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.
He 's a believer in Neitze.
As for Apple and the elusive mid-range tower, it all comes down to will. The components are there and at the right price points. It sure seems like there is demand as well. Obviously somebody in a decision making position knows someting we don't.
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.
hmmm...... so are you saying that when iMac was introduced years ago, the only reason it began, and continued to sell so well is that all the mid-range Mac towers suddenly and mysteriously vanished from existance?
The primary appeal that I, myself, have always seen for the iMac is that they aleviate the torments of PCdom. The more expandable a computer is the more things can go wrong with it. The iMac is a toaster. And it wurks gud.
hmmm...... so are you saying that when iMac was introduced years ago, . . .
No, I'm talking about today. Quote: ". . . customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro."
Quote:
The primary appeal that I, myself, have always seen for the iMac is that they aleviate the torments of PCdom. The more expandable a computer is the more things can go wrong with it. The iMac is a toaster. And it wurks gud.
I'm glad you like it. It's a good machine, but not what I want. I'm one of those guys who really does use PCI slots.
No, I'm talking about today. Quote: ". . . customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro."
I'm glad you like it. It's a good machine, but not what I want. I'm one of those guys who really does use PCI slots.
Regarding '...today...', have the iMacs not been selling very well up till now, when previously there were, in fact, mid-range towers? Why would that change now, if we were to have a midrange tower available? Intel?
I as because it sounds like you're saying, "AIO don't sell well in the Windows world because there is the option of midrange towers, and if such an option were available from Apple, iMac would likewise suffer." That really doesn't make total sense, since iMac has been selling very well even up to the recent past even when there WAS such an option available from Apple. So... that doesn't quite make sense, unless you mean that by switching to Intel, it would change the whole dynamic (ha ha, I used a buzz word!) of the situation. I really doubt it would, but I won't asert that since I have no way of really knowing.
As to using PCI slots: Me too. I'd be very unlikely to buy an iMac for that very reason. I meant the comment as an observation of the iMac's virtues, rather than a proclamation of adoration. . It's the ugly tradeoff between ease of use and expandability. Sometimes I want nothing more than a stable box that will do what I need when I need it (this applies to laptops too) and other times (especially when the trigger finger is itchen, or the HD is getting full) I care most about expandability... hmm, maybe I should just get both a MBP and a MP and call it a night. <sigh> I hate being broke.
. . . it sounds like you're saying, "AIO don't sell well in the Windows world because there is the option of midrange towers, and if such an option were available from Apple, iMac would likewise suffer."
I think I see how I confused the issue. No, I believe that iMac sales would not suffer too much from a mid range mini tower. Rather, the big effect would be increased sales of desktops. I believe the mini towers would out sell the iMacs by 2 to 1, that's my guess. To guess again maybe iMac sales would drop 10 to 20 percent.
Quote:
. . . have the iMacs not been selling very well up till now, when previously there were, in fact, mid-range towers? Why would that change now, if we were to have a midrange tower available? Intel?
Going back in history is harder. I think the iMac was a lower end product back then, a G3 for quite a while. The towers were in a relatively higher price range. The mini tower we are talking about today is in the same price range as the iMac.
Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Though it would be nice for Conroe chips and a more choices for graphics cards in the iMac
...Obviously somebody in a decision making position knows someting we don't.
I wouldn't count on it, look at the Cube which would have sold really well but for the price. As I recall another good example is the CD burner, which Apple held off putting in their computers for quite a while. The Death of the CRT was another example, but they kept the eMac with a CRT around for the public and education for quite a while after the death of the CRT was anounced for Apple
In other industries look at GM, a lot of high paid execs to make decisions and where are they today? For that matter add Ford in and Chyrsler in there as well, a day late and a dollar short on the offering more fuel effecient cars and hybrids. Another good example is the "New Coke", Pepsi had some flops as well, and those were market tested a lot more than any Mac ever has been before their release.
They don't have a crystal ball, and all their experience, training, and research can still come up with a compleat flop, or keep them from offering a product that would sell like the iPod. It's a gamble, the best that you can hope for is that you won't loose too much money trying to convince the consumer to buy your product.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Most consumers (who are not "Geeks") don't know what they want in a computer. They buy on advice from friends, co-workers, and salesmen as well as what they are comfortable with. Apple has to "Sell" the switch to them, and one of the selling points has been ease of use and fewer wires. Plug in 3 wires, start the computer, launch the set-up program 15 minutes till the internet. That is the benefit of the iMac, but as you can tell from the opinions on these boards this does not work for everyone, and having the only other options offered by Apple a low-performance model without expansion or a workstation eleminates a lot of potential customers, both consumer and buisiness, who are looking for a something that is not an AIO model but don't want or need to spend over $2000 on a workstation.
Also, there are other reasons to want the "expansion" than the desire to swap out video cards every 6 months. If you have a free slot and your built in network or USB controller goes out (and your warrenty has run out) then it's a lot easier and less expensive to drop in a PCI card and configure it than it is to bring it in to the closest authorized Mac repair shop and have them fix the problem (or worse yet shipping it to Apple because there isn't a shop local that you can have it fixed at) or to just go out and buy a new computer.
If you have a free slot and your built in network or USB controller goes out (and your warrenty has run out) then it's a lot easier and less expensive to drop in a PCI card and configure it than it is to bring it in to the closest authorized Mac repair shop and have them fix the problem (or worse yet shipping it to Apple because there isn't a shop local that you can have it fixed at) or to just go out and buy a new computer.
Most home users don't think about stuff like this. If the computer breaks, it goes to the shop. If it costs a lot to fix, we buy a new one. They wouldn't consider self repair. One of the hurdles for home users with upgrading is that they barely understand where the plugs go. Joe Average would take the computer to a Geek Squad guy for the upgrades, and get charged $50 for 30 minutes of the guy's time. That's why they don't upgrade much. They sure wouldn't do an "upgrade-to-repair" thing.
Ha ha, more or less off topic post here. I was in Best Buy yesterday looking at the MBP15, when I happened to overhear a salesman telling a lady about a wintel laptop. I think the exact words he used were, "... and it comes with Windows XP so you don't have to worry about that..." I really should have stopped him and scolded him for giving her false hopes.
Most home users don't think about stuff like this. If the computer breaks, it goes to the shop. If it costs a lot to fix, we buy a new one. They wouldn't consider self repair. One of the hurdles for home users with upgrading is that they barely understand where the plugs go. Joe Average would take the computer to a Geek Squad guy for the upgrades, and get charged $50 for 30 minutes of the guy's time. That's why they don't upgrade much. They sure wouldn't do an "upgrade-to-repair" thing.
You are likely correct, but many of us have friends who know a lot more than we do, and we don't hesitate to ask their advice.
More importantly, business IT folks are vary aware of the advantages of PCI cards, and business is a huge customer. I don't believe Apple is ignoring this segment of computer buyers. To me, it looks like Apple's business strategy is to first offer the small 1U rack servers and begin competing there. Next you can bet it is the office desktop computer. I'm sure the iMac will make its way into offices and reception desks, but to get the attention of most IT folks, it will take something 'like' a mini tower.
It could be something none of us are expecting -- a somewhat different format that especially appeals to business, but is also a good product for the home. Maybe that's too much dreaming, but a mini tower would certainly be okay.
Now let's review the advantages of an expandable computer.
Upgrade: easily add new graphics card or new I/O. When USB2 became available I simply added a four port PCI card to my PowerMac.
New Capability: add new features or I/O. Add 24-bit pro audio or a midi board to a music workstation, without adding more cords and clutter.
You are likely correct, but many of us have friends who know a lot more than we do, and we don't hesitate to ask their advice.
More importantly, business IT folks are vary aware of the advantages of PCI cards, and business is a huge customer. I don't believe Apple is ignoring this segment of computer buyers. To me, it looks like Apple's business strategy is to first offer the small 1U rack servers and begin competing there. Next you can bet it is the office desktop computer. I'm sure the iMac will make its way into offices and reception desks, but to get the attention of most IT folks, it will take something 'like' a mini tower.
It could be something none of us are expecting -- a somewhat different format that especially appeals to business, but is also a good product for the home. Maybe that's too much dreaming, but a mini tower would certainly be okay.
Now let's review the advantages of an expandable computer.
Upgrade: easily add new graphics card or new I/O. When USB2 became available I simply added a four port PCI card to my PowerMac.
New Capability: add new features or I/O. Add 24-bit pro audio or a midi board to a music workstation, without adding more cords and clutter.
Oh - I'm not denying that I wouldn't like PCIe expansion at all. It's just my experience that with the exception of geeks (no offense. I'm including myself in that), few people bother with aftermarket upgrades a year or two down the line. Home users will wait as long as possible, then re-buy. IT departments tend to phase out a few computers every year. At my school and where I work this summer, they have four year plans. They replace a quarter of the computers yearly. That tends to be more popular than partial upgrades every two years, especially since the computers tend to be basic machines anways.
Again, I'm not denying that I like PCIe slots, I'm just saying that for most people, it's not a deal breaker. Obviously excepting geeks, gamers, and professionals.
. . . At my school and where I work this summer, they have four year plans. They replace a quarter of the computers yearly.
Just wondering, do they replace the displays too? I was curious how an iMac would fit into this replacement plan, since the display is part of it. I think the old CRT iMacs and eMacs were fairly popular in schools though.
Just wondering, do they replace the displays too? I was curious how an iMac would fit into this replacement plan, since the display is part of it. I think the old CRT iMacs and eMacs were fairly popular in schools though.
I don't know. My school has G4 iMacs (and a few B&Ws) in a few labs in libraries, and G5s in production labs. They also use a few eMacs in the libraries. The PCs look like they have new-ish monitors, so I think they might replace them.
At work, it looks like the monitors stay past the computer's lifespan, as some of the monitors look ancient, but some look newer.
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.
...<snip car analogy>...
A mid-range tower can't and won't suddenly make a huge paradigm shift.
We agree then. One man's boutique is another man's niche.
Problem is that Apple executives have stated they wish to increase market share. Offering a mid range to upper end consumer desktop would give them a much greater chance of gaining market share. No one here has indicated Apple should get into the low end.
And, I at least don't expect "a huge paradigm shift". What I did mention was the possibility of doubling market share to 10% by capturing a larger %'age of the upper end consumer(read profitable) market.
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.
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Upon introduction both the previous generation iMac(iLamp if you will) and the current iMac have had their fair share of criticisms for their looks(a la the big chin for the current model)
AOpen offers a Mac mini clone that is virtually identical and AOpen is hardly a boutique company.
Anyone can get this. and that is the regular price, not the educational discount. Gets cheeper with edu pricing for those in school.
the MacPro does NOT cost $2499. Period. Might I remind everyone that it is downright goofy to buy loads of RAM and bigger HDs from the computer manufacturer? They get a LOT of profit from upgrades. With the MacPro, there's really no excuse for having Apple preconfigure it unless you are getting a LOT of them and just don't want the hassle.
Comments
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.
He 's a believer in Neitze.
As for Apple and the elusive mid-range tower, it all comes down to will. The components are there and at the right price points. It sure seems like there is demand as well. Obviously somebody in a decision making position knows someting we don't.
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.
hmmm...... so are you saying that when iMac was introduced years ago, the only reason it began, and continued to sell so well is that all the mid-range Mac towers suddenly and mysteriously vanished from existance?
The primary appeal that I, myself, have always seen for the iMac is that they aleviate the torments of PCdom. The more expandable a computer is the more things can go wrong with it. The iMac is a toaster. And it wurks gud.
http://www.geocities.com/celemourn/HeadlessMac.jpg
hmmm...... so are you saying that when iMac was introduced years ago, . . .
No, I'm talking about today. Quote: ". . . customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro."
The primary appeal that I, myself, have always seen for the iMac is that they aleviate the torments of PCdom. The more expandable a computer is the more things can go wrong with it. The iMac is a toaster. And it wurks gud.
I'm glad you like it. It's a good machine, but not what I want. I'm one of those guys who really does use PCI slots.
No, I'm talking about today. Quote: ". . . customers do not have this choice and today must buy an iMac, or shell out the bucks for a Mac Pro."
I'm glad you like it. It's a good machine, but not what I want. I'm one of those guys who really does use PCI slots.
Regarding '...today...', have the iMacs not been selling very well up till now, when previously there were, in fact, mid-range towers? Why would that change now, if we were to have a midrange tower available? Intel?
I as because it sounds like you're saying, "AIO don't sell well in the Windows world because there is the option of midrange towers, and if such an option were available from Apple, iMac would likewise suffer." That really doesn't make total sense, since iMac has been selling very well even up to the recent past even when there WAS such an option available from Apple. So... that doesn't quite make sense, unless you mean that by switching to Intel, it would change the whole dynamic (ha ha, I used a buzz word!) of the situation. I really doubt it would, but I won't asert that since I have no way of really knowing.
As to using PCI slots: Me too. I'd be very unlikely to buy an iMac for that very reason. I meant the comment as an observation of the iMac's virtues, rather than a proclamation of adoration.
. . . it sounds like you're saying, "AIO don't sell well in the Windows world because there is the option of midrange towers, and if such an option were available from Apple, iMac would likewise suffer."
I think I see how I confused the issue. No, I believe that iMac sales would not suffer too much from a mid range mini tower. Rather, the big effect would be increased sales of desktops. I believe the mini towers would out sell the iMacs by 2 to 1, that's my guess. To guess again maybe iMac sales would drop 10 to 20 percent.
. . . have the iMacs not been selling very well up till now, when previously there were, in fact, mid-range towers? Why would that change now, if we were to have a midrange tower available? Intel?
Going back in history is harder. I think the iMac was a lower end product back then, a G3 for quite a while. The towers were in a relatively higher price range. The mini tower we are talking about today is in the same price range as the iMac.
Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.
There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?
Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.
Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.
Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.
Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Though it would be nice for Conroe chips and a more choices for graphics cards in the iMac
He 's a believer in Neitze.
...Obviously somebody in a decision making position knows someting we don't.
I wouldn't count on it, look at the Cube which would have sold really well but for the price. As I recall another good example is the CD burner, which Apple held off putting in their computers for quite a while. The Death of the CRT was another example, but they kept the eMac with a CRT around for the public and education for quite a while after the death of the CRT was anounced for Apple
In other industries look at GM, a lot of high paid execs to make decisions and where are they today? For that matter add Ford in and Chyrsler in there as well, a day late and a dollar short on the offering more fuel effecient cars and hybrids. Another good example is the "New Coke", Pepsi had some flops as well, and those were market tested a lot more than any Mac ever has been before their release.
They don't have a crystal ball, and all their experience, training, and research can still come up with a compleat flop, or keep them from offering a product that would sell like the iPod. It's a gamble, the best that you can hope for is that you won't loose too much money trying to convince the consumer to buy your product.
Computers are not cars. Most consumers don't go out looking for a PC that they will be able to upgrade. Does your neighbour say I really like the iMac but its just to difficult to upgrade the thing. I bet not. Most consumers don't want computers that they can modify they want them to just work.
Most consumers (who are not "Geeks") don't know what they want in a computer. They buy on advice from friends, co-workers, and salesmen as well as what they are comfortable with. Apple has to "Sell" the switch to them, and one of the selling points has been ease of use and fewer wires. Plug in 3 wires, start the computer, launch the set-up program 15 minutes till the internet. That is the benefit of the iMac, but as you can tell from the opinions on these boards this does not work for everyone, and having the only other options offered by Apple a low-performance model without expansion or a workstation eleminates a lot of potential customers, both consumer and buisiness, who are looking for a something that is not an AIO model but don't want or need to spend over $2000 on a workstation.
Also, there are other reasons to want the "expansion" than the desire to swap out video cards every 6 months. If you have a free slot and your built in network or USB controller goes out (and your warrenty has run out) then it's a lot easier and less expensive to drop in a PCI card and configure it than it is to bring it in to the closest authorized Mac repair shop and have them fix the problem (or worse yet shipping it to Apple because there isn't a shop local that you can have it fixed at) or to just go out and buy a new computer.
If you have a free slot and your built in network or USB controller goes out (and your warrenty has run out) then it's a lot easier and less expensive to drop in a PCI card and configure it than it is to bring it in to the closest authorized Mac repair shop and have them fix the problem (or worse yet shipping it to Apple because there isn't a shop local that you can have it fixed at) or to just go out and buy a new computer.
Most home users don't think about stuff like this. If the computer breaks, it goes to the shop. If it costs a lot to fix, we buy a new one. They wouldn't consider self repair. One of the hurdles for home users with upgrading is that they barely understand where the plugs go. Joe Average would take the computer to a Geek Squad guy for the upgrades, and get charged $50 for 30 minutes of the guy's time. That's why they don't upgrade much. They sure wouldn't do an "upgrade-to-repair" thing.
Most home users don't think about stuff like this. If the computer breaks, it goes to the shop. If it costs a lot to fix, we buy a new one. They wouldn't consider self repair. One of the hurdles for home users with upgrading is that they barely understand where the plugs go. Joe Average would take the computer to a Geek Squad guy for the upgrades, and get charged $50 for 30 minutes of the guy's time. That's why they don't upgrade much. They sure wouldn't do an "upgrade-to-repair" thing.
You are likely correct, but many of us have friends who know a lot more than we do, and we don't hesitate to ask their advice.
More importantly, business IT folks are vary aware of the advantages of PCI cards, and business is a huge customer. I don't believe Apple is ignoring this segment of computer buyers. To me, it looks like Apple's business strategy is to first offer the small 1U rack servers and begin competing there. Next you can bet it is the office desktop computer. I'm sure the iMac will make its way into offices and reception desks, but to get the attention of most IT folks, it will take something 'like' a mini tower.
It could be something none of us are expecting -- a somewhat different format that especially appeals to business, but is also a good product for the home. Maybe that's too much dreaming, but a mini tower would certainly be okay.
Now let's review the advantages of an expandable computer.
Upgrade: easily add new graphics card or new I/O. When USB2 became available I simply added a four port PCI card to my PowerMac.
New Capability: add new features or I/O. Add 24-bit pro audio or a midi board to a music workstation, without adding more cords and clutter.
Repair: already mentioned by @homenow.
Ease of Maintenance: the computer case opens easily, making upgrade and such relatively simple.
You are likely correct, but many of us have friends who know a lot more than we do, and we don't hesitate to ask their advice.
More importantly, business IT folks are vary aware of the advantages of PCI cards, and business is a huge customer. I don't believe Apple is ignoring this segment of computer buyers. To me, it looks like Apple's business strategy is to first offer the small 1U rack servers and begin competing there. Next you can bet it is the office desktop computer. I'm sure the iMac will make its way into offices and reception desks, but to get the attention of most IT folks, it will take something 'like' a mini tower.
It could be something none of us are expecting -- a somewhat different format that especially appeals to business, but is also a good product for the home. Maybe that's too much dreaming, but a mini tower would certainly be okay.
Now let's review the advantages of an expandable computer.
Upgrade: easily add new graphics card or new I/O. When USB2 became available I simply added a four port PCI card to my PowerMac.
New Capability: add new features or I/O. Add 24-bit pro audio or a midi board to a music workstation, without adding more cords and clutter.
Repair: already mentioned by @homenow.
Ease of Maintenance: the computer case opens easily, making upgrade and such relatively simple.
top iMac, base configuration: $1699
MacPro, base configuration: $2499
I've heard it said, "Nature abhores a vacuum."
just thought I'd mention it in that specific way.
Again, I'm not denying that I like PCIe slots, I'm just saying that for most people, it's not a deal breaker. Obviously excepting geeks, gamers, and professionals.
. . . At my school and where I work this summer, they have four year plans. They replace a quarter of the computers yearly.
Just wondering, do they replace the displays too? I was curious how an iMac would fit into this replacement plan, since the display is part of it. I think the old CRT iMacs and eMacs were fairly popular in schools though.
Just wondering, do they replace the displays too? I was curious how an iMac would fit into this replacement plan, since the display is part of it. I think the old CRT iMacs and eMacs were fairly popular in schools though.
I don't know. My school has G4 iMacs (and a few B&Ws) in a few labs in libraries, and G5s in production labs. They also use a few eMacs in the libraries. The PCs look like they have new-ish monitors, so I think they might replace them.
At work, it looks like the monitors stay past the computer's lifespan, as some of the monitors look ancient, but some look newer.
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.
...<snip car analogy>...
A mid-range tower can't and won't suddenly make a huge paradigm shift.
We agree then. One man's boutique is another man's niche.
Problem is that Apple executives have stated they wish to increase market share. Offering a mid range to upper end consumer desktop would give them a much greater chance of gaining market share. No one here has indicated Apple should get into the low end.
And, I at least don't expect "a huge paradigm shift". What I did mention was the possibility of doubling market share to 10% by capturing a larger %'age of the upper end consumer(read profitable) market.
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.
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Upon introduction both the previous generation iMac(iLamp if you will) and the current iMac have had their fair share of criticisms for their looks(a la the big chin for the current model)
AOpen offers a Mac mini clone that is virtually identical and AOpen is hardly a boutique company.
http://www.geocities.com/celemourn/headlessmac.jpg
Think it's funny huh? Well this one is for real:
http://www.geocities.com/celemourn/for-real.jpg
Anyone can get this. and that is the regular price, not the educational discount. Gets cheeper with edu pricing for those in school.
the MacPro does NOT cost $2499. Period. Might I remind everyone that it is downright goofy to buy loads of RAM and bigger HDs from the computer manufacturer? They get a LOT of profit from upgrades. With the MacPro, there's really no excuse for having Apple preconfigure it unless you are getting a LOT of them and just don't want the hassle.