Just accept the fact that the iMac and Mac mini admirably fill niche markets and that for Apple to significantly increase market share they must offer a computer that fills the expectations most people have in a computer. Apple should stop tryiing to convert the unwashed masses in the Apple way.
Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.
And, as Apple and others push for people's video libraries as well as audio libraries to be stored on their machines, the capacity required goes up enormously. Laptop HDDs are heavily restricted in this area relative to their desktop counterparts.
Time Machine: Better served by either .mac or a NAS.
Video/Audio Library: Better served by a RAID 5 NAS...or perhaps a NAS JBODed with ZFS.
2 drives is simply 2x the likelyhood you'll have a dead drive on your hands and unrecoverable data.
I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.
ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example of how long it takes for "this garbage" to disappear from the Windows PC. Now, what other garbage were you referring to in your example? Towers, no? Otherwise you weren't very on-topic yourself?
So now in the case of the old ports "garbage" you don't want Apple to copy the PC side to make it comfortable for switchers and Mac users who have an old keyboard/mouse lying around, why should you want Apple to copy the PC side tower "garbage". You called it that yourself in the above quote.
In case you're still misunderstanding (expected giving the replies you gave to Chucker, et. al.\ ),
Chucker says: towers are on the way out.
You Say: but other stuff is on the way out but sticks around for a long time in PC's. e.g. old ports
thus you are implying towers are like old ports, therefore since you wish Apple would keep on making towers, you are also implying you wish Apple had kept on making old ports (or floppy drives is another example).
And now, in the above quote, by the same connection you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.
Give us a break. Such nit picking about the phrasing of an idea diverts us from the topic. I suggested that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower, which is jolly well close enough. You're not the only one doing this BTW.
Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.
In any case the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.
An xMac might be nice but its not necessary and Apple is executing well and abandoning their current successful stategy to pursue the same strategy (market share) that made it a basket case a decade ago is "sub-optimal" (aka dumb).
Simply by adding a xMac doesn't imply pursuing a market share strategy but pursuing a $399/$499 price point for an xMac is. Hence I think most opponents at this point probably agree that perhaps a Conroe xMac might appear as either an expensive cube or low end Mac Pro but not as a $799-$999 tower.
Quote:
I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.
So by equating old ports to towers JUST LIKE YOU DO IN THIS PARAGRAPH you indicate that towers are obsolete.
So why exactly should Apple pursue an obsolete form factor any more than they should start sticking parallel ports on their machines again? The argument cuts both ways...there are probably more machines that ship with parallel ports than firewire. Likewise more towers than AIOs. He simply took what you said, applied logic and showed it was silly to use to justify building towers.
So, perhaps the problem isn't misquoting but poor writing and logic in the first place.
Quote:
Ah, right on topic, thanks. And you cannot prove your view either. See how short my reply might have been!
And therefore the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).
The last line in the first post is a question:
Quote:
I know there are many that would like something like this... question is, how likely is Apple to provide this solution?
My Answer: Not too likely. Possibly a cube with one slot in that price range but likely higher priced. I'm thinking $1500 now rather than $1200.
Mmm...I guess I should read all the way to the bottom as Meelash said the same thing. Of course the nice thing is that it isn't just Chucker and I "mis-quoting" but perhaps rather your argument is flawed.
ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example . . . . . [etc.]
Oh my gosh, you guys must be getting desperate to find things to criticize! I used old legacy ports on a Windows PC as an example of how long it takes things to change in the Windows world -- not as you ultimately interpret it:
Quote:
. . . you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making [them] just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.
Chucker essentially said that the common tower is disappearing, and I commented, by example, that nothing disappears rapidly on the Window side. I had no idea this statement could be so completely screwed up, as you have managed to do in this post. I'm actually very impressed, in a strange way.
I happen to believe that the mid range tower will be with us for our lifetime. Yet, even if it were disappear, it would take twenty years or more to do so. That would give Apple a lot of time to attract new customers with it, and satisfy the requests of many Mac users who want it, in my opinion.
Are people so afraid of the iMac being marginalized? If it gets cannibalized who cares as long as the margins are the same? I've yet to see any good reasons for not selling a midtower type system.
The desktop market is not shrinking, it's just not growing quite as fast as the laptop market. 96% of that market aren't buying AIO's. That's a lot of market Apple isn't tapping into. I say they should, others say they shouldn't. Apple will do whatever they feel they need to do. At this point they agree w/ leaving it alone, that doesn't mean they won't change their minds in the future. They are a company intent on making money after all.
Someone referred to pci slots being useless. Just because pci slots aren't used doesn't mean they're not a selling point. If something goes wrong on an AIO you can't just pop in a card to replace it. The buyer may not and likely never will do this, however they feel better knowing they can. Making a potential customer feel comfortable about their thousand+ dollar purchase certainly helps sell systems. Sure you can add some stuff over USB/Firewire, however I have to ask why did you buy an AIO? To reduce clutter? For the elegance of having everything in one nice neat package?
Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. . . . the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.
Gee, whether or not the title of this thread is stated as a question is a trivial issue. If folks simply posted YES or NO, it would not be interesting, would it? So I stated that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower. For others it is about bring back the cube. We discuss why we think it should or shouldn't be brought back, and that is fun.
When you guys nit pick like this, it take much of the fun out of it. Give us new ways to look at why you think it should not happen if you disagree with us, rather that pick away at insignificant peripheral issues. The way I see it, you are not debunking what I say, but objecting to the way I say it. You cannot debunk someone's opinion. Think about it. No one can say, "this is not what you believe." You can disagree, but you cannot change what they are thinking at that time.
Quote:
You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.
Well, I didn't try to imply you made up the value and SFF markets. If you interpreted it that way I sorry. It certainly was not my intention. I tried to explain that just looking at products built, as industry watchers do, is not very meaningful for making new product decisions. I didn't redefine terms to suit myself, but used marketing common sense. A company needs to look primarily at what customers need and want, and then design a product that gives it to them.
The rest of your post is a bit like the post meelash did, so you can read my reply there.
. . . the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).
The last line in the first post is a question:
I can't understand why the title of this thread seems so important to you? The purpose of a title is usually to create interest, to get someone to read the thread, or if it's a book, to start reading the book. The title should be related to book or thread, but it need not define the book or thread. Ever read Gone With The Wind? Does that have something to do with going away with the wind? Well, in a way, but if you asked someone what the book is about, I'm pretty sure they would give you some other answer.
To me this thread is ALL about one of two things for most people -- advocacy for an xMac or advocacy against an xMac. It begs the question, should Apple build an xMac or not? Such a question is adequately answered only by explaining what you believe and why you believe it. A simple yes or no will not do.
That's pro stuff. What percentage of Windows users have any of that stuff in there? It's just not something that is on the radar of a consumer buyer. Sure, there is a subset of people who might want all that expansion and would pay for it, but unless that subset is large enough AND doesn't want to run Windows, Apple isn't going to bother. Not to mention the support costs for people sticking all kinds of different stuff in there and then calling for support. I think you have to consider these issues to understand why this might not be at the top of Apple's "to do" list.
Sound cards are purchased by consumers ALL the time. Fact is on-board audio sucks. There have been a few high end motherboards that have shipped with decent sound cards, but most suck. I guess i'm guessing, but I feel a lot more sound cards are sold than people realize. Hell that's all creative did for years and years. Their mp3 players don't sell, so they must be surviving off of sound cards. Video importing, a lot more users are doing this now days than ever before. Apple doesn't sell an import card. Can you buy an external solution? yah. Is it as fast or as nice? no.
I agree that Apple wants their hardware standard, and that may play into the reasons why they don't offer more expansion to their computers. I see that as unfortunate. I also understand apple wanting to sell more hardware every 2-3 years instead of offering upgradability. There is a line though. There are people out there that want expandibility or the security of it without having to buy a server processor with server ram. I don't need ECC in my ram. I don't need a xeon for a computer. I can spend half as much on a conroe and get more performance. That is something I really don't get... and I think it's extremely fishy apple doesn't offer intel's flagship processor ...... conroe.
Oh well, I'm getting tired of dreaming and will probably get a mac pro soon as the rev b's come out. Hopefully that wont' be too long.
No you were making an unfounded assertion to cover a mistake. There is no evidence that Ford or Olds thought of themselves as "personal transportation" provides over "motor vehicle" manufacturers. Certainly every company tries to understand their customer base.
Interesting. Do you claim telepathic powers? How are you able to tell when someone is covering up a mistake? Here is what I originally wrote:
"You define a market by the product that a company makes. Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history."
I have no idea what I am now supposedly trying to cover up in this statement. It is just an illustration of how a company can make serious mistakes when it has a product-oriented view of its business -- mistakes that affect its survival. A marketing or customer oriented view, on the other hand, helps a company see important changes that signal a shift in what customers might be buying in the future. It's simply the principle I was trying to illustrate.
Buggy companies didn't see the potential of the horseless carriages, which people were building in their garages. (Maybe it was their stables back then.) As a result, they did nothing, letting upstart companies take over the personal transportation market. Buggy companies likely had the resources to get into this business, but they did not, and they did not survive.
It was more than buggy companies; it was the whole industry at the time. Marketing text books are full of such examples, where a company doesn't see its business in a broad enough perspective. It's been called "marketing myopia."
As an aside, auto manufacturers may have had a product orientation too back then, but they were lucky to be in the direction that the market was moving, so it did not matter. Later, Detroit had a bigger-is-better mind set and got clobbered by the small imports. So there you go.
Oh, but of course. Apple smells sweetly. Apple can make Quad workstations and make big profit. They sell iMacs. They make money. They're intel only. (and seem to have Intel bending over to kiss their own ass to please Apple...) Macs haven't been this good for this much money ever. And they're selling! Like hotcakes.
As Apple gets bigger. As they move away from 'life support' years of 1997...as they approach 2million in Mac sales...Apple can, more than ever...offer a slightly bigger range.
Sure, it aint going to be the Dell million models of the Gill Amelio years? But a Conroe tower and a slim line mini laptop? Meh. A couple of additional models with is the potential for significant demand?
Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.
As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.
This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.
I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.
Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
Your average user isn't going to buy anything above a Mac Mini or a low end iMac if that. This isn't for them. What this is for the higher end consumer/ low to medium end professional called the prosumer. Apple's lineup is either no frills family machines (yes, that even allies tot he 24" iMac) or full blown workstations. The iMac may look really cool, but it can't do everything an equivalent tower can, not even close. Apple didn't have a problem selling such machines a couple years ago before the outrageously big iMacs.
Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.
As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.
This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.
I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.
Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.
Vinea
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
Where did I say they had to build thier own chipsets? Nowhere. By moving to Conroe/Kentsfield you are automagically precluded from having 2 physical processors...just as Intel intended. They could alternatively decide to leave one slot empty in a two processor MB and go with low end Cloverton or Woodcrest and leave the upgrade path open.
Are you going to assertively tell us again that they can't build a Woodcrest box for $1499-$1799.
Comments
Why do I bother.
I don't know.
Just accept the fact that the iMac and Mac mini admirably fill niche markets and that for Apple to significantly increase market share they must offer a computer that fills the expectations most people have in a computer. Apple should stop tryiing to convert the unwashed masses in the Apple way.
Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.
See, it's easy to relent.
Why do I bother.
seriously
As has been brought up before: Time Machine?
And, as Apple and others push for people's video libraries as well as audio libraries to be stored on their machines, the capacity required goes up enormously. Laptop HDDs are heavily restricted in this area relative to their desktop counterparts.
Time Machine: Better served by either .mac or a NAS.
Video/Audio Library: Better served by a RAID 5 NAS...or perhaps a NAS JBODed with ZFS.
2 drives is simply 2x the likelyhood you'll have a dead drive on your hands and unrecoverable data.
I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.
ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example of how long it takes for "this garbage" to disappear from the Windows PC. Now, what other garbage were you referring to in your example? Towers, no? Otherwise you weren't very on-topic yourself?
So now in the case of the old ports "garbage" you don't want Apple to copy the PC side to make it comfortable for switchers and Mac users who have an old keyboard/mouse lying around, why should you want Apple to copy the PC side tower "garbage". You called it that yourself in the above quote.
In case you're still misunderstanding (expected giving the replies you gave to Chucker, et. al.
Chucker says: towers are on the way out.
You Say: but other stuff is on the way out but sticks around for a long time in PC's. e.g. old ports
thus you are implying towers are like old ports, therefore since you wish Apple would keep on making towers, you are also implying you wish Apple had kept on making old ports (or floppy drives is another example).
And now, in the above quote, by the same connection you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.
Give us a break. Such nit picking about the phrasing of an idea diverts us from the topic. I suggested that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower, which is jolly well close enough. You're not the only one doing this BTW.
Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.
In any case the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.
An xMac might be nice but its not necessary and Apple is executing well and abandoning their current successful stategy to pursue the same strategy (market share) that made it a basket case a decade ago is "sub-optimal" (aka dumb).
Simply by adding a xMac doesn't imply pursuing a market share strategy but pursuing a $399/$499 price point for an xMac is. Hence I think most opponents at this point probably agree that perhaps a Conroe xMac might appear as either an expensive cube or low end Mac Pro but not as a $799-$999 tower.
I object to your implying I said something I did not. I used old ports as an example of how long it takes for this garbage to disappear from the Windows PC. The ports are still there. This may indicate how long it would takes for Windows towers to disappear. Again, a little careful reading would make it unnecessary for folks to defend themselves against misquotes.
So by equating old ports to towers JUST LIKE YOU DO IN THIS PARAGRAPH you indicate that towers are obsolete.
So why exactly should Apple pursue an obsolete form factor any more than they should start sticking parallel ports on their machines again? The argument cuts both ways...there are probably more machines that ship with parallel ports than firewire. Likewise more towers than AIOs. He simply took what you said, applied logic and showed it was silly to use to justify building towers.
So, perhaps the problem isn't misquoting but poor writing and logic in the first place.
Ah, right on topic, thanks. And you cannot prove your view either. See how short my reply might have been!
And therefore the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).
The last line in the first post is a question:
I know there are many that would like something like this... question is, how likely is Apple to provide this solution?
My Answer: Not too likely. Possibly a cube with one slot in that price range but likely higher priced. I'm thinking $1500 now rather than $1200.
Vinea
Vinea
ehhh..?? You used old ports as an example . . . . . [etc.]
Oh my gosh, you guys must be getting desperate to find things to criticize! I used old legacy ports on a Windows PC as an example of how long it takes things to change in the Windows world -- not as you ultimately interpret it:
. . . you have agreed that pro-sumer towers are old "garbage" that Apple should be making [them] just because the PC side is slow to get rid of them.
Chucker essentially said that the common tower is disappearing, and I commented, by example, that nothing disappears rapidly on the Window side. I had no idea this statement could be so completely screwed up, as you have managed to do in this post. I'm actually very impressed, in a strange way.
I happen to believe that the mid range tower will be with us for our lifetime. Yet, even if it were disappear, it would take twenty years or more to do so. That would give Apple a lot of time to attract new customers with it, and satisfy the requests of many Mac users who want it, in my opinion.
The desktop market is not shrinking, it's just not growing quite as fast as the laptop market. 96% of that market aren't buying AIO's. That's a lot of market Apple isn't tapping into. I say they should, others say they shouldn't. Apple will do whatever they feel they need to do. At this point they agree w/ leaving it alone, that doesn't mean they won't change their minds in the future. They are a company intent on making money after all.
Someone referred to pci slots being useless. Just because pci slots aren't used doesn't mean they're not a selling point. If something goes wrong on an AIO you can't just pop in a card to replace it. The buyer may not and likely never will do this, however they feel better knowing they can. Making a potential customer feel comfortable about their thousand+ dollar purchase certainly helps sell systems. Sure you can add some stuff over USB/Firewire, however I have to ask why did you buy an AIO? To reduce clutter? For the elegance of having everything in one nice neat package?
Give it a rest. You clearly stated what you stated then complain when it is debunked. . . . the thread title is clearly worded as a question and the answer for some folks is: No.
Gee, whether or not the title of this thread is stated as a question is a trivial issue. If folks simply posted YES or NO, it would not be interesting, would it? So I stated that this thread is about bringing back a lower cost tower. For others it is about bring back the cube. We discuss why we think it should or shouldn't be brought back, and that is fun.
When you guys nit pick like this, it take much of the fun out of it. Give us new ways to look at why you think it should not happen if you disagree with us, rather that pick away at insignificant peripheral issues. The way I see it, you are not debunking what I say, but objecting to the way I say it. You cannot debunk someone's opinion. Think about it. No one can say, "this is not what you believe." You can disagree, but you cannot change what they are thinking at that time.
You tried to imply I made up the whole value and SFF market terms (which is when I really got sarcastic). Sorry if I refuse to let you redefine terms to suit your whims. Well, actually no, I'm not sorry.
Well, I didn't try to imply you made up the value and SFF markets. If you interpreted it that way I sorry. It certainly was not my intention. I tried to explain that just looking at products built, as industry watchers do, is not very meaningful for making new product decisions. I didn't redefine terms to suit myself, but used marketing common sense. A company needs to look primarily at what customers need and want, and then design a product that gives it to them.
The rest of your post is a bit like the post meelash did, so you can read my reply there.
. . . the thread is a question and not an assertion. You don't get to change the language to support your side and it's not nitpicking to state that what you say is incorrect: ie this thread started as a question and not an advocacy for a xMac (even if Anklosaur would probably like to buy one).
The last line in the first post is a question:
I can't understand why the title of this thread seems so important to you? The purpose of a title is usually to create interest, to get someone to read the thread, or if it's a book, to start reading the book. The title should be related to book or thread, but it need not define the book or thread. Ever read Gone With The Wind? Does that have something to do with going away with the wind? Well, in a way, but if you asked someone what the book is about, I'm pretty sure they would give you some other answer.
To me this thread is ALL about one of two things for most people -- advocacy for an xMac or advocacy against an xMac. It begs the question, should Apple build an xMac or not? Such a question is adequately answered only by explaining what you believe and why you believe it. A simple yes or no will not do.
That's pro stuff. What percentage of Windows users have any of that stuff in there? It's just not something that is on the radar of a consumer buyer. Sure, there is a subset of people who might want all that expansion and would pay for it, but unless that subset is large enough AND doesn't want to run Windows, Apple isn't going to bother. Not to mention the support costs for people sticking all kinds of different stuff in there and then calling for support. I think you have to consider these issues to understand why this might not be at the top of Apple's "to do" list.
Sound cards are purchased by consumers ALL the time. Fact is on-board audio sucks. There have been a few high end motherboards that have shipped with decent sound cards, but most suck. I guess i'm guessing, but I feel a lot more sound cards are sold than people realize. Hell that's all creative did for years and years. Their mp3 players don't sell, so they must be surviving off of sound cards. Video importing, a lot more users are doing this now days than ever before. Apple doesn't sell an import card. Can you buy an external solution? yah. Is it as fast or as nice? no.
I agree that Apple wants their hardware standard, and that may play into the reasons why they don't offer more expansion to their computers. I see that as unfortunate. I also understand apple wanting to sell more hardware every 2-3 years instead of offering upgradability. There is a line though. There are people out there that want expandibility or the security of it without having to buy a server processor with server ram. I don't need ECC in my ram. I don't need a xeon for a computer. I can spend half as much on a conroe and get more performance. That is something I really don't get... and I think it's extremely fishy apple doesn't offer intel's flagship processor ...... conroe.
Oh well, I'm getting tired of dreaming and will probably get a mac pro soon as the rev b's come out. Hopefully that wont' be too long.
No you were making an unfounded assertion to cover a mistake. There is no evidence that Ford or Olds thought of themselves as "personal transportation" provides over "motor vehicle" manufacturers. Certainly every company tries to understand their customer base.
Interesting. Do you claim telepathic powers? How are you able to tell when someone is covering up a mistake? Here is what I originally wrote:
"You define a market by the product that a company makes. Lots of horse and buggy companies went broke because they were in the buggy market. The companies who saw themselves in the personal transportation market started making automobiles, and the rest is history."
I have no idea what I am now supposedly trying to cover up in this statement. It is just an illustration of how a company can make serious mistakes when it has a product-oriented view of its business -- mistakes that affect its survival. A marketing or customer oriented view, on the other hand, helps a company see important changes that signal a shift in what customers might be buying in the future. It's simply the principle I was trying to illustrate.
Buggy companies didn't see the potential of the horseless carriages, which people were building in their garages. (Maybe it was their stables back then.) As a result, they did nothing, letting upstart companies take over the personal transportation market. Buggy companies likely had the resources to get into this business, but they did not, and they did not survive.
It was more than buggy companies; it was the whole industry at the time. Marketing text books are full of such examples, where a company doesn't see its business in a broad enough perspective. It's been called "marketing myopia."
As an aside, auto manufacturers may have had a product orientation too back then, but they were lucky to be in the direction that the market was moving, so it did not matter. Later, Detroit had a bigger-is-better mind set and got clobbered by the small imports. So there you go.
Oh, but of course. Apple smells sweetly. Apple can make Quad workstations and make big profit. They sell iMacs. They make money. They're intel only. (and seem to have Intel bending over to kiss their own ass to please Apple...) Macs haven't been this good for this much money ever. And they're selling! Like hotcakes.
As Apple gets bigger. As they move away from 'life support' years of 1997...as they approach 2million in Mac sales...Apple can, more than ever...offer a slightly bigger range.
Sure, it aint going to be the Dell million models of the Gill Amelio years? But a Conroe tower and a slim line mini laptop? Meh. A couple of additional models with is the potential for significant demand?
No big deal. So what's the arguement about again?
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple should first determine the various market segments, then decide which market segment represent the most desirable market to try and capture. Design a computer that meets that markets needs and introduce the computer. Which everyone here knows is a $799 - $1699+ tower or SFF tower with modest expandibility with a single Conroe cpu, that will guarentee Apple a better than average gross margin, because the Dells of the world have to mark up the price on these to cover the razor thin margins on the entry level boxes.
He said it.
Lemon Bon Bon
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.
As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.
This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.
I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.
Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.
Vinea
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
Your average user isn't going to buy anything above a Mac Mini or a low end iMac if that. This isn't for them. What this is for the higher end consumer/ low to medium end professional called the prosumer. Apple's lineup is either no frills family machines (yes, that even allies tot he 24" iMac) or full blown workstations. The iMac may look really cool, but it can't do everything an equivalent tower can, not even close. Apple didn't have a problem selling such machines a couple years ago before the outrageously big iMacs.
Its a box for prosumers (or gamers) that don't want a Mac Pro but priced high enough that the iMac sales don't get cannibalized.
As you say, the 20" is less and the 24" is less than half the cost of a 24" monitor higher.
This model has existed in the past and likely will reappear in the future. The question will be whether it is a single Woodcrest/Cloverton or a Kentsfield in the future. You can argue it either way: Apple can save on using the same MB across all Mac Pros or Apple can "cripple" the expansion capability of the lowest Mac Pro by making it single CPU only.
I suppose you could argue that the lowest pro tower has been as low as $1499 so it could be any price between $1499-$1799.
Perhaps it would be best as a Kentsfield. At least the high end gamer would have a machine that didn't require workstation memory. As long as Apple didn't cripple the MB somehow perhaps they could even do SLI in Windows.
Vinea
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
Where did I say they had to build thier own chipsets? Nowhere. By moving to Conroe/Kentsfield you are automagically precluded from having 2 physical processors...just as Intel intended. They could alternatively decide to leave one slot empty in a two processor MB and go with low end Cloverton or Woodcrest and leave the upgrade path open.
Are you going to assertively tell us again that they can't build a Woodcrest box for $1499-$1799.
Vinea