I suspect that this sense of economy is where the headless mac (btw, why the heck is it called headless??????) idea is comming from. True: if an iMac can't do it, you probably NEED a MacPro (no, I didn't say that first).
Yes and No. Actually, if you need/want to use, let's say a UAD DSP card (available in PCI and PCIe flavor), you can't on a iMac, you can on a Mac Pro, but do you really NEED a Mac Pro just to run your favorite plug-ins in Logic Express without taxing too much your CPU? No.
I would settle for a Conroe-based Mac with a couple of PCIe slots, I'd be even better served, for the same (CPU) price I'd get 2.13 or 2.40GHz (speed is always good), I'd get a 1066FSB (speed is always good).
Some say "there are holes in the desktop line, the $999/$1499/$1999 price points... we need a mid-range desktop headless Mac...". Yes, it's true, more so, there's a big hole in the performance range, while it goes smoothly from the single core 1.5 Mac Mini and then dual-core 1.66, 1.83, 2.00GHz iMac (and 667FSB), it also jumps to quad-core 2.00GHz Xeons (and 1333FSB) and to $2199.
Even If the iMac gets a Conroe chip in the near future, I don't think it will go past 2.40GHz (cost and heat) and certainly won't have PCIe slots. I don't even think it's a good idea to go Conroe for the iMac, to keep it cool and silent as it should be/stay, I'd use Merom up to 2.16GHz to keep the cost as it is.
I think Apple did a great job with the transition of its existing products from PPC to Intel, but I believe it's market share time now (iPods and notebooks are doing OK, let's take care of the desktop lines now). More choices attract more customers (I'm not suggesting 500,000,000 choices here, just one more mid-size design: vertical, horizontal, cube, pyramid, sphere...
1994 was a different time in which the computer you mentioned costed more than a... current Mac Pro. (very good)
Windows was embryotic at best.
The 7100/66 had no PCI slots whatsoever.
It came with 3 NuBus slots.
It had a SCSI harddrive.
Both were quite expensive upgrade options.
My bad, I forgot the 7100 had NuBus. Okay, change that to the 7200/75. PCI, hard disk expansion, and you could still probably get one for $10 at a garage sale. The point remains the same. The original price is irrelevant (although the 7200 was cheaper, even it its day, than the Mac Pro), because we're talking about 2006, not 1995. PCI actually was state-of-the-art high-end stuff in 1994-1995, justifying a higher price at that time. Now, it's extremely old news. If I can get something for $10, it's not high-end tech.
And if you are going to argue that there have never been any Macs that that had internal expansion that cost less than the Mac Pro, then I can point you to other, far more recent machines, such as the 1.25 GHz MDD G4, which sold for $1299. Heck, back in the clone era, UMAX had one for under $1000 that had PCI slots. Of course, nowdays you can get internal expansion even in $350 Dells. It's a standard feature for desktops.
The points about the times changing, Windows being embryonic, and SCSI are all non sequiturs.
The mid-range headless Mac addresses the upgrade path of the PC user who bought a mini to "try a Mac out" and wants to move up - but not all the way to the Mac Pro. They may have a good display they want to keep, but want more power, or the ability of installing a second HD inside the case. Right now Apple doesn't address their needs in the mid-range. Sure, Apple will be happy to sell them the $2,500 Mac Pro, but a lot in this market will say "No thank you".
I'm in another market segment. I have a 1.5 15" PB attached to my 23" display in the office. I would not consider a mini, nor can I afford the cost of the MP. The only upgrade path I can see as viable is a headless mid-range. Sure, I can go with the 20" iMac, but I have one of those at home and the 20" falls far short of the 23" in getting the work done in the office.
I believe that the market for the mid-range is there and that Apple will bring one out when they have sufficient Core 2 supplies. The main reason for the release will be to provide a profitable upgrade path for the Mac mini users - and that can turn out to be rather profitable.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
Pointing out this fact has never been useful, correct or fair.
Apple is essentially a boutique company with boutique computers and a boutique OS.
No other manufacturer offers what apple does period.
Not Dell, not HP, not Microsoft.
Apple offers 5 computer models. Five.
It's just not possible to have high market share, even if they added a new tower making 6 computers.
Since everyone seems to love car analogies here's one:
Take audi for example.
Do they sell well?
Yes.
Do they offer a lot cars?
No.
Should they?
No.
They're not trying to be GM and just throw out a lot of models all the time, they don't need to, plus they're too small in the first place and even if they wanted to they're too small a company.
And none of that has anything to do with the OS.
Now make audi a personal plane manufacturer.
Are planes a good way to travel?
Yes.
Are they the only way to travel?
No, most people use cars.
Is it finanically possible to make everyone use planes instead and just drop their cars?
Not by a long shot. Especially given the number of planes they offer and supplies they could even offer.
Apple most of time has a hard time meeting the demand of the market they already have and making crazy money with it.
A mid range tower, or proper low range tower won't change the fact that these are still planes and most people want cars because they know nothing else(windows), or they think they need cars for work or school.
Apple knows they cannot have majority marketshare, computer wise unless they offered the same dirt cheap machines AND offered windows co-installed along with OSX for FREE.
But that would bury thier OS.
They know who and where the are in the market and that's why recently year over year they've been making good profits compared to the 90's.
A mid-range tower can't and won't suddenly make a huge paradigm shift.
On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that people are buying mini tower to meet their computing needs. Visit any retail store. Ask the sales people what their customers are buying.
I used to be one of those guys and here's your fundamental flaw:
MAC VS WINDOWS
Not tower vs mini or tower vs AIO
because...here and say it with me...THERE IS NO WINDOWS EQUIVALENT.
Some ugly 15" POS Gateway or massive 17" VIAO is not the same.
HP slim PC is not the same as a mini and actually believe it or not reviewed quite well and sold quite well, I know I sold them.
If dell offered an imac clone and still towers we might have something to compare.
If dell offered a mimi clone and still towers we might have something to compare.
They don't. No one does.
Oh and to answer your original question: LAPTOPS, LAPTOPS, LAPTOPS.
Pricing is up to a market, which is largely controlled by competitors and potential customers. Pricing is not up to the vendor. They could price high but wouldn't sell, or price low but go bankrupt.
Apple pricing is higher because they control hardware that exclusively runs OS X.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
$1500 + monitor makes that comfortably more expensive than an iMac, and if we accept the notion that "most people" don't really want or need expansion capacity (which I don't necessarily, but then I'm not the one who's putting it out there) such a model wouldn't do much to cannibalize iMac sales, would it? "The demographic that Apple is chasing" would presumably prefer AIO designer goodness with its simplicity and ease of set-up, yes?
Personally I would love a mid-range $1500 apple tower. But I'd be lying if I said that would make the market go crazy. That's all I've been trying to say.
Everyone else? I dunno, they can speak for themselves.
I've been lurking in these forums for a while now, and I just thought I'd share my view on the mid-level Mac discussion.
There's a common argument given by the regulars here that Apple's research and previous experience shows that the headless, mid-price Mac is not profitable. Before the Intel transition that was very likely true. The switch to Intel CPUs by definition turns macs into PCs. They're well-built, beautifully designed, well-specced PCs that come with OS X preloaded, but they are PCs.
My reason for saying this is not to ruffle anybody's feathers, although I'm certain I'll do that anyway, but rather to illustrate that the transition to Intel is also a transition to a set of buyers which includes not only the 'Mac people', but also those in the market for a PC. The G4 Cube is the most referenced example of Apple's failure in this range, but in the eyes of consumers it was *only* a Mac.
Much as I feel it would be a travesty to run Windows as the sole OS on a Mac, it's a comforting possibility to those used to having a 'normal' PC. In a similar way, lets assume that 99% of people never upgrade anything in their machines. But at the same time, assume that 10% of people demand the ability to upgrade (and by upgrade I mean graphics and slot type upgrades). Calling those people a mad or deluded minority really helps nobody's cause. Those 10% are a market which are currently locked out of buying Apple. Folks here often say Apple don't care about that market, but I don't buy it - the switch to Intel makes it viable.
As far as the low margin argument, I'm not sure I see a reason why Apple's margins would need to suffer. The Intel Macs have not been priced excessively higher than equivalent systems from other manufacturers (although the last time I checked the MBP was, pound for pound, rather expensive compared to other similarly specced laptops). In fact, people are lauding the Mac Pro's pricing as being below Dell's equivalent workstation.
Even if Apple's machines are priced a little above the similarly specced Dell/HP/whatever, that won't neccessarily (sp?) dissuade buyers. The Apple brand has a great deal of appeal, prestige and momentum at present and this can very easily make up for the 'Apple tax' for the unwashed PC masses in a similar way to the Mac devotees.
I would be surprised if Apple didn't move on this segment in the near future. I certainly hope they do... I guess it's not totally outside reason that the lower end Mac Pros that people here expect in about 4 months could help to fill this void.
I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a while now... Thanks for reading :-)
From drdaz, "There's a common argument given by the regulars here that Apple's research and previous experience shows that the headless, mid-price Mac is not profitable"
Before the Mac mini came out I thought that a "cheap" Mac would be unprofitable simply because of the low dollar gross margin and the cost of US based customer support. Looks like I was rather wrong as the mini seems to be doing pretty well for Apple. The same profitability argument could be applied to a Mac midi - especially if it provided a good, reasonably priced upgrade path for the mini users.
Since everyone seems to love car analogies here's one:
Take audi for example.
Oh no. You just had to, didn't you?
Car anologies like this don't work because market share for car manufacturers like Audi does not matter, but for Apple it does, for the long-term health of the Mac OS X platform.
Personally I would love a mid-range $1500 apple tower. But I'd be lying if I said that would make the market go crazy. That's all I've been trying to say.
Everyone else? I dunno, they can speak for themselves.
Oh, I completely agree with that. A $1500 tower isn't going to explode the market or nuthin'.
But, like you, speaking for myself, the $1500 buy-in point for an expandable tower really worked for me, and I'm guessing that "people like me" isn't a completely negligible segment.
As far as your car analogy goes, I see what you're saying, but cars don't scale like computers, or at least Apple's computers.
It's not that we're wanting Apple to sell cheaper computers, per se, (as in the case, say, of one demanding that Audi offer an entry level "hot hatch" or something) but rather that it's so expensive to get an Apple computer with simple expandability.
So it would be more akin to Audi withholding some basic car functionality, like, I dunno, ABS or electric windows, until you got up to their top dollar models.
You want electric windows? Fine, spend $60,000. For $30,000 manual is plenty good enough.
I used to be one of those guys and here's your fundamental flaw:
MAC VS WINDOWS
Not tower vs mini or tower vs AIO
because...here and say it with me...THERE IS NO WINDOWS EQUIVALENT.
Not so. There are, and there have been, Windows AIOs. They don't sell well in he Windows world, where customers actually have a choice in the mid price range. In the Mac world, however, customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro. Since I believe people are not all that different, Windows user versus Mac users, the preference for a mini tower over an AIO would be about the same, given a choice.
You're reference to laptops selling well is indeed true, but the discussion happens to be about desktop computers here.
As far as your car analogy goes, I see what you're saying, but cars don't scale like computers, or at least Apple's computers.
It's not that we're wanting Apple to sell cheaper computers, per se, (as in the case, say, of one demanding that Audi offer an entry level "hot hatch" or something) but rather that it's so expensive to get an Apple computer with simple expandability.
So it would be more akin to Audi withholding some basic car functionality, like, I dunno, ABS or electric windows, until you got up to their top dollar models.
You want electric windows? Fine, spend $60,000. For $30,000 manual is plenty good enough.
The problem with all car analogies is that everyone drives on the same road, uses the same type of fuel (gas), and for the most part, a car in function behaves like every other car.
The same is not to be said in the Computer World. You have the Windows drivers, the Linux/Unix Drivers, and your Mac drivers. Apple wants to have a world FULL of Mac drivers.
That being said, the fact that the PC industry as a whole only grew by 4 - 5% whereas the Mac grew 12% (for laptops) is a very significant fact. That means that laptop wise, Macs grew in sales almost 3 times as fast. How can anyone say that it is not significant?
1.) High quality in a car is expensive to achieve. For Audi to offer cheaper alternatives, they'd have to sacrifice a lot of their quality, and then what's the point of buying the resulting car, rather than a competitor's?
Apple don't have to sacrifice their quality to offer a $999 tower.
2.) There is no equivalent in the car analogy for the OS. I would propose that the best way to represent this is to imagine that there were two different road networks. Both road networks can get you pretty much anywhere you want. Road Network A is smooth, fast, and easy to navigate, but there are few services such as garages along the way. Network B is full of holes, difficult to navigate, there are load of services, and it goes to slightly more places.
Now, most vehicle companies make vehicles that can only run on Network B, because Network A makes their own cars, and won't let anyone else make cars that run on their network.
Now, all these other vehicle companies together make up 97% of the vehicle market.
Given that Network B is a much worse road network, why aren't more people buying Network A's vehicles and using Network A? Because Network A stubbornly refuse to offer any more than 5 different models of vehicle, they are mostly slightly more expensive than their nearest equivalents for vehicles that run on Network B, and despite the fact that Network A exists and is so much better than Network B, there is a shockingly low awareness amongst the public of Network A and what it can do.
What can Network A do about this?
Offer more models of car and advertise its road network properly. The slightly higher prices for equivalent models should stay the same in order to maintain the higher quality of the network.
Sorry that that was so seriously laboured, but I hope it demonstrates how rubbish the car analogy is and why people should just steer (oops, sorry) clear of it. No more car analogies!
They don't sell well in he Windows world, where customers actually have a choice in the mid price range.
It's been said already, but I'm confident that that is because Windows AIOs have all been seriously, seriously butt-ugly and much more compromised than the iMac. Apple is the only company that can execute this type of machine properly.
I think there is a place for both a $999 - $2499 tower and the iMac in Apple's line-up.
It's been said already, but I'm confident that that is because Windows AIOs have all been seriously, seriously butt-ugly and much more compromised than the iMac. Apple is the only company that can execute this type of machine properly.
I think there is a place for both a $999 - $2499 tower and the iMac in Apple's line-up.
I agree, and most Windows towers are "butt-ugly" too IMHO.
I also agree we need both -- the iMac providing best value for the most commonly purchased system configuration and a mini tower providing a broad range of options and monitors.
You guys are all correct. BTW, what ver happened to the 1.6 Ghz PM G5?
Excellent first post
We are all correct? Some of us think there's need/room for a cheaper tower than the mac pro, some of us don't. We can't all be right.
The 1.6 GHz PM G5 has been discussed and it was pointed out that it was a rip-off and that is why it did not sell well. Part of the high cost was due to the fact that Apple didn't bother developing a smaller tower, they just used the expensive, oversized PM enclosure. Another problem was lack of processor diversity available for Apple to use. Now that the processor diversity problem is obviated, it is much easier to justify the development of an enclosure and motherboard separate from the Mac Pro. Such a machine could start at a much lower price ($999) and offer good price/performance ratio.
Comments
I suspect that this sense of economy is where the headless mac (btw, why the heck is it called headless??????) idea is comming from. True: if an iMac can't do it, you probably NEED a MacPro (no, I didn't say that first).
Yes and No. Actually, if you need/want to use, let's say a UAD DSP card (available in PCI and PCIe flavor), you can't on a iMac, you can on a Mac Pro, but do you really NEED a Mac Pro just to run your favorite plug-ins in Logic Express without taxing too much your CPU? No.
I would settle for a Conroe-based Mac with a couple of PCIe slots, I'd be even better served, for the same (CPU) price I'd get 2.13 or 2.40GHz (speed is always good), I'd get a 1066FSB (speed is always good).
Some say "there are holes in the desktop line, the $999/$1499/$1999 price points... we need a mid-range desktop headless Mac...". Yes, it's true, more so, there's a big hole in the performance range, while it goes smoothly from the single core 1.5 Mac Mini and then dual-core 1.66, 1.83, 2.00GHz iMac (and 667FSB), it also jumps to quad-core 2.00GHz Xeons (and 1333FSB) and to $2199.
Even If the iMac gets a Conroe chip in the near future, I don't think it will go past 2.40GHz (cost and heat) and certainly won't have PCIe slots. I don't even think it's a good idea to go Conroe for the iMac, to keep it cool and silent as it should be/stay, I'd use Merom up to 2.16GHz to keep the cost as it is.
I think Apple did a great job with the transition of its existing products from PPC to Intel, but I believe it's market share time now (iPods and notebooks are doing OK, let's take care of the desktop lines now). More choices attract more customers (I'm not suggesting 500,000,000 choices here, just one more mid-size design: vertical, horizontal, cube, pyramid, sphere...
sphere?
why not, it's Apple).
Not a very good example. Is it?
1994 was a different time in which the computer you mentioned costed more than a... current Mac Pro. (very good)
Windows was embryotic at best.
The 7100/66 had no PCI slots whatsoever.
It came with 3 NuBus slots.
It had a SCSI harddrive.
Both were quite expensive upgrade options.
My bad, I forgot the 7100 had NuBus. Okay, change that to the 7200/75. PCI, hard disk expansion, and you could still probably get one for $10 at a garage sale. The point remains the same. The original price is irrelevant (although the 7200 was cheaper, even it its day, than the Mac Pro), because we're talking about 2006, not 1995. PCI actually was state-of-the-art high-end stuff in 1994-1995, justifying a higher price at that time. Now, it's extremely old news. If I can get something for $10, it's not high-end tech.
And if you are going to argue that there have never been any Macs that that had internal expansion that cost less than the Mac Pro, then I can point you to other, far more recent machines, such as the 1.25 GHz MDD G4, which sold for $1299. Heck, back in the clone era, UMAX had one for under $1000 that had PCI slots. Of course, nowdays you can get internal expansion even in $350 Dells. It's a standard feature for desktops.
The points about the times changing, Windows being embryonic, and SCSI are all non sequiturs.
... pyramid...
!!! When having guests over to my small apartment, i've occasionally run out of chairs, and resorted to sitting on my tower....
ow.
I'm in another market segment. I have a 1.5 15" PB attached to my 23" display in the office. I would not consider a mini, nor can I afford the cost of the MP. The only upgrade path I can see as viable is a headless mid-range. Sure, I can go with the 20" iMac, but I have one of those at home and the 20" falls far short of the 23" in getting the work done in the office.
I believe that the market for the mid-range is there and that Apple will bring one out when they have sufficient Core 2 supplies. The main reason for the release will be to provide a profitable upgrade path for the Mac mini users - and that can turn out to be rather profitable.
Yes they are, look at the sales numbers.
No they're not. Apple worldwide has ~2% market share and in the US ~ 5%. Over half the computers Apple sold last quarter were laptops(not a niche product), which captured ~ 12% of the retail market.
Pointing out this fact has never been useful, correct or fair.
Apple is essentially a boutique company with boutique computers and a boutique OS.
No other manufacturer offers what apple does period.
Not Dell, not HP, not Microsoft.
Apple offers 5 computer models. Five.
It's just not possible to have high market share, even if they added a new tower making 6 computers.
Since everyone seems to love car analogies here's one:
Take audi for example.
Do they sell well?
Yes.
Do they offer a lot cars?
No.
Should they?
No.
They're not trying to be GM and just throw out a lot of models all the time, they don't need to, plus they're too small in the first place and even if they wanted to they're too small a company.
And none of that has anything to do with the OS.
Now make audi a personal plane manufacturer.
Are planes a good way to travel?
Yes.
Are they the only way to travel?
No, most people use cars.
Is it finanically possible to make everyone use planes instead and just drop their cars?
Not by a long shot. Especially given the number of planes they offer and supplies they could even offer.
Apple most of time has a hard time meeting the demand of the market they already have and making crazy money with it.
A mid range tower, or proper low range tower won't change the fact that these are still planes and most people want cars because they know nothing else(windows), or they think they need cars for work or school.
Apple knows they cannot have majority marketshare, computer wise unless they offered the same dirt cheap machines AND offered windows co-installed along with OSX for FREE.
But that would bury thier OS.
They know who and where the are in the market and that's why recently year over year they've been making good profits compared to the 90's.
A mid-range tower can't and won't suddenly make a huge paradigm shift.
On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that people are buying mini tower to meet their computing needs. Visit any retail store. Ask the sales people what their customers are buying.
I used to be one of those guys and here's your fundamental flaw:
MAC VS WINDOWS
Not tower vs mini or tower vs AIO
because...here and say it with me...THERE IS NO WINDOWS EQUIVALENT.
Some ugly 15" POS Gateway or massive 17" VIAO is not the same.
HP slim PC is not the same as a mini and actually believe it or not reviewed quite well and sold quite well, I know I sold them.
If dell offered an imac clone and still towers we might have something to compare.
If dell offered a mimi clone and still towers we might have something to compare.
They don't. No one does.
Oh and to answer your original question: LAPTOPS, LAPTOPS, LAPTOPS.
Apple pricing is higher because they control hardware that exclusively runs OS X.
So what about a $1500 tower, since that was the entry level tower price until recently? Has Apple's business model and economics really changed that much?
$1500 + monitor makes that comfortably more expensive than an iMac, and if we accept the notion that "most people" don't really want or need expansion capacity (which I don't necessarily, but then I'm not the one who's putting it out there) such a model wouldn't do much to cannibalize iMac sales, would it? "The demographic that Apple is chasing" would presumably prefer AIO designer goodness with its simplicity and ease of set-up, yes?
Personally I would love a mid-range $1500 apple tower. But I'd be lying if I said that would make the market go crazy. That's all I've been trying to say.
Everyone else? I dunno, they can speak for themselves.
There's a common argument given by the regulars here that Apple's research and previous experience shows that the headless, mid-price Mac is not profitable. Before the Intel transition that was very likely true. The switch to Intel CPUs by definition turns macs into PCs. They're well-built, beautifully designed, well-specced PCs that come with OS X preloaded, but they are PCs.
My reason for saying this is not to ruffle anybody's feathers, although I'm certain I'll do that anyway, but rather to illustrate that the transition to Intel is also a transition to a set of buyers which includes not only the 'Mac people', but also those in the market for a PC. The G4 Cube is the most referenced example of Apple's failure in this range, but in the eyes of consumers it was *only* a Mac.
Much as I feel it would be a travesty to run Windows as the sole OS on a Mac, it's a comforting possibility to those used to having a 'normal' PC. In a similar way, lets assume that 99% of people never upgrade anything in their machines. But at the same time, assume that 10% of people demand the ability to upgrade (and by upgrade I mean graphics and slot type upgrades). Calling those people a mad or deluded minority really helps nobody's cause. Those 10% are a market which are currently locked out of buying Apple. Folks here often say Apple don't care about that market, but I don't buy it - the switch to Intel makes it viable.
As far as the low margin argument, I'm not sure I see a reason why Apple's margins would need to suffer. The Intel Macs have not been priced excessively higher than equivalent systems from other manufacturers (although the last time I checked the MBP was, pound for pound, rather expensive compared to other similarly specced laptops). In fact, people are lauding the Mac Pro's pricing as being below Dell's equivalent workstation.
Even if Apple's machines are priced a little above the similarly specced Dell/HP/whatever, that won't neccessarily (sp?) dissuade buyers. The Apple brand has a great deal of appeal, prestige and momentum at present and this can very easily make up for the 'Apple tax' for the unwashed PC masses in a similar way to the Mac devotees.
I would be surprised if Apple didn't move on this segment in the near future. I certainly hope they do... I guess it's not totally outside reason that the lower end Mac Pros that people here expect in about 4 months could help to fill this void.
I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a while now... Thanks for reading :-)
/drdaz
Before the Mac mini came out I thought that a "cheap" Mac would be unprofitable simply because of the low dollar gross margin and the cost of US based customer support. Looks like I was rather wrong as the mini seems to be doing pretty well for Apple. The same profitability argument could be applied to a Mac midi - especially if it provided a good, reasonably priced upgrade path for the mini users.
Since everyone seems to love car analogies here's one:
Take audi for example.
Oh no. You just had to, didn't you?
Car anologies like this don't work because market share for car manufacturers like Audi does not matter, but for Apple it does, for the long-term health of the Mac OS X platform.
Personally I would love a mid-range $1500 apple tower. But I'd be lying if I said that would make the market go crazy. That's all I've been trying to say.
Everyone else? I dunno, they can speak for themselves.
Oh, I completely agree with that. A $1500 tower isn't going to explode the market or nuthin'.
But, like you, speaking for myself, the $1500 buy-in point for an expandable tower really worked for me, and I'm guessing that "people like me" isn't a completely negligible segment.
As far as your car analogy goes, I see what you're saying, but cars don't scale like computers, or at least Apple's computers.
It's not that we're wanting Apple to sell cheaper computers, per se, (as in the case, say, of one demanding that Audi offer an entry level "hot hatch" or something) but rather that it's so expensive to get an Apple computer with simple expandability.
So it would be more akin to Audi withholding some basic car functionality, like, I dunno, ABS or electric windows, until you got up to their top dollar models.
You want electric windows? Fine, spend $60,000. For $30,000 manual is plenty good enough.
I used to be one of those guys and here's your fundamental flaw:
MAC VS WINDOWS
Not tower vs mini or tower vs AIO
because...here and say it with me...THERE IS NO WINDOWS EQUIVALENT.
Not so. There are, and there have been, Windows AIOs. They don't sell well in he Windows world, where customers actually have a choice in the mid price range. In the Mac world, however, customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro. Since I believe people are not all that different, Windows user versus Mac users, the preference for a mini tower over an AIO would be about the same, given a choice.
You're reference to laptops selling well is indeed true, but the discussion happens to be about desktop computers here.
As far as your car analogy goes, I see what you're saying, but cars don't scale like computers, or at least Apple's computers.
It's not that we're wanting Apple to sell cheaper computers, per se, (as in the case, say, of one demanding that Audi offer an entry level "hot hatch" or something) but rather that it's so expensive to get an Apple computer with simple expandability.
So it would be more akin to Audi withholding some basic car functionality, like, I dunno, ABS or electric windows, until you got up to their top dollar models.
You want electric windows? Fine, spend $60,000. For $30,000 manual is plenty good enough.
The problem with all car analogies is that everyone drives on the same road, uses the same type of fuel (gas), and for the most part, a car in function behaves like every other car.
The same is not to be said in the Computer World. You have the Windows drivers, the Linux/Unix Drivers, and your Mac drivers. Apple wants to have a world FULL of Mac drivers.
That being said, the fact that the PC industry as a whole only grew by 4 - 5% whereas the Mac grew 12% (for laptops) is a very significant fact. That means that laptop wise, Macs grew in sales almost 3 times as fast. How can anyone say that it is not significant?
1.) High quality in a car is expensive to achieve. For Audi to offer cheaper alternatives, they'd have to sacrifice a lot of their quality, and then what's the point of buying the resulting car, rather than a competitor's?
Apple don't have to sacrifice their quality to offer a $999 tower.
2.) There is no equivalent in the car analogy for the OS. I would propose that the best way to represent this is to imagine that there were two different road networks. Both road networks can get you pretty much anywhere you want. Road Network A is smooth, fast, and easy to navigate, but there are few services such as garages along the way. Network B is full of holes, difficult to navigate, there are load of services, and it goes to slightly more places.
Now, most vehicle companies make vehicles that can only run on Network B, because Network A makes their own cars, and won't let anyone else make cars that run on their network.
Now, all these other vehicle companies together make up 97% of the vehicle market.
Given that Network B is a much worse road network, why aren't more people buying Network A's vehicles and using Network A? Because Network A stubbornly refuse to offer any more than 5 different models of vehicle, they are mostly slightly more expensive than their nearest equivalents for vehicles that run on Network B, and despite the fact that Network A exists and is so much better than Network B, there is a shockingly low awareness amongst the public of Network A and what it can do.
What can Network A do about this?
Offer more models of car and advertise its road network properly. The slightly higher prices for equivalent models should stay the same in order to maintain the higher quality of the network.
Sorry that that was so seriously laboured, but I hope it demonstrates how rubbish the car analogy is and why people should just steer (oops, sorry) clear of it. No more car analogies!
They don't sell well in he Windows world, where customers actually have a choice in the mid price range.
It's been said already, but I'm confident that that is because Windows AIOs have all been seriously, seriously butt-ugly and much more compromised than the iMac. Apple is the only company that can execute this type of machine properly.
I think there is a place for both a $999 - $2499 tower and the iMac in Apple's line-up.
...Jobs has an issue with Cubes, I think. From the NeXT to the G4, to the glass cube in NY's Apple Store. What is the deal...
Perhaps he used to be Borg...?
It's been said already, but I'm confident that that is because Windows AIOs have all been seriously, seriously butt-ugly and much more compromised than the iMac. Apple is the only company that can execute this type of machine properly.
I think there is a place for both a $999 - $2499 tower and the iMac in Apple's line-up.
I agree, and most Windows towers are "butt-ugly" too IMHO.
I also agree we need both -- the iMac providing best value for the most commonly purchased system configuration and a mini tower providing a broad range of options and monitors.
You guys are all correct. BTW, what ver happened to the 1.6 Ghz PM G5?
Excellent first post
We are all correct? Some of us think there's need/room for a cheaper tower than the mac pro, some of us don't. We can't all be right.
The 1.6 GHz PM G5 has been discussed and it was pointed out that it was a rip-off and that is why it did not sell well. Part of the high cost was due to the fact that Apple didn't bother developing a smaller tower, they just used the expensive, oversized PM enclosure. Another problem was lack of processor diversity available for Apple to use. Now that the processor diversity problem is obviated, it is much easier to justify the development of an enclosure and motherboard separate from the Mac Pro. Such a machine could start at a much lower price ($999) and offer good price/performance ratio.