This Lemon Bon Bon is so odd. He replies to a post by dissecting a line from a post, replying, then repeating the process. He removes the name of the poster from the quote making it more difficult to discern the thread unless you are the original poster, and he finsihed all his posts by writing his handle at the bottom despite it being obvious who wrote the post. None of that says rational thinking.
I've been thinking of asking him to remove the sig from the bottom of the posts because it's annoying to respond to with it there. It has to be removed for the flow. If it said something, that would be different.
- the cpus will cost more than current Harpertown and a lot more: e.g. a 2.80 harpertown costs $800, a 2.66GHz xeon nehalem will cost $960. Apple would have to go down to 2.53Ghz to have a nehalem xeon that costs about the same as the 2.80 harpertown. I'm not saying that a 2.53 nehalem is not better than a 2.80 harpertown, I'm just saying that the entry price for nehalem cpus is higher than for harpertown ones.
- AFAIK, motherboards based on nehalem xeon cost more to manufacture than previous ones, more layers, expensive chipset (just like for harpertown), and while the DDR3-ECC RAM may be less expensive than FB-DIMMS, you need to buy them in trio and in the case of a dual-cpu computer, you would need 6 of them to make good use of the memory controller.
- IMO, the power supply will be the same since the TDP of nehalem xeons (95-130W each) will be about the same as the TDP of the current harpertowns (80-150W each) in the Mac Pro.
I believe you're being too optimistic in thinking that moving to nehalem xeons for the Mac Pro will not induce another price increase, and another price increase for the entry point, too. Of course Apple is not paying the "retail" price of the cpus, but a percentage of it, in any case if they were paying $800-x% for harpertown, they still will be paying $960-x% for nehalem xeon and unless you change x, $960-x% will always be higher than $800-x%. The chipset for Harpertown or nehalem Xeons is a small percentage of the cost of the cpu, probably around $100. While the new "northbridge" doesn't include a MC, it includes 2 QPI links and a 24/32 PCIe lanes controller: new technologies, new chips = expensive. X58 is more expensive than X48.
You're repeating the same assumptions, that you can't support.
You are making up some numbers, and using others that aren't relevant.
As I mentioned earlier, you can;t use numbers from the end of a chip line to numbers at the beginning of a chip line. The old chips have been dropped in price several times, while the new ones are at the highest they will ever be.
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time.
It's very dangerous to make assumptions based of numbers that may not have anything to do with Apple's prices. You don't know how much Apple pays for these chips. Prices released are for bin quantities. Apple, and other large manufacturers, buy many bins of these chips, bringing the prices down a long way.
It's very possible that Apple's price for these chips is no more than half the numbers you quote, and therefor, make up a much smaller percentage of the machines cost than you assume.
Quote:
The price cuts you have mentionned here concern the xeons that are in fact desktop quad-core cpus renamed, those are for uniprocesseur servers and have seen price cuts just like the other desktop chips from Intel. The DP-capable Xeons HAVE NOT seen any price cut since their launch late 2007.
Perhaps you didn't notice it, but the last column in which the prices are given are clearly headed "Release Prices". They don't reflect current pricing.
Quote:
Why the Mac Pro hasn't been updated yet?
There was nothing to update it to. No price cuts on harpertown cpus from Intel, no new chipset and "just" one more expensive 3.40Ghz model. What Apple could have done is just a new BTO option for the 3.40GHz.
The only correct thing here is the part about the 2.4 GHz part.
Quote:
What wait to release a Core i7 Mac Pro?
To release it at the same time as the dual-Xeon Mac Pro. The same family. Releasing a Core i7 Mac Pro alone would have probably cut all the potential sales of the harpertown Mac Pro. There is also a Core i7 speedbump to 3.06/3.33Ghz planned for Q2... Or they could wait for the Xeon labelled Core i7 (W3500 series) priced just like the desktop Core i7, so that they could say that all Mac Pro have Xeon-class cpus.
You are under the impression that Apple WILL release an i7 Mac Pro? They won't.
There is NO Xeon labeled i7. The i7 is purely a desktop chip designation. Xeon is a server and workstation designation. The two are not interchangeable.
Quote:
Desktops Macs.
As far as I understand, the iMac represents probably 90-95% of Apple's desktop sales for the previous quarters, that's still a lot of sales, hot cakes or not. It's the only desktop Mac that's not too old and that can be of a certain value for the consumer. You know that the ASP for Apple computers is about $1500, it wouldn't hurt having another computer with more potential sales (than the dual-xeon Mac Pro) at that price and higher. People who wouldn't have bought a Mac Pro would probably be interested in a less expensive tower (instead of an iMac with probably lower margins than a 2.66GHz Core i7 tower starting at $1499), and people who really need that much power won't be disappointed with the dual-xeon nehalem Mac Pro (and they have the cash, the +$3K, to spend on those).
95%? As far as you understand? Where did you get that understanding from? A guess? I've never seen any analysis of Apple's desktop sales that have come anywhere close to that number. 60 to 75% possibly.
Quote:
Other updates:
Mac mini: IMO, it's a shame this one was not updated to the specs of the white MacBook (to make it simple).
iMac: I hope Apple was waiting for the 65W desktop quads, because other than that, it's custom mobile chips again and probably a very small speedbump.
According to your "understanding" I'm surprised you aren't simply calling for its discontinuance.
Studiously ignore? It's obvious. Is there anyone who DOESN'T want an X-Mac?!
Amnesia? We've agreed about this in the past. I guess you forgot? I presume it hasn't changed? X-Mac or a 'Low-end' Mid-tower. It isn't hard to grasp. Put the i7 in the Mac Pro case. Drop the price and offer artists, gamers and pros (presumably there are some out there you balk at Apple's prices and wouldn't mind getting great performance at a sane price.)
I'd even vouch that there is a bigger market for tower buyers at the 'sane' side of the market for gamers, small business artists, Pro's with smaller wads. I'd say at least 10% for an entry level single cpu Mac Pro range vs 5% for the dual Mac Pro. With the steeper price for the 'i7' Xeons then I'm guessing the new model (when it comes!) will finally have priced the Mac Pro into irrelevance. Any bets for the entry model costing £2000? There's no denying the dual Mac Pro's chosen market but there's almost a yawning gap of £1000 from £1000-£1700 (£1850 by the time you put in the ancient 8800GT...) for a supposed 'low end' Mac Pro. The 'facts' as I see them don't back you up at all. HEh. The fact that Apple offer a single cpu Xeon option says they have a slither of a conscience...and that they recognise the need for something more affordable tower. Offer a cheaper Mac Pro based on the i7 chipset. Simple.
Just because Apple hasn't offered something in the past is no indicator as to whether they will in the future. You're playing the probability game. In that sense, you're no more sage like than me, the analysts or anyone else. But I can want it. And I've spammed Apple a 'couple of times' with my suggestions.
Apple's problem is that they have historically chased the dollar. It's great when it's great but it's clearly clouding their thinking on desktops. It's flawed. It is my opinion. But clearly plenty of PC buyers and others on this forum agree with those sentiments.
It's great when the desktops get updated...looks ok. But it looks really bad when they haven't even received a minor specs bump in the same year, or 2 or 3 years in some instances. It looks like a company that are taking their eye off the ball. The problem is that they have too few products covering too wide a price point.
As for wandering? Why not. Their desktop strategy is a desert. There are a few chasms to wander inbetween. Notably between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. And the iMac doesn't fill it, I'm afraid. There's plenty to pontificate about as our posts counts will testify to.
Pfft. You accuse me of being selective. Bah. You can talk.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. My sig'? Edit it out. It can't be that difficult. I edit bits out when I reply to you. Especially all the lengthy bits you're wrong about.
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time.
But that doesn't make it right or competitive. ie the fact that they don't. It just makes their desktop look out of date, stupid and irrelevant. And expensive. That's their perogative, I guess. Oh for some competition in the Apple space?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
Quote:
They won't
Eh. How do you know that. Do you have insider information? Or are you guessing based upon previous performance as guidance?
The Mac Pro isn't competing with the lower priced i7 machines that are out there, or will be out there. They compete with workstations that cost about the same. You could have said the same thing about the old Mac Pros. Why did Apple only use Xeons in them?
I disagree. It is competing with i7 desktops out there. i7 desktops that cost less, perform better, have better gpus, better ram, better hd and even have the 'world of hurt' blue ray in there.
Sure. It's competing 'directly' with the other workstations. But do any of the other workstations have 2 gigs of ram, a small hd and a 2600 pro as standard. (I have my chocolate hat on standby.)
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
The 'desktop' disease affects the entire range. I can't look at the Mac Pro in isolation. They could have used higher performing chips and higher performing gpus such as the Nvidia 280 in the Mac Pro long before now. Why not?
You're repeating the same assumptions, that you can't support.
You are making up some numbers, and using others that aren't relevant. (1)
As I mentioned earlier, you can;t use numbers from the end of a chip line to numbers at the beginning of a chip line. The old chips have been dropped in price several times, while the new ones are at the highest they will ever be. (2)
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time. (3)
It's very dangerous to make assumptions based of numbers that may not have anything to do with Apple's prices. You don't know how much Apple pays for these chips. Prices released are for bin quantities. Apple, and other large manufacturers, buy many bins of these chips, bringing the prices down a long way.
It's very possible that Apple's price for these chips is no more than half the numbers you quote, and therefor, make up a much smaller percentage of the machines cost than you assume. (4)
Perhaps you didn't notice it, but the last column in which the prices are given are clearly headed "Release Prices". They don't reflect current pricing. (5)
The only correct thing here is the part about the 2.4 GHz part. (6)
You are under the impression that Apple WILL release an i7 Mac Pro? They won't. (7)
There is NO Xeon labeled i7. The i7 is purely a desktop chip designation. Xeon is a server and workstation designation. The two are not interchangeable. (8)
95%? As far as you understand? Where did you get that understanding from? A guess? I've never seen any analysis of Apple's desktop sales that have come anywhere close to that number. 60 to 75% possibly. (9)
According to your "understanding" I'm surprised you aren't simply calling for its discontinuance. (10)
(1) I think you're the one making most of the assumptions, without any proof or irrelevant links than don't concern the Mac Pro Xeons. See below.
The only numbers I may have made up are:
- the price of the server chipset ($100): this is based on the knowledge of the price of mobile/desktop chipsets that can be found easily and that are priced between $20 and $70. A server chipset is of course more expensive, but doesn't compare to the price of 2 high-end server cpus which Apple uses on the Mac Pro.
- the % of Mac Pro+Mac mini va iMac sales. See below.
(2) End of the line or not, if you took the time to look at Intel's price list, you would have seen that the list price of the Xeon cpus for the Mac Pro has not decreased. In fact, most of the DP-Xeon cpus have not seen their list price change since their launch (woodcrest included). So, unless you have actual documents that prove your point, I trust Intel's price list over your assumption.
(3) Of course not I'm not forgetting. The fact is that since the Intel switch, Apple keeps increasing the entry price points on all their models: Mac mini was $499 now $599 (and old), MB was $999 then $1090 now $1299, iMac was $999 then $1199, Mac Pro $2199/2499 then $2299/2799. I'm the one thinking that Apple will increase again the entry price point of the Mac Pro to (probably) +$3K for a dual 2.66 models with 6GB RAM. Now if Apple chooses another cpu or a different RAM configuration, price may differ.
(4) Of course Apple doesn't pay the list price. But I think you shouldn't apply your general guess of "no more than half" on the Mac Pro. Apple is not selling millions of them, so they are not buying millions of xeons. The discount may not be as much as you think. But no matter what the discount is, if the list price for a chip "A" is higher than the one of a chip "B", if Apple buys the same quantities, they will pay more for the chip "A" than for the chip "B".
(5) That's exactly why i linked those list. They show that the "Release Prices" and the current prices are the SAME for the xeons used in the Mac Pro. If you had bothered to open Intel's list price, you would have seen that.
(6) The only correct thing here is... well you couldn't even get this right.
(7) No I'm not, I think a Core i7/W3500 Mac pro would be a nice addition to the Mac Pro family. I've never said Apple will make a Core i7 Mac Pro, I think they should.
(8) You've got it the other way around. That shows how much you are paying attention. The current X3300 series of Xeon chips are in fact desktop Q9000 series cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS, the SAME PRICES and the SAME PRICE CUTS. Go to the Intel site and see for yourself. The future W3500 series of Xeon chips will be in fact the desktop Core i7 cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS and the SAME PRICES.
(9) Since Apple doesn't disclose model numbers, your GUESS is as good/bad as mine. I'll tell you that my "guess" was based on unofficial numbers for the year 2007 that gave 3% for the Mac mini and 8% for the Mac Pro. My "assumption" for the last 2 quarters is that those numbers were even worse, hence 90-95% (not just 95%) for the iMac. Even Tim Cook said that the Mac Pro was not a significant part of the desktop business. I'd be happy if you could share actual numbers...
By the way, since english is not my mother tongue, I may sometimes use expressions in an odd way...
(10) No I'm not. I think that there is a lot more to do in the desktop business, and for me, the numbers from last quarter just show how bad things can get when you don't take care of it (the desktop business). What I would like is for Apple to release new/updated models as soon as possible.
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
Come on Lemon that's rhetorical. Apple chose Xeons because they support dual socket and perform like a workstation should. Though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a single socket Mac Pro.
Come on Lemon that's rhetorical. Apple chose Xeons because they support dual socket and perform like a workstation should. Though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a single socket Mac Pro.
And there's always the Xeon 3500 series. It's designed for single socket motherboards and is priced more reasonably. Plus you get a few advantages over the almost identical Core i7, namely ECC memory and faster memory (1,600MHz) support.
Studiously ignore? It's obvious. Is there anyone who DOESN'T want an X-Mac?!
Amnesia? We've agreed about this in the past. I guess you forgot? I presume it hasn't changed? X-Mac or a 'Low-end' Mid-tower. It isn't hard to grasp. Put the i7 in the Mac Pro case. Drop the price and offer artists, gamers and pros (presumably there are some out there you balk at Apple's prices and wouldn't mind getting great performance at a sane price.)
I'd even vouch that there is a bigger market for tower buyers at the 'sane' side of the market for gamers, small business artists, Pro's with smaller wads. I'd say at least 10% for an entry level single cpu Mac Pro range vs 5% for the dual Mac Pro. With the steeper price for the 'i7' Xeons then I'm guessing the new model (when it comes!) will finally have priced the Mac Pro into irrelevance. Any bets for the entry model costing £2000? There's no denying the dual Mac Pro's chosen market but there's almost a yawning gap of £1000 from £1000-£1700 (£1850 by the time you put in the ancient 8800GT...) for a supposed 'low end' Mac Pro. The 'facts' as I see them don't back you up at all. HEh. The fact that Apple offer a single cpu Xeon option says they have a slither of a conscience...and that they recognise the need for something more affordable tower. Offer a cheaper Mac Pro based on the i7 chipset. Simple.
Just because Apple hasn't offered something in the past is no indicator as to whether they will in the future. You're playing the probability game. In that sense, you're no more sage like than me, the analysts or anyone else. But I can want it. And I've spammed Apple a 'couple of times' with my suggestions.
Apple's problem is that they have historically chased the dollar. It's great when it's great but it's clearly clouding their thinking on desktops. It's flawed. It is my opinion. But clearly plenty of PC buyers and others on this forum agree with those sentiments.
It's great when the desktops get updated...looks ok. But it looks really bad when they haven't even received a minor specs bump in the same year, or 2 or 3 years in some instances. It looks like a company that are taking their eye off the ball. The problem is that they have too few products covering too wide a price point.
As for wandering? Why not. Their desktop strategy is a desert. There are a few chasms to wander inbetween. Notably between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. And the iMac doesn't fill it, I'm afraid. There's plenty to pontificate about as our posts counts will testify to.
Pfft. You accuse me of being selective. Bah. You can talk.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. My sig'? Edit it out. It can't be that difficult. I edit bits out when I reply to you. Especially all the lengthy bits you're wrong about.
Well, I won't edit this one at all.
I don't think we can just pull one cpu and revise the mobo. This would have to be a smaller machine altogether. I designed one when the first G5 tower came out, to sell for $995. I used my experience as a designer of pro audio electronics to do that. My friends at Apple told me that it would work, but that management would not be interested in such a machine. I don't know if I even have the designs in my backups anymore it seems so long ago. It had one double width slot for graphics, and one other 16 lane slot, with 4 memory sockets on one slide out board, as the pro machines have. A smaller power supply, no bottom "feet, and a few other simplifications.
If it were not going against Apple's copyrights, as we see now, I might have even produced it, but I'm not interested in testing that out.
But that doesn't make it right or competitive. ie the fact that they don't. It just makes their desktop look out of date, stupid and irrelevant. And expensive. That's their perogative, I guess. Oh for some competition in the Apple space?
I don't agree, or not agree on that one. It's just what they do.
People are not realizing that Apple's margins are good, but not particularly high. Somehow, they seem to think that Apple makes unreasonable profits, when their profits are in the middle of the field.
Many companies have much higher margins and profits than Apple.
We don't actually know what their costs are. My bet, from having been a manufacturer, is that they don't make much profit when their new models come out, but that profit rises as it progresses, to give us what we see in the quarterlies. So the average profits are 10 to 11% or so. Again, good, but not outstanding.
It seems to me that if they did continually drop their prices on the same model as the year went on, we would see margins and prifots erode as well. Then no one would be happy.
They make far more profit on their software and services than they make on their hardware, which is always the case. That's why MS, for example, can invest so many billions in areas in which they lose so many billions. Their software margins are around 80+%.
Quote:
PS. Eh. How do you know that. Do you have insider information? Or are you guessing based upon previous performance as guidance?
Mostly from past performance. But also from what their market for the machines are. I linked to BOXX in another post. I don't know if you read that. Their single chip i7 workstation costs close to $7,000, and is the CHEAPEST competitor in that market when compared to other well known names.
That makes the Mac Pro positively miserly. You should see some of their dual Xeon models!
This is why I don't think Apple is interested in going to i7 for the Mac Pro. They actually have an edge in that market in performance AND price.
I disagree. It is competing with i7 desktops out there. i7 desktops that cost less, perform better, have better gpus, better ram, better hd and even have the 'world of hurt' blue ray in there.
Sure. It's competing 'directly' with the other workstations. But do any of the other workstations have 2 gigs of ram, a small hd and a 2600 pro as standard. (I have my chocolate hat on standby.)
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
The 'desktop' disease affects the entire range. I can't look at the Mac Pro in isolation. They could have used higher performing chips and higher performing gpus such as the Nvidia 280 in the Mac Pro long before now. Why not?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
You say it's competing against single chip desktops, but you would have to provide evidence for that as it's a bit of a stretch.
As Apple doesn't market it that way, and most of its sales don't come from people buying it as just another desktop because of its size and cost, that puts the load on you this time.
You would have to look at what other workstations come with. But it doesn't matter what the base configuration is. What matters is what it can be brought up to.
They use only Xeons for the reasons I gave. Those buying these machines want the highest performance and that requires more than a one chip desktop cpu these days.
Before many other companies were able to provide dual chip solutions at lower price levels, Apple provided a low end single cpu machine. Now that the other competitors in the workstation market provide two chip machines at those levels, Apple must as well. It;s pretty simple, you don't have to go looking for conspiracies on Apple's part to find an answer.
iMacs are a different case. Those are used mostly in homes and schools, where the complete silence is a major factor. We have two Mac labs in my daughters school. All are iMacs, and the room is silent. We also have one Dell lab, and the room is anything but. This seems to be a major consideration on Apple's part.
We now see rumors that Apple may have a quad core iMac soon. Let's wait to see if that's true before continuing on this avenue.
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.
As a defector from Windows to OS X (as far as a laptop is concerned), I'm finding myself in a situation where there's no desktop hardware solution that meets my needs. I want a system that is powerful enough to do some high-def video editing, that allows me the flexibility to select/upgrade the graphics system, and boot Windows to do some gaming.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
I wonder whether Steve Jobs' self-imposed recovery time also leaves him enough time to rethink Apple's product lines. Taking into account recent shifts in user needs, why certain Mac products do better than others, emerging technologies, etc.
He might even find some time to browse these forums (yeah, right... ).
Yet I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back full of ideas on what to do next. And in that respect his recovery time could be the best thing that happened to Apple since the iMac.
I wouldn't be surprised.
With rumors of Apple introducing a TV set of their own with built in Apple TV I wonder whether this heralds the break up of the iMac line into 3 products:
- Apple TV set with built in 'Apple TV', perhaps DVD or Blu-Ray player, plus online movie rentals
- 19" or 20" laptop for people who want (some) mobility but a larger screen
- midrange tower, something with a single quad-core CPU and one or two PCI slots and which can plug into the Apple 24" LED display (and perhaps a 30" LED once introduced).
I really think the days of the iMac should be numbered.
To watch movies LCD TVs are cheap enough these days and they're bigger.
People who don't have the desk space for a tower look to a laptop + external LCD monitor.
And people who want a small modular system don't have an offering in the iMac at all.
A revival of the cube would be nice. Slightly bigger to fit high-end GPUs, yet something elegant, distinct while still being mid-range.
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.
As a defector from Windows to OS X (as far as a laptop is concerned), I'm finding myself in a situation where there's no desktop hardware solution that meets my needs. I want a system that is powerful enough to do some high-def video editing, that allows me the flexibility to select/upgrade the graphics system, and boot Windows to do some gaming.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
My hat is off to everyone here. You seem to have tremendous insight and I'm impressed.
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC) that I can purchase.
Like others have said before me, there is a need that is not being met. Of course, I have no idea how big a market share this need represents.
My hat is off to everyone here. You seem to have tremendous insight and I'm impressed.
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC) that I can purchase.
Like others have said before me, there is a need that is not being met. Of course, I have no idea how big a market share this need represents.
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
Yeah...I didn't express myself very well. As far as the Mac Pros, and this is only as it relates to my needs and wants, the cost / performance / GPU options just don't work out. I realize that I am probably (possibly?) not the best target market for Apple.
The back of the iMac is in the order of 1/4 of a square meter, if made in aluminium that is plenty to cool of both a CPU and GPU of quite a number of watts combined. So the iMac can still be made quite and very fast
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC)
Well, lookee here. Someone who doesn't subscribe to Melgross' world view.
There must be a few of them about otherwise Apple's desktops wouldn't have fallen 25% in unit sales. But I suppose that has nothing to do with lack of choice, out of date hardware, obscene prices or the lack of even a minor spec bump over the last year or so. I'm so glad we found you. You're evidence that Apple isn't doing its job right. Join the club. Prepare to grow a very long beard waiting...
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
Quote:
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.
Hey, I knew there was somebody that subscribed to my 'world view' somewhere...I'm so glad I finally met you.
Comments
This Lemon Bon Bon is so odd. He replies to a post by dissecting a line from a post, replying, then repeating the process. He removes the name of the poster from the quote making it more difficult to discern the thread unless you are the original poster, and he finsihed all his posts by writing his handle at the bottom despite it being obvious who wrote the post. None of that says rational thinking.
I've been thinking of asking him to remove the sig from the bottom of the posts because it's annoying to respond to with it there. It has to be removed for the flow. If it said something, that would be different.
Let's talk about nehalem EP:
- the cpus will cost more than current Harpertown and a lot more: e.g. a 2.80 harpertown costs $800, a 2.66GHz xeon nehalem will cost $960. Apple would have to go down to 2.53Ghz to have a nehalem xeon that costs about the same as the 2.80 harpertown. I'm not saying that a 2.53 nehalem is not better than a 2.80 harpertown, I'm just saying that the entry price for nehalem cpus is higher than for harpertown ones.
- AFAIK, motherboards based on nehalem xeon cost more to manufacture than previous ones, more layers, expensive chipset (just like for harpertown), and while the DDR3-ECC RAM may be less expensive than FB-DIMMS, you need to buy them in trio and in the case of a dual-cpu computer, you would need 6 of them to make good use of the memory controller.
- IMO, the power supply will be the same since the TDP of nehalem xeons (95-130W each) will be about the same as the TDP of the current harpertowns (80-150W each) in the Mac Pro.
I believe you're being too optimistic in thinking that moving to nehalem xeons for the Mac Pro will not induce another price increase, and another price increase for the entry point, too. Of course Apple is not paying the "retail" price of the cpus, but a percentage of it, in any case if they were paying $800-x% for harpertown, they still will be paying $960-x% for nehalem xeon and unless you change x, $960-x% will always be higher than $800-x%. The chipset for Harpertown or nehalem Xeons is a small percentage of the cost of the cpu, probably around $100. While the new "northbridge" doesn't include a MC, it includes 2 QPI links and a 24/32 PCIe lanes controller: new technologies, new chips = expensive. X58 is more expensive than X48.
You're repeating the same assumptions, that you can't support.
You are making up some numbers, and using others that aren't relevant.
As I mentioned earlier, you can;t use numbers from the end of a chip line to numbers at the beginning of a chip line. The old chips have been dropped in price several times, while the new ones are at the highest they will ever be.
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time.
It's very dangerous to make assumptions based of numbers that may not have anything to do with Apple's prices. You don't know how much Apple pays for these chips. Prices released are for bin quantities. Apple, and other large manufacturers, buy many bins of these chips, bringing the prices down a long way.
It's very possible that Apple's price for these chips is no more than half the numbers you quote, and therefor, make up a much smaller percentage of the machines cost than you assume.
The price cuts you have mentionned here concern the xeons that are in fact desktop quad-core cpus renamed, those are for uniprocesseur servers and have seen price cuts just like the other desktop chips from Intel. The DP-capable Xeons HAVE NOT seen any price cut since their launch late 2007.
Jan_18_09_1ku_Price.pdf
Harpertown.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_45_nm.29
Gainestown.22_.2845_nm.29_.5B1.5D_.5B2.5D
Perhaps you didn't notice it, but the last column in which the prices are given are clearly headed "Release Prices". They don't reflect current pricing.
Why the Mac Pro hasn't been updated yet?
There was nothing to update it to. No price cuts on harpertown cpus from Intel, no new chipset and "just" one more expensive 3.40Ghz model. What Apple could have done is just a new BTO option for the 3.40GHz.
The only correct thing here is the part about the 2.4 GHz part.
What wait to release a Core i7 Mac Pro?
To release it at the same time as the dual-Xeon Mac Pro. The same family. Releasing a Core i7 Mac Pro alone would have probably cut all the potential sales of the harpertown Mac Pro. There is also a Core i7 speedbump to 3.06/3.33Ghz planned for Q2... Or they could wait for the Xeon labelled Core i7 (W3500 series) priced just like the desktop Core i7, so that they could say that all Mac Pro have Xeon-class cpus.
You are under the impression that Apple WILL release an i7 Mac Pro? They won't.
There is NO Xeon labeled i7. The i7 is purely a desktop chip designation. Xeon is a server and workstation designation. The two are not interchangeable.
Desktops Macs.
As far as I understand, the iMac represents probably 90-95% of Apple's desktop sales for the previous quarters, that's still a lot of sales, hot cakes or not. It's the only desktop Mac that's not too old and that can be of a certain value for the consumer. You know that the ASP for Apple computers is about $1500, it wouldn't hurt having another computer with more potential sales (than the dual-xeon Mac Pro) at that price and higher. People who wouldn't have bought a Mac Pro would probably be interested in a less expensive tower (instead of an iMac with probably lower margins than a 2.66GHz Core i7 tower starting at $1499), and people who really need that much power won't be disappointed with the dual-xeon nehalem Mac Pro (and they have the cash, the +$3K, to spend on those).
95%? As far as you understand? Where did you get that understanding from? A guess? I've never seen any analysis of Apple's desktop sales that have come anywhere close to that number. 60 to 75% possibly.
Other updates:
Mac mini: IMO, it's a shame this one was not updated to the specs of the white MacBook (to make it simple).
iMac: I hope Apple was waiting for the 65W desktop quads, because other than that, it's custom mobile chips again and probably a very small speedbump.
According to your "understanding" I'm surprised you aren't simply calling for its discontinuance.
xMac
Studiously ignore? It's obvious. Is there anyone who DOESN'T want an X-Mac?!
Amnesia? We've agreed about this in the past. I guess you forgot? I presume it hasn't changed? X-Mac or a 'Low-end' Mid-tower. It isn't hard to grasp. Put the i7 in the Mac Pro case. Drop the price and offer artists, gamers and pros (presumably there are some out there you balk at Apple's prices and wouldn't mind getting great performance at a sane price.)
I'd even vouch that there is a bigger market for tower buyers at the 'sane' side of the market for gamers, small business artists, Pro's with smaller wads. I'd say at least 10% for an entry level single cpu Mac Pro range vs 5% for the dual Mac Pro. With the steeper price for the 'i7' Xeons then I'm guessing the new model (when it comes!) will finally have priced the Mac Pro into irrelevance. Any bets for the entry model costing £2000? There's no denying the dual Mac Pro's chosen market but there's almost a yawning gap of £1000 from £1000-£1700 (£1850 by the time you put in the ancient 8800GT...) for a supposed 'low end' Mac Pro. The 'facts' as I see them don't back you up at all. HEh. The fact that Apple offer a single cpu Xeon option says they have a slither of a conscience...and that they recognise the need for something more affordable tower. Offer a cheaper Mac Pro based on the i7 chipset. Simple.
Just because Apple hasn't offered something in the past is no indicator as to whether they will in the future. You're playing the probability game. In that sense, you're no more sage like than me, the analysts or anyone else. But I can want it. And I've spammed Apple a 'couple of times' with my suggestions.
Apple's problem is that they have historically chased the dollar. It's great when it's great but it's clearly clouding their thinking on desktops. It's flawed. It is my opinion. But clearly plenty of PC buyers and others on this forum agree with those sentiments.
It's great when the desktops get updated...looks ok. But it looks really bad when they haven't even received a minor specs bump in the same year, or 2 or 3 years in some instances. It looks like a company that are taking their eye off the ball. The problem is that they have too few products covering too wide a price point.
As for wandering? Why not. Their desktop strategy is a desert. There are a few chasms to wander inbetween. Notably between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. And the iMac doesn't fill it, I'm afraid. There's plenty to pontificate about as our posts counts will testify to.
Pfft. You accuse me of being selective. Bah. You can talk.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. My sig'? Edit it out. It can't be that difficult. I edit bits out when I reply to you. Especially all the lengthy bits you're wrong about.
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time.
But that doesn't make it right or competitive. ie the fact that they don't. It just makes their desktop look out of date, stupid and irrelevant. And expensive. That's their perogative, I guess. Oh for some competition in the Apple space?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
They won't
Eh. How do you know that. Do you have insider information? Or are you guessing based upon previous performance as guidance?
forgetting
Nobody can forget anything about Apple. Especially the prices! ie the fact that they, infamously, DON'T change them even when the specs are years old.
I doubt he forgot at all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The Mac Pro isn't competing with the lower priced i7 machines that are out there, or will be out there. They compete with workstations that cost about the same. You could have said the same thing about the old Mac Pros. Why did Apple only use Xeons in them?
I disagree. It is competing with i7 desktops out there. i7 desktops that cost less, perform better, have better gpus, better ram, better hd and even have the 'world of hurt' blue ray in there.
Sure. It's competing 'directly' with the other workstations. But do any of the other workstations have 2 gigs of ram, a small hd and a 2600 pro as standard. (I have my chocolate hat on standby.)
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
The 'desktop' disease affects the entire range. I can't look at the Mac Pro in isolation. They could have used higher performing chips and higher performing gpus such as the Nvidia 280 in the Mac Pro long before now. Why not?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're repeating the same assumptions, that you can't support.
You are making up some numbers, and using others that aren't relevant. (1)
As I mentioned earlier, you can;t use numbers from the end of a chip line to numbers at the beginning of a chip line. The old chips have been dropped in price several times, while the new ones are at the highest they will ever be. (2)
Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time. (3)
It's very dangerous to make assumptions based of numbers that may not have anything to do with Apple's prices. You don't know how much Apple pays for these chips. Prices released are for bin quantities. Apple, and other large manufacturers, buy many bins of these chips, bringing the prices down a long way.
It's very possible that Apple's price for these chips is no more than half the numbers you quote, and therefor, make up a much smaller percentage of the machines cost than you assume. (4)
Perhaps you didn't notice it, but the last column in which the prices are given are clearly headed "Release Prices". They don't reflect current pricing. (5)
The only correct thing here is the part about the 2.4 GHz part. (6)
You are under the impression that Apple WILL release an i7 Mac Pro? They won't. (7)
There is NO Xeon labeled i7. The i7 is purely a desktop chip designation. Xeon is a server and workstation designation. The two are not interchangeable. (8)
95%? As far as you understand? Where did you get that understanding from? A guess? I've never seen any analysis of Apple's desktop sales that have come anywhere close to that number. 60 to 75% possibly. (9)
According to your "understanding" I'm surprised you aren't simply calling for its discontinuance. (10)
(1) I think you're the one making most of the assumptions, without any proof or irrelevant links than don't concern the Mac Pro Xeons. See below.
The only numbers I may have made up are:
- the price of the server chipset ($100): this is based on the knowledge of the price of mobile/desktop chipsets that can be found easily and that are priced between $20 and $70. A server chipset is of course more expensive, but doesn't compare to the price of 2 high-end server cpus which Apple uses on the Mac Pro.
- the % of Mac Pro+Mac mini va iMac sales. See below.
(2) End of the line or not, if you took the time to look at Intel's price list, you would have seen that the list price of the Xeon cpus for the Mac Pro has not decreased. In fact, most of the DP-Xeon cpus have not seen their list price change since their launch (woodcrest included). So, unless you have actual documents that prove your point, I trust Intel's price list over your assumption.
(3) Of course not I'm not forgetting. The fact is that since the Intel switch, Apple keeps increasing the entry price points on all their models: Mac mini was $499 now $599 (and old), MB was $999 then $1090 now $1299, iMac was $999 then $1199, Mac Pro $2199/2499 then $2299/2799. I'm the one thinking that Apple will increase again the entry price point of the Mac Pro to (probably) +$3K for a dual 2.66 models with 6GB RAM. Now if Apple chooses another cpu or a different RAM configuration, price may differ.
(4) Of course Apple doesn't pay the list price. But I think you shouldn't apply your general guess of "no more than half" on the Mac Pro. Apple is not selling millions of them, so they are not buying millions of xeons. The discount may not be as much as you think. But no matter what the discount is, if the list price for a chip "A" is higher than the one of a chip "B", if Apple buys the same quantities, they will pay more for the chip "A" than for the chip "B".
(5) That's exactly why i linked those list. They show that the "Release Prices" and the current prices are the SAME for the xeons used in the Mac Pro. If you had bothered to open Intel's list price, you would have seen that.
(6) The only correct thing here is... well you couldn't even get this right.
(7) No I'm not, I think a Core i7/W3500 Mac pro would be a nice addition to the Mac Pro family. I've never said Apple will make a Core i7 Mac Pro, I think they should.
(8) You've got it the other way around. That shows how much you are paying attention. The current X3300 series of Xeon chips are in fact desktop Q9000 series cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS, the SAME PRICES and the SAME PRICE CUTS. Go to the Intel site and see for yourself. The future W3500 series of Xeon chips will be in fact the desktop Core i7 cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS and the SAME PRICES.
(9) Since Apple doesn't disclose model numbers, your GUESS is as good/bad as mine. I'll tell you that my "guess" was based on unofficial numbers for the year 2007 that gave 3% for the Mac mini and 8% for the Mac Pro. My "assumption" for the last 2 quarters is that those numbers were even worse, hence 90-95% (not just 95%) for the iMac. Even Tim Cook said that the Mac Pro was not a significant part of the desktop business. I'd be happy if you could share actual numbers...
By the way, since english is not my mother tongue, I may sometimes use expressions in an odd way...
(10) No I'm not. I think that there is a lot more to do in the desktop business, and for me, the numbers from last quarter just show how bad things can get when you don't take care of it (the desktop business). What I would like is for Apple to release new/updated models as soon as possible.
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
Come on Lemon that's rhetorical. Apple chose Xeons because they support dual socket and perform like a workstation should. Though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a single socket Mac Pro.
Come on Lemon that's rhetorical. Apple chose Xeons because they support dual socket and perform like a workstation should. Though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a single socket Mac Pro.
And there's always the Xeon 3500 series. It's designed for single socket motherboards and is priced more reasonably. Plus you get a few advantages over the almost identical Core i7, namely ECC memory and faster memory (1,600MHz) support.
Studiously ignore? It's obvious. Is there anyone who DOESN'T want an X-Mac?!
Amnesia? We've agreed about this in the past. I guess you forgot? I presume it hasn't changed? X-Mac or a 'Low-end' Mid-tower. It isn't hard to grasp. Put the i7 in the Mac Pro case. Drop the price and offer artists, gamers and pros (presumably there are some out there you balk at Apple's prices and wouldn't mind getting great performance at a sane price.)
I'd even vouch that there is a bigger market for tower buyers at the 'sane' side of the market for gamers, small business artists, Pro's with smaller wads. I'd say at least 10% for an entry level single cpu Mac Pro range vs 5% for the dual Mac Pro. With the steeper price for the 'i7' Xeons then I'm guessing the new model (when it comes!) will finally have priced the Mac Pro into irrelevance. Any bets for the entry model costing £2000? There's no denying the dual Mac Pro's chosen market but there's almost a yawning gap of £1000 from £1000-£1700 (£1850 by the time you put in the ancient 8800GT...) for a supposed 'low end' Mac Pro. The 'facts' as I see them don't back you up at all. HEh. The fact that Apple offer a single cpu Xeon option says they have a slither of a conscience...and that they recognise the need for something more affordable tower. Offer a cheaper Mac Pro based on the i7 chipset. Simple.
Just because Apple hasn't offered something in the past is no indicator as to whether they will in the future. You're playing the probability game. In that sense, you're no more sage like than me, the analysts or anyone else. But I can want it. And I've spammed Apple a 'couple of times' with my suggestions.
Apple's problem is that they have historically chased the dollar. It's great when it's great but it's clearly clouding their thinking on desktops. It's flawed. It is my opinion. But clearly plenty of PC buyers and others on this forum agree with those sentiments.
It's great when the desktops get updated...looks ok. But it looks really bad when they haven't even received a minor specs bump in the same year, or 2 or 3 years in some instances. It looks like a company that are taking their eye off the ball. The problem is that they have too few products covering too wide a price point.
As for wandering? Why not. Their desktop strategy is a desert. There are a few chasms to wander inbetween. Notably between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. And the iMac doesn't fill it, I'm afraid. There's plenty to pontificate about as our posts counts will testify to.
Pfft. You accuse me of being selective. Bah. You can talk.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. My sig'? Edit it out. It can't be that difficult. I edit bits out when I reply to you. Especially all the lengthy bits you're wrong about.
Well, I won't edit this one at all.
I don't think we can just pull one cpu and revise the mobo. This would have to be a smaller machine altogether. I designed one when the first G5 tower came out, to sell for $995. I used my experience as a designer of pro audio electronics to do that. My friends at Apple told me that it would work, but that management would not be interested in such a machine. I don't know if I even have the designs in my backups anymore it seems so long ago. It had one double width slot for graphics, and one other 16 lane slot, with 4 memory sockets on one slide out board, as the pro machines have. A smaller power supply, no bottom "feet, and a few other simplifications.
If it were not going against Apple's copyrights, as we see now, I might have even produced it, but I'm not interested in testing that out.
But that doesn't make it right or competitive. ie the fact that they don't. It just makes their desktop look out of date, stupid and irrelevant. And expensive. That's their perogative, I guess. Oh for some competition in the Apple space?
I don't agree, or not agree on that one. It's just what they do.
People are not realizing that Apple's margins are good, but not particularly high. Somehow, they seem to think that Apple makes unreasonable profits, when their profits are in the middle of the field.
Many companies have much higher margins and profits than Apple.
We don't actually know what their costs are. My bet, from having been a manufacturer, is that they don't make much profit when their new models come out, but that profit rises as it progresses, to give us what we see in the quarterlies. So the average profits are 10 to 11% or so. Again, good, but not outstanding.
It seems to me that if they did continually drop their prices on the same model as the year went on, we would see margins and prifots erode as well. Then no one would be happy.
They make far more profit on their software and services than they make on their hardware, which is always the case. That's why MS, for example, can invest so many billions in areas in which they lose so many billions. Their software margins are around 80+%.
PS. Eh. How do you know that. Do you have insider information? Or are you guessing based upon previous performance as guidance?
Mostly from past performance. But also from what their market for the machines are. I linked to BOXX in another post. I don't know if you read that. Their single chip i7 workstation costs close to $7,000, and is the CHEAPEST competitor in that market when compared to other well known names.
That makes the Mac Pro positively miserly. You should see some of their dual Xeon models!
This is why I don't think Apple is interested in going to i7 for the Mac Pro. They actually have an edge in that market in performance AND price.
Nobody can forget anything about Apple. Especially the prices! ie the fact that they, infamously, DON'T change them even when the specs are years old.
I doubt he forgot at all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I don't recall what that was about. You need to include more in a quote, and who said it.
I disagree. It is competing with i7 desktops out there. i7 desktops that cost less, perform better, have better gpus, better ram, better hd and even have the 'world of hurt' blue ray in there.
Sure. It's competing 'directly' with the other workstations. But do any of the other workstations have 2 gigs of ram, a small hd and a 2600 pro as standard. (I have my chocolate hat on standby.)
Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?
In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?
The 'desktop' disease affects the entire range. I can't look at the Mac Pro in isolation. They could have used higher performing chips and higher performing gpus such as the Nvidia 280 in the Mac Pro long before now. Why not?
'Only Apple.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
You say it's competing against single chip desktops, but you would have to provide evidence for that as it's a bit of a stretch.
As Apple doesn't market it that way, and most of its sales don't come from people buying it as just another desktop because of its size and cost, that puts the load on you this time.
You would have to look at what other workstations come with. But it doesn't matter what the base configuration is. What matters is what it can be brought up to.
They use only Xeons for the reasons I gave. Those buying these machines want the highest performance and that requires more than a one chip desktop cpu these days.
Before many other companies were able to provide dual chip solutions at lower price levels, Apple provided a low end single cpu machine. Now that the other competitors in the workstation market provide two chip machines at those levels, Apple must as well. It;s pretty simple, you don't have to go looking for conspiracies on Apple's part to find an answer.
iMacs are a different case. Those are used mostly in homes and schools, where the complete silence is a major factor. We have two Mac labs in my daughters school. All are iMacs, and the room is silent. We also have one Dell lab, and the room is anything but. This seems to be a major consideration on Apple's part.
We now see rumors that Apple may have a quad core iMac soon. Let's wait to see if that's true before continuing on this avenue.
As a defector from Windows to OS X (as far as a laptop is concerned), I'm finding myself in a situation where there's no desktop hardware solution that meets my needs. I want a system that is powerful enough to do some high-def video editing, that allows me the flexibility to select/upgrade the graphics system, and boot Windows to do some gaming.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
He might even find some time to browse these forums (yeah, right... ).
Yet I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back full of ideas on what to do next. And in that respect his recovery time could be the best thing that happened to Apple since the iMac.
I wouldn't be surprised.
With rumors of Apple introducing a TV set of their own with built in Apple TV I wonder whether this heralds the break up of the iMac line into 3 products:
- Apple TV set with built in 'Apple TV', perhaps DVD or Blu-Ray player, plus online movie rentals
- 19" or 20" laptop for people who want (some) mobility but a larger screen
- midrange tower, something with a single quad-core CPU and one or two PCI slots and which can plug into the Apple 24" LED display (and perhaps a 30" LED once introduced).
I really think the days of the iMac should be numbered.
To watch movies LCD TVs are cheap enough these days and they're bigger.
People who don't have the desk space for a tower look to a laptop + external LCD monitor.
And people who want a small modular system don't have an offering in the iMac at all.
A revival of the cube would be nice. Slightly bigger to fit high-end GPUs, yet something elegant, distinct while still being mid-range.
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.
As a defector from Windows to OS X (as far as a laptop is concerned), I'm finding myself in a situation where there's no desktop hardware solution that meets my needs. I want a system that is powerful enough to do some high-def video editing, that allows me the flexibility to select/upgrade the graphics system, and boot Windows to do some gaming.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
My hat is off to everyone here. You seem to have tremendous insight and I'm impressed.
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC) that I can purchase.
Like others have said before me, there is a need that is not being met. Of course, I have no idea how big a market share this need represents.
My hat is off to everyone here. You seem to have tremendous insight and I'm impressed.
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC) that I can purchase.
Like others have said before me, there is a need that is not being met. Of course, I have no idea how big a market share this need represents.
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
Yeah...I didn't express myself very well. As far as the Mac Pros, and this is only as it relates to my needs and wants, the cost / performance / GPU options just don't work out. I realize that I am probably (possibly?) not the best target market for Apple.
I want my xMac
That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC)
Well, lookee here. Someone who doesn't subscribe to Melgross' world view.
There must be a few of them about otherwise Apple's desktops wouldn't have fallen 25% in unit sales. But I suppose that has nothing to do with lack of choice, out of date hardware, obscene prices or the lack of even a minor spec bump over the last year or so. I'm so glad we found you. You're evidence that Apple isn't doing its job right. Join the club. Prepare to grow a very long beard waiting...
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.
Hey, I knew there was somebody that subscribed to my 'world view' somewhere...I'm so glad I finally met you.