(They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.)
If they sold an aluminum Macbook without the monitor, but with the keyboard and multitouch trackpad and all the same ports on the side, I'd buy it so fast they wouldn't know what had happened. "Where did this money come from? Was it that easy?" they'd say. Yes, Apple, it would be that easy. Just take off the display. Of course, I'm an odd duck, but it's basically the form factor of an Apple II, one of the best-selling computers of all time. It's too nice and makes too much sense for Apple to do it now.
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
I don't share the confidence you have in reading the tea leaves. First, Apple is one of the few companies in the industry seeing growth right now, so it's hard to argue that anything they're doing is horribly wrong. Desktop sales are down generally, not just at Apple, and that makes perfect sense: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop and a wireless printer and be able to do what you want to do where you want to do it, whether it's on OS X or Windows or Linux? Obviously this argument doesn't wash for users who still need a lot of power, but those are a minority of users.
Between laptop chips hitting a sweet spot in performance and the economic downturn, more power does not translate directly to more sales. I will be the last person to argue against a screamingly powerful iMac, but if they offered one Apple would have to make the case to consumers that there was a material, out of the box advantage to that power that offset the fact that you can't throw it in your bag and take it around, and then Apple would have to turn around and make the case to its power users that they really still wanted to buy Mac Pros.
I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.
.....: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop
I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.
You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance. That's why the iMac needs a desk top class cpu and desk top like performance in order to be an attractive product.
If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.
You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance.
That wasn't my question.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
I agree to certain extent. Laptop power is 'good enough' for most users. However if the iMac continues to be a 'stationary lap top' that's certainly going to be recipe for failure.
Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
I think there are two ways to look at this question depending on your needs.
1) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook plus monitor instead of an iMac then you give up the "high tech furniture" feature of the iMac plus you give up Firewire (unless your MB is white in color) and maybe video performance if either of those matter.
2) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook Pro plus monitor then you are spending a fair chunk more money versus an iMac as well as the aesthetics mentioned above but getting similar tech specs for those who care.
In either case, you can't do a one-for-one replacement but without doubt it's more feasible to go this route than, say, five years ago.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
My pitch, succinctly would be: user experience...
I can't stand using a laptop and I have a 17" MBP with 4GB Mem and a 2.5GHz processor. I'm getting rid to go back to an iMac (in the absence of an affordable Powermac/Mac Pro). Here's 5 reasons why...
It never leaves the house.
The 1920x1200 resolution is just too small on a 17" screen. I love that beautiful 24" display on the iMac and miss it dearly
I like a full size keyboard - why be restricted to using function keys and the like when I'm sat in an office?
It looks like it is in surgery constantly as there are so many devices connected to it (printer, FW800 drive, Mouse, Keyboard, iPhone cable, Network cable, power cable etc). If I want to move it to another room I have to unplug about 8 cables!
It's too expensive.
I like a nice big screen. I like an aesthetically pleasing desktop with the cables hidden around the back to give me more desk space (the MBP actually has a larger footprint than the iMac in my mind). A desktop computer is like the Rolls Royce of cars, why have cotton when you can have silk? I don't understand the obsession with laptops - bring on the next prosumer Mac...
Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.
And that reason is...?
See, that's the rub. "Performance" is only a reason if it gains you something concrete; laptops have enough for snappy performance in everyday use, so if it simply makes things go faster that are fast enough, that's not much of a selling point. What does it do?
If you look at T-rex's example above, I'm wondering why he ever bought a laptop in the first place. My external hard drive, printer and speakers are all wireless and I have no second monitor. There are obvious performance tradeoffs in going from a hard drive over FW800 to one over 802.11n, and that's one question that can go in a desktop machine's favor. But frankly, if you're talking about FireWire you're talking about professionals, not consumers. A lot of professionals need and will need desktops. The questions are: What kind? and for what? The iMac could move to become a more professional-strength machine easily if the numbers justified it.
By the way, I wouldn't necessarily add the cost or bulk of Apple's 24" monitor to the cost of a laptop to compare it to the iMac. For many people a MacBook alone will do the job just fine. If you need or really prefer a larger screen, and I agree that they're much easier on the eyes, then that's one possible argument in favor of a desktop as well. Or a second monitor for your laptop.
VM Ware with two cores enabled is a revelation. It feels 'native'.
For a platform that wooing switchers the ability to run Windows smoothly under virtualization is a selling point IMO.
I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.
I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.
It will be interesting to watch this develop.
The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.
When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.
4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.
The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.
When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.
4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.
Thanks for posting back about this. I guess that must be an added feature since the early demo I saw. What I had seen on the corporate server stuff was intended to be used full time so that a multi-core server could run multiple OSes simultaneously.
Comments
Before our current global economic meltdown, the current iMac was selling very well. With a higher average revenue than the general desktop market.
Apple is not directly supporting CUDA. Apple is developing an open graphics framework called OpenCL. CUDA will work with OpenCL.
Yes, the point, however, is that the hardware should be compatible with the ultimate CUDA implementation. It is a game changer when it comes to video.
(They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.)
If they sold an aluminum Macbook without the monitor, but with the keyboard and multitouch trackpad and all the same ports on the side, I'd buy it so fast they wouldn't know what had happened. "Where did this money come from? Was it that easy?" they'd say. Yes, Apple, it would be that easy. Just take off the display. Of course, I'm an odd duck, but it's basically the form factor of an Apple II, one of the best-selling computers of all time. It's too nice and makes too much sense for Apple to do it now.
Yes, the point, however, is that the hardware should be compatible with the ultimate CUDA implementation. It is a game changer when it comes to video.
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
I don't share the confidence you have in reading the tea leaves. First, Apple is one of the few companies in the industry seeing growth right now, so it's hard to argue that anything they're doing is horribly wrong. Desktop sales are down generally, not just at Apple, and that makes perfect sense: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop and a wireless printer and be able to do what you want to do where you want to do it, whether it's on OS X or Windows or Linux? Obviously this argument doesn't wash for users who still need a lot of power, but those are a minority of users.
Between laptop chips hitting a sweet spot in performance and the economic downturn, more power does not translate directly to more sales. I will be the last person to argue against a screamingly powerful iMac, but if they offered one Apple would have to make the case to consumers that there was a material, out of the box advantage to that power that offset the fact that you can't throw it in your bag and take it around, and then Apple would have to turn around and make the case to its power users that they really still wanted to buy Mac Pros.
I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.
.....: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop
I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.
You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance. That's why the iMac needs a desk top class cpu and desk top like performance in order to be an attractive product.
If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.
You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance.
That wasn't my question.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
That wasn't my question.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
I agree to certain extent. Laptop power is 'good enough' for most users. However if the iMac continues to be a 'stationary lap top' that's certainly going to be recipe for failure.
Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.
That wasn't my question.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
I think there are two ways to look at this question depending on your needs.
1) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook plus monitor instead of an iMac then you give up the "high tech furniture" feature of the iMac plus you give up Firewire (unless your MB is white in color) and maybe video performance if either of those matter.
2) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook Pro plus monitor then you are spending a fair chunk more money versus an iMac as well as the aesthetics mentioned above but getting similar tech specs for those who care.
In either case, you can't do a one-for-one replacement but without doubt it's more feasible to go this route than, say, five years ago.
That wasn't my question.
My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.
Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?
Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
My pitch, succinctly would be: user experience...
I can't stand using a laptop and I have a 17" MBP with 4GB Mem and a 2.5GHz processor. I'm getting rid to go back to an iMac (in the absence of an affordable Powermac/Mac Pro). Here's 5 reasons why...
It never leaves the house.
The 1920x1200 resolution is just too small on a 17" screen. I love that beautiful 24" display on the iMac and miss it dearly
I like a full size keyboard - why be restricted to using function keys and the like when I'm sat in an office?
It looks like it is in surgery constantly as there are so many devices connected to it (printer, FW800 drive, Mouse, Keyboard, iPhone cable, Network cable, power cable etc). If I want to move it to another room I have to unplug about 8 cables!
It's too expensive.
I like a nice big screen. I like an aesthetically pleasing desktop with the cables hidden around the back to give me more desk space (the MBP actually has a larger footprint than the iMac in my mind). A desktop computer is like the Rolls Royce of cars, why have cotton when you can have silk? I don't understand the obsession with laptops - bring on the next prosumer Mac...
Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.
And that reason is...?
See, that's the rub. "Performance" is only a reason if it gains you something concrete; laptops have enough for snappy performance in everyday use, so if it simply makes things go faster that are fast enough, that's not much of a selling point. What does it do?
If you look at T-rex's example above, I'm wondering why he ever bought a laptop in the first place. My external hard drive, printer and speakers are all wireless and I have no second monitor. There are obvious performance tradeoffs in going from a hard drive over FW800 to one over 802.11n, and that's one question that can go in a desktop machine's favor. But frankly, if you're talking about FireWire you're talking about professionals, not consumers. A lot of professionals need and will need desktops. The questions are: What kind? and for what? The iMac could move to become a more professional-strength machine easily if the numbers justified it.
By the way, I wouldn't necessarily add the cost or bulk of Apple's 24" monitor to the cost of a laptop to compare it to the iMac. For many people a MacBook alone will do the job just fine. If you need or really prefer a larger screen, and I agree that they're much easier on the eyes, then that's one possible argument in favor of a desktop as well. Or a second monitor for your laptop.
And that reason is...?
.
I would argue that the reason is virtualization.
VM Ware with two cores enabled is a revelation. It feels 'native'.
For a platform that wooing switchers the ability to run Windows smoothly under virtualization is a selling point IMO.
I would argue that the reason is virtualization.
VM Ware with two cores enabled is a revelation. It feels 'native'.
For a platform that wooing switchers the ability to run Windows smoothly under virtualization is a selling point IMO.
I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.
It will be interesting to watch this develop.
I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.
It will be interesting to watch this develop.
The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.
When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.
4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.
The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.
When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.
4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.
Thanks for posting back about this. I guess that must be an added feature since the early demo I saw. What I had seen on the corporate server stuff was intended to be used full time so that a multi-core server could run multiple OSes simultaneously.
Cheers