I won't name names, you know who you are!! As someone else made the excellent point if anything is a niche product the iMac is. The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it? In fact i would go further and suggest that anything with an Apple on it is a niche product. So stop this nonsense now!
Back on topic, this is another nothing story during a slow news week for AI. So Apple have given copies of the leopard to developers to test and they are asking for feedback, Shock Horror, call the police! There is nothing to see here folks, move along.
Tomorrows AI headline...
Apple to be bought out by Microsoft??
Reports coming in from Apples HQ suggest a MS takeover may be on the cards, insiders have confided with us that the brand of toilet paper Apple buys for the Management bathroom has been changed, what was once a plain white roll with no pattern is now a light blue toilet paper.
While there is nothing to suggest that a takeover is on the cards or even possible some people have commented that the blue colour is spookingly similar to the shade used in Office 2007.
Watch this space for more important news from Apple.
Firstly, can i please just take issue with this.. I won't name names, you know who you are!! As someone else made the excellent point if anything is a niche product the iMac is. The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it? In fact i would go further and suggest that anything with an Apple on it is a niche product...
They will keep their promise and push it out in the last week of October, but it will still carry bugs which will be addressed in the first few dot updates.
The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it?
A train company is looking to improve its service, after reports of horrible overcrowding on its 1pm and 3pm trains. It sends a representative to decide whether a 2pm train is necessary.
The representative dutifully goes to the train station at 2pm, and, seeing no one waiting for a train, decides that no 2pm train is necessary.
Faulty logic at work: no one was there waiting for a train that wasn't going to arrive.
Equally faulty logic: if you sell nothing but minitowers, then that's all people will buy. That doesn't mean they *need* minitowers, or even *want* minitowers... but if that's the only thing available, that's all they have to purchase. Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Pointing to those sales numbers as evidence that minitowers are what people want, in the absence of real choice, is faulty thinking.
If nobody is offering an AIO of any quality, then they won't sell any AIOs, and people will default to the case style that *is* being sold: minitowers. Minitowers aren't niche in numbers sold, they're niche in who they're designed for. People buy them because that's what offered, not because they meet their needs particularly well.
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
A train company is looking to improve its service, after reports of horrible overcrowding on its 1pm and 3pm trains. It sends a representative to decide whether a 2pm train is necessary.
The representative dutifully goes to the train station at 2pm, and, seeing no one waiting for a train, decides that no 2pm train is necessary.
Faulty logic at work: no one was there waiting for a train that wasn't going to arrive.
Equally faulty logic: if you sell nothing but minitowers, then that's all people will buy. That doesn't mean they *need* minitowers, or even *want* minitowers... but if that's the only thing available, that's all they have to purchase. Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Pointing to those sales numbers as evidence that minitowers are what people want, in the absence of real choice, is faulty thinking.
If nobody is offering an AIO of any quality, then they won't sell any AIOs, and people will default to the case style that *is* being sold: minitowers. Minitowers aren't niche in numbers sold, they're niche in who they're designed for. People buy them because that's what offered, not because they meet their needs particularly well.
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
But, you're also using faulty logic.
The exact same situation exicts for your example with Apple's product line.
Apple doesn't sell a mini-tower, so the won't be any sales to compare their AIO sales to.
His discription of the mini-tower as the biggest sucess in computer sales history is correct. People DO want mini-towers. They took over from horizontal desktops long ago when both were available. People prefer them.
Do they NEED them? Who knows. It's simply not relevant. Perception is reality.
Apple is also in a unique situation when compared to PC manufacturers. They are all competing with each others' products. Apple has a different OS, which means that Apple can't deal in the back and forth sales that the typical PC consumer can. If, one day, you buy a Dell mini-tower, but then change to an Hp, you don't lose anything. But, you can't easily do that with Macs.
Granted, these days you can use Windows on a Mac without much penalty (as long as you don't need to switch graphics cards), but it will cost much more to do it. At least Crossover will be required, and that's not really useful for most people. So, you need at least VMWare or Parallels, plus a $200, or more, costly Windows product to do so. That's not a solution for most people.
Therefore, if Apple wants to break into the PC world in an even bigger way, it must offer more popular machines than the niche market of tiny closed systems such as the Mini, and AIO's, neither of which have proved to be popular in the world at large.
Remember that both GTW and Hp offer AIO's, IBM did as well, others may still offer them. But, they sell to a very small crowd.
The problem Apple has with its desktops is that they appeal to those who would like AIO's or mini machines, but those wanting to move to the Mac with desktops, don't have the choice most would prefer.
I read of many people who would otherwise move to the Mac, not doing so, because of this limited selection.
In business publications, one of the reasons cited why more medium and large businesses have been holding off on moving to Macs is partly because of the same reason.
Apple (Jobs) has their reasons for not wanting to make this move, but that doesn't mean they are correct, or that we should make excuses for it.
The exact same situation exicts for your example with Apple's product line.
Apple doesn't sell a mini-tower, so the won't be any sales to compare their AIO sales to.
I'm not saying the AIO is a better seller, though, am I? I'm not stating the reverse of his speculation as fact, I'm simply pointing out that his logic is faulty. Neither conclusion can be drawn given the current state of the market. (Come on mel, you're not going to fall into the us-vs-them mentality, are you?)
Apple sells AIOs, and no minitower.
The rest of the market sells minitowers, and... not much else. (And what does pass as 'else' is pretty horrid.)
I hate to use the cliche apples and oranges, but... too many variables (OS, etc) to make any sort of conclusions.
Quote:
His discription of the mini-tower as the biggest sucess in computer sales history is correct. People DO want mini-towers. They took over from horizontal desktops long ago when both were available. People prefer them.
The only difference between a minitower and a horizontal unit is footprint. One is just the other turned on its side, and the minitower *is* a better version of the horizontal unit. However, if that's the limit of 'choice', that's pretty pathetic, don't you think?
Quote:
Do they NEED them? Who knows. It's simply not relevant. Perception is reality.
And the perception is that they don't have choice when it comes to styles... which in this case happens to also *be* reality. There are damned few non-minitowers out there, so of course minitowers are what people expect to find, expect to buy, and end up do buying. It's the default, but not necessarily the default if there were choice.
Quote:
Apple is also in a unique situation when compared to PC manufacturers. They are all competing with each others' products. Apple has a different OS, which means that Apple can't deal in the back and forth sales that the typical PC consumer can. If, one day, you buy a Dell mini-tower, but then change to an Hp, you don't lose anything. But, you can't easily do that with Macs.
Granted, these days you can use Windows on a Mac without much penalty (as long as you don't need to switch graphics cards), but it will cost much more to do it. At least Crossover will be required, and that's not really useful for most people. So, you need at least VMWare or Parallels, plus a $200, or more, costly Windows product to do so. That's not a solution for most people.
Therefore, if Apple wants to break into the PC world in an even bigger way, it must offer more popular machines than the niche market of tiny closed systems such as the Mini, and AIO's, neither of which have proved to be popular in the world at large.
Remember that both GTW and Hp offer AIO's, IBM did as well, others may still offer them. But, they sell to a very small crowd.
You forgot to add: they *sucked*. OMG. Horrible designs, and most of them were a minitower slapped onto a flat panel. Seriously, most of them didn't even hide it particularly well, or they simply stuck the panel on top of the minitower (now lain flat... go figure).
I don't think it was a matter of dislike of the format, as the form.
Quote:
The problem Apple has with its desktops is that they appeal to those who would like AIO's or mini machines, but those wanting to move to the Mac with desktops, don't have the choice most would prefer.
I read of many people who would otherwise move to the Mac, not doing so, because of this limited selection.
My guess? Give it to them, and they'd find some other reason not to move to the Mac. Some people are just never satisfied.
Quote:
In business publications, one of the reasons cited why more medium and large businesses have been holding off on moving to Macs is partly because of the same reason.
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks... *shrug*
Quote:
Apple (Jobs) has their reasons for not wanting to make this move, but that doesn't mean they are correct, or that we should make excuses for it.
I'm not making any excuses. You design boxes based on the customer's needs, not their defaults, or you're not doing them a service. (You also never get innovation, but that's another matter.)
The fact of the matter is, a minitower serves a very small segment of the *total* population, based on actual needs. I have yet to be convinced otherwise of this. However, because those who design/market/work on computers for a living are a large part of that small segment, they build machines for *themselves*, and have convinced everyone else that it's what *they* need... it's not. But it serves to make the minitower the most popular format, simply because it's the format most offered, and most people have been misinformed that, well, that's what they need.
Expandability is a red herring for the vast majority of consumers. It's a red herring for most business users as well... but they might need repairability and parts-swapping to minimize downtime. Expandability is a very *real* need for only a small population, and most of those folks are going to make the leap to the serious hardware. A low-cost, low-power unit with expandability is going to sell poorly, IMO. But hey, I could be wrong. It might sell buttloads. I mean, there *are* a lot of duped consumers out there.
*CURSE YOU MEL*! I start off illustrating a logical fallacy, and you get me off on a rant again. :P Bastard.
Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Sony's AIOs are better than Apple's iMac but they are expensive due to the bundled display and laptop parts just like Apple's. That's what people are put off by - paying for things they don't need. I don't *need* a built-in display, I don't *need* a laptop that acts like a desktop so why pay £300 or so for the privilege?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
The PC market is pretty cut-throat and they've obviously done market research that suggests to them the models they are selling are what people want. If they thought for a minute they could make more money some other way e.g by following Apple's style then they'd be on it in a flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
So why change it? I see that as quite a big factor. It's the same with software, if you have a team of people trained on how to work with a certain piece of software, why would you present them with something more difficult to work with for little benefit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks. *shrug*
I'd say that the AIOs are harder to fix than anything. Hard drive and Ram are fine but what if you have to do the logic board, isight or display? Mini-towers don't have this problem.
Also, if the internal design is so bad then Apple is a pretty good candidate for sorting it out.
What I still don't buy about the AIO design is what the benefit really is. The only reason Apple and most people give is saving desktop clutter. In reality you save two cables. So it's more beneficial to have less powerful, less upgradable, more expensive computers for the sake of two cables when the desktop isn't really going to be moved all that much anyway?
I hear that they will release on time but it will be buggy.
There are so many under the hood changes, the OS is something like 3x bigger then Tiger.
I'm not sure what the survey is about but it looks to me like a developer triage so that the OS development teams can focus on the most critical and important spots first.
In addition to the OS being able to run the update reliably (BACK yo shit UP!!!), there are certain apps that have to be bomber before shipping that are the focus at this point. The rest will que up it seems.
A bug pops up, they fix, breaks something else, repeat. Lots of very very smart people tracking down these things and fixing them fast.
Sony's AIOs are better than Apple's iMac but they are expensive due to the bundled display and laptop parts just like Apple's. That's what people are put off by - paying for things they don't need. I don't *need* a built-in display, I don't *need* a laptop that acts like a desktop so why pay £300 or so for the privilege?
And yet you'd think it would cost money in include expandability (slots, etc) that the average consumer will never use, but thinks that they need. However... (next point continues this...)
Quote:
The PC market is pretty cut-throat and they've obviously done market research that suggests to them the models they are selling are what people want. If they thought for a minute they could make more money some other way e.g by following Apple's style then they'd be on it in a flash.
I think it's more economies of scale than what people need, that dictates the PC market. If you can standardize on a couple of designs, a couple of motherboards, a couple of CPUs, and then flood the market with them, you can take advantage of those scales to save a bit here and there. (Of course, if everyone else is doing it, it's a race for the bottom, which, unless you have a premium high-end array to offset the low margins, is pretty much a losing proposition over time as it becomes a war of attrition...)
Perceived need for expandability helps feed the unification of the market into slotted machines, for which a market *segment* *does* have a need, so manufacturers are more than happy to provide both segments with the same box, leading to economies of scale, which minimizes the choices, leading to everyone choosing minitowers, which reduces 'non-selling' choices, which... and around and around it goes.
But... is it really what either market segment *needs*, or is it simply 'the way things are done' to the point that it isn't questioned? For IT, which is better - having a couple hours of downtime for a unit while it's repaired, or having a couple *minutes* of downtime for the *employee* as another thin-ish client is plugged into the network at their desk? Current IT networks and workflows are horribly inefficient. (And no, I don't mean Sun thin clients, etc, etc, I'm talking about a different approach that might actually be given a chance if everyone weren't so locked into the Windows/PC/minitower mindset...)
I just don't see that the average minitower meets the needs of the far-flung segments it is sold to. It's good *enough* to muddle through, but it leads to unnecessary problems as well.
Quote:
So why change it? I see that as quite a big factor. It's the same with software, if you have a team of people trained on how to work with a certain piece of software, why would you present them with something more difficult to work with for little benefit?
Again, this is a market *segment*, not the *market*. Corporations have very different needs than consumers. You're absolutely right that Apple doesn't make a machine aimed at them. No argument there. The point is: it's still a market *segment*, and not one that's particularly profitable. It's the land of rock-bottom margins and little profitability, with high support rates.
Quote:
I'd say that the AIOs are harder to fix than anything. Hard drive and Ram are fine but what if you have to do the logic board, isight or display? Mini-towers don't have this problem.
Honestly, I see no reason why Apple couldn't produce an AIO with the same snap-apart design as the internals of the Mac Pros. But again, you're assuming that they'd want to produce an AIO aimed at IT shops. I don't see why they would. They'd be wading into the cutthroat pond for little advantage.
Quote:
Also, if the internal design is so bad then Apple is a pretty good candidate for sorting it out.
Agreed.
Quote:
What I still don't buy about the AIO design is what the benefit really is. The only reason Apple and most people give is saving desktop clutter. In reality you save two cables. So it's more beneficial to have less powerful, less upgradable, more expensive computers for the sake of two cables when the desktop isn't really going to be moved all that much anyway?
Honestly? I think it's simplicity for the consumer. The IT worker, programmer, developer, or techhead doesn't think twice about how to put together a basic CPU. My father in law gets confused by the RCA jacks on his VCR, and they're frickin' color coded. (PhD, no less) There are significant numbers of people for whom Komputers R Skary(tm). If they can just unbox it, plug it in, and get going, that's an actual, honest to god benefit to their mental approach to the machine. I've seen it, even if I don't understand it. For them, it Just Works, and it does so immediately, instead of presenting them with a barrier.
It's psychological, but it's powerful, in the same way that a perceived (but rarely used) need for expandability leading to minitower purchases is purely psychological.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that the market is going (or has gone) in the minitower direction, perhaps irrevocably. I'm just saying that, to me, it doesn't make much sense.
And yeah, didn't mean to derail this with a side-discussion. Back to the OS indeed.
And yet you'd think it would cost money in include expandability (slots, etc) that the average consumer will never use, but thinks that they need. However... (next point continues this...)
True but not nearly as much as a display. Still I don't get the expandability deal much either - we haven't upgraded our quad G5 at work once in nearly 2 years but it doesn't compromise on performance to save space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
I think it's more economies of scale than what people need, that dictates the PC market. If you can standardize on a couple of designs, a couple of motherboards, a couple of CPUs, and then flood the market with them, you can take advantage of those scales to save a bit here and there.
Yeah I agree with that, I think that Apple has perhaps taken it a bit too far though. Below £1500 you get the choice of 3 graphics chipsets now, including the GMA (and they still can't get the drivers right). Just a little more choice is needed IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
I think it's simplicity for the consumer. The IT worker, programmer, developer, or techhead doesn't think twice about how to put together a basic CPU. My father in law gets confused by the RCA jacks on his VCR, and they're frickin' color coded. (PhD, no less) There are significant numbers of people for whom Komputers R Skary(tm). If they can just unbox it, plug it in, and get going, that's an actual, honest to god benefit to their mental approach to the machine. I've seen it, even if I don't understand it. For them, it Just Works, and it does so immediately, instead of presenting them with a barrier.
It's psychological, but it's powerful, in the same way that a perceived (but rarely used) need for expandability leading to minitower purchases is purely psychological.
I've seen that too actually but I don't think that we should encourage it. I set up my mum's iMac and she looked at the 2-button mouse with a blank expression and said which button do I press. I swear I nearly smacked her upside the head because she knows fine well which button to press but she'll ask anyway - it's psychological as you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
I'm perfectly willing to admit that the market is going (or has gone) in the minitower direction, perhaps irrevocably. I'm just saying that, to me, it doesn't make much sense.
It just gives you more BTO options as you aren't limited by so many design constraints. It's not about user expansion but buying options. I'm almost certain I won't upgrade my computer after buying it but I'm also certain I won't be buying another Mac in the foreseeable future because there's nothing in the lineup that suits me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
There are so many under the hood changes, the OS is something like 3x bigger then Tiger.
The beta was double the size but it probably has a lot of debug code in there. Also the PDFs for the resolution independent user interface are possibly adding to the space. Under the hood changes shouldn't mean a bigger system, if anything it should be smaller. In the end I'd expect it to come out around the same size as Tiger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
A bug pops up, they fix, breaks something else, repeat. Lots of very very smart people tracking down these things and fixing them fast.
We hope. I think the vastly improved developer tools will help with development speed though and more importantly optimization.
I'm not saying the AIO is a better seller, though, am I? I'm not stating the reverse of his speculation as fact, I'm simply pointing out that his logic is faulty. Neither conclusion can be drawn given the current state of the market. (Come on mel, you're not going to fall into the us-vs-them mentality, are you?)
Apple sells AIOs, and no minitower.
The rest of the market sells minitowers, and... not much else. (And what does pass as 'else' is pretty horrid.)
I hate to use the cliche apples and oranges, but... too many variables (OS, etc) to make any sort of conclusions.
The only difference between a minitower and a horizontal unit is footprint. One is just the other turned on its side, and the minitower *is* a better version of the horizontal unit. However, if that's the limit of 'choice', that's pretty pathetic, don't you think?
And the perception is that they don't have choice when it comes to styles... which in this case happens to also *be* reality. There are damned few non-minitowers out there, so of course minitowers are what people expect to find, expect to buy, and end up do buying. It's the default, but not necessarily the default if there were choice.
You forgot to add: they *sucked*. OMG. Horrible designs, and most of them were a minitower slapped onto a flat panel. Seriously, most of them didn't even hide it particularly well, or they simply stuck the panel on top of the minitower (now lain flat... go figure).
I don't think it was a matter of dislike of the format, as the form.
My guess? Give it to them, and they'd find some other reason not to move to the Mac. Some people are just never satisfied.
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks... *shrug*
I'm not making any excuses. You design boxes based on the customer's needs, not their defaults, or you're not doing them a service. (You also never get innovation, but that's another matter.)
The fact of the matter is, a minitower serves a very small segment of the *total* population, based on actual needs. I have yet to be convinced otherwise of this. However, because those who design/market/work on computers for a living are a large part of that small segment, they build machines for *themselves*, and have convinced everyone else that it's what *they* need... it's not. But it serves to make the minitower the most popular format, simply because it's the format most offered, and most people have been misinformed that, well, that's what they need.
Expandability is a red herring for the vast majority of consumers. It's a red herring for most business users as well... but they might need repairability and parts-swapping to minimize downtime. Expandability is a very *real* need for only a small population, and most of those folks are going to make the leap to the serious hardware. A low-cost, low-power unit with expandability is going to sell poorly, IMO. But hey, I could be wrong. It might sell buttloads. I mean, there *are* a lot of duped consumers out there.
*CURSE YOU MEL*! I start off illustrating a logical fallacy, and you get me off on a rant again. :P Bastard.
Damn!
I wrote a long reply to ths post, sent it, and now that I've had time to come back to the thread, I see it didn't make it.
Can we please have a damn thread without the xMac debate? This one is about Leopard.
All threads are about the xMac until Apple makes one:
Apple shares go down -> that's 'cos they don't make an xMac
EA backtracking -> they'd put in more effort if Apple made an xMac
iMacs have glossy screens -> you wouldn't have this problem if Apple made an xMac
iphone runs 3rd party apps -> screw the iphone, where's my xMac
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Besides, I bet the "minitower is a niche" thing was just a poke you folks fell for anyway.
Of course but we bite the hand that pokes us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I'd believe it.
It won't be MW '08, absolutely no way. Look this is getting out of hand, Leopard is looking very good at the moment and there's no reason to suspect another delay. After one delay, Apple have easily given themselves a large enough window to fix the issues.
Comments
A minitower is a niche product. Sorry.
I won't name names, you know who you are!! As someone else made the excellent point if anything is a niche product the iMac is. The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it? In fact i would go further and suggest that anything with an Apple on it is a niche product. So stop this nonsense now!
Back on topic, this is another nothing story during a slow news week for AI. So Apple have given copies of the leopard to developers to test and they are asking for feedback, Shock Horror, call the police! There is nothing to see here folks, move along.
Tomorrows AI headline...
Apple to be bought out by Microsoft??
Reports coming in from Apples HQ suggest a MS takeover may be on the cards, insiders have confided with us that the brand of toilet paper Apple buys for the Management bathroom has been changed, what was once a plain white roll with no pattern is now a light blue toilet paper.
While there is nothing to suggest that a takeover is on the cards or even possible some people have commented that the blue colour is spookingly similar to the shade used in Office 2007.
Watch this space for more important news from Apple.
Firstly, can i please just take issue with this.. I won't name names, you know who you are!! As someone else made the excellent point if anything is a niche product the iMac is. The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it? In fact i would go further and suggest that anything with an Apple on it is a niche product...
What about iPods?
Id rather it was delayed than shipped in the same shoddy quality that Tiger was.
true that. i think i may way for the .1 this time
Mail App crashes when u r trying to handle mails with PDF attachments. Mail was pretty stable in Tiger.
System preferences crash when you try to set your screensaver in mosaic format
Safari 3.0 is horrible any thing with embedded video crashes like hell...
Airport express card hangs on you. Some times it won't find any of the available network.
Tested iWork 08 pages and numbers crashed few times. (may not be serious problem)
Lot of apps becomes not responding. This became more frequent with leopard.
I think apple might delay it release. Better to have a reliable stable OS than a shoddy one.
My guess may be MW 08
lets see
The Mini Tower is probably the biggest selling PC format in the history of computing, hardly niche is it?
A train company is looking to improve its service, after reports of horrible overcrowding on its 1pm and 3pm trains. It sends a representative to decide whether a 2pm train is necessary.
The representative dutifully goes to the train station at 2pm, and, seeing no one waiting for a train, decides that no 2pm train is necessary.
Faulty logic at work: no one was there waiting for a train that wasn't going to arrive.
Equally faulty logic: if you sell nothing but minitowers, then that's all people will buy. That doesn't mean they *need* minitowers, or even *want* minitowers... but if that's the only thing available, that's all they have to purchase. Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Pointing to those sales numbers as evidence that minitowers are what people want, in the absence of real choice, is faulty thinking.
If nobody is offering an AIO of any quality, then they won't sell any AIOs, and people will default to the case style that *is* being sold: minitowers. Minitowers aren't niche in numbers sold, they're niche in who they're designed for. People buy them because that's what offered, not because they meet their needs particularly well.
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
A train company is looking to improve its service, after reports of horrible overcrowding on its 1pm and 3pm trains. It sends a representative to decide whether a 2pm train is necessary.
The representative dutifully goes to the train station at 2pm, and, seeing no one waiting for a train, decides that no 2pm train is necessary.
Faulty logic at work: no one was there waiting for a train that wasn't going to arrive.
Equally faulty logic: if you sell nothing but minitowers, then that's all people will buy. That doesn't mean they *need* minitowers, or even *want* minitowers... but if that's the only thing available, that's all they have to purchase. Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Pointing to those sales numbers as evidence that minitowers are what people want, in the absence of real choice, is faulty thinking.
If nobody is offering an AIO of any quality, then they won't sell any AIOs, and people will default to the case style that *is* being sold: minitowers. Minitowers aren't niche in numbers sold, they're niche in who they're designed for. People buy them because that's what offered, not because they meet their needs particularly well.
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
But, you're also using faulty logic.
The exact same situation exicts for your example with Apple's product line.
Apple doesn't sell a mini-tower, so the won't be any sales to compare their AIO sales to.
His discription of the mini-tower as the biggest sucess in computer sales history is correct. People DO want mini-towers. They took over from horizontal desktops long ago when both were available. People prefer them.
Do they NEED them? Who knows. It's simply not relevant. Perception is reality.
Apple is also in a unique situation when compared to PC manufacturers. They are all competing with each others' products. Apple has a different OS, which means that Apple can't deal in the back and forth sales that the typical PC consumer can. If, one day, you buy a Dell mini-tower, but then change to an Hp, you don't lose anything. But, you can't easily do that with Macs.
Granted, these days you can use Windows on a Mac without much penalty (as long as you don't need to switch graphics cards), but it will cost much more to do it. At least Crossover will be required, and that's not really useful for most people. So, you need at least VMWare or Parallels, plus a $200, or more, costly Windows product to do so. That's not a solution for most people.
Therefore, if Apple wants to break into the PC world in an even bigger way, it must offer more popular machines than the niche market of tiny closed systems such as the Mini, and AIO's, neither of which have proved to be popular in the world at large.
Remember that both GTW and Hp offer AIO's, IBM did as well, others may still offer them. But, they sell to a very small crowd.
The problem Apple has with its desktops is that they appeal to those who would like AIO's or mini machines, but those wanting to move to the Mac with desktops, don't have the choice most would prefer.
I read of many people who would otherwise move to the Mac, not doing so, because of this limited selection.
In business publications, one of the reasons cited why more medium and large businesses have been holding off on moving to Macs is partly because of the same reason.
Apple (Jobs) has their reasons for not wanting to make this move, but that doesn't mean they are correct, or that we should make excuses for it.
But, you're also using faulty logic.
The exact same situation exicts for your example with Apple's product line.
Apple doesn't sell a mini-tower, so the won't be any sales to compare their AIO sales to.
I'm not saying the AIO is a better seller, though, am I? I'm not stating the reverse of his speculation as fact, I'm simply pointing out that his logic is faulty. Neither conclusion can be drawn given the current state of the market. (Come on mel, you're not going to fall into the us-vs-them mentality, are you?)
Apple sells AIOs, and no minitower.
The rest of the market sells minitowers, and... not much else. (And what does pass as 'else' is pretty horrid.)
I hate to use the cliche apples and oranges, but... too many variables (OS, etc) to make any sort of conclusions.
His discription of the mini-tower as the biggest sucess in computer sales history is correct. People DO want mini-towers. They took over from horizontal desktops long ago when both were available. People prefer them.
The only difference between a minitower and a horizontal unit is footprint. One is just the other turned on its side, and the minitower *is* a better version of the horizontal unit. However, if that's the limit of 'choice', that's pretty pathetic, don't you think?
Do they NEED them? Who knows. It's simply not relevant. Perception is reality.
And the perception is that they don't have choice when it comes to styles... which in this case happens to also *be* reality. There are damned few non-minitowers out there, so of course minitowers are what people expect to find, expect to buy, and end up do buying. It's the default, but not necessarily the default if there were choice.
Apple is also in a unique situation when compared to PC manufacturers. They are all competing with each others' products. Apple has a different OS, which means that Apple can't deal in the back and forth sales that the typical PC consumer can. If, one day, you buy a Dell mini-tower, but then change to an Hp, you don't lose anything. But, you can't easily do that with Macs.
Granted, these days you can use Windows on a Mac without much penalty (as long as you don't need to switch graphics cards), but it will cost much more to do it. At least Crossover will be required, and that's not really useful for most people. So, you need at least VMWare or Parallels, plus a $200, or more, costly Windows product to do so. That's not a solution for most people.
Therefore, if Apple wants to break into the PC world in an even bigger way, it must offer more popular machines than the niche market of tiny closed systems such as the Mini, and AIO's, neither of which have proved to be popular in the world at large.
Remember that both GTW and Hp offer AIO's, IBM did as well, others may still offer them. But, they sell to a very small crowd.
You forgot to add: they *sucked*. OMG. Horrible designs, and most of them were a minitower slapped onto a flat panel. Seriously, most of them didn't even hide it particularly well, or they simply stuck the panel on top of the minitower (now lain flat... go figure).
I don't think it was a matter of dislike of the format, as the form.
The problem Apple has with its desktops is that they appeal to those who would like AIO's or mini machines, but those wanting to move to the Mac with desktops, don't have the choice most would prefer.
I read of many people who would otherwise move to the Mac, not doing so, because of this limited selection.
My guess? Give it to them, and they'd find some other reason not to move to the Mac. Some people are just never satisfied.
In business publications, one of the reasons cited why more medium and large businesses have been holding off on moving to Macs is partly because of the same reason.
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks... *shrug*
Apple (Jobs) has their reasons for not wanting to make this move, but that doesn't mean they are correct, or that we should make excuses for it.
I'm not making any excuses. You design boxes based on the customer's needs, not their defaults, or you're not doing them a service. (You also never get innovation, but that's another matter.)
The fact of the matter is, a minitower serves a very small segment of the *total* population, based on actual needs. I have yet to be convinced otherwise of this. However, because those who design/market/work on computers for a living are a large part of that small segment, they build machines for *themselves*, and have convinced everyone else that it's what *they* need... it's not. But it serves to make the minitower the most popular format, simply because it's the format most offered, and most people have been misinformed that, well, that's what they need.
Expandability is a red herring for the vast majority of consumers. It's a red herring for most business users as well... but they might need repairability and parts-swapping to minimize downtime. Expandability is a very *real* need for only a small population, and most of those folks are going to make the leap to the serious hardware. A low-cost, low-power unit with expandability is going to sell poorly, IMO. But hey, I could be wrong. It might sell buttloads. I mean, there *are* a lot of duped consumers out there.
*CURSE YOU MEL*! I start off illustrating a logical fallacy, and you get me off on a rant again. :P Bastard.
Other companies offer horrible AIOs, so folks buy their minitowers. But that doesn't mean that they are the best selling product by consumer *choice*, only that they're the product most sold in the end.
Sony's AIOs are better than Apple's iMac but they are expensive due to the bundled display and laptop parts just like Apple's. That's what people are put off by - paying for things they don't need. I don't *need* a built-in display, I don't *need* a laptop that acts like a desktop so why pay £300 or so for the privilege?
Now, if AIOs and minitowers of equal quality are offered, and minitowers are *still* the majority seller, then you'll have a point.
The PC market is pretty cut-throat and they've obviously done market research that suggests to them the models they are selling are what people want. If they thought for a minute they could make more money some other way e.g by following Apple's style then they'd be on it in a flash.
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
So why change it? I see that as quite a big factor. It's the same with software, if you have a team of people trained on how to work with a certain piece of software, why would you present them with something more difficult to work with for little benefit?
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks. *shrug*
I'd say that the AIOs are harder to fix than anything. Hard drive and Ram are fine but what if you have to do the logic board, isight or display? Mini-towers don't have this problem.
Also, if the internal design is so bad then Apple is a pretty good candidate for sorting it out.
What I still don't buy about the AIO design is what the benefit really is. The only reason Apple and most people give is saving desktop clutter. In reality you save two cables. So it's more beneficial to have less powerful, less upgradable, more expensive computers for the sake of two cables when the desktop isn't really going to be moved all that much anyway?
There are so many under the hood changes, the OS is something like 3x bigger then Tiger.
I'm not sure what the survey is about but it looks to me like a developer triage so that the OS development teams can focus on the most critical and important spots first.
In addition to the OS being able to run the update reliably (BACK yo shit UP!!!), there are certain apps that have to be bomber before shipping that are the focus at this point. The rest will que up it seems.
A bug pops up, they fix, breaks something else, repeat. Lots of very very smart people tracking down these things and fixing them fast.
Sony's AIOs are better than Apple's iMac but they are expensive due to the bundled display and laptop parts just like Apple's. That's what people are put off by - paying for things they don't need. I don't *need* a built-in display, I don't *need* a laptop that acts like a desktop so why pay £300 or so for the privilege?
And yet you'd think it would cost money in include expandability (slots, etc) that the average consumer will never use, but thinks that they need. However... (next point continues this...)
The PC market is pretty cut-throat and they've obviously done market research that suggests to them the models they are selling are what people want. If they thought for a minute they could make more money some other way e.g by following Apple's style then they'd be on it in a flash.
I think it's more economies of scale than what people need, that dictates the PC market. If you can standardize on a couple of designs, a couple of motherboards, a couple of CPUs, and then flood the market with them, you can take advantage of those scales to save a bit here and there. (Of course, if everyone else is doing it, it's a race for the bottom, which, unless you have a premium high-end array to offset the low margins, is pretty much a losing proposition over time as it becomes a war of attrition...)
Perceived need for expandability helps feed the unification of the market into slotted machines, for which a market *segment* *does* have a need, so manufacturers are more than happy to provide both segments with the same box, leading to economies of scale, which minimizes the choices, leading to everyone choosing minitowers, which reduces 'non-selling' choices, which... and around and around it goes.
But... is it really what either market segment *needs*, or is it simply 'the way things are done' to the point that it isn't questioned? For IT, which is better - having a couple hours of downtime for a unit while it's repaired, or having a couple *minutes* of downtime for the *employee* as another thin-ish client is plugged into the network at their desk? Current IT networks and workflows are horribly inefficient. (And no, I don't mean Sun thin clients, etc, etc, I'm talking about a different approach that might actually be given a chance if everyone weren't so locked into the Windows/PC/minitower mindset...)
I just don't see that the average minitower meets the needs of the far-flung segments it is sold to. It's good *enough* to muddle through, but it leads to unnecessary problems as well.
So why change it? I see that as quite a big factor. It's the same with software, if you have a team of people trained on how to work with a certain piece of software, why would you present them with something more difficult to work with for little benefit?
Again, this is a market *segment*, not the *market*. Corporations have very different needs than consumers. You're absolutely right that Apple doesn't make a machine aimed at them. No argument there. The point is: it's still a market *segment*, and not one that's particularly profitable. It's the land of rock-bottom margins and little profitability, with high support rates.
I'd say that the AIOs are harder to fix than anything. Hard drive and Ram are fine but what if you have to do the logic board, isight or display? Mini-towers don't have this problem.
Honestly, I see no reason why Apple couldn't produce an AIO with the same snap-apart design as the internals of the Mac Pros. But again, you're assuming that they'd want to produce an AIO aimed at IT shops. I don't see why they would. They'd be wading into the cutthroat pond for little advantage.
Also, if the internal design is so bad then Apple is a pretty good candidate for sorting it out.
Agreed.
What I still don't buy about the AIO design is what the benefit really is. The only reason Apple and most people give is saving desktop clutter. In reality you save two cables. So it's more beneficial to have less powerful, less upgradable, more expensive computers for the sake of two cables when the desktop isn't really going to be moved all that much anyway?
Honestly? I think it's simplicity for the consumer. The IT worker, programmer, developer, or techhead doesn't think twice about how to put together a basic CPU. My father in law gets confused by the RCA jacks on his VCR, and they're frickin' color coded. (PhD, no less) There are significant numbers of people for whom Komputers R Skary(tm). If they can just unbox it, plug it in, and get going, that's an actual, honest to god benefit to their mental approach to the machine. I've seen it, even if I don't understand it. For them, it Just Works, and it does so immediately, instead of presenting them with a barrier.
It's psychological, but it's powerful, in the same way that a perceived (but rarely used) need for expandability leading to minitower purchases is purely psychological.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that the market is going (or has gone) in the minitower direction, perhaps irrevocably. I'm just saying that, to me, it doesn't make much sense.
And yeah, didn't mean to derail this with a side-discussion. Back to the OS indeed.
And yet you'd think it would cost money in include expandability (slots, etc) that the average consumer will never use, but thinks that they need. However... (next point continues this...)
True but not nearly as much as a display. Still I don't get the expandability deal much either - we haven't upgraded our quad G5 at work once in nearly 2 years but it doesn't compromise on performance to save space.
I think it's more economies of scale than what people need, that dictates the PC market. If you can standardize on a couple of designs, a couple of motherboards, a couple of CPUs, and then flood the market with them, you can take advantage of those scales to save a bit here and there.
Yeah I agree with that, I think that Apple has perhaps taken it a bit too far though. Below £1500 you get the choice of 3 graphics chipsets now, including the GMA (and they still can't get the drivers right). Just a little more choice is needed IMO.
I think it's simplicity for the consumer. The IT worker, programmer, developer, or techhead doesn't think twice about how to put together a basic CPU. My father in law gets confused by the RCA jacks on his VCR, and they're frickin' color coded. (PhD, no less) There are significant numbers of people for whom Komputers R Skary(tm). If they can just unbox it, plug it in, and get going, that's an actual, honest to god benefit to their mental approach to the machine. I've seen it, even if I don't understand it. For them, it Just Works, and it does so immediately, instead of presenting them with a barrier.
It's psychological, but it's powerful, in the same way that a perceived (but rarely used) need for expandability leading to minitower purchases is purely psychological.
I've seen that too actually but I don't think that we should encourage it. I set up my mum's iMac and she looked at the 2-button mouse with a blank expression and said which button do I press. I swear I nearly smacked her upside the head because she knows fine well which button to press but she'll ask anyway - it's psychological as you say.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that the market is going (or has gone) in the minitower direction, perhaps irrevocably. I'm just saying that, to me, it doesn't make much sense.
It just gives you more BTO options as you aren't limited by so many design constraints. It's not about user expansion but buying options. I'm almost certain I won't upgrade my computer after buying it but I'm also certain I won't be buying another Mac in the foreseeable future because there's nothing in the lineup that suits me.
There are so many under the hood changes, the OS is something like 3x bigger then Tiger.
The beta was double the size but it probably has a lot of debug code in there. Also the PDFs for the resolution independent user interface are possibly adding to the space. Under the hood changes shouldn't mean a bigger system, if anything it should be smaller. In the end I'd expect it to come out around the same size as Tiger.
A bug pops up, they fix, breaks something else, repeat. Lots of very very smart people tracking down these things and fixing them fast.
We hope. I think the vastly improved developer tools will help with development speed though and more importantly optimization.
BTW does anyone think Leopard will be further delayed?
There is tons of work to do still but the release hasn't been further delayed.... so I don't think it will. But it will be buggy.
Besides, I bet the "minitower is a niche" thing was just a poke you folks fell for anyway.
I think apple might delay it release. Better to have a reliable stable OS than a shoddy one.
My guess may be MW 08
lets see
I'd believe it.
Can we please have a damn thread without the xMac debate?
LOLLY
I'm not saying the AIO is a better seller, though, am I? I'm not stating the reverse of his speculation as fact, I'm simply pointing out that his logic is faulty. Neither conclusion can be drawn given the current state of the market. (Come on mel, you're not going to fall into the us-vs-them mentality, are you?)
Apple sells AIOs, and no minitower.
The rest of the market sells minitowers, and... not much else. (And what does pass as 'else' is pretty horrid.)
I hate to use the cliche apples and oranges, but... too many variables (OS, etc) to make any sort of conclusions.
The only difference between a minitower and a horizontal unit is footprint. One is just the other turned on its side, and the minitower *is* a better version of the horizontal unit. However, if that's the limit of 'choice', that's pretty pathetic, don't you think?
And the perception is that they don't have choice when it comes to styles... which in this case happens to also *be* reality. There are damned few non-minitowers out there, so of course minitowers are what people expect to find, expect to buy, and end up do buying. It's the default, but not necessarily the default if there were choice.
You forgot to add: they *sucked*. OMG. Horrible designs, and most of them were a minitower slapped onto a flat panel. Seriously, most of them didn't even hide it particularly well, or they simply stuck the panel on top of the minitower (now lain flat... go figure).
I don't think it was a matter of dislike of the format, as the form.
My guess? Give it to them, and they'd find some other reason not to move to the Mac. Some people are just never satisfied.
IT people are, in the large part, highly risk-phobic (for some good reasons), and anything different is to be feared greatly. Minitowers are what they know. Therefore, minitowers are what they want. It's not a needs/solution based decision, but a job security one.
Now, having parts on hand to swap out like mad is a good thing in such environments, but given how crappily designed the internals of most minitowers are for such tasks... *shrug*
I'm not making any excuses. You design boxes based on the customer's needs, not their defaults, or you're not doing them a service. (You also never get innovation, but that's another matter.)
The fact of the matter is, a minitower serves a very small segment of the *total* population, based on actual needs. I have yet to be convinced otherwise of this. However, because those who design/market/work on computers for a living are a large part of that small segment, they build machines for *themselves*, and have convinced everyone else that it's what *they* need... it's not. But it serves to make the minitower the most popular format, simply because it's the format most offered, and most people have been misinformed that, well, that's what they need.
Expandability is a red herring for the vast majority of consumers. It's a red herring for most business users as well... but they might need repairability and parts-swapping to minimize downtime. Expandability is a very *real* need for only a small population, and most of those folks are going to make the leap to the serious hardware. A low-cost, low-power unit with expandability is going to sell poorly, IMO. But hey, I could be wrong. It might sell buttloads. I mean, there *are* a lot of duped consumers out there.
*CURSE YOU MEL*! I start off illustrating a logical fallacy, and you get me off on a rant again. :P Bastard.
Damn!
I wrote a long reply to ths post, sent it, and now that I've had time to come back to the thread, I see it didn't make it.
Oh well. I'll leave it for now.
Can we please have a damn thread without the xMac debate? This one is about Leopard.
Besides, I bet the "minitower is a niche" thing was just a poke you folks fell for anyway.
I wish it were possible, but they seem to think that every thread should be about their issues, not the ones in the OP.
Can we please have a damn thread without the xMac debate? This one is about Leopard.
All threads are about the xMac until Apple makes one:
Apple shares go down -> that's 'cos they don't make an xMac
EA backtracking -> they'd put in more effort if Apple made an xMac
iMacs have glossy screens -> you wouldn't have this problem if Apple made an xMac
iphone runs 3rd party apps -> screw the iphone, where's my xMac
Besides, I bet the "minitower is a niche" thing was just a poke you folks fell for anyway.
Of course but we bite the hand that pokes us.
I'd believe it.
It won't be MW '08, absolutely no way. Look this is getting out of hand, Leopard is looking very good at the moment and there's no reason to suspect another delay. After one delay, Apple have easily given themselves a large enough window to fix the issues.