Other than the big giant hole in the lineup were there is no real midrange computer that has some rage of options for individuals that have different needs.
That hole simply doesn't have enough people to climb into it. Years ago it may have... However, the days of people tinkering with computer hardware are basicallyover. There are a few of us left but one is better off with cheap standardized cases, parts, etc...for doing that sort of thing (that is, get a PC). From Apple's point of view having 4 USB 2 ports, 1 FireWire port, audio in/out is more than enough (thinking Mini here). The gamers who want the latest video cards will simply not go Mac. They never have. They really are the ones who need a more open system. Mac's are appliances. Do we really need upgradeable toasters?
I certainly agree with you. The Mini is wonderful and has so many uses. The iMac is certainly a beautiful system which is ideal for someone wanting to use computers in a traditional way. PC microATX type boxes have their uses especially when tinkering with cheap upgrades but Apple's current lineup makes a lot of sense: Mini, iMac, Pro, laptops. I really don't see too many gaps to be filled by traditional computers. Best to go to iPhone, iPod, etc...
philip
I agree there aren't "too many gaps", just one huge one.
That hole simply doesn't have enough people to climb into it. Years ago it may have... However, the days of people tinkering with computer hardware are basicallyover. There are a few of us left but one is better off with cheap standardized cases, parts, etc...for doing that sort of thing (that is, get a PC). From Apple's point of view having 4 USB 2 ports, 1 FireWire port, audio in/out is more than enough (thinking Mini here). The gamers who want the latest video cards will simply not go Mac. They never have. They really are the ones who need a more open system. Mac's are appliances. Do we really need upgradeable toasters?
philip
Try speaking for your self and not everyone your not.
But what are the margins on the biggest selling desktop computers?
Didn't we already cover this? The ones below $499 have very low % gross margins (maybe 5 to 10), with the percentage increasing to something more in Apple's usual territory (25 % +) by the time you get to about $799.
Didn't we already cover this? The ones below $499 have very low % gross margins (maybe 5 to 10), with the percentage increasing to something more in Apple's usual territory (25 % +) by the time you get to about $799.
Didn't we already cover this entire topic? over and over and over and over again?
That makes not a bit of sense to me. Why call it a Mac Pro? Capitalize on a new product by giving it a name.
My point was/is that if Apple doesn't roll out an xMac/Mac/headless iMac, they could simply re-intro the low-end Mac Pro. Since the early days, the Power Mac has started below $2000. This changed only recently (with the move to the G5s). I think that with the move to Intel, Apple may return to that.
It's difficult to stop when the other side keeps on demonstrating that they haven't grasped what you are saying.
I agree. xMac/minitower/Headless Mac is one of the most intense of the Mac disputes, and was only exacerbated by the 2006 switch to Intel. It's sort of like vi vs. emacs or KDE vs. GNOME. You're not going to change minds.
You got that right. Before the switch, there wasn't much that Apple could do due to the limitations of the range of PPC processors and motherboard chipsets available to them.
In the PPC days, moving the Mac Mini to a minitower enclosure wouldn't have enabled the use of a more powerful, cheaper CPU or a cheaper motherboard chipset (the only other PPC chip to choose was the G5, and whilst more powerful than the G4, it cost more).
With the iMac, there also wasn't as much compromise going on as there is now. Again, Apple were already putting the most powerful CPU in it that they could.
Now the platform is on Intel, Apple have all these desktop Intel chips to choose from and uses none of them! (the Xeon is a workstation chip).
IMHO, Apple will not release a whole new form factor for a product like this. If anything, there could be a low-end mac pro, but making a whole different product would be far to expensive, and thus, unjustified. Would people be satisfied with a bare-bones $1000 mac pro? Maybe, but probably not. I just don't see this happening... it's not financially viable to produce a new product, clutter up the product line, further confuse consumers, etc., in addition to incurring the expenses of design, manufacture, etc. Apple won't do it. They want pros to buy the Mac Pro, and everyone else to buy an all-in-one or a non-upgradable mac mini. This is working for Apple; why should they change it?
IMHO, Apple will not release a whole new form factor for a product like this. If anything, there could be a low-end mac pro, but making a whole different product would be far to expensive, and thus, unjustified. Would people be satisfied with a bare-bones $1000 mac pro? Maybe, but probably not. I just don't see this happening... it's not financially viable to produce a new product, clutter up the product line, further confuse consumers, etc., in addition to incurring the expenses of design, manufacture, etc. Apple won't do it.
All of that depends on how many of the new form-factor machines they would actually sell, doesn't it? Yes, it would be "expensive" to develop. However, I do believe it is justified. Steve/Apple clearly doesn't, and I think they are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flinch13
They want pros to buy the Mac Pro, and everyone else to buy an all-in-one or a non-upgradable mac mini. This is working for Apple; why should they change it?
Because it isn't working for them. Look at what has happened to their share of the laptop market since the switch to Intel - it's gone through the roof. What has happened to their desktop market share? Not much.
This demonstrates that Apple are making laptops that appeal both to current Mac users, and to many Windows users who have decided to make the switch, but they are making desktops that only appeal to some current Mac users and a handful of Windows users. If Apple were to introduce more appealing desktop hardware, one can only assume that Apple's success in the laptop area would be replicated.
I think the line-up will be simple when the next Mac Pro comes out and it will look more like the xMac proposed here than the current beast.
I had a PowerMac G5 with the current form factor for almost four years (It just expired due to a bad motherboard). I had forgot how much of a beast it was until I had to start moving it around to troubleshoot and carting it to the Apple Genius for it's final blessing.
The form factor is almost four years old. The Intel rev. Mac Pro in it's current form is really long in the tooth, the Quad 2.66 was a screaming deal when it was released. Not really the case today. What does a desktop buyer do?
I thought I was going to upgrade to an Octo when it came out, but the price and the thought of an even hotter beast in the office gave me cold feet and made me rethink my rationalizations.
Bottom line is a single processor with four cores is a significant upgrade from a dead dual 2GHz G5. Where is my Mac Pro?
Bearlake is out and Yorkfield and Leopard are just around the corner. Do I actually have to wait until MacWorld for a Mac Pro? (NOTE: No dual chips/octo with Yorkfield!)
I think the line-up will be simple when the next Mac Pro comes out and it will look more like the xMac proposed here than the current beast.
I had a PowerMac G5 with the current form factor for almost four years (It just expired due to a bad motherboard). I had forgot how much of a beast it was until I had to start moving it around to troubleshoot and carting it to the Apple Genius for it's final blessing.
The form factor is almost four years old. The Intel rev. Mac Pro in it's current form is really long in the tooth, the Quad 2.66 was a screaming deal when it was released. Not really the case today. What does a desktop buyer do?
I thought I was going to upgrade to an Octo when it came out, but the price and the thought of an even hotter beast in the office gave me cold feet and made me rethink my rationalizations.
Bottom line is a single processor with four cores is a significant upgrade from a dead dual 2GHz G5. Where is my Mac Pro?
Bearlake is out and Yorkfield and Leopard are just around the corner. Do I actually have to wait until MacWorld for a Mac Pro? (NOTE: No dual chips/octo with Yorkfield!)
You may be right. IMHO the next Mac Pro will be an entirely new model with a new case, new motherboard, new processor, etc. However I also think that the Mac market has now grown enough that it will be the time for Apple to split the line into a Xeon workstation model and a junior model that's essentially half a Mac Pro made from Yorkfield and other desktop parts. BTW an octo Yorkfield (single package) is planned for next year.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Mini Tower (Quad), but the thing I think about are those old Performa days and what not. To Apple: The Mac Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The iMac is even "Professional" and "High Quality", The Mac Book Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The Mac Book is the closest thing Apple has to "Low Quality" or "Shabby" by Apple standards. But the Mac Books are mostly for the students, high school and college; and as far as the Mac Mini and Apple TV, those I feel are TV Products. Tut the mac mini is kinda a cheepy product that is used though on the desktop. In general, I think Apple feels the Mac Pro would conflict price wise with it's laptop sales and conflict performance wise with it's Mac Pro (which would hurt its sales). And like I mentioned "Performa days" which translate into to many models and to much hassle (which Apple may have learned is a bad practice which doesn't make more money in the long run). This would make Apple look like Dell with 40 or more models to choose from and other PC Vendors that have numerous models. Getting a Mac is about that time and place you get it, and it's seated place in the "Lineup." But as far as some arguments have stated that Apple should fill that void, I kind of agree and who knows Apple does have the knack and ability to create really cool products that re-define things. But, I am still getting a Mac Pro 2.66 gHz Quad (Dual-Dual) 16 GB Ram and 4 TB...
I wouldn't mind seeing a Mini Tower (Quad), but the thing I think about are those old Performa days and what not. To Apple: The Mac Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The iMac is even "Professional" and "High Quality", The Mac Book Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The Mac Book is the closest thing Apple has to "Low Quality" or "Shabby" by Apple standards. But the Mac Books are mostly for the students, high school and college;...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with all that but it sounds like you think Apple should only make "high quality" stuff for pros and not bother with the "shabby" stuff for ordinary people, who you describe as mostly students.
My thought is that Apple doesn't make enough "shabby" stuff for ordinary people like me (and I'm certainly not a student). Ordinary people I talk to about getting a Mac are dismayed that all Apple seems to offer is professional computers. The only affordable stuff is, as you say, the MacBook, the mini and the low end iMac. That doesn't give ordinary people much of a choice.
Comments
Other than the big giant hole in the lineup were there is no real midrange computer that has some rage of options for individuals that have different needs.
That hole simply doesn't have enough people to climb into it. Years ago it may have... However, the days of people tinkering with computer hardware are basicallyover. There are a few of us left but one is better off with cheap standardized cases, parts, etc...for doing that sort of thing (that is, get a PC). From Apple's point of view having 4 USB 2 ports, 1 FireWire port, audio in/out is more than enough (thinking Mini here). The gamers who want the latest video cards will simply not go Mac. They never have. They really are the ones who need a more open system. Mac's are appliances. Do we really need upgradeable toasters?
philip
That hole simply doesn't have enough people to climb into it.
Nonsense. Look at the rest of the industry. What is, by far, the biggest selling form-factor for desktop computers?
I certainly agree with you. The Mini is wonderful and has so many uses. The iMac is certainly a beautiful system which is ideal for someone wanting to use computers in a traditional way. PC microATX type boxes have their uses especially when tinkering with cheap upgrades but Apple's current lineup makes a lot of sense: Mini, iMac, Pro, laptops. I really don't see too many gaps to be filled by traditional computers. Best to go to iPhone, iPod, etc...
philip
I agree there aren't "too many gaps", just one huge one.
That hole simply doesn't have enough people to climb into it. Years ago it may have... However, the days of people tinkering with computer hardware are basicallyover. There are a few of us left but one is better off with cheap standardized cases, parts, etc...for doing that sort of thing (that is, get a PC). From Apple's point of view having 4 USB 2 ports, 1 FireWire port, audio in/out is more than enough (thinking Mini here). The gamers who want the latest video cards will simply not go Mac. They never have. They really are the ones who need a more open system. Mac's are appliances. Do we really need upgradeable toasters?
philip
Try speaking for your self and not everyone your not.
But what are the margins on the biggest selling desktop computers?
Didn't we already cover this? The ones below $499 have very low % gross margins (maybe 5 to 10), with the percentage increasing to something more in Apple's usual territory (25 % +) by the time you get to about $799.
Nonsense. Look at the rest of the industry. What is, by far, the biggest selling form-factor for desktop computers?
minitowers. Reason: most computer users run Windows. They don't run Windows because Apple doesn't offer a minitower.
philip
Try speaking for your self and not everyone your not.
I am speaking for myself. Would you rather I spoke for my cat?
philip
Didn't we already cover this? The ones below $499 have very low % gross margins (maybe 5 to 10), with the percentage increasing to something more in Apple's usual territory (25 % +) by the time you get to about $799.
Didn't we already cover this entire topic? over and over and over and over again?
That makes not a bit of sense to me. Why call it a Mac Pro? Capitalize on a new product by giving it a name.
My point was/is that if Apple doesn't roll out an xMac/Mac/headless iMac, they could simply re-intro the low-end Mac Pro. Since the early days, the Power Mac has started below $2000. This changed only recently (with the move to the G5s). I think that with the move to Intel, Apple may return to that.
Didn't we already cover this entire topic? over and over and over and over again?
It's difficult to stop when the other side keeps on demonstrating that they haven't grasped what you are saying.
It's difficult to stop when the other side keeps on demonstrating that they haven't grasped what you are saying.
I agree. xMac/minitower/Headless Mac is one of the most intense of the Mac disputes, and was only exacerbated by the 2006 switch to Intel. It's sort of like vi vs. emacs or KDE vs. GNOME. You're not going to change minds.
only exacerbated by the 2006 switch to Intel.
You got that right. Before the switch, there wasn't much that Apple could do due to the limitations of the range of PPC processors and motherboard chipsets available to them.
In the PPC days, moving the Mac Mini to a minitower enclosure wouldn't have enabled the use of a more powerful, cheaper CPU or a cheaper motherboard chipset (the only other PPC chip to choose was the G5, and whilst more powerful than the G4, it cost more).
With the iMac, there also wasn't as much compromise going on as there is now. Again, Apple were already putting the most powerful CPU in it that they could.
Now the platform is on Intel, Apple have all these desktop Intel chips to choose from and uses none of them! (the Xeon is a workstation chip).
I am speaking for myself. Would you rather I spoke for my cat?
philip
Then who are these people you were speaking for, and refering to? Is your cat a People?
IMHO, Apple will not release a whole new form factor for a product like this. If anything, there could be a low-end mac pro, but making a whole different product would be far to expensive, and thus, unjustified. Would people be satisfied with a bare-bones $1000 mac pro? Maybe, but probably not. I just don't see this happening... it's not financially viable to produce a new product, clutter up the product line, further confuse consumers, etc., in addition to incurring the expenses of design, manufacture, etc. Apple won't do it.
All of that depends on how many of the new form-factor machines they would actually sell, doesn't it? Yes, it would be "expensive" to develop. However, I do believe it is justified. Steve/Apple clearly doesn't, and I think they are wrong.
They want pros to buy the Mac Pro, and everyone else to buy an all-in-one or a non-upgradable mac mini. This is working for Apple; why should they change it?
Because it isn't working for them. Look at what has happened to their share of the laptop market since the switch to Intel - it's gone through the roof. What has happened to their desktop market share? Not much.
This demonstrates that Apple are making laptops that appeal both to current Mac users, and to many Windows users who have decided to make the switch, but they are making desktops that only appeal to some current Mac users and a handful of Windows users. If Apple were to introduce more appealing desktop hardware, one can only assume that Apple's success in the laptop area would be replicated.
I had a PowerMac G5 with the current form factor for almost four years (It just expired due to a bad motherboard). I had forgot how much of a beast it was until I had to start moving it around to troubleshoot and carting it to the Apple Genius for it's final blessing.
The form factor is almost four years old. The Intel rev. Mac Pro in it's current form is really long in the tooth, the Quad 2.66 was a screaming deal when it was released. Not really the case today. What does a desktop buyer do?
I thought I was going to upgrade to an Octo when it came out, but the price and the thought of an even hotter beast in the office gave me cold feet and made me rethink my rationalizations.
Bottom line is a single processor with four cores is a significant upgrade from a dead dual 2GHz G5. Where is my Mac Pro?
Bearlake is out and Yorkfield and Leopard are just around the corner. Do I actually have to wait until MacWorld for a Mac Pro? (NOTE: No dual chips/octo with Yorkfield!)
I think the line-up will be simple when the next Mac Pro comes out and it will look more like the xMac proposed here than the current beast.
I had a PowerMac G5 with the current form factor for almost four years (It just expired due to a bad motherboard). I had forgot how much of a beast it was until I had to start moving it around to troubleshoot and carting it to the Apple Genius for it's final blessing.
The form factor is almost four years old. The Intel rev. Mac Pro in it's current form is really long in the tooth, the Quad 2.66 was a screaming deal when it was released. Not really the case today. What does a desktop buyer do?
I thought I was going to upgrade to an Octo when it came out, but the price and the thought of an even hotter beast in the office gave me cold feet and made me rethink my rationalizations.
Bottom line is a single processor with four cores is a significant upgrade from a dead dual 2GHz G5. Where is my Mac Pro?
Bearlake is out and Yorkfield and Leopard are just around the corner. Do I actually have to wait until MacWorld for a Mac Pro? (NOTE: No dual chips/octo with Yorkfield!)
You may be right. IMHO the next Mac Pro will be an entirely new model with a new case, new motherboard, new processor, etc. However I also think that the Mac market has now grown enough that it will be the time for Apple to split the line into a Xeon workstation model and a junior model that's essentially half a Mac Pro made from Yorkfield and other desktop parts. BTW an octo Yorkfield (single package) is planned for next year.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Mini Tower (Quad), but the thing I think about are those old Performa days and what not. To Apple: The Mac Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The iMac is even "Professional" and "High Quality", The Mac Book Pro is "Pro" and "High Quality", The Mac Book is the closest thing Apple has to "Low Quality" or "Shabby" by Apple standards. But the Mac Books are mostly for the students, high school and college;...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with all that but it sounds like you think Apple should only make "high quality" stuff for pros and not bother with the "shabby" stuff for ordinary people, who you describe as mostly students.
My thought is that Apple doesn't make enough "shabby" stuff for ordinary people like me (and I'm certainly not a student). Ordinary people I talk to about getting a Mac are dismayed that all Apple seems to offer is professional computers. The only affordable stuff is, as you say, the MacBook, the mini and the low end iMac. That doesn't give ordinary people much of a choice.