not one 8x11. I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accommodate non-laptop drives . . .
Well, take your pick of size. I was making a wild guess. I don't know what it takes to get the standard components and graphics card inside, plus a good size blower to handle the heat. I'm sure Apple can come up with something that works and looks good.
A while back I remember many on these discussions were wanting the Conroe chip in the iMac, but it did not happen. For this new model, I wanted it to be large enough to fit a blower with the capacity to cool a Conroe CPU. If we are not going for the world smallest computer, let's make it big enough so we can use the lower cost Conroe rather than the lower power Merom. It's practical, not spectacular.
. . . I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accomodate non-laptop drives (ie more Shuttle sized). . .
Well, after getting a good nights sleep, I can see that your suggestion would work quite well. Wider and deeper to allow standard components, but go higher. Just so there is room for an efficient, quiet, high air velocity cooling blower I would be very happy with the design. For the iMac version, the display could sit almost on the top cover of this square like pedestal. There may need to be a wider footprint at the base however, for stability while supporting a larger display. The versions without a display would not need this larger footprint of course.
Well, after getting a good nights sleep, I can see that your suggesting would work quite well. Wider and deeper to allow standard components, but go higher. Just so there is room for an efficient, quiet, high air velocity cooling blower I would be very happy with the design. For the iMac version, the display could sit almost on the top cover of this square like pedestal. There may need to be a wider footprint at the base however, for stability while supporting a larger display. The versions without a display would not need this larger footprint of course.
You guys are nuts! Close your eyes and think in your head what this would look like:
Not as much as you think, I'd bet. Functionality is certainly more important to me than looks; I'm not getting married to the computer. I care a whole lot more about looks in a woman than in the tools I use.
Seriously though, I have great faith in Apple's product design team, and believe they really can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Meh...I don't see a cube with a LCD attached replacing the iMac. That's not trading "some looks" for a functional computer...that's taking design hints from Gateway.
Snoopy, I can't believe anyone would suggest an LCD permanantly stuck to the top of a micro-tower case as being a good design for a computer.
You clearly don't understand the appeal of the iMac. The whole point is that the computer is made as small as possible and got out of the way. Your idea would not only look absolutely hideous but also not offer any advantage whatsoever over exactly the same machine but with a separate LCD instead.
Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
Meh...I don't see a cube with a LCD attached replacing the iMac. That's not trading "some looks" for a functional computer...that's taking design hints from Gateway.
Snoopy, I can't believe anyone would suggest an LCD permanantly stuck to the top of a micro-tower case as being a good design for a computer.
You clearly don't understand the appeal of the iMac. The whole point is that the computer is made as small as possible and got out of the way. Your idea would not only look absolutely hideous but also not offer any advantage whatsoever over exactly the same machine but with a separate LCD instead.
Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
I have a feeling, just an inkling, that about 100x as many people prefer a really really small computer to a computer they will never, ever, ever, even think about upgrading.
Would I like an upgradeable computer? Sure. But I have enough of a life to know that 99.9% of people equate the inner workings of a computer with some kind of black magic.
I have a feeling, just an inkling, that about 100x as many people prefer a really really small computer to a computer they will never, ever, ever, even think about upgrading.
But are they willing to pay a premium for that? Apparently, none of Apple's major competitors think so, so an the PC side you've nothing directly equivalent to the Mac Mini from Dell or HP.
The mini is "expensive" because it has laptop parts. Make it a bit bigger (note, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of a traditional tower, so there would still be an attractive compactness to the machine) to accommodate desktop parts, and Apple can make it for (and sell it for) less.
So really all we're looking for is a Shuttle that isn't ugly and runs OSX. Personally I find the Core 2 Duo capable Shuttle kinda ugly which is pretty hard for a square black box...
I guess elegant is pretty danged hard but as much as I am so-so about F. A. Prosche's designs it's prolific (I have a Fuji camera and a LaCie drive designed by Porsche) so Shuttle could likely go that route if nothing else.
So really all we're looking for is a Shuttle that isn't ugly and runs OSX.
Yes, exactly. I think the only reason Apple didn't do it was fear of cannibalising the PowerMac / Mac Pro. Which I think is pretty dumb given how significantly a Mac Pro would crush an "Apple Shuttle".
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I guess elegant is pretty danged hard
It seems that when it comes to computer casework, taste is limited to a certain campus in Cupertino. It's not that it's that hard to manufacture tasteful casework. In fact, often I wonder if the uglier, fussier casework is actually more expensive to manufacture.
But are they willing to pay a premium for that? Apparently, none of Apple's major competitors think so, so an the PC side you've nothing directly equivalent to the Mac Mini from Dell or HP.
The mini is "expensive" because it has laptop parts. Make it a bit bigger (note, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of a traditional tower, so there would still be an attractive compactness to the machine) to accommodate desktop parts, and Apple can make it for (and sell it for) less.
I think so. What would the cost of switching to larger parts be? $50? Maybe $100?
In the end you get a much smaller machine, that's incredibly quiet, and doesn't heat up your room (like my XBOX).
More importantly, when you factor in rising energy costs, I'd bet that over the lifetime of the product those laptop parts save you a lot more than they cost.
Comments
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
When I speak of a mid range tower, this is what I'm thinking of. A cube with some expandability and dedicated graphics. Bigger than a mini but much smaller than the traditional towers.
Prove it. Just like I can't prove that if Apple offered a SFF computer there would be a significant increase in market share.
Um...prove what? That Apple share has increased despite the lack of a tower? That should be easy.
Yes, arguably they could have gained even more share with a tower...but what would it have cost them in exchange? You suggest margins but there are other oppourtunity costs.
Umm...Apple does offer a Small Form Factor (SFF) computer.
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.
Perhaps Apple took a close look at the demographics they wish to pursue and laptops were more important to that segment than expandable towers or cubes?
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.
Because improving market share to 6.1% is indicative that they don't care about increasing share and they have been unsuccessful at it? Or maybe they simply disagree with you on how to increase share and the importance of share vis a vis other acknowledged corporate objectives?
Did I miss something or did they declare that their FY07 goal was share at all costs?
Vinea
The Mini's appeal is that it may be the worlds smallest, general purpose computer. It is a novelty as well as a computer. That sells to some, but other are turned off by its toy-like appearance. That small size has a price too, using more expensive and slower notebook components. Yet it is intended to be an entry level Mac, where low price should be one of the major goals. It's low cost, but not as low as it could be.
I'm suggesting a new model Mac to replace the Mini. The Mini might stick around just to see how it sell after its more practical replacement arrives. If it continues to sell as a novelty, it's not difficult to keep it in limited production for a while.
The Mac that would replace the Mini in this plan is about twice the size. Let's say about 11 inches wide and 8 inches deep. It might be 2 inches high like the Mini. Here are a few things the extra volume could provide:
1. The components would be standard size, permitting a cheaper and higher capacity hard drive, lower cost optical drive and more memory strips.
2. Much better cooling with a low noise blower directed at the CPU, which could then be the much desired Conroe in a high performance version. A low cost entry version could have a lesser CPU. This would be the Mac Basic, and the top performing CPU would be in the Mac Plus. Just to give them a name for now.
3. Space for a good graphics card, although the low cost version might have Intel on-board graphics.
4. Last but not least, this model Mac could sport an LCD display, of various sizes, attached to the top cover. This would be an option that could replace the iMac. The top cover would have the LCD display support permanently attached, and might look like a Cinema Display sitting on top of the Mac Plus version. It could simply be the next iteration of the iMac.
The bottom line of all this is that the Mac Basic, Mac Plus and new iMac would simply be different option of the same model computer. These are relatively minor difference when viewed from a manufacturing process point of view. So, if this is just one model desktop Mac, guess what the other prosumer desktop Mac would be?
A mini twice the size is not much of a mini...especially not one 8x11. I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accomodate non-laptop drives (ie more Shuttle sized). Probably Merom over Conroe still though.
Vinea
Um...no, I think I'd rather have the mini and hope for a cube. What is the advantage of eliminating the only non-pro model without a screen?
It's not eliminating a model without a screen. This model would be standard without the display. If someone wants a display they get the iMac, which would be the higher performance package with an LCD display attached to the top. Remember the G4 iMac? It had a base with computer components and an LCD display on top. The difference is this one has no swivel arm, but has a support that looks like the Cinema Display foot.
A mini twice the size is not much of a mini...especially not one 8x11. I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accommodate non-laptop drives . . .
Well, take your pick of size. I was making a wild guess. I don't know what it takes to get the standard components and graphics card inside, plus a good size blower to handle the heat. I'm sure Apple can come up with something that works and looks good.
Probably Merom over Conroe still though.
A while back I remember many on these discussions were wanting the Conroe chip in the iMac, but it did not happen. For this new model, I wanted it to be large enough to fit a blower with the capacity to cool a Conroe CPU. If we are not going for the world smallest computer, let's make it big enough so we can use the lower cost Conroe rather than the lower power Merom. It's practical, not spectacular.
. . . I can see going taller and maybe a teeny bit wider to accomodate non-laptop drives (ie more Shuttle sized). . .
Well, after getting a good nights sleep, I can see that your suggestion would work quite well. Wider and deeper to allow standard components, but go higher. Just so there is room for an efficient, quiet, high air velocity cooling blower I would be very happy with the design. For the iMac version, the display could sit almost on the top cover of this square like pedestal. There may need to be a wider footprint at the base however, for stability while supporting a larger display. The versions without a display would not need this larger footprint of course.
Well, after getting a good nights sleep, I can see that your suggesting would work quite well. Wider and deeper to allow standard components, but go higher. Just so there is room for an efficient, quiet, high air velocity cooling blower I would be very happy with the design. For the iMac version, the display could sit almost on the top cover of this square like pedestal. There may need to be a wider footprint at the base however, for stability while supporting a larger display. The versions without a display would not need this larger footprint of course.
You guys are nuts!
Butt-UGLY
You guys are nuts!
Butt-UGLY
I'm willing to trade some looks for a functional computer.
I'm willing to trade some looks for a functional computer.
No hyperbole here, nope.
No hyperbole here, nope.
Not as much as you think, I'd bet. Functionality is certainly more important to me than looks; I'm not getting married to the computer. I care a whole lot more about looks in a woman than in the tools I use.
Seriously though, I have great faith in Apple's product design team, and believe they really can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
You clearly don't understand the appeal of the iMac. The whole point is that the computer is made as small as possible and got out of the way. Your idea would not only look absolutely hideous but also not offer any advantage whatsoever over exactly the same machine but with a separate LCD instead.
Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
Meh...I don't see a cube with a LCD attached replacing the iMac. That's not trading "some looks" for a functional computer...that's taking design hints from Gateway.
Or gluing a monitor to a computer.
Snoopy, I can't believe anyone would suggest an LCD permanantly stuck to the top of a micro-tower case as being a good design for a computer.
You clearly don't understand the appeal of the iMac. The whole point is that the computer is made as small as possible and got out of the way. Your idea would not only look absolutely hideous but also not offer any advantage whatsoever over exactly the same machine but with a separate LCD instead.
Why not just keep the iMac as it is and replace the Mini with your suggestion (i.e., something slightly larger that can accommodate desktop HDD, RAM, optical drive and up to Conroe CPU)? If you go back to the thread when the Intel Mini was introduced, you will see that I wished that Apple had never come out with the Mini as it is, but had instead come out with an ultra-compact desktop (as opposed to a laptop with no screen) that could scale in price all the way from $399 to $2000.
I have a feeling, just an inkling, that about 100x as many people prefer a really really small computer to a computer they will never, ever, ever, even think about upgrading.
Would I like an upgradeable computer? Sure. But I have enough of a life to know that 99.9% of people equate the inner workings of a computer with some kind of black magic.
I have a feeling, just an inkling, that about 100x as many people prefer a really really small computer to a computer they will never, ever, ever, even think about upgrading.
But are they willing to pay a premium for that? Apparently, none of Apple's major competitors think so, so an the PC side you've nothing directly equivalent to the Mac Mini from Dell or HP.
The mini is "expensive" because it has laptop parts. Make it a bit bigger (note, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of a traditional tower, so there would still be an attractive compactness to the machine) to accommodate desktop parts, and Apple can make it for (and sell it for) less.
I guess elegant is pretty danged hard but as much as I am so-so about F. A. Prosche's designs it's prolific (I have a Fuji camera and a LaCie drive designed by Porsche) so Shuttle could likely go that route if nothing else.
Vinea
So really all we're looking for is a Shuttle that isn't ugly and runs OSX.
Yes, exactly. I think the only reason Apple didn't do it was fear of cannibalising the PowerMac / Mac Pro. Which I think is pretty dumb given how significantly a Mac Pro would crush an "Apple Shuttle".
I guess elegant is pretty danged hard
It seems that when it comes to computer casework, taste is limited to a certain campus in Cupertino. It's not that it's that hard to manufacture tasteful casework. In fact, often I wonder if the uglier, fussier casework is actually more expensive to manufacture.
But are they willing to pay a premium for that? Apparently, none of Apple's major competitors think so, so an the PC side you've nothing directly equivalent to the Mac Mini from Dell or HP.
The mini is "expensive" because it has laptop parts. Make it a bit bigger (note, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the size of a traditional tower, so there would still be an attractive compactness to the machine) to accommodate desktop parts, and Apple can make it for (and sell it for) less.
I think so. What would the cost of switching to larger parts be? $50? Maybe $100?
In the end you get a much smaller machine, that's incredibly quiet, and doesn't heat up your room (like my XBOX).
More importantly, when you factor in rising energy costs, I'd bet that over the lifetime of the product those laptop parts save you a lot more than they cost.