Yah why not, since jobs LOVES AIO so much, and believes it's the future. MAKE EVERYTHING AIO. And watch apple fall hard on desktop sales.
Believe it or not if Apple went all AIO they would loose more than just their desktop sales. No matter how nice the OS is people won't buy any computers from a toy company. This is why Apple is so slow to grow it's user base as it is. Their hardware is 50% semi-serious computing, 50% Barbie PC.
[edit]
Not to mention their actions are like politicians running for office. One year they have the first Geforce 3 cards from Nvidia to get us all excited, and we were; I bought one, but if you do that once; your expected to have credible graphics options with every offering. They had the Geforce 4 after that, then they totally dressed to impress with the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, and to everyones surprise they came through with a Quadro FX 4500. So suddenly at that point people are taking them seriously as a possible option for their next computer. So they wait and see what happens with the next one. BIg fat nothing. Apple falls right off the map in graphics. The 3D community was actually taking them serious, and so were gamers, although there was a lack of games, but they did have a credible amount of power. Then all of a sudden they decided to shit on the best reputation they ever had. It's a freaking sad story. Now they would have to start that whole thing over and prove themselves again to ever get that credibility back.
It might but it might not. The iMac and laptops are still different products with different designs. The prices don't really suggest Apple make much of a saving relative to other PC manufacturers.
The prices include Apple's stellar margins. The price savings is actually for laptops and not desktops as HP, Dell and Toshiba move more volume than Apple and therefore should get better discounts from Intel than Apple does. In the only other area that Apple competes in (workstations) it appears that Apple moves enough volume to be price cometitive with Dell...that and Dell has to make margin somewhere.
Quote:
I still see no evidence that it will sell well. You are comparing the iphone to a tablet and assuming the touch functions will translate well to a larger form factor. Applications will need to be specially written and how will Apple maintain display quality and strength at that resolution and size?
There is evidence that MT is better than traditional the WIMP interface for some activities. Multi-touch was not invented by Apple (or Jeff Han) and there has been research for 20 years now.
Yes, applications will need to be rewritten for SOME things but who other than Apple controls both software and hardware so tightly?
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one at some point but I seriously doubt that it's a safer bet to go with a tablet than a mid-range tower.
Of course it's not a "safer" bet. It is, however, far more lucrative. Any paradigm shift has the potential to level the playing field for the underdog.
Building mid-range towers, however elegant, simply plays to the strengths of the current market leaders. Well entrenched, highly competitive market leaders.
Quote:
Design, design, design. Apple has nothing special in any of their products except design. That alone is enough to sell a small tower.
It did not for VAIO. They may have been somewhat less elegant than what Apple might do but far above what Dell and HP typically made.
Quote:
People don't want AIOs, the PC world shows this quite clearly and Mac users haven't ever expressed any demand for AIOs.
Because 500K units per quarter is zero demand. Right.
Quote:
Where were the polls back when Apple didn't have an iMac crying out for an all-in-one design? We were happy with towers and then Apple started shafting us with closed appliances starting at the low end and working up until now we have nothing but appliances short of a workstation.
You mean back when Apple SUCKED? With no profit, no vision and no Jobs. Paint me silly but I prefer NOW with the all the illusory "shafting".
Quote:
So let's get this straight, you think Apple should sell a product to the smallest possible market, a market you aren't even a member of and you don't want them to sell to the largest market, which you are a member of. How can that possibly make any sense to you? You want them to sell a product you're not going to buy.
Lets get this straight, you were accusing me of wanting a tablet simply because I want to buy one. The point is that I am not in the position of replacing my MBP but would possibly get a tower over a mini. I still don't expect a tower and will likely get a mini or its replacement.
I would buy a tablet from Apple next year sometime. Perhaps even earlier should the release a multi-touch SDK. THIS year, assuming they release a SDK, I'll be trying to get a MS Surface.
Quote:
Also, how much extra is this tablet going to be with MT? Will it lack an optical drive? I don't see how a product that will likely be over $6000 (this is the kind of pricing arguments we get from anti-xMac protesters) will sell when the Macbook Pro is way cheaper. Plus the tablet will only have integrated graphics.
You make a whole slew of unsupported assertions.
1) if it is a convertible it will not lack an optical drive unless it is an ultraportable.
2) the product price will not differ all that much from other convertibles on the market, just as the MBP doesn't differ all that much from other laptops in its class. The price delta will only have to include the price of a capacitance or other kind of MT sensor in addition to the digitizer found in current convertibles. The Toshiba tablets range from $1599 to $2599. I would expect a 15" convertible MBP tablet to be $2799 with the same specs as the 15" MBP but with digitizer and MT sensor.
3) There are tablets with more than integrated graphics.
Quote:
But it would obviously cost less than a Mac Pro. If your boss is happy to let you buy a Mac Pro then what does he care if you get a cheaper mac?
No. Because we actually wanted workstations. The fact it can run OSX is a freebie and in fact they are in bootcamp mode nearly 100% of the time. Your xMac is not a workstation. We buy plenty of normal desktops from Dell too but the xMac would be 10%+ more expensive.
Quote:
The parts are cheaper. It's not as if they are the same parts at a lower price. All we're saying is to use exactly the same margins and simply pass on the savings to us of not bundling a screen and not using mobile components.
That the margins are the same does not mean that Apple makes the same amount of money. 30% margins on $1000 is $300. 30% margins on $2000 is $600. Therefore you need to sell 2 $1000 machines to make the same $600.
Quote:
And you're defending that kind of thing? You think it's right for Apple to make stupid computer configurations so that it's hard for people to tell how badly they are being ripped off?
I guarantee you that if Apple made towers folks would directly compare them against the equivalent Dell and HP and notice right away the "Apple Tax" and ignore the fact that Apple has to build its own OS and ecosystem to maintain that Apple ease of use.
For the iMac you also pay for the elegant form factor and reduced footprint at the cost of mobile parts. These features are unique enough that they defy direct comparison with competitor products...like towers.
Quote:
So where's the problem? Apple make the sales one way or another and as I've said before, PC users will be far more likely to buy a familiar form factor than an AIO.
The problem is that Apple makes less money which means it has less money to invest in in new products like the iPhone and aTV. Note that one is a hit...and the other not. It also has less to invest in improving OSX.
Quote:
Wrong. They will see a much more nicely designed product and weigh up whether or not it's worth paying a paltry 18% more (about £100-200) for a beautiful, small, easily configured machine that can run both OS X and Windows or Linux (though most consumers don't even know what Linux is) and fits better with their ipod/iphone.
A paltry 18% more? Small and easy to configure TOWER? Nay, I say the folks that care about the form factor to have a tower also don't want to pay a "paltry" 18% more for a machine that they will need to install XP/Vista to play games.
Quote:
Again I don't expect a majority to go for this as the majority want dirt cheap, rock bottom prices. However, it will appeal to the people who want to spend a bit extra for a good machine but the same people who don't want to be ripped off with novelty products that don't satisfy their needs.
So buy a frigging Dell if Apple is ripping you off. As I've said in other threads, the only thin Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
As I've said in other threads, the only [thing] Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
Yes, I know. You have been saying this for quite some time. Now remind me why it could not be built with common CPU and RAM, rather than workstation components, which cost a lot more?
Is it simply because it takes a new motherboard? What else could be the reason?
If Apple used the CAD files for the Mac Pro motherboard, the modifications could be made easily. This is cheap way to get a new mobo, and I have done it several times. It's just the normal process we go through every time a board is revised during engineering development.
Apple can also omit two of the four HDDs, and leave just two PCI-e slots. Then, use a lower wattage power supply. The power supply vendor could keep the same case and board, but use lower power components.
If this stripped down Mac Pro sold well, which I think it would, Apple can give it a whole new design further down the road.
So buy a frigging Dell if Apple is ripping you off.
And many do. Apple catering only to your kind is keeping the Mac platform back. The benefits of the mac should be available to all, not just intolerant elitists.
Quote:
As I've said in other threads, the only thin Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
Such a machine would underpowered, overpriced, and oversized for what it does. The only thing that that a single core xeon machine would accomplish is to create a machine that would be so uncompetitive with desktops and other single core servers that the zealots could turn around and say "see, nobody wants this".
I guarantee you that if Apple made towers folks would directly compare them against the equivalent Dell and HP and notice right away the"Apple Tax" and ignore the fact that Apple has to build its own OS and ecosystem to maintain that Apple ease of use.
For the iMac you also pay for the elegant form factor and reduced footprint at the cost of mobile parts. These features are unique enough that they defy direct comparison with competitor products...like towers.
PC/Mac price comparisons happen all the time, everyday, and have as far back as I can remember. Nothing would change.
Quote:
The only thing that that a single core xeon machine would accomplish is to create a machine that would be so uncompetitive with desktops andother single core servers that the zealots could turn around and say"see, nobody wants this".
This reminds me of a PowerMac they quietly released a couple years back. It was spec'ed identically to the iMac at the time, but cost $500 more than the iMac for no apparent reason. ($500 more, plus no monitor.) It's as if some middle management type wanted it to fail to say, "See? nobody wants midrange desktops!"
The 3000 series chipset is for single processor servers (dual-core, quad-core Xeons) 775 not 755
The 5000 series chipset (Mac Pro) is for dual processors servers/workstations (5000 series Xeon processors) 771 socket
P35 + C2D = very cheap = $100 for the motherboard + the price of the CPU
3000 + single Xeon = not so cheap = $200 + the price of the CPU
5000 + dual Xeon = expensive = $400 + the price of two CPUs
I agree with nowayout11. Whatever computer Apple makes, it will anyway be compared to PCs, it has been this way since 1984 (if not before). Before Intel, they were compared based on price or size, now they can also be compared based on CPUs and chipsets and segment, whatever.
I agree with nowayout11. Whatever computer Apple makes, it will anyway be compared to PCs, it has been this way since 1984 (if not before). Before Intel, they were compared based on price or size, now they can also be compared based on CPUs and chipsets and segment, whatever.
Except with the current desktop line up the Mac either wins (Mac pro) price comparisons or is so different you can't say it loses because its in a different weight class (iMac).
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
A single Xeon Mac Pro is a lower entry point for a tower and would STILL be price competitive with a Dell Precision single CPU Xeon. Same weight class, competitve price and few would directly compare a workstation to a mid-range consumer tower. Different market segment.
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
A single Xeon Mac Pro is a lower entry point for a tower and would STILL be price competitive with a Dell Precision single CPU Xeon. Same weight class, competitve price and few would directly compare a workstation to a mid-range consumer tower. Different market segment.
So avoiding criticism is more important than actually selling something?
The xeon 3000 series are core 2s repackaged for entry level servers. Plug a Xeon 3085 into a computer and its literally going to be identified as a C2D E6850 as are the same exact chip.
The imac have a screen that is NOT THAT GOOD FOR PHOTO SHOP TYPE WORK and min-range video cards that will be slow with games on imac's build screen at its screen res.
The mini a $599-799 is over priced for laptop parts in a desktop and GMA 950 and is under powered for most uses.
The macpro is over powered for most uses and only comes a 7300gt in a $2000+ system making it suck for gameing and the FB-DIMM's do not help at all.
The MAC BOOK PRO is a better deal x2 the ram that you can up to 4GB for $250 with a $40 buy back for your base system ram and a better video card with a good build in screen for PHOTO SHOP TYPE WORK.
A new mac pro with DDR2 ECC at the same price will be better also upping the base ram to 2gb will aslo help.
A desktop that replace the mini at the high end or altogether with on board video g33 / g35 with pci-e x16 and a pci-e x4 slot and maybe 1-2 pci slots or a x16 and 2-3 pci-e x1 slots will fit in for games and people who need a good desktop system not a sever / workstation system.
starting at $650-$800 and up
or starting at $500-$700 and up
also put firewire 400 / 800 on the pci-e bus.
pci slots for sound cards will be a good thing for gameing.
maybe even have a higher end gameing system / high end desktop / min-range workstation system.
x38 or dual xeon with DDR2 ECC ram.
You're waiting for Apple to make a gaming machine..? Yeah, good luck with that.
If you're doing high grade Photoshop work, then you can afford a Mac Pro. If you're not then the expandability you gain doesn't help.
If you're doing high grade Photoshop work, then you can afford a Mac Pro. If you're not then the expandability you gain doesn't help.
Yeah, it's not like anyone could possibly want to swap their DVD drive for a BR one to watch some movies, put in a hard drive larger than 250GB, want a computer without a display attached to it because they already have a display/TV/projector and possibly no room for a new display, run a music visualizer smoothly for a party, play a game, or use whatever screensaver they like without worrying that it'll crash or make the computer sound like a taxiing jet.
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
Vinea
That comparison can't be done (yet), but the xMac may look better and be better designed (like the Mac Pro interior) than an equivalent Dell or HP AND it will have Mac OS X.
Then using only one CPU in a dual-cpu motherboard will bring the performance so down that this configuration (at whatever price) will really SUCK vs real single processors desktops/workstations (that use single processor motherboards Xeon 3000 series or desktop 30 series).
Yet you still fail to understand that the cost savings are coming from the quantity of each SKU, not from the family of products (expect for the chipsets that can be used with multiple cpus, but the chipsets cost only a fraction of the price of the cpu $50).
The advantage Apple has vs Dell/HP/Others, is that they don't have to offer all kinds of different computers (let's say desktops), at all kinds of price points, that mean using multiple chipsets/motherboards (AMD and Intel) and a tenfold of chips from AMD (old and new) and Intel (Celeron, Pentium, Core,etc...). So even if HP/Dell/Others sell 10x more desktops than Apple, they have more than 10x more configurations to deal with, I don't even think they get better prices from Intel than Apple does with the few chips/chipsets they buy.
I am pretty sure Apple can come up with a very competitive desktop if they wanted to.
I know you picked random examples, but there have been many many many many more AIOs than that. Everyone has tried them, since the 80s. They keep failing. They keep failing because they don't appease the common consumer / business. Emachines had an iMac look-a-like during the iMac boom. Their machine looked ALMOST IDENTICAL... but flopped... why? It wasn't windows... because windows 98 -> 2k was selling faster than anyone could keep them on the shelves because of the internet boom.
Just because laptops are selling quickly does NOT mean the desktop market has shrunk. In fact it's grown, just not at the rate that laptops have. Everyone can't use a laptop. Everyone can't use a desktop. Everyone can't use a PDA. Everyone can't use a workstation. Everyone can't use a server. I'm sorry that an xMac doesn't fit your life style. It certainly fits more than you're seeing. If you take a look at all the computers in schools... you'll see 1 thing in common with 90% of them. What are they??? Form factor wise.
That's boldly stating the obvious, but it's understates the overwhelming group of people that don't buy a Mac because it's hardware is severely niche.
Great observation. Having consumer desktop computers targeted at niche markets only contributes more barriers to switchers that already include software investments and fear of learning a new OS.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
A fact you keep ignoring becuase YOU want an xMac. Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
Apple's meteoritc growth in laptops is also seen by HP and Dell and those companies sell far more laptops than Apple. Toshiba growth numbers IIRC were pretty good too and all they sell are laptops.
That's another point you folks choose to ignore. There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
To some extent your arguments fail because Apple does not sell an inexpensive laptop. Even the Macbook is considered expensive by Windows standards. This alone makes the fact that Apple is capturing market share for laptops even more remarkable.
And yes Mac OS X is an attraction to the switchers, expecially when you consider that the laptop form factor between Apple and the rest of the world is virtually identical and on top of that Apple only sells in the upper end of the price range.
So we must be obviously wrong. Because we are the minority. Even though both of us prefer an xMac over an iMac. Shall I remind you of Apple's market share? A paltry 5% or so. But the brighest and most profitable 5%.
Most folks don't appear to care about OSX and can't see the difference between it and Vista other than it doesn't have any good games or doesn't run Outlook without a copy of XP.
No one has yet proven that there some mass appeal of OSX that trancends some of its significant shortfalls (namely no games for the home front and only so-so MS support on the enterprise front...entourage sucks, I still need IE for my timesheets, no MS project, no Visio, etc).
That it's easier to use seem to be largely unimportant to the majority of the computing world. Do you really think a tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference?
Obviously I do think that "tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference". And even if it didn't the risk reward benefit is ridiculously low. If Apple introduced an attractive consumer tower and it failed to increase sales, market share and/or profits they could discontinue it in a heartbeat.
Comments
Yah why not, since jobs LOVES AIO so much, and believes it's the future. MAKE EVERYTHING AIO. And watch apple fall hard on desktop sales.
Believe it or not if Apple went all AIO they would loose more than just their desktop sales. No matter how nice the OS is people won't buy any computers from a toy company. This is why Apple is so slow to grow it's user base as it is. Their hardware is 50% semi-serious computing, 50% Barbie PC.
[edit]
Not to mention their actions are like politicians running for office. One year they have the first Geforce 3 cards from Nvidia to get us all excited, and we were; I bought one, but if you do that once; your expected to have credible graphics options with every offering. They had the Geforce 4 after that, then they totally dressed to impress with the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, and to everyones surprise they came through with a Quadro FX 4500. So suddenly at that point people are taking them seriously as a possible option for their next computer. So they wait and see what happens with the next one. BIg fat nothing. Apple falls right off the map in graphics. The 3D community was actually taking them serious, and so were gamers, although there was a lack of games, but they did have a credible amount of power. Then all of a sudden they decided to shit on the best reputation they ever had. It's a freaking sad story. Now they would have to start that whole thing over and prove themselves again to ever get that credibility back.
It might but it might not. The iMac and laptops are still different products with different designs. The prices don't really suggest Apple make much of a saving relative to other PC manufacturers.
The prices include Apple's stellar margins. The price savings is actually for laptops and not desktops as HP, Dell and Toshiba move more volume than Apple and therefore should get better discounts from Intel than Apple does. In the only other area that Apple competes in (workstations) it appears that Apple moves enough volume to be price cometitive with Dell...that and Dell has to make margin somewhere.
I still see no evidence that it will sell well. You are comparing the iphone to a tablet and assuming the touch functions will translate well to a larger form factor. Applications will need to be specially written and how will Apple maintain display quality and strength at that resolution and size?
There is evidence that MT is better than traditional the WIMP interface for some activities. Multi-touch was not invented by Apple (or Jeff Han) and there has been research for 20 years now.
Yes, applications will need to be rewritten for SOME things but who other than Apple controls both software and hardware so tightly?
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one at some point but I seriously doubt that it's a safer bet to go with a tablet than a mid-range tower.
Of course it's not a "safer" bet. It is, however, far more lucrative. Any paradigm shift has the potential to level the playing field for the underdog.
Building mid-range towers, however elegant, simply plays to the strengths of the current market leaders. Well entrenched, highly competitive market leaders.
Design, design, design. Apple has nothing special in any of their products except design. That alone is enough to sell a small tower.
It did not for VAIO. They may have been somewhat less elegant than what Apple might do but far above what Dell and HP typically made.
People don't want AIOs, the PC world shows this quite clearly and Mac users haven't ever expressed any demand for AIOs.
Because 500K units per quarter is zero demand. Right.
Where were the polls back when Apple didn't have an iMac crying out for an all-in-one design? We were happy with towers and then Apple started shafting us with closed appliances starting at the low end and working up until now we have nothing but appliances short of a workstation.
You mean back when Apple SUCKED? With no profit, no vision and no Jobs. Paint me silly but I prefer NOW with the all the illusory "shafting".
So let's get this straight, you think Apple should sell a product to the smallest possible market, a market you aren't even a member of and you don't want them to sell to the largest market, which you are a member of. How can that possibly make any sense to you? You want them to sell a product you're not going to buy.
Lets get this straight, you were accusing me of wanting a tablet simply because I want to buy one. The point is that I am not in the position of replacing my MBP but would possibly get a tower over a mini. I still don't expect a tower and will likely get a mini or its replacement.
I would buy a tablet from Apple next year sometime. Perhaps even earlier should the release a multi-touch SDK. THIS year, assuming they release a SDK, I'll be trying to get a MS Surface.
Also, how much extra is this tablet going to be with MT? Will it lack an optical drive? I don't see how a product that will likely be over $6000 (this is the kind of pricing arguments we get from anti-xMac protesters) will sell when the Macbook Pro is way cheaper. Plus the tablet will only have integrated graphics.
You make a whole slew of unsupported assertions.
1) if it is a convertible it will not lack an optical drive unless it is an ultraportable.
2) the product price will not differ all that much from other convertibles on the market, just as the MBP doesn't differ all that much from other laptops in its class. The price delta will only have to include the price of a capacitance or other kind of MT sensor in addition to the digitizer found in current convertibles. The Toshiba tablets range from $1599 to $2599. I would expect a 15" convertible MBP tablet to be $2799 with the same specs as the 15" MBP but with digitizer and MT sensor.
3) There are tablets with more than integrated graphics.
But it would obviously cost less than a Mac Pro. If your boss is happy to let you buy a Mac Pro then what does he care if you get a cheaper mac?
No. Because we actually wanted workstations. The fact it can run OSX is a freebie and in fact they are in bootcamp mode nearly 100% of the time. Your xMac is not a workstation. We buy plenty of normal desktops from Dell too but the xMac would be 10%+ more expensive.
The parts are cheaper. It's not as if they are the same parts at a lower price. All we're saying is to use exactly the same margins and simply pass on the savings to us of not bundling a screen and not using mobile components.
That the margins are the same does not mean that Apple makes the same amount of money. 30% margins on $1000 is $300. 30% margins on $2000 is $600. Therefore you need to sell 2 $1000 machines to make the same $600.
And you're defending that kind of thing? You think it's right for Apple to make stupid computer configurations so that it's hard for people to tell how badly they are being ripped off?
I guarantee you that if Apple made towers folks would directly compare them against the equivalent Dell and HP and notice right away the "Apple Tax" and ignore the fact that Apple has to build its own OS and ecosystem to maintain that Apple ease of use.
For the iMac you also pay for the elegant form factor and reduced footprint at the cost of mobile parts. These features are unique enough that they defy direct comparison with competitor products...like towers.
So where's the problem? Apple make the sales one way or another and as I've said before, PC users will be far more likely to buy a familiar form factor than an AIO.
The problem is that Apple makes less money which means it has less money to invest in in new products like the iPhone and aTV. Note that one is a hit...and the other not. It also has less to invest in improving OSX.
Wrong. They will see a much more nicely designed product and weigh up whether or not it's worth paying a paltry 18% more (about £100-200) for a beautiful, small, easily configured machine that can run both OS X and Windows or Linux (though most consumers don't even know what Linux is) and fits better with their ipod/iphone.
A paltry 18% more? Small and easy to configure TOWER? Nay, I say the folks that care about the form factor to have a tower also don't want to pay a "paltry" 18% more for a machine that they will need to install XP/Vista to play games.
Again I don't expect a majority to go for this as the majority want dirt cheap, rock bottom prices. However, it will appeal to the people who want to spend a bit extra for a good machine but the same people who don't want to be ripped off with novelty products that don't satisfy their needs.
So buy a frigging Dell if Apple is ripping you off. As I've said in other threads, the only thin Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
Vinea
As I've said in other threads, the only [thing] Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
Yes, I know. You have been saying this for quite some time. Now remind me why it could not be built with common CPU and RAM, rather than workstation components, which cost a lot more?
Is it simply because it takes a new motherboard? What else could be the reason?
If Apple used the CAD files for the Mac Pro motherboard, the modifications could be made easily. This is cheap way to get a new mobo, and I have done it several times. It's just the normal process we go through every time a board is revised during engineering development.
Apple can also omit two of the four HDDs, and leave just two PCI-e slots. Then, use a lower wattage power supply. The power supply vendor could keep the same case and board, but use lower power components.
If this stripped down Mac Pro sold well, which I think it would, Apple can give it a whole new design further down the road.
single Xeon 755 with desktop ram and p35 chipset should work pci-e x16 and x4 with gig-e and firewire over pci-e x1 whold fit in good.
No such setup exists. The xeons use a different pin design than the desktop core 2 duos.
So buy a frigging Dell if Apple is ripping you off.
And many do. Apple catering only to your kind is keeping the Mac platform back. The benefits of the mac should be available to all, not just intolerant elitists.
As I've said in other threads, the only thin Apple needs in the lineup is a $1699 Mac pro single Xeon.
Such a machine would underpowered, overpriced, and oversized for what it does. The only thing that that a single core xeon machine would accomplish is to create a machine that would be so uncompetitive with desktops and other single core servers that the zealots could turn around and say "see, nobody wants this".
No such setup exists. The xeons use a different pin design than the desktop core 2 duos.
Sorry you're wrong... they make 775 xeons as well as 771 xeons.
Here is a conroe and a kentsfield, both Xeons
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117127
I honestly don't see the point...
I guarantee you that if Apple made towers folks would directly compare them against the equivalent Dell and HP and notice right away the"Apple Tax" and ignore the fact that Apple has to build its own OS and ecosystem to maintain that Apple ease of use.
For the iMac you also pay for the elegant form factor and reduced footprint at the cost of mobile parts. These features are unique enough that they defy direct comparison with competitor products...like towers.
PC/Mac price comparisons happen all the time, everyday, and have as far back as I can remember. Nothing would change.
The only thing that that a single core xeon machine would accomplish is to create a machine that would be so uncompetitive with desktops andother single core servers that the zealots could turn around and say"see, nobody wants this".
This reminds me of a PowerMac they quietly released a couple years back. It was spec'ed identically to the iMac at the time, but cost $500 more than the iMac for no apparent reason. ($500 more, plus no monitor.) It's as if some middle management type wanted it to fail to say, "See? nobody wants midrange desktops!"
Sorry you're wrong... they make 755 xeons as well as 771 xeons.
Here is a conroe and a kentsfield, both Xeons
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117127
I honestly don't see the point...
They have different chipsets for each.
The P35 chipset is for "regular" C2D, C2Q, C2E
The 3000 series chipset is for single processor servers (dual-core, quad-core Xeons) 775 not 755
The 5000 series chipset (Mac Pro) is for dual processors servers/workstations (5000 series Xeon processors) 771 socket
P35 + C2D = very cheap = $100 for the motherboard + the price of the CPU
3000 + single Xeon = not so cheap = $200 + the price of the CPU
5000 + dual Xeon = expensive = $400 + the price of two CPUs
I agree with nowayout11. Whatever computer Apple makes, it will anyway be compared to PCs, it has been this way since 1984 (if not before). Before Intel, they were compared based on price or size, now they can also be compared based on CPUs and chipsets and segment, whatever.
I agree with nowayout11. Whatever computer Apple makes, it will anyway be compared to PCs, it has been this way since 1984 (if not before). Before Intel, they were compared based on price or size, now they can also be compared based on CPUs and chipsets and segment, whatever.
Except with the current desktop line up the Mac either wins (Mac pro) price comparisons or is so different you can't say it loses because its in a different weight class (iMac).
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
A single Xeon Mac Pro is a lower entry point for a tower and would STILL be price competitive with a Dell Precision single CPU Xeon. Same weight class, competitve price and few would directly compare a workstation to a mid-range consumer tower. Different market segment.
Vinea
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
A single Xeon Mac Pro is a lower entry point for a tower and would STILL be price competitive with a Dell Precision single CPU Xeon. Same weight class, competitve price and few would directly compare a workstation to a mid-range consumer tower. Different market segment.
So avoiding criticism is more important than actually selling something?
Sorry you're wrong... they make 775 xeons as well as 771 xeons.
Here is a conroe and a kentsfield, both Xeons
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117127
I honestly don't see the point...
The xeon 3000 series are core 2s repackaged for entry level servers. Plug a Xeon 3085 into a computer and its literally going to be identified as a C2D E6850 as are the same exact chip.
The imac have a screen that is NOT THAT GOOD FOR PHOTO SHOP TYPE WORK and min-range video cards that will be slow with games on imac's build screen at its screen res.
The mini a $599-799 is over priced for laptop parts in a desktop and GMA 950 and is under powered for most uses.
The macpro is over powered for most uses and only comes a 7300gt in a $2000+ system making it suck for gameing and the FB-DIMM's do not help at all.
The MAC BOOK PRO is a better deal x2 the ram that you can up to 4GB for $250 with a $40 buy back for your base system ram and a better video card with a good build in screen for PHOTO SHOP TYPE WORK.
A new mac pro with DDR2 ECC at the same price will be better also upping the base ram to 2gb will aslo help.
A desktop that replace the mini at the high end or altogether with on board video g33 / g35 with pci-e x16 and a pci-e x4 slot and maybe 1-2 pci slots or a x16 and 2-3 pci-e x1 slots will fit in for games and people who need a good desktop system not a sever / workstation system.
starting at $650-$800 and up
or starting at $500-$700 and up
also put firewire 400 / 800 on the pci-e bus.
pci slots for sound cards will be a good thing for gameing.
maybe even have a higher end gameing system / high end desktop / min-range workstation system.
x38 or dual xeon with DDR2 ECC ram.
You're waiting for Apple to make a gaming machine..? Yeah, good luck with that.
If you're doing high grade Photoshop work, then you can afford a Mac Pro. If you're not then the expandability you gain doesn't help.
This discussion has been done to death.
If you're doing high grade Photoshop work, then you can afford a Mac Pro. If you're not then the expandability you gain doesn't help.
Yeah, it's not like anyone could possibly want to swap their DVD drive for a BR one to watch some movies, put in a hard drive larger than 250GB, want a computer without a display attached to it because they already have a display/TV/projector and possibly no room for a new display, run a music visualizer smoothly for a party, play a game, or use whatever screensaver they like without worrying that it'll crash or make the computer sound like a taxiing jet.
Real farfetched scenarios.
Compare a $1200 xMac against an $1100 HP and the HP will be $100 cheaper and have better specs given the difference in margins and cost savings for HP due to volume in Conroe based sales. That comparison sucks.
Vinea
That comparison can't be done (yet), but the xMac may look better and be better designed (like the Mac Pro interior) than an equivalent Dell or HP AND it will have Mac OS X.
Then using only one CPU in a dual-cpu motherboard will bring the performance so down that this configuration (at whatever price) will really SUCK vs real single processors desktops/workstations (that use single processor motherboards Xeon 3000 series or desktop 30 series).
Yet you still fail to understand that the cost savings are coming from the quantity of each SKU, not from the family of products (expect for the chipsets that can be used with multiple cpus, but the chipsets cost only a fraction of the price of the cpu $50).
The advantage Apple has vs Dell/HP/Others, is that they don't have to offer all kinds of different computers (let's say desktops), at all kinds of price points, that mean using multiple chipsets/motherboards (AMD and Intel) and a tenfold of chips from AMD (old and new) and Intel (Celeron, Pentium, Core,etc...). So even if HP/Dell/Others sell 10x more desktops than Apple, they have more than 10x more configurations to deal with, I don't even think they get better prices from Intel than Apple does with the few chips/chipsets they buy.
I am pretty sure Apple can come up with a very competitive desktop if they wanted to.
I know you picked random examples, but there have been many many many many more AIOs than that. Everyone has tried them, since the 80s. They keep failing. They keep failing because they don't appease the common consumer / business. Emachines had an iMac look-a-like during the iMac boom. Their machine looked ALMOST IDENTICAL... but flopped... why? It wasn't windows... because windows 98 -> 2k was selling faster than anyone could keep them on the shelves because of the internet boom.
Just because laptops are selling quickly does NOT mean the desktop market has shrunk. In fact it's grown, just not at the rate that laptops have. Everyone can't use a laptop. Everyone can't use a desktop. Everyone can't use a PDA. Everyone can't use a workstation. Everyone can't use a server. I'm sorry that an xMac doesn't fit your life style. It certainly fits more than you're seeing. If you take a look at all the computers in schools... you'll see 1 thing in common with 90% of them. What are they??? Form factor wise.
Agrreed. Pretty simple isn't it.
That's boldly stating the obvious, but it's understates the overwhelming group of people that don't buy a Mac because it's hardware is severely niche.
Great observation. Having consumer desktop computers targeted at niche markets only contributes more barriers to switchers that already include software investments and fear of learning a new OS.
No, what I don't believe is that the 95% of folks that has a windows tower wants a mac.
A fact you keep ignoring becuase YOU want an xMac. Thus far you've shown very little other than expensive desktops don't sell much and Apple desktops will always remain expensive because they run at 28%+ margins while the majority of that 95% tower market runs far far less.
Apple's meteoritc growth in laptops is also seen by HP and Dell and those companies sell far more laptops than Apple. Toshiba growth numbers IIRC were pretty good too and all they sell are laptops.
That's another point you folks choose to ignore. There's a top 5 worldwide manufacturer that makes nothing but laptops and they move more machines than Apple (obviously). Apple could DUMP their entire desktop line and STILL grow to match or exceed Toshiba if OSX is the competitive trump card you think it is.
They are likely better off offering a better laptop than a better desktop. An 11" MBP convertible tablet with multi-touch would be a better fit for Apple than an xMac tower. MT is an area Apple can try to own and its much more useful for a convertible tablet than a tower.
To some extent your arguments fail because Apple does not sell an inexpensive laptop. Even the Macbook is considered expensive by Windows standards. This alone makes the fact that Apple is capturing market share for laptops even more remarkable.
And yes Mac OS X is an attraction to the switchers, expecially when you consider that the laptop form factor between Apple and the rest of the world is virtually identical and on top of that Apple only sells in the upper end of the price range.
So we must be obviously wrong. Because we are the minority. Even though both of us prefer an xMac over an iMac. Shall I remind you of Apple's market share? A paltry 5% or so. But the brighest and most profitable 5%.
Most folks don't appear to care about OSX and can't see the difference between it and Vista other than it doesn't have any good games or doesn't run Outlook without a copy of XP.
No one has yet proven that there some mass appeal of OSX that trancends some of its significant shortfalls (namely no games for the home front and only so-so MS support on the enterprise front...entourage sucks, I still need IE for my timesheets, no MS project, no Visio, etc).
That it's easier to use seem to be largely unimportant to the majority of the computing world. Do you really think a tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference?
Obviously I do think that "tower form factor is going to make that much of a difference". And even if it didn't the risk reward benefit is ridiculously low. If Apple introduced an attractive consumer tower and it failed to increase sales, market share and/or profits they could discontinue it in a heartbeat.