A taller mac mini with a graphics card in it would probably shut-up the most of you.
Oh wait, then it would be a cube.
Add a 3.5" HDD and I would buy it in about 2.3 seconds (the time it takes to get my wallet out). In fact, my only objections to the Mac mini are the lack of dedicated graphics and the 2.5" HDD. If it had a 3.5" drive, I probably would have bought a 1.25GHz mini back in the day; instead, I am still hanging on to my 5-year-old Quicksilver. And the graphics card isn't all that big a deal to me (I've gotten over my anti-IG prejudice, I think, but it's an intellectual barrier for a lot of people); if the next rev (with a Broadwater chipset) has a 3.5" HDD, I'll buy one immediately. Since this is unlikely (Apple is very conservative financially, and they'll wait until they have a larger marketshare to intro a headless iMac), I'll probably wait until Jan/Feb, after the MB gets Broadwater and iLife is updated. (After all, if I'm gonna pay for portable hardware, I should get portability.) I might even wait until Leopard is out. In fact, knowing my finances at this point, I probably will. \
I think that designing a mid-grade tower should involve some sort of calculation of what the actual cost of the computer would be. What people seem to be asking for is a computer that costs 60 - 75 % of the cost of a standard configuration Mac Pro. I don't know anything about the costs of making a computer, but I can't see how snoopy's computer, just as an example, would be substantially less expensive than the MacPro. The savings would be: 1 processor, 4 memory slots, 2 HD slots, and 1 PCIe slot. How much savings does this really add up to? 25% of the cost of the MacPro?
It adds up.
One thing I think is obvious. A high end "Mac midi" with a C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz) effectively kills the bottom Mac Pro option (2S 2 GHz). For most people, if not the great majority, a 2.66 GHz machine is better than a 2S 2 GHz machine. You'll have to use FCP a lot, or any app that uses 4 cores well, to make the 2S 2 GHz machine work for you. But then, the standard config should be affordable to you.
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there. FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors. The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that. The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
One thing I think is obvious. A high end "Mac midi" with a C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz) effectively kills the bottom Mac Pro option (2S 2 GHz). For most people, if not the great majority, a 2.66 GHz machine is better than a 2S 2 GHz machine. You'll have to use FCP a lot, or any app that uses 4 cores well, to make the 2S 2 GHz machine work for you. But then, the standard config should be affordable to you.
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there. FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors. The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that. The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
When In read something like this, it baffles me why Apple won't release a low end pro machine (or whatever you want to call it, enthusiast machine) aimed at enthusiasts. There seem to be a lot of users that want more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro. The components exists at prices that would allow Apple to make a handsome profit. Why not give the people what they want instead of telling them what they want?
We agree except for the number of PCI-e slots. I don't think having 2 slots would cost more than an additional connector. The chip set for PCI-e is already there on board. Even 3 slots would not cost much more, but Apple would likely want there to be fewer PCI-e slots than in the Mac Pro.
Depending on how it is equipped, CPU speed, HDD capacity, graphics card type and RAM, the price could vary from about $1000 to $2000.
It's obvious that you want apple to make cheap "DELL"computer, in your first post you set the premises for the discussion so that you don't get arguments against that. Day dreaming is everyones right and it's also fun, but I hope you do have read at least some of the responces why Apple would or should not create your dream machine. Most people still like to speculate under more real terms, what future might bring.
Apple has positioned it self to selling niche market computers and has done farely well in it. In my mind what makes Apple computer, is the design, build quality, silent operation, and OSX. The whole quality how things are integrated together, and that in my mind qualifies the extra dollars Apple computers cost.
I somewhat agree that there might be room for ~1800$ Mac Pro lite. Ability to upgrade your computer a little would be nice. Intel and Amd on purpose change processor socket every second year, about the cycle people would need to upgrade anyway, so hardly any processors ever get upgraded. Ability to change graphics card is totally another story, and in that I do agree with others. Still my vision would be more like Apple cube, with replaceable video card, and socket mounted processor and maybe an extra pci slot.
I own Shuttle PC and only drawbacks with it are the unearthly fan noise it makes and the fact that it's not an Apple product, otherwise I have been very satisfied with it's extensibility. Would I pay 1800$ from it, even if it was Apple quality, I don't know.
No I don't want Apple to produce cheap Dell machines. But I'm not going to pay $2500 to get basic tower expandability when I can get that in a PC for well over half the price. No matter how nice OSX is. I understand the whole all-in-one concept but not everybody who wants to use OSX wants that and Apple shouldn't force consumers into a little box and say "this is what you want and need". Obviously they don't understand all consumers. Not everybody fits into a box of either high end professional or low end home user making cheap home videos of their kids.
When In read something like this, it baffles me why Apple won't release a low end pro machine (or whatever you want to call it, enthusiast machine) aimed at enthusiasts. There seem to be a lot of users that want more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro. The components exists at prices that would allow Apple to make a handsome profit. Why not give the people what they want instead of telling them what they want?
For those of us who have been following Apple for a while, it's pretty obvious. Marketshare. Each model costs a certain amount of money. The Mac market is only so big. It therefore can't afford too many models if it wants to maintain profitability. As it grows its marketshare, Apple has been offering more models. When Steve took over, he slashed the whole product line to two: towers and portables. He then introduced the iMac, a third line. Then the iBook (#4). Then more iMac models (regular, DV, DV+, DVSE, flavors, graphite, snow, flower power, dalmation, ugh...). They wisely cut those back with the G4 iMac (the brand was being diluted and the "translucent colored plastic" fad was becoming annoying). The eMac. Then two sizes of iBooks and three of the PBs. Two sizes of iMac. Then the mini. I'm looking at the woodcrests in the MP and its one standard model as a very good thing. It tells me they've zeroed in on their Pro audience, and aren't pretending that consumers will buy one because they "like having a tower."
Apple is trying to push the number of models, if you pay attention, but cuts back when they canibalize/endanger something more important. But it is constrained by its small marketshare. Apple will soon (MWSF07) add another model into the mix with its media center (which I'm hoping will be a full blown OSX running a front row server). Next in line is probably the prosumer/headless-iMac space. But anything in between the major markets (and even the word "prosumer" should tell you that its in between other things) is going to get squeezed. I'm guessing that--if Apple continues growing well in the next year--we'll see something in this space maybe for WWDC 2007 or MWSF 2008.
I want this too. This is why I went from an iMac to a tower, and why I won't be getting a tower next time. But we have to realize that Apple's health as a company matters for its marketshare--what nearly killed the Mac in the late 90s was the rumbling that Macs weren't going to be around for much longer. It was almost a self-fullfilling prophecy. It didn't matter how cool or innovative its products were (Newton) or weren't (eMate). The "Apple posts $500 trillion dollar loss in Q3" buzz was all most people heard about Apple. And this was when Apple had approximately 3,984 different models all pegged at different markets, even if no one knew what those markets were (I still don't know who the Quadras and Centrises were aimed at). Just look at Apple-history.com around 1993 and try and tell me the logic of the naming schemes (LC III vs. LC 475--they couldn't even decide which numeral system they were using).
You want a prosumer headless iMac? Get Granny, Uncle Joe, and little cousin Erika to switch. Demand Macs at your school. Show off boot camp (or better yet, parallels) to your neighbors and dorm mates (and complain about worrying about viruses and reinstalls every time you "have" to work in windows ). Show off Expose and Dashboard. (I remember almost getting a friend to switch just by minimizing a window with the genie effect back in 2001.) Send out photocasts, being sure to say: "On your Mac, this will automatically show up in your iPhoto library. If you're still using a Windows PC, paste this into your browser and it should work, if you've got the latest version of IE."
For those of us who have been following Apple for a while, it's pretty obvious. Marketshare. Each model costs a certain amount of money. The Mac market is only so big. It therefore can't afford too many models if it wants to maintain profitability. As it grows its marketshare, Apple has been offering more models. . .
Self defeating. Market share will not grow until more Windows users switch, and this will not happen if Apple does not offer what these folks want to buy. What do they buy? Mini towers, lots of mini towers.
It's okay to follow what Apple is doing, but it's a mistake to assume Apple is always right. If they do not offer models that potential switchers want, there will be fewer switcher and much slower growth of market share.
You want a prosumer headless iMac? Get Granny, Uncle Joe, and little cousin Erika to switch. Demand Macs at your school. Show off boot camp (or better yet, parallels) to your neighbors and dorm mates (and complain about worrying about viruses and reinstalls every time you "have" to work in windows ). Show off Expose and Dashboard. (I remember almost getting a friend to switch just by minimizing a window with the genie effect back in 2001.) Send out photocasts, being sure to say: "On your Mac, this will automatically show up in your iPhoto library. If you're still using a Windows PC, paste this into your browser and it should work, if you've got the latest version of IE."
Apple needs a good mid to high range system with good video to be able to get more people who are into gaming to switch over to Mac. There are some people who are in to game who spend a lot on gaming system but then apple $2500 only comes with a low end video and high cost ram when if you can go some where a get a system at the same price with 2 good video cards and more ram that does not look that good. A $1500 - $2000 system with a single CPU and 2 gigs of ram as well as a good video card will be a big hit for apple and would help to get more games to come out for Mac.
I think it's hard for Apple to continue to avoid making a mini tower for your average user. While I would be quite content with an iMac speced the way THT has suggested there are others who prefer a mini tower with limited expansion options. It's going to be difficult to expand market share otherwise. I wish Apple would float a model like this and see how it would do. If it sinks discontinue it.
I think it's hard for Apple to continue to avoid making a mini tower for your average user. While I would be quite content with an iMac speced the way THT has suggested there are others who prefer a mini tower with limited expansion options. It's going to be difficult to expand market share otherwise. I wish Apple would float a model like this and see how it would do. If it sinks discontinue it.
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
I am reluctant to get into a Discussion on a subject that I don't know much about, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there.
Is the $100 board one that Apple would be using, including FW400 (maybe FW800), and suitable network connectivity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors.
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that.
Isn't the only power savings in the processor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
This may be true, but I doubt that Apple will be releasing a computer in a generic case. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the numbers are in the right ballpark for Apple to make such a computer, but the main savings is the cost of processor #2. Processor prices for lower speed Xeons might decline significantly in six months, after the 4x chips are release, and Apple could just wait till then and cut the price of the 2x2x2.0Ghz MacPro.
A Mac Cube would save power on the processors, RAM (FB-DIMMs are power hungry, and need to supply extra PCIe slots. A quarter of that power supply is there to cover the guy with a X1900XT and 3 PCIe cards.
Also, in regards to PCIe, an x8 slot isn't needed. A x4 slot (and maybe an x1 slot) will cover everything a Mac Cube could want - the only difference being something like eSATA or Fibre Channel (which are "Pro features")
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
but they are now in the x86 market and on the high end they are useing sever cpus and laptop cpus on the low end. Where is the mid end system with a desk top cpu?
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
I was using THT's $300 - $1000 figure. I'm not sure what speed Xeon you're referring to.
The numbers for the MacPro don't really add up, unless the $700 is for the 3.0 GHz.
CPU________2x $700
Board___________400 (THT said so)
case____________300 (same)
1GB FB-DIMM___300 (Apple's price, based on 4x512 - 2x512)
Video card______150 (Apple's price for the second 7300)
250GB HD_______200 (Apple's price, from differences between 1st & 2nd HD's)
optical drive_____100 (Apple's price for the second optical drive, 16X, dual-layer)
Keybd + mouse___80
power supply______?
Total__________$2930 + power supply
Maybe I left something out. For some items, like the HD, $200 seems like too much, but I think that the only relevant number is what Apple charges for it, installed in a computer. On this basis, leaving out one CPU and saving money on the motherboard isn't going to bring the price below $2000.
I was using THT's $300 - $1000 figure. I'm not sure what speed Xeon you're referring to.
The numbers for the MacPro don't really add up, unless the $700 is for the 3.0 GHz.
CPU________2x $700
Board___________400 (THT said so)
case____________300 (same)
1GB FB-DIMM___300 (Apple's price, based on 4x512 - 2x512)
Video card______150 (Apple's price for the second 7300)
250GB HD_______200 (Apple's price, from differences between 1st & 2nd HD's)
optical drive_____100 (Apple's price for the second optical drive, 16X, dual-layer)
Keybd + mouse___80
power supply______?
Total__________$2930 + power supply
Maybe I left something out. For some items, like the HD, $200 seems like too much, but I think that the only relevant number is what Apple charges for it, installed in a computer. On this basis, leaving out one CPU and saving money on the motherboard isn't going to bring the price below $2000.
Apple is not paying $700 for the 2.66GHz Xeon that's for sure, but if you use the bulk price of $850 for the 3.0GHz Xeon and $69 for the power supply, you get $3299 which is the price of the quad 3.0GHz Mac Pro. I suspect that Apple bought a lot (I mean a lot) of 2.66GHz for the Mac Pro and the XServe and they get a price close to the 2.33GHz Xeon one ($455). If you use this price then you get the $2499 price point. That also why the 2.0GHz Mac Pro is "only" $300 less than the 2.66GHz model, the 2.0GHz Xeon costs $316 in bulk.
For the 4 items you listed based on "Apple's price", you can bet Apple is paying less, so that makes room for the packaging and the software.
Now to build a mid-tower single processor Mac, you're gonna save on the processor price, on the motherboard price, on the memory price, on the case price and the power supply price. To simplify the counts let say the 2.40GHz Conroe is $300, the 2.66GHz is $500 and the 2.93GHz is $1000, and memory is $200 for 1GB.
The 2.40GHz model would be around: $300+100+200+200+150+200+100+80+69=$1399.
The 2.66GHz $1599. And the 2.93GHz $2099.
I think Apple can at least shave $100 more on those prices to reach "standard" price points: $1299/$1499/$1999.
Get back the iMac edu, but for eveyone at $999 and all the desktop price points are now filled, and well filled I believe.
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
I agree, the cube, to me also, was a precursor to the mini. Their design and concept are very similar in my opinion.
Comments
A taller mac mini with a graphics card in it would probably shut-up the most of you.
Oh wait, then it would be a cube.
Add a 3.5" HDD and I would buy it in about 2.3 seconds (the time it takes to get my wallet out). In fact, my only objections to the Mac mini are the lack of dedicated graphics and the 2.5" HDD. If it had a 3.5" drive, I probably would have bought a 1.25GHz mini back in the day; instead, I am still hanging on to my 5-year-old Quicksilver. And the graphics card isn't all that big a deal to me (I've gotten over my anti-IG prejudice, I think, but it's an intellectual barrier for a lot of people); if the next rev (with a Broadwater chipset) has a 3.5" HDD, I'll buy one immediately. Since this is unlikely (Apple is very conservative financially, and they'll wait until they have a larger marketshare to intro a headless iMac), I'll probably wait until Jan/Feb, after the MB gets Broadwater and iLife is updated. (After all, if I'm gonna pay for portable hardware, I should get portability.) I might even wait until Leopard is out. In fact, knowing my finances at this point, I probably will.
Dell XPS 410
Intel ® Core?2 Duo Processor E6700 (2.66GHz, 1066 FSB)
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
20 inch UltraSharp? 2007FPW Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
256MB nVidia Geforce 7300LE TurboCache
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache?
Dual Drives: 16x DVD-ROM Drive + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
Sound Blaster® X-Fi? XtremeMusic (D), w/Dolby® Digital 5.1
Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp? Flat Panels
Price: $1995
Well, looks like we know what the target specs for a 20" iMac is likely to be.
I think that designing a mid-grade tower should involve some sort of calculation of what the actual cost of the computer would be. What people seem to be asking for is a computer that costs 60 - 75 % of the cost of a standard configuration Mac Pro. I don't know anything about the costs of making a computer, but I can't see how snoopy's computer, just as an example, would be substantially less expensive than the MacPro. The savings would be: 1 processor, 4 memory slots, 2 HD slots, and 1 PCIe slot. How much savings does this really add up to? 25% of the cost of the MacPro?
It adds up.
One thing I think is obvious. A high end "Mac midi" with a C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz) effectively kills the bottom Mac Pro option (2S 2 GHz). For most people, if not the great majority, a 2.66 GHz machine is better than a 2S 2 GHz machine. You'll have to use FCP a lot, or any app that uses 4 cores well, to make the 2S 2 GHz machine work for you. But then, the standard config should be affordable to you.
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there. FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors. The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that. The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
It adds up.
One thing I think is obvious. A high end "Mac midi" with a C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz) effectively kills the bottom Mac Pro option (2S 2 GHz). For most people, if not the great majority, a 2.66 GHz machine is better than a 2S 2 GHz machine. You'll have to use FCP a lot, or any app that uses 4 cores well, to make the 2S 2 GHz machine work for you. But then, the standard config should be affordable to you.
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there. FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors. The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that. The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
When In read something like this, it baffles me why Apple won't release a low end pro machine (or whatever you want to call it, enthusiast machine) aimed at enthusiasts. There seem to be a lot of users that want more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro. The components exists at prices that would allow Apple to make a handsome profit. Why not give the people what they want instead of telling them what they want?
1x Optical drive
1x PCI-E 16x (graphics - Good card optional)
1x PCI-e 8x
2 RAM slots
2 HDD bays
Bluetooth/Airport optional
Max 1500$
Small tower form, not pizza box. Thats SO CRT-90'ish.
1x Core2Duo
1x Optical drive
1x PCI-E 16x (graphics - Good card optional)
1x PCI-e 8x
2 RAM slots
2 HDD bays
Bluetooth/Airport optional . . .
We agree except for the number of PCI-e slots. I don't think having 2 slots would cost more than an additional connector. The chip set for PCI-e is already there on board. Even 3 slots would not cost much more, but Apple would likely want there to be fewer PCI-e slots than in the Mac Pro.
Depending on how it is equipped, CPU speed, HDD capacity, graphics card type and RAM, the price could vary from about $1000 to $2000.
It's obvious that you want apple to make cheap "DELL"computer, in your first post you set the premises for the discussion so that you don't get arguments against that. Day dreaming is everyones right and it's also fun, but I hope you do have read at least some of the responces why Apple would or should not create your dream machine. Most people still like to speculate under more real terms, what future might bring.
Apple has positioned it self to selling niche market computers and has done farely well in it. In my mind what makes Apple computer, is the design, build quality, silent operation, and OSX. The whole quality how things are integrated together, and that in my mind qualifies the extra dollars Apple computers cost.
I somewhat agree that there might be room for ~1800$ Mac Pro lite. Ability to upgrade your computer a little would be nice. Intel and Amd on purpose change processor socket every second year, about the cycle people would need to upgrade anyway, so hardly any processors ever get upgraded. Ability to change graphics card is totally another story, and in that I do agree with others. Still my vision would be more like Apple cube, with replaceable video card, and socket mounted processor and maybe an extra pci slot.
I own Shuttle PC and only drawbacks with it are the unearthly fan noise it makes and the fact that it's not an Apple product, otherwise I have been very satisfied with it's extensibility. Would I pay 1800$ from it, even if it was Apple quality, I don't know.
No I don't want Apple to produce cheap Dell machines. But I'm not going to pay $2500 to get basic tower expandability when I can get that in a PC for well over half the price. No matter how nice OSX is. I understand the whole all-in-one concept but not everybody who wants to use OSX wants that and Apple shouldn't force consumers into a little box and say "this is what you want and need". Obviously they don't understand all consumers. Not everybody fits into a box of either high end professional or low end home user making cheap home videos of their kids.
When In read something like this, it baffles me why Apple won't release a low end pro machine (or whatever you want to call it, enthusiast machine) aimed at enthusiasts. There seem to be a lot of users that want more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro. The components exists at prices that would allow Apple to make a handsome profit. Why not give the people what they want instead of telling them what they want?
For those of us who have been following Apple for a while, it's pretty obvious. Marketshare. Each model costs a certain amount of money. The Mac market is only so big. It therefore can't afford too many models if it wants to maintain profitability. As it grows its marketshare, Apple has been offering more models. When Steve took over, he slashed the whole product line to two: towers and portables. He then introduced the iMac, a third line. Then the iBook (#4). Then more iMac models (regular, DV, DV+, DVSE, flavors, graphite, snow, flower power, dalmation, ugh...). They wisely cut those back with the G4 iMac (the brand was being diluted and the "translucent colored plastic" fad was becoming annoying). The eMac. Then two sizes of iBooks and three of the PBs. Two sizes of iMac. Then the mini. I'm looking at the woodcrests in the MP and its one standard model as a very good thing. It tells me they've zeroed in on their Pro audience, and aren't pretending that consumers will buy one because they "like having a tower."
Apple is trying to push the number of models, if you pay attention, but cuts back when they canibalize/endanger something more important. But it is constrained by its small marketshare. Apple will soon (MWSF07) add another model into the mix with its media center (which I'm hoping will be a full blown OSX running a front row server). Next in line is probably the prosumer/headless-iMac space. But anything in between the major markets (and even the word "prosumer" should tell you that its in between other things) is going to get squeezed. I'm guessing that--if Apple continues growing well in the next year--we'll see something in this space maybe for WWDC 2007 or MWSF 2008.
I want this too. This is why I went from an iMac to a tower, and why I won't be getting a tower next time. But we have to realize that Apple's health as a company matters for its marketshare--what nearly killed the Mac in the late 90s was the rumbling that Macs weren't going to be around for much longer. It was almost a self-fullfilling prophecy. It didn't matter how cool or innovative its products were (Newton) or weren't (eMate). The "Apple posts $500 trillion dollar loss in Q3" buzz was all most people heard about Apple. And this was when Apple had approximately 3,984 different models all pegged at different markets, even if no one knew what those markets were (I still don't know who the Quadras and Centrises were aimed at). Just look at Apple-history.com around 1993 and try and tell me the logic of the naming schemes (LC III vs. LC 475--they couldn't even decide which numeral system they were using).
You want a prosumer headless iMac? Get Granny, Uncle Joe, and little cousin Erika to switch. Demand Macs at your school. Show off boot camp (or better yet, parallels) to your neighbors and dorm mates (and complain about worrying about viruses and reinstalls every time you "have" to work in windows
For those of us who have been following Apple for a while, it's pretty obvious. Marketshare. Each model costs a certain amount of money. The Mac market is only so big. It therefore can't afford too many models if it wants to maintain profitability. As it grows its marketshare, Apple has been offering more models. . .
Self defeating. Market share will not grow until more Windows users switch, and this will not happen if Apple does not offer what these folks want to buy. What do they buy? Mini towers, lots of mini towers.
It's okay to follow what Apple is doing, but it's a mistake to assume Apple is always right. If they do not offer models that potential switchers want, there will be fewer switcher and much slower growth of market share.
You want a prosumer headless iMac? Get Granny, Uncle Joe, and little cousin Erika to switch. Demand Macs at your school. Show off boot camp (or better yet, parallels) to your neighbors and dorm mates (and complain about worrying about viruses and reinstalls every time you "have" to work in windows
Apple needs a good mid to high range system with good video to be able to get more people who are into gaming to switch over to Mac. There are some people who are in to game who spend a lot on gaming system but then apple $2500 only comes with a low end video and high cost ram when if you can go some where a get a system at the same price with 2 good video cards and more ram that does not look that good. A $1500 - $2000 system with a single CPU and 2 gigs of ram as well as a good video card will be a big hit for apple and would help to get more games to come out for Mac.
I think it's hard for Apple to continue to avoid making a mini tower for your average user. While I would be quite content with an iMac speced the way THT has suggested there are others who prefer a mini tower with limited expansion options. It's going to be difficult to expand market share otherwise. I wish Apple would float a model like this and see how it would do. If it sinks discontinue it.
DCQ,
I think it's hard for Apple to continue to avoid making a mini tower for your average user. While I would be quite content with an iMac speced the way THT has suggested there are others who prefer a mini tower with limited expansion options. It's going to be difficult to expand market share otherwise. I wish Apple would float a model like this and see how it would do. If it sinks discontinue it.
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
For costs, the Mac Pro is an expensive machine with expensive components for the most part. A 2S Woodcrest motherboard will cost you $400, minimum, right now. A 1S Conroe board can be had for $100. That's $300 right there.
Is the $100 board one that Apple would be using, including FW400 (maybe FW800), and suitable network connectivity?
FB-DIMM memory is about twice as expensive as DDR2 memory. Core 2 Duo CPUs are about $100 cheaper per grade than Xeons, and there is only one. That can range from $300 to $1000 depending processors.
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
The Mac Pro power supply is probably on the order of 750-1000 Watt. A Conroe system can get by with half that.
Isn't the only power savings in the processor?
The case itself just looks $200 to $300 more expensive than the typical sheet metal with plastic cladding desktop cases dominant in the PC world. Not sure what the cost delta in case cost would be though.
This may be true, but I doubt that Apple will be releasing a computer in a generic case. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the numbers are in the right ballpark for Apple to make such a computer, but the main savings is the cost of processor #2. Processor prices for lower speed Xeons might decline significantly in six months, after the 4x chips are release, and Apple could just wait till then and cut the price of the 2x2x2.0Ghz MacPro.
Also, in regards to PCIe, an x8 slot isn't needed. A x4 slot (and maybe an x1 slot) will cover everything a Mac Cube could want - the only difference being something like eSATA or Fibre Channel (which are "Pro features")
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
but they are now in the x86 market and on the high end they are useing sever cpus and laptop cpus on the low end. Where is the mid end system with a desk top cpu?
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
The Xeons in the Mac Pros are $700+ each.
The Xeons in the Mac Pros are $700+ each.
I was using THT's $300 - $1000 figure. I'm not sure what speed Xeon you're referring to.
The numbers for the MacPro don't really add up, unless the $700 is for the 3.0 GHz.
CPU________2x $700
Board___________400 (THT said so)
case____________300 (same)
1GB FB-DIMM___300 (Apple's price, based on 4x512 - 2x512)
Video card______150 (Apple's price for the second 7300)
250GB HD_______200 (Apple's price, from differences between 1st & 2nd HD's)
optical drive_____100 (Apple's price for the second optical drive, 16X, dual-layer)
Keybd + mouse___80
power supply______?
Total__________$2930 + power supply
Maybe I left something out. For some items, like the HD, $200 seems like too much, but I think that the only relevant number is what Apple charges for it, installed in a computer. On this basis, leaving out one CPU and saving money on the motherboard isn't going to bring the price below $2000.
I was using THT's $300 - $1000 figure. I'm not sure what speed Xeon you're referring to.
The numbers for the MacPro don't really add up, unless the $700 is for the 3.0 GHz.
CPU________2x $700
Board___________400 (THT said so)
case____________300 (same)
1GB FB-DIMM___300 (Apple's price, based on 4x512 - 2x512)
Video card______150 (Apple's price for the second 7300)
250GB HD_______200 (Apple's price, from differences between 1st & 2nd HD's)
optical drive_____100 (Apple's price for the second optical drive, 16X, dual-layer)
Keybd + mouse___80
power supply______?
Total__________$2930 + power supply
Maybe I left something out. For some items, like the HD, $200 seems like too much, but I think that the only relevant number is what Apple charges for it, installed in a computer. On this basis, leaving out one CPU and saving money on the motherboard isn't going to bring the price below $2000.
Apple is not paying $700 for the 2.66GHz Xeon that's for sure, but if you use the bulk price of $850 for the 3.0GHz Xeon and $69 for the power supply, you get $3299 which is the price of the quad 3.0GHz Mac Pro. I suspect that Apple bought a lot (I mean a lot) of 2.66GHz for the Mac Pro and the XServe and they get a price close to the 2.33GHz Xeon one ($455). If you use this price then you get the $2499 price point. That also why the 2.0GHz Mac Pro is "only" $300 less than the 2.66GHz model, the 2.0GHz Xeon costs $316 in bulk.
For the 4 items you listed based on "Apple's price", you can bet Apple is paying less, so that makes room for the packaging and the software.
Now to build a mid-tower single processor Mac, you're gonna save on the processor price, on the motherboard price, on the memory price, on the case price and the power supply price. To simplify the counts let say the 2.40GHz Conroe is $300, the 2.66GHz is $500 and the 2.93GHz is $1000, and memory is $200 for 1GB.
The 2.40GHz model would be around: $300+100+200+200+150+200+100+80+69=$1399.
The 2.66GHz $1599. And the 2.93GHz $2099.
I think Apple can at least shave $100 more on those prices to reach "standard" price points: $1299/$1499/$1999.
Get back the iMac edu, but for eveyone at $999 and all the desktop price points are now filled, and well filled I believe.
Apple has made 2 of these: the Cube and the single processor G5. Both sank for different reason, I think. In the case of the Cube, Apple spent a lot desiging and building a small, fast, elegant computer. They priced it accordingly, and lots of people complained that i) the price was too high, and ii) there were no free slots. For the G5, they just took the low-end, previous generation computer and cut the price. People complained, and, although there aren't any sales figures, it's safe to say that sales were not brisk; people interested in G5's wanted 2 processors and were willing to pay for them. The situation might be different now because the comparison now is between 4 processors and 2 processors, but when Apple does make a lower priced tower, I predict that all the previous complaints will be replayed.
Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
I agree, the cube, to me also, was a precursor to the mini. Their design and concept are very similar in my opinion.