Separate monitor Why is this an advantage? Your kidding right. No. you?
You can replace / upgrade the computer / monitor by them selfs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Internal optical drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive. Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Desktop optical drives cost less and are faster then laptop slot loading ones and you can mini cds with them.
Also $300 a GIG for mac pro ram? That is apple price OWC has it at $100 a GIG. Also with the mac pro you need 4 DIMMS to get the max speed apple only ships the system with 2 in the base system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Internal hard drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter)Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
the mini only has fire wire 400 and usb 2.0 the Imac adds fire wire 800.
ext cases add more clutter then Internal ones also Internal runing at the full disks full speed and the macs do not have e-sata.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Slots for future technological changes and/or repairs(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive
Graphic card slot for those that so desire Mac ProToo expensive, ram too expensive
----note the above items increase cost nigh to nothing Prove it Look at motherboard prices Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
With a the imac and mini
want to add a better video card get a new system
want to add usb 2.x / 3.0 get a new system
want to add firewire 1200 get a new system
want to add e-sata get a new system
and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Use of desktop processor reduces cost to Apple and consumer Fair enough
Use of desktop hard drive(compared to mini only) reduces cost to Apple and consumer irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you "Economic "theory?" WTF? It's irrelevant because the mid pro would not compete against the mini
Use of desktop ram reduces cost to Apple and consumer. irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you How much does it reduce it?.
Ports on front reduces clutter for perpherals only periodically plugged in(ie.Camcorder, iPod, PDAs) irrelevant Reduced desktop clutter is not irrelevant It is when an iMac would do the same thing....and better.
Also the mini and imacs are to small on the in side for high end video cards and cpus.
ATI has worked with Apple in the past on such things, but Nvidia doesn't make graphics cards. It's up to Apple to find a 3rd party to do so, and that has been done in the past as well.
Because the 8 way 'Pro' Macs could have 8 cores. Are server chips. Could have workstation gpus with them etc. BIgger HDs, more ram...etc.
The Conroes would be quad core. Consumer class gpu eg 8800gtx... etc.
It's never been easier since the PPC debacle to differentiate a 'Mac' from a Mac 'Pro' line.
And that's what I'd like the new consumer tower to be called.
'Mac'.
Easy.
So yeas, I'm asking for a cheaper Mac Pro.
If you use Conroe? Easy. Have you seen the price of Conroe Quad chips chips vs the Xeon ones? The duo Conroes vs the 7800 2.8 gig laptop chip? Or the Dual COnroes vs the Xeons?
There's enormous room for a consumer tower 'Mac' under the Mac Pro. Have a tower start at £1400 is nothing short of ludricrous. And is an idionsyncracy of Apple's.
Give me a Conroe Quad, 2 gigs of ram. 500 gig HD. No monitor. GTX 8800 for £1200-ish? Done. £790-1200. Choice of 3. Ram. HDs. Monitors are dirt cheap these days. It's only Apple and Dell that are over charging for them...
Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
that is not exactly what i had in mind when i started this thread.
Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
That's not surprising, I just checked Intel's price list and in July they halved the price of the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad down to just $266. That's on the same level as the 2GHz mobile Core 2 Duo. For anyone who thinks that the phrase 'a proper desktop' is meaningless, just let that figure sink in. A mobile dual CPU @ 2 GHz is $241 and a desktop quad CPU @ 2.4GHz is $266.
Heck the Core 2 Extreme mobile CPU is $851. Where the hell is the sense in selling a desktop computer with that chip when a quad is so much cheaper?? Look right down the price list and all the mobile CPUs are at least double the price of the equivalent desktop model.
Using the desktop equivalent CPU of the one in the iMac chops $250 off straight away so people may laugh at the price points we come up with but the prices are there for everyone to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
that is not exactly what i had in mind when i started this thread.
Yeah but it's a good point though. Basically, PC users can configure a pretty high end system in the price range that we are asking, which could easily be from the iMac price or below (£700-800) up to the lowest end Mac Pro, which is £1400. These people will be buying retail parts so Apple can probably build them cheaper and add on a decent margin.
Nobody expects Apple to build the same kind of machine PC enthusiasts build because they have to keep them cool too but if they can build high end machines at this price then Apple can build ones a bit lower and sell them at the same price.
2. Prosumer, above plus video editing, encoding, some audio recording, more advanced games/graphics needs, etc.
3. Pro: Above plus heavy photo/video/audio work, expandability and speed a must, heavy rendering uses, massive storage needs.
That's really all there is. It's a computer. The rest of it relates to whether or not someone has a monitor and what he can afford.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
Yep, that's right. It's speculation.
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
It's flawed logic when you compare to the two markets as if they're the same. If they were, the original iMac would have failed miserably.
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
Rhetorical nonsense.
No, it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
Maybe because Apple's laptop offerings are that compelling?
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
Asked and answered multiple times.
Because of several reasons. First, Apple's laptops are very compelling offerings, as I just said. Secondly, consumers are moving more towards laptops in general. They are becoming more powerful and less expensive. People are also putting more of a priority on portability.
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....
There would still be research, development and marketing costs. It's not free to put a machine out there. It might be lower risk, but it's still a risk....obviously one Apple is not willing to take.
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
....-------------
Mac advantages
Separate monitor Why is this an advantage? Your kidding right. No. you?
Internal optical drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive. Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Internal hard drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter)Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Slots for future technological changes and/or repairs(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive
Graphic card slot for those that so desire Mac ProToo expensive, ram too expensive
----note the above items increase cost nigh to nothing Prove it Look at motherboard prices Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Use of desktop processor reduces cost to Apple and consumer Fair enough
Use of desktop hard drive(compared to mini only) reduces cost to Apple and consumer irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you "Economic "theory?" WTF? It's irrelevant because the mid pro would not compete against the mini
Use of desktop ram reduces cost to Apple and consumer. irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you How much does it reduce it?.
Ports on front reduces clutter for perpherals only periodically plugged in(ie.Camcorder, iPod, PDAs) irrelevant Reduced desktop clutter is not irrelevant It is when an iMac would do the same thing....and better.
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
Ok so assuming they have investigated it then why don't they offer a product to satisfy it? Is it a market they don't care about? It's clear this can't be the case because Final Cut and their audio software is aimed directly at this market. But one thing this market definitely likes is matching dual displays and RAID systems because for video work at least, the hard drives are the biggest bottleneck when you are dealing with 20GB+ DV files.
Blind assumption, and extrapolation of your personal, empirical research on a small-scale into market demographics. This is why you're thick. You have nothing. No proof of anything. The entire argument that Apple would be better off having a low cost tower is empty, empty EMPTY -- as in, devoid of substance.
I don't claim that Apple shouldn't release a cheap tower, just that they haven't, and that the group here that blindly assumes they know better than Apple about Apple's markets are fools. This, as you might realize, is much easier to prove.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you are laboring on-and-on to discuss your wet dream on an internet forum. You would be better off writing to Apple. None of us can build you a cheap mac tower.
I don't think AI members have gotten the idea of a Mid Tower out of their system. However, there have only been 208 posts, including yours. Have you seen the thread: Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2007)? That has 3,370 replies
(89,877 views). AND it's still going strong. I tried to keep up with it, but .... Talk about beating a dead horse.
Blind assumption, and extrapolation of your personal, empirical research on a small-scale into market demographics. This is why you're thick. You have nothing. No proof of anything. The entire argument that Apple would be better off having a low cost tower is empty, empty EMPTY -- as in, devoid of substance.
I don't claim that Apple shouldn't release a cheap tower, just that they haven't, and that the group here that blindly assumes they know better than Apple about Apple's markets are fools. This, as you might realize, is much easier to prove.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you are laboring on-and-on to discuss your wet dream on an internet forum. You would be better off writing to Apple. None of us can build you a cheap mac tower.
I think the fact that a) Apple has only 6% of the market despite have the best OS and b) that despite the meteoric rise in Mac laptop sales, Mac desktop sales are stagnant proves they are doing something very wrong in the desktop market. The Mac laptops are what every laptop owner expects in a upper level thin and light. The iMac is not even to close to what higher end desktop users expect despite what a small vocal minority who thinks they have the right to choose for everyone might think.
This is what desktop users expect in a premium desktop:
I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options. ......
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
I don't think AI members have gotten the idea of a Mid Tower out of their system. However, there have only been 208 posts, including yours. Have you seen the thread: Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2007)? That has 3,370 replies
(89,877 views). AND it's still going strong. I tried to keep up with it, but .... Talk about beating a dead horse.
It's about 6 guys keeping the same argument going on, and on, and on.....
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams. Before you can be so matter-of-fact, you need to do some real market research, and not just extrapolate the market based on no relevant evidence whatsoever. You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
To a different poster: the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate is very different in nature. It's mostly filled with speculation and guessing, since the products themselves are known, but there's no winner yet. It's the same kind of thing as the iPod v. Zune threads, except that there's a lot more uncertainty there. This thread is filled with manifesto: no speculation.
I post on this thread because, as I've said, I think a cheap tower mac would be nice. However, I don't claim that it's realistic product, or that Apple are hurting themselves by not releasing one. Chances are, it's not an economically feasible project, but maybe.
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams. Before you can be so matter-of-fact, you need to do some real market research, and not just extrapolate the market based on no relevant evidence whatsoever. You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
To a different poster: the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate is very different in nature. It's mostly filled with speculation and guessing, since the products themselves are known, but there's no winner yet. It's the same kind of thing as the iPod v. Zune threads, except that there's a lot more uncertainty there. This thread is filled with manifesto: no speculation.
I post on this thread because, as I've said, I think a cheap tower mac would be nice. However, I don't claim that it's realistic product, or that Apple are hurting themselves by not releasing one. Chances are, it's not an economically feasible project, but maybe.
Everyone else finds economically feasible. Smaller companies like velocity Micro who cater to the medium to high end find it quite profitable. But hey, Apple is all knowing and perfect right. Everybody else must be wrong.
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams.
and all that comes from you guys are insults and sound-bytes that you repeat over and over in a bid to dissuade us from having an opinion that differs from yours.
Why should we trust Apple so blindly as you all do? Apple's research showed them that PPC and OS 9 was the way forward at one point and look what happened to them not to mention the hardware flops Apple has made. Apple isn't always right about product development.
Also, I think we need to start drawing a line between what is good for the company and what is good for the consumer. Clearly Apple making the most money it can is good for Apple but not good for the consumer. If you think that overpriced novelty desktops are so great simply because they ensure the financial stability of the company then you're a brainwashed fool.
I'm not saying that the long term survival of the company is something we shouldn't care about but there's a limit to how far you can take that and when they remove desktop components from all their machines under £1500, you should be asking whether or not we're being taken for a ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
Why would that be exactly? If a competitor sells a lot of products and you sell a few, can't you derive that their model is better suited to what people want? It doesn't strike you as just a little odd that Apple's share is so small when they have no consumer desktops and that's pretty much all their competition is selling? You can try and pass it off as a coincidence if you like but it seems like one hell of a coincidence to me.
Do you have a business degree? Are you a market analyst? Neither am I. But at least I realize there are many, many variables, and that a layman's understanding is ignorant of most of them.
You also keep mistaking me for an Apple apologist. This quarrel has little to do with Apple. It's me telling you that you're naive, and you narcissistically refusing to accept that possibility.
Actually you seem to be the one with a lot of time on their hands. If you don't want, or have any interest in the Macs we have been discussing why are you in here? Why don't you find a thread that you like, not try and terrorize users for having different expectations and needs than yours? Your obviously not contributing anything positive to this discussion. Even though your opinion is in the minority you still seem to think this thread is all about your opinion. Get a clue.
"terrorize" other users? Wow, someone's touchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You said the xMac wouldn't sell because it's more expensive than a Mini, I was just pointing out that an iMac is more expensive than a Mini.
I don't recall saying that, but OK. the iMac and mini are different machines for different markets. It doesn't compare well.
Quote:
You know the iMac has laptop parts in it? This makes it unnecessarily more expensive and less powerful. There is no problem with the screen until it breaks or it gets dead pixels and then you have to send your whole computer away for ages until it's repaired or you get another one - it's not practical.
Oh blah. "Ages?" Let me ask you...do you have a few extra monitors sitting around if something happens? Most people don't. And yes, it has laptop parts. It doesn't make it all that much more expensive, not looking at the current prices. Laptop parts get cheaper all the time.
Quote:
Where about? I checked ebay and they aren't going that cheap.
I saw a refurb for $1899 I think. I've seen them around...they're out there. Give it 6 months and they'll be many more.
Quote:
That was taking into consideration that they could take the Mini ($599) and put it in a bigger box and get round about the same price point. It can easily be cheaper than the iMac with no screen and desktop parts.
What would be the point of that? So you've have the same power as a mini? No one wants that, especially not the midpro market who constantly insist they need more machine than an iMac, which is more powerful than a mini.
Quote:
The majority of what market? I'd put it to you that it has close to a 100% majority holding of the niche it serves because hardly anybody else wants to target it.
Majority was a bad choice of words on my part. A good portion of Mac buyers are impressed with it. Overall it sells well. That's what I'm saying.
[quote]
Of course that assumes the only people who want it are prosumers but add in the gamers and PC users who have displays already but want a more powerful machine then the market suddenly gets pretty big.[quote]
If you're a gamer you need more than a midpro.
Quote:
You're not counting the people who own iMacs who would have chosen a tower given the option.
People such as?
Quote:
There was someone on the forum did that recently and another one has appeared just today. They can't decide between an iMac or Mac Pro because neither are really ideal. I think the number of people who own an imac and would rather have something else are more than you and Apple would like to believe.
Why is the Mac Pro not ideal? For anyone that doesn't have a monitor, it's a great choice. If one has a monitor, the mini should be fine for most any use. If you need more, than buy a Mac pro. Granted, there might be a small number of people that need something with iMac level of power but have their own monitor. I just don't see there being very many.
Quote:
Kind of - I know Final Cut can strain a Mac tower at times too - but most of the time, the resources used by it are lower and a smaller machine is appealing because of the form factor.
It's not going to do so well with a machine with iMac power then.
Quote:
Then maybe Apple needs to rethink the Mac Pro. If they believe the world is all-in-one then maybe the world is also one where people don't need expandable towers. They've already crippled the low and mid-range, why not go all out and do the same with the only configurable machine they have left? Like I say I work with towers and we don't upgrade them at all besides extra storage.
You mean crippled in terms of expandability? Honestly, I don't think most people really care about PCI slots or what not. That explains the explosion in laptop sales in part. It's a small market (outside of true pros) that needs these capabilities. Now, I would agree with a lower end Mac pro. One processor, etc. Perhaps that is a good compromise.
Quote:
No, it equates to the opposite side i.e if someone is buying a PC then it's because Apple don't offer what they want. Windows is not an argument any more now that Macs run Windows.
So people buy PCs because they don't like what Apple has to offer? Are you kidding? a lot people still don't even know about Apple. A computer to them runs windows. Many will choose Mac when they see one in action. I've never seen anyone considering a Mac that bails out and gets a PC because Apple "doesn't offer what they want." Not once, other than on the issue of raw price since Macs still tend to be more expensive.
Quote:
That's a good point but I think that's different because all they're doing is replacing the screen on a Macbook. What we need is a whole new model of computer.
It's not that different, apparently. Apple hasn't released either.
Quote:
We're behind your thread on that attempt, it's just that there's little to discuss because in the end, the best that we can hope to get is a hacked Mini. It's still not the proper desktop we want and it won't have the design of an Apple product. I hope you continue with it though because if you can get a good GPU and a couple of hard drives hooked to the Mini then it's probably the closest we'll get short of a hackintosh.
Man, you REALLY want this machine, hmm? Think it through...do you REALLY need this machine, or has it just become your cause? With all respect, I really don't see why your needs wouldn't be met by a Mac Pro. If you saved up and bought the low end Pro, you'd have an awesome desktop machine that has all the features/power you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon
You can replace / upgrade the computer / monitor by them selfs.
How many people really do that? How many people really, honestly want PCI slots and want to replace the monitor but not the computer, and why can't those people be happy with a Mac Pro?
Quote:
Desktop optical drives cost less and are faster then laptop slot loading ones and you can mini cds with them.
Also $300 a GIG for mac pro ram? That is apple price OWC has it at $100 a GIG. Also with the mac pro you need 4 DIMMS to get the max speed apple only ships the system with 2 in the base system.
Apple's prices for RAM have always been crazy. $100 is not unreasonable for a gig. And you can get it a little cheaper than that anyway.
[quote]
the mini only has fire wire 400 and usb 2.0 the Imac adds fire wire 800.
ext cases add more clutter then Internal ones also Internal runing at the full disks full speed and the macs do not have e-sata.[/quote[
So we're down to "clutter?"
Quote:
With a the imac and mini
want to add a better video card get a new system
want to add usb 2.x / 3.0 get a new system
want to add firewire 1200 get a new system
want to add e-sata get a new system
and so on.
1. Not for several years. The current cards for the iMac are not bad. If you're really a gamer (which on a Mac, you shouldn't be) you need a pro machine.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
How EXACTLY am I in the "minority opinion" among consumers? You clearly have no idea what the average Joe Schmo thinks about computers. None. They buy what's out there. The Windows side has never been big on AIOs for lots of reasons. People have "desktop or laptop" ingrained in their psyches at this point. Now look at Apple. They've made a go of the iMac for 10 years. How did that happen?
Quote:
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
Oooohh! NUMBERS! Your numbers are worthless because everyone knows them. They don't support your argument in the slightest. Your central premise is that there IS a market for the mid pro. Your numbers don't do that. No, you've SPECULATED that the reason they are selling more laptops is because "people aren't happy with the other choices." It's not a bad guess, but it's NOT supportable. Show me a well done surveyr supporting you supposition, and that will be something else.
Quote:
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
First, they are switching to desktops, just not in the same numbers as for laptops. Don't exaggerate.
Second, Apple laptops might have the same basic components/form factor, but that doesn't make them the same. Their design is not the same. It's one of Apple's strengths.
Quote:
No, it's not.
Yup, it is!
Quote:
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
Maybe, maybe.
Quote:
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
My statements were clearly suppositions. I don't know about subjective....I suppose that's true. Subjective is not automatically a bad thing though. Most people, I think, would agree, especially given your numbers.
Quote:
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
Of course it has to do with risk. Everything Apple does is high profile. Everything fits their design philosophy. If they release what you want them too (which is basically the same as the Windows beige boxes), they might well take a PR beating at least.
Quote:
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
It doesn't necessarily have advantages for everyone. It's another piece of equipment to buy. It creates clutter. It's an advantage for SOME, not for all.
[quote]
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.[/quite]
I'l agree that it's expensive. But that's why there are two other options if one must have a desktop. I'd like to see a cheaper version with one processor. That might make sense. A whole different machine does not.
Quote:
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
Well, most consumers don't have that many external devices. I had one and didn't have that many...not even close. I do agree that the ports being on the back can be a pain.
Quote:
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
I don't really get where you're going with that, not exactly. Apple has low priced options, mid priced options, and high priced options in both it's laptop and desktop lines. What you're saying is that someone is going to walk into an Apple store and see they don't have a midpro type product for $999-1599 or whatever and walk out and buy a PC. I don't think that's supportable. The vast majority of people are going to be fine with either an iMac or laptop. If we're talking raw power needs, the mini is just fine for most. I would like to see it include a keyboard standard, but that's a minor thing.
Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
I think this is partially true.
But if the iMac was more configurable... Had a slightly thicker case for a Conroe chip...and a 8800GTX? 2.4 or 2.6 gig? It wouldn't take much for me.
Thermal considerations..? Perhaps.
Scratches head. HD? Big enough. Memory? 4 gigs. That takes care of most people's worries. So for me? The big thing that holds me back from an iMac purchase (*and believe me, I think the current iteration is the best desktop Apple has made. It's beautiful in person...) But maybe if they offered a true power option to go with that 2.8 extreme chip? Or...if they stuck a quad at 2.66 in a 30 incher with a decent gpu eg 8800GTS.
It's the cpu and the gpu that are deal breakers. Quads are starting to go in towers for around a £1000 and less with decent gpus and APple's in the £1400 range.
I know lots of PC gamers that aren't convinced about the 'Mac' option due to the lack of consumer tower.
£1400 with a crap 7300 outdated GPU? They give me looong looks.
I think Leopard will sort out the Open GL poor performance on Barefeats. But Apple has to offer a decent range of GPUS from Ati AND Nvidia.
What's annoying about the iMac? No GPU option on the top end model for the Extreme 2.8 chip! If you're going to have a chip that expensive and high clocked in an iMac, then why can't we get a more powerful gpu options? Er...you can even fit in a terrabyte hd!!! Why is the GPU the weak link? Especially when the 24 inch offers such a high resolution? (Who's going to use any of those horrible 'blurred' things that purport to be 'other' resolutions...?) The Radeon 2600Pro is a weak gpu to me. The XT or slightly higher would have been better.
In answer to your question, Onlooker, A true Desktop Class Mac could well BE another Cube...but one that is slightly bigger. To me? Apple got the original dimensions wrong. So you can't fit standard components. 8x8 or 9x9 or a Cuboid shape or mini-Mac Pro tower shape. The original Cube failed because it was a white elephant. It was too small for its own good and was priced almost directly alongside the Powermac. IT was suicide.
Nobody knows what Apple thinks. But we can guess. The Cube failed and the lower priced Mac Pro tower (Power Mac in the day...) option got yanked. So. The iMac covers this market. Thing is, the iMac when it started to get popular largely covered the £600-£1200 market.
Where is the £800-£1400 market? THere's a tower market minus monitor right there. (Though you can get a beautiful Samsung 22 incher for £200! So that aint a bank breaker either...) THat easily gets you a Conroe and a decent GPU. The rest of the components are peanuts right now.
I guess we'll have to bombard Apple directly if we want this? Or get a petition going.
It's either that or petition them to Quad and GPU the iMac. A Cube game/creation station quad/gpu beast for £1000-1200 would keep me happy. I just see a gaping hole in Apple's Desktop strategy. I don't like laptops. My PC Gamer friend feels the same way. Apple has the mac mini. And it doesn't sell an astronomical amount of those. Why not just tier teh Mac Pro with Conroe range of quads to go cheaper with a decent GPU. That would be their cheapest option to test the market.
Would this stop 'Pros' buying the Mac Pro Octo? Nope. Just like PC buyers out there buy £2000 plus PC gaming rigs.
I look at the Mini now as a failed Cube rebirth. It is something that could have been a consumer towr that scaled £695-£1200 and used desktop components and really configurable. But it's just an iMac with no screen and intergrated crappics.
Comments
-------------
Mac advantages
Separate monitor Why is this an advantage? Your kidding right. No. you?
You can replace / upgrade the computer / monitor by them selfs.
Internal optical drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive. Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Desktop optical drives cost less and are faster then laptop slot loading ones and you can mini cds with them.
Also $300 a GIG for mac pro ram? That is apple price OWC has it at $100 a GIG. Also with the mac pro you need 4 DIMMS to get the max speed apple only ships the system with 2 in the base system.
Internal hard drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter)Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
the mini only has fire wire 400 and usb 2.0 the Imac adds fire wire 800.
ext cases add more clutter then Internal ones also Internal runing at the full disks full speed and the macs do not have e-sata.
Slots for future technological changes and/or repairs(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive
Graphic card slot for those that so desire Mac ProToo expensive, ram too expensive
----note the above items increase cost nigh to nothing Prove it Look at motherboard prices Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
With a the imac and mini
want to add a better video card get a new system
want to add usb 2.x / 3.0 get a new system
want to add firewire 1200 get a new system
want to add e-sata get a new system
and so on.
Use of desktop processor reduces cost to Apple and consumer Fair enough
Use of desktop hard drive(compared to mini only) reduces cost to Apple and consumer irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you "Economic "theory?" WTF? It's irrelevant because the mid pro would not compete against the mini
Use of desktop ram reduces cost to Apple and consumer. irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you How much does it reduce it?.
Ports on front reduces clutter for perpherals only periodically plugged in(ie.Camcorder, iPod, PDAs) irrelevant Reduced desktop clutter is not irrelevant It is when an iMac would do the same thing....and better.
Also the mini and imacs are to small on the in side for high end video cards and cpus.
whether with Leopard announcement OR MWSF 2008, if we do not see xMac by then forgot about it. PERIOD.
then it left with nVidia/ATI to bring the real Graphic card to iMac (make it thinner and better,less heat)
Because the 8 way 'Pro' Macs could have 8 cores. Are server chips. Could have workstation gpus with them etc. BIgger HDs, more ram...etc.
The Conroes would be quad core. Consumer class gpu eg 8800gtx... etc.
It's never been easier since the PPC debacle to differentiate a 'Mac' from a Mac 'Pro' line.
And that's what I'd like the new consumer tower to be called.
'Mac'.
Easy.
So yeas, I'm asking for a cheaper Mac Pro.
If you use Conroe? Easy. Have you seen the price of Conroe Quad chips chips vs the Xeon ones? The duo Conroes vs the 7800 2.8 gig laptop chip? Or the Dual COnroes vs the Xeons?
There's enormous room for a consumer tower 'Mac' under the Mac Pro. Have a tower start at £1400 is nothing short of ludricrous. And is an idionsyncracy of Apple's.
Give me a Conroe Quad, 2 gigs of ram. 500 gig HD. No monitor. GTX 8800 for £1200-ish? Done. £790-1200. Choice of 3. Ram. HDs. Monitors are dirt cheap these days. It's only Apple and Dell that are over charging for them...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
that is not exactly what i had in mind when i started this thread.
Over at overclockers.co.uk they have a 2.4 Quad. Overclocked chip to 3.4 gig. 2 gigs of ram. Terrabyte hd. (no os...no, really. No os.) and an Nvidia 8800GTX.
Price? £1295, I think.
Apple should be offering a consumer tower option. And those who want the server quads or the octo quads? And the huge expansion tower?
Can pay for it.
That's not surprising, I just checked Intel's price list and in July they halved the price of the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad down to just $266. That's on the same level as the 2GHz mobile Core 2 Duo. For anyone who thinks that the phrase 'a proper desktop' is meaningless, just let that figure sink in. A mobile dual CPU @ 2 GHz is $241 and a desktop quad CPU @ 2.4GHz is $266.
Heck the Core 2 Extreme mobile CPU is $851. Where the hell is the sense in selling a desktop computer with that chip when a quad is so much cheaper?? Look right down the price list and all the mobile CPUs are at least double the price of the equivalent desktop model.
Using the desktop equivalent CPU of the one in the iMac chops $250 off straight away so people may laugh at the price points we come up with but the prices are there for everyone to see.
A consumer tower can be done. The one ray of light is that as Apple pierces the 2 million Macs per quarter ceiling they get demand or consider expanding the tower line with a consumer version of it.
I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options.
that is not exactly what i had in mind when i started this thread.
Yeah but it's a good point though. Basically, PC users can configure a pretty high end system in the price range that we are asking, which could easily be from the iMac price or below (£700-800) up to the lowest end Mac Pro, which is £1400. These people will be buying retail parts so Apple can probably build them cheaper and add on a decent margin.
Nobody expects Apple to build the same kind of machine PC enthusiasts build because they have to keep them cool too but if they can build high end machines at this price then Apple can build ones a bit lower and sell them at the same price.
....
Oh stop. Sure I do. Their needs are either:
1. Basic consumer level: e-mail, internet, basic games, ilife, basic documents.
2. Prosumer, above plus video editing, encoding, some audio recording, more advanced games/graphics needs, etc.
3. Pro: Above plus heavy photo/video/audio work, expandability and speed a must, heavy rendering uses, massive storage needs.
That's really all there is. It's a computer. The rest of it relates to whether or not someone has a monitor and what he can afford.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
....
Yep, that's right. It's speculation.
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
....
It's flawed logic when you compare to the two markets as if they're the same. If they were, the original iMac would have failed miserably.
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
....
Rhetorical nonsense.
No, it's not.
....
Maybe because Apple's laptop offerings are that compelling?
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
....
Asked and answered multiple times.
Because of several reasons. First, Apple's laptops are very compelling offerings, as I just said. Secondly, consumers are moving more towards laptops in general. They are becoming more powerful and less expensive. People are also putting more of a priority on portability.
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
....
There would still be research, development and marketing costs. It's not free to put a machine out there. It might be lower risk, but it's still a risk....obviously one Apple is not willing to take.
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
....-------------
Mac advantages
Separate monitor Why is this an advantage? Your kidding right. No. you?
Internal optical drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive. Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Internal hard drive expansion(less expensive reduces clutter)Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Slots for future technological changes and/or repairs(less expensive reduces clutter) Mac Pro Too expensive, ram too expensive
Graphic card slot for those that so desire Mac ProToo expensive, ram too expensive
----note the above items increase cost nigh to nothing Prove it Look at motherboard prices Too expensive for whom? And for what it is? Same goes for ram.
Use of desktop processor reduces cost to Apple and consumer Fair enough
Use of desktop hard drive(compared to mini only) reduces cost to Apple and consumer irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you "Economic "theory?" WTF? It's irrelevant because the mid pro would not compete against the mini
Use of desktop ram reduces cost to Apple and consumer. irrelevant Lower cost is not irrelvant? Economic theory disagrees with you How much does it reduce it?.
Ports on front reduces clutter for perpherals only periodically plugged in(ie.Camcorder, iPod, PDAs) irrelevant Reduced desktop clutter is not irrelevant It is when an iMac would do the same thing....and better.
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
Ok so assuming they have investigated it then why don't they offer a product to satisfy it? Is it a market they don't care about? It's clear this can't be the case because Final Cut and their audio software is aimed directly at this market. But one thing this market definitely likes is matching dual displays and RAID systems because for video work at least, the hard drives are the biggest bottleneck when you are dealing with 20GB+ DV files.
Blind assumption, and extrapolation of your personal, empirical research on a small-scale into market demographics. This is why you're thick. You have nothing. No proof of anything. The entire argument that Apple would be better off having a low cost tower is empty, empty EMPTY -- as in, devoid of substance.
I don't claim that Apple shouldn't release a cheap tower, just that they haven't, and that the group here that blindly assumes they know better than Apple about Apple's markets are fools. This, as you might realize, is much easier to prove.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you are laboring on-and-on to discuss your wet dream on an internet forum. You would be better off writing to Apple. None of us can build you a cheap mac tower.
I don't think AI members have gotten the idea of a Mid Tower out of their system. However, there have only been 208 posts, including yours. Have you seen the thread: Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2007)? That has 3,370 replies
(89,877 views). AND it's still going strong. I tried to keep up with it, but .... Talk about beating a dead horse.
Blind assumption, and extrapolation of your personal, empirical research on a small-scale into market demographics. This is why you're thick. You have nothing. No proof of anything. The entire argument that Apple would be better off having a low cost tower is empty, empty EMPTY -- as in, devoid of substance.
I don't claim that Apple shouldn't release a cheap tower, just that they haven't, and that the group here that blindly assumes they know better than Apple about Apple's markets are fools. This, as you might realize, is much easier to prove.
Lastly, I'm not sure why you are laboring on-and-on to discuss your wet dream on an internet forum. You would be better off writing to Apple. None of us can build you a cheap mac tower.
I think the fact that a) Apple has only 6% of the market despite have the best OS and b) that despite the meteoric rise in Mac laptop sales, Mac desktop sales are stagnant proves they are doing something very wrong in the desktop market. The Mac laptops are what every laptop owner expects in a upper level thin and light. The iMac is not even to close to what higher end desktop users expect despite what a small vocal minority who thinks they have the right to choose for everyone might think.
This is what desktop users expect in a premium desktop:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....prd76700050015
..........
I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options. ......
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
Splinemodel,
I don't think AI members have gotten the idea of a Mid Tower out of their system. However, there have only been 208 posts, including yours. Have you seen the thread: Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2007)? That has 3,370 replies
(89,877 views). AND it's still going strong. I tried to keep up with it, but .... Talk about beating a dead horse.
It's about 6 guys keeping the same argument going on, and on, and on.....
I think the fact that . . .
Maybe yes, maybe no.
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams. Before you can be so matter-of-fact, you need to do some real market research, and not just extrapolate the market based on no relevant evidence whatsoever. You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
To a different poster: the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate is very different in nature. It's mostly filled with speculation and guessing, since the products themselves are known, but there's no winner yet. It's the same kind of thing as the iPod v. Zune threads, except that there's a lot more uncertainty there. This thread is filled with manifesto: no speculation.
I post on this thread because, as I've said, I think a cheap tower mac would be nice. However, I don't claim that it's realistic product, or that Apple are hurting themselves by not releasing one. Chances are, it's not an economically feasible project, but maybe.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams. Before you can be so matter-of-fact, you need to do some real market research, and not just extrapolate the market based on no relevant evidence whatsoever. You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
To a different poster: the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD debate is very different in nature. It's mostly filled with speculation and guessing, since the products themselves are known, but there's no winner yet. It's the same kind of thing as the iPod v. Zune threads, except that there's a lot more uncertainty there. This thread is filled with manifesto: no speculation.
I post on this thread because, as I've said, I think a cheap tower mac would be nice. However, I don't claim that it's realistic product, or that Apple are hurting themselves by not releasing one. Chances are, it's not an economically feasible project, but maybe.
Everyone else finds economically feasible. Smaller companies like velocity Micro who cater to the medium to high end find it quite profitable. But hey, Apple is all knowing and perfect right. Everybody else must be wrong.
But it's still just a manifesto coming from you guys: assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of wet dreams.
Why should we trust Apple so blindly as you all do? Apple's research showed them that PPC and OS 9 was the way forward at one point and look what happened to them not to mention the hardware flops Apple has made. Apple isn't always right about product development.
Also, I think we need to start drawing a line between what is good for the company and what is good for the consumer. Clearly Apple making the most money it can is good for Apple but not good for the consumer. If you think that overpriced novelty desktops are so great simply because they ensure the financial stability of the company then you're a brainwashed fool.
I'm not saying that the long term survival of the company is something we shouldn't care about but there's a limit to how far you can take that and when they remove desktop components from all their machines under £1500, you should be asking whether or not we're being taken for a ride.
You can't just link the fact that Apple doesn't own the PC space by the fact that they don't offer a cheap tower.
Why would that be exactly? If a competitor sells a lot of products and you sell a few, can't you derive that their model is better suited to what people want? It doesn't strike you as just a little odd that Apple's share is so small when they have no consumer desktops and that's pretty much all their competition is selling? You can try and pass it off as a coincidence if you like but it seems like one hell of a coincidence to me.
Why would that be exactly?.
Do you have a business degree? Are you a market analyst? Neither am I. But at least I realize there are many, many variables, and that a layman's understanding is ignorant of most of them.
You also keep mistaking me for an Apple apologist. This quarrel has little to do with Apple. It's me telling you that you're naive, and you narcissistically refusing to accept that possibility.
Actually you seem to be the one with a lot of time on their hands. If you don't want, or have any interest in the Macs we have been discussing why are you in here? Why don't you find a thread that you like, not try and terrorize users for having different expectations and needs than yours? Your obviously not contributing anything positive to this discussion. Even though your opinion is in the minority you still seem to think this thread is all about your opinion. Get a clue.
You said the xMac wouldn't sell because it's more expensive than a Mini, I was just pointing out that an iMac is more expensive than a Mini.
I don't recall saying that, but OK. the iMac and mini are different machines for different markets. It doesn't compare well.
You know the iMac has laptop parts in it? This makes it unnecessarily more expensive and less powerful. There is no problem with the screen until it breaks or it gets dead pixels and then you have to send your whole computer away for ages until it's repaired or you get another one - it's not practical.
Oh blah. "Ages?" Let me ask you...do you have a few extra monitors sitting around if something happens? Most people don't. And yes, it has laptop parts. It doesn't make it all that much more expensive, not looking at the current prices. Laptop parts get cheaper all the time.
Where about? I checked ebay and they aren't going that cheap.
I saw a refurb for $1899 I think. I've seen them around...they're out there. Give it 6 months and they'll be many more.
That was taking into consideration that they could take the Mini ($599) and put it in a bigger box and get round about the same price point. It can easily be cheaper than the iMac with no screen and desktop parts.
What would be the point of that? So you've have the same power as a mini? No one wants that, especially not the midpro market who constantly insist they need more machine than an iMac, which is more powerful than a mini.
The majority of what market? I'd put it to you that it has close to a 100% majority holding of the niche it serves because hardly anybody else wants to target it.
Majority was a bad choice of words on my part. A good portion of Mac buyers are impressed with it. Overall it sells well. That's what I'm saying.
[quote]
Of course that assumes the only people who want it are prosumers but add in the gamers and PC users who have displays already but want a more powerful machine then the market suddenly gets pretty big.[quote]
If you're a gamer you need more than a midpro.
You're not counting the people who own iMacs who would have chosen a tower given the option.
People such as?
There was someone on the forum did that recently and another one has appeared just today. They can't decide between an iMac or Mac Pro because neither are really ideal. I think the number of people who own an imac and would rather have something else are more than you and Apple would like to believe.
Why is the Mac Pro not ideal? For anyone that doesn't have a monitor, it's a great choice. If one has a monitor, the mini should be fine for most any use. If you need more, than buy a Mac pro. Granted, there might be a small number of people that need something with iMac level of power but have their own monitor. I just don't see there being very many.
Kind of - I know Final Cut can strain a Mac tower at times too - but most of the time, the resources used by it are lower and a smaller machine is appealing because of the form factor.
It's not going to do so well with a machine with iMac power then.
Then maybe Apple needs to rethink the Mac Pro. If they believe the world is all-in-one then maybe the world is also one where people don't need expandable towers. They've already crippled the low and mid-range, why not go all out and do the same with the only configurable machine they have left? Like I say I work with towers and we don't upgrade them at all besides extra storage.
You mean crippled in terms of expandability? Honestly, I don't think most people really care about PCI slots or what not. That explains the explosion in laptop sales in part. It's a small market (outside of true pros) that needs these capabilities. Now, I would agree with a lower end Mac pro. One processor, etc. Perhaps that is a good compromise.
No, it equates to the opposite side i.e if someone is buying a PC then it's because Apple don't offer what they want. Windows is not an argument any more now that Macs run Windows.
So people buy PCs because they don't like what Apple has to offer? Are you kidding? a lot people still don't even know about Apple. A computer to them runs windows. Many will choose Mac when they see one in action. I've never seen anyone considering a Mac that bails out and gets a PC because Apple "doesn't offer what they want." Not once, other than on the issue of raw price since Macs still tend to be more expensive.
That's a good point but I think that's different because all they're doing is replacing the screen on a Macbook. What we need is a whole new model of computer.
It's not that different, apparently. Apple hasn't released either.
We're behind your thread on that attempt, it's just that there's little to discuss because in the end, the best that we can hope to get is a hacked Mini. It's still not the proper desktop we want and it won't have the design of an Apple product. I hope you continue with it though because if you can get a good GPU and a couple of hard drives hooked to the Mini then it's probably the closest we'll get short of a hackintosh.
Man, you REALLY want this machine, hmm? Think it through...do you REALLY need this machine, or has it just become your cause? With all respect, I really don't see why your needs wouldn't be met by a Mac Pro. If you saved up and bought the low end Pro, you'd have an awesome desktop machine that has all the features/power you want.
You can replace / upgrade the computer / monitor by them selfs.
How many people really do that? How many people really, honestly want PCI slots and want to replace the monitor but not the computer, and why can't those people be happy with a Mac Pro?
Desktop optical drives cost less and are faster then laptop slot loading ones and you can mini cds with them.
Also $300 a GIG for mac pro ram? That is apple price OWC has it at $100 a GIG. Also with the mac pro you need 4 DIMMS to get the max speed apple only ships the system with 2 in the base system.
Apple's prices for RAM have always been crazy. $100 is not unreasonable for a gig. And you can get it a little cheaper than that anyway.
[quote]
the mini only has fire wire 400 and usb 2.0 the Imac adds fire wire 800.
ext cases add more clutter then Internal ones also Internal runing at the full disks full speed and the macs do not have e-sata.[/quote[
So we're down to "clutter?"
With a the imac and mini
want to add a better video card get a new system
want to add usb 2.x / 3.0 get a new system
want to add firewire 1200 get a new system
want to add e-sata get a new system
and so on.
1. Not for several years. The current cards for the iMac are not bad. If you're really a gamer (which on a Mac, you shouldn't be) you need a pro machine.
2. Not an issue for 99% of people. It's just not.
3. See #2
4. See #3
Anyone with kinds of add-on wants needs a pro system. Almost not consumer is going to want to do those things.
Also the mini and imacs are to small on the in side for high end video cards and cpus.
They're well powered for their market segments.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
How EXACTLY am I in the "minority opinion" among consumers? You clearly have no idea what the average Joe Schmo thinks about computers. None. They buy what's out there. The Windows side has never been big on AIOs for lots of reasons. People have "desktop or laptop" ingrained in their psyches at this point. Now look at Apple. They've made a go of the iMac for 10 years. How did that happen?
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
First, they are switching to desktops, just not in the same numbers as for laptops. Don't exaggerate.
Second, Apple laptops might have the same basic components/form factor, but that doesn't make them the same. Their design is not the same. It's one of Apple's strengths.
No, it's not.
Yup, it is!
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
Maybe, maybe.
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
My statements were clearly suppositions. I don't know about subjective....I suppose that's true. Subjective is not automatically a bad thing though. Most people, I think, would agree, especially given your numbers.
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
Of course it has to do with risk. Everything Apple does is high profile. Everything fits their design philosophy. If they release what you want them too (which is basically the same as the Windows beige boxes), they might well take a PR beating at least.
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
It doesn't necessarily have advantages for everyone. It's another piece of equipment to buy. It creates clutter. It's an advantage for SOME, not for all.
[quote]
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.[/quite]
I'l agree that it's expensive. But that's why there are two other options if one must have a desktop. I'd like to see a cheaper version with one processor. That might make sense. A whole different machine does not.
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
Well, most consumers don't have that many external devices. I had one and didn't have that many...not even close. I do agree that the ports being on the back can be a pain.
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
I don't really get where you're going with that, not exactly. Apple has low priced options, mid priced options, and high priced options in both it's laptop and desktop lines. What you're saying is that someone is going to walk into an Apple store and see they don't have a midpro type product for $999-1599 or whatever and walk out and buy a PC. I don't think that's supportable. The vast majority of people are going to be fine with either an iMac or laptop. If we're talking raw power needs, the mini is just fine for most. I would like to see it include a keyboard standard, but that's a minor thing.
Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
I think this is partially true.
But if the iMac was more configurable... Had a slightly thicker case for a Conroe chip...and a 8800GTX? 2.4 or 2.6 gig? It wouldn't take much for me.
Thermal considerations..? Perhaps.
Scratches head. HD? Big enough. Memory? 4 gigs. That takes care of most people's worries. So for me? The big thing that holds me back from an iMac purchase (*and believe me, I think the current iteration is the best desktop Apple has made. It's beautiful in person...) But maybe if they offered a true power option to go with that 2.8 extreme chip? Or...if they stuck a quad at 2.66 in a 30 incher with a decent gpu eg 8800GTS.
It's the cpu and the gpu that are deal breakers. Quads are starting to go in towers for around a £1000 and less with decent gpus and APple's in the £1400 range.
I know lots of PC gamers that aren't convinced about the 'Mac' option due to the lack of consumer tower.
£1400 with a crap 7300 outdated GPU? They give me looong looks.
I think Leopard will sort out the Open GL poor performance on Barefeats. But Apple has to offer a decent range of GPUS from Ati AND Nvidia.
What's annoying about the iMac? No GPU option on the top end model for the Extreme 2.8 chip! If you're going to have a chip that expensive and high clocked in an iMac, then why can't we get a more powerful gpu options? Er...you can even fit in a terrabyte hd!!! Why is the GPU the weak link? Especially when the 24 inch offers such a high resolution? (Who's going to use any of those horrible 'blurred' things that purport to be 'other' resolutions...?) The Radeon 2600Pro is a weak gpu to me. The XT or slightly higher would have been better.
In answer to your question, Onlooker, A true Desktop Class Mac could well BE another Cube...but one that is slightly bigger. To me? Apple got the original dimensions wrong. So you can't fit standard components. 8x8 or 9x9 or a Cuboid shape or mini-Mac Pro tower shape. The original Cube failed because it was a white elephant. It was too small for its own good and was priced almost directly alongside the Powermac. IT was suicide.
Nobody knows what Apple thinks. But we can guess. The Cube failed and the lower priced Mac Pro tower (Power Mac in the day...) option got yanked. So. The iMac covers this market. Thing is, the iMac when it started to get popular largely covered the £600-£1200 market.
Where is the £800-£1400 market? THere's a tower market minus monitor right there. (Though you can get a beautiful Samsung 22 incher for £200! So that aint a bank breaker either...) THat easily gets you a Conroe and a decent GPU. The rest of the components are peanuts right now.
I guess we'll have to bombard Apple directly if we want this? Or get a petition going.
It's either that or petition them to Quad and GPU the iMac. A Cube game/creation station quad/gpu beast for £1000-1200 would keep me happy. I just see a gaping hole in Apple's Desktop strategy. I don't like laptops. My PC Gamer friend feels the same way. Apple has the mac mini. And it doesn't sell an astronomical amount of those. Why not just tier teh Mac Pro with Conroe range of quads to go cheaper with a decent GPU. That would be their cheapest option to test the market.
Would this stop 'Pros' buying the Mac Pro Octo? Nope. Just like PC buyers out there buy £2000 plus PC gaming rigs.
I look at the Mini now as a failed Cube rebirth. It is something that could have been a consumer towr that scaled £695-£1200 and used desktop components and really configurable. But it's just an iMac with no screen and intergrated crappics.
Lemon Bon Bon.