I can't afford a Mac Pro and the other desktops don't make my penis look big. Waaaaaaah!
Please. If you want to have a debate about this, you've got to come up with a better argument than this old chestnut. For the record, I use a laptop and have no interest in buying a desktop.
What I do have an interest in is Apple becoming more and more successful and in OS X becoming less and less marginalised. I don't feel that the latter has even started in the U.K. yet, and get the impression that there are still plenty of things like Windows-only websites, internet services and peripheral hardware in the U.S. too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Come on, don't be such a knob end all the time.
I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from making any further personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
An iMac is a desktop. The Mac Mini is a desktop. Just because they don't fit your narrow view of the world doesn't mean that isn't true.
My narrow view? It's you who's in denial about the fact that the Mac Pro is a high-end workstation and that the Mac Mini and iMac are both closer to being laptops than desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
Would you explain this line of thinking to me?
Gladly:
What are the defining characteristics of laptops? I suggest that they are:
portability.
more expensive and/or less capable internal components (relative to desktop counterparts) such as CPU, GPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, HDD and optical drives.
built-in monitor.
built-in keyboard and pointing device.
battery to allow use "on-the-go".
no internal expansion capability (i.e. no room for extra HDD, PCIe cards etc.).
I think the situation with the Mini is absolutely clear cut in that it has many more laptop characteristics than desktop characteristics:
It is portable.
It uses a laptop CPU that has lower maximum clock speed and is more-expensive-per-GHz than its desktop counterpart*.
It uses a laptop GPU.
It uses a laptop motherboard chipset which is doubtless more expensive that its desktop counterpart, and has a slower FSB.
It uses laptop RAM (more expensive than desktop counterpart).
It uses a laptop HDD (more expensive than desktop counterpart, often slower, lower capacity limit).
It uses a laptop optical drive (more expensive and slower than desktop counterpart).
It has no internal expansion capability.
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are built-in monitor, built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.
Whilst it is a bit more of a stretch with the iMac, it does still have more laptop characteristics than desktop:
It uses a laptop CPU.
It uses a laptop GPU.
It uses a laptop motherboard chipset.
It uses laptop RAM.
It uses a laptop optical drive.
It has no internal expansion capability.
It has a built-in monitor.
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are portability (it's luggable), built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.
*Intel's latest price list is available here. It shows that the most powerful Conroe (Merom's direct desktop equivalent) available is a quad-core 2.93 GHz part, whilst the most powerful Merom is a dual-core 2.4 GHz part.
The 2.4 GHz Merom is $530, whilst the 2.4 GHz Conroe is $224. For $530, Apple can get a quad-core 2.4 GHz Conroe.
The 1.80 GHz Merom is $209 whilst the 1.80 GHz Conroe is $113.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
their desktop share is increasing if only by some small miniscule amount.
I'd even go so far as to say that 0.2% is negligible. I see no reason why Apple should not be able to replicate their performance in the laptop sector (hey! They increased market share and profits! Wow! People 'round here would try and have you believe the two are mutually exclusive) to the desktop sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone. Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance. Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare. The current success builds upon that key success.
I agree with all of that, but the "tipping point" was in reference to OS X market share. I don't think we've reached that at all. I think that Apple's mindshare is much higher in the U.S. than it is in EMEA, which is a larger market than the U.S.
Some folks are way too quick to write off the desktop market, perhaps due to being unaware of how big it still is, and the fact that it's still growing, albeit slowly.
Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone. Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance. Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare. The current success builds upon that key success.
Which part of this do you disagree with?
Vinea
A few things.
1) "Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone."
You don't know that, nor anyone for that matter.
2) "Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance."
Dominance in what? Portable music players and online music and video content? Yes.
3) "Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare."
The tipping point for Apple as Apple will happen when the general population stops seeing Windows as the only game in town. This is when the tipping point will have been reached. All else that Apple is doing is aligned with this goal.
What are the defining characteristics of laptops? I suggest that they are:
portability
more expensive and/or less capable internal components such as CPU, GPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, HDD and optical drives
built-in monitor
built-in keyboard and pointing device
battery to allow use "on-the-go"
no internal expansion capability (i.e. no room for extra HDD, PCIe cards etc.)
I think the situation with the Mini is absolutely clear cut in that it has many more laptop characteristics than desktop characteristics:
It is portable
It uses a laptop CPU with lower maximum clock speed and more-expensive-per-GHz than its desktop counterpart*
It uses a laptop GPU
It uses a laptop motherboard chipset which is doubtless more expensive that its desktop counterpart, and has a slower FSB.
It uses laptop RAM (more expensive than desktop counterpart)
It uses a laptop HDD (more expensive than desktop counterpart, often slower, lower capacity limit)
It uses a laptop optical drive (more expensive and slower than desktop counterpart)
It has no internal expansion capability
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are built-in monitor, built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.
Whilst it is a bit more of a stretch with the iMac, it does still have more laptop characteristics than desktop:
It uses a laptop CPU
It uses a laptop GPU
It uses a laptop motherboard chipset
It uses laptop RAM
It uses a laptop optical drive
It has no internal expansion capability
It has a built-in monitor
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are portability (it's luggable), built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.
Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
True. It does however make them excellent desktop computers for a narrow market that places either size or AIO over flexibility. And for many consumers raises the cost unecessarily if you don't place value on size or AIO.
Me, I bought a G5 isight iMac because I value OS X. I settled for it, I know I settled it, I accept that I settled for it. Is it what I wanted at the price I paid, no. How many consumers are willing to settle?
Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
They use SOME laptop parts and for most people that's not unfortunate - they simply don't care or know any differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
True. It does however make them excellent desktop computers for a narrow market that places either size or AIO over flexibility. And for many consumers raises the cost unecessarily if you don't place value on size or AIO.
Most people don't use the flexibility. It's just a matter of convincing them that they don't need a huge box full of air that they'll never fill.
Forget expandability, the take-away point is that Apple could build a Mini and an iMac that absolutely blow away their current offerings in terms of performance, while charging exactly the same price and commanding exactly the same margins, simply by relaxing the "make it small as possible at any cost" mantra a bit.
Steve clearly believes that size matters more than performance, and that laptop parts deliver "enough" power to satisfy his intended market.
Personally, I think the Mini got crippled because of the iMac. Making the iMac as slender and monitor-like as possible makes sense, from a marketing perspective, but it means that the Mini cannot be allowed full sized parts because it would outperform its all-in-one cousin.
Just an inch or two in any direction and the Mini would get a huge performance boost at its price point, but it can't because of the iMac.
All of that makes sense for portables, because of size, battery life and weight concerns, but for desk-tops it just seems perverse, and the laptop part lock-in Apple has executed with the model line-up is a pain in the ass.
Forget expandability, the take-away point is that Apple could build a Mini and an iMac that absolutely blow away their current offerings in terms of performance, while charging exactly the same price and commanding exactly the same margins, simply by relaxing the "make it small as possible at any cost" mantra a bit.
Steve clearly believes that size matters more than performance, and that laptop parts deliver "enough" power to satisfy his intended market.
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
Me, I bought a G5 isight iMac because I value OS X. I settled for it, I know I settled it, I accept that I settled for it. Is it what I wanted at the price I paid, no. How many consumers are willing to settle?
When you have no other options close to what you want you have to settle for what you can get. But having a laptop CPU on a desktop is silly. Sure, they are fast now days but when you compare the speed of a laptop CPU to the CPU used in the towers...
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
It is actually the 2nd reason of using notebook parts on desktops. But if you "listen" to the Mac Pro, it is virtually silent while using up to two 120W processors, or at least two 65W processors for the entry models. And there are very silent fans now in the market and a small desktop computer using one Conroe chips and integrated graphics (if you want to replace the Mac mini) won't need a lot of cooling (iMacs used to have G5 chips in it!).
You have to take in account a lot of factors. If Apple choose to take the mobile-on-desktop route all the way up the the Mac Pro, it's their choice. But look at what Intel is doing with desktop chips, before the end of the year Quad-core desktops will be mainstream (starting at less than $266 - july 22nd price for the 2.4GHz Q6600), dual-core desktop chips will start at less than $80, while the closer mobile equivalent will still cost more than $200. Even if other mobile parts (HDDs, ODDs, chipsets and GPUs) are getting cheaper, they will never go down as much as desktop parts.
When design is an advantage, ok, less use mobile/cooler chips on the iMac to make it thinner and beautiful so it takes less space and can be moved easily. The Mac mini could have been a little bigger and yet would look great and simple as it is now, but could have received desktop parts instead of mobile ones, it would have cost less ($499 was the original price) and eventually sell better than what we heard here and there. It may have been a little more noisy, but you could put it father from your display, under your desk, which you can't with the iMac (it's in your face!).
I've just receive a brochure from HP today and they have a quad PC for $1600 (canadian, that's US$1510):
HP Pavilion Media Center TV m8120n, including a 22" widescreen Samsung LCD display. Tech Specs:
- Quad-core 2.40GHz C2Q6600 processor
- 3GB of DDR2 RAM
- DUAL 320GB SATA HDDs (640GB total)
- "Superdrive" + Lightscribe
- nvidia 7350LE GPU + TV tuner
- 802.11 b/g wifi + wireless keyboard/mouse
and, unfortunatly,
- Windows Vista Premium.
Should I compare it to the current $1499 20" iMac?
They also have cheaper models with dual-core cpus, integrated graphics, bundled with smaller displays...
Yet I'm not saying that Apple should match what HP does, just that they consider using all the tools available to bring to consumers the best appropriate computers they can...
It is also true for the notebook market, and even if Apple is doing very good in it there are still some segments to conquer: I'd love to see the return of the $999 price point, bigger MBs and smaller MBPs, for example.
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
Actually, increasing the envelope volume makes machines easier to cool, with slower moving fans, hence quieter.
Apple is constantly pushing the edge of making things small and quiet while staying cool enough to not melt. But to achieve that they have to sacrifice a certain amount of computational power.
My point is that they could give back some size, get some computing power, and still keep quiet.
Actually, increasing the envelope volume makes machines easier to cool, with slower moving fans, hence quieter.
Apple is constantly pushing the edge of making things small and quiet while staying cool enough to not melt. But to achieve that they have to sacrifice a certain amount of computational power.
My point is that they could give back some size, get some computing power, and still keep quiet.
Totally agree, however, I think our desire on here for faster, more space, more memory, more features isn't what drives Apple or indeed many consumers. Especially the more grown up consumer who realises that they don't need the GTi model.
The difference in speed between a Conroe and a Merom (leaving aside the mad quad cores) is often way overstated here, whereas the the advantages of low heat, less power consumption and just being 'less' is understated. Less is more sometimes. If the Merom CPU was such a boat anchor, over half the world wouldn't be buying laptops would they?
Sure, they could probably make things a little cheaper using desktop parts but Apple have never been about just being cheaper. They're design led, not cost led. They'll design for a particular customer or set of design goals and if that's not you or how you want your computing experience then that's that.
Sometimes I think it's people who just aren't willing to change. Like going from a desktop to a laptop. I know people that say they always have to have desktops despite the work they're doing being totally below the level of even a G3 iBook. It's pure dogma. If you'd not noticed, Apple are at their best when they ignore dogma and the status quo.
They use SOME laptop parts and for most people that's not unfortunate - they simply don't care or know any differently.
Most people don't use the flexibility. It's just a matter of convincing them that they don't need a huge box full of air that they'll never fill.
Millions upon millions of PCI cards are sold each year for a variety of uses. Cruise the aisles @ Best Buy, Fry's, and now Walmart. Somebody is buying them and now since even Walmart sells them they must be selling them by the boatload.
Just for clarity:
I went to nextag.com and under PCI cards there were 2,244 matches, meaning there are over 2,000 different cards available at this one site. Granted many do the same thing and are just from different manufacturers, but the shear variation is astounding. Yes, people do add cards to their computers or have someone do it for them. It is common place and denying it is a mistake.
Millions upon millions of PCI cards are sold each year for a variety of uses. Cruise the aisles @ Best Buy, Fry's, and now Walmart. Somebody is buying them and now since even Walmart sells them they must be selling them by the boatload.
Just for clarity:
I went to nextag.com and under PCI cards there were 2,244 matches, meaning there are over 2,000 different cards available at this one site. Granted many do the same thing and are just from different manufacturers, but the shear variation is astounding. Yes, people do add cards to their computers or have someone do it for them. It is common place and denying it is a mistake.
How many after you remove graphics, USB 2.0, BT, Firewire, WiFi and Network cards? Granted having the option of new graphic cards would be nice but firewire, USB, WiFi and Gigabit ethernet are included out of box.
The only thing left I can think of are TV tuners, RAID cards, audiophile audio cards and specialty input cards. Of these the only consumer ones are TV tuners and the Mac has a few nice TV tuners available.
How many after you remove graphics, USB 2.0, BT, Firewire, WiFi and Network cards? Granted having the option of new graphic cards would be nice but firewire, USB, WiFi and Gigabit ethernet are included out of box.
The only thing left I can think of are TV tuners, RAID cards, audiophile audio cards and specialty input cards. Of these the only consumer ones are TV tuners and the Mac has a few nice TV tuners available.
Vinea
Good point.
That still leaves those that upgrade due to constantly changing technology. ( ie. when Apple dropped firewire from the iPods leaving millions of iMac owners without the capability of upgrading to USB 2 in order to get anything close to respectable transfer speeds, while the Windows users could buy an inexpensive USB 2 card.) It happens and often enough to justify the desire for PCI slots.
I see one of the next ones on the agenda to be 802.11n and SATA. It still happens.
Comments
Translation:
I can't afford a Mac Pro and the other desktops don't make my penis look big. Waaaaaaah!
Please. If you want to have a debate about this, you've got to come up with a better argument than this old chestnut. For the record, I use a laptop and have no interest in buying a desktop.
What I do have an interest in is Apple becoming more and more successful and in OS X becoming less and less marginalised. I don't feel that the latter has even started in the U.K. yet, and get the impression that there are still plenty of things like Windows-only websites, internet services and peripheral hardware in the U.S. too.
Come on, don't be such a knob end all the time.
I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from making any further personal attacks.
An iMac is a desktop. The Mac Mini is a desktop. Just because they don't fit your narrow view of the world doesn't mean that isn't true.
My narrow view?
Would you explain this line of thinking to me?
Gladly:
What are the defining characteristics of laptops? I suggest that they are:
- portability.
- more expensive and/or less capable internal components (relative to desktop counterparts) such as CPU, GPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, HDD and optical drives.
- built-in monitor.
- built-in keyboard and pointing device.
- battery to allow use "on-the-go".
- no internal expansion capability (i.e. no room for extra HDD, PCIe cards etc.).
I think the situation with the Mini is absolutely clear cut in that it has many more laptop characteristics than desktop characteristics:- It is portable.
- It uses a laptop CPU that has lower maximum clock speed and is more-expensive-per-GHz than its desktop counterpart*.
- It uses a laptop GPU.
- It uses a laptop motherboard chipset which is doubtless more expensive that its desktop counterpart, and has a slower FSB.
- It uses laptop RAM (more expensive than desktop counterpart).
- It uses a laptop HDD (more expensive than desktop counterpart, often slower, lower capacity limit).
- It uses a laptop optical drive (more expensive and slower than desktop counterpart).
- It has no internal expansion capability.
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are built-in monitor, built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.Whilst it is a bit more of a stretch with the iMac, it does still have more laptop characteristics than desktop:
- It uses a laptop CPU.
- It uses a laptop GPU.
- It uses a laptop motherboard chipset.
- It uses laptop RAM.
- It uses a laptop optical drive.
- It has no internal expansion capability.
- It has a built-in monitor.
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are portability (it's luggable), built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.*Intel's latest price list is available here. It shows that the most powerful Conroe (Merom's direct desktop equivalent) available is a quad-core 2.93 GHz part, whilst the most powerful Merom is a dual-core 2.4 GHz part.
The 2.4 GHz Merom is $530, whilst the 2.4 GHz Conroe is $224. For $530, Apple can get a quad-core 2.4 GHz Conroe.
The 1.80 GHz Merom is $209 whilst the 1.80 GHz Conroe is $113.
their desktop share is increasing if only by some small miniscule amount.
I'd even go so far as to say that 0.2% is negligible. I see no reason why Apple should not be able to replicate their performance in the laptop sector (hey! They increased market share and profits! Wow! People 'round here would try and have you believe the two are mutually exclusive) to the desktop sector.
Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone. Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance. Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare. The current success builds upon that key success.
I agree with all of that, but the "tipping point" was in reference to OS X market share. I don't think we've reached that at all. I think that Apple's mindshare is much higher in the U.S. than it is in EMEA, which is a larger market than the U.S.
Actually, the nVidia slide showed that desktop sales were still growing, but just not growing as fast as notebook sales.
Edit:
Here's the link to the nVidia slide
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2984
Good point.
Some folks are way too quick to write off the desktop market, perhaps due to being unaware of how big it still is, and the fact that it's still growing, albeit slowly.
.
Originally it was to avoid sales tax
Might be a silly question, but how do you avoid sales tax when buying locally and not through the apple store?
And have you tried amazon.com? Usually they have a nice $150-200 rebate on these things. (almost pays for the applecare you need to buy)
Gladly:
What are the defining characteristics of laptops? I suggest that they are:
- portability
- more expensive and/or less capable internal components such as CPU, GPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, HDD and optical drives
- built-in monitor
- built-in keyboard and pointing device
- battery to allow use "on-the-go"
- no internal expansion capability (i.e. no room for extra HDD, PCIe cards etc.)
I think the situation with the Mini is absolutely clear cut in that it has many more laptop characteristics than desktop characteristics:- It is portable
- It uses a laptop CPU with lower maximum clock speed and more-expensive-per-GHz than its desktop counterpart*
- It uses a laptop GPU
- It uses a laptop motherboard chipset which is doubtless more expensive that its desktop counterpart, and has a slower FSB.
- It uses laptop RAM (more expensive than desktop counterpart)
- It uses a laptop HDD (more expensive than desktop counterpart, often slower, lower capacity limit)
- It uses a laptop optical drive (more expensive and slower than desktop counterpart)
- It has no internal expansion capability
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are built-in monitor, built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.Whilst it is a bit more of a stretch with the iMac, it does still have more laptop characteristics than desktop:
Pretty clear, very obvious, well stated. Thank you.
Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone. Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance. Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare. The current success builds upon that key success.
Which part of this do you disagree with?
Vinea
A few things.
1) "Without the success of the iPod there would be no iPhone."
You don't know that, nor anyone for that matter.
2) "Apple has already successfully transitioned from comeback to dominance."
Dominance in what? Portable music players and online music and video content? Yes.
3) "Hence they have already made it past their tipping point in terms of branding and mindshare."
The tipping point for Apple as Apple will happen when the general population stops seeing Windows as the only game in town. This is when the tipping point will have been reached. All else that Apple is doing is aligned with this goal.
What are the defining characteristics of laptops? I suggest that they are:
- portability
- more expensive and/or less capable internal components such as CPU, GPU, motherboard chipset, RAM, HDD and optical drives
- built-in monitor
- built-in keyboard and pointing device
- battery to allow use "on-the-go"
- no internal expansion capability (i.e. no room for extra HDD, PCIe cards etc.)
I think the situation with the Mini is absolutely clear cut in that it has many more laptop characteristics than desktop characteristics:- It is portable
- It uses a laptop CPU with lower maximum clock speed and more-expensive-per-GHz than its desktop counterpart*
- It uses a laptop GPU
- It uses a laptop motherboard chipset which is doubtless more expensive that its desktop counterpart, and has a slower FSB.
- It uses laptop RAM (more expensive than desktop counterpart)
- It uses a laptop HDD (more expensive than desktop counterpart, often slower, lower capacity limit)
- It uses a laptop optical drive (more expensive and slower than desktop counterpart)
- It has no internal expansion capability
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are built-in monitor, built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.Whilst it is a bit more of a stretch with the iMac, it does still have more laptop characteristics than desktop:
- It uses a laptop CPU
- It uses a laptop GPU
- It uses a laptop motherboard chipset
- It uses laptop RAM
- It uses a laptop optical drive
- It has no internal expansion capability
- It has a built-in monitor
So, the things it lacks in terms of laptop characteristics are portability (it's luggable), built-in KB and pointing device, and a battery.Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
True. It does however make them excellent desktop computers for a narrow market that places either size or AIO over flexibility. And for many consumers raises the cost unecessarily if you don't place value on size or AIO.
Me, I bought a G5 isight iMac because I value OS X. I settled for it, I know I settled it, I accept that I settled for it. Is it what I wanted at the price I paid, no. How many consumers are willing to settle?
Both the Mac mini and the iMac are desktops by definition. That they currently do use laptop parts is unfortunate but this certainly does not place them in the same category as laptops.
They use SOME laptop parts and for most people that's not unfortunate - they simply don't care or know any differently.
True. It does however make them excellent desktop computers for a narrow market that places either size or AIO over flexibility. And for many consumers raises the cost unecessarily if you don't place value on size or AIO.
Most people don't use the flexibility. It's just a matter of convincing them that they don't need a huge box full of air that they'll never fill.
Steve clearly believes that size matters more than performance, and that laptop parts deliver "enough" power to satisfy his intended market.
Personally, I think the Mini got crippled because of the iMac. Making the iMac as slender and monitor-like as possible makes sense, from a marketing perspective, but it means that the Mini cannot be allowed full sized parts because it would outperform its all-in-one cousin.
Just an inch or two in any direction and the Mini would get a huge performance boost at its price point, but it can't because of the iMac.
All of that makes sense for portables, because of size, battery life and weight concerns, but for desk-tops it just seems perverse, and the laptop part lock-in Apple has executed with the model line-up is a pain in the ass.
Forget expandability, the take-away point is that Apple could build a Mini and an iMac that absolutely blow away their current offerings in terms of performance, while charging exactly the same price and commanding exactly the same margins, simply by relaxing the "make it small as possible at any cost" mantra a bit.
Steve clearly believes that size matters more than performance, and that laptop parts deliver "enough" power to satisfy his intended market.
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
Me, I bought a G5 isight iMac because I value OS X. I settled for it, I know I settled it, I accept that I settled for it. Is it what I wanted at the price I paid, no. How many consumers are willing to settle?
When you have no other options close to what you want you have to settle for what you can get.
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
It is actually the 2nd reason of using notebook parts on desktops. But if you "listen" to the Mac Pro, it is virtually silent while using up to two 120W processors, or at least two 65W processors for the entry models. And there are very silent fans now in the market and a small desktop computer using one Conroe chips and integrated graphics (if you want to replace the Mac mini) won't need a lot of cooling (iMacs used to have G5 chips in it!).
You have to take in account a lot of factors. If Apple choose to take the mobile-on-desktop route all the way up the the Mac Pro, it's their choice. But look at what Intel is doing with desktop chips, before the end of the year Quad-core desktops will be mainstream (starting at less than $266 - july 22nd price for the 2.4GHz Q6600), dual-core desktop chips will start at less than $80, while the closer mobile equivalent will still cost more than $200. Even if other mobile parts (HDDs, ODDs, chipsets and GPUs) are getting cheaper, they will never go down as much as desktop parts.
When design is an advantage, ok, less use mobile/cooler chips on the iMac to make it thinner and beautiful so it takes less space and can be moved easily. The Mac mini could have been a little bigger and yet would look great and simple as it is now, but could have received desktop parts instead of mobile ones, it would have cost less ($499 was the original price) and eventually sell better than what we heard here and there. It may have been a little more noisy, but you could put it father from your display, under your desk, which you can't with the iMac (it's in your face!).
I've just receive a brochure from HP today and they have a quad PC for $1600 (canadian, that's US$1510):
HP Pavilion Media Center TV m8120n, including a 22" widescreen Samsung LCD display. Tech Specs:
- Quad-core 2.40GHz C2Q6600 processor
- 3GB of DDR2 RAM
- DUAL 320GB SATA HDDs (640GB total)
- "Superdrive" + Lightscribe
- nvidia 7350LE GPU + TV tuner
- 802.11 b/g wifi + wireless keyboard/mouse
and, unfortunatly,
- Windows Vista Premium.
Should I compare it to the current $1499 20" iMac?
They also have cheaper models with dual-core cpus, integrated graphics, bundled with smaller displays...
Yet I'm not saying that Apple should match what HP does, just that they consider using all the tools available to bring to consumers the best appropriate computers they can...
It is also true for the notebook market, and even if Apple is doing very good in it there are still some segments to conquer: I'd love to see the return of the $999 price point, bigger MBs and smaller MBPs, for example.
I don't think that's true at all. Replace "noise" for "size" in your analysis and I think you're on to a winner.
Actually, increasing the envelope volume makes machines easier to cool, with slower moving fans, hence quieter.
Apple is constantly pushing the edge of making things small and quiet while staying cool enough to not melt. But to achieve that they have to sacrifice a certain amount of computational power.
My point is that they could give back some size, get some computing power, and still keep quiet.
Actually, increasing the envelope volume makes machines easier to cool, with slower moving fans, hence quieter.
Apple is constantly pushing the edge of making things small and quiet while staying cool enough to not melt. But to achieve that they have to sacrifice a certain amount of computational power.
My point is that they could give back some size, get some computing power, and still keep quiet.
Totally agree, however, I think our desire on here for faster, more space, more memory, more features isn't what drives Apple or indeed many consumers. Especially the more grown up consumer who realises that they don't need the GTi model.
The difference in speed between a Conroe and a Merom (leaving aside the mad quad cores) is often way overstated here, whereas the the advantages of low heat, less power consumption and just being 'less' is understated. Less is more sometimes. If the Merom CPU was such a boat anchor, over half the world wouldn't be buying laptops would they?
Sure, they could probably make things a little cheaper using desktop parts but Apple have never been about just being cheaper. They're design led, not cost led. They'll design for a particular customer or set of design goals and if that's not you or how you want your computing experience then that's that.
Sometimes I think it's people who just aren't willing to change. Like going from a desktop to a laptop. I know people that say they always have to have desktops despite the work they're doing being totally below the level of even a G3 iBook. It's pure dogma. If you'd not noticed, Apple are at their best when they ignore dogma and the status quo.
They use SOME laptop parts and for most people that's not unfortunate - they simply don't care or know any differently.
Most people don't use the flexibility. It's just a matter of convincing them that they don't need a huge box full of air that they'll never fill.
Millions upon millions of PCI cards are sold each year for a variety of uses. Cruise the aisles @ Best Buy, Fry's, and now Walmart. Somebody is buying them and now since even Walmart sells them they must be selling them by the boatload.
Just for clarity:
I went to nextag.com and under PCI cards there were 2,244 matches, meaning there are over 2,000 different cards available at this one site. Granted many do the same thing and are just from different manufacturers, but the shear variation is astounding. Yes, people do add cards to their computers or have someone do it for them. It is common place and denying it is a mistake.
Millions upon millions of PCI cards are sold each year for a variety of uses. Cruise the aisles @ Best Buy, Fry's, and now Walmart. Somebody is buying them and now since even Walmart sells them they must be selling them by the boatload.
Just for clarity:
I went to nextag.com and under PCI cards there were 2,244 matches, meaning there are over 2,000 different cards available at this one site. Granted many do the same thing and are just from different manufacturers, but the shear variation is astounding. Yes, people do add cards to their computers or have someone do it for them. It is common place and denying it is a mistake.
How many after you remove graphics, USB 2.0, BT, Firewire, WiFi and Network cards? Granted having the option of new graphic cards would be nice but firewire, USB, WiFi and Gigabit ethernet are included out of box.
The only thing left I can think of are TV tuners, RAID cards, audiophile audio cards and specialty input cards. Of these the only consumer ones are TV tuners and the Mac has a few nice TV tuners available.
Vinea
How many after you remove graphics, USB 2.0, BT, Firewire, WiFi and Network cards? Granted having the option of new graphic cards would be nice but firewire, USB, WiFi and Gigabit ethernet are included out of box.
The only thing left I can think of are TV tuners, RAID cards, audiophile audio cards and specialty input cards. Of these the only consumer ones are TV tuners and the Mac has a few nice TV tuners available.
Vinea
Good point.
That still leaves those that upgrade due to constantly changing technology. ( ie. when Apple dropped firewire from the iPods leaving millions of iMac owners without the capability of upgrading to USB 2 in order to get anything close to respectable transfer speeds, while the Windows users could buy an inexpensive USB 2 card.) It happens and often enough to justify the desire for PCI slots.
I see one of the next ones on the agenda to be 802.11n and SATA. It still happens.