I'm sorry you find my suggestion so frustrating. It's simple, really. When you buy a mac pro off the shelf it's a big empty box. If you get rid of all the empty space, you're left with a machine of identical performance but much reduced physical size. That's what I want, and that's what hundreds of thousands of other people want as well.
Bullshit! Your still going to pay for all the components and you still need airflow. Was your head attached to your body when you typed this shit today? The point of the mini tower is also to reduce price. Your not going to do that with all the same components. Your going to have to sacrifice a CPU, a couple PCI-E slots, a couple drive bays. We would probably be better off if the memory were approximately the same, but doing what you said is not going to happen in a million years. Your just saying reduce the size of the Mac Pro but keep it the same. Well that's a different product for a Mac Pro thread, because your still talking about a hypothetical Mac Pro. This is not one. We are not talking about a Mac Pro in here. We are talking about a Semi-Pro Mac that is more expandable than an iMac, uses a true Desktop CPU, Has a Graphics Card, that is not as powerful as a Mac Pro, but will still be a good midrange desktop computer with equal specs to PC desktops. We are not talking about a Workstation. The Mac Pro is supposed to be Apples Workstation. We are tallking about a true Apple desktop. Get it?
This assumption keeps coming up over and over again, and folks have been pointing out that Apple sets whatever profit margin it wants. There is no "margin rule" that Apple must follow. Sure, Windows minitowers will sell for less, but Mac users buy Macs.
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
No, the high margin minitower was called the PowerMac. It got replaced by the 24" iMac in the desktop segment. Now anyone who wants a tower must move up to the workstation segment and the Mac Pro.
This assumption keeps coming up over and over again, and folks have been pointing out that Apple sets whatever profit margin it wants. There is no "margin rule" that Apple must follow. Sure, Windows minitowers will sell for less, but Mac users buy Macs.
There's also the ignorant assumption that tower users are also low budget. There's a lot of high margin companies making towers. In fact, Apple is the only one forcing you into an alll in one.
Apple can sell high-margin products because they build wow-factor into them.
The MacPro sure has WOW factor, as in
"Wow, what a big, ugly box"
"Wow this thing is expensive and heavy"
"Wow, sure has a lot of empty expansion space I'll never use"
I've bought just about every Macintosh out there since the MacPlus, except for the big ugly boxes (BUBs). The BUB started with the G3 in that obnoxiously large blue plastic housing that couldn't fit in or on my desk.
WOW what a lot of empty space that I'll never use! There are many people like me that want the capability of a stock MacPro but can't bear the BUB.
Some people around here know me as the guy who shits on minitower threads.
quick somebody change his name from registered user to 'the guy who shits on minitower threads'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
First off, it would be a low-margin product. Low margin, commodity products offer little value proposition to Apple as sources of profit, and more importantly they tarnish the brand.
Let's put it this way. The lowest end iMac is £800. If they made a Core 2 Duo mini-tower with a good graphics card and desktop hard drives/components for £800, I would buy one without hesitating - the iMac is nowhere near even considering for me. Since it has no display and no laptop parts, it is cheaper for Apple to build therefore the margin they'd make is more than they make on the iMac. Now take £100 off it so they get the same or possibly still more money than the iMac and I'd want to buy it even more. I'd gladly pay £700 for a decent mini-tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
Even if the proposed minitower had wow factor, unless it were paired with an Apple display the system as a unit would have little to no wow-factor.
Well they couldn't do that unless they started building Cinema displays with cheaper components. I'd quite like that though as I find the Cinema display design very nice indeed. Maybe just a consumer version so you get Cinema Display and Cinema Display Pro.
"Wow, sure has a lot of empty expansion space I'll never use"
I've bought just about every Macintosh out there since the MacPlus, except for the big ugly boxes (BUBs). The BUB started with the G3 in that obnoxiously large blue plastic housing that couldn't fit in or on my desk.
WOW what a lot of empty space that I'll never use! There are many people like me that want the capability of a stock MacPro but can't bear the BUB.
You're a prime example of a candidate for Apple's less is more approach. A lot of us who have been here for a while and most potential switchers in Apple's price category are not. Look, I have the 20 AL iMac. When it comes down to it, a lot of its features are nice, but they are valid to say my little sister than they are me and most of those could be added with a new iSight/front row cinema display based off of the iMac panels.
For a Mac Pro I see
"Wow, the brushed metal looks great"
"Wow, there's room for four hard drives and its super easy to work inside."
"Wow, I don't have to litter my desk and power strip with external devices just ot make it functional like i do with my iMac"
I don't understand the out way or the highway approach of the current Mac users. We used to be the educated elite, not a bunch of arrogant fansboys as Mac users are not.
As before, this is pointless. You can try to justify the business case for a cheap minitower, but if there were more than a marginal business case, you'd see one. In this argument, I'm telling you that the minitower mac has little business case, and you're trying to prove to me that a minitower mac would be a good computer.
What you have to understand is that there isn't overlap here. I'm sure the minitower mac wuld be a good computer. It just wouldn't be a particularly profitable or well-branded machine.
As before, this is pointless. You can try to justify the business case for a cheap minitower, but if there were more than a marginal business case, you'd see one. In this argument, I'm telling you that the minitower mac has little business case, and you're trying to prove to me that a minitower mac would be a good computer.
What you have to understand is that there isn't overlap here. I'm sure the minitower mac wuld be a good computer. It just wouldn't be a particularly profitable or well-branded machine.
Apple doesn't run on business cases like a normal business. They run on an almost cult-like loyalty and a man's vision of what a computer should be. The reason they don't make one is because Steve thinks an less powerful, but integrated computer is better than a more powerful, but less integrated one.
Apple doesn't run on business cases like a normal business. They run on an almost cult-like loyalty and a man's vision of what a computer should be. The reason they don't make one is because Steve thinks an less powerful, but integrated computer is better than a more powerful, but less integrated one.
You clearly are in a situation where you've decided to substitute reality with your own version. Regardless of what goes on behind Apple's closed doors -- which neither of us have a clue about -- they have been very successful since they've adopted a brand promotion strategy. The lack of business case for the minitower is that it doesn't fit into this strategy.
Of course Apple runs on business cases. They are, afterall, a business. Are you thick?
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
The Cube was cool looking. I saw one in person once and was impressed, but I think Apple should go with a new form factor. Basically the size would be like Slicing the current Mac Pro straight down the middle. Just use a thin tower case. Alienware had one of these a few years ago, and it looked hot. It was an "Alienware for everyone" type computer. They got rid of it when DELL bought them out because DELL became the Alienware for everyone, but It was a sweet looking case. Really thin, black, and sleek.
Marvin gave a great description of a Mini awhile back. I thought," That's the computer for me." Then I realized that the Mac Mini is ALMOST enough for what I need. Actually, the fact that's makes me hesitate is that it only has one DVI out. I have two large displays that I'd like to use. With one DVI, that's not possible.
Paying twice as much for an iMac still wouldn't give me the opportunity to use my 2 displays either. To me that's not a gap, it's a crevasse. To have what I want, I'd have to go to a Mac Pro which would be like driving an 18 wheeler to the supermarket. Extreme overkill.
The mini is about 2 inches tall; I'd like a mini about 4" tall, but that is more accessible, so you could easily add memory and ..., plus a few more ports, especially, another DVI port, and possibly eliminate the power dongle. That would be the perfect computer for me.
...a Mac Pro which would be like driving an 18 wheeler to the supermarket...
Since you like analogies, I think of the Mac Pro like driving an EMPTY 18-wheeler to Amarillo. Sure it has lots of power and torque, but you don't need to haul the big empty box. In reality you just want a BMW sedan to get you to Amarillo -- still great power and torque, but no big ugly box (BUB).
It appears DELL reared it's ugly head, and has the Alienware design I was talking about in a DELL.
I think this would be a good size case for a Semi-Pro Mac. It looks elegant to me. Obviously Apple would dress it up to Apple standards, but I think less is more with a case like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dell
Easy Expandability
The Inspiron slim desktop comes standard with 4 external slots, 1 external 5.25” bay, 1 external 3.5” bay, and 6 external USB 2.0 ports – 2 at front and 4 at back and space for 2 internal hard drives. With Inspiron, you’ve got room to grow.
With upgradeable graphics options, Inspiron desktops deliver ultra-sharp, ultra-smooth visuals for games, movies and more.
I think that is better than a cube, and Apple would do it's own take on it.
I do think there is a place for a computer like this in the Apple lineup.
It appears DELL reared it's ugly head, and has the Alienware design I was talking about in a DELL.
I think this would be a good size case for a Semi-Pro Mac. It looks elegant to me. Obviously Apple would dress it up to Apple standards, but I think less is more with a case like this.
I think that is better than a cube, and Apple would do it's own take on it.
I do think there is a place for a computer like this in the Apple lineup.
I have to admit that Dell is getting much better at designing computers that are pleasing to the eye. I can only hope that Apple would someday offer an equivalently spec.'d computer, when looking at the higher end range of this model. Intel Core 2 Duo, larger hard drive option, etc.
Since you like analogies, I think of the Mac Pro like driving an EMPTY 18-wheeler to Amarillo. Sure it has lots of power and torque, but you don't need to haul the big empty box. In reality you just want a BMW sedan to get you to Amarillo -- still great power and torque, but no big ugly box (BUB).
The iMac is like the BMW sedan. What we're really looking for is a full size pickup.
You clearly are in a situation where you've decided to substitute reality with your own version.
You mean the one were apple is not perfect.
Quote:
Regardless of what goes on behind Apple's closed doors -- which neither of us have a clue about -- they have been very successful since they've adopted a brand promotion strategy. The lack of business case for the minitower is that it doesn't fit into this strategy.
They've been successful on notebook sales and selling to the GQ crowd. It doesn't make very good business sense to base your core business on trends and fads. The way Apple is setting things up, they can fall as fast as they've risen. That's exactly what happened with the boom after the original iMac. We need stability for the Mac as a platform. You can't have that when you're turning away customers because they're not hip or professional enough.
A lot of people blame this on Steve Jobs, but I thought I read somewhere that the IMac was already in development when he came back to Apple.
I'm talking about G5 and later. The original iMac was more or less a more stylish follow up to the all in one Performas. Jobs has a tendency when he has a major success to become overly bold and overreach. He did so after the success of the G3 iMac. Apple was barely breaking even until the iPod showed up and caught on.
Comments
I'm sorry you find my suggestion so frustrating. It's simple, really. When you buy a mac pro off the shelf it's a big empty box. If you get rid of all the empty space, you're left with a machine of identical performance but much reduced physical size. That's what I want, and that's what hundreds of thousands of other people want as well.
Bullshit! Your still going to pay for all the components and you still need airflow. Was your head attached to your body when you typed this shit today? The point of the mini tower is also to reduce price. Your not going to do that with all the same components. Your going to have to sacrifice a CPU, a couple PCI-E slots, a couple drive bays. We would probably be better off if the memory were approximately the same, but doing what you said is not going to happen in a million years. Your just saying reduce the size of the Mac Pro but keep it the same. Well that's a different product for a Mac Pro thread, because your still talking about a hypothetical Mac Pro. This is not one. We are not talking about a Mac Pro in here. We are talking about a Semi-Pro Mac that is more expandable than an iMac, uses a true Desktop CPU, Has a Graphics Card, that is not as powerful as a Mac Pro, but will still be a good midrange desktop computer with equal specs to PC desktops. We are not talking about a Workstation. The Mac Pro is supposed to be Apples Workstation. We are tallking about a true Apple desktop. Get it?
This assumption keeps coming up over and over again, and folks have been pointing out that Apple sets whatever profit margin it wants. There is no "margin rule" that Apple must follow. Sure, Windows minitowers will sell for less, but Mac users buy Macs.
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
No, the high margin minitower was called the PowerMac. It got replaced by the 24" iMac in the desktop segment. Now anyone who wants a tower must move up to the workstation segment and the Mac Pro.
This assumption keeps coming up over and over again, and folks have been pointing out that Apple sets whatever profit margin it wants. There is no "margin rule" that Apple must follow. Sure, Windows minitowers will sell for less, but Mac users buy Macs.
There's also the ignorant assumption that tower users are also low budget. There's a lot of high margin companies making towers. In fact, Apple is the only one forcing you into an alll in one.
Apple can sell high-margin products because they build wow-factor into them.
The MacPro sure has WOW factor, as in
"Wow, what a big, ugly box"
"Wow this thing is expensive and heavy"
"Wow, sure has a lot of empty expansion space I'll never use"
I've bought just about every Macintosh out there since the MacPlus, except for the big ugly boxes (BUBs). The BUB started with the G3 in that obnoxiously large blue plastic housing that couldn't fit in or on my desk.
WOW what a lot of empty space that I'll never use! There are many people like me that want the capability of a stock MacPro but can't bear the BUB.
Some people around here know me as the guy who shits on minitower threads.
First off, it would be a low-margin product. Low margin, commodity products offer little value proposition to Apple as sources of profit, and more importantly they tarnish the brand.
Let's put it this way. The lowest end iMac is £800. If they made a Core 2 Duo mini-tower with a good graphics card and desktop hard drives/components for £800, I would buy one without hesitating - the iMac is nowhere near even considering for me. Since it has no display and no laptop parts, it is cheaper for Apple to build therefore the margin they'd make is more than they make on the iMac. Now take £100 off it so they get the same or possibly still more money than the iMac and I'd want to buy it even more. I'd gladly pay £700 for a decent mini-tower.
Even if the proposed minitower had wow factor, unless it were paired with an Apple display the system as a unit would have little to no wow-factor.
Well they couldn't do that unless they started building Cinema displays with cheaper components. I'd quite like that though as I find the Cinema display design very nice indeed. Maybe just a consumer version so you get Cinema Display and Cinema Display Pro.
The MacPro sure has WOW factor, as in
"Wow, what a big, ugly box"
"Wow this thing is expensive and heavy"
"Wow, sure has a lot of empty expansion space I'll never use"
I've bought just about every Macintosh out there since the MacPlus, except for the big ugly boxes (BUBs). The BUB started with the G3 in that obnoxiously large blue plastic housing that couldn't fit in or on my desk.
WOW what a lot of empty space that I'll never use! There are many people like me that want the capability of a stock MacPro but can't bear the BUB.
You're a prime example of a candidate for Apple's less is more approach. A lot of us who have been here for a while and most potential switchers in Apple's price category are not. Look, I have the 20 AL iMac. When it comes down to it, a lot of its features are nice, but they are valid to say my little sister than they are me and most of those could be added with a new iSight/front row cinema display based off of the iMac panels.
For a Mac Pro I see
"Wow, the brushed metal looks great"
"Wow, there's room for four hard drives and its super easy to work inside."
"Wow, I don't have to litter my desk and power strip with external devices just ot make it functional like i do with my iMac"
I don't understand the out way or the highway approach of the current Mac users. We used to be the educated elite, not a bunch of arrogant fansboys as Mac users are not.
What you have to understand is that there isn't overlap here. I'm sure the minitower mac wuld be a good computer. It just wouldn't be a particularly profitable or well-branded machine.
As before, this is pointless. You can try to justify the business case for a cheap minitower, but if there were more than a marginal business case, you'd see one. In this argument, I'm telling you that the minitower mac has little business case, and you're trying to prove to me that a minitower mac would be a good computer.
What you have to understand is that there isn't overlap here. I'm sure the minitower mac wuld be a good computer. It just wouldn't be a particularly profitable or well-branded machine.
Apple doesn't run on business cases like a normal business. They run on an almost cult-like loyalty and a man's vision of what a computer should be. The reason they don't make one is because Steve thinks an less powerful, but integrated computer is better than a more powerful, but less integrated one.
Apple doesn't run on business cases like a normal business. They run on an almost cult-like loyalty and a man's vision of what a computer should be. The reason they don't make one is because Steve thinks an less powerful, but integrated computer is better than a more powerful, but less integrated one.
You clearly are in a situation where you've decided to substitute reality with your own version. Regardless of what goes on behind Apple's closed doors -- which neither of us have a clue about -- they have been very successful since they've adopted a brand promotion strategy. The lack of business case for the minitower is that it doesn't fit into this strategy.
Of course Apple runs on business cases. They are, afterall, a business. Are you thick?
The high margin minitower was called the Cube, and besides that everyone in this thread seems to be in concert of the opinion that low-cost is an important attribute here.
The Cube was cool looking. I saw one in person once and was impressed, but I think Apple should go with a new form factor. Basically the size would be like Slicing the current Mac Pro straight down the middle. Just use a thin tower case. Alienware had one of these a few years ago, and it looked hot. It was an "Alienware for everyone" type computer. They got rid of it when DELL bought them out because DELL became the Alienware for everyone, but It was a sweet looking case. Really thin, black, and sleek.
Paying twice as much for an iMac still wouldn't give me the opportunity to use my 2 displays either. To me that's not a gap, it's a crevasse. To have what I want, I'd have to go to a Mac Pro which would be like driving an 18 wheeler to the supermarket. Extreme overkill.
The mini is about 2 inches tall; I'd like a mini about 4" tall, but that is more accessible, so you could easily add memory and ..., plus a few more ports, especially, another DVI port, and possibly eliminate the power dongle. That would be the perfect computer for me.
...a Mac Pro which would be like driving an 18 wheeler to the supermarket...
Since you like analogies, I think of the Mac Pro like driving an EMPTY 18-wheeler to Amarillo. Sure it has lots of power and torque, but you don't need to haul the big empty box. In reality you just want a BMW sedan to get you to Amarillo -- still great power and torque, but no big ugly box (BUB).
It appears DELL reared it's ugly head, and has the Alienware design I was talking about in a DELL.
I think this would be a good size case for a Semi-Pro Mac. It looks elegant to me. Obviously Apple would dress it up to Apple standards, but I think less is more with a case like this.
Easy Expandability
The Inspiron slim desktop comes standard with 4 external slots, 1 external 5.25” bay, 1 external 3.5” bay, and 6 external USB 2.0 ports – 2 at front and 4 at back and space for 2 internal hard drives. With Inspiron, you’ve got room to grow.
With upgradeable graphics options, Inspiron desktops deliver ultra-sharp, ultra-smooth visuals for games, movies and more.
I think that is better than a cube, and Apple would do it's own take on it.
I do think there is a place for a computer like this in the Apple lineup.
It appears DELL reared it's ugly head, and has the Alienware design I was talking about in a DELL.
I think this would be a good size case for a Semi-Pro Mac. It looks elegant to me. Obviously Apple would dress it up to Apple standards, but I think less is more with a case like this.
I think that is better than a cube, and Apple would do it's own take on it.
I do think there is a place for a computer like this in the Apple lineup.
I have to admit that Dell is getting much better at designing computers that are pleasing to the eye. I can only hope that Apple would someday offer an equivalently spec.'d computer, when looking at the higher end range of this model. Intel Core 2 Duo, larger hard drive option, etc.
Since you like analogies, I think of the Mac Pro like driving an EMPTY 18-wheeler to Amarillo. Sure it has lots of power and torque, but you don't need to haul the big empty box. In reality you just want a BMW sedan to get you to Amarillo -- still great power and torque, but no big ugly box (BUB).
The iMac is like the BMW sedan. What we're really looking for is a full size pickup.
Desktop core 2 Duo/Quad
4 DIMM slots
2 Optical (full sized) drives slots
2 hard drive slots
1 x16 and a couple of x1 slots.
Why is this really too much to ask.
I think that is better than a cube, and Apple would do it's own take on it.
I do think there is a place for a computer like this in the Apple lineup.
Such a computer used to be the mainstay of Apple's lineup. Apple then decided that we should be buying all in ones instead.
Such a computer used to be the mainstay of Apple's lineup. Apple then decided that we should be buying all in ones instead.
A lot of people blame this on Steve Jobs, but I thought I read somewhere that the IMac was already in development when he came back to Apple.
You clearly are in a situation where you've decided to substitute reality with your own version.
You mean the one were apple is not perfect.
Regardless of what goes on behind Apple's closed doors -- which neither of us have a clue about -- they have been very successful since they've adopted a brand promotion strategy. The lack of business case for the minitower is that it doesn't fit into this strategy.
They've been successful on notebook sales and selling to the GQ crowd. It doesn't make very good business sense to base your core business on trends and fads. The way Apple is setting things up, they can fall as fast as they've risen. That's exactly what happened with the boom after the original iMac. We need stability for the Mac as a platform. You can't have that when you're turning away customers because they're not hip or professional enough.
A lot of people blame this on Steve Jobs, but I thought I read somewhere that the IMac was already in development when he came back to Apple.
I'm talking about G5 and later. The original iMac was more or less a more stylish follow up to the all in one Performas. Jobs has a tendency when he has a major success to become overly bold and overreach. He did so after the success of the G3 iMac. Apple was barely breaking even until the iPod showed up and caught on.