No, what people want is a mid-range headless Mac that is reasonably well priced and can have the necessary parts upgraded. You already said that the G4 cube did not meet those requirements. You can't say that if a product fails because it doesn't satisfy its target audience that the target audience doesn't exist.
Nearly every PC owner has a mid range tower so the market is certainly there and they will stick with their PCs until Apple offer what they want.
Where did I say that the G4 Cube did not meet the 'requirements' of a mid range headless Mac? On the contrary, I said that people *complained* that it wasn't a tower. But the Cube had the main thing that people wanted in a 'mid range' Mac, and that was an upgradeable graphics card slot.
Honestly, the only reason the Cube failed was because people thought it was overpriced. People looked at the Cube, which was wedged between the iMacs and the Power Mac G4s of the time and they decided that the low end dual processor Power Mac G4 wasn't really that much more expensive and that's what they ended up getting.
Quote:
No. Apple could have, for example, a machine that was bigger than the mini, with desktop parts (which would mean better performance and lower price), that cost about $1,000, and it would please many people. That is most certainly not "whatever the current Power Mac tower is with nearly all of it's features and expandability at half the price"--it could have Conroe (which is significantly cheaper and cooler than two Xeons), the cheapest GeForce 8 Series card (for example), a 160GB 7200rpm hard drive, and a Superdrive, most of which would be cheaper than laptop parts, and much cheaper than a Mac Pro in a much smaller (and cheaper) case. (Of course all of this could be changed BTO, which would be an additional benefit)
I've been posting on this board for a long time and historically speaking, when people talk about wanting a headless Mac, they want what the low to mid range Power Mac tower has while giving up a drive bay and expansion slot. They typically want the same options in processors, optical drives, etc. So when I say that most people want the current Power Mac tower at the half the price, I mean that this is usually the idea that is thrown out there.
Quote:
This is not at all comparable to the Cube, as
1. it was very expensive for what it offered, and price is an important issue, particularly for those interested in this, who otherwise would just get a Mac Pro
Like I said above, the price of the Cube is why it failed. People realized that for a few hundred dollars more, they could get a much better Power Mac.
Quote:
2. Apple was not in the position it is now--many more people would consider it than considered the Cube
Apple was not in a bad position when they launched the G4 Cube, other than the fact that the G4 processor itself was not working out like they had hoped (the promised speed bumps from Motorola were just not happening). We have to remember that Apple has been making money since 1998 and have been very steady. Just because the iPod hadn't yet launched didn't mean Apple wasn't in a good position when the Cube was released.
Quote:
3. technology is completely different today to seven years ago, so this Mac would have a a low-end processor (which the G4 was not back then), etc. The product would be in a completely diferent position to the 2000 equivalent, and would deliver much better performance for a much lower relative price
Yes, I agree that technology is, for the most part, different than 7 years ago. But I still believe that most people looking for a 'mid range headless Mac' would be disappointed with the price that Apple would charge.
Let's say, for example, that Apple re-released the Cube (or something very similar) in April featuring Intel's latest Core 2 Duo Conroe chips. For the sake of conversation, we'll have 2 versions, one with a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, the other with a 2.67 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. The graphics card options will include the Radeon x1950 with 256 MB of VRAM on the low end, 512 MB of VRAM on the premium system. The low end model will have a 160 GB Hard Drive standard, the high end will have a 250 GB Hard Drive standard (upgradeable up to 750 GB). Both systems will have 1 GB of RAM standard (supporting up to 4 GB). Each computer will have a SuperDrive, 2 USB 2.0 ports, 1 FireWire port, and 1 FireWire 800 Port. Built in Airport Extreme, Bluetooth 2.0, and Gigabit Ethernet will also be included.
Now for the pricing. Apple would probably charge $1599 for the low end and $1799 for the high end and people would be up in arms about it just like they were with the Cube. Think it's too expensive and Apple would never charge that much for a 'mid range Mac'? Apple's pricing for the Cube was as follows:
Fast
450 MHz G4
64 MB RAM
20 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics card
$1799
Faster
500 MHz G4
128 MB RAM
30 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$2299
Fastest
500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
$2799
To compare, the G4 line was as follows:
Fast:
Single Processor 400 MHz G4
64 MB RAM
20 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$1599
Faster:
Dual Processor 450 MHz G4
128 MB RAM
30 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$2499
Fastest:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$3499
Ultimate:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
Apple Cinema Display
$7598
So as you can see, the situation back then is not that much different than it is now in terms of pricing, with the exception that Apple no longer offers a low end Power Mac like the one offered above. It's actually kind of interesting to see how the Mac Pro prices are nearly identical to the dual processor Power Mac prices back then. We also have to realize that the Dual Processor G4 Power Macs might as well have had a different processor than the Cubes because having 2 processors was such a big deal. It's equivilent to the Conroe now against the Woodcrests.
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
I had NO idea that Apple charged so much for a dual 500 G4. WOW!
Makes 2799 looks cheap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran441
Where did I say that the G4 Cube did not meet
Fastest:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$3499
Ultimate:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
Apple Cinema Display
$7598
So as you can see, the situation back then is not that much different than it is now in terms of pricing, with the exception that Apple no longer offers a low end Power Mac like the one offered above. It's actually kind of interesting to see how the Mac Pro prices are nearly identical to the dual processor Power Mac prices back then. We also have to realize that the Dual Processor G4 Power Macs might as well have had a different processor than the Cubes because having 2 processors was such a big deal. It's equivilent to the Conroe now against the Woodcrests.
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
Maybe let's just stop the midrange Mac madness: both sides have valid arguments--it's anyway just a matter of Jobs deciding. Whither midrange Mac, it's a question of style. Anyway, big changes are coming--let's just wait and see.
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
I can speak as one who owned a dualie 533 - had the option of a cube - but it was a no brainer to get the tower - at the time.
I really think tho', Fran that the needs of todays market has changed considerably.
I mean back then VHS was still king - DVD was just over the horizon.
What I want now is a media server in my home - hence the need for expansion.
Begone VHS player - begone DVD player - all the remotes et al.
Something slim like an Xserve would be great - or a slimline tower, doesn't matter really. Any bloody thing that integrates well and is easily accessed so that you could swap out drives.
However, I can see Apple NOT offering an xMac as you say, but fulfilling my wish (above) and calling it iServer™ - and charging like a wounded bull for it ....
Thanks for your long historical post. It really was quite informative. I like knowing the exact details. Having said that, I strongly agree with RobM. Many of us would dearly love a home Mac Medis Server. The time is right, the hardware/software is or will be available soon...come on SJ...Just do it.
. . . are you comparing the $599, $999 or $1099 machine . . .
I misunderstood you, and I didn't have a critical piece of information. First, I thought you were complaining that a DVD-RW was not standard on the low end iMac. Second, until I went to the Apple store website just now, I didn't realize that a DVD-RW is not even available.
So basically I agree with you. A superdrive needs to be available. It seems too much like a ploy to get folks to buy a higher priced iMac.
Addition: The distinction I'll make is that it should be available on all Macs, period. It need not be standard.
In the end, what people really want is whatever the current Power Mac tower is with nearly all of it's features and expandability at half the price of whatever the low end Power Mac tower is and they want to call it 'a mid-range headless Mac'. Sorry folks, but that's just not going to happen.
No one is asking for the mac pro's features, however they are asking for its expandability and a mid range price. This isn't unreasonable I've lost switching a lot friends and family because of this. Expandability can be found in any off the shelf PC from around 399 and up. And people here aren't asking for dirt cheap prices like that anyways. Calling thousand dollar computers in this day and age "entry-level" and "low-end" is insane, unless you are talking about specialty computers, which is what the imac is, which is why it's price and feature set doesn't really fall in line with industry trends. That however doesn't mean that apple shouldn't and can't offer a proper mid-range product in proper mid range form.
And the superdrive argument isn't even worth having. No one can stand there and say that it's fair that in this day and age when dvds are starting to be on their way out that it makes sense that apple doesn't offer dvd burning across the board. Anyone that says this is fair is either lying or completely retarded.
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Claiming people that spend 599, 999, 1099 should not or do not need to ever do something as common and day to day as burn a dvd is incredibly short-sighted.
No one can stand there and say that it's fair that in this day and age when dvds are starting to be on their way out that it makes sense that apple doesn't offer dvd burning across the board. Anyone that says this is fair is either lying or completely retarded.
Well I know this is going to widen the discussion even further, but I'm going to post anyway.
I'm not convinced that DVDs are on their way out. Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are great and I own players for both formats, but most people don't own HDTVs and can't take advantage of the high definition movies yet. Yes, I realize they can be used for extra storage and backups, but which format is going to 'win'? While supporters on both sides are saying that their format of choice is going to eventually make the other one obsolete, things are still up in the air to a certain degree and I think it's a good thing that Apple hasn't jumped in yet. Of course Sony is going to put Blu-Ray drives in their systems, they are pushing that format. Of course Toshiba is going to put HD-DVD drives in their systems, they are pushing that format. As for Apple, the 'wait and see' approach is probably the best one at this point, especially if dual format drives actually do come out.
Quote:
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Claiming people that spend 599, 999, 1099 should not or do not need to ever do something as common and day to day as burn a dvd is incredibly short-sighted.
People need to take a step back and look at the prices Apple has charged since 1998 for Macs, iPods, Monitors, and everything else with an Apple logo on it. They *always* charge a premium price with a good sized margin. For whatever reason, some people thought that since Macs were now using Intel processors, this would change.
The statement that most PC companies wouldn't think of selling computers at the prices Apple does is absolutely true. But look at how Apple is doing compared to the big computer manufacturers, Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing, I wouldn't call them 'short sighted'.
I'm not convinced that DVDs are on their way out. Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are great and I own players for both formats,
Just because there is a format war between blue ray and HD DVD doesn't mean that standard DVDs aren't on the way out. Once one or the other is vanquished(blue ray or HD DVD) kiss standard DVDs good bye.
since apple is using the same price since 1998 does not warranty they should keep crippling the system ...
I do not understand people defends this stragety so whole heartly ...
Change is envitable!
iTunes Movies, TV Shows, Songs download, iPod, Mac all these integration is questionable when a Mac is released with OUT a DVD Burner just because some one thinks it is acceptable and people should pay $200 additional to get this very basic feature ...
I am tired, i had a 12" PB with DVD burning capabilities in 2003, now the whole computer world is going to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD,
No one is asking for the mac pro's features, however they are asking for its expandability and a mid range price. . . Expandability can be found in any off the shelf PC from around 399 and up.
Right on. Will Apple ever get the message that many of us want this? Until then, there is eBay.
Quote:
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Dell appears to offer almost any kind of optical drive you want, which is the way it should be IMHO; everyone's needs are different. However, I wouldn't sell a CD-ROM drive. Too much software comes on DVD today to get by with anything less than a DVD-ROM.
Just because there is a format war between blue ray and HD DVD doesn't mean that standard DVDs aren't on the way out. Once one or the other is vanquished (blue ray or HD DVD), kiss standard DVDs good bye.
DVDs may never go, but if they do, it'll take 5 to 10 years.
VCR tapes are disappearing quickly because a DVD is so much more convenient, and hard drives are a better way to record TV for viewing later. Really, the HD formats simply offer more capacity on the disc.
DVDs may never go, but if they do, it'll take 5 to 10 years.
VCR tapes are disappearing quickly because a DVD is so much more convenient, and hard drives are a better way to record TV for viewing later. Really, the HD formats simply offer more capacity on the disc.
DVDs will dye faster IMO. When DVDs first came into the market vcr was still the only way to record so they had an advantage that allowed them to exist. DVDs won't have that advantage on the blue ray/HD DVD successor. As well dvr exists to help fill that niche. I think they will disappear quickly once blue ray vanquishes HD DVD (or vice versa).
For the record, I'm not trying to defend everything Apple does or doesn't do. Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. It makes things more interesting.
Quote:
DVDs will dye faster IMO. When DVDs first came into the market vcr was still the only way to record so they had an advantage that allowed them to exist. DVDs won't have that advantage on the blue ray/HD DVD successor. As well dvr exists to help fill that niche. I think they will disappear quickly once blue ray vanquishes HD DVD (or vice versa).
I think you're counting DVDs out a little early. It took many years for DVDs to catch on like they have and it's been less than a year since Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs started hitting the shelves. Just because Sony ships computers with Blu-Ray drives (the format that they are pushing) and Toshiba ships computers with HD-DVD drives (the format that they are pushing), it doesn't mean that DVDs are on the way out.
I'll agree with the fact that DVRs are taking over for VCRs and DVD players that can record DVDs are also helping to fill that role.
But Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players are not aimed at most consumers. In fact, they are aimed at the very narrow segment of the market that owns a HDTV. While the prices of HDTVs are falling, it will still be quite some time before most people own one and even then, a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will probably not be a day one purchase. Still plenty of time to see how this turns out.
No, what people want is a mid-range headless Mac that is reasonably well priced and can have the necessary parts upgraded. You already said that the G4 cube did not meet those requirements. You can't say that if a product fails because it doesn't satisfy its target audience that the target audience doesn't exist.
Nearly every PC owner has a mid range tower so the market is certainly there and they will stick with their PCs until Apple offer what they want.
the bold text is for clarity
FRAN isnt saying it... Apple said it when they withdrew the cube, the sales WERE NOT THERE.
while i dont agree with Fran on the super drive issue, he does make perfectly sound reasonable and factually documented sense Re the midrange mac.. Apple dont see a market for it FULL STOP. end of story.
windows people arnt sitting around on windows forums posting comments along the lines of "oh woah is me, when can i buy an apple computer" in their millions, they are doing other things.
the price of entry is the price of entry... either you want in and are willing to pay, or you arnt.. sorry.
RE Super drives though... in this day and age COME ON Apple! FFS theres what? a dollar difference between CDRW and DVDRW drives when bought in bulk, and Apple are already buying them in bulk so its not like buying a whole different part.
havign said that i do understand the need to keep the specs apart on different machines, but really... i just dont see the point doing it with the drives
FRAN isnt saying it... Apple said it when they withdrew the cube, the sales WERE NOT THERE.
Yes, the sales were not there because the Cube did not satisfy the target audience, not because the target audience doesn't exist. Fran said:
Quote:
Apple eventually realized that there wasn't a market for a midrage Mac like the Cube and discontinued it
which is wrong. There is a huge market for a midrange Mac like the Cube but the product still has to meet their demands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
Apple dont see a market for it FULL STOP. end of story.
We'll see. One day they'll bring back the cube, even if I have to do it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
windows people arnt sitting around on windows forums posting comments along the lines of "oh woah is me, when can i buy an apple computer" in their millions, they are doing other things.
Which tells you that they are satisifed with their headless PCs i.e the 95% of computer users that Apple would love to have as customers but won't because they refuse to do the right thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendannoyer
the price of entry is the price of entry... either you want in and are willing to pay, or you arnt.. sorry.
I know but that's the very problem. The majority of computer users just choose not to pay. It's not the end consumer losing out, Apple is losing out.
Do you think the guy mentioned at the beginning of this thread is unhappy about not getting a Mac? No, it didn't have a DVD burner so Apple lost a sale.
There is a huge market for a midrange Mac like the Cube but the product still has to meet their demands.
The 'demands' of the market back then were to cut the Cube's prices by $500-1000. Apple didn't and people ended up buying the low end Power Mac G4. If Apple were to come out with a midrange Mac like the Cube again today, those concerns would probably be repeated because that's what Apple charges for Macs.
Quote:
The majority of computer users just choose not to pay. It's not the end consumer losing out, Apple is losing out.
Do you think the guy mentioned at the beginning of this thread is unhappy about not getting a Mac? No, it didn't have a DVD burner so Apple lost a sale.
As I said before, Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Harsh as it sounds, I don't think Apple is overly concerned that they didn't sell a low end Mac Mini. Remember what I said before, I am playing devil's advocate here.
Also, because I'd like to stir things up a little more, I find it kind of funny that people chose to look at the low Mac Mini, the low end MacBook, and the low end iMac (the 3 entry level Macs) and decided to focus on the fact that they didn't have a high end optical drive instead of looking at Apple's most expensive, professional level computer, the Mac Pro. Look at the fact that Apple doesn't include Airport Extreme standard in the Mac Pros, despite the fact that they are standard on every other Mac. In fact, they don't have Bluetooth 2.0 standard either, despite every other Mac having it standard with the exception of the low end iMac.
Comments
No, what people want is a mid-range headless Mac that is reasonably well priced and can have the necessary parts upgraded. You already said that the G4 cube did not meet those requirements. You can't say that if a product fails because it doesn't satisfy its target audience that the target audience doesn't exist.
Nearly every PC owner has a mid range tower so the market is certainly there and they will stick with their PCs until Apple offer what they want.
Where did I say that the G4 Cube did not meet the 'requirements' of a mid range headless Mac? On the contrary, I said that people *complained* that it wasn't a tower. But the Cube had the main thing that people wanted in a 'mid range' Mac, and that was an upgradeable graphics card slot.
Honestly, the only reason the Cube failed was because people thought it was overpriced. People looked at the Cube, which was wedged between the iMacs and the Power Mac G4s of the time and they decided that the low end dual processor Power Mac G4 wasn't really that much more expensive and that's what they ended up getting.
No. Apple could have, for example, a machine that was bigger than the mini, with desktop parts (which would mean better performance and lower price), that cost about $1,000, and it would please many people. That is most certainly not "whatever the current Power Mac tower is with nearly all of it's features and expandability at half the price"--it could have Conroe (which is significantly cheaper and cooler than two Xeons), the cheapest GeForce 8 Series card (for example), a 160GB 7200rpm hard drive, and a Superdrive, most of which would be cheaper than laptop parts, and much cheaper than a Mac Pro in a much smaller (and cheaper) case. (Of course all of this could be changed BTO, which would be an additional benefit)
I've been posting on this board for a long time and historically speaking, when people talk about wanting a headless Mac, they want what the low to mid range Power Mac tower has while giving up a drive bay and expansion slot. They typically want the same options in processors, optical drives, etc. So when I say that most people want the current Power Mac tower at the half the price, I mean that this is usually the idea that is thrown out there.
This is not at all comparable to the Cube, as
1. it was very expensive for what it offered, and price is an important issue, particularly for those interested in this, who otherwise would just get a Mac Pro
Like I said above, the price of the Cube is why it failed. People realized that for a few hundred dollars more, they could get a much better Power Mac.
2. Apple was not in the position it is now--many more people would consider it than considered the Cube
Apple was not in a bad position when they launched the G4 Cube, other than the fact that the G4 processor itself was not working out like they had hoped (the promised speed bumps from Motorola were just not happening). We have to remember that Apple has been making money since 1998 and have been very steady. Just because the iPod hadn't yet launched didn't mean Apple wasn't in a good position when the Cube was released.
3. technology is completely different today to seven years ago, so this Mac would have a a low-end processor (which the G4 was not back then), etc. The product would be in a completely diferent position to the 2000 equivalent, and would deliver much better performance for a much lower relative price
Yes, I agree that technology is, for the most part, different than 7 years ago. But I still believe that most people looking for a 'mid range headless Mac' would be disappointed with the price that Apple would charge.
Let's say, for example, that Apple re-released the Cube (or something very similar) in April featuring Intel's latest Core 2 Duo Conroe chips. For the sake of conversation, we'll have 2 versions, one with a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, the other with a 2.67 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. The graphics card options will include the Radeon x1950 with 256 MB of VRAM on the low end, 512 MB of VRAM on the premium system. The low end model will have a 160 GB Hard Drive standard, the high end will have a 250 GB Hard Drive standard (upgradeable up to 750 GB). Both systems will have 1 GB of RAM standard (supporting up to 4 GB). Each computer will have a SuperDrive, 2 USB 2.0 ports, 1 FireWire port, and 1 FireWire 800 Port. Built in Airport Extreme, Bluetooth 2.0, and Gigabit Ethernet will also be included.
Now for the pricing. Apple would probably charge $1599 for the low end and $1799 for the high end and people would be up in arms about it just like they were with the Cube. Think it's too expensive and Apple would never charge that much for a 'mid range Mac'? Apple's pricing for the Cube was as follows:
Fast
450 MHz G4
64 MB RAM
20 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics card
$1799
Faster
500 MHz G4
128 MB RAM
30 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$2299
Fastest
500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
$2799
To compare, the G4 line was as follows:
Fast:
Single Processor 400 MHz G4
64 MB RAM
20 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$1599
Faster:
Dual Processor 450 MHz G4
128 MB RAM
30 GB HD
DVD-ROM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$2499
Fastest:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$3499
Ultimate:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
Apple Cinema Display
$7598
So as you can see, the situation back then is not that much different than it is now in terms of pricing, with the exception that Apple no longer offers a low end Power Mac like the one offered above. It's actually kind of interesting to see how the Mac Pro prices are nearly identical to the dual processor Power Mac prices back then. We also have to realize that the Dual Processor G4 Power Macs might as well have had a different processor than the Cubes because having 2 processors was such a big deal. It's equivilent to the Conroe now against the Woodcrests.
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
I had NO idea that Apple charged so much for a dual 500 G4. WOW!
Makes 2799 looks cheap
Where did I say that the G4 Cube did not meet
Fastest:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Rage 128 Pro Graphics Card
$3499
Ultimate:
Dual Processor 500 MHz G4
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
DVD-RAM
ATi Radeon Graphics Card
Apple Cinema Display
$7598
So as you can see, the situation back then is not that much different than it is now in terms of pricing, with the exception that Apple no longer offers a low end Power Mac like the one offered above. It's actually kind of interesting to see how the Mac Pro prices are nearly identical to the dual processor Power Mac prices back then. We also have to realize that the Dual Processor G4 Power Macs might as well have had a different processor than the Cubes because having 2 processors was such a big deal. It's equivilent to the Conroe now against the Woodcrests.
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
Cheers,
Ariel
Sorry for the long post and the historical information (and for getting off track of what the original post was about), but I think that it's worth pointing out that Apple's 'headless mid-range Mac' didn't work earlier and I don't think a similar machine would do very well in today's market either.
I can speak as one who owned a dualie 533 - had the option of a cube - but it was a no brainer to get the tower - at the time.
I really think tho', Fran that the needs of todays market has changed considerably.
I mean back then VHS was still king - DVD was just over the horizon.
What I want now is a media server in my home - hence the need for expansion.
Begone VHS player - begone DVD player - all the remotes et al.
Something slim like an Xserve would be great - or a slimline tower, doesn't matter really. Any bloody thing that integrates well and is easily accessed so that you could swap out drives.
However, I can see Apple NOT offering an xMac as you say, but fulfilling my wish (above) and calling it iServer™ - and charging like a wounded bull for it ....
My $0.02c
Thanks for your long historical post. It really was quite informative. I like knowing the exact details. Having said that, I strongly agree with RobM. Many of us would dearly love a home Mac Medis Server. The time is right, the hardware/software is or will be available soon...come on SJ...Just do it.
. . . are you comparing the $599, $999 or $1099 machine . . .
I misunderstood you, and I didn't have a critical piece of information. First, I thought you were complaining that a DVD-RW was not standard on the low end iMac. Second, until I went to the Apple store website just now, I didn't realize that a DVD-RW is not even available.
So basically I agree with you. A superdrive needs to be available. It seems too much like a ploy to get folks to buy a higher priced iMac.
Addition: The distinction I'll make is that it should be available on all Macs, period. It need not be standard.
In the end, what people really want is whatever the current Power Mac tower is with nearly all of it's features and expandability at half the price of whatever the low end Power Mac tower is and they want to call it 'a mid-range headless Mac'. Sorry folks, but that's just not going to happen.
No one is asking for the mac pro's features, however they are asking for its expandability and a mid range price. This isn't unreasonable I've lost switching a lot friends and family because of this. Expandability can be found in any off the shelf PC from around 399 and up. And people here aren't asking for dirt cheap prices like that anyways. Calling thousand dollar computers in this day and age "entry-level" and "low-end" is insane, unless you are talking about specialty computers, which is what the imac is, which is why it's price and feature set doesn't really fall in line with industry trends. That however doesn't mean that apple shouldn't and can't offer a proper mid-range product in proper mid range form.
And the superdrive argument isn't even worth having. No one can stand there and say that it's fair that in this day and age when dvds are starting to be on their way out that it makes sense that apple doesn't offer dvd burning across the board. Anyone that says this is fair is either lying or completely retarded.
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Claiming people that spend 599, 999, 1099 should not or do not need to ever do something as common and day to day as burn a dvd is incredibly short-sighted.
No one can stand there and say that it's fair that in this day and age when dvds are starting to be on their way out that it makes sense that apple doesn't offer dvd burning across the board. Anyone that says this is fair is either lying or completely retarded.
Well I know this is going to widen the discussion even further, but I'm going to post anyway.
I'm not convinced that DVDs are on their way out. Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are great and I own players for both formats, but most people don't own HDTVs and can't take advantage of the high definition movies yet. Yes, I realize they can be used for extra storage and backups, but which format is going to 'win'? While supporters on both sides are saying that their format of choice is going to eventually make the other one obsolete, things are still up in the air to a certain degree and I think it's a good thing that Apple hasn't jumped in yet. Of course Sony is going to put Blu-Ray drives in their systems, they are pushing that format. Of course Toshiba is going to put HD-DVD drives in their systems, they are pushing that format. As for Apple, the 'wait and see' approach is probably the best one at this point, especially if dual format drives actually do come out.
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Claiming people that spend 599, 999, 1099 should not or do not need to ever do something as common and day to day as burn a dvd is incredibly short-sighted.
People need to take a step back and look at the prices Apple has charged since 1998 for Macs, iPods, Monitors, and everything else with an Apple logo on it. They *always* charge a premium price with a good sized margin. For whatever reason, some people thought that since Macs were now using Intel processors, this would change.
The statement that most PC companies wouldn't think of selling computers at the prices Apple does is absolutely true. But look at how Apple is doing compared to the big computer manufacturers, Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing, I wouldn't call them 'short sighted'.
I'm not convinced that DVDs are on their way out. Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are great and I own players for both formats,
Just because there is a format war between blue ray and HD DVD doesn't mean that standard DVDs aren't on the way out. Once one or the other is vanquished(blue ray or HD DVD) kiss standard DVDs good bye.
since apple is using the same price since 1998 does not warranty they should keep crippling the system ...
I do not understand people defends this stragety so whole heartly ...
Change is envitable!
iTunes Movies, TV Shows, Songs download, iPod, Mac all these integration is questionable when a Mac is released with OUT a DVD Burner just because some one thinks it is acceptable and people should pay $200 additional to get this very basic feature ...
I am tired, i had a 12" PB with DVD burning capabilities in 2003, now the whole computer world is going to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD,
Mac are selling with out DVD burner ...
Apple is the leader, rite?
No one is asking for the mac pro's features, however they are asking for its expandability and a mid range price. . . Expandability can be found in any off the shelf PC from around 399 and up.
Right on. Will Apple ever get the message that many of us want this? Until then, there is eBay.
No other manufacturer would even think of selling computers at the prices apple does and not including dvd burning capabilities.
Dell appears to offer almost any kind of optical drive you want, which is the way it should be IMHO; everyone's needs are different. However, I wouldn't sell a CD-ROM drive. Too much software comes on DVD today to get by with anything less than a DVD-ROM.
Just because there is a format war between blue ray and HD DVD doesn't mean that standard DVDs aren't on the way out. Once one or the other is vanquished (blue ray or HD DVD), kiss standard DVDs good bye.
DVDs may never go, but if they do, it'll take 5 to 10 years.
VCR tapes are disappearing quickly because a DVD is so much more convenient, and hard drives are a better way to record TV for viewing later. Really, the HD formats simply offer more capacity on the disc.
DVDs may never go, but if they do, it'll take 5 to 10 years.
VCR tapes are disappearing quickly because a DVD is so much more convenient, and hard drives are a better way to record TV for viewing later. Really, the HD formats simply offer more capacity on the disc.
DVDs will dye faster IMO. When DVDs first came into the market vcr was still the only way to record so they had an advantage that allowed them to exist. DVDs won't have that advantage on the blue ray/HD DVD successor. As well dvr exists to help fill that niche. I think they will disappear quickly once blue ray vanquishes HD DVD (or vice versa).
DVDs will dye faster IMO. When DVDs first came into the market vcr was still the only way to record so they had an advantage that allowed them to exist. DVDs won't have that advantage on the blue ray/HD DVD successor. As well dvr exists to help fill that niche. I think they will disappear quickly once blue ray vanquishes HD DVD (or vice versa).
I think you're counting DVDs out a little early. It took many years for DVDs to catch on like they have and it's been less than a year since Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs started hitting the shelves. Just because Sony ships computers with Blu-Ray drives (the format that they are pushing) and Toshiba ships computers with HD-DVD drives (the format that they are pushing), it doesn't mean that DVDs are on the way out.
I'll agree with the fact that DVRs are taking over for VCRs and DVD players that can record DVDs are also helping to fill that role.
But Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players are not aimed at most consumers. In fact, they are aimed at the very narrow segment of the market that owns a HDTV. While the prices of HDTVs are falling, it will still be quite some time before most people own one and even then, a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will probably not be a day one purchase. Still plenty of time to see how this turns out.
No, what people want is a mid-range headless Mac that is reasonably well priced and can have the necessary parts upgraded. You already said that the G4 cube did not meet those requirements. You can't say that if a product fails because it doesn't satisfy its target audience that the target audience doesn't exist.
Nearly every PC owner has a mid range tower so the market is certainly there and they will stick with their PCs until Apple offer what they want.
the bold text is for clarity
FRAN isnt saying it... Apple said it when they withdrew the cube, the sales WERE NOT THERE.
while i dont agree with Fran on the super drive issue, he does make perfectly sound reasonable and factually documented sense Re the midrange mac.. Apple dont see a market for it FULL STOP. end of story.
windows people arnt sitting around on windows forums posting comments along the lines of "oh woah is me, when can i buy an apple computer" in their millions, they are doing other things.
the price of entry is the price of entry... either you want in and are willing to pay, or you arnt.. sorry.
RE Super drives though... in this day and age COME ON Apple! FFS
havign said that i do understand the need to keep the specs apart on different machines, but really... i just dont see the point doing it with the drives
FRAN isnt saying it... Apple said it when they withdrew the cube, the sales WERE NOT THERE.
Yes, the sales were not there because the Cube did not satisfy the target audience, not because the target audience doesn't exist. Fran said:
Apple eventually realized that there wasn't a market for a midrage Mac like the Cube and discontinued it
which is wrong. There is a huge market for a midrange Mac like the Cube but the product still has to meet their demands.
Apple dont see a market for it FULL STOP. end of story.
We'll see. One day they'll bring back the cube, even if I have to do it myself.
windows people arnt sitting around on windows forums posting comments along the lines of "oh woah is me, when can i buy an apple computer" in their millions, they are doing other things.
Which tells you that they are satisifed with their headless PCs i.e the 95% of computer users that Apple would love to have as customers but won't because they refuse to do the right thing.
the price of entry is the price of entry... either you want in and are willing to pay, or you arnt.. sorry.
I know but that's the very problem. The majority of computer users just choose not to pay. It's not the end consumer losing out, Apple is losing out.
Do you think the guy mentioned at the beginning of this thread is unhappy about not getting a Mac? No, it didn't have a DVD burner so Apple lost a sale.
There is a huge market for a midrange Mac like the Cube but the product still has to meet their demands.
The 'demands' of the market back then were to cut the Cube's prices by $500-1000. Apple didn't and people ended up buying the low end Power Mac G4. If Apple were to come out with a midrange Mac like the Cube again today, those concerns would probably be repeated because that's what Apple charges for Macs.
The majority of computer users just choose not to pay. It's not the end consumer losing out, Apple is losing out.
Do you think the guy mentioned at the beginning of this thread is unhappy about not getting a Mac? No, it didn't have a DVD burner so Apple lost a sale.
As I said before, Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Harsh as it sounds, I don't think Apple is overly concerned that they didn't sell a low end Mac Mini. Remember what I said before, I am playing devil's advocate here.
Also, because I'd like to stir things up a little more, I find it kind of funny that people chose to look at the low Mac Mini, the low end MacBook, and the low end iMac (the 3 entry level Macs) and decided to focus on the fact that they didn't have a high end optical drive instead of looking at Apple's most expensive, professional level computer, the Mac Pro. Look at the fact that Apple doesn't include Airport Extreme standard in the Mac Pros, despite the fact that they are standard on every other Mac. In fact, they don't have Bluetooth 2.0 standard either, despite every other Mac having it standard with the exception of the low end iMac.