I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
I really think they thought about so they produced machines that where cheap for them to build as the economy crashed. It keeps the income up during a sales decline. I seem to remember them doing something similar during the last downturn.
In any event what I was trying to point out is that dual core machines don't have enough cores to demonstrate a huge difference in parallel execution of i86 code. The machines might benefit from GPU acceleration for the programs that implement it. The problem is not all programs will bother. Plus on the low end machine we are only talking about 16 cores in the GPU. 16 isn't a very big number when you consider that the video system may be actively using them.
So I don't have very high expectations right now. Certainly some programs will benefit some but you are not going to see the performance increase across apps like you will on i7.
Quote:
How much will they see we don't know.
This is certainly a case of speculation right now. Maybe a clues in developer can sign up and give us some hints about iMac performance.
Of course one issue we are going to have is that Apple is suppoedly improving the performance of much of the system code. So SL is likely to be snappier on all hardware. The big question is how big will the differential be between the current iMac and a i7 based machine. I'm leaning towards huge.
Quote:
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
I still don't buy the power issue. If you are going through all the engineering effort they put into the current iMacs a little extra to do thermal management would have been a snap.
Quote:
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
That could be the case. Personally I would mind except for that ever widening gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. There is a considerable difference in performance especially for heavily threaded apps.
Frankly it is a good thing that I'm a laptop user as I would gave a hardtime justifying the iMac based on cost vs performance.
The level of Apple smart phone growth is dependent upon the growth of their carrier relationships.
I would say its even more dependent on how Apple improves the iPhone and the iPhone platform. This year we will certainly see a new iPhone and iPhone OS 3.0.
Quote:
Does the Notebooks measure include netbooks and more?
No it does not include netbooks, netbooks are projected to sell 20.1 million units this year.
Quote:
Desktop selling 81 million units means Apple has roughly 79 million plus possible consumers to convince.
While desktops are profitable and is still growing, its fairly narrow growth channel.
Quote:
There is plenty of room for a mid-tower.
I haven't been able to find a break down between consumer and business sales. I would believe a big portion if not the majority of those 81 million desktops are sold to business. I would believe consumer desktop sales is the fastest shrinking computer segment.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
Certainly, the case for a mid-tower is stronger than ever.
250 million PC sold. Plenty of those were towers. The market is there.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Problem with that analogy...
Apple is not a white box company. Its not about making cheap towers that you just compared them to. The market is there for cheap $499-699 towers, but Apple could never make a cheap $499-699 tower and if they tried, they'd fail miserably. It would be poorly spec'd, poor quality, and tarnish the image of Apple Computers.
If Apple were to sell a $1499-$1699 tower it wouldn't sell like some people here think. Its been tried many times by Apple and it fails every time. By the time you buy the tower and display most would end up buying an iMac instead because for just the price of the tower itself you can get the whole package. Maybe the tower wasn't meant for those kinds of people? Well it still goes back to the fact that Apple has tried this before and again, it failed.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
Not exactly. In Apple's previous attempts some G4s and some G5s, Apple crippled the base-models so much that people prefer to spend more on dual machines, they didn't went for the iMac especially at that time. IMO, Apple is doing the same with the new Mac Pro, the quad models are pretty expensive and can't even handle more that 8GB of RAM officially. Most pros will probably prefer spending a little more on the dual quads models as they will be able to upgrade the memory to Pro/Workstation levels.
If the quad Mac Pro was priced as the previous poster suggested, it would probably sell well and in line with some of the top Core i7 based PCs, but Apple would have a hard time selling the base dual-quad at $3299 (almost twice the price).
All in all, I think that Apple's new pricing structure will not help generating more desktop sales, that took a huge hit last quarter, but will allow them to generate more profit from each sale. Something that is common amongst other manufacturers: the workstation/server segment generating more profits that the consumer segments. Also, Apple has probably a month clear before other manufacturers start offering similar computers, they are taking advantage of that too.
Quote:
Its been tried many times by Apple and it fails every time. By the time you buy the tower and display most would end up buying an iMac instead because for just the price of the tower itself you can get the whole package...
Like I said earlier, their failure is their own fault. Offer something attractive enough and it will sell. Offer something with price and specs that don't depend on the other models. Offer something that has its own advantages and that is priced in order to generate the level of margins they want to achieve, let it be 35%.
Most anyone working with a computer in audio/video/engineering/publishing/databases/crunching numbers/... will choose a quad-core/eight threads computer (even if it is bigger) vs a good looking dual-core iMac for about the same price (with or without display). We are not talking about a computer for the masses to surf the internets, we are talking about a computer for work (even if some will game on it).
When people (on the fence of buying a desktop for work) will find out that the $2499/2999 quad Mac Pros are nothing more than low-end/midrange Core i7 desktops with a beautiful enclosure, they will probably choose another brand for half the price. While the new quad Mac Pros may be faster that the old dual quad 2.80 Mac Pro, they can't even allow more than 8GB RAM and they don't have a workstation-class gpu option...
And before someone starts talking about Mac OS X isn't offered by other brands, I will add that most pro applications are available for Mac OS X as well as Windows (with a few exceptions on each side). But to someone using Digidesign Pro Tools, Avid, or other products that are cross-platform, it will be harder and harder to sell the Mac Pro package.
Apple seems to be a very controlling company. The truly devoted don't seem to mind either. Buy an iPod and you must use iTunes, but you can use it with Windows too. So people are using iTunes, and like the Mac flavor of the software. So, more people are thinking Mac. How many of then are put-off at the idea of such a limited array of choice? I have my iMac, but will not buy another one. I will do my homework on monitors and go from there. Somewhere between the Mini at $599 and the Pro at $2499, there must be room for another screen-less box. I want and must have my own choice, next time, to select my own screen. Smack dab in the middle is the price of $1549. Apple could do something in that price range and it would not be junk. My favorite style is the old slim-line desktop with room for the monitor to sit on top. If I could run Mac OS X on a Dell, I would purchase the 530S style box in a heart-beat.
Apple has always used a vertical sales model. Which involves being very controlling and limited about your products. This is nothing new for Apple, what's different are the people new to Apple products.
Also you don't have to use an iPod with iTunes, that is the way it is designed to be used. You can use the iPod with other music software and you can use iTunes with other mp3 players at least with content that has no DRM.
You are right Apple could build a box between the mini and the Mac Pro. Many of us wonder why they don't. But they've decided that it is not in their best interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WPLJ42
Apple seems to be a very controlling company. The truly devoted don't seem to mind either. Buy an iPod and you must use iTunes, but you can use it with Windows too. So people are using iTunes, and like the Mac flavor of the software. So, more people are thinking Mac. How many of then are put-off at the idea of such a limited array of choice? I have my iMac, but will not buy another one. I will do my homework on monitors and go from there. Somewhere between the Mini at $599 and the Pro at $2499, there must be room for another screen-less box. I want and must have my own choice, next time, to select my own screen. Smack dab in the middle is the price of $1549. Apple could do something in that price range and it would not be junk. My favorite style is the old slim-line desktop with room for the monitor to sit on top. If I could run Mac OS X on a Dell, I would purchase the 530S style box in a heart-beat.
I really think they thought about so they produced machines that where cheap for them to build as the economy crashed. It keeps the income up during a sales decline. I seem to remember them doing something similar during the last downturn.
In any event what I was trying to point out is that dual core machines don't have enough cores to demonstrate a huge difference in parallel execution of i86 code. The machines might benefit from GPU acceleration for the programs that implement it. The problem is not all programs will bother. Plus on the low end machine we are only talking about 16 cores in the GPU. 16 isn't a very big number when you consider that the video system may be actively using them.
So I don't have very high expectations right now. Certainly some programs will benefit some but you are not going to see the performance increase across apps like you will on i7.
no, you are right that we can't expect the current processors to give us what an i& would. For those who think they need that power, well, they'll just have to wait.
But this is more subtle than you may expect.
We simply have a different outlook here.
I expect that Apple has done what they think is the best they could, and you think they have done the worst. It's the old glass half empty or half full. I expect to see improvements when 10.6 comes out. Some of them don't require anything from the software companies, and some do.
Quote:
This is certainly a case of speculation right now. Maybe a clues in developer can sign up and give us some hints about iMac performance.
That's what I'm saying, it's speculation. We'll have to wait until June for the official release after all the debugging code has been stripped out which slows the OS down.
Quote:
Of course one issue we are going to have is that Apple is suppoedly improving the performance of much of the system code. So SL is likely to be snappier on all hardware. The big question is how big will the differential be between the current iMac and a i7 based machine. I'm leaning towards huge.
Exactly!
Quote:
I still don't buy the power issue. If you are going through all the engineering effort they put into the current iMacs a little extra to do thermal management would have been a snap.
Again, that's an assumption. From designing high performance electronics, I can say that it's not that easy. Nothing is a snap. Consumers really like thin. I think, as you likely do as well, that it's too bad they do, but they do. I imagine that the machines are already about as well designed as they can be. Our two 24" 3.06 GHz machines run pretty cool, and are totally silent, also important for home use, and are otherwise working really well.
Quote:
That could be the case. Personally I would mind except for that ever widening gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. There is a considerable difference in performance especially for heavily threaded apps.
Frankly it is a good thing that I'm a laptop user as I would gave a hardtime justifying the iMac based on cost vs performance.
Dave
The problem we have is that Apple is going in a direction with their professional desktop that some here aren't happy with. I can understand that. But we can't complain that the machines are too expensive, because they are not, even though I supose we can argue a 10% price difference.
The real problem isn't the iMac line, or the Mini line, nor it is the Mac Pro line.
It's the fact that Apple simply isn't interested, for whatever reason, and what that reason is is only more speculation on our part, in producing a tower machine of whatever size, with a mid line chip for people who want something more powerful than an iMac, but less so than a Mac Pro, in a cheaper case, with cheaper parts, so that its price would fall between the Mac Pro and the iMac, or Mini.
That's the entire argument. It has nothing to do with what they do produce, directly. But people's ire is being taken out on the products Apple DOES produce, which is unfair.
You know my stand on an xMac. Anyone who has been here for a while does, so you know I'm not disagreeing with you on that aspect, and I enjoy speculating on what such a machine should look like, and cost, as I had my own design for one several years ago.
What apps do your wife and daughter run on their 24" 3.06 ghz iMacs?
Do they use VMware or Parallels to run windows? How does it do? Can they do some light gaming, in particular play Sims games?
My wife doesn't do muc with hers. The most difficult activity is watching movies from DVD, or the iTunes store.
My daughter is an art major in photography, and uses the CS4 suite, as well as Vectorworks.
The Sims games are easy on these machines.
She is a big gameplayer, and mostly uses the Wii and PS3, though she does play some Mac games. She wants to get either Parallels or VMware (I now see from tests that Parallels is much faster, a switch), but hasn't had time to bother. I don't know whether she will as she's busy with getting herself together to go the England for a orietation course for a few weeks early July before she moves there in the beginning of September.
When I get my Mac Pro I will try them both, but that's not what you want to know I guess.
Possibly, when she's away, I'll put one on her machine and try it.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
I respectfully disagree. Apple announced the iMac and consolidated the the
7xxx
8xxx
9xxx
Biz level macks into one tower series. I remember selling a bunch of Powermac G3, G4 to all kind of people in content creation.
With the iMac Apple has been able to transition people who used to buy Powermacs to run Adobe, Quark and other graphic apps over because the speed is suitable.
iMacs are not suitable for video editors that need Aja or Blackmagic cards for HD SDI output or for audio guys who want to put in UAD 2 cards.
We can all sit around here and toss out platitudes about how professionals should just ante up but they have budgets too.
I don't think any of us want to be forced into buying more than what we want regardless of whether we benefit from the purchase overall or not.
I think Steve Jobs is a fantastic steward and understands overall packaging and marketing of a product almost better than anyone but he's not a hardware guy and pretty much fcked Apple over hardware throughout his entire career. Look at right now you have a $2000 iMac that has only two cores! That's ridiculous.
iMacs are not suitable for video editors that need Aja or Blackmagic cards for HD SDI output or for audio guys who want to put in UAD 2 cards.
Murch you well know AJA and Blackmagic make break out boxes that accomplish many of the same tasks as their PCI cards. These companies know they cannot only support desktops with PCI cards. They have to support notebooks and desktops without expansion slots.
AJA IO HD
BlackMagic Mini-Converter
Blackmagic Video Recorder
Quote:
Look at right now you have a $2000 iMac that has only two cores! That's ridiculous.
I would agree if four cores increased general performance and in turn sold more computers. At this point very little software can take advantage of more than two cores, and quad core isn't moving more machines.
I image Apple is waiting toward the end of the recession when people are ready to spend money on pent up demand. Apple can tout the speed of their Nelahem quad iMacs running with Snow Leopard.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower?
No.
Quote:
After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one?
Only a tiny number of geeks were disappointed. The AI forums do not represent the world.
Quote:
I know it would sell
It would only sell to the tiny number of geeks who can't be forced to buy a Mac Pro. Again that's a large number of AI readers, but a meaninglessly small percentage of the general public.
Quote:
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
Apple already makes this product. It's called an iMac.
Only a tiny number of geeks were disappointed. The AI forums do not represent the world.
It would only sell to the tiny number of geeks who can't be forced to buy a Mac Pro. Again that's a large number of AI readers, but a meaninglessly small percentage of the general public.
Yes - its important to define xMac:
is it an addition to the lineup or a replacement for the mini?
Most people mean the latter i'm sure.
Personally, If the mini were twice as big, had 3.5" drives (cheaper) and more room for heat dissipation, I would much prefer it.
Maybe i'm alone on this one.
edit: actually, if the mini morphed into a computer twice as big i.e. the cube and also into a computer twice as small (atom) perhaps there would be room for the xmac:
mac nano for really light internet/word processing (and perhaps appletv). xmac for those wanting to do more. This seems a stretch though.
is it an addition to the lineup or a replacement for the mini?
Most people mean the latter i'm sure.
Personally, If the mini were twice as big, had 3.5" drives (cheaper) and more room for heat dissipation, I would much prefer it.
Maybe i'm alone on this one.
edit: actually, if the mini morphed into a computer twice as big i.e. the cube and also into a computer twice as small (atom) perhaps there would be room for the xmac:
mac nano for really light internet/word processing (and perhaps appletv). xmac for those wanting to do more. This seems a stretch though.
This would have to be an addition.
Apple has generated a very successful business with the Mini being just what it is, why would they want to kill that? They are used in hotels, cruise ships and casinos.
If they did anything, they would have to add something in between.
Apple has generated a very successful business with the Mini being just what it is, why would they want to kill that? They are used in hotels, cruise ships and casinos.
If they did anything, they would have to add something in between.
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
The age of the $500-$1500 consumer/enthusiast tower is over, and Apple is completley correct to not go anywhere near it.
The only people who want such a Mac are geeks who (incorrectly) imagine themselves to be pros, but don't want to pay the price for a proper workstation.
My daughter has quite a collection of Sims games but on Windows.
They don't look very resource intensive so I bet that they could be played in windows even as a virtual machine. Especially if both cores are enable but perhaps even with just one core enabled.
I could always just install windows via boot camp but I actually feel the machine will be easier to take care of and trouble shoot if I run windows via VMware.
I have been looking at Mac Pros at eBay. They seem to hold their value very well. The first gen Mac Pros look like they can be bought fro about $1500. I was hoping to get a second gen MP for that amount but that looks very unlikely from what I'm seeing thus far. As well the size is a bit large for the location where we currently have our pc. Its not a deal breaker but not ideal either.
I wouldn't say desktops are dying. Desktops still offer the advantages of more power, more performance, and expandability. Notebooks and portable electronics are becoming powerful enough to meet the needs of the majority of people. There is only a limited portion of the market who needs the power and expandability of desktops.
We still have to see about the netbook explosion. This year netbooks are expected to sell just an eighth of notebook sales. Netbooks are expected to sell roughly a tenth of smartphone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensign Pulver
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
I don't agree with the triple the margin on the low end PM too, but I disagree with your assertion that Apple wouldn't
waste big R&D money because of stupid decisions.
The Cube is a product that digested a lot of R&D money and was sent to retail hell just by pricing it out of any reality.
It had it's design and engineering flaws too, but the reason for it's nose dive was the price.
Furthermore I think Apple is riding the crisis quite comfortably now, because they sell to the trendy consumer. It took them
several years to reach this point and I agree that you can account this to the iPod and the iBook, more than to the iMac.
I think if this crisis keeps going strong for the whole 2009 people will realize that being trendy won't buy them food or a house
(or pay their rent). This could hit Apple badly. To my mind Apple will see the same losses in retail volume as the other manufactures,
Comments
I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
I really think they thought about so they produced machines that where cheap for them to build as the economy crashed. It keeps the income up during a sales decline. I seem to remember them doing something similar during the last downturn.
In any event what I was trying to point out is that dual core machines don't have enough cores to demonstrate a huge difference in parallel execution of i86 code. The machines might benefit from GPU acceleration for the programs that implement it. The problem is not all programs will bother. Plus on the low end machine we are only talking about 16 cores in the GPU. 16 isn't a very big number when you consider that the video system may be actively using them.
So I don't have very high expectations right now. Certainly some programs will benefit some but you are not going to see the performance increase across apps like you will on i7.
How much will they see we don't know.
This is certainly a case of speculation right now. Maybe a clues in developer can sign up and give us some hints about iMac performance.
Of course one issue we are going to have is that Apple is suppoedly improving the performance of much of the system code. So SL is likely to be snappier on all hardware. The big question is how big will the differential be between the current iMac and a i7 based machine. I'm leaning towards huge.
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
I still don't buy the power issue. If you are going through all the engineering effort they put into the current iMacs a little extra to do thermal management would have been a snap.
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
That could be the case. Personally I would mind except for that ever widening gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. There is a considerable difference in performance especially for heavily threaded apps.
Frankly it is a good thing that I'm a laptop user as I would gave a hardtime justifying the iMac based on cost vs performance.
Dave
Smartphones are projected to sell 192.8 million units this year.
Notebooks are projected to sell 155.6 million units this year.
Desktops are projected to sell 81 million units this year.
These projections don't help encourage Apple to create another desktop line.
The level of Apple smart phone growth is dependent upon the growth of their carrier relationships.
Does the Notebooks measure include netbooks and more?
Desktop selling 81 million units means Apple has roughly 79 million plus possible consumers to convince.
There is plenty of room for a mid-tower.
The level of Apple smart phone growth is dependent upon the growth of their carrier relationships.
I would say its even more dependent on how Apple improves the iPhone and the iPhone platform. This year we will certainly see a new iPhone and iPhone OS 3.0.
Does the Notebooks measure include netbooks and more?
No it does not include netbooks, netbooks are projected to sell 20.1 million units this year.
Desktop selling 81 million units means Apple has roughly 79 million plus possible consumers to convince.
While desktops are profitable and is still growing, its fairly narrow growth channel.
There is plenty of room for a mid-tower.
I haven't been able to find a break down between consumer and business sales. I would believe a big portion if not the majority of those 81 million desktops are sold to business. I would believe consumer desktop sales is the fastest shrinking computer segment.
Apple mid tower
Single Socket Nehalem
Three 2.5" bays
4 RAM slots
PCI-Express graphics card with another open slot
GigE, Wifi
FW800 (two ports)
$1699
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
Certainly, the case for a mid-tower is stronger than ever.
250 million PC sold. Plenty of those were towers. The market is there.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Problem with that analogy...
Apple is not a white box company. Its not about making cheap towers that you just compared them to. The market is there for cheap $499-699 towers, but Apple could never make a cheap $499-699 tower and if they tried, they'd fail miserably. It would be poorly spec'd, poor quality, and tarnish the image of Apple Computers.
If Apple were to sell a $1499-$1699 tower it wouldn't sell like some people here think. Its been tried many times by Apple and it fails every time. By the time you buy the tower and display most would end up buying an iMac instead because for just the price of the tower itself you can get the whole package. Maybe the tower wasn't meant for those kinds of people? Well it still goes back to the fact that Apple has tried this before and again, it failed.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
Not exactly. In Apple's previous attempts some G4s and some G5s, Apple crippled the base-models so much that people prefer to spend more on dual machines, they didn't went for the iMac especially at that time. IMO, Apple is doing the same with the new Mac Pro, the quad models are pretty expensive and can't even handle more that 8GB of RAM officially. Most pros will probably prefer spending a little more on the dual quads models as they will be able to upgrade the memory to Pro/Workstation levels.
If the quad Mac Pro was priced as the previous poster suggested, it would probably sell well and in line with some of the top Core i7 based PCs, but Apple would have a hard time selling the base dual-quad at $3299 (almost twice the price).
All in all, I think that Apple's new pricing structure will not help generating more desktop sales, that took a huge hit last quarter, but will allow them to generate more profit from each sale. Something that is common amongst other manufacturers: the workstation/server segment generating more profits that the consumer segments. Also, Apple has probably a month clear before other manufacturers start offering similar computers, they are taking advantage of that too.
Its been tried many times by Apple and it fails every time. By the time you buy the tower and display most would end up buying an iMac instead because for just the price of the tower itself you can get the whole package...
Like I said earlier, their failure is their own fault. Offer something attractive enough and it will sell. Offer something with price and specs that don't depend on the other models. Offer something that has its own advantages and that is priced in order to generate the level of margins they want to achieve, let it be 35%.
Most anyone working with a computer in audio/video/engineering/publishing/databases/crunching numbers/... will choose a quad-core/eight threads computer (even if it is bigger) vs a good looking dual-core iMac for about the same price (with or without display). We are not talking about a computer for the masses to surf the internets, we are talking about a computer for work (even if some will game on it).
When people (on the fence of buying a desktop for work) will find out that the $2499/2999 quad Mac Pros are nothing more than low-end/midrange Core i7 desktops with a beautiful enclosure, they will probably choose another brand for half the price. While the new quad Mac Pros may be faster that the old dual quad 2.80 Mac Pro, they can't even allow more than 8GB RAM and they don't have a workstation-class gpu option...
And before someone starts talking about Mac OS X isn't offered by other brands, I will add that most pro applications are available for Mac OS X as well as Windows (with a few exceptions on each side). But to someone using Digidesign Pro Tools, Avid, or other products that are cross-platform, it will be harder and harder to sell the Mac Pro package.
Also you don't have to use an iPod with iTunes, that is the way it is designed to be used. You can use the iPod with other music software and you can use iTunes with other mp3 players at least with content that has no DRM.
You are right Apple could build a box between the mini and the Mac Pro. Many of us wonder why they don't. But they've decided that it is not in their best interest.
Apple seems to be a very controlling company. The truly devoted don't seem to mind either. Buy an iPod and you must use iTunes, but you can use it with Windows too. So people are using iTunes, and like the Mac flavor of the software. So, more people are thinking Mac. How many of then are put-off at the idea of such a limited array of choice? I have my iMac, but will not buy another one. I will do my homework on monitors and go from there. Somewhere between the Mini at $599 and the Pro at $2499, there must be room for another screen-less box. I want and must have my own choice, next time, to select my own screen. Smack dab in the middle is the price of $1549. Apple could do something in that price range and it would not be junk. My favorite style is the old slim-line desktop with room for the monitor to sit on top. If I could run Mac OS X on a Dell, I would purchase the 530S style box in a heart-beat.
I really think they thought about so they produced machines that where cheap for them to build as the economy crashed. It keeps the income up during a sales decline. I seem to remember them doing something similar during the last downturn.
In any event what I was trying to point out is that dual core machines don't have enough cores to demonstrate a huge difference in parallel execution of i86 code. The machines might benefit from GPU acceleration for the programs that implement it. The problem is not all programs will bother. Plus on the low end machine we are only talking about 16 cores in the GPU. 16 isn't a very big number when you consider that the video system may be actively using them.
So I don't have very high expectations right now. Certainly some programs will benefit some but you are not going to see the performance increase across apps like you will on i7.
no, you are right that we can't expect the current processors to give us what an i& would. For those who think they need that power, well, they'll just have to wait.
But this is more subtle than you may expect.
We simply have a different outlook here.
I expect that Apple has done what they think is the best they could, and you think they have done the worst. It's the old glass half empty or half full. I expect to see improvements when 10.6 comes out. Some of them don't require anything from the software companies, and some do.
This is certainly a case of speculation right now. Maybe a clues in developer can sign up and give us some hints about iMac performance.
That's what I'm saying, it's speculation. We'll have to wait until June for the official release after all the debugging code has been stripped out which slows the OS down.
Of course one issue we are going to have is that Apple is suppoedly improving the performance of much of the system code. So SL is likely to be snappier on all hardware. The big question is how big will the differential be between the current iMac and a i7 based machine. I'm leaning towards huge.
Exactly!
I still don't buy the power issue. If you are going through all the engineering effort they put into the current iMacs a little extra to do thermal management would have been a snap.
Again, that's an assumption. From designing high performance electronics, I can say that it's not that easy. Nothing is a snap. Consumers really like thin. I think, as you likely do as well, that it's too bad they do, but they do. I imagine that the machines are already about as well designed as they can be. Our two 24" 3.06 GHz machines run pretty cool, and are totally silent, also important for home use, and are otherwise working really well.
That could be the case. Personally I would mind except for that ever widening gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. There is a considerable difference in performance especially for heavily threaded apps.
Frankly it is a good thing that I'm a laptop user as I would gave a hardtime justifying the iMac based on cost vs performance.
Dave
The problem we have is that Apple is going in a direction with their professional desktop that some here aren't happy with. I can understand that. But we can't complain that the machines are too expensive, because they are not, even though I supose we can argue a 10% price difference.
The real problem isn't the iMac line, or the Mini line, nor it is the Mac Pro line.
It's the fact that Apple simply isn't interested, for whatever reason, and what that reason is is only more speculation on our part, in producing a tower machine of whatever size, with a mid line chip for people who want something more powerful than an iMac, but less so than a Mac Pro, in a cheaper case, with cheaper parts, so that its price would fall between the Mac Pro and the iMac, or Mini.
That's the entire argument. It has nothing to do with what they do produce, directly. But people's ire is being taken out on the products Apple DOES produce, which is unfair.
You know my stand on an xMac. Anyone who has been here for a while does, so you know I'm not disagreeing with you on that aspect, and I enjoy speculating on what such a machine should look like, and cost, as I had my own design for one several years ago.
Our two 24" 3.06 GHz machines run pretty cool, and are totally silent, also important for home use, and are otherwise working really well.
.
What apps do your wife and daughter run on their 24" 3.06 ghz iMacs?
Do they use VMware or Parallels to run windows? How does it do? Can they do some light gaming, in particular play Sims games?
What apps do your wife and daughter run on their 24" 3.06 ghz iMacs?
Do they use VMware or Parallels to run windows? How does it do? Can they do some light gaming, in particular play Sims games?
My wife doesn't do muc with hers. The most difficult activity is watching movies from DVD, or the iTunes store.
My daughter is an art major in photography, and uses the CS4 suite, as well as Vectorworks.
The Sims games are easy on these machines.
She is a big gameplayer, and mostly uses the Wii and PS3, though she does play some Mac games. She wants to get either Parallels or VMware (I now see from tests that Parallels is much faster, a switch), but hasn't had time to bother. I don't know whether she will as she's busy with getting herself together to go the England for a orietation course for a few weeks early July before she moves there in the beginning of September.
When I get my Mac Pro I will try them both, but that's not what you want to know I guess.
Possibly, when she's away, I'll put one on her machine and try it.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
I respectfully disagree. Apple announced the iMac and consolidated the the
7xxx
8xxx
9xxx
Biz level macks into one tower series. I remember selling a bunch of Powermac G3, G4 to all kind of people in content creation.
With the iMac Apple has been able to transition people who used to buy Powermacs to run Adobe, Quark and other graphic apps over because the speed is suitable.
iMacs are not suitable for video editors that need Aja or Blackmagic cards for HD SDI output or for audio guys who want to put in UAD 2 cards.
We can all sit around here and toss out platitudes about how professionals should just ante up but they have budgets too.
I don't think any of us want to be forced into buying more than what we want regardless of whether we benefit from the purchase overall or not.
I think Steve Jobs is a fantastic steward and understands overall packaging and marketing of a product almost better than anyone but he's not a hardware guy and pretty much fcked Apple over hardware throughout his entire career. Look at right now you have a $2000 iMac that has only two cores! That's ridiculous.
iMacs are not suitable for video editors that need Aja or Blackmagic cards for HD SDI output or for audio guys who want to put in UAD 2 cards.
Murch you well know AJA and Blackmagic make break out boxes that accomplish many of the same tasks as their PCI cards. These companies know they cannot only support desktops with PCI cards. They have to support notebooks and desktops without expansion slots.
AJA IO HD
BlackMagic Mini-Converter
Blackmagic Video Recorder
Look at right now you have a $2000 iMac that has only two cores! That's ridiculous.
I would agree if four cores increased general performance and in turn sold more computers. At this point very little software can take advantage of more than two cores, and quad core isn't moving more machines.
I image Apple is waiting toward the end of the recession when people are ready to spend money on pent up demand. Apple can tout the speed of their Nelahem quad iMacs running with Snow Leopard.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower?
No.
After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one?
Only a tiny number of geeks were disappointed. The AI forums do not represent the world.
I know it would sell
It would only sell to the tiny number of geeks who can't be forced to buy a Mac Pro. Again that's a large number of AI readers, but a meaninglessly small percentage of the general public.
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
Apple already makes this product. It's called an iMac.
No.
Only a tiny number of geeks were disappointed. The AI forums do not represent the world.
It would only sell to the tiny number of geeks who can't be forced to buy a Mac Pro. Again that's a large number of AI readers, but a meaninglessly small percentage of the general public.
Yes - its important to define xMac:
is it an addition to the lineup or a replacement for the mini?
Most people mean the latter i'm sure.
Personally, If the mini were twice as big, had 3.5" drives (cheaper) and more room for heat dissipation, I would much prefer it.
Maybe i'm alone on this one.
edit: actually, if the mini morphed into a computer twice as big i.e. the cube and also into a computer twice as small (atom) perhaps there would be room for the xmac:
mac nano for really light internet/word processing (and perhaps appletv). xmac for those wanting to do more. This seems a stretch though.
Yes - its important to define xMac:
is it an addition to the lineup or a replacement for the mini?
Most people mean the latter i'm sure.
Personally, If the mini were twice as big, had 3.5" drives (cheaper) and more room for heat dissipation, I would much prefer it.
Maybe i'm alone on this one.
edit: actually, if the mini morphed into a computer twice as big i.e. the cube and also into a computer twice as small (atom) perhaps there would be room for the xmac:
mac nano for really light internet/word processing (and perhaps appletv). xmac for those wanting to do more. This seems a stretch though.
This would have to be an addition.
Apple has generated a very successful business with the Mini being just what it is, why would they want to kill that? They are used in hotels, cruise ships and casinos.
If they did anything, they would have to add something in between.
This would have to be an addition.
Apple has generated a very successful business with the Mini being just what it is, why would they want to kill that? They are used in hotels, cruise ships and casinos.
If they did anything, they would have to add something in between.
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
The age of the $500-$1500 consumer/enthusiast tower is over, and Apple is completley correct to not go anywhere near it.
The only people who want such a Mac are geeks who (incorrectly) imagine themselves to be pros, but don't want to pay the price for a proper workstation.
The Sims games are easy on these machines.
.
My daughter has quite a collection of Sims games but on Windows.
They don't look very resource intensive so I bet that they could be played in windows even as a virtual machine. Especially if both cores are enable but perhaps even with just one core enabled.
I could always just install windows via boot camp but I actually feel the machine will be easier to take care of and trouble shoot if I run windows via VMware.
I have been looking at Mac Pros at eBay. They seem to hold their value very well. The first gen Mac Pros look like they can be bought fro about $1500. I was hoping to get a second gen MP for that amount but that looks very unlikely from what I'm seeing thus far. As well the size is a bit large for the location where we currently have our pc. Its not a deal breaker but not ideal either.
We still have to see about the netbook explosion. This year netbooks are expected to sell just an eighth of notebook sales. Netbooks are expected to sell roughly a tenth of smartphone sales.
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
I see what you mean. An assertion that Apple will be tripling their margins is really a joke. People who say these things have no idea at all how manufacturing works.
They think that they can say this because it appeals to others who want to hear it, and so will agree.
If Apple did that, when comparable machines come, and they will, Apple's sales would totally collapse. Apple isn't spending all that money on R&D, purchasing, contracts with their suppliers and manufacturers to have that happen. It's absurd!
I don't agree with the triple the margin on the low end PM too, but I disagree with your assertion that Apple wouldn't
waste big R&D money because of stupid decisions.
The Cube is a product that digested a lot of R&D money and was sent to retail hell just by pricing it out of any reality.
It had it's design and engineering flaws too, but the reason for it's nose dive was the price.
Furthermore I think Apple is riding the crisis quite comfortably now, because they sell to the trendy consumer. It took them
several years to reach this point and I agree that you can account this to the iPod and the iBook, more than to the iMac.
I think if this crisis keeps going strong for the whole 2009 people will realize that being trendy won't buy them food or a house
(or pay their rent). This could hit Apple badly. To my mind Apple will see the same losses in retail volume as the other manufactures,
just time schifted 6 to 12 months.