You bring up a point that can be refuted by your own, earlier, argument. You say people buy [expandable towers] on the Windows side, because that is what's offered. Well, in an earlier argument against me, you said, "Don't you think if there was overwhelming demand [for such a product] Apple would release it?"
So using your own argument: If there were overwhelming demand for an AIO, the makers of Windows computers would build it. QED (What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say.)
So stop side stepping the fact that consumer buying habits on the Windows side are indeed a valid indication of what they would buy on the Mac side. We are all computer users. Windows is just another platform.
So, you have had our proof. Where is yours? Stop telling us to demonstrate there is a market, and tell up how you are so sure there is none, or a market so small it is not worth considering.
You can't be serious. Are you? OK, let's assume you really are....
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience. People buy them because that's what's available in large part. Often, when they see the advantages of the AIO (e.g. the iMac), they opt for it. Windows is one thing and the Mac is another. It's just the way things are.
And no, it's not just another platform. That's not how most people look at it. It's how you look at it. It's how I look at it. But to most people there are computers and then there are Macs. You simply cannot compare the two for a great many things, with some exception of course.
If Apple sees a real market for the midpro, they'll build one. But the cons outweigh the pros right now. It could convolute the product line (4 desktops?) and cannibalize Mac Pro sales. They're not going to take those risks unless they're damn sure it's going to sell very well. Since they haven't released one for years, they obviously don't think it's a good idea.
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative. You're asking for a new product, not me. Think about it. Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea. It's the way business works. They're not going to say..."gee...nice idea, just prove to us that isn't not a market and we'll pull the trigger." Come on. Surely you see this.
Look, I have no doubt that there are number of posters her who want a midpro. But 1) They don't constitute a large enough market apparently and 2) most of them want it for reasons that are really not all that solid.
And the fact that it's limited by cooling limitations of the all in one design. The iMac is best as a relatively high end family computer. Apple and the Mac community makes it out to be more than it really is.
You can't be serious. Are you? OK, let's assume you really are....
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience. People buy them because that's what's available in large part. Often, when they see the advantages of the AIO (e.g. the iMac), they opt for it. Windows is one thing and the Mac is another. It's just the way things are.
And no, it's not just another platform. That's not how most people look at it. It's how you look at it. It's how I look at it. But to most people there are computers and then there are Macs. You simply cannot compare the two for a great many things, with some exception of course.
If Apple sees a real market for the midpro, they'll build one. But the cons outweigh the pros right now. It could convolute the product line (4 desktops?) and cannibalize Mac Pro sales. They're not going to take those risks unless they're damn sure it's going to sell very well. Since they haven't released one for years, they obviously don't think it's a good idea.
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative. You're asking for a new product, not me. Think about it. Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea. It's the way business works. They're not going to say..."gee...nice idea, just prove to us that isn't not a market and we'll pull the trigger." Come on. Surely you see this.
Look, I have no doubt that there are number of posters her who want a midpro. But 1) They don't constitute a large enough market apparently and 2) most of them want it for reasons that are really not all that solid.
What cons? The chance that some of the other 94% might want to come on board? That Apple could be be an even larger company than they are now. That the world's best OS might not be wasted on a bunch of narrow minded extremists?
Apple's hardware offerings are fine if they are only a niche computer maker in a larger, more diverse market. Since Apple won't let anyone else lay with their toys, they are the platform.
The biggest 'need' is lower cost, than a Mac Pro. Many people 'could' afford a Mac Pro, or save up for one, but they use their money more wisely.
It's not unwise to buy a machine that you need. If they have the money and need the power, they should buy the Mac Pro. If they don't have the money, they should save. If they don't need the power, they should buy an iMac.
Quote:
These same people don't buy an 18 wheeler if they need a pickup. I know, I do exaggerate. And the used market is an alternative, which doesn't help Apple's revenue stream.
Once again, Apple's revenue stream is not your problem. I don't know about you, but Im not in the corporate welfare biz.
Quote:
The biggest 'want' is to eliminate desk clutter and put much into the computer case. I consider mine my audio workstation, even thought the Mac is not a workstation class computer. It does the work I need to do.
Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter.
Quote:
By the way, I just saw a movie where the audio was recorded on tape. How quickly technology changes. It was titled, I'll Be There.
Great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REM#1
People want to buy what fits their needs not just what the company wants to sell them.
"Needs" is the operative word. I submit that people don't want to buy what they need, but what they want. They want it for a variety of reasons, few of which are meaningful.
Quote:
I don't use an iMac because I want to pick and choose what monitor and video card I will use not Apples choice.
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
Quote:
I don't need the power that a Mac pro has.
I don't get that. What don't you need,,,the quad core? Or the dual? You can get a new dual for $2000 or so. Used, you can pick up one for $1700-1800. That's what you'd pay for your tower anyway, or close to it.
Quote:
I use Photoshop, but as an amateur photographer, and would rather spend some of the money that I would have to spend on a Mac Pro on a better camera, More RAM, and larger hard drive.
You're not talking about much difference anyway. And if you really don't need that much power, a MB would do you fine.
Quote:
I have clients that a true pros and need the power of a Mac Pro or more.
My Ideal Mini tower would be as follows:
1 CPU
2 PCI slots (what ever is the fastest at the time)
4 RAM slots (capable of using 2GB modules)
2 Hard Drive bays
2 Optical drive bays
3 USB 2.0 connectors (1 in front for my camera)
1 head phone jack in Front
1 Firewire 400 jack
1 Firewire 800 jack
1 eSata jack
So basically an iMac without the monitor. What do you envision this thing costing? With the slots and drive bays, you have to be looking at $1500. You'll have a very small market for this, though I'll concede you're as close a person as I've found that really might "need" one. The problem is there aren't that many people like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Look, I'd like Apple to start Mac Pro pricing at $1799. just as much as everyone else.
However, it's important to note that Apple does see a limited market for cheaper Mac Pros.
That's why they have a Clearance section on the Apple Store.
If you time if right and purchase just after the next major rev, you'll likely get a real Mac Pro close to the price you're looking for.
It's not unwise to buy a machine that you need. If they have the money and need the power, they should buy the Mac Pro. If they don't have the money, they should save. If they don't need the power, they should buy an iMac.
In other words, if I don't have the money for a an 18-wheeler, haul my goods in the back of a civic instead. That's about how wise the gap is.
Quote:
Once again, Apple's revenue stream is not your problem. I don't know about you, but Im not in the corporate welfare biz.
Apple's revenue stream is everybody's business as they are a publicly traded company. the stockowners own the company, not Jobs.
[quote]Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter. [/qupte]
Only if you're willing to accept it as it with all its flaws.
Quote:
"Needs" is the operative word. I submit that people don't want to buy what they need, but what they want. They want it for a variety of reasons, few of which are meaningful.
If were by what people actually need to run the software, the entire lineup would consist of a 19" integrated graphics machine with a small laptop hard drive and a 500 series celeron. It will run the software. However, the devil is really in the details. The market is driven by what the consumer wants to buy, not what steve wants to sell you.
Quote:
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
Which once again only gives you outdated tech and earns Apple $0
Quote:
I don't get that. What don't you need,,,the quad core? Or the dual? You can get a new dual for $2000 or so. Used, you can pick up one for $1700-1800. That's what you'd pay for your tower anyway, or close to it.
The server motherboard, FB-DIMMS, and second CPU which add about $1000 to the bottom line, but no advantages to a high end consumer or low end pro.
Quote:
You're not talking about much difference anyway. And if you really don't need that much power, a MB would do you fine.
Really. if you don't need the power of a workstation you need a low end IG laptop instead. That just upped the anti. Its now going from a Fit to an 18-wheeler.
The biggest 'need' is lower cost, than a Mac Pro. Many people 'could' afford a Mac Pro, or save up for one, but they use their money more wisely. These same people don't buy an 18 wheeler if they need a pickup. I know, I do exaggerate. And the used market is an alternative, which doesn't help Apple's revenue stream.
...........snip......
I think the used market does help Apple financially!
Every time I sell my current Mac, I go and buy a new Mac. The people who have always bought my Macs have said they always wanted a Mac, but couldn't afford or wouldn't spend the money it would take them to buy a new Mac.
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience.
If I believed what you say, then I would conclude that Apple responds to market demands, and Wintel makers do not.. (Earlier you said essentially that Apple would make a mini tower if there were a big demand for one.) Since most business have educated marketing people, you are obviously wrong.
One classic case is explained in a book that was required reading in the MBA program. It's called Marketing Myopia. Don't make buggy whips when the customer base is driving cars. Wintel makers know what customers want as well as Apple.
I believe Apple knows, but has chosen to not respond. It's a little like playing with fire.
Quote:
Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea.
True, of course. Yet if competition were selling carloads of product A, and your company were making product B because the CEO believes this is what people want, then you have a logical right, even duty, to ask for proof that there is no market for product A. It works both ways.
Quote:
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative.
Maybe you are thinking of the fact that you cannot prove a theory true, but can only prove it false? Think scientists. They do not look for reasons that their theory works. Scientist spend their time and energy trying to disprove it. The idea is that the more failed attempts to disprove it build confidence in it being true. I don't believe that marketing folks go to this extreme.
I think the used market does help Apple financially!
Every time I sell my current Mac, I go and buy a new Mac. The people who have always bought my Macs have said they always wanted a Mac, but couldn't afford or wouldn't spend the money it would take them to buy a new Mac.
I started out with Macs buying new machines. Now I have moved into buying them used. It makes sense seeing how Apple keeps the new machine entry prices inflated, always dropping the low end models just before they would have to become affordable, and caps the performance of its lineup by using mobile parts on everything.
As soon as you realize every Intel dualcore based Mac is more or less equivalent to all the others - yes, I mean that newest shiny machine in the store is mostly equivalent to the one year old used Core Duo unit that is half the price - you start saving. Lots.
Back in the G4 stagnation days, the situation was somewhat similar due to genuine technical trouble but at least in the face of the competitors' stronger hardware Apple had to lower prices and an equilibrium of sorts was preserved.
I suppose the used market has helped Apple in my case, since like you say, me selling cheap machines has lowered the entry point for some. On the other hand, without the ability to sell and buy used I'd have probably already ditched Apple whereas I'm now buying computers off people, enabling them to go buy new ones, possibly from Apple.
iBook was good value for me, but nothing else has been at new prices. Quite simply, I'm tolerating the hardware and its pricing because of the software. It's definitely good and competetive hardware in general, but not in line with my needs.
As a PC power user and a Mac user, there is one key difference that has not yet really been touched upon:
PC parts are more cost effective than laptop parts. What does this mean? you can essentially a) make a pc with the same price as a Mini or iMac with more power. This is why towers are more widely produced than AIO's and SSF's, NOT because it's what they "always have" made, as SDW2001 said; and b) you can make a pc with the same amount of power the average power user would need from a Mac Pro for half the cost JUST because you are not using a server processor, motherboard and RAM.
Also, THIS is the reason why PC's are not only cheaper, but more widely produced. There is a wider profit margin because they do not have a vertical monopoly like Apple does. Apple controls how everything is used together, whereas Microsoft leaves alot to the manufacturers of hardware, software, and peripherals (which is one reason for such varying performance and compatibility).
Also, Mac-specific parts are generally more expensive.
Next arguement: You don't want a used Mac Pro because the "tech is outdated?" You're kicking yourself. Anything on a consumer or prosumer level is using technology that has been in use for a while before reaching the average prosumer level. Case in point: HP uses Voodoo PC, a boutique specialty PC builder, to test new high-end technologies before they become cost effective enough for the regular consumer market. Dual Core? That WAS high end pro-level stuff over a year ago, but now it's the bare minimum people will consider in a new PC. Quad Core will be the same in a year or two, if not less.
An expandable Mac? Great idea! just upgrade a few of the parts you need to rather than buying a whole new system. Why not get a Mac Pro? Same reason you would get a Corvette rather than a Ferrari. More cost effective for the performance level (similar performance and rougher finish for 1/3 the cost), and more aftermarket support to make it better in the long run even if it still isn't as polished and high-end.
In truth, to equate the performance of an iMac, it would be at a much lower cost for a PC-based system. Why? because the iMac uses more expensive laptop parts. A PC is cheaper to upgrade in the future than an iMac, and can be done so in stages as budget allows. Also, the wider variety of parts available and the varying price/performance of parts allows for more versatility than what Apple allows. You want to game? spend $2000 or less and you can still get dual-core, 2-3GB of RAM, and dual GOOD QUALITY graphics cards.
Let's face it: Because Macs are unopposed in the hardware field solely because the Mac vs. PC rivalry is Apples to Oranges, Apple is not as inclined to introduce better technology at a competitive price. Case in point: MacBooks still use CCFL backlit displays even though Windows laptops are starting to make the transition to LED backlit screens, which are not only more environmentally safe, but slimmer and more efficient, not to mention brighter too.
Don't forget that internal HD's are faster than external HD's. PCs can have more internal HD's than an iMac. THIS IS A VALID POINT. The reason for an iMac being AIO is to reduce clutter; this is moot when you need an external HD or audio card, or USB hub, or all three. Also, iMac speakers are okay, but high-quality external speakers will always be better.
Me? I would go build a PC with an OSX hack (like OSX86) so it'll run OSX and Vista/XP. Let's face it, for everything Macs can do better than a PC, and for all of the inherent faults of PCs, there are still some things that only a PC can do. Macs come with ComicLife, but don't even include a basic Painting/Drawing program to go with it? That's BS. Windows Media Player lets you fullscreen anything out of the box, but you have to pay $30 for Quicktime to do the same? I don't think so. Apple does alot of things right, but they need to get some of their other priorities in order.
To better understand the argument, those of you sufficiently versed in history should compare Microsoft and Apple to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, respectively for the whole Vertical vs. Horizontal monopoly thing.
As a side note, ALL computer manufacturers used proprietary hardware/technology in desktops up until the early 90's where the common and universal ATX form factor was put into service. This ultimately brought down prices to the point where a PC could be a common household item. Proprietary (like Mac) = high price.
p.s. For there to be a mass migration from Windows to Mac, the price difference needs to go away. You can get a PC with a monitor for $500 or under, or one without for less than $400. A mac w/o is still $700, because they use propriety¬ebook technology instead of basic desktop tech. A Windows laptop can also be had for as little as $400.
On another note, last time I checked, iMacs (last generation included) could tilt their screens downward about 5 or more degrees, similar to regular desktop monitors. Am I wrong?
In other words, if I don't have the money for a an 18-wheeler, haul my goods in the back of a civic instead. That's about how wise the gap is.
That's a dumb analogy. It's not how wide the gap is at all. The Mac Pro is not some bloated supercomputer out of reach of the consumer.
Quote:
Apple's revenue stream is everybody's business as they are a publicly traded company. the stockowners own the company, not Jobs.
That is so obtuse I almost don't know where to begin. The point is you can't base a computer purchase decision on what's good for Apple. I mean, really. You can't be serious.
Quote:
Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter.
Quote:
Only if you're willing to accept it as it with all its flaws.
Grasping at straws. What flaws would that be exactly?
Quote:
If were by what people actually need to run the software, the entire lineup would consist of a 19" integrated graphics machine with a small laptop hard drive and a 500 series celeron. It will run the software. However, the devil is really in the details. The market is driven by what the consumer wants to buy, not what steve wants to sell you.
I don't really know what that means. I never claimed that all people need to do is run the software. But there are machines that run it quite well, and none of the are midpro towers.
Quote:
Which once again only gives you outdated tech and earns Apple $0
First, stop talking about how much money Apple earns. You sound ridiculous. That should not be a factor. I just bought a mattress today. Do you think I care how much money the manufacturer made? Seriously...you're just being emotional. Secondly, I thought the Mac Pro was too much computer? Why would it matter if it's 6 months or a year old? It's still more expandable. It's not outdated in any way that would matter. It's still more powerful than any midpro you would buy.
Quote:
The server motherboard, FB-DIMMS, and second CPU which add about $1000 to the bottom line, but no advantages to a high end consumer or low end pro.
So again, you basically want an iMac. Gotcha.
Quote:
Really. if you don't need the power of a workstation you need a low end IG laptop instead. That just upped the anti. Its now going from a Fit to an 18-wheeler.
Again, dumb analogy. The Mac Pro at the bottom end is what you're looking for.
If I believed what you say, then I would conclude that Apple responds to market demands, and Wintel makers do not.. (Earlier you said essentially that Apple would make a mini tower if there were a big demand for one.) Since most business have educated marketing people, you are obviously wrong.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by this. It's rather convoluted, so I'll just boil down my point and ask you to try again.
1) Apple would respond to overwhelming demand for a mid pro tower. They know the market better than you do.
2) It's a potentially false assumption to believe that because there are lots of Wintel towers, there is demand for an Apple tower too. The markets are different.
3) Beyond #2, Apple is different. They're not going to release a product just because Wintel does. They often try to do something totally different.
Quote:
One classic case is explained in a book that was required reading in the MBA program. It's called Marketing Myopia. Don't make buggy whips when the customer base is driving cars. Wintel makers know what customers want as well as Apple.
Well first, that doesn't follow the example. But let's put that aside. Wintel's market is not quite the same as Apple's. So there's your answer.
Quote:
I believe Apple knows, but has chosen to not respond. It's a little like playing with fire.
It's nothing like playing with fire actually, nor does your assertion make any sense. Apple is not going to let a truly blank market segment stay that way very long. Why would they do that? Just to be dicks? They're going to do what's profitable and what drives their bran forward. They also have good reasons for the structure of their product matrix. If they saw a clear opening, they'd make the product.
Quote:
True, of course. Yet if competition were selling carloads of product A, and your company were making product B because the CEO believes this is what people want, then you have a logical right, even duty, to ask for proof that there is no market for product A. It works both ways.
Silly, flawed analogy. Apple is selling millions upon millions of Macs and profiting in record fashion. They're not making a product no one wants. That is, unless they release another cube, aka mid pro.
Quote:
Maybe you are thinking of the fact that you cannot prove a theory true, but can only prove it false?
One cannot prove a negative. That's what I'm thinking. For example, prove UFOs don't exist. Prove that I'm not watching Every Loves Raymond right now. Prove that the mid pro doesn't have a market.
Quote:
Think scientists. They do not look for reasons that their theory works. Scientist spend their time and energy trying to disprove it. The idea is that the more failed attempts to disprove it build confidence in it being true. I don't believe that marketing folks go to this extreme.
You're getting nutso now. That might sound good, but in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product. At least the companies that make money.
That's a dumb analogy. It's not how wide the gap is at all. The Mac Pro is not some bloated supercomputer out of reach of the consumer.
actually that is exactly what it is. Why do you think you don't see high end gaming machine using xeons?
Quote:
That is so obtuse I almost don't know where to begin. The point is you can't base a computer purchase decision on what's good for Apple. I mean, really. You can't be serious.
That seems to be what's happening more and more.
Quote:
Grasping at straws. What flaws would that be exactly?
That I have to put a big ugly box on my desk if i want to have time machine support or yet another big ugly box if i don't want a nice break if I burn a disc or transfer files from one or that I'm limited to this lower mid range 2600 Pro, or that I have have the RAM potential of a real desktop or that if a new connection technologies comes along I have to buy a new computer. If I'm just reading emails or letting Apple make all my decisions for me this is fine.
Quote:
I don't really know what that means. I never claimed that all people need to do is run the software. But there are machines that run it quite well, and none of the are midpro towers.
You seem to base all your conclusions off the ability to run the run iLife and other Apple software and complete dismissing how fast or how well a user want to run his/her software. Based on that a low end celeron machine with a small hard drive.
Quote:
First, stop talking about how much money Apple earns. You sound ridiculous. That should not be a factor. I just bought a mattress today. Do you think I care how much money the manufacturer made? Seriously...you're just being emotional. Secondly, I thought the Mac Pro was too much computer? Why would it matter if it's 6 months or a year old? It's still more expandable. It's not outdated in any way that would matter. It's still more powerful than any midpro you would buy.
Not in consumer apps. The only difference between a 2.66ghz core 2 Mac and a 2.66ghz Mac Pro would be a grand.
Quote:
So again, you basically want an iMac. Gotcha.
I have it and I find it very disappointing. Great family machine though.
You're basically displaying two things here:
1) You think in two very generals terms with no concept degree: Professionals who need a Mac Pro and consumers who need an iMac. You assume that all users in those two groups do basically the same things and thus all need roughly the same computer.
2) You have no way to gather information rather than what comes out of Steve's mouth at keynotes and unquestionably take it as the undeniable truth.
As a PC power user and a Mac user, there is one key difference that has not yet really been touched upon:
PC parts are more cost effective than laptop parts. What does this mean? you can essentially a) make a pc with the same price as a Mini or iMac with more power. This is why towers are more widely produced than AIO's and SSF's, NOT because it's what they "always have" made, as SDW2001 said; and b) you can make a pc with the same amount of power the average power user would need from a Mac Pro for half the cost JUST because you are not using a server processor, motherboard and RAM.
Excellent point. I didn't get into that much detail, which I should have.
Quote:
Also, THIS is the reason why PC's are not only cheaper, but more widely produced. There is a wider profit margin because they do not have a vertical monopoly like Apple does. Apple controls how everything is used together, whereas Microsoft leaves alot to the manufacturers of hardware, software, and peripherals (which is one reason for such varying performance and compatibility).
Also, Mac-specific parts are generally more expensive.
Another good point. Though Apple uses many more industry standard parts than it used to.
Quote:
Next arguement: You don't want a used Mac Pro because the "tech is outdated?" You're kicking yourself. Anything on a consumer or prosumer level is using technology that has been in use for a while before reaching the average prosumer level. Case in point: HP uses Voodoo PC, a boutique specialty PC builder, to test new high-end technologies before they become cost effective enough for the regular consumer market. Dual Core? That WAS high end pro-level stuff over a year ago, but now it's the bare minimum people will consider in a new PC. Quad Core will be the same in a year or two, if not less.
Another excellent point! The tech is not going to be "outdated" per se. Not in any meaningful way.
Quote:
An expandable Mac? Great idea! just upgrade a few of the parts you need to rather than buying a whole new system. Why not get a Mac Pro? Same reason you would get a Corvette rather than a Ferrari. More cost effective for the performance level (similar performance and rougher finish for 1/3 the cost), and more aftermarket support to make it better in the long run even if it still isn't as polished and high-end.
I can shed some light on this. It's because we have a lot of folks here that base their self worth and image on what computer they have. They think they have special "needs" when in fact they have "wants." They don't want a used machine. They don't want a plebeian iMac! They're POWER USERS! They're PROSUMERS! I bet most of them don't even really need expandability like they think they do.
Quote:
In truth, to equate the performance of an iMac, it would be at a much lower cost for a PC-based system. Why? because the iMac uses more expensive laptop parts. A PC is cheaper to upgrade in the future than an iMac, and can be done so in stages as budget allows. Also, the wider variety of parts available and the varying price/performance of parts allows for more versatility than what Apple allows. You want to game? spend $2000 or less and you can still get dual-core, 2-3GB of RAM, and dual GOOD QUALITY graphics cards.
Well said.
Quote:
Let's face it: Because Macs are unopposed in the hardware field solely because the Mac vs. PC rivalry is Apples to Oranges, Apple is not as inclined to introduce better technology at a competitive price. Case in point: MacBooks still use CCFL backlit displays even though Windows laptops are starting to make the transition to LED backlit screens, which are not only more environmentally safe, but slimmer and more efficient, not to mention brighter too.
Generally good point, though Apple is now making the LED transition.
Quote:
Don't forget that internal HD's are faster than external HD's. PCs can have more internal HD's than an iMac. THIS IS A VALID POINT. The reason for an iMac being AIO is to reduce clutter; this is moot when you need an external HD or audio card, or USB hub, or all three. Also, iMac speakers are okay, but high-quality external speakers will always be better.
It's not really valid because Apple offers the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Me? I would go build a PC with an OSX hack (like OSX86) so it'll run OSX and Vista/XP. Let's face it, for everything Macs can do better than a PC, and for all of the inherent faults of PCs, there are still some things that only a PC can do.
Not many things, if any.
Quote:
Macs come with ComicLife, but don't even include a basic Painting/Drawing program to go with it? That's BS. Windows Media Player lets you fullscreen anything out of the box, but you have to pay $30 for Quicktime to do the same? I don't think so. Apple does alot of things right, but they need to get some of their other priorities in order.
Those are minor quibbles. I do agree about QuickTime.
Quote:
To better understand the argument, those of you sufficiently versed in history should compare Microsoft and Apple to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, respectively for the whole Vertical vs. Horizontal monopoly thing.
As a side note, ALL computer manufacturers used proprietary hardware/technology in desktops up until the early 90's where the common and universal ATX form factor was put into service. This ultimately brought down prices to the point where a PC could be a common household item. Proprietary (like Mac) = high price.
p.s. For there to be a mass migration from Windows to Mac, the price difference needs to go away. You can get a PC with a monitor for $500 or under, or one without for less than $400. A mac w/o is still $700, because they use propriety¬ebook technology instead of basic desktop tech. A Windows laptop can also be had for as little as $400.
On another note, last time I checked, iMacs (last generation included) could tilt their screens downward about 5 or more degrees, similar to regular desktop monitors. Am I wrong?
There are a lot of points there, and mostly good ones at that. However, Apple really isn't going to get rid of the price difference completely. They don't need to. Apple looks at itself as the BMW of computers. They don't need to compete with Chevy.
Comments
I don't use an iMac because I want to pick and choose what monitor and video card I will use not Apples choice.
Just curious, what do you think is wrong with apples choice for the iMacs monitor/video card?
Just curious, what do you think is wrong with apples choice for the iMacs monitor/video card?
the lack of choice
However, it's important to note that Apple does see a limited market for cheaper Mac Pros.
That's why they have a Clearance section on the Apple Store.
If you time if right and purchase just after the next major rev, you'll likely get a real Mac Pro close to the price you're looking for.
You bring up a point that can be refuted by your own, earlier, argument. You say people buy [expandable towers] on the Windows side, because that is what's offered. Well, in an earlier argument against me, you said, "Don't you think if there was overwhelming demand [for such a product] Apple would release it?"
So using your own argument: If there were overwhelming demand for an AIO, the makers of Windows computers would build it. QED (What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so they say.)
So stop side stepping the fact that consumer buying habits on the Windows side are indeed a valid indication of what they would buy on the Mac side. We are all computer users. Windows is just another platform.
So, you have had our proof. Where is yours? Stop telling us to demonstrate there is a market, and tell up how you are so sure there is none, or a market so small it is not worth considering.
You can't be serious. Are you? OK, let's assume you really are....
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience. People buy them because that's what's available in large part. Often, when they see the advantages of the AIO (e.g. the iMac), they opt for it. Windows is one thing and the Mac is another. It's just the way things are.
And no, it's not just another platform. That's not how most people look at it. It's how you look at it. It's how I look at it. But to most people there are computers and then there are Macs. You simply cannot compare the two for a great many things, with some exception of course.
If Apple sees a real market for the midpro, they'll build one. But the cons outweigh the pros right now. It could convolute the product line (4 desktops?) and cannibalize Mac Pro sales. They're not going to take those risks unless they're damn sure it's going to sell very well. Since they haven't released one for years, they obviously don't think it's a good idea.
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative. You're asking for a new product, not me. Think about it. Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea. It's the way business works. They're not going to say..."gee...nice idea, just prove to us that isn't not a market and we'll pull the trigger." Come on. Surely you see this.
Look, I have no doubt that there are number of posters her who want a midpro. But 1) They don't constitute a large enough market apparently and 2) most of them want it for reasons that are really not all that solid.
the lack of choice
And the fact that it's limited by cooling limitations of the all in one design. The iMac is best as a relatively high end family computer. Apple and the Mac community makes it out to be more than it really is.
You can't be serious. Are you? OK, let's assume you really are....
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience. People buy them because that's what's available in large part. Often, when they see the advantages of the AIO (e.g. the iMac), they opt for it. Windows is one thing and the Mac is another. It's just the way things are.
And no, it's not just another platform. That's not how most people look at it. It's how you look at it. It's how I look at it. But to most people there are computers and then there are Macs. You simply cannot compare the two for a great many things, with some exception of course.
If Apple sees a real market for the midpro, they'll build one. But the cons outweigh the pros right now. It could convolute the product line (4 desktops?) and cannibalize Mac Pro sales. They're not going to take those risks unless they're damn sure it's going to sell very well. Since they haven't released one for years, they obviously don't think it's a good idea.
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative. You're asking for a new product, not me. Think about it. Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea. It's the way business works. They're not going to say..."gee...nice idea, just prove to us that isn't not a market and we'll pull the trigger." Come on. Surely you see this.
Look, I have no doubt that there are number of posters her who want a midpro. But 1) They don't constitute a large enough market apparently and 2) most of them want it for reasons that are really not all that solid.
What cons? The chance that some of the other 94% might want to come on board? That Apple could be be an even larger company than they are now. That the world's best OS might not be wasted on a bunch of narrow minded extremists?
Apple's hardware offerings are fine if they are only a niche computer maker in a larger, more diverse market. Since Apple won't let anyone else lay with their toys, they are the platform.
The biggest 'need' is lower cost, than a Mac Pro. Many people 'could' afford a Mac Pro, or save up for one, but they use their money more wisely.
It's not unwise to buy a machine that you need. If they have the money and need the power, they should buy the Mac Pro. If they don't have the money, they should save. If they don't need the power, they should buy an iMac.
These same people don't buy an 18 wheeler if they need a pickup. I know, I do exaggerate. And the used market is an alternative, which doesn't help Apple's revenue stream.
Once again, Apple's revenue stream is not your problem. I don't know about you, but Im not in the corporate welfare biz.
The biggest 'want' is to eliminate desk clutter and put much into the computer case. I consider mine my audio workstation, even thought the Mac is not a workstation class computer. It does the work I need to do.
Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter.
By the way, I just saw a movie where the audio was recorded on tape. How quickly technology changes. It was titled, I'll Be There.
Great.
People want to buy what fits their needs not just what the company wants to sell them.
"Needs" is the operative word. I submit that people don't want to buy what they need, but what they want. They want it for a variety of reasons, few of which are meaningful.
I don't use an iMac because I want to pick and choose what monitor and video card I will use not Apples choice.
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
I don't need the power that a Mac pro has.
I don't get that. What don't you need,,,the quad core? Or the dual? You can get a new dual for $2000 or so. Used, you can pick up one for $1700-1800. That's what you'd pay for your tower anyway, or close to it.
I use Photoshop, but as an amateur photographer, and would rather spend some of the money that I would have to spend on a Mac Pro on a better camera, More RAM, and larger hard drive.
You're not talking about much difference anyway. And if you really don't need that much power, a MB would do you fine.
I have clients that a true pros and need the power of a Mac Pro or more.
My Ideal Mini tower would be as follows:
1 CPU
2 PCI slots (what ever is the fastest at the time)
4 RAM slots (capable of using 2GB modules)
2 Hard Drive bays
2 Optical drive bays
3 USB 2.0 connectors (1 in front for my camera)
1 head phone jack in Front
1 Firewire 400 jack
1 Firewire 800 jack
1 eSata jack
So basically an iMac without the monitor. What do you envision this thing costing? With the slots and drive bays, you have to be looking at $1500. You'll have a very small market for this, though I'll concede you're as close a person as I've found that really might "need" one. The problem is there aren't that many people like you.
Look, I'd like Apple to start Mac Pro pricing at $1799. just as much as everyone else.
However, it's important to note that Apple does see a limited market for cheaper Mac Pros.
That's why they have a Clearance section on the Apple Store.
If you time if right and purchase just after the next major rev, you'll likely get a real Mac Pro close to the price you're looking for.
Exactly.
It's not unwise to buy a machine that you need. If they have the money and need the power, they should buy the Mac Pro. If they don't have the money, they should save. If they don't need the power, they should buy an iMac.
In other words, if I don't have the money for a an 18-wheeler, haul my goods in the back of a civic instead. That's about how wise the gap is.
Once again, Apple's revenue stream is not your problem. I don't know about you, but Im not in the corporate welfare biz.
Apple's revenue stream is everybody's business as they are a publicly traded company. the stockowners own the company, not Jobs.
[quote]Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter. [/qupte]
Only if you're willing to accept it as it with all its flaws.
"Needs" is the operative word. I submit that people don't want to buy what they need, but what they want. They want it for a variety of reasons, few of which are meaningful.
If were by what people actually need to run the software, the entire lineup would consist of a 19" integrated graphics machine with a small laptop hard drive and a 500 series celeron. It will run the software. However, the devil is really in the details. The market is driven by what the consumer wants to buy, not what steve wants to sell you.
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
Which once again only gives you outdated tech and earns Apple $0
I don't get that. What don't you need,,,the quad core? Or the dual? You can get a new dual for $2000 or so. Used, you can pick up one for $1700-1800. That's what you'd pay for your tower anyway, or close to it.
The server motherboard, FB-DIMMS, and second CPU which add about $1000 to the bottom line, but no advantages to a high end consumer or low end pro.
You're not talking about much difference anyway. And if you really don't need that much power, a MB would do you fine.
Really. if you don't need the power of a workstation you need a low end IG laptop instead. That just upped the anti. Its now going from a Fit to an 18-wheeler.
The biggest 'need' is lower cost, than a Mac Pro. Many people 'could' afford a Mac Pro, or save up for one, but they use their money more wisely. These same people don't buy an 18 wheeler if they need a pickup. I know, I do exaggerate. And the used market is an alternative, which doesn't help Apple's revenue stream.
...........snip......
I think the used market does help Apple financially!
Every time I sell my current Mac, I go and buy a new Mac. The people who have always bought my Macs have said they always wanted a Mac, but couldn't afford or wouldn't spend the money it would take them to buy a new Mac.
Just curious, what do you think is wrong with apples choice for the iMacs monitor/video card?
I can't speak for REM#1, but:
Wintel makers don't make towers because there is a huge demand for them. They make them because that's what they make and pretty much always have. It's basically a captive audience.
If I believed what you say, then I would conclude that Apple responds to market demands, and Wintel makers do not.. (Earlier you said essentially that Apple would make a mini tower if there were a big demand for one.) Since most business have educated marketing people, you are obviously wrong.
One classic case is explained in a book that was required reading in the MBA program. It's called Marketing Myopia. Don't make buggy whips when the customer base is driving cars. Wintel makers know what customers want as well as Apple.
I believe Apple knows, but has chosen to not respond. It's a little like playing with fire.
Let's say you work for XYZ widget company. You have 6 product lines, and you come up with an idea for a 7th. Your bosses are going to ask you to show (or someone to show) that there is a market for the idea.
True, of course. Yet if competition were selling carloads of product A, and your company were making product B because the CEO believes this is what people want, then you have a logical right, even duty, to ask for proof that there is no market for product A. It works both ways.
Now, proof. Let me say again: You cannot ask one to prove a negative.
Maybe you are thinking of the fact that you cannot prove a theory true, but can only prove it false? Think scientists. They do not look for reasons that their theory works. Scientist spend their time and energy trying to disprove it. The idea is that the more failed attempts to disprove it build confidence in it being true. I don't believe that marketing folks go to this extreme.
I think the used market does help Apple financially!
Every time I sell my current Mac, I go and buy a new Mac. The people who have always bought my Macs have said they always wanted a Mac, but couldn't afford or wouldn't spend the money it would take them to buy a new Mac.
I started out with Macs buying new machines. Now I have moved into buying them used. It makes sense seeing how Apple keeps the new machine entry prices inflated, always dropping the low end models just before they would have to become affordable, and caps the performance of its lineup by using mobile parts on everything.
As soon as you realize every Intel dualcore based Mac is more or less equivalent to all the others - yes, I mean that newest shiny machine in the store is mostly equivalent to the one year old used Core Duo unit that is half the price - you start saving. Lots.
Back in the G4 stagnation days, the situation was somewhat similar due to genuine technical trouble but at least in the face of the competitors' stronger hardware Apple had to lower prices and an equilibrium of sorts was preserved.
I suppose the used market has helped Apple in my case, since like you say, me selling cheap machines has lowered the entry point for some. On the other hand, without the ability to sell and buy used I'd have probably already ditched Apple whereas I'm now buying computers off people, enabling them to go buy new ones, possibly from Apple.
iBook was good value for me, but nothing else has been at new prices. Quite simply, I'm tolerating the hardware and its pricing because of the software. It's definitely good and competetive hardware in general, but not in line with my needs.
As a PC power user and a Mac user, there is one key difference that has not yet really been touched upon:
PC parts are more cost effective than laptop parts. What does this mean? you can essentially a) make a pc with the same price as a Mini or iMac with more power. This is why towers are more widely produced than AIO's and SSF's, NOT because it's what they "always have" made, as SDW2001 said; and b) you can make a pc with the same amount of power the average power user would need from a Mac Pro for half the cost JUST because you are not using a server processor, motherboard and RAM.
Also, THIS is the reason why PC's are not only cheaper, but more widely produced. There is a wider profit margin because they do not have a vertical monopoly like Apple does. Apple controls how everything is used together, whereas Microsoft leaves alot to the manufacturers of hardware, software, and peripherals (which is one reason for such varying performance and compatibility).
Also, Mac-specific parts are generally more expensive.
Next arguement: You don't want a used Mac Pro because the "tech is outdated?" You're kicking yourself. Anything on a consumer or prosumer level is using technology that has been in use for a while before reaching the average prosumer level. Case in point: HP uses Voodoo PC, a boutique specialty PC builder, to test new high-end technologies before they become cost effective enough for the regular consumer market. Dual Core? That WAS high end pro-level stuff over a year ago, but now it's the bare minimum people will consider in a new PC. Quad Core will be the same in a year or two, if not less.
An expandable Mac? Great idea! just upgrade a few of the parts you need to rather than buying a whole new system. Why not get a Mac Pro? Same reason you would get a Corvette rather than a Ferrari. More cost effective for the performance level (similar performance and rougher finish for 1/3 the cost), and more aftermarket support to make it better in the long run even if it still isn't as polished and high-end.
In truth, to equate the performance of an iMac, it would be at a much lower cost for a PC-based system. Why? because the iMac uses more expensive laptop parts. A PC is cheaper to upgrade in the future than an iMac, and can be done so in stages as budget allows. Also, the wider variety of parts available and the varying price/performance of parts allows for more versatility than what Apple allows. You want to game? spend $2000 or less and you can still get dual-core, 2-3GB of RAM, and dual GOOD QUALITY graphics cards.
Let's face it: Because Macs are unopposed in the hardware field solely because the Mac vs. PC rivalry is Apples to Oranges, Apple is not as inclined to introduce better technology at a competitive price. Case in point: MacBooks still use CCFL backlit displays even though Windows laptops are starting to make the transition to LED backlit screens, which are not only more environmentally safe, but slimmer and more efficient, not to mention brighter too.
Don't forget that internal HD's are faster than external HD's. PCs can have more internal HD's than an iMac. THIS IS A VALID POINT. The reason for an iMac being AIO is to reduce clutter; this is moot when you need an external HD or audio card, or USB hub, or all three. Also, iMac speakers are okay, but high-quality external speakers will always be better.
Me? I would go build a PC with an OSX hack (like OSX86) so it'll run OSX and Vista/XP. Let's face it, for everything Macs can do better than a PC, and for all of the inherent faults of PCs, there are still some things that only a PC can do. Macs come with ComicLife, but don't even include a basic Painting/Drawing program to go with it? That's BS. Windows Media Player lets you fullscreen anything out of the box, but you have to pay $30 for Quicktime to do the same? I don't think so. Apple does alot of things right, but they need to get some of their other priorities in order.
To better understand the argument, those of you sufficiently versed in history should compare Microsoft and Apple to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, respectively for the whole Vertical vs. Horizontal monopoly thing.
As a side note, ALL computer manufacturers used proprietary hardware/technology in desktops up until the early 90's where the common and universal ATX form factor was put into service. This ultimately brought down prices to the point where a PC could be a common household item. Proprietary (like Mac) = high price.
p.s. For there to be a mass migration from Windows to Mac, the price difference needs to go away. You can get a PC with a monitor for $500 or under, or one without for less than $400. A mac w/o is still $700, because they use propriety¬ebook technology instead of basic desktop tech. A Windows laptop can also be had for as little as $400.
On another note, last time I checked, iMacs (last generation included) could tilt their screens downward about 5 or more degrees, similar to regular desktop monitors. Am I wrong?
In other words, if I don't have the money for a an 18-wheeler, haul my goods in the back of a civic instead. That's about how wise the gap is.
That's a dumb analogy. It's not how wide the gap is at all. The Mac Pro is not some bloated supercomputer out of reach of the consumer.
Apple's revenue stream is everybody's business as they are a publicly traded company. the stockowners own the company, not Jobs.
That is so obtuse I almost don't know where to begin. The point is you can't base a computer purchase decision on what's good for Apple. I mean, really. You can't be serious.
Then why not by an iMac? That's less clutter.
Only if you're willing to accept it as it with all its flaws.
If were by what people actually need to run the software, the entire lineup would consist of a 19" integrated graphics machine with a small laptop hard drive and a 500 series celeron. It will run the software. However, the devil is really in the details. The market is driven by what the consumer wants to buy, not what steve wants to sell you.
I don't really know what that means. I never claimed that all people need to do is run the software. But there are machines that run it quite well, and none of the are midpro towers.
Which once again only gives you outdated tech and earns Apple $0
First, stop talking about how much money Apple earns. You sound ridiculous. That should not be a factor. I just bought a mattress today. Do you think I care how much money the manufacturer made? Seriously...you're just being emotional. Secondly, I thought the Mac Pro was too much computer? Why would it matter if it's 6 months or a year old? It's still more expandable. It's not outdated in any way that would matter. It's still more powerful than any midpro you would buy.
The server motherboard, FB-DIMMS, and second CPU which add about $1000 to the bottom line, but no advantages to a high end consumer or low end pro.
So again, you basically want an iMac. Gotcha.
Really. if you don't need the power of a workstation you need a low end IG laptop instead. That just upped the anti. Its now going from a Fit to an 18-wheeler.
Again, dumb analogy. The Mac Pro at the bottom end is what you're looking for.
If I believed what you say, then I would conclude that Apple responds to market demands, and Wintel makers do not.. (Earlier you said essentially that Apple would make a mini tower if there were a big demand for one.) Since most business have educated marketing people, you are obviously wrong.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by this. It's rather convoluted, so I'll just boil down my point and ask you to try again.
1) Apple would respond to overwhelming demand for a mid pro tower. They know the market better than you do.
2) It's a potentially false assumption to believe that because there are lots of Wintel towers, there is demand for an Apple tower too. The markets are different.
3) Beyond #2, Apple is different. They're not going to release a product just because Wintel does. They often try to do something totally different.
One classic case is explained in a book that was required reading in the MBA program. It's called Marketing Myopia. Don't make buggy whips when the customer base is driving cars. Wintel makers know what customers want as well as Apple.
Well first, that doesn't follow the example. But let's put that aside. Wintel's market is not quite the same as Apple's. So there's your answer.
I believe Apple knows, but has chosen to not respond. It's a little like playing with fire.
It's nothing like playing with fire actually, nor does your assertion make any sense. Apple is not going to let a truly blank market segment stay that way very long. Why would they do that? Just to be dicks? They're going to do what's profitable and what drives their bran forward. They also have good reasons for the structure of their product matrix. If they saw a clear opening, they'd make the product.
True, of course. Yet if competition were selling carloads of product A, and your company were making product B because the CEO believes this is what people want, then you have a logical right, even duty, to ask for proof that there is no market for product A. It works both ways.
Silly, flawed analogy. Apple is selling millions upon millions of Macs and profiting in record fashion. They're not making a product no one wants. That is, unless they release another cube, aka mid pro.
Maybe you are thinking of the fact that you cannot prove a theory true, but can only prove it false?
One cannot prove a negative. That's what I'm thinking. For example, prove UFOs don't exist. Prove that I'm not watching Every Loves Raymond right now. Prove that the mid pro doesn't have a market.
Think scientists. They do not look for reasons that their theory works. Scientist spend their time and energy trying to disprove it. The idea is that the more failed attempts to disprove it build confidence in it being true. I don't believe that marketing folks go to this extreme.
You're getting nutso now. That might sound good, but in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product. At least the companies that make money.
That's a dumb analogy. It's not how wide the gap is at all. The Mac Pro is not some bloated supercomputer out of reach of the consumer.
actually that is exactly what it is. Why do you think you don't see high end gaming machine using xeons?
That is so obtuse I almost don't know where to begin. The point is you can't base a computer purchase decision on what's good for Apple. I mean, really. You can't be serious.
That seems to be what's happening more and more.
That I have to put a big ugly box on my desk if i want to have time machine support or yet another big ugly box if i don't want a nice break if I burn a disc or transfer files from one or that I'm limited to this lower mid range 2600 Pro, or that I have have the RAM potential of a real desktop or that if a new connection technologies comes along I have to buy a new computer. If I'm just reading emails or letting Apple make all my decisions for me this is fine.
I don't really know what that means. I never claimed that all people need to do is run the software. But there are machines that run it quite well, and none of the are midpro towers.
You seem to base all your conclusions off the ability to run the run iLife and other Apple software and complete dismissing how fast or how well a user want to run his/her software. Based on that a low end celeron machine with a small hard drive.
First, stop talking about how much money Apple earns. You sound ridiculous. That should not be a factor. I just bought a mattress today. Do you think I care how much money the manufacturer made? Seriously...you're just being emotional. Secondly, I thought the Mac Pro was too much computer? Why would it matter if it's 6 months or a year old? It's still more expandable. It's not outdated in any way that would matter. It's still more powerful than any midpro you would buy.
Not in consumer apps. The only difference between a 2.66ghz core 2 Mac and a 2.66ghz Mac Pro would be a grand.
So again, you basically want an iMac. Gotcha.
I have it and I find it very disappointing. Great family machine though.
You're basically displaying two things here:
1) You think in two very generals terms with no concept degree: Professionals who need a Mac Pro and consumers who need an iMac. You assume that all users in those two groups do basically the same things and thus all need roughly the same computer.
2) You have no way to gather information rather than what comes out of Steve's mouth at keynotes and unquestionably take it as the undeniable truth.
Ok, I signed up just to point this out.
As a PC power user and a Mac user, there is one key difference that has not yet really been touched upon:
PC parts are more cost effective than laptop parts. What does this mean? you can essentially a) make a pc with the same price as a Mini or iMac with more power. This is why towers are more widely produced than AIO's and SSF's, NOT because it's what they "always have" made, as SDW2001 said; and b) you can make a pc with the same amount of power the average power user would need from a Mac Pro for half the cost JUST because you are not using a server processor, motherboard and RAM.
Excellent point. I didn't get into that much detail, which I should have.
Also, THIS is the reason why PC's are not only cheaper, but more widely produced. There is a wider profit margin because they do not have a vertical monopoly like Apple does. Apple controls how everything is used together, whereas Microsoft leaves alot to the manufacturers of hardware, software, and peripherals (which is one reason for such varying performance and compatibility).
Also, Mac-specific parts are generally more expensive.
Another good point. Though Apple uses many more industry standard parts than it used to.
Next arguement: You don't want a used Mac Pro because the "tech is outdated?" You're kicking yourself. Anything on a consumer or prosumer level is using technology that has been in use for a while before reaching the average prosumer level. Case in point: HP uses Voodoo PC, a boutique specialty PC builder, to test new high-end technologies before they become cost effective enough for the regular consumer market. Dual Core? That WAS high end pro-level stuff over a year ago, but now it's the bare minimum people will consider in a new PC. Quad Core will be the same in a year or two, if not less.
Another excellent point! The tech is not going to be "outdated" per se. Not in any meaningful way.
An expandable Mac? Great idea! just upgrade a few of the parts you need to rather than buying a whole new system. Why not get a Mac Pro? Same reason you would get a Corvette rather than a Ferrari. More cost effective for the performance level (similar performance and rougher finish for 1/3 the cost), and more aftermarket support to make it better in the long run even if it still isn't as polished and high-end.
I can shed some light on this. It's because we have a lot of folks here that base their self worth and image on what computer they have. They think they have special "needs" when in fact they have "wants." They don't want a used machine. They don't want a plebeian iMac! They're POWER USERS! They're PROSUMERS! I bet most of them don't even really need expandability like they think they do.
In truth, to equate the performance of an iMac, it would be at a much lower cost for a PC-based system. Why? because the iMac uses more expensive laptop parts. A PC is cheaper to upgrade in the future than an iMac, and can be done so in stages as budget allows. Also, the wider variety of parts available and the varying price/performance of parts allows for more versatility than what Apple allows. You want to game? spend $2000 or less and you can still get dual-core, 2-3GB of RAM, and dual GOOD QUALITY graphics cards.
Well said.
Let's face it: Because Macs are unopposed in the hardware field solely because the Mac vs. PC rivalry is Apples to Oranges, Apple is not as inclined to introduce better technology at a competitive price. Case in point: MacBooks still use CCFL backlit displays even though Windows laptops are starting to make the transition to LED backlit screens, which are not only more environmentally safe, but slimmer and more efficient, not to mention brighter too.
Generally good point, though Apple is now making the LED transition.
Don't forget that internal HD's are faster than external HD's. PCs can have more internal HD's than an iMac. THIS IS A VALID POINT. The reason for an iMac being AIO is to reduce clutter; this is moot when you need an external HD or audio card, or USB hub, or all three. Also, iMac speakers are okay, but high-quality external speakers will always be better.
It's not really valid because Apple offers the Mac Pro.
Me? I would go build a PC with an OSX hack (like OSX86) so it'll run OSX and Vista/XP. Let's face it, for everything Macs can do better than a PC, and for all of the inherent faults of PCs, there are still some things that only a PC can do.
Not many things, if any.
Macs come with ComicLife, but don't even include a basic Painting/Drawing program to go with it? That's BS. Windows Media Player lets you fullscreen anything out of the box, but you have to pay $30 for Quicktime to do the same? I don't think so. Apple does alot of things right, but they need to get some of their other priorities in order.
Those are minor quibbles. I do agree about QuickTime.
To better understand the argument, those of you sufficiently versed in history should compare Microsoft and Apple to John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, respectively for the whole Vertical vs. Horizontal monopoly thing.
As a side note, ALL computer manufacturers used proprietary hardware/technology in desktops up until the early 90's where the common and universal ATX form factor was put into service. This ultimately brought down prices to the point where a PC could be a common household item. Proprietary (like Mac) = high price.
p.s. For there to be a mass migration from Windows to Mac, the price difference needs to go away. You can get a PC with a monitor for $500 or under, or one without for less than $400. A mac w/o is still $700, because they use propriety¬ebook technology instead of basic desktop tech. A Windows laptop can also be had for as little as $400.
On another note, last time I checked, iMacs (last generation included) could tilt their screens downward about 5 or more degrees, similar to regular desktop monitors. Am I wrong?
There are a lot of points there, and mostly good ones at that. However, Apple really isn't going to get rid of the price difference completely. They don't need to. Apple looks at itself as the BMW of computers. They don't need to compete with Chevy.
Just curious, what do you think is wrong with apples choice for the iMacs monitor/video card?
I would like a 30" monitor, a video card that has more memory, and the ability to have 2 1TB internal hard drives.
Can't do any of that with an iMac.
I would like a 30" monitor, a video card that has more memory, and the ability to have 2 1TB internal hard drives.
Can't do any of that with an iMac.
Chain. Being Pulled.