"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.
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
The Mac Pro takes up a great deal more room than the model I propose. Many people are don't have the room or need for expandability.
I have worked and supported macs since 1987 and in that time outside of people in the music or film industries I can count on ALL of my digits the machines I have installed more than 2 expansion cards. and may of them were ethernet cards before Ethernet was standard or RAID cards
Quote:
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.
Since when does an iMac have any PCI slots I want 2
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.
I only used my cheepo 4-year-old P4 PC for basic things and found the upradability very important. Added a hard drive and RAM (quite easily I might add) and a video card to encode and store video
and play low-graphics intense games (like unreal Tournament 2004, Sims 2, and Eve Online).
Quote:
Generally good point, though Apple is now making the LED transition.
Not fast enough.
Quote:
It's not really valid because Apple offers the Mac Pro.
It's totally valid, and here's why: The upgrade was made with salvaged parts (except the video card) from an older computer. 2 things about this: a) this cost me around $150, maybe $300 if all the parts were new and b) the computer, which cost $500 when new, has similar functionality performance wise to a G5 iMac, if a little better, with a total value of half what a comparable G5 cost new. The problem with getting an older Mac Pro or Power Mac is that by the time it gets to a comparable used value as my PC, the tech is so outdated that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade because of the hardware limitations. A G5 power mac still costs over $1k and still has half the power my expanded PC has.
Quote:
Not many things, if any.
2 major things Macs can't do:
a) be a good gamer rig (you'd get laughed at, seriously, though I know this hardly applies to people here)
b)be a good entry level option for people buying their first computer or are on a tight budget partly because they would have no idea where to look for a used one let alone think to look for a used one.
Quote:
Those are minor quibbles. I do agree about QuickTime.
They are, true, but it kind of bothers me that the computer that does everything out of the box doesn't come with a productivity suite free of charge, seeing as how most people need it and they include iLife for free.
Quote:
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.
Really, you couldn't compare Apple with BMW because a) BMW's are nowhere near as user friendly (Have you tried to use iDrive?) and b) being innovators of computer technology, they would be better compared to Audi, which invented the dual-clutch tiptronic/manumatic gearbox, the W12 engine, first implemented all-wheel-drive in most of its cars, actually has appealingly designed cars, are slightly over-engineered and, since they own VW, are people-oriented (VW and Apple are now in cahoots for a future product by the way). They also are strongly linked with Porsche and have business interests with Lamborghini, though that's beside the point. However, like Apple, their hardware is outmatched in overall quality/durability/reliability by the Japanese (such as Lexus and most given computer makers in the land of the Rising Sun), no matter what creature-comforts they offer. Secondly, the entry-level market is huge; Apple has every incentive to dive in, because huge profit can be made there, since bulkier hardware can be cheaper they can still have a slight premium over the cheapest boxes (like $50, for the privilege of a superior operating system with more built in) and still have a huge profit margin. This is where Apple could really use a VW equivalent right now.
Who's nutso? You say, one cannot prove a negative. Nonsense. You must look at each situation by itself. For example, I can prove I DON'T HAVE brown eye, and that I DO HAVE blue eyes. I does not matter. Both positive and negative are provable.
I figured you had heard about scientists trying to prove a theory false, so they can build confidence in it being true. I guess that's not the case.
I would challenge your statement that, ". . . in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product." It is not easy, and maybe impossible, to prove there is a market before releasing a product. Chrysler, over 50 years ago, did extensive studies to find what kind of car people really want. The result? The Chrysler Airflow design across the product line. Not many people bought them. So much for proof that there is a market before releasing a product.
Quote:
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.
So you haven't figured out what I meant in my last post. I was pointing out that you imply Apple listens to customers, while other computer makers do not. I disagree with this implication.
You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.
You claim the markets are different somehow. I just see computer users trying to buy what is best of their own use. One uses Mac OS X, the other Windows. It doesn't make that much difference on the hardware side.
Quote:
Silly, flawed analogy. Apple is selling millions upon millions of Macs and profiting in record fashion.
Apple is doing quite well, at least in the laptops. Yet it has nothing to do with my statement, and Apple could be doing better by offering, say, a mini tower. Since we see that these are selling well on the Wintel side, it's up to the opposition to show why these would not sell on the Mac side as well.
I don't think anyone is bashing the iMac as a poor product. It's just not mainstream. Apple has perfected the iMac in many ways, and should continue to offer it.
As it is now, however, I get the feeling of being forced to buy either a Mini or Mac Pro. There is nothing in between. For me the iMac is not an option. I have very good LCD displays and will not buy a computer with yet another LCD permanently attached. It is not negotiable for my personal use.
I do like how the iMac looks, and if I needed a computer for say a secretary, it would probably be an iMac.
The Mac Pro takes up a great deal more room than the model I propose. Many people are don't have the room or need for expandability.
I have worked and supported macs since 1987 and in that time outside of people in the music or film industries I can count on ALL of my digits the machines I have installed more than 2 expansion cards. and may of them were ethernet cards before Ethernet was standard or RAID cards
Since when does an iMac have any PCI slots I want 2
more than 2 Memory slots I want 4
more than 1 internal hard Drive I want 2
More than 1 Optical drive bay I want 2
the ability to change video card I want to
Mac Pro. Say it with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Who's nutso? You say, one cannot prove a negative. Nonsense. You must look at each situation by itself. For example, I can prove I DON'T HAVE brown eye, and that I DO HAVE blue eyes. I does not matter. Both positive and negative are provable.
Not really. I will give you credit for that one example. I suppose some negatives can be proven. However, one can't prove that something doesn't exist.
Quote:
I figured you had heard about scientists trying to prove a theory false, so they can build confidence in it being true. I guess that's not the case.
I have, I just don't think it applies here.
Quote:
I would challenge your statement that, ". . . in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product." It is not easy, and maybe impossible, to prove there is a market before releasing a product. Chrysler, over 50 years ago, did extensive studies to find what kind of car people really want. The result? The Chrysler Airflow design across the product line. Not many people bought them. So much for proof that there is a market before releasing a product.
You're extrapolating too far. Obviously despite the best research, products fail. It happens. But I'm sorry, there is no room to disagree on companies demonstrating that there is a market for a product before releasing it. It's basic business.
Quote:
So you haven't figured out what I meant in my last post. I was pointing out that you imply Apple listens to customers, while other computer makers do not. I disagree with this implication.
Then you disagree with your implication, not mine. I implied nothing. You inferred.
You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.[/quote]
Then you're not thinking. Why would Apple blatantly ignore a segment if it was profitable and mass marketable? I will grant you my Windows statement was not very detailed. There are reasons, as another poster pointed out, that Windows computers are like they are.
Quote:
You claim the markets are different somehow. I just see computer users trying to buy what is best of their own use. One uses Mac OS X, the other Windows. It doesn't make that much difference on the hardware side.
I agree, but most people don't think that way. It's how we think. But we don't represent the vast majority of computer buyers.
Quote:
Apple is doing quite well, at least in the laptops. Yet it has nothing to do with my statement, and Apple could be doing better by offering, say, a mini tower.
This is what I'm saying....PROVE IT. You're just speculating.
Quote:
Since we see that these are selling well on the Wintel side, it's up to the opposition to show why these would not sell on the Mac side as well.
Look, I understand that argument. But the fact is that on the Windows side there is not a compelling alternative...an integrated solution like the iMac. They have basic towers, mid towers, and pro towers. The clear choice for the prosumer is the mid tower. The Mac side is different. The iMac fills the midpro need. For those that need more, the Mac Pro is there.
Quote:
I don't think anyone is bashing the iMac as a poor product. It's just not mainstream. Apple has perfected the iMac in many ways, and should continue to offer it.
It's not mainstream? WTF? It's THE mainstream computer? What is wrong with you? That's just an utterly absurd statement.
Quote:
As it is now, however, I get the feeling of being forced to buy either a Mini or Mac Pro. There is nothing in between. For me the iMac is not an option. I have very good LCD displays and will not buy a computer with yet another LCD permanently attached. It is not negotiable for my personal use.
But what is wrong with the Mac Pro? I really don't see the problem. It's exactly what you need.
Quote:
I do like how the iMac looks, and if I needed a computer for say a secretary, it would probably be an iMac.
I only used my cheepo 4-year-old P4 PC for basic things and found the upradability very important. Added a hard drive and RAM (quite easily I might add) and a video card to encode and store video
and play low-graphics intense games (like unreal Tournament 2004, Sims 2, and Eve Online).
Use Mac Pro. That's the ticket.
Quote:
Not fast enough.
Whatever. I don't know what the means. What is "fast enough?" By the end of 2008 they'll be all LED I would imagine.
Quote:
It's totally valid, and here's why: The upgrade was made with salvaged parts (except the video card) from an older computer. 2 things about this: a) this cost me around $150, maybe $300 if all the parts were new and b) the computer, which cost $500 when new, has similar functionality performance wise to a G5 iMac, if a little better, with a total value of half what a comparable G5 cost new. The problem with getting an older Mac Pro or Power Mac is that by the time it gets to a comparable used value as my PC, the tech is so outdated that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade because of the hardware limitations. A G5 power mac still costs over $1k and still has half the power my expanded PC has.
That's bullshit. A used Mac Pro will be able to be upgraded for years. It will last at last as long as a new midpro with a single processor.
Quote:
2 major things Macs can't do:
a) be a good gamer rig (you'd get laughed at, seriously, though I know this hardly applies to people here)
Depends how much you want to spend. You're probably right though.
Quote:
b)be a good entry level option for people buying their first computer or are on a tight budget partly because they would have no idea where to look for a used one let alone think to look for a used one.
The entry level person won't buy a used Mac Pro. They'll buy an iMac or Mini.
Quote:
They are, true, but it kind of bothers me that the computer that does everything out of the box doesn't come with a productivity suite free of charge, seeing as how most people need it and they include iLife for free.
I agree with that. I should include iWork.
Quote:
Really, you couldn't compare Apple with BMW because a) BMW's are nowhere near as user friendly (Have you tried to use iDrive?) and b) being innovators of computer technology, they would be better compared to Audi, which invented the dual-clutch tiptronic/manumatic gearbox, the W12 engine, first implemented all-wheel-drive in most of its cars, actually has appealingly designed cars, are slightly over-engineered and, since they own VW, are people-oriented (VW and Apple are now in cahoots for a future product by the way). They also are strongly linked with Porsche and have business interests with Lamborghini, though that's beside the point.
The point is not the car. It's the brand and market position.
Quote:
However, like Apple, their hardware is outmatched in overall quality/durability/reliability by the Japanese (such as Lexus and most given computer makers in the land of the Rising Sun), no matter what creature-comforts they offer.
Huh? How is Apple outmatched, any by whom?
Quote:
Secondly, the entry-level market is huge; Apple has every incentive to dive in, because huge profit can be made there, since bulkier hardware can be cheaper they can still have a slight premium over the cheapest boxes (like $50, for the privilege of a superior operating system with more built in) and still have a huge profit margin. This is where Apple could really use a VW equivalent right now.
I disagree. Apple has no need for this market. Even the mini is questionable in my mind. Even that has come up in price considerably. There isn't enough margin for them there. They're doing great without that segment.
I want to point out that IF the mini disappears, I could see a mid pro tower. It would make more sense then, but only if it's priced low enough not to compete with the iMac. I'm talking a $999-$1299 minitower, single processor but upgradable with 2 PCI, 2 HDD bays, etc. I might be able to see that actually.
I just can't see a $1599 mid pro competing with the same price machine that comes with a 20" monitor.
I just can't see a $1599 mid pro competing with the same price machine that comes with a 20" monitor.
Your absolutely correct, and a great point you have made. I think AIO people are just AIO people. Just like I have always been PowerMac user. I can't imagine buying any other computer from Apple. (probably because I use every square inch of it) Needless to say that I think you are right in that a $1599 Semi pro machine would not compete with an AIO. They are computers for different people with two totally different needs, and brands of thinking all together.
Why does the Mac Mini sell so slowly (proof lying in the fact that it was only recently upgraded to 64-bit and without announcement due to existing supply)? Because it is not a cost effective entry-level computer, for Apple or for the Consumer. Thus, the market is slim. This is a perfect example of Apple not doing enough market research, thus why they would not think to make a small tower using common components. Also, at that price point, many computers come with a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers.
Another key point from history that proves that Steve hasn't learned from all of his mistakes: In the 80's Steve refused to put a fan in the Mac to aid cooling because it would add noise, making it unappealing. Result: many Macs became big beige plastic toasters, Steve gets kicked out of the company. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why doesn't the Mac Mini sell? Because its so small that the computer itself costs more than an entry computer with everything. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why does the iMac sell, then? because it is an OK ratio of form over function because it does include everything you need.
Given that Steve Jobs has made the same mistake twice, some twenty years apart, I think it is safe to say that Steve has not learned his lesson, and thus would indeed be likely to ignore a potential market such as a low-cost small- or mid-tower. To be neutral, I neither agree nor refute that a large enough market exists for this product, because it is hard to compare what works for Wintel will work for Apple. However, to counter, I believe that if this market does exist in a large enough scale, that a) it is diminishing rapidly as laptops with their AIO design and dropping prices in addition to their portability take a larger ratio of the industry. They will soon hold over 50% of the market share. b) It would indeed cut in to the iMac sales as it would be a cheaper entry to the Mac platform, though apple has already sort of done this by starting the Mac Book at a lower price than the iMac. Although, I believe Apple once said that their notebooks already outsell their desktops, though I don't remember where I heard it from. c)Given that the majority of the market is not computer savvy enough to upgrade a computer, let alone open it without fear of explosion, they have two options when a computer becomes so obsolete they can't or don't want to use it anymore: 1) they throw it away, sell it, or give it away to family/charity, or 2) they take it to a computer specialist (such as Geek Squad) to upgrade their hardware on a budget to make it sufficient for a somewhat extended period of time.
It's sad but it's true. While many towers will have cards for extended capabilities such as added ports and whatnot, many more come from the factory like that as a base, as do laptops and AIO's. The fact that most people ditch older, still usable computers for newer ones instead of upgrading internals is one of the reasons laptops are becoming more popular. As more and more ignorant people enter the market, they slowly become the majority and outweigh the number of people who need the expandability options of a tower. This limits the market to large companies with IT professionals who could and would actually upgrade computers instead of outright replacing them given the opportunity in an effort to reduce costs. However, since the only major upgrade they would make would be RAM or a harddrive, both being upgradeable for the most part in a laptop (although corporations would use server storage instead of local storage mostly), this once again nullifies the argument of practical upgradeability for the majority of the market.
So far, the only reasons for a smaller tower are a) low cost for both Apple and Consumer (nullified because of the sales it would undermine the iMac and Mac Book, both of which Apple has invested alot of money into developing) b) they are slightly harder to steal, c) less limited upgradeability, and d) to use pre-existing peripherals.
All of B, C, and D are reasons to introduce a budget version of the Mac Pro in mid/full tower form. A small tower would likely require a proprietary or otherwise high-cost motherboard. Despite how much a mini tower can hold, it is still very hard to work with, has limited space, and cooling can be problematic. This eliminates A as a good reason.
Both B and C, along with part of D would be a good reason to make an easy-open iMac with or without mouse and keyboard. With more options for consumer-installed upgrades, this would suit most of you just fine (except those of you who don't like the screen, who would go with the first one).
Other reasons directly against a small tower would be, as mentioned before, development and part costs. Designing a whole new aluminum case (given Apple's current design trends) would also be more expensive to produce even with more standardized larger-scale internals.
To me, I see a niche of users who need affordable upgradeability. The most cost-effective solution for Apple would be to offer a relatively bare system using a Mac Pro tower, an ATX (standard) motherboard, and offer all levels of processors, RAM, harddrives, and disk drives. Or perhaps a steel and plastic version of the case, to keep base costs below $500. This way, you're not just buying your own parts and spending money on non-Apple stuff if they can help it. This plastic and steel regular tower could be called just plain old "Mac." iMac for Integrated Mac, Mac Pro for Professional Mac. Then they should offer some smaller displays. However, this would still take sales away from the iMac. The only reason for the price premium would be for the ease of setup of an AIO.
It would make business sense for Apple to have a lower-priced Tower, but only if they dropped the iMac, because then it would become a niche market. Frugality dictates "go cheaper of you don't need everything." That's one of the reasons desktop AIO's are more or less exclusive to Apple; they generate the market because iMac the easiest way to Mac OS, except the Mac Book.
Apple makes alot of money on people's ignorance. People buy iPods because they're easy to use and are more common than other players, despite being a middle-of-the-road choice in most cases. For some things, there are better ones out there. Another way is that they overcharge for upgrades. It costs $150 to upgrade from 1 GB to 2GB of RAM (in the Mini, which actually can be opened if you know how)? Try $90 before buyback of the lesser RAM. Oh, and the iPod Mini, people who don't care about a color screen or size have replaced their own batteries and upgraded the Compact Flash HD with a 16GB unit. That's pretty good savings over a newer, lesser capacity Nano.
If this whole thing sounds contradictory not only to itself but my earlier post, that's because it is. What would sell better and what Apple is willing to sell without becoming contradictory to their pitch of simplicity, are two conflicted ideas. Apple doesn't want to drop the iMac in favor of a mid tower because that would eliminate one of they key points of Mac-iness of the company, not to mention a large business investment in a product that would become completely unnecessary. Not only that, but that market is rapidly shrinking due to laptops, as mentioned earlier. Giving people options means a higher cost of production for each one vs. how much profit it can make. Flat out, Apple doesn't want to invest in something that's going to go away and is not, in their view, in their best interests. Their only option? Drop prices of everything in varying degrees from $100's to $1000's of dollars. But that would ruin their profit margin. Since this is a losing proposition for Apple, it would be best for super-savvy users who know better and have the skills to make their own solution, since it would be a lose-lose situation for Apple to solve it for you. What do you do? Build your own computer with what you really need and use a hack like OSX86, and buy your OS. If certain components don't work, you would have had that problem with an Apple-made tower anyway. The only way to make a less expensive tower that would not compete with the iMac would be to price it in the mid $1000 range or higher. Problem is, a surplus of those exist in the used market already.
Oh, and those of you who still want an attractive design, you should see the selection of cases available online from an e-tailer like Newegg.com.
Q: How many times can one man go in circles contradicting himself and over-explaining/analyzing why something is or is not?
A: As many times as the late Douglas Adams did, except he made it entertaining.
EDIT:
Quote:
Use Mac Pro. That's the ticket.
Ok, now you're just being ignorant. The whole point of the statement is that the Mac Pro is not cost effective for the application. My whole setup costs well less than $700 new, is perfectly sufficient, and a used Mac Pro that's still worth a damn (performs anywhere close to my setup) costs over $1000 without peripherals. Not to mention my games don't even run on Mac.
Quote:
Whatever. I don't know what the means. What is "fast enough?" By the end of 2008 they'll be all LED I would imagine.
I'm saying relatively, they should have already introduced LED backlights to their products. They were the first ones to put dual-core in a mainstream laptop, and they were the first ones to put 64-bit dual core into a laptop. Not only that, but they did so while maintaining a form factor little more than an inch thin. To stay competitive, they need to have LED in laptops now and work their way up. End of 2008 is a little late in the game.
Quote:
That's bullshit. A used Mac Pro will be able to be upgraded for years. It will last at last as long as a new midpro with a single processor.
That's the thing, not only would a mid-pro be dual core instead of a single core older Pro/Power tower, but in the PC market upgradeability to extend life life is somewhere on the order of 5-8 years starting under $1000.
Quote:
The entry level person won't buy a used Mac Pro. They'll buy an iMac or Mini.
Again, cost effectiveness. Entry level is less than $600 for a complete system that does all the basics, even burning DVD's. Macs start at $600 for an incredibly inferior Mini that has less than half the power and can't even burn DVD's.
Quote:
The point is not the car. It's the brand and market position.
The point is totally the car. Audi is a direct competitor to BMW (placing it in the same exact bracket for brand/market position), and produces better cars that do more things right than a BMW. All BMW's can do is drive well, and in the rain they can't even do that much (Thus they are compared to Alienware). That makes Apple more like Audi. Talk about metaphors that don't apply.
Quote:
Huh? How is Apple outmatched, any by whom?
I said specifically the hardware was outdone. For one, the Japanese/Koreans make far better screens and disk drives. Samsung and Sony for example. Also, take a look at the kind of laptops they use in Japan, and you'll see why they are so far superior in hardware quality, limited only by their OS. Try Dynamism.com, and ignore the prices; that's because they are pretty much the only importers to the US and have a monopoly on the import market, so they can jack up the price alot more than they would in Japan. Toshiba and Panasonic are particularly good examples of superior hardware.
Quote:
I disagree. Apple has no need for this market. Even the mini is questionable in my mind. Even that has come up in price considerably. There isn't enough margin for them there. They're doing great without that segment.
Well, above I explained why I believe they are not in that market segment and why the Mini sucks. Particularly, the cost to make and buy is too high because it uses laptop parts instead of desktop parts, because that would make it "big and unsightly," even though it would put price/performance back into proportion. The Mini is an anachronistic attempt to make an entry-level computer.
You appear to have limited knowledge/experience with windows-based PCs as well as the automotive industry. You should do a little more research before blindly supporting 90% of Apple's decisions, i.e. why everyone who whines here needs a Mac Pro when price vs. performance wise in the prosumer segment it doesn't make sense and is a totally unreasonable choice.
I will give you credit for that one example. I suppose some negatives can be proven.
Most can. The universe is not shrinking, for example. Just state the opposite of the positive, or something mutually exclusive. If you prove one side, and you've proved the other. Maybe that's cheating. Hee, hee.
Quote:
You're extrapolating too far. Obviously despite the best research, products fail. It happens. But I'm sorry, there is no room to disagree on companies demonstrating that there is a market for a product before releasing it. It's basic business.
Well, I'd do it that way too, but there are stories of successful companies that spend nothing on market research. The owner understands the market well enough, and makes all the marketing decisions.
Quote:
Why would Apple blatantly ignore a segment if it was profitable and mass marketable?
I've been asking myself that question for years now!
Quote:
This is what I'm saying....PROVE IT. You're just speculating.
I've given a reasonable proof, but you don't accept it. The Windows mini tower sells quite well, so a Mac mini tower should also. I contend that hardware preferences of Mac users is essentially the same as Windows users. You see it differently.
You say that on the Windows side there is no compelling alternative . . . an equivalent of the iMac. I say it is not there because there is insufficient market for the AIO. That is why I said the iMac is not mainstream.
Sure there is more of a Mac market for an AIO. It has been around for years now. On the Windows side, if one company were to push an AIO like Apple does, it would sell about like the iMac, I expect. Why isn't anyone doing it? The market is not big enough to tempt an HP or Dell.
We are at an impasse here, so the whole discussion is deadlocked. Neither of us will budge on this point.
Quote:
But what is wrong with the Mac Pro? I really don't see the problem. It's exactly what you need.
I really like it, especially since the redesign. and I'll probably get one some day. Right now it is not high on my priority list. I actually can afford it, but I also just paid for a cruise to Alaska, which put a dent in the wallet. We're leaving Thursday for Vancouver to board. So we've got to wind down the discussion.
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.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
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.
...
You apparently don't personally know any of the posters here and could not know what their needs or wants truly are.
The comment above has to be one of the most condescending arrogant posts I've ever seen in the years I've visited Appleinsider.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
I think there are users who definitely have a unique need that is best filled by a mid range tower which Apple currently do not offer. I hope Apple will release one to satisfy these users.
Having said that, I do see other vendors moving towards AIOs a la iMac. I believe that they see that most users, or at least many users, have needs that are well served by such machines. How they end up selling is anyones guess. The fact that they offer them suggests to me that there is a a bigger demand than what you think exists. I suspect they are more than niche machines. I think many buyers are simply conditioned to buy a tower over an AIO computer even though they would be better served by an AIO. My parents are a good example.
Personally I think that towers are for serious work stations (Mac Pro) and enthusiasts (x Mac). Everyone else is best served by the iMac and mini. IMO.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
They don't sell because they are very poorly designed and the components are usually poor quality to help keep the cost at a price point that PC users are accustomed to. By doing this their products are nothing short of crap. That is why they don't sell.
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
I think there are users who definitely have a unique need that is best filled by a mid range tower which Apple currently do not offer. I hope Apple will release one to satisfy these users.
Having said that, I do see other vendors moving towards AIOs a la iMac. I believe that they see that most users, or at least many users, have needs that are well served by such machines. How they end up selling is anyones guess. The fact that they offer them suggests to me that there is a a bigger demand than what you think exists. I suspect they are more than niche machines. I think many buyers are simply conditioned to buy a tower over an AIO computer even though they would be better served by an AIO. My parents are a good example.
Personally I think that towers are for serious work stations (Mac Pro) and enthusiasts (x Mac). Everyone else is best served by the iMac and mini. IMO.
I would tend to agree, however The All In Ones that are being sold are currently a little too high end in both feature and price for most users and the prosumers who aid entry level users in their purchases are almost exclusively using windows towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
I agree, but value is a subjective term. In both the higher end family market and the workstation market, Apple provides great value. When it comes to the entry level market, and the prosumer market, Apple doesn't provide much value at all. Compared to similar entry level PCs, the Mini is more expensive has a much smaller hard drive and the entry level model still has a combo drive. In the Prosumer market, to get a machine that gives me the same capability that my B&W G3 did Back in 1999, I have to spend $500 more. Keep in mind that component costs have been nearly cut in half during that time. To those who bought the G4 and G5 PowerMacs for $1299, this is even worse. During those days you could have a machine with a fast CPU, plenty of expansion, and a high end CPU for the the workstation class Mac Pro starts at.
I would tend to agree, however The All In Ones that are being sold are currently a little too high end in both feature and price for most users and the prosumers who aid entry level users in their purchases are almost exclusively using windows towers.
.
Well I don't really follow how the pc vendors are pricing their AIOs. If they are pricing them high that's good for Apple.
You make a good point about how prosumers steer buyers towards towers. I'll bet most of these users would be better served by AIOs. Again the 'deck is stacked' against AIOs.
Well I don't really follow how the pc vendors are pricing their AIOs. If they are pricing them high that's good for Apple.
Sony, Dell, and HP price their all in ones the stratosphere. But I am mainly talking about Apple here. The all in one form factor is more for family users who really aren't tech savvy and the inherent drawbacks really aren't all that bad (unless they have a DVD camcorder). The pricing however and power of the machine is rather high for them though. To go from a $600 celeron machine to a $1200 core 2 duo machine is quite the jump in both price and performance. Rather than the Mini which is pretty much only good for setting size records, they would be better off with a modern version of the eMac.
Quote:
You make a good point about how prosumers steer buyers towards towers. I'll bet most of these users would be better served by AIOs. Again the 'deck is stacked' against AIOs.
From being a prosumer and having an aluminum iMac I can say this is definitely not the case. From the lack of front ports to the slot loading notebook DVD drive to the lack of RAM expansion I find it very frustrating at times. The iMac is a machine for people who want reasonable power while being set up and go. This contradicts with prosumers who want power and flexibility which the iMac has very little. I have to say that the only reason I bought this over a machine from Velocity Micro is Mac OS X. I find windows even more frustrating than all in ones.
From being a prosumer and having an aluminum iMac I can say this is definitely not the case. From the lack of front ports to the slot loading notebook DVD drive to the lack of RAM expansion I find it very frustrating at times. The iMac is a machine for people who want reasonable power while being set up and go. This contradicts with prosumers who want power and flexibility which the iMac has very little. I have to say that the only reason I bought this over a machine from Velocity Micro is Mac OS X. I find windows even more frustrating than all in ones.
The iMac isn't for prosumers. I think I've confused you with my previous post. I think most casual computer users are best served by a mini or an iMac. Both are very capable for this kind of user. Contrary to your opinion I think the mini is a fine machine for many users. Hell if you don't game it's more than likely all the power you'll need. It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
The iMac isn't for prosumers. I think I've confused you with my previous post. I think most casual computer users are best served by a mini or an iMac. Both are very capable for this kind of user.
I completely agree
Quote:
Contrary to your opinion I think the mini is a fine machine for many users. Hell if you don't game it's more than likely all the power you'll need. It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
The Mini is a good machine, but it gets held back by the laptop hard drive. If It were slightly larger and held a 3.5" drive it would be a fantastic machine. Apple took a few too many turns on the wrench to see how small they could make it.
Comments
"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.
Then you should buy a used Mac pro. You'd end up paying the same, have better processor options, and more expandability.
The Mac Pro takes up a great deal more room than the model I propose. Many people are don't have the room or need for expandability.
I have worked and supported macs since 1987 and in that time outside of people in the music or film industries I can count on ALL of my digits the machines I have installed more than 2 expansion cards. and may of them were ethernet cards before Ethernet was standard or RAID cards
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.
Since when does an iMac have any PCI slots I want 2
more than 2 Memory slots I want 4
more than 1 internal hard Drive I want 2
More than 1 Optical drive bay I want 2
the ability to change video card I want to
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.
I only used my cheepo 4-year-old P4 PC for basic things and found the upradability very important. Added a hard drive and RAM (quite easily I might add) and a video card to encode and store video
and play low-graphics intense games (like unreal Tournament 2004, Sims 2, and Eve Online).
Generally good point, though Apple is now making the LED transition.
Not fast enough.
It's not really valid because Apple offers the Mac Pro.
It's totally valid, and here's why: The upgrade was made with salvaged parts (except the video card) from an older computer. 2 things about this: a) this cost me around $150, maybe $300 if all the parts were new and b) the computer, which cost $500 when new, has similar functionality performance wise to a G5 iMac, if a little better, with a total value of half what a comparable G5 cost new. The problem with getting an older Mac Pro or Power Mac is that by the time it gets to a comparable used value as my PC, the tech is so outdated that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade because of the hardware limitations. A G5 power mac still costs over $1k and still has half the power my expanded PC has.
Not many things, if any.
2 major things Macs can't do:
a) be a good gamer rig (you'd get laughed at, seriously, though I know this hardly applies to people here)
b)be a good entry level option for people buying their first computer or are on a tight budget partly because they would have no idea where to look for a used one let alone think to look for a used one.
Those are minor quibbles. I do agree about QuickTime.
They are, true, but it kind of bothers me that the computer that does everything out of the box doesn't come with a productivity suite free of charge, seeing as how most people need it and they include iLife for free.
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.
Really, you couldn't compare Apple with BMW because a) BMW's are nowhere near as user friendly (Have you tried to use iDrive?) and b) being innovators of computer technology, they would be better compared to Audi, which invented the dual-clutch tiptronic/manumatic gearbox, the W12 engine, first implemented all-wheel-drive in most of its cars, actually has appealingly designed cars, are slightly over-engineered and, since they own VW, are people-oriented (VW and Apple are now in cahoots for a future product by the way). They also are strongly linked with Porsche and have business interests with Lamborghini, though that's beside the point. However, like Apple, their hardware is outmatched in overall quality/durability/reliability by the Japanese (such as Lexus and most given computer makers in the land of the Rising Sun), no matter what creature-comforts they offer. Secondly, the entry-level market is huge; Apple has every incentive to dive in, because huge profit can be made there, since bulkier hardware can be cheaper they can still have a slight premium over the cheapest boxes (like $50, for the privilege of a superior operating system with more built in) and still have a huge profit margin. This is where Apple could really use a VW equivalent right now.
I would like a 30" monitor, a video card that has more memory, and the ability to have 2 1TB internal hard drives.
You can. It's called the Mac Pro. Have you heard of it?
You're getting nutso now.
I figured you had heard about scientists trying to prove a theory false, so they can build confidence in it being true. I guess that's not the case.
I would challenge your statement that, ". . . in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product." It is not easy, and maybe impossible, to prove there is a market before releasing a product. Chrysler, over 50 years ago, did extensive studies to find what kind of car people really want. The result? The Chrysler Airflow design across the product line. Not many people bought them. So much for proof that there is a market before releasing a product.
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.
So you haven't figured out what I meant in my last post. I was pointing out that you imply Apple listens to customers, while other computer makers do not. I disagree with this implication.
You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.
You claim the markets are different somehow. I just see computer users trying to buy what is best of their own use. One uses Mac OS X, the other Windows. It doesn't make that much difference on the hardware side.
Silly, flawed analogy. Apple is selling millions upon millions of Macs and profiting in record fashion.
Apple is doing quite well, at least in the laptops. Yet it has nothing to do with my statement, and Apple could be doing better by offering, say, a mini tower. Since we see that these are selling well on the Wintel side, it's up to the opposition to show why these would not sell on the Mac side as well.
I don't think anyone is bashing the iMac as a poor product. It's just not mainstream. Apple has perfected the iMac in many ways, and should continue to offer it.
As it is now, however, I get the feeling of being forced to buy either a Mini or Mac Pro. There is nothing in between. For me the iMac is not an option. I have very good LCD displays and will not buy a computer with yet another LCD permanently attached. It is not negotiable for my personal use.
I do like how the iMac looks, and if I needed a computer for say a secretary, it would probably be an iMac.
The Mac Pro takes up a great deal more room than the model I propose. Many people are don't have the room or need for expandability.
I have worked and supported macs since 1987 and in that time outside of people in the music or film industries I can count on ALL of my digits the machines I have installed more than 2 expansion cards. and may of them were ethernet cards before Ethernet was standard or RAID cards
Since when does an iMac have any PCI slots I want 2
more than 2 Memory slots I want 4
more than 1 internal hard Drive I want 2
More than 1 Optical drive bay I want 2
the ability to change video card I want to
Mac Pro. Say it with me.
Not really. I will give you credit for that one example. I suppose some negatives can be proven. However, one can't prove that something doesn't exist.
I figured you had heard about scientists trying to prove a theory false, so they can build confidence in it being true. I guess that's not the case.
I have, I just don't think it applies here.
I would challenge your statement that, ". . . in the real world, companies prove there is a market before they release a product." It is not easy, and maybe impossible, to prove there is a market before releasing a product. Chrysler, over 50 years ago, did extensive studies to find what kind of car people really want. The result? The Chrysler Airflow design across the product line. Not many people bought them. So much for proof that there is a market before releasing a product.
You're extrapolating too far. Obviously despite the best research, products fail. It happens. But I'm sorry, there is no room to disagree on companies demonstrating that there is a market for a product before releasing it. It's basic business.
So you haven't figured out what I meant in my last post. I was pointing out that you imply Apple listens to customers, while other computer makers do not. I disagree with this implication.
Then you disagree with your implication, not mine. I implied nothing. You inferred.
You stated once that if Mac users wanted a lower cost tower, Apple would build one. You also stated that Wintel makers only made lower cost towers because that is what they have always made. Okay, I don't believe either statement.[/quote]
Then you're not thinking. Why would Apple blatantly ignore a segment if it was profitable and mass marketable? I will grant you my Windows statement was not very detailed. There are reasons, as another poster pointed out, that Windows computers are like they are.
You claim the markets are different somehow. I just see computer users trying to buy what is best of their own use. One uses Mac OS X, the other Windows. It doesn't make that much difference on the hardware side.
I agree, but most people don't think that way. It's how we think. But we don't represent the vast majority of computer buyers.
Apple is doing quite well, at least in the laptops. Yet it has nothing to do with my statement, and Apple could be doing better by offering, say, a mini tower.
This is what I'm saying....PROVE IT. You're just speculating.
Since we see that these are selling well on the Wintel side, it's up to the opposition to show why these would not sell on the Mac side as well.
Look, I understand that argument. But the fact is that on the Windows side there is not a compelling alternative...an integrated solution like the iMac. They have basic towers, mid towers, and pro towers. The clear choice for the prosumer is the mid tower. The Mac side is different. The iMac fills the midpro need. For those that need more, the Mac Pro is there.
I don't think anyone is bashing the iMac as a poor product. It's just not mainstream. Apple has perfected the iMac in many ways, and should continue to offer it.
As it is now, however, I get the feeling of being forced to buy either a Mini or Mac Pro. There is nothing in between. For me the iMac is not an option. I have very good LCD displays and will not buy a computer with yet another LCD permanently attached. It is not negotiable for my personal use.
But what is wrong with the Mac Pro? I really don't see the problem. It's exactly what you need.
I do like how the iMac looks, and if I needed a computer for say a secretary, it would probably be an iMac.
There is that image thing again.
I only used my cheepo 4-year-old P4 PC for basic things and found the upradability very important. Added a hard drive and RAM (quite easily I might add) and a video card to encode and store video
and play low-graphics intense games (like unreal Tournament 2004, Sims 2, and Eve Online).
Use Mac Pro. That's the ticket.
Not fast enough.
Whatever. I don't know what the means. What is "fast enough?" By the end of 2008 they'll be all LED I would imagine.
It's totally valid, and here's why: The upgrade was made with salvaged parts (except the video card) from an older computer. 2 things about this: a) this cost me around $150, maybe $300 if all the parts were new and b) the computer, which cost $500 when new, has similar functionality performance wise to a G5 iMac, if a little better, with a total value of half what a comparable G5 cost new. The problem with getting an older Mac Pro or Power Mac is that by the time it gets to a comparable used value as my PC, the tech is so outdated that it wouldn't be worth it to upgrade because of the hardware limitations. A G5 power mac still costs over $1k and still has half the power my expanded PC has.
That's bullshit. A used Mac Pro will be able to be upgraded for years. It will last at last as long as a new midpro with a single processor.
2 major things Macs can't do:
a) be a good gamer rig (you'd get laughed at, seriously, though I know this hardly applies to people here)
Depends how much you want to spend. You're probably right though.
b)be a good entry level option for people buying their first computer or are on a tight budget partly because they would have no idea where to look for a used one let alone think to look for a used one.
The entry level person won't buy a used Mac Pro. They'll buy an iMac or Mini.
They are, true, but it kind of bothers me that the computer that does everything out of the box doesn't come with a productivity suite free of charge, seeing as how most people need it and they include iLife for free.
I agree with that. I should include iWork.
Really, you couldn't compare Apple with BMW because a) BMW's are nowhere near as user friendly (Have you tried to use iDrive?) and b) being innovators of computer technology, they would be better compared to Audi, which invented the dual-clutch tiptronic/manumatic gearbox, the W12 engine, first implemented all-wheel-drive in most of its cars, actually has appealingly designed cars, are slightly over-engineered and, since they own VW, are people-oriented (VW and Apple are now in cahoots for a future product by the way). They also are strongly linked with Porsche and have business interests with Lamborghini, though that's beside the point.
The point is not the car. It's the brand and market position.
However, like Apple, their hardware is outmatched in overall quality/durability/reliability by the Japanese (such as Lexus and most given computer makers in the land of the Rising Sun), no matter what creature-comforts they offer.
Huh? How is Apple outmatched, any by whom?
Secondly, the entry-level market is huge; Apple has every incentive to dive in, because huge profit can be made there, since bulkier hardware can be cheaper they can still have a slight premium over the cheapest boxes (like $50, for the privilege of a superior operating system with more built in) and still have a huge profit margin. This is where Apple could really use a VW equivalent right now.
I disagree. Apple has no need for this market. Even the mini is questionable in my mind. Even that has come up in price considerably. There isn't enough margin for them there. They're doing great without that segment.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
General Mid Pro Comment
I want to point out that IF the mini disappears, I could see a mid pro tower. It would make more sense then, but only if it's priced low enough not to compete with the iMac. I'm talking a $999-$1299 minitower, single processor but upgradable with 2 PCI, 2 HDD bays, etc. I might be able to see that actually.
I just can't see a $1599 mid pro competing with the same price machine that comes with a 20" monitor.
I just can't see a $1599 mid pro competing with the same price machine that comes with a 20" monitor.
Your absolutely correct, and a great point you have made. I think AIO people are just AIO people. Just like I have always been PowerMac user. I can't imagine buying any other computer from Apple. (probably because I use every square inch of it) Needless to say that I think you are right in that a $1599 Semi pro machine would not compete with an AIO. They are computers for different people with two totally different needs, and brands of thinking all together.
Another key point from history that proves that Steve hasn't learned from all of his mistakes: In the 80's Steve refused to put a fan in the Mac to aid cooling because it would add noise, making it unappealing. Result: many Macs became big beige plastic toasters, Steve gets kicked out of the company. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why doesn't the Mac Mini sell? Because its so small that the computer itself costs more than an entry computer with everything. Cause: The wrong ratio of form over function is a non-existent market. Why does the iMac sell, then? because it is an OK ratio of form over function because it does include everything you need.
Given that Steve Jobs has made the same mistake twice, some twenty years apart, I think it is safe to say that Steve has not learned his lesson, and thus would indeed be likely to ignore a potential market such as a low-cost small- or mid-tower. To be neutral, I neither agree nor refute that a large enough market exists for this product, because it is hard to compare what works for Wintel will work for Apple. However, to counter, I believe that if this market does exist in a large enough scale, that a) it is diminishing rapidly as laptops with their AIO design and dropping prices in addition to their portability take a larger ratio of the industry. They will soon hold over 50% of the market share. b) It would indeed cut in to the iMac sales as it would be a cheaper entry to the Mac platform, though apple has already sort of done this by starting the Mac Book at a lower price than the iMac. Although, I believe Apple once said that their notebooks already outsell their desktops, though I don't remember where I heard it from. c)Given that the majority of the market is not computer savvy enough to upgrade a computer, let alone open it without fear of explosion, they have two options when a computer becomes so obsolete they can't or don't want to use it anymore: 1) they throw it away, sell it, or give it away to family/charity, or 2) they take it to a computer specialist (such as Geek Squad) to upgrade their hardware on a budget to make it sufficient for a somewhat extended period of time.
It's sad but it's true. While many towers will have cards for extended capabilities such as added ports and whatnot, many more come from the factory like that as a base, as do laptops and AIO's. The fact that most people ditch older, still usable computers for newer ones instead of upgrading internals is one of the reasons laptops are becoming more popular. As more and more ignorant people enter the market, they slowly become the majority and outweigh the number of people who need the expandability options of a tower. This limits the market to large companies with IT professionals who could and would actually upgrade computers instead of outright replacing them given the opportunity in an effort to reduce costs. However, since the only major upgrade they would make would be RAM or a harddrive, both being upgradeable for the most part in a laptop (although corporations would use server storage instead of local storage mostly), this once again nullifies the argument of practical upgradeability for the majority of the market.
So far, the only reasons for a smaller tower are a) low cost for both Apple and Consumer (nullified because of the sales it would undermine the iMac and Mac Book, both of which Apple has invested alot of money into developing) b) they are slightly harder to steal, c) less limited upgradeability, and d) to use pre-existing peripherals.
All of B, C, and D are reasons to introduce a budget version of the Mac Pro in mid/full tower form. A small tower would likely require a proprietary or otherwise high-cost motherboard. Despite how much a mini tower can hold, it is still very hard to work with, has limited space, and cooling can be problematic. This eliminates A as a good reason.
Both B and C, along with part of D would be a good reason to make an easy-open iMac with or without mouse and keyboard. With more options for consumer-installed upgrades, this would suit most of you just fine (except those of you who don't like the screen, who would go with the first one).
Other reasons directly against a small tower would be, as mentioned before, development and part costs. Designing a whole new aluminum case (given Apple's current design trends) would also be more expensive to produce even with more standardized larger-scale internals.
To me, I see a niche of users who need affordable upgradeability. The most cost-effective solution for Apple would be to offer a relatively bare system using a Mac Pro tower, an ATX (standard) motherboard, and offer all levels of processors, RAM, harddrives, and disk drives. Or perhaps a steel and plastic version of the case, to keep base costs below $500. This way, you're not just buying your own parts and spending money on non-Apple stuff if they can help it. This plastic and steel regular tower could be called just plain old "Mac." iMac for Integrated Mac, Mac Pro for Professional Mac. Then they should offer some smaller displays. However, this would still take sales away from the iMac. The only reason for the price premium would be for the ease of setup of an AIO.
It would make business sense for Apple to have a lower-priced Tower, but only if they dropped the iMac, because then it would become a niche market. Frugality dictates "go cheaper of you don't need everything." That's one of the reasons desktop AIO's are more or less exclusive to Apple; they generate the market because iMac the easiest way to Mac OS, except the Mac Book.
Apple makes alot of money on people's ignorance. People buy iPods because they're easy to use and are more common than other players, despite being a middle-of-the-road choice in most cases. For some things, there are better ones out there. Another way is that they overcharge for upgrades. It costs $150 to upgrade from 1 GB to 2GB of RAM (in the Mini, which actually can be opened if you know how)? Try $90 before buyback of the lesser RAM.
If this whole thing sounds contradictory not only to itself but my earlier post, that's because it is. What would sell better and what Apple is willing to sell without becoming contradictory to their pitch of simplicity, are two conflicted ideas. Apple doesn't want to drop the iMac in favor of a mid tower because that would eliminate one of they key points of Mac-iness of the company, not to mention a large business investment in a product that would become completely unnecessary. Not only that, but that market is rapidly shrinking due to laptops, as mentioned earlier. Giving people options means a higher cost of production for each one vs. how much profit it can make. Flat out, Apple doesn't want to invest in something that's going to go away and is not, in their view, in their best interests. Their only option? Drop prices of everything in varying degrees from $100's to $1000's of dollars. But that would ruin their profit margin. Since this is a losing proposition for Apple, it would be best for super-savvy users who know better and have the skills to make their own solution, since it would be a lose-lose situation for Apple to solve it for you. What do you do? Build your own computer with what you really need and use a hack like OSX86, and buy your OS. If certain components don't work, you would have had that problem with an Apple-made tower anyway. The only way to make a less expensive tower that would not compete with the iMac would be to price it in the mid $1000 range or higher. Problem is, a surplus of those exist in the used market already.
Oh, and those of you who still want an attractive design, you should see the selection of cases available online from an e-tailer like Newegg.com.
Q: How many times can one man go in circles contradicting himself and over-explaining/analyzing why something is or is not?
A: As many times as the late Douglas Adams did, except he made it entertaining.
EDIT:
Use Mac Pro. That's the ticket.
Ok, now you're just being ignorant. The whole point of the statement is that the Mac Pro is not cost effective for the application. My whole setup costs well less than $700 new, is perfectly sufficient, and a used Mac Pro that's still worth a damn (performs anywhere close to my setup) costs over $1000 without peripherals. Not to mention my games don't even run on Mac.
Whatever. I don't know what the means. What is "fast enough?" By the end of 2008 they'll be all LED I would imagine.
I'm saying relatively, they should have already introduced LED backlights to their products. They were the first ones to put dual-core in a mainstream laptop, and they were the first ones to put 64-bit dual core into a laptop. Not only that, but they did so while maintaining a form factor little more than an inch thin. To stay competitive, they need to have LED in laptops now and work their way up. End of 2008 is a little late in the game.
That's bullshit. A used Mac Pro will be able to be upgraded for years. It will last at last as long as a new midpro with a single processor.
That's the thing, not only would a mid-pro be dual core instead of a single core older Pro/Power tower, but in the PC market upgradeability to extend life life is somewhere on the order of 5-8 years starting under $1000.
The entry level person won't buy a used Mac Pro. They'll buy an iMac or Mini.
Again, cost effectiveness. Entry level is less than $600 for a complete system that does all the basics, even burning DVD's. Macs start at $600 for an incredibly inferior Mini that has less than half the power and can't even burn DVD's.
The point is not the car. It's the brand and market position.
The point is totally the car. Audi is a direct competitor to BMW (placing it in the same exact bracket for brand/market position), and produces better cars that do more things right than a BMW. All BMW's can do is drive well, and in the rain they can't even do that much (Thus they are compared to Alienware). That makes Apple more like Audi. Talk about metaphors that don't apply.
Huh? How is Apple outmatched, any by whom?
I said specifically the hardware was outdone. For one, the Japanese/Koreans make far better screens and disk drives. Samsung and Sony for example. Also, take a look at the kind of laptops they use in Japan, and you'll see why they are so far superior in hardware quality, limited only by their OS. Try Dynamism.com, and ignore the prices; that's because they are pretty much the only importers to the US and have a monopoly on the import market, so they can jack up the price alot more than they would in Japan. Toshiba and Panasonic are particularly good examples of superior hardware.
I disagree. Apple has no need for this market. Even the mini is questionable in my mind. Even that has come up in price considerably. There isn't enough margin for them there. They're doing great without that segment.
Well, above I explained why I believe they are not in that market segment and why the Mini sucks. Particularly, the cost to make and buy is too high because it uses laptop parts instead of desktop parts, because that would make it "big and unsightly," even though it would put price/performance back into proportion. The Mini is an anachronistic attempt to make an entry-level computer.
You appear to have limited knowledge/experience with windows-based PCs as well as the automotive industry. You should do a little more research before blindly supporting 90% of Apple's decisions, i.e. why everyone who whines here needs a Mac Pro when price vs. performance wise in the prosumer segment it doesn't make sense and is a totally unreasonable choice.
I will give you credit for that one example. I suppose some negatives can be proven.
Most can. The universe is not shrinking, for example. Just state the opposite of the positive, or something mutually exclusive. If you prove one side, and you've proved the other. Maybe that's cheating. Hee, hee.
You're extrapolating too far. Obviously despite the best research, products fail. It happens. But I'm sorry, there is no room to disagree on companies demonstrating that there is a market for a product before releasing it. It's basic business.
Well, I'd do it that way too, but there are stories of successful companies that spend nothing on market research. The owner understands the market well enough, and makes all the marketing decisions.
Why would Apple blatantly ignore a segment if it was profitable and mass marketable?
I've been asking myself that question for years now!
This is what I'm saying....PROVE IT. You're just speculating.
I've given a reasonable proof, but you don't accept it. The Windows mini tower sells quite well, so a Mac mini tower should also. I contend that hardware preferences of Mac users is essentially the same as Windows users. You see it differently.
You say that on the Windows side there is no compelling alternative . . . an equivalent of the iMac. I say it is not there because there is insufficient market for the AIO. That is why I said the iMac is not mainstream.
Sure there is more of a Mac market for an AIO. It has been around for years now. On the Windows side, if one company were to push an AIO like Apple does, it would sell about like the iMac, I expect. Why isn't anyone doing it? The market is not big enough to tempt an HP or Dell.
We are at an impasse here, so the whole discussion is deadlocked. Neither of us will budge on this point.
But what is wrong with the Mac Pro? I really don't see the problem. It's exactly what you need.
I really like it, especially since the redesign. and I'll probably get one some day. Right now it is not high on my priority list. I actually can afford it, but I also just paid for a cruise to Alaska, which put a dent in the wallet. We're leaving Thursday for Vancouver to board. So we've got to wind down the discussion.
Personally I don't like the design that Isamu Sanada did. It's not clean like Apple would do. That cutaway down the middle looks like shit.
The nice thing about opinions - one can be completely convicted of them - and by them.
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.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
...
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.
...
You apparently don't personally know any of the posters here and could not know what their needs or wants truly are.
The comment above has to be one of the most condescending arrogant posts I've ever seen in the years I've visited Appleinsider.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
I think there are users who definitely have a unique need that is best filled by a mid range tower which Apple currently do not offer. I hope Apple will release one to satisfy these users.
Having said that, I do see other vendors moving towards AIOs a la iMac. I believe that they see that most users, or at least many users, have needs that are well served by such machines. How they end up selling is anyones guess. The fact that they offer them suggests to me that there is a a bigger demand than what you think exists. I suspect they are more than niche machines. I think many buyers are simply conditioned to buy a tower over an AIO computer even though they would be better served by an AIO. My parents are a good example.
Personally I think that towers are for serious work stations (Mac Pro) and enthusiasts (x Mac). Everyone else is best served by the iMac and mini. IMO.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
They don't sell because they are very poorly designed and the components are usually poor quality to help keep the cost at a price point that PC users are accustomed to. By doing this their products are nothing short of crap. That is why they don't sell.
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
I think there are users who definitely have a unique need that is best filled by a mid range tower which Apple currently do not offer. I hope Apple will release one to satisfy these users.
Having said that, I do see other vendors moving towards AIOs a la iMac. I believe that they see that most users, or at least many users, have needs that are well served by such machines. How they end up selling is anyones guess. The fact that they offer them suggests to me that there is a a bigger demand than what you think exists. I suspect they are more than niche machines. I think many buyers are simply conditioned to buy a tower over an AIO computer even though they would be better served by an AIO. My parents are a good example.
Personally I think that towers are for serious work stations (Mac Pro) and enthusiasts (x Mac). Everyone else is best served by the iMac and mini. IMO.
I would tend to agree, however The All In Ones that are being sold are currently a little too high end in both feature and price for most users and the prosumers who aid entry level users in their purchases are almost exclusively using windows towers.
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
I agree, but value is a subjective term. In both the higher end family market and the workstation market, Apple provides great value. When it comes to the entry level market, and the prosumer market, Apple doesn't provide much value at all. Compared to similar entry level PCs, the Mini is more expensive has a much smaller hard drive and the entry level model still has a combo drive. In the Prosumer market, to get a machine that gives me the same capability that my B&W G3 did Back in 1999, I have to spend $500 more. Keep in mind that component costs have been nearly cut in half during that time. To those who bought the G4 and G5 PowerMacs for $1299, this is even worse. During those days you could have a machine with a fast CPU, plenty of expansion, and a high end CPU for the the workstation class Mac Pro starts at.
I would tend to agree, however The All In Ones that are being sold are currently a little too high end in both feature and price for most users and the prosumers who aid entry level users in their purchases are almost exclusively using windows towers.
.
Well I don't really follow how the pc vendors are pricing their AIOs. If they are pricing them high that's good for Apple.
You make a good point about how prosumers steer buyers towards towers. I'll bet most of these users would be better served by AIOs. Again the 'deck is stacked' against AIOs.
Well I don't really follow how the pc vendors are pricing their AIOs. If they are pricing them high that's good for Apple.
Sony, Dell, and HP price their all in ones the stratosphere. But I am mainly talking about Apple here. The all in one form factor is more for family users who really aren't tech savvy and the inherent drawbacks really aren't all that bad (unless they have a DVD camcorder). The pricing however and power of the machine is rather high for them though. To go from a $600 celeron machine to a $1200 core 2 duo machine is quite the jump in both price and performance. Rather than the Mini which is pretty much only good for setting size records, they would be better off with a modern version of the eMac.
You make a good point about how prosumers steer buyers towards towers. I'll bet most of these users would be better served by AIOs. Again the 'deck is stacked' against AIOs.
From being a prosumer and having an aluminum iMac I can say this is definitely not the case. From the lack of front ports to the slot loading notebook DVD drive to the lack of RAM expansion I find it very frustrating at times. The iMac is a machine for people who want reasonable power while being set up and go. This contradicts with prosumers who want power and flexibility which the iMac has very little. I have to say that the only reason I bought this over a machine from Velocity Micro is Mac OS X. I find windows even more frustrating than all in ones.
From being a prosumer and having an aluminum iMac I can say this is definitely not the case. From the lack of front ports to the slot loading notebook DVD drive to the lack of RAM expansion I find it very frustrating at times. The iMac is a machine for people who want reasonable power while being set up and go. This contradicts with prosumers who want power and flexibility which the iMac has very little. I have to say that the only reason I bought this over a machine from Velocity Micro is Mac OS X. I find windows even more frustrating than all in ones.
The iMac isn't for prosumers. I think I've confused you with my previous post. I think most casual computer users are best served by a mini or an iMac. Both are very capable for this kind of user. Contrary to your opinion I think the mini is a fine machine for many users. Hell if you don't game it's more than likely all the power you'll need. It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
The iMac isn't for prosumers. I think I've confused you with my previous post. I think most casual computer users are best served by a mini or an iMac. Both are very capable for this kind of user.
I completely agree
Contrary to your opinion I think the mini is a fine machine for many users. Hell if you don't game it's more than likely all the power you'll need. It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
The Mini is a good machine, but it gets held back by the laptop hard drive. If It were slightly larger and held a 3.5" drive it would be a fantastic machine. Apple took a few too many turns on the wrench to see how small they could make it.