The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't.
It seems to do well enough for Apple to continue with this strategy. If Apple were not making good money from it they would change.
If we could break down desktop sales only to the consumer market between $1000 - and $2500. I bet iMac sales and Apple profit would look pretty good.
Quote:
It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization.
When is the code not heavily optimized? The first G5 vs Intel tests were mostly using code that was not only optimized for PPC it wasn't written for Intel at all.
Quote:
If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.
Conduct the test using the same app, the difference is that app now is written better for intel. A test using the current Photoshop CS3. The 2.8 iMac would beat the Quad G5. No one will bother with doing a test like this because everyone already knows this will be the outcome.
Quote:
Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile.
You miss the reason why PC Magazine expects more desktops to use laptop CPU's. In the long run its cheaper. Everyone is selling more laptops than they are desktops. Its cheaper for Apple to order a large batch of laptop CPU's and use some in the iMac. Splitting the order into a small number of Conroe would be more expensive.
Quote:
So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether?
That's because you're under the delusion that the other 96% agrees with you.
First, I am not claiming anyone agrees with me. I'm telling you the way it is. Secondly, Mac is not a niche product. They have targeted consumers, educators and creative professionals. This is literally common knowledge.
Quote:
Three actually.
1 Mac Mini. It's for...I'm not exactly sure who. This is the ultimate example of Apple's design team getting in the way. The extra of inches shaved off by using a laptop hard drive makes this more expensive and less competitive than other SFF entr level desktops.
[quote]
I don't really claim to like the Mini. But, it does give you basic Mac functionality and will run quite an array of software with it's new Core Duo design.
Quote:
2. iMac. Designed for low to mid level consumers and families
Come on. It's for low, mid and even prosumers. Look at its benchmarks above.
Quote:
3. Mac Pro Designed for high level professionals
...and high end prosumers with demand a desktop form factor.
Quote:
High level consumers and low to mid level consumers are pretty SOL. Then again, Dell, HP, and the like are more than happy to take their money,
What needs does that segment have than cannot be met by the iMac or low end Mac pro? Hmmm?
Quote:
The thing you're assuming is that everybody on the Mac and pretty much all computer users agree with you. You are the exception, not the rule.= and Apple already serves you. The problem is that you and those like you apparently have no tolerance with anyone else being served.
Don't be an asshole. It has nothing to do with me. I have a Macbook Pro that works fine. I realize many people here want this product. The point is the OVERALL MARKET doesn't agree with YOU.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Well they need to expand the system in areas that impress computer users as a whole, and not just niche markets.
I would really like to know what a niche market is according to you.
We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
Yup. Bingo. This is not your older brother's bondi blue iMac.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Of course not, the people who want an xMac aren't here because of this thread, it's the other way round.
The gains exceed the losses. Anyway, no one is advocating getting rid of the iMac just adding a product that satisfies the majority of users.
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
Quote:
Not really, as I said it's a different product. Respectable reviews would be impartial in the same way a news reader would be.
Rhetorical. Next.
Quote:
Right so people want laptops, not desktops that are only as powerful as laptops. AIOs aren't outselling towers last time I checked and that's the point.
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
Quote:
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
An intel iMac?
Quote:
But how can they possibly know how many of us there are when they don't make a product for us? The only option we have is to buy an iMac or get a PC. How do those opinions get back to Apple exactly?
Your options are to buy an iMac or Mac Pro. Blah.
Quote:
Actually the xMac would be $4. Where do I get that number you ask? Out my ass, no doubt you got your figures out of yours. I don't know how this isn't getting through to you but I'll say it another 3 times.
Another asshole comment. How much would it cost then. Really, I'm asking your opinion.
Quote:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
The xMac would use desktop components therefore it is cheaper. It has no LCD therefore it is cheaper still. How you can know this and still say they'd come out the same price/spec is beyond me.
Let's see the prices then. Also, don't forget a totally different motherboard with PCI slots, removable bays, etc.
Quote:
It's not *just* about those people. All you opponents to the xMac keep doing this as though it's one silly little argument why we want this product when if you'd take into account all the reasons you'd see it's for a lot of reasons and a lot of users with varied needs.
In short, a mid-tower satisfies far more *needs* than an iMac ever could.
Apparently not enough of you actually want it. That much is obvious. And the "pretend list of needs" line just continues.
Quote:
There haven't been any reasons, you just keep saying it's not the same market when it is the same market. If it wasn't the same damn market then why do Apple even have a 'switch' campaign? How can PC users who own a mid-range tower switch if they aren't the target market?
The hardware offered is different. The OS is different. Even some of the targeted types of users is different. The prices are different. The designs are different. It's different. Duh.
Quote:
4th time:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
^ It's more than a sticker. The iMac is about image as others have correctly stated, the xMac is in opposition to this idea.
Displays don't play a part in that whatsoever though. Apple have shown their display technology is overpriced and of poorer quality than the competition. They probably seal it in because they know you wouldn't buy their displays if you had the option. The display is what you look at most often and if you have a poor display then that reflects badly on your product. When I point out the iMac screen flaws to people they can see straight away how crap they are.
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
Maybe I missed something, but why is anyone comparing an Intel cpu with an IBM cpu?
Unless someone can prove that laptop cpus at the same processor speed cost the same as desktop cpus the argument stands that using laptop cpus increase cost(re: with the related increase in ram costs)
Yes, as the cpu life continues these differences narrow, but as soon as the latest greates come out the differences in price expand out again, to hundreds of dollars of differnece. Me, I could care less how the Intel cpus compare against IBM's cpus.
And yes, even with penryn or whatever comes out the costs will remain higher for laptop parts. They are higher binned parts, designed differenently and have different design goals.
First, I am not claiming anyone agrees with me. I'm telling you the way it is.
Who made you God and gave you the right to? That's exactly the kind of arrogance that gives Mac users a bad name.
Quote:
Secondly, Mac is not a niche product. They have targeted consumers, educators and creative professionals. This is literally common knowledge.
And that is the definition of a niche, a specific group outside the mainstream. The iMac is not for the mainstream.
Quote:
I don't really claim to like the Mini. But, it does give you basic Mac functionality and will run quite an array of software with it's new Core Duo design.
But at a hefty premium.
Quote:
Come on. It's for low, mid and even prosumers. Look at its benchmarks above.
The benchmarks don't give me 4 DIMM slots or room for a second hard drive or a regular optical drive or allow me to add E-SATA when it replaces firewire for external devices a tower does.
Quote:
...and high end prosumers with demand a desktop form factor.
and are committed enough to Mac OS X to pay twice the price high end manufacturers are charging. Most just skip the platform all together and make do with windows or are forced to soldier on with inferior hardware. I'm going to say this once more in a futile attempt to get it through your skulls THE MAC PRO IS A WORKSTATION, NOT A DESKTOP.
Quote:
What needs does that segment have than cannot be met by the iMac or low end Mac pro? Hmmm?
The ability to have power with expansion and not have to mortgage your house for it.
Quote:
Don't be an asshole. It has nothing to do with me. I have a Macbook Pro that works fine. I realize many people here want this product. The point is the OVERALL MARKET doesn't agree with YOU.
You realize there is another 96% of computer users right and the mac market is not all that there is right? Then again, by your comments you obviously do not. You also obviously think that your needs are somehow universal for everyone.
Quote:
I would really like to know what a niche market is according to you.
A small group with needs or wants outside the mainstream, i.e. those who value simplicity, elegance, or the ability to save space over practicality. In other words, the hard core Mac crowd
Quote:
Yup. Bingo. This is not your older brother's bondi blue iMac.
But it has the same inherent flaws that the G3 iMac as had the Performa 5200CD that i owned for 5 years. The difference between a tower and a iMac is like the difference between a BMW 5-series and a pickup. They ay both have V8s, but they are designed for very different users with different tasks.
Quote:
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
You mean like the Mini or the Cube. They failed because they went so overboard on trying to minimize the space that they came up with products that were unappealing to the target audiences. Apple under Jobs is much better at revolution than they are evolution. As a result they sometimes break the wheel trying to fix it their way.
Quote:
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
1. Power isn't the only factor there is expansion
2. 2.66 or 3.0ghz desktop Core 2 Duo is faster than a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and both cost less than the mobile part. Also, a higher end video card that could be used when not restricted by form factor.
Once again you shove everyone into two blanket categories,
Quote:
An intel iMac?
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
Quote:
Your options are to buy an iMac or Mac Pro.
Or bypass the Mac entirely in which Apple receives no money.
Quote:
The hardware offered is different.
Intel Core 2 Duo
Intel PM965 Motherboard
DDR2 RAM
ATI radeon 2600HD
EFI ROM, hey I finally found a difference
From factor different, hardware not so much
Quote:
The OS is different.
The OS is further evolved. Functionality wise, it does the same things, only better
Quote:
Even some of the targeted types of users is different.
Only because they suite Apple's niche as a computer maker.
Quote:
The prices are different.
If you look at other premium computer makers, they really aren't. Apple makes money not because they make certain kinds of computers, they make money because they have higher margins that are more constant throughout the lineup. The larger brands have paper thin margins on the low end consumer machine,, but make up for it by overcharging professionals. The higher end PC makers like Velocity Micro have the same margins strategy that Apple has.
Quote:
The designs are different.
Only the iMac and Mac Mini. The Macbooks look and function exactly like any other premium notebook and the Mac Pro isn't too different than the other workstations out there. Interestingly enough, the markets where the hardware is familiar, they do very well in.
Quote:
It's different.
Not really no.
Quote:
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
No, the quality will be high and the customer will be getting whatever display they choose. Is the prospect of choice so foreign to you?
The iMac does satisfy the mid-range market. What you advocate for, a quad core machine that is headless, is more of a high end enthusiast machine than a mid-range machine.
I'm not saying it has to only have a quad core in it but it can have a quad core for the same price as the dual mobile chips. If it had the same spec but headless, I'd quite possibly buy one as long as I could get an nvidia GPU and two hard drives. The CPU is but one of the many reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If Apple were not making good money from it they would change.
As I said before, Apple making good money is of no interest to me whatsoever. There is not a single store that I go into where I'd see an overpriced novelty item and be content that the company was making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In the long run its cheaper. Everyone is selling more laptops than they are desktops. Its cheaper for Apple to order a large batch of laptop CPU's and use some in the iMac. Splitting the order into a small number of Conroe would be more expensive.
So again it seems that Apple are trying to steer the market instead of satisfying it. The more mobile components they get, the cheaper they get, therefore the cheaper the laptop based products are so more people buy laptop-based products. Still, it makes you wonder if they get such good discounts why their products are still more expensive than PC manufacturers. Sony's AIOs are almost the same price as Apple's and yet the bulk of Sony's sales are headless desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
You could have said the same about the iphone and Apple TV, which they still released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
It won't be more powerful than a Mac Pro but it will be cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
How much would it cost then. Really, I'm asking your opinion.
I gave a rough idea comparing the Core 2 Extreme iMac. If you take off the 24" screen, you save maybe $200 (conservative) and replace the $851 Core 2 Extreme with a Core 2 Quad at $266 and you save a whopping $785. This means it could easily be $2299 - $785 ~ $1499.
One thing that's weird is the Core 2 Duo Extreme desktop costs the same as the Core 2 Extreme Quad and all the Core 2 Extreme Quads costs the same. Anyway, you can still buy quads for the same price as any of the dual core CPUs and the desktop dual cores are half the price of the mobile versions. maybe this will change with Penryn but I guess we'll see in November. More waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
The hardware offered is different. The OS is different. Even some of the targeted types of users is different. The prices are different. The designs are different. It's different. Duh.
That doesn't change the fact that it's the same market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
They would for higher quality at a lower price though, which is what it would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Maybe I missed something, but why is anyone comparing an Intel cpu with an IBM cpu?
Tenobell wants to convince us that if an Intel iMac is faster than a two year old high end desktop then it's ok for the midrange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
And yes, even with penryn or whatever comes out the costs will remain higher for laptop parts. They are higher binned parts, designed differenently and have different design goals.
Yep, at least for a couple of years this will be true. Like I say, once laptop components are so cheap that you won't need the extra power deskotp parts have then I reckon there's no need for power hungry desktop components. That time is not now though.
Who made you God and gave you the right to? That's exactly the kind of arrogance that gives Mac users a bad name.
Yeah, 'cause I'm worried about how I'm defined on a fucking internet message board. Take a pill.
Quote:
And that is the definition of a niche, a specific group outside the mainstream. The iMac is not for the mainstream.
The iMac is for consumers. You said so yourself. So consumers are a niche? Or, is the midpro people that are? Seems to me you've got it backwards, cap'n.
Quote:
But at a hefty premium.
What does that mean? It's not as cheap as a PC, but it is cheap. Are you suggesting Apple competes in the bargain basement category? That's a different argument.
Quote:
The benchmarks don't give me 4 DIMM slots or room for a second hard drive or a regular optical drive or allow me to add E-SATA when it replaces firewire for external devices a tower does.
I see, we're back to the expandability. First, who needs four DIMMs? You can pack 4gb of RAM in there, yes? That will be enough for quite some time. If you need more, you need a pro machine anyway.
Quote:
and are committed enough to Mac OS X to pay twice the price high end manufacturers are charging. Most just skip the platform all together and make do with windows or are forced to soldier on with inferior hardware. I'm going to say this once more in a futile attempt to get it through your skulls THE MAC PRO IS A WORKSTATION, NOT A DESKTOP.
So now the Mac Pro is too expensive for what it is? Anyone who doesn't need that level of performance...really...ANYONE...would do fine with either a used MP or an iMac.
Quote:
The ability to have power with expansion and not have to mortgage your house for it.
Dude...don't exaggerate. We're talking about what would likely be a $800 difference in price.
Quote:
You realize there is another 96% of computer users right and the mac market is not all that there is right? Then again, by your comments you obviously do not. You also obviously think that your needs are somehow universal for everyone.
1. I clearly understand. What you don't understand is that Apple's products meet their needs just fine.
2. We've been through this. There are only so many uses for a computer. There are no magical prosumer uses that only people that do the secret handshake can learn about. I'm NOT talking about my needs at all.
Quote:
A small group with needs or wants outside the mainstream, i.e. those who value simplicity, elegance, or the ability to save space over practicality. In other words, the hard core Mac crowd
So, midpro tower people then. Gotcha.
Quote:
But it has the same inherent flaws that the G3 iMac as had the Performa 5200CD that i owned for 5 years. The difference between a tower and a iMac is like the difference between a BMW 5-series and a pickup. They ay both have V8s, but they are designed for very different users with different tasks.
Don't be absurd. The intel iMac is damn capable machine.
Quote:
You mean like the Mini or the Cube. They failed because they went so overboard on trying to minimize the space that they came up with products that were unappealing to the target audiences. Apple under Jobs is much better at revolution than they are evolution. As a result they sometimes break the wheel trying to fix it their way.
Well, the mini is still around, but the cube failed mostly because it targeted completely the wrong segment. If it was $1000 cheaper it might have sold.
Quote:
1. Power isn't the only factor there is expansion
2. 2.66 or 3.0ghz desktop Core 2 Duo is faster than a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and both cost less than the mobile part. Also, a higher end video card that could be used when not restricted by form factor.
Once again you shove everyone into two blanket categories,
Whatever. There is what there is. Once again you invent magical, non-enumerated needs.
Quote:
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
Bullshit. What can you not do? Let's hear it.
Quote:
Or bypass the Mac entirely in which Apple receives no money.
Your choice.
Quote:
Intel Core 2 Duo
Intel PM965 Motherboard
DDR2 RAM
ATI radeon 2600HD
EFI ROM, hey I finally found a difference
From factor different, hardware not so much
The OS is further evolved. Functionality wise, it does the same things, only better
Only because they suite Apple's niche as a computer maker.
If you look at other premium computer makers, they really aren't. Apple makes money not because they make certain kinds of computers, they make money because they have higher margins that are more constant throughout the lineup. The larger brands have paper thin margins on the low end consumer machine,, but make up for it by overcharging professionals. The higher end PC makers like Velocity Micro have the same margins strategy that Apple has.
Only the iMac and Mac Mini. The Macbooks look and function exactly like any other premium notebook and the Mac Pro isn't too different than the other workstations out there. Interestingly enough, the markets where the hardware is familiar, they do very well in.
Not really no.
No, the quality will be high and the customer will be getting whatever display they choose. Is the prospect of choice so foreign to you?
Well, you say it's the same and I say it's different. We're probably both right in certain ways.
The point is there isn't a strong market for a midpro tower. That's all.
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
No. If you had kids (small ones) you'd realize that an LCD screen that's angled up cannot be viewed from a height of three feet. That means you need to lift up the kid to see better whenever they want to see what you're doing.
The screen is the big reason why I'm wary of buying an iMac.
Yeah, 'cause I'm worried about how I'm defined on a fucking internet message board. Take a pill.
I'm pretty sure it's how you're defined in real life too. Learn to respect other people and their right to choose, you will go much further than if you try to control what everyone does based on what you like.
Quote:
The iMac is for consumers. You said so yourself. So consumers are a niche? Or, is the midpro people that are? Seems to me you've got it backwards, cap'n.
It may work for low end consumer and probably be a better system, but they're sure not buying it.
Quote:
What does that mean? It's not as cheap as a PC, but it is cheap. Are you suggesting Apple competes in the bargain basement category? That's a different argument.
Tower+ bargain basement Dell. Right. Try expanding your horizons for a change.
Quote:
[I see, we're back to the expandability. First, who needs four DIMMs? You can pack 4gb of RAM in there, yes? That will be enough for quite some time. If you need more, you need a pro machine anyway.
Do I need 4 DIMMS, no. Would i like the option of saving $150 upgrading to 4GB of memory? Hell Yes.
[quote]So now the Mac Pro is too expensive for what it is? Anyone who doesn't need that level of performance...really...ANYONE...would do fine with either a used MP or an iMac. {/quote]
It's perfectly fine for what it is, it's too expensive for what it's not, a desktop.
Velocity Micro Promagix
2.66ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB regular memory
250GB Hard drive
20x DVD burner
512mb Radeon HD 2900XT
$1800
Mac Pro
2x 2.66ghz Xeon
2GB memory on twice as expensive FB-DIMMS
250GB Hard drive
16x DVD burner
512mb Radeon X1900XT
$3000
Difference in performance if they were on the same operating system: little to none (besides the outdated video card which will be corrected soon enough).
Difference in price: $1200. Mind you that is on top of the roughly $300-400 a top flight maker charges over what bargain basement Dell would sell you something similar.
That's $1200 for server RAM, a server motherboard, and a second server CPU that if used as a desktop add nothing but expense. That may be insignificant to people who don't have the concept of a budget, but reasonable people cannot justify throwing over $1000 out the window for no gain..
Quote:
Dude...don't exaggerate. We're talking about what would likely be a $800 difference in price.
Like I just said, for those of us who don't have an unlimited money supply, that's a huge chunk of change that can be better spent elsewhere.
Quote:
1. I clearly understand. What you don't understand is that Apple's products meet their needs just fine.
You're putting words in the mouths of people you clearly have no clue about.
Quote:
2. We've been through this. There are only so many uses for a computer. There are no magical prosumer uses that only people that do the secret handshake can learn about. I'm NOT talking about my needs at all.
There are a lot more uses than you care to realize and then there is the concept of degree which you clearly have no concept of.
Quote:
So, midpro tower people then. Gotcha.
Nope. the only thing you've said is that someone you know what others want and what they do better than they do.
Quote:
Don't be absurd. The intel iMac is damn capable machine.
Then why does it have hang ups in a three year old game?
Quote:
Well, the mini is still around, but the cube failed mostly because it targeted completely the wrong segment. If it was $1000 cheaper it might have sold.
It failed because the tower g4 was a far better machine for less money.
Quote:
Whatever. There is what there is. Once again you invent magical, non-enumerated needs.
Invent? Faster machine for less money and more expandability is inventing something?
Quote:
Bullshit. What can you not do? Let's hear it.
Burn a DVD in under a half hour, change my video card if I'm unhappy with the 2600Pro,easily and cheaply upgrade my hard drive or DVD burner, upgrade my wireless when -N is replaced, upgrade to wireless USB. I'm stuck with what's available in summer 2007 for the life of this machine. That means it becomes obsolete way sooner.
Quote:
Your choice.
Turning people away is bad for both business and the health of the platform.
Quote:
The point is there isn't a strong market for a midpro tower. That's all.
Considering that about 35% of desktop sales are $1000+ towers I think there is. Your best seller all in one iMac makes up about 3%. Then again, don't let meaningless things like reality get in the way of you preconceived misconceptions.
No. If you had kids (small ones) you'd realize that an LCD screen that's angled up cannot be viewed from a height of three feet. That means you need to lift up the kid to see better whenever they want to see what you're doing.
The screen is the big reason why I'm wary of buying an iMac.
The viewing angle is just fine. Colors wash a bit from different angles, but I can see exactly what is on the screen and from pretty much across the room. It's not like a old LCD notebook where it would go black if you weren't looking at it head on.
The viewing angle is just fine. Colors wash a bit from different angles, but I can see exactly what is on the screen and from pretty much across the room. It's not like a old LCD notebook where it would go black if you weren't looking at it head on.
I'm not talking about a little to the side or across the room. I'm talking about standing right next to the desk when you're not quite as tall as the desk. Can you still view the pictures OK?
If so, I might still get one, although I would rather have a screen that's not glossy and that can be tilted.
I put this in another thread but I can't resist pointing out that there is another factor in this war of worlds: For some years, Apple has given us an easy way to open a Mac and drop in memory, HDD's, and cards. I'm not tech experienced, but that is something I was able to do. I was always pointing that out to my old PC friends and office mates. Now, APPLE has pulled the rug out from under us. I'll never be able to have that ease of making changes, again unless I buy a work station that I don't need.
Every time time I read a post telling me I don't need anything more than what Apple is foisting on me, I see RED.
If you are satisfied with what you can buy, that's fine. But get off this thread and quit telling me that I want what you want. You have as much arrogance as Apple has. Be happy you're satisfied with what you have and shut up.
I've tried my best not to flame since becoming an AI member, but you are trying my patience.
One more thing. Do not respond to this post. Go some place, curl up in a corner, and lick your balls.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
. . . It's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. . .
Well, here lies the problem. Many, not just you, are confusing markets with products. These are two separate things.
A market (segment) is a group of consumers who have a common need. These consumers are faced with choosing a product to satisfy their needs. The question is how well does a particular product satisfy their needs, and how does it's price compare with competing products that also satisfy their needs? Such is the structure that we are looking at.
There is not a Windows market or Mac per se. Rather there is, for example, a graphics art market, and some users need a Windows OS, others a Mac OS. So Windows and Mac are only sub groups within each market.
Now for example, the iMac sells into the Mac subgroup of several different markets. Used Macs also sell into these same markets. Keeping this structure in mind, we can indeed "look at what Windows is selling." It is perfectly valid.
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Now, can you offer the same kind of evidence that Windows users are unhappy with the typical mid towers being offered to the Windows sub group of these markets? Links to Windows users forums such as this would be fine, thank you.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
Yah lets not generalize everyone in this. I do however agree with you mostly. I'm tired of people telling me the form factor I have to use. I know what I want. I wanted it so badly I gave up on apple and went hack. Don't get me wrong, a real mac beats the hell out of a hack. My main work machine is a 2.33 mbp. And my overclocked 3.25ghz core2duo hack is my back up machine.
Anways, I don't want to reiterate what's already been said. But there are numerous reasons (and by that I mean MANY MANY reasons), that there should be a pro-sumer apple desktop. Anyone who says otherwise is
A) upset it isn't offered and settles...
Doesn't need it themselves...
C) Is a Steve Jobs Fanboi...
D) Bleeds applesauce if you cut them.
I've been on macs since 1992. Out of all the machines I owned, my favorite were the Quicksilver G4, B+W G3, Umax s900 (most favorite), and Performa 6400... all towers. I liked them because they fit my needs. Expandability, more reliable desktop components, dual matching lcds, internal harddrive upgrades, bigger harddrives available, graphics cards upgrades, higher ram upgrades, lower temps, low clutter of cables on my desk, faster cd / dvd burns, etc, etc, etc ? ?.
Stop telling me what form factor fits me, for a work computer a mid-sized tower is the best option.
I'm pretty sure it's how you're defined in real life too. Learn to respect other people and their right to choose, you will go much further than if you try to control what everyone does based on what you like.
Who is getting personal now? How can you be "pretty sure" about who I am in RL when you've never met me? And besides, you're confusing a heated debate with true personal acrimony. I'm not one acting like a 12 year old cry baby here....I'm not the one whining that Apple and Big Bad SDW don't want them to have their perfect, affordable computer.
Quote:
It may work for low end consumer and probably be a better system, but they're sure not buying it.
Uh, define "not buying it." They ARE buying it. Granted, laptops are selling better, but a good part of that is a well established industry trend. There's little reason for the majority of consumers to own a desktop anymore. A laptop can do what a desktop can do with some limitations.
Quote:
Tower+ bargain basement Dell. Right. Try expanding your horizons for a change.
I honestly am not sure what you mean by that.
Quote:
Do I need 4 DIMMS, no. Would i like the option of saving $150 upgrading to 4GB of memory? Hell Yes.
I had thought of that and I agree it's a good point. It's one of the few good points I've heard with the midpro.
Quote:
It's perfectly fine for what it is, it's too expensive for what it's not, a desktop.
Velocity Micro Promagix
2.66ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB regular memory
250GB Hard drive
20x DVD burner
512mb Radeon HD 2900XT
$1800
Mac Pro
2x 2.66ghz Xeon
2GB memory on twice as expensive FB-DIMMS
250GB Hard drive
16x DVD burner
512mb Radeon X1900XT
$3000
Difference in performance if they were on the same operating system: little to none (besides the outdated video card which will be corrected soon enough).
Difference in price: $1200. Mind you that is on top of the roughly $300-400 a top flight maker charges over what bargain basement Dell would sell you something similar.
That's $1200 for server RAM, a server motherboard, and a second server CPU that if used as a desktop add nothing but expense. That may be insignificant to people who don't have the concept of a budget, but reasonable people cannot justify throwing over $1000 out the window for no gain..
Invalid and inaccurate comparison. See below
You compared a SINGLE PROCESSOR machine with a DUAL PROCESSOR machine. Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter anyway, because that is not the topic we're discussing. I've never argued that the Mac Pro shouldn't be cheaper.
Quote:
Like I just said, for those of us who don't have an unlimited money supply, that's a huge chunk of change that can be better spent elsewhere.
Well, I certainly don't think it's chump change. But let me tell you...if I really needed that much machine, I save for it and get it.
Quote:
You're putting words in the mouths of people you clearly have no clue about.
Here we go again. The Mythical Prosumer's Magical and Invisible Needs that SDW Cannot Comprehend.
Quote:
There are a lot more uses than you care to realize and then there is the concept of degree which you clearly have no concept of.
Name them. You second sentence is not clearly stated.
Quote:
Nope. the only thing you've said is that someone you know what others want and what they do better than they do.
Ah, but you're wrong. I'm not telling them what they WANT, I'm telling them what they want is not what they NEED. They, in turn, are pretending that those WANTS are NEEDS. Further, they are the ones claiming a market exists when one clearly does not, JUST BECAUSE they personally want the product themselves.
It's a little like talking to my elementary students. They are just learning about what they want to happens vs. what is actually likely to happen.
Quote:
Then why does it have hang ups in a three year old game?
Which game is that? It's likely a software issue.
Quote:
It failed because the tower g4 was a far better machine for less money.
Wrong. Most models of the G4 Tower were more expensive.
Quote:
Burn a DVD in under a half hour, change my video card if I'm unhappy with the 2600Pro,easily and cheaply upgrade my hard drive or DVD burner, upgrade my wireless when -N is replaced, upgrade to wireless USB. I'm stuck with what's available in summer 2007 for the life of this machine. That means it becomes obsolete way sooner.
1. External high speed drive or Mac Pro
2. If you need to do that, you need a MP
3. Simple solution: Buy a big enough drive. It's not like the machine is going to last more than 4-5 years anyway. If you have those kind of storage needs, you need an external drive anyway. Or a...wait for it...Mac Pro.
4. Whatever. N isn't even mainstream yet.
5. That won't be necessary for anyone.
6. No it doesn't. It's going to become obsolete at nearly the same pace, because motherboard and processor technology will change significantly, and you can't really change that. Upgrading anything other than HD and RAM is usually useless.
Quote:
Turning people away is bad for both business and the health of the platform.
Apple is turning people away from the platform? You mean the Apple that setting records for sales, profiting in the billions, and gaining market share? That Apple?
Quote:
Considering that about 35% of desktop sales are $1000+ towers I think there is. Your best seller all in one iMac makes up about 3%. Then again, don't let meaningless things like reality get in the way of you preconceived misconceptions.
Your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. You're talking about 35% of all desktops, including Windows. As I've already stated, the Wintel world lives off of midpros because that's been the PC model for years. Apple has never followed that model, and when they do, it goes badly for them.
Secondly, the iMac is 3% of WHAT? Overall desktop sales or overall Mac desktop sales?
The other point you fail to understand is that, again, we do not represent the majority of consumers here, or even Mac users. People don't walk into the Apple Store and see an iMac and think "Gee, it would be nice if it had real desktop parts and an upgradable video card. They want to know it's speed, it's memory, it's hard drive, how the screen looks, it's size, what software is available, and the price. That's what even an educated consumer looks for. And many are nowhere near even that level of sophistication.
Look, it's getting heated here, but let me take a step back and say that I do understand there is desire for this product among the Mac faithful. There have been some good points made as to needs, such as separate monitor, cheaper RAM and not having the cash for AMc PRo. I just don't think that the demand is big enough for Apple to release it in conjunction with their other products already in the matrix. Can you imagine Apple, king of "It Just Works" having a retail store with FOUR different desktop offerings and soon to be THREE different laptop lines? Can you imagine trying to explain the difference between the Mini, the xMac, the iMac and Mac Pro to your average consumer?
In the final analysis...it's about one question: Are there enough people to buy the product? That answer is no.
I put this in another thread but I can't resist pointing out that there is another factor in this war of worlds: For some years, Apple has given us an easy way to open a Mac and drop in memory, HDD's, and cards. I'm not tech experienced, but that is something I was able to do. I was always pointing that out to my old PC friends and office mates. Now, APPLE has pulled the rug out from under us. I'll never be able to have that ease of making changes, again unless I buy a work station that I don't need.
Every time time I read a post telling me I don't need anything more than what Apple is foisting on me, I see RED.
If you are satisfied with what you can buy, that's fine. But get off this thread and quit telling me that I want what you want. You have as much arrogance as Apple has. Be happy you're satisfied with what you have and shut up.
I've tried my best not to flame since becoming an AI member, but you are trying my patience.
One more thing. Do not respond to this post. Go some place, curl up in a corner, and lick your balls.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
Well, if you want what you want, I have no problem with it. Honestly. But there are two things that annoy the shit out of me:
1. Telling me there is large demand for the product just because you want it.
2. Telling me your want is a need when it's not.
And I'm not just a naysayer...I'm taking issue with the whining and bitching and what not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Well, here lies the problem. Many, not just you, are confusing markets with products. These are two separate things.
A market (segment) is a group of consumers who have a common need. These consumers are faced with choosing a product to satisfy their needs. The question is how well does a particular product satisfy their needs, and how does it's price compare with competing products that also satisfy their needs? Such is the structure that we are looking at.
There is not a Windows market or Mac per se. Rather there is, for example, a graphics art market, and some users need a Windows OS, others a Mac OS. So Windows and Mac are only sub groups within each market.
Now for example, the iMac sells into the Mac subgroup of several different markets. Used Macs also sell into these same markets. Keeping this structure in mind, we can indeed "look at what Windows is selling." It is perfectly valid.
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Now, can you offer the same kind of evidence that Windows users are unhappy with the typical mid towers being offered to the Windows sub group of these markets? Links to Windows users forums such as this would be fine, thank you.
Well, I'm not confusing it..we're just using different words. You make a good point though. However, the bold paragraph includes the false logic that this forum is indicative of the average or most Mac users.
Well, I'm not confusing it..we're just using different words. You make a good point though. However, the bold paragraph includes the false logic that this forum is indicative of the average or most Mac users.
The bold paragraph:
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
There are hacks all over the Internet to describe how to install Mac OS X in a Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion VM. (See this how-to, for instance http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/in.../Vmware_how_to). You can even Google to find pre-patched OS X virtual machines available as bit torrents. But illicit hacks are not the material of enterprise toolboxes.
One startup company, Moka5, has already virtualized Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. (See MacWindows? coverage Beta app virtualizes Mac OS X in Windows; first VM to support DirectX 9).
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
That was very well put snoopy.
2 things.
A) I have seen many many 'where is the mac tower?' threads, on just about every mac related forum. People yearn for it. It is brought countlessly. I'd like to see how many threads it's made on AI ALONE... by different people.
I honestly don't believe there is any real evidence of windows users being unhappy with mid-towers. In fact I think there is more evidence to SUPPORT that windows users PREFER mid-towers. BTW I'm talking strictly desktops here, so don't even try and bring laptops into it. Every all in one that I've seen introduced in the windows world, has pretty much not done so well. Sure you can argue that the companies don't have Apple's innovation. BUT the difference here is, the other companies offer a choice that DO offer all in ones. All-in-one ORRRR Tower. Most people are going to choose the tower for many reasons (see my post above and add price to it).
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
Dude...one thing you'll learn about me is that I do not enjoy nor tolerate semantics. That's what you're taking issue with right now. I say "market" and you say "subgroup." I saw "logic" and you say "evidence."
But whatever: The point is this forum is not indicative of the majority of Mac users...and certainly not computer users in general. The "evidence" is worthless. So too would any survey of Windows users being "unhappy" with their midpro towers. That's a subjective measure. It reminds me of that line in the movie "Dave," where he takes issue with a government program that makes people feel good about a car they already bought.
What I'm saying is "reason it through." Wintel sells mostly towers. Therefore, people buy mostly towers. This has been the PC model for years and years. People think there are desktops and laptops and nothing else. The AIO doesn't work on that side. Why? This is speculation, but I think it's because the Wintel AIOs lack the advantages of the iMac AIO. Namely, Wintel does not have 1) Leading edge industrial design 2) The "cool" factor that coems with #1, 3) complete integration of hardware and software and 4) Mac OS X and it's suite of user friendly consumer software.
What I've not seen evidence of is a Wintel user walking into an Apple Store and not buying an Apple desktop because they don't see a midpro option. Once they realize what the iMac actually is, they like it. If they need more power, they'll buy a Mac pro. That's what I've seen.
Comments
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't.
It seems to do well enough for Apple to continue with this strategy. If Apple were not making good money from it they would change.
If we could break down desktop sales only to the consumer market between $1000 - and $2500. I bet iMac sales and Apple profit would look pretty good.
It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization.
When is the code not heavily optimized? The first G5 vs Intel tests were mostly using code that was not only optimized for PPC it wasn't written for Intel at all.
If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.
Conduct the test using the same app, the difference is that app now is written better for intel. A test using the current Photoshop CS3. The 2.8 iMac would beat the Quad G5. No one will bother with doing a test like this because everyone already knows this will be the outcome.
Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile.
You miss the reason why PC Magazine expects more desktops to use laptop CPU's. In the long run its cheaper. Everyone is selling more laptops than they are desktops. Its cheaper for Apple to order a large batch of laptop CPU's and use some in the iMac. Splitting the order into a small number of Conroe would be more expensive.
So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether?
Plain and simple - the iMac makes Apple money.
That's because you're under the delusion that the other 96% agrees with you.
First, I am not claiming anyone agrees with me. I'm telling you the way it is. Secondly, Mac is not a niche product. They have targeted consumers, educators and creative professionals. This is literally common knowledge.
Three actually.
1 Mac Mini. It's for...I'm not exactly sure who. This is the ultimate example of Apple's design team getting in the way. The extra of inches shaved off by using a laptop hard drive makes this more expensive and less competitive than other SFF entr level desktops.
[quote]
I don't really claim to like the Mini. But, it does give you basic Mac functionality and will run quite an array of software with it's new Core Duo design.
2. iMac. Designed for low to mid level consumers and families
Come on. It's for low, mid and even prosumers. Look at its benchmarks above.
3. Mac Pro Designed for high level professionals
...and high end prosumers with demand a desktop form factor.
High level consumers and low to mid level consumers are pretty SOL. Then again, Dell, HP, and the like are more than happy to take their money,
What needs does that segment have than cannot be met by the iMac or low end Mac pro? Hmmm?
The thing you're assuming is that everybody on the Mac and pretty much all computer users agree with you. You are the exception, not the rule.= and Apple already serves you. The problem is that you and those like you apparently have no tolerance with anyone else being served.
Don't be an asshole. It has nothing to do with me. I have a Macbook Pro that works fine. I realize many people here want this product. The point is the OVERALL MARKET doesn't agree with YOU.
[quote]
Well they need to expand the system in areas that impress computer users as a whole, and not just niche markets.
I would really like to know what a niche market is according to you.
Mac Performance In The Raw - Wow! The Intel iMac Is Almost As Fast As The Quad Core Power Mac
We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
Yup. Bingo. This is not your older brother's bondi blue iMac.
[quote]
Of course not, the people who want an xMac aren't here because of this thread, it's the other way round.
The gains exceed the losses. Anyway, no one is advocating getting rid of the iMac just adding a product that satisfies the majority of users.
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
Not really, as I said it's a different product. Respectable reviews would be impartial in the same way a news reader would be.
Rhetorical. Next.
Right so people want laptops, not desktops that are only as powerful as laptops. AIOs aren't outselling towers last time I checked and that's the point.
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
An intel iMac?
But how can they possibly know how many of us there are when they don't make a product for us? The only option we have is to buy an iMac or get a PC. How do those opinions get back to Apple exactly?
Your options are to buy an iMac or Mac Pro. Blah.
Actually the xMac would be $4. Where do I get that number you ask? Out my ass, no doubt you got your figures out of yours. I don't know how this isn't getting through to you but I'll say it another 3 times.
Another asshole comment. How much would it cost then. Really, I'm asking your opinion.
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
The xMac would use desktop components therefore it is cheaper. It has no LCD therefore it is cheaper still. How you can know this and still say they'd come out the same price/spec is beyond me.
Let's see the prices then. Also, don't forget a totally different motherboard with PCI slots, removable bays, etc.
It's not *just* about those people. All you opponents to the xMac keep doing this as though it's one silly little argument why we want this product when if you'd take into account all the reasons you'd see it's for a lot of reasons and a lot of users with varied needs.
In short, a mid-tower satisfies far more *needs* than an iMac ever could.
Apparently not enough of you actually want it. That much is obvious. And the "pretend list of needs" line just continues.
The hardware offered is different. The OS is different. Even some of the targeted types of users is different. The prices are different. The designs are different. It's different. Duh.
4th time:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
^ It's more than a sticker. The iMac is about image as others have correctly stated, the xMac is in opposition to this idea.
Displays don't play a part in that whatsoever though. Apple have shown their display technology is overpriced and of poorer quality than the competition. They probably seal it in because they know you wouldn't buy their displays if you had the option. The display is what you look at most often and if you have a poor display then that reflects badly on your product. When I point out the iMac screen flaws to people they can see straight away how crap they are.
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
Unless someone can prove that laptop cpus at the same processor speed cost the same as desktop cpus the argument stands that using laptop cpus increase cost(re: with the related increase in ram costs)
Yes, as the cpu life continues these differences narrow, but as soon as the latest greates come out the differences in price expand out again, to hundreds of dollars of differnece. Me, I could care less how the Intel cpus compare against IBM's cpus.
And yes, even with penryn or whatever comes out the costs will remain higher for laptop parts. They are higher binned parts, designed differenently and have different design goals.
First, I am not claiming anyone agrees with me. I'm telling you the way it is.
Who made you God and gave you the right to? That's exactly the kind of arrogance that gives Mac users a bad name.
Secondly, Mac is not a niche product. They have targeted consumers, educators and creative professionals. This is literally common knowledge.
And that is the definition of a niche, a specific group outside the mainstream. The iMac is not for the mainstream.
I don't really claim to like the Mini. But, it does give you basic Mac functionality and will run quite an array of software with it's new Core Duo design.
But at a hefty premium.
Come on. It's for low, mid and even prosumers. Look at its benchmarks above.
The benchmarks don't give me 4 DIMM slots or room for a second hard drive or a regular optical drive or allow me to add E-SATA when it replaces firewire for external devices a tower does.
...and high end prosumers with demand a desktop form factor.
and are committed enough to Mac OS X to pay twice the price high end manufacturers are charging. Most just skip the platform all together and make do with windows or are forced to soldier on with inferior hardware. I'm going to say this once more in a futile attempt to get it through your skulls THE MAC PRO IS A WORKSTATION, NOT A DESKTOP.
What needs does that segment have than cannot be met by the iMac or low end Mac pro? Hmmm?
The ability to have power with expansion and not have to mortgage your house for it.
Don't be an asshole. It has nothing to do with me. I have a Macbook Pro that works fine. I realize many people here want this product. The point is the OVERALL MARKET doesn't agree with YOU.
You realize there is another 96% of computer users right and the mac market is not all that there is right? Then again, by your comments you obviously do not. You also obviously think that your needs are somehow universal for everyone.
I would really like to know what a niche market is according to you.
A small group with needs or wants outside the mainstream, i.e. those who value simplicity, elegance, or the ability to save space over practicality. In other words, the hard core Mac crowd
Yup. Bingo. This is not your older brother's bondi blue iMac.
But it has the same inherent flaws that the G3 iMac as had the Performa 5200CD that i owned for 5 years. The difference between a tower and a iMac is like the difference between a BMW 5-series and a pickup. They ay both have V8s, but they are designed for very different users with different tasks.
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
You mean like the Mini or the Cube. They failed because they went so overboard on trying to minimize the space that they came up with products that were unappealing to the target audiences. Apple under Jobs is much better at revolution than they are evolution. As a result they sometimes break the wheel trying to fix it their way.
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
1. Power isn't the only factor there is expansion
2. 2.66 or 3.0ghz desktop Core 2 Duo is faster than a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and both cost less than the mobile part. Also, a higher end video card that could be used when not restricted by form factor.
Once again you shove everyone into two blanket categories,
An intel iMac?
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
Your options are to buy an iMac or Mac Pro.
Or bypass the Mac entirely in which Apple receives no money.
The hardware offered is different.
Intel Core 2 Duo
Intel PM965 Motherboard
DDR2 RAM
ATI radeon 2600HD
EFI ROM, hey I finally found a difference
From factor different, hardware not so much
The OS is different.
The OS is further evolved. Functionality wise, it does the same things, only better
Even some of the targeted types of users is different.
Only because they suite Apple's niche as a computer maker.
The prices are different.
If you look at other premium computer makers, they really aren't. Apple makes money not because they make certain kinds of computers, they make money because they have higher margins that are more constant throughout the lineup. The larger brands have paper thin margins on the low end consumer machine,, but make up for it by overcharging professionals. The higher end PC makers like Velocity Micro have the same margins strategy that Apple has.
The designs are different.
Only the iMac and Mac Mini. The Macbooks look and function exactly like any other premium notebook and the Mac Pro isn't too different than the other workstations out there. Interestingly enough, the markets where the hardware is familiar, they do very well in.
It's different.
Not really no.
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
No, the quality will be high and the customer will be getting whatever display they choose. Is the prospect of choice so foreign to you?
The iMac does satisfy the mid-range market. What you advocate for, a quad core machine that is headless, is more of a high end enthusiast machine than a mid-range machine.
I'm not saying it has to only have a quad core in it but it can have a quad core for the same price as the dual mobile chips. If it had the same spec but headless, I'd quite possibly buy one as long as I could get an nvidia GPU and two hard drives. The CPU is but one of the many reasons.
If Apple were not making good money from it they would change.
As I said before, Apple making good money is of no interest to me whatsoever. There is not a single store that I go into where I'd see an overpriced novelty item and be content that the company was making money.
In the long run its cheaper. Everyone is selling more laptops than they are desktops. Its cheaper for Apple to order a large batch of laptop CPU's and use some in the iMac. Splitting the order into a small number of Conroe would be more expensive.
So again it seems that Apple are trying to steer the market instead of satisfying it. The more mobile components they get, the cheaper they get, therefore the cheaper the laptop based products are so more people buy laptop-based products. Still, it makes you wonder if they get such good discounts why their products are still more expensive than PC manufacturers. Sony's AIOs are almost the same price as Apple's and yet the bulk of Sony's sales are headless desktops.
According to you the gains exceed the losses. It won't if Apple take a PR hit from releasing another failed product.
You could have said the same about the iphone and Apple TV, which they still released.
If you want more power than an iMac, you need a Mac Pro. The midpro will not be more powerful according to the specs I've seen people advocate.
It won't be more powerful than a Mac Pro but it will be cheaper.
How much would it cost then. Really, I'm asking your opinion.
I gave a rough idea comparing the Core 2 Extreme iMac. If you take off the 24" screen, you save maybe $200 (conservative) and replace the $851 Core 2 Extreme with a Core 2 Quad at $266 and you save a whopping $785. This means it could easily be $2299 - $785 ~ $1499.
Let's see the prices then.
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p...price_list.pdf
One thing that's weird is the Core 2 Duo Extreme desktop costs the same as the Core 2 Extreme Quad and all the Core 2 Extreme Quads costs the same. Anyway, you can still buy quads for the same price as any of the dual core CPUs and the desktop dual cores are half the price of the mobile versions. maybe this will change with Penryn but I guess we'll see in November. More waiting.
The hardware offered is different. The OS is different. Even some of the targeted types of users is different. The prices are different. The designs are different. It's different. Duh.
That doesn't change the fact that it's the same market.
So the quality is low enough that a consumer will chose a machine that's the same price (or about the same) with NO DISPLAY instead of one with a display? Uh-uh, champ.
They would for higher quality at a lower price though, which is what it would be.
Maybe I missed something, but why is anyone comparing an Intel cpu with an IBM cpu?
Tenobell wants to convince us that if an Intel iMac is faster than a two year old high end desktop then it's ok for the midrange.
And yes, even with penryn or whatever comes out the costs will remain higher for laptop parts. They are higher binned parts, designed differenently and have different design goals.
Yep, at least for a couple of years this will be true. Like I say, once laptop components are so cheap that you won't need the extra power deskotp parts have then I reckon there's no need for power hungry desktop components. That time is not now though.
Who made you God and gave you the right to? That's exactly the kind of arrogance that gives Mac users a bad name.
And that is the definition of a niche, a specific group outside the mainstream. The iMac is not for the mainstream.
The iMac is for consumers. You said so yourself. So consumers are a niche? Or, is the midpro people that are? Seems to me you've got it backwards, cap'n.
But at a hefty premium.
What does that mean? It's not as cheap as a PC, but it is cheap. Are you suggesting Apple competes in the bargain basement category? That's a different argument.
The benchmarks don't give me 4 DIMM slots or room for a second hard drive or a regular optical drive or allow me to add E-SATA when it replaces firewire for external devices a tower does.
I see, we're back to the expandability. First, who needs four DIMMs? You can pack 4gb of RAM in there, yes? That will be enough for quite some time. If you need more, you need a pro machine anyway.
and are committed enough to Mac OS X to pay twice the price high end manufacturers are charging. Most just skip the platform all together and make do with windows or are forced to soldier on with inferior hardware. I'm going to say this once more in a futile attempt to get it through your skulls THE MAC PRO IS A WORKSTATION, NOT A DESKTOP.
So now the Mac Pro is too expensive for what it is? Anyone who doesn't need that level of performance...really...ANYONE...would do fine with either a used MP or an iMac.
The ability to have power with expansion and not have to mortgage your house for it.
Dude...don't exaggerate. We're talking about what would likely be a $800 difference in price.
You realize there is another 96% of computer users right and the mac market is not all that there is right? Then again, by your comments you obviously do not. You also obviously think that your needs are somehow universal for everyone.
1. I clearly understand. What you don't understand is that Apple's products meet their needs just fine.
2. We've been through this. There are only so many uses for a computer. There are no magical prosumer uses that only people that do the secret handshake can learn about. I'm NOT talking about my needs at all.
A small group with needs or wants outside the mainstream, i.e. those who value simplicity, elegance, or the ability to save space over practicality. In other words, the hard core Mac crowd
So, midpro tower people then. Gotcha.
But it has the same inherent flaws that the G3 iMac as had the Performa 5200CD that i owned for 5 years. The difference between a tower and a iMac is like the difference between a BMW 5-series and a pickup. They ay both have V8s, but they are designed for very different users with different tasks.
Don't be absurd. The intel iMac is damn capable machine.
You mean like the Mini or the Cube. They failed because they went so overboard on trying to minimize the space that they came up with products that were unappealing to the target audiences. Apple under Jobs is much better at revolution than they are evolution. As a result they sometimes break the wheel trying to fix it their way.
Well, the mini is still around, but the cube failed mostly because it targeted completely the wrong segment. If it was $1000 cheaper it might have sold.
1. Power isn't the only factor there is expansion
2. 2.66 or 3.0ghz desktop Core 2 Duo is faster than a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and both cost less than the mobile part. Also, a higher end video card that could be used when not restricted by form factor.
Once again you shove everyone into two blanket categories,
Whatever. There is what there is. Once again you invent magical, non-enumerated needs.
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
Bullshit. What can you not do? Let's hear it.
Or bypass the Mac entirely in which Apple receives no money.
Your choice.
Intel Core 2 Duo
Intel PM965 Motherboard
DDR2 RAM
ATI radeon 2600HD
EFI ROM, hey I finally found a difference
From factor different, hardware not so much
The OS is further evolved. Functionality wise, it does the same things, only better
Only because they suite Apple's niche as a computer maker.
If you look at other premium computer makers, they really aren't. Apple makes money not because they make certain kinds of computers, they make money because they have higher margins that are more constant throughout the lineup. The larger brands have paper thin margins on the low end consumer machine,, but make up for it by overcharging professionals. The higher end PC makers like Velocity Micro have the same margins strategy that Apple has.
Only the iMac and Mac Mini. The Macbooks look and function exactly like any other premium notebook and the Mac Pro isn't too different than the other workstations out there. Interestingly enough, the markets where the hardware is familiar, they do very well in.
Not really no.
No, the quality will be high and the customer will be getting whatever display they choose. Is the prospect of choice so foreign to you?
Well, you say it's the same and I say it's different. We're probably both right in certain ways.
The point is there isn't a strong market for a midpro tower. That's all.
Own one, it would be great if I had kids, but I find it very limiting in what it can do.
No. If you had kids (small ones) you'd realize that an LCD screen that's angled up cannot be viewed from a height of three feet. That means you need to lift up the kid to see better whenever they want to see what you're doing.
The screen is the big reason why I'm wary of buying an iMac.
I'm pretty sure it's how you're defined in real life too. Learn to respect other people and their right to choose, you will go much further than if you try to control what everyone does based on what you like.
The iMac is for consumers. You said so yourself. So consumers are a niche? Or, is the midpro people that are? Seems to me you've got it backwards, cap'n.
It may work for low end consumer and probably be a better system, but they're sure not buying it.
What does that mean? It's not as cheap as a PC, but it is cheap. Are you suggesting Apple competes in the bargain basement category? That's a different argument.
Tower+ bargain basement Dell. Right. Try expanding your horizons for a change.
[I see, we're back to the expandability. First, who needs four DIMMs? You can pack 4gb of RAM in there, yes? That will be enough for quite some time. If you need more, you need a pro machine anyway.
Do I need 4 DIMMS, no. Would i like the option of saving $150 upgrading to 4GB of memory? Hell Yes.
[quote]So now the Mac Pro is too expensive for what it is? Anyone who doesn't need that level of performance...really...ANYONE...would do fine with either a used MP or an iMac. {/quote]
It's perfectly fine for what it is, it's too expensive for what it's not, a desktop.
Velocity Micro Promagix
2.66ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB regular memory
250GB Hard drive
20x DVD burner
512mb Radeon HD 2900XT
$1800
Mac Pro
2x 2.66ghz Xeon
2GB memory on twice as expensive FB-DIMMS
250GB Hard drive
16x DVD burner
512mb Radeon X1900XT
$3000
Difference in performance if they were on the same operating system: little to none (besides the outdated video card which will be corrected soon enough).
Difference in price: $1200. Mind you that is on top of the roughly $300-400 a top flight maker charges over what bargain basement Dell would sell you something similar.
That's $1200 for server RAM, a server motherboard, and a second server CPU that if used as a desktop add nothing but expense. That may be insignificant to people who don't have the concept of a budget, but reasonable people cannot justify throwing over $1000 out the window for no gain..
Dude...don't exaggerate. We're talking about what would likely be a $800 difference in price.
Like I just said, for those of us who don't have an unlimited money supply, that's a huge chunk of change that can be better spent elsewhere.
1. I clearly understand. What you don't understand is that Apple's products meet their needs just fine.
You're putting words in the mouths of people you clearly have no clue about.
2. We've been through this. There are only so many uses for a computer. There are no magical prosumer uses that only people that do the secret handshake can learn about. I'm NOT talking about my needs at all.
There are a lot more uses than you care to realize and then there is the concept of degree which you clearly have no concept of.
So, midpro tower people then. Gotcha.
Nope. the only thing you've said is that someone you know what others want and what they do better than they do.
Don't be absurd. The intel iMac is damn capable machine.
Then why does it have hang ups in a three year old game?
Well, the mini is still around, but the cube failed mostly because it targeted completely the wrong segment. If it was $1000 cheaper it might have sold.
It failed because the tower g4 was a far better machine for less money.
Whatever. There is what there is. Once again you invent magical, non-enumerated needs.
Invent? Faster machine for less money and more expandability is inventing something?
Bullshit. What can you not do? Let's hear it.
Burn a DVD in under a half hour, change my video card if I'm unhappy with the 2600Pro,easily and cheaply upgrade my hard drive or DVD burner, upgrade my wireless when -N is replaced, upgrade to wireless USB. I'm stuck with what's available in summer 2007 for the life of this machine. That means it becomes obsolete way sooner.
Your choice.
Turning people away is bad for both business and the health of the platform.
The point is there isn't a strong market for a midpro tower. That's all.
Considering that about 35% of desktop sales are $1000+ towers I think there is. Your best seller all in one iMac makes up about 3%. Then again, don't let meaningless things like reality get in the way of you preconceived misconceptions.
No. If you had kids (small ones) you'd realize that an LCD screen that's angled up cannot be viewed from a height of three feet. That means you need to lift up the kid to see better whenever they want to see what you're doing.
The screen is the big reason why I'm wary of buying an iMac.
The viewing angle is just fine. Colors wash a bit from different angles, but I can see exactly what is on the screen and from pretty much across the room. It's not like a old LCD notebook where it would go black if you weren't looking at it head on.
The viewing angle is just fine. Colors wash a bit from different angles, but I can see exactly what is on the screen and from pretty much across the room. It's not like a old LCD notebook where it would go black if you weren't looking at it head on.
I'm not talking about a little to the side or across the room. I'm talking about standing right next to the desk when you're not quite as tall as the desk. Can you still view the pictures OK?
If so, I might still get one, although I would rather have a screen that's not glossy and that can be tilted.
Every time time I read a post telling me I don't need anything more than what Apple is foisting on me, I see RED.
If you are satisfied with what you can buy, that's fine. But get off this thread and quit telling me that I want what you want. You have as much arrogance as Apple has. Be happy you're satisfied with what you have and shut up.
I've tried my best not to flame since becoming an AI member, but you are trying my patience.
One more thing. Do not respond to this post. Go some place, curl up in a corner, and lick your balls.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
. . . It's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. . .
Well, here lies the problem. Many, not just you, are confusing markets with products. These are two separate things.
A market (segment) is a group of consumers who have a common need. These consumers are faced with choosing a product to satisfy their needs. The question is how well does a particular product satisfy their needs, and how does it's price compare with competing products that also satisfy their needs? Such is the structure that we are looking at.
There is not a Windows market or Mac per se. Rather there is, for example, a graphics art market, and some users need a Windows OS, others a Mac OS. So Windows and Mac are only sub groups within each market.
Now for example, the iMac sells into the Mac subgroup of several different markets. Used Macs also sell into these same markets. Keeping this structure in mind, we can indeed "look at what Windows is selling." It is perfectly valid.
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Now, can you offer the same kind of evidence that Windows users are unhappy with the typical mid towers being offered to the Windows sub group of these markets? Links to Windows users forums such as this would be fine, thank you.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
Yah lets not generalize everyone in this. I do however agree with you mostly. I'm tired of people telling me the form factor I have to use. I know what I want. I wanted it so badly I gave up on apple and went hack. Don't get me wrong, a real mac beats the hell out of a hack. My main work machine is a 2.33 mbp. And my overclocked 3.25ghz core2duo hack is my back up machine.
Anways, I don't want to reiterate what's already been said. But there are numerous reasons (and by that I mean MANY MANY reasons), that there should be a pro-sumer apple desktop. Anyone who says otherwise is
A) upset it isn't offered and settles...
C) Is a Steve Jobs Fanboi...
D) Bleeds applesauce if you cut them.
I've been on macs since 1992. Out of all the machines I owned, my favorite were the Quicksilver G4, B+W G3, Umax s900 (most favorite), and Performa 6400... all towers. I liked them because they fit my needs. Expandability, more reliable desktop components, dual matching lcds, internal harddrive upgrades, bigger harddrives available, graphics cards upgrades, higher ram upgrades, lower temps, low clutter of cables on my desk, faster cd / dvd burns, etc, etc, etc ? ?.
Stop telling me what form factor fits me, for a work computer a mid-sized tower is the best option.
I'm pretty sure it's how you're defined in real life too. Learn to respect other people and their right to choose, you will go much further than if you try to control what everyone does based on what you like.
Who is getting personal now? How can you be "pretty sure" about who I am in RL when you've never met me? And besides, you're confusing a heated debate with true personal acrimony. I'm not one acting like a 12 year old cry baby here....I'm not the one whining that Apple and Big Bad SDW don't want them to have their perfect, affordable computer.
It may work for low end consumer and probably be a better system, but they're sure not buying it.
Uh, define "not buying it." They ARE buying it. Granted, laptops are selling better, but a good part of that is a well established industry trend. There's little reason for the majority of consumers to own a desktop anymore. A laptop can do what a desktop can do with some limitations.
Tower+ bargain basement Dell. Right. Try expanding your horizons for a change.
I honestly am not sure what you mean by that.
Do I need 4 DIMMS, no. Would i like the option of saving $150 upgrading to 4GB of memory? Hell Yes.
I had thought of that and I agree it's a good point. It's one of the few good points I've heard with the midpro.
It's perfectly fine for what it is, it's too expensive for what it's not, a desktop.
Velocity Micro Promagix
2.66ghz Core 2 Duo
2GB regular memory
250GB Hard drive
20x DVD burner
512mb Radeon HD 2900XT
$1800
Mac Pro
2x 2.66ghz Xeon
2GB memory on twice as expensive FB-DIMMS
250GB Hard drive
16x DVD burner
512mb Radeon X1900XT
$3000
Difference in performance if they were on the same operating system: little to none (besides the outdated video card which will be corrected soon enough).
Difference in price: $1200. Mind you that is on top of the roughly $300-400 a top flight maker charges over what bargain basement Dell would sell you something similar.
That's $1200 for server RAM, a server motherboard, and a second server CPU that if used as a desktop add nothing but expense. That may be insignificant to people who don't have the concept of a budget, but reasonable people cannot justify throwing over $1000 out the window for no gain..
Invalid and inaccurate comparison. See below
You compared a SINGLE PROCESSOR machine with a DUAL PROCESSOR machine. Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter anyway, because that is not the topic we're discussing. I've never argued that the Mac Pro shouldn't be cheaper.
Like I just said, for those of us who don't have an unlimited money supply, that's a huge chunk of change that can be better spent elsewhere.
Well, I certainly don't think it's chump change. But let me tell you...if I really needed that much machine, I save for it and get it.
You're putting words in the mouths of people you clearly have no clue about.
Here we go again. The Mythical Prosumer's Magical and Invisible Needs that SDW Cannot Comprehend.
There are a lot more uses than you care to realize and then there is the concept of degree which you clearly have no concept of.
Name them. You second sentence is not clearly stated.
Nope. the only thing you've said is that someone you know what others want and what they do better than they do.
Ah, but you're wrong. I'm not telling them what they WANT, I'm telling them what they want is not what they NEED. They, in turn, are pretending that those WANTS are NEEDS. Further, they are the ones claiming a market exists when one clearly does not, JUST BECAUSE they personally want the product themselves.
It's a little like talking to my elementary students. They are just learning about what they want to happens vs. what is actually likely to happen.
Then why does it have hang ups in a three year old game?
Which game is that? It's likely a software issue.
It failed because the tower g4 was a far better machine for less money.
Wrong. Most models of the G4 Tower were more expensive.
Burn a DVD in under a half hour, change my video card if I'm unhappy with the 2600Pro,easily and cheaply upgrade my hard drive or DVD burner, upgrade my wireless when -N is replaced, upgrade to wireless USB. I'm stuck with what's available in summer 2007 for the life of this machine. That means it becomes obsolete way sooner.
1. External high speed drive or Mac Pro
2. If you need to do that, you need a MP
3. Simple solution: Buy a big enough drive. It's not like the machine is going to last more than 4-5 years anyway. If you have those kind of storage needs, you need an external drive anyway. Or a...wait for it...Mac Pro.
4. Whatever. N isn't even mainstream yet.
5. That won't be necessary for anyone.
6. No it doesn't. It's going to become obsolete at nearly the same pace, because motherboard and processor technology will change significantly, and you can't really change that. Upgrading anything other than HD and RAM is usually useless.
Turning people away is bad for both business and the health of the platform.
Apple is turning people away from the platform? You mean the Apple that setting records for sales, profiting in the billions, and gaining market share? That Apple?
Considering that about 35% of desktop sales are $1000+ towers I think there is. Your best seller all in one iMac makes up about 3%. Then again, don't let meaningless things like reality get in the way of you preconceived misconceptions.
Your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. You're talking about 35% of all desktops, including Windows. As I've already stated, the Wintel world lives off of midpros because that's been the PC model for years. Apple has never followed that model, and when they do, it goes badly for them.
Secondly, the iMac is 3% of WHAT? Overall desktop sales or overall Mac desktop sales?
The other point you fail to understand is that, again, we do not represent the majority of consumers here, or even Mac users. People don't walk into the Apple Store and see an iMac and think "Gee, it would be nice if it had real desktop parts and an upgradable video card. They want to know it's speed, it's memory, it's hard drive, how the screen looks, it's size, what software is available, and the price. That's what even an educated consumer looks for. And many are nowhere near even that level of sophistication.
Look, it's getting heated here, but let me take a step back and say that I do understand there is desire for this product among the Mac faithful. There have been some good points made as to needs, such as separate monitor, cheaper RAM and not having the cash for AMc PRo. I just don't think that the demand is big enough for Apple to release it in conjunction with their other products already in the matrix. Can you imagine Apple, king of "It Just Works" having a retail store with FOUR different desktop offerings and soon to be THREE different laptop lines? Can you imagine trying to explain the difference between the Mini, the xMac, the iMac and Mac Pro to your average consumer?
In the final analysis...it's about one question: Are there enough people to buy the product? That answer is no.
I put this in another thread but I can't resist pointing out that there is another factor in this war of worlds: For some years, Apple has given us an easy way to open a Mac and drop in memory, HDD's, and cards. I'm not tech experienced, but that is something I was able to do. I was always pointing that out to my old PC friends and office mates. Now, APPLE has pulled the rug out from under us. I'll never be able to have that ease of making changes, again unless I buy a work station that I don't need.
Every time time I read a post telling me I don't need anything more than what Apple is foisting on me, I see RED.
If you are satisfied with what you can buy, that's fine. But get off this thread and quit telling me that I want what you want. You have as much arrogance as Apple has. Be happy you're satisfied with what you have and shut up.
I've tried my best not to flame since becoming an AI member, but you are trying my patience.
One more thing. Do not respond to this post. Go some place, curl up in a corner, and lick your balls.
AI members, I think you are buying into these creeps' insane need to be naysayers. Don't encourage them with trying to reason with them. You're giving them more credibility than they deserve.
I apologize to anyone I've offended - except for the naysayers.
Well, if you want what you want, I have no problem with it. Honestly. But there are two things that annoy the shit out of me:
1. Telling me there is large demand for the product just because you want it.
2. Telling me your want is a need when it's not.
And I'm not just a naysayer...I'm taking issue with the whining and bitching and what not.
Well, here lies the problem. Many, not just you, are confusing markets with products. These are two separate things.
A market (segment) is a group of consumers who have a common need. These consumers are faced with choosing a product to satisfy their needs. The question is how well does a particular product satisfy their needs, and how does it's price compare with competing products that also satisfy their needs? Such is the structure that we are looking at.
There is not a Windows market or Mac per se. Rather there is, for example, a graphics art market, and some users need a Windows OS, others a Mac OS. So Windows and Mac are only sub groups within each market.
Now for example, the iMac sells into the Mac subgroup of several different markets. Used Macs also sell into these same markets. Keeping this structure in mind, we can indeed "look at what Windows is selling." It is perfectly valid.
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Now, can you offer the same kind of evidence that Windows users are unhappy with the typical mid towers being offered to the Windows sub group of these markets? Links to Windows users forums such as this would be fine, thank you.
Well, I'm not confusing it..we're just using different words. You make a good point though. However, the bold paragraph includes the false logic that this forum is indicative of the average or most Mac users.
Well, I'm not confusing it..we're just using different words. You make a good point though. However, the bold paragraph includes the false logic that this forum is indicative of the average or most Mac users.
The bold paragraph:
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
This is part of an article from ZDNet
Will Apple miss the virtualization boom? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=883&tag=nl.e540
[if Apple can run Windows, can a PC run OS X?]
There are hacks all over the Internet to describe how to install Mac OS X in a Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion VM. (See this how-to, for instance http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/in.../Vmware_how_to). You can even Google to find pre-patched OS X virtual machines available as bit torrents. But illicit hacks are not the material of enterprise toolboxes.
One startup company, Moka5, has already virtualized Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. (See MacWindows? coverage Beta app virtualizes Mac OS X in Windows; first VM to support DirectX 9).
http://www.macwindows.com/Moka5_demos_OSX.html
The bold paragraph:
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
That was very well put snoopy.
2 things.
A) I have seen many many 'where is the mac tower?' threads, on just about every mac related forum. People yearn for it. It is brought countlessly. I'd like to see how many threads it's made on AI ALONE... by different people.
The bold paragraph:
Considering the number of thread such as this that have sprung up over the years, it appears obvious that many Mac users are unhappy with Apple's product offering of desktops. I submit this as evidence that Apple needs to offer something more in line with the desires of these consumers.
Sorry to disagree again, but this is not "logic" I have present here. It is evidence, and I so stated this fact. Evidence does not prove anything, it simply supports it.
What I have not seen yet is any evidence to support the assertion that Windows users are unhappy with their selection of mainly mid towers. If such evidence exists, then we can call this a draw. No one wins this argument. But so far, there has been no evidence that Windows computer makers are not providing a satisfactory product for all their customers.
Give the Window manufacturers credit for doing good marketing. I am weary of hearing the party line. "If enough customers wanted a mid tower, Apple would build it." Saying it over and over does not make it true.
Dude...one thing you'll learn about me is that I do not enjoy nor tolerate semantics. That's what you're taking issue with right now. I say "market" and you say "subgroup." I saw "logic" and you say "evidence."
But whatever: The point is this forum is not indicative of the majority of Mac users...and certainly not computer users in general. The "evidence" is worthless. So too would any survey of Windows users being "unhappy" with their midpro towers. That's a subjective measure. It reminds me of that line in the movie "Dave," where he takes issue with a government program that makes people feel good about a car they already bought.
What I'm saying is "reason it through." Wintel sells mostly towers. Therefore, people buy mostly towers. This has been the PC model for years and years. People think there are desktops and laptops and nothing else. The AIO doesn't work on that side. Why? This is speculation, but I think it's because the Wintel AIOs lack the advantages of the iMac AIO. Namely, Wintel does not have 1) Leading edge industrial design 2) The "cool" factor that coems with #1, 3) complete integration of hardware and software and 4) Mac OS X and it's suite of user friendly consumer software.
What I've not seen evidence of is a Wintel user walking into an Apple Store and not buying an Apple desktop because they don't see a midpro option. Once they realize what the iMac actually is, they like it. If they need more power, they'll buy a Mac pro. That's what I've seen.