Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
Meh. It's semantics to me. A less hulking tower with similar aluminium design. I don't need 4 hds. 2 would be ok. I don't need sli. But an 8800GTX would do me fine. I don't need 16gigs of ram. 4 would do.
Apple can trim off huge savings from not using Xeon chips to create a new line of towers that mortals, PC switchers and aspiring iMac owners can switch to/consider. GIven the price of INtel's Conroe Quads. It's ridiculous that it's not even an option that you can select on Apple's Uber configurable (their words...) Mac Pro. Sure, I can have a Spanish keyboard...but if I wan a Conroe Chip and a 8800GTX that could scythe several hundred off Mac Pro price? Guess what? Yer outta luck, pal.
It's like the 2600Pro is just fine for the iLife/email argument.
While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.
How EXACTLY am I in the "minority opinion" among consumers? You clearly have no idea what the average Joe Schmo thinks about computers. None. They buy what's out there. The Windows side has never been big on AIOs for lots of reasons. People have "desktop or laptop" ingrained in their psyches at this point. Now look at Apple. They've made a go of the iMac for 10 years. How did that happen?
In this forum you are a minority. In the desktop market AIOs are a minority. You've yet to explain this, if indeed consumers only need AIO or Mac minis(re: that place a huge premium on size). You only explain this away saying that the consumers don't know what the need or want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Oooohh! NUMBERS! Your numbers are worthless because everyone knows them. They don't support your argument in the slightest. Your central premise is that there IS a market for the mid pro. Your numbers don't do that. No, you've SPECULATED that the reason they are selling more laptops is because "people aren't happy with the other choices." It's not a bad guess, but it's NOT supportable. Show me a well done surveyr supporting you supposition, and that will be something else.
Yes they do support my argument and denying it without any reasons other than people that prefer OS X also prefer laptops, or that people don't know what they need or want or not valid arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
First, they are switching to desktops, just not in the same numbers as for laptops. Don't exaggerate.
I only have Apple's number to go by. Desktop sales are flat, have been for awhile. If they are getting switchers at their reported rate of 50% then that only indicated current Apple consumers are not buying their desktops.
I fit into that category 3.5 years ago. Apple didn't offer a desktop I wanted so I bought a laptop, mostly for work. I really only needed a Macbook but I went ahead and got a Powerbook, so I could still use Final Cut Express for home videos. I did this with the expectation that Apple would eventually sell a consumer desktop, I was wrong. I ended up with an iMac, with all its' disadvantages, I live and deal with it. I basically like the iMac, I don't like dealing with its' disadvantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Second, Apple laptops might have the same basic components/form factor, but that doesn't make them the same. Their design is not the same. It's one of Apple's strengths.
People swear by Sony's laptops and their design. Ultimately, it is the same form factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Yup, it is!
What you said was,"So let me get this straight...I'm posting just to piss people off? That's what flame bait is, champ."
My response was,"Your reasons are known only to you, the results are obvious."
This was not "Rhetorical nonsense". It is simply stating a fact that is obvious that posters here have gotten angered by some of your posts and the way in which you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Maybe, maybe.
If it is maybe true, IMHO it is worth it to Apple to take a relatively low risk option(re: when compared to the risks of an iPod or iPhone) and introduce an xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
My statements were clearly suppositions. I don't know about subjective....I suppose that's true. Subjective is not automatically a bad thing though. Most people, I think, would agree, especially given your numbers.
Eveyone is subjective about appearance, elegance, etc. Subjective values lead to contention and disagreement that can not resolve themselves.
I own an iMac and do believe it has an attractive appearance and a certain wow factor in "is that really the whole computer". This doesn't make me blind to its' disadvantages and desire the flexibility of a tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Of course it has to do with risk. Everything Apple does is high profile. Everything fits their design philosophy. If they release what you want them too (which is basically the same as the Windows beige boxes), they might well take a PR beating at least.
I leave the design in Apple's more than capable hands to distinguish it from the run of the mill Windows boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
It doesn't necessarily have advantages for everyone. It's another piece of equipment to buy. It creates clutter. It's an advantage for SOME, not for all.
We agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I'l agree that it's expensive. But that's why there are two other options if one must have a desktop. I'd like to see a cheaper version with one processor. That might make sense. A whole different machine does not.
We partially agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Well, most consumers don't have that many external devices. I had one and didn't have that many...not even close. I do agree that the ports being on the back can be a pain.
We agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I don't really get where you're going with that, not exactly. Apple has low priced options, mid priced options, and high priced options in both it's laptop and desktop lines. What you're saying is that someone is going to walk into an Apple store and see they don't have a midpro type product for $999-1599 or whatever and walk out and buy a PC. I don't think that's supportable. The vast majority of people are going to be fine with either an iMac or laptop. If we're talking raw power needs, the mini is just fine for most. I would like to see it include a keyboard standard, but that's a minor thing.
Yes, the Mac mini will satisfy the needs of many consumers. However, it appears to not sell very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
We partially agree.
I will say that I don't expect Apple to ever introduce an xMac after Steve Jobs' statements recently concerning AIO. Me, I'll stay with Apple and do the best I can to satisfy my desires with Apple products, be they new or used. Maybe in 5 -10 years AIO and/or the Mac mini will more than surpass any software demands and it won't mattter, we'll see. I'll still want an xMac though.
While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And what makes the laptop market attractive is it's somewhat modest price range. If anything I think a conroe desktop would probably take some sales from dissatisfied iMac and Laptop buyers.
People in here seem to think there is no market for this machine, and I think there is not an attractive machine for most the users in Apples missing market, and users are settling on something they wouldn't really want given a choice.
Personally I think a real desktop would be their best seller right now. People that want to switch to Mac also need a better choice, and that is just not there with the current lineup in this price range. Everything from $1,099 to $2,299 is locked down with no configuration available and no good graphics options. What does a person do. Me, I wouldn't settle at all. I would probably sit on my current Mac, or if I were a PC user, I would just start looking away from Apple for a product that fits. That may partially explain why Apple can't sell a computer that has two operating systems to all the buyers that would like to give it a shot, and why the PC market still dominates.
Do you have a business degree? Are you a market analyst?
It's me telling you that you're naive, and you narcissistically refusing to accept that possibility.
Are you a psychoanalyst?
If you actually want to answer the points instead of further throwing insults then great, otherwise you're just reducing the discussion to playground level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Oh blah. "Ages?"
'Ages' as in at least a couple of weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Let me ask you...do you have a few extra monitors sitting around if something happens?
No but I can get another one within 24 hours. I'm talking about downtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
And yes, it has laptop parts. It doesn't make it all that much more expensive, not looking at the current prices. Laptop parts get cheaper all the time.
You must have missed when I said a Core 2 Extreme mobile was $851 and the Core 2 Quad desktop was $266. That's quite a huge difference if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Give it 6 months and they'll be many more.
That's always the way on the Mac side though. PC users can get this now and I need it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
It's not going to do so well with a machine with iMac power then.
It wouldn't have iMac power, it could start at the same iMac power and by using desktop parts, it's $250 less straight away. Take out the screen and it's even less. By the time you get to the imac price, its more powerful and you could have the ability for more drives, which helps a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
You mean crippled in terms of expandability?
Nope in terms of choice. Only GMA and a single laptop HD in the Mini and 2 ATI GPUs, one HD and a sealed screen in the imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I've never seen anyone considering a Mac that bails out and gets a PC because Apple "doesn't offer what they want."
You might be close to seeing one right here. I've been using Macs for 15 years. About 7 years ago, I was ready to bail after using Linux but when I heard about OS X, I stuck with them. Now it's getting to the point again where I'm thinking they still haven't made any significant changes to their hardware model and I'm still seeing PC users get much better hardware options sooner.
I don't mind not getting the latest hardware, I simply want a consumer desktop and Apple don't sell one. The Mini and iMac are technically both laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Man, you REALLY want this machine, hmm? Think it through...do you REALLY need this machine, or has it just become your cause? With all respect, I really don't see why your needs wouldn't be met by a Mac Pro. If you saved up and bought the low end Pro, you'd have an awesome desktop machine that has all the features/power you want.
I know but I do my work on these kind of towers and they are huge. I don't have an Apple Store near me and having to cart such a heavy machine around isn't something I want to do. Like I said before, it takes two people to move the towers we have. I actually find the imacs a bit awkward too.
Also, I don't need the expansion, so it seems unnecessary to pay for it. You're right though, a Mac Pro is the closest to what I *need* but for a variety of reasons, I'd *want* a smaller form factor. If I can find a used Mac Pro in that price range then I guess that's what I'll have to go for but in the same way I wouldn't be happy with the iMac, I wouldn't be completely happy with the Mac Pro. Honestly, if a used Mac Pro was the same price as a small tower, which was likely slightly less powerful, I'd take the smaller machine any day simply due to the form factor.
I have an idea about why Apple are doing this though. Moore's Law says computing power doubles every 18 months. This exponential increase is very quickly driving the computer industry growth into a brick wall. I think Apple are trying to avoid hitting this as long as possible. How can they do this though if computing power is developing so rapidly?
Simply use components that are slower and more expensive and on top of that, instead of upgrading components, all you need to do is bundle a different type of component and let its development cycle prolong that of the rest of the machine. Consider the new iMac. It's been over a year since the last one and how much faster is it? You get a bigger display for the same price but that's still holding Moore's Law at bay. You haven't really gained anything despite technology moving on.
Nintendo are trying the same by repackaging a Gamecube as a Wii but people aren't stupid. When they can't play the same games as the Xbox and PS3 and the graphics look the same as the previous generation then something's not quite right and yet they are being coerced into paying the same amount.
It's the same with using Flash media. As soon as a consumer buys a product that is more than they could ever need, then the market is dead. So now that consumers can buy terrabyte drives, bring in HD media but use flash storage in portable devices. Flash has advantages over hard drives and so instead of marketing storage, you market battery life, heat, noise etc and then in a few years, it gets back to storage.
This seems to me why Apple are moving into portable devices because they have a long way to go.
My objection to this is that they are doing so at the expense of allowing us to use the better desktop technology already available. Why don't they give us an iMac and a mid-range tower and see which one wins out then kill off the least successful model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Personally I think a real desktop would be their best seller right now. People that want to switch to Mac also need a better choice, and that is just not there with the current lineup in this price range. Everything from $1,099 to $2,299 is locked down with no configuration available and no good graphics options. What does a person do. Me, I wouldn't settle at all. I would probably sit on my current Mac, or if I were a PC user, I would just start looking away from Apple for a product that fits. That may partially explain why Apple can't sell a computer that has two operating systems to all the buyers that would like to give it a shot, and why the PC market still dominates.
Apple can beat Dell on Workstation prices. They can compete on Laptops.
It's ludicrous they don't have a 'consumer' tower option. Their whole push is towards the consumer with the mini, iPod, iPHone, iMac...laptops...I'd just like them to make a consumer version of the tower. And they could do it so affordably. Displays, HDs, Ram are all dirt cheap right now. The only costly components are the cpu and gpu. And INtel's Cpu Quad models are dirty cheap also...so that leaves the GPU. But if you look on Apple's website...the Ati card is very affordable too.
Is is demand?
Well. The PC Tower market is at least 45-50%? Apple almost have 7% of the American market?
Take Alien Ware. The gamer style market. 200k machines sold annually? Take 10 %. That's about 20K machines. Canibalise 10% of iMac sales for frustrated Tower users. That's about 20-30k machines. Take another 10K thousand of Switchers who are 'used' to the tower format or want to 'role' their own consumer tower. That's at least 50 thousand Tower users there. Not enough? Well, 20% of people who can't afford the Mac Pro...
That's another 20k. So far? 70-80 thousand machines. As much as the Mac Pro or Mini...I'd guess... And to new Apple users in Apple stores? I'm sure they could get another 20K per quarter new users to cough up for a consumer tower. I'd say the market for a Mac Consumer tower is at least 100k. That's almost a fifth of all their desktop sales. I'd say this figure is a conservative estimate... Just pulling stuff out the air.
I don't see why Apple has to lock us into a desktop market with no upgradeable cpu/gpu unless you spend £1400!!!
Waiting for an iPhone inspired Tower and Display consumer model that fits my demographic.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
Your user name says so much. It describes you perfectly.
You obviously don't get it, or read that well. It's not all about video cards. It's about being completely locked down, or nothing unless you want to spend $2,500.00 before buying a Display. It's about a lot more than just video cards.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."
Who said anything about a crappier CPU? The 3.0ghz conroe is $50 less than the 2.4ghz merom.
Quote:
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The Mac Pro and old Quadra series weren't desktops, they are workstations. I would expect those enlightened enough to buy a Mac to be smart enough to tell the different. The again you guys just to take everything Jobs says as gospel and sort everybody into two very narrow blanket groups of "consumer" and "professional" with no thought or understanding of gradient.
Quote:
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
In the hardcore Mac market, yes. However, you guys are the exception to the rule and not the rule. You need to wake up and figure there are potential users outside the group. Desktop sales have dropped somewhat, but not the dramatic drop off Apple has seen. Mostly you see a light duty laptop pared with a desktop (not workstation) for the heavier stuff. However, when your "desktop" is an immobile laptop CPU and your laptop has a better GPU and an actual slot for expansion there is no point to buy a desktop like the iMac.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU." .
No, the mini does not "have" the low end, and the iMac does not "have" the midrange. They're niche products, that cater well or not so well to their niche, but they do not satisfy every need. People here are objecting to the fact that any need you have above the content in the mini (or the iMac) means you need to shell out $2500 for a pro.
All I want is mini specifications with a good screen, 4GB of memory and a large disk. Can't get the disk and memory in the mini, can't get the screen in an iMac, so what? I need a Mac Pro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimmer
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
When you can get a PC for $800 that does everything you need (hardware-wise) but to get that in a Mac means paying for the low-end Mac Pro ($2500) that's a bad thing. PCs were also more expensive in the Quadra and IIci days. Times have changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimmer
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
Apple may be selling more laptops than desktops. The general market still has 60% of computers as desktops. You'll always get better disks and screens in a desktop.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
No, it's not.
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
In this forum you are a minority. In the desktop market AIOs are a minority. You've yet to explain this, if indeed consumers only need AIO or Mac minis(re: that place a huge premium on size). You only explain this away saying that the consumers don't know what the need or want.
Yes they do support my argument and denying it without any reasons other than people that prefer OS X also prefer laptops, or that people don't know what they need or want or not valid arguments.
I only have Apple's number to go by. Desktop sales are flat, have been for awhile. If they are getting switchers at their reported rate of 50% then that only indicated current Apple consumers are not buying their desktops.
I fit into that category 3.5 years ago. Apple didn't offer a desktop I wanted so I bought a laptop, mostly for work. I really only needed a Macbook but I went ahead and got a Powerbook, so I could still use Final Cut Express for home videos. I did this with the expectation that Apple would eventually sell a consumer desktop, I was wrong. I ended up with an iMac, with all its' disadvantages, I live and deal with it. I basically like the iMac, I don't like dealing with its' disadvantages.
People swear by Sony's laptops and their design. Ultimately, it is the same form factor.
What you said was,"So let me get this straight...I'm posting just to piss people off? That's what flame bait is, champ."
My response was,"Your reasons are known only to you, the results are obvious."
This was not "Rhetorical nonsense". It is simply stating a fact that is obvious that posters here have gotten angered by some of your posts and the way in which you post.
If it is maybe true, IMHO it is worth it to Apple to take a relatively low risk option(re: when compared to the risks of an iPod or iPhone) and introduce an xMac.
Eveyone is subjective about appearance, elegance, etc. Subjective values lead to contention and disagreement that can not resolve themselves.
I own an iMac and do believe it has an attractive appearance and a certain wow factor in "is that really the whole computer". This doesn't make me blind to its' disadvantages and desire the flexibility of a tower.
I leave the design in Apple's more than capable hands to distinguish it from the run of the mill Windows boxes.
We agree.
We partially agree.
We agree.
Yes, the Mac mini will satisfy the needs of many consumers. However, it appears to not sell very well.
We partially agree.
I will say that I don't expect Apple to ever introduce an xMac after Steve Jobs' statements recently concerning AIO. Me, I'll stay with Apple and do the best I can to satisfy my desires with Apple products, be they new or used. Maybe in 5 -10 years AIO and/or the Mac mini will more than surpass any software demands and it won't mattter, we'll see. I'll still want an xMac though.
Well guys, it's really become as pissing contest at this point. I think it still boils down to this:
---There is no large, demonstrable market for the product. There just isn't. If there was, Apple would clearly release one.
---Most people don't actually "need" the machine. They might want one for reasons of varying importance and sensibility. I do respect the person who has iMac power level needs, has a nice LCD panel, and doesn't have the $2K for a Mac Pro. But the problem is, that specific market isn't large enough for the product, apparently.
So you guys still want it desperately, and I still think it makes no sense. Whatever. Hopefully you can find what you need from what's out there at present.
So you guys still want it desperately, and I still think it makes no sense. Whatever. Hopefully you can find what you need from what's out there at present.
There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.
It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.
Quote:
There is no large, demonstrable market for the product. There just isn't. If there was, Apple would clearly release one.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.
Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.
I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.
The lack of a mid-priced, mid-range tower is a gaping hole in Apple's product lineup. Their only options right now are to buy top of the line, or buy a laptop. iMacs and Minis are just laptops that are chained to the desk. I don't want a laptop, I want a consumer desktop.
I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.
Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
This is the crux of the matter. All that Apple needs to do is reboot the Mini's form factor to allow easy consumer access to the RAM, hard drive and graphics card. That's it. End of discussion.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
It's not about market segments or even entirely about protecting the Pro line. This is about Jobs and his personality. While he's mellowed since he was thrown out of Apple, he still has issues about control that show up in the hardware he greenlights.
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
This is the crux of the matter. All that Apple needs to do is reboot the Mini's form factor to allow easy consumer access to the RAM, hard drive and graphics card. That's it. End of discussion.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
It's not about market segments or even entirely about protecting the Pro line. This is about Jobs and his personality. While he's mellowed since he was thrown out of Apple, he still has issues about control that show up in the hardware he greenlights.
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.
Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.
Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.
I see iMacs around here with a second display. In any case, the ACDs aren't really all that competitive. The Dell 30" (HC...the one with the W-CCFL) is better than the ACD 30"...or at least better then the 30" ACD I have...
But at $1299 vs $1799 its a wonder that Apple sells many 30" ACDs at all.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
...
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
By the book, the LC had the same service stipulations, and lacked any notable user expansion. The mini is much better than the LC was, since the mini comes with the same Core 2 Duo as most of the other macs. The LC had no FPU, no MMU, and a 16 bit bus. Kind of shit. The mini is much less compromised.
I think the mini would be better served by being cheaper, first and foremost. 3.5" disks are cheaper, so that makes sense, as does using a cheaper Core chip. I think it's much more likely that we'll simply see a cheaper mini that's otherwise very similar to today's mini than we will see one with PCIe.
Comments
Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
Meh. It's semantics to me. A less hulking tower with similar aluminium design. I don't need 4 hds. 2 would be ok. I don't need sli. But an 8800GTX would do me fine. I don't need 16gigs of ram. 4 would do.
Apple can trim off huge savings from not using Xeon chips to create a new line of towers that mortals, PC switchers and aspiring iMac owners can switch to/consider. GIven the price of INtel's Conroe Quads. It's ridiculous that it's not even an option that you can select on Apple's Uber configurable (their words...) Mac Pro. Sure, I can have a Spanish keyboard...but if I wan a Conroe Chip and a 8800GTX that could scythe several hundred off Mac Pro price? Guess what? Yer outta luck, pal.
It's like the 2600Pro is just fine for the iLife/email argument.
Looks skyward.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
How EXACTLY am I in the "minority opinion" among consumers? You clearly have no idea what the average Joe Schmo thinks about computers. None. They buy what's out there. The Windows side has never been big on AIOs for lots of reasons. People have "desktop or laptop" ingrained in their psyches at this point. Now look at Apple. They've made a go of the iMac for 10 years. How did that happen?
In this forum you are a minority. In the desktop market AIOs are a minority. You've yet to explain this, if indeed consumers only need AIO or Mac minis(re: that place a huge premium on size). You only explain this away saying that the consumers don't know what the need or want.
Yes they do support my argument and denying it without any reasons other than people that prefer OS X also prefer laptops, or that people don't know what they need or want or not valid arguments.
First, they are switching to desktops, just not in the same numbers as for laptops. Don't exaggerate.
I only have Apple's number to go by. Desktop sales are flat, have been for awhile. If they are getting switchers at their reported rate of 50% then that only indicated current Apple consumers are not buying their desktops.
I fit into that category 3.5 years ago. Apple didn't offer a desktop I wanted so I bought a laptop, mostly for work. I really only needed a Macbook but I went ahead and got a Powerbook, so I could still use Final Cut Express for home videos. I did this with the expectation that Apple would eventually sell a consumer desktop, I was wrong. I ended up with an iMac, with all its' disadvantages, I live and deal with it. I basically like the iMac, I don't like dealing with its' disadvantages.
Second, Apple laptops might have the same basic components/form factor, but that doesn't make them the same. Their design is not the same. It's one of Apple's strengths.
People swear by Sony's laptops and their design. Ultimately, it is the same form factor.
Yup, it is!
What you said was,"So let me get this straight...I'm posting just to piss people off? That's what flame bait is, champ."
My response was,"Your reasons are known only to you, the results are obvious."
This was not "Rhetorical nonsense". It is simply stating a fact that is obvious that posters here have gotten angered by some of your posts and the way in which you post.
Maybe, maybe.
If it is maybe true, IMHO it is worth it to Apple to take a relatively low risk option(re: when compared to the risks of an iPod or iPhone) and introduce an xMac.
My statements were clearly suppositions. I don't know about subjective....I suppose that's true. Subjective is not automatically a bad thing though. Most people, I think, would agree, especially given your numbers.
Eveyone is subjective about appearance, elegance, etc. Subjective values lead to contention and disagreement that can not resolve themselves.
I own an iMac and do believe it has an attractive appearance and a certain wow factor in "is that really the whole computer". This doesn't make me blind to its' disadvantages and desire the flexibility of a tower.
Of course it has to do with risk. Everything Apple does is high profile. Everything fits their design philosophy. If they release what you want them too (which is basically the same as the Windows beige boxes), they might well take a PR beating at least.
I leave the design in Apple's more than capable hands to distinguish it from the run of the mill Windows boxes.
It doesn't necessarily have advantages for everyone. It's another piece of equipment to buy. It creates clutter. It's an advantage for SOME, not for all.
We agree.
I'l agree that it's expensive. But that's why there are two other options if one must have a desktop. I'd like to see a cheaper version with one processor. That might make sense. A whole different machine does not.
We partially agree.
Well, most consumers don't have that many external devices. I had one and didn't have that many...not even close. I do agree that the ports being on the back can be a pain.
We agree.
I don't really get where you're going with that, not exactly. Apple has low priced options, mid priced options, and high priced options in both it's laptop and desktop lines. What you're saying is that someone is going to walk into an Apple store and see they don't have a midpro type product for $999-1599 or whatever and walk out and buy a PC. I don't think that's supportable. The vast majority of people are going to be fine with either an iMac or laptop. If we're talking raw power needs, the mini is just fine for most. I would like to see it include a keyboard standard, but that's a minor thing.
Yes, the Mac mini will satisfy the needs of many consumers. However, it appears to not sell very well.
Again, we can agree that there should be a lower cost Mac pro. It's the separate midpro product line I take issue with.
We partially agree.
I will say that I don't expect Apple to ever introduce an xMac after Steve Jobs' statements recently concerning AIO. Me, I'll stay with Apple and do the best I can to satisfy my desires with Apple products, be they new or used. Maybe in 5 -10 years AIO and/or the Mac mini will more than surpass any software demands and it won't mattter, we'll see. I'll still want an xMac though.
While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And what makes the laptop market attractive is it's somewhat modest price range. If anything I think a conroe desktop would probably take some sales from dissatisfied iMac and Laptop buyers.
People in here seem to think there is no market for this machine, and I think there is not an attractive machine for most the users in Apples missing market, and users are settling on something they wouldn't really want given a choice.
Personally I think a real desktop would be their best seller right now. People that want to switch to Mac also need a better choice, and that is just not there with the current lineup in this price range. Everything from $1,099 to $2,299 is locked down with no configuration available and no good graphics options. What does a person do. Me, I wouldn't settle at all. I would probably sit on my current Mac, or if I were a PC user, I would just start looking away from Apple for a product that fits. That may partially explain why Apple can't sell a computer that has two operating systems to all the buyers that would like to give it a shot, and why the PC market still dominates.
Do you have a business degree? Are you a market analyst?
It's me telling you that you're naive, and you narcissistically refusing to accept that possibility.
Are you a psychoanalyst?
If you actually want to answer the points instead of further throwing insults then great, otherwise you're just reducing the discussion to playground level.
Oh blah. "Ages?"
'Ages' as in at least a couple of weeks.
Let me ask you...do you have a few extra monitors sitting around if something happens?
No but I can get another one within 24 hours. I'm talking about downtime.
And yes, it has laptop parts. It doesn't make it all that much more expensive, not looking at the current prices. Laptop parts get cheaper all the time.
You must have missed when I said a Core 2 Extreme mobile was $851 and the Core 2 Quad desktop was $266. That's quite a huge difference if you ask me.
Give it 6 months and they'll be many more.
That's always the way on the Mac side though. PC users can get this now and I need it now.
It's not going to do so well with a machine with iMac power then.
It wouldn't have iMac power, it could start at the same iMac power and by using desktop parts, it's $250 less straight away. Take out the screen and it's even less. By the time you get to the imac price, its more powerful and you could have the ability for more drives, which helps a lot.
You mean crippled in terms of expandability?
Nope in terms of choice. Only GMA and a single laptop HD in the Mini and 2 ATI GPUs, one HD and a sealed screen in the imac.
I've never seen anyone considering a Mac that bails out and gets a PC because Apple "doesn't offer what they want."
I don't mind not getting the latest hardware, I simply want a consumer desktop and Apple don't sell one. The Mini and iMac are technically both laptops.
Man, you REALLY want this machine, hmm? Think it through...do you REALLY need this machine, or has it just become your cause? With all respect, I really don't see why your needs wouldn't be met by a Mac Pro. If you saved up and bought the low end Pro, you'd have an awesome desktop machine that has all the features/power you want.
I know but I do my work on these kind of towers and they are huge. I don't have an Apple Store near me and having to cart such a heavy machine around isn't something I want to do. Like I said before, it takes two people to move the towers we have. I actually find the imacs a bit awkward too.
Also, I don't need the expansion, so it seems unnecessary to pay for it. You're right though, a Mac Pro is the closest to what I *need* but for a variety of reasons, I'd *want* a smaller form factor. If I can find a used Mac Pro in that price range then I guess that's what I'll have to go for but in the same way I wouldn't be happy with the iMac, I wouldn't be completely happy with the Mac Pro. Honestly, if a used Mac Pro was the same price as a small tower, which was likely slightly less powerful, I'd take the smaller machine any day simply due to the form factor.
I have an idea about why Apple are doing this though. Moore's Law says computing power doubles every 18 months. This exponential increase is very quickly driving the computer industry growth into a brick wall. I think Apple are trying to avoid hitting this as long as possible. How can they do this though if computing power is developing so rapidly?
Simply use components that are slower and more expensive and on top of that, instead of upgrading components, all you need to do is bundle a different type of component and let its development cycle prolong that of the rest of the machine. Consider the new iMac. It's been over a year since the last one and how much faster is it? You get a bigger display for the same price but that's still holding Moore's Law at bay. You haven't really gained anything despite technology moving on.
Nintendo are trying the same by repackaging a Gamecube as a Wii but people aren't stupid. When they can't play the same games as the Xbox and PS3 and the graphics look the same as the previous generation then something's not quite right and yet they are being coerced into paying the same amount.
It's the same with using Flash media. As soon as a consumer buys a product that is more than they could ever need, then the market is dead. So now that consumers can buy terrabyte drives, bring in HD media but use flash storage in portable devices. Flash has advantages over hard drives and so instead of marketing storage, you market battery life, heat, noise etc and then in a few years, it gets back to storage.
This seems to me why Apple are moving into portable devices because they have a long way to go.
My objection to this is that they are doing so at the expense of allowing us to use the better desktop technology already available. Why don't they give us an iMac and a mid-range tower and see which one wins out then kill off the least successful model?
Personally I think a real desktop would be their best seller right now. People that want to switch to Mac also need a better choice, and that is just not there with the current lineup in this price range. Everything from $1,099 to $2,299 is locked down with no configuration available and no good graphics options. What does a person do. Me, I wouldn't settle at all. I would probably sit on my current Mac, or if I were a PC user, I would just start looking away from Apple for a product that fits. That may partially explain why Apple can't sell a computer that has two operating systems to all the buyers that would like to give it a shot, and why the PC market still dominates.
I agree entirely with that.
Core 2 Duo CPU
3 ram slots
2 hard drive bays
Removable GPU
Anything more would just be icing on the cake
This is someone over at Macrumors.
The demand of a 'sane' Mac Tower are everywhere.
It's not rocket science.
Apple can beat Dell on Workstation prices. They can compete on Laptops.
It's ludicrous they don't have a 'consumer' tower option. Their whole push is towards the consumer with the mini, iPod, iPHone, iMac...laptops...I'd just like them to make a consumer version of the tower. And they could do it so affordably. Displays, HDs, Ram are all dirt cheap right now. The only costly components are the cpu and gpu. And INtel's Cpu Quad models are dirty cheap also...so that leaves the GPU. But if you look on Apple's website...the Ati card is very affordable too.
Is is demand?
Well. The PC Tower market is at least 45-50%? Apple almost have 7% of the American market?
Take Alien Ware. The gamer style market. 200k machines sold annually? Take 10 %. That's about 20K machines. Canibalise 10% of iMac sales for frustrated Tower users. That's about 20-30k machines. Take another 10K thousand of Switchers who are 'used' to the tower format or want to 'role' their own consumer tower. That's at least 50 thousand Tower users there. Not enough? Well, 20% of people who can't afford the Mac Pro...
That's another 20k. So far? 70-80 thousand machines. As much as the Mac Pro or Mini...I'd guess... And to new Apple users in Apple stores? I'm sure they could get another 20K per quarter new users to cough up for a consumer tower. I'd say the market for a Mac Consumer tower is at least 100k. That's almost a fifth of all their desktop sales. I'd say this figure is a conservative estimate... Just pulling stuff out the air.
I don't see why Apple has to lock us into a desktop market with no upgradeable cpu/gpu unless you spend £1400!!!
Waiting for an iPhone inspired Tower and Display consumer model that fits my demographic.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
Your user name says so much. It describes you perfectly.
You obviously don't get it, or read that well. It's not all about video cards. It's about being completely locked down, or nothing unless you want to spend $2,500.00 before buying a Display. It's about a lot more than just video cards.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU."
Who said anything about a crappier CPU? The 3.0ghz conroe is $50 less than the 2.4ghz merom.
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
The Mac Pro and old Quadra series weren't desktops, they are workstations. I would expect those enlightened enough to buy a Mac to be smart enough to tell the different. The again you guys just to take everything Jobs says as gospel and sort everybody into two very narrow blanket groups of "consumer" and "professional" with no thought or understanding of gradient.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
In the hardcore Mac market, yes. However, you guys are the exception to the rule and not the rule. You need to wake up and figure there are potential users outside the group. Desktop sales have dropped somewhat, but not the dramatic drop off Apple has seen. Mostly you see a light duty laptop pared with a desktop (not workstation) for the heavier stuff. However, when your "desktop" is an immobile laptop CPU and your laptop has a better GPU and an actual slot for expansion there is no point to buy a desktop like the iMac.
I'm sorry, but there's really no place for an (hate this word) xMac -- the Mini has the low end desktop, the iMac the midrange, the Mac Pro the "serious" solution. Why is it that people complain about GPU options and at the same time say "Well, I'd be happier with a crappier CPU." .
No, the mini does not "have" the low end, and the iMac does not "have" the midrange. They're niche products, that cater well or not so well to their niche, but they do not satisfy every need. People here are objecting to the fact that any need you have above the content in the mini (or the iMac) means you need to shell out $2500 for a pro.
All I want is mini specifications with a good screen, 4GB of memory and a large disk. Can't get the disk and memory in the mini, can't get the screen in an iMac, so what? I need a Mac Pro?
The Mac Pro, compared with a Quadra 950? A IIci? It's far and away the least expensive "desktop" system Apple has put out, and yes, it does equal or undercut "PC" systems with similar specifications.
When you can get a PC for $800 that does everything you need (hardware-wise) but to get that in a Mac means paying for the low-end Mac Pro ($2500) that's a bad thing. PCs were also more expensive in the Quadra and IIci days. Times have changed.
The desktop market is dying just as the landline phone has died: it's fast becoming a niche market. A Mac Pro Mini would just grate against the product lineup.
Apple may be selling more laptops than desktops. The general market still has 60% of computers as desktops. You'll always get better disks and screens in a desktop.
I'm a consumer, I use Final Cut Express, where do I fit in? I'm not alone, you are the minority opinion here. Yours is also the minority opinion in the general consumer buying public. Wander through some stores and see exactly how many AIO computers are represented.
Speculation supported by numbers. You have yet to provide any numbers backing your contention.
You've admitted that it is reasonable that people are switching to Apple computers due to OS X. Only problem is they are only switching to Apple laptops, not desktops. Apple laptops have the same form factor as the rest of the industry. Apple's consumer desktops don't. Yes, in fact it is the same market. This is obvious.
No, it's not.
Maybe, maybe it is that they are a form factor that the consumer public expects while Apple's consumer desktops are not.
You haven't answered anything except make "very subjective" claims about Appe's compelling laptops.
I don't think taking a risk has anything to do with Apple not offering an xMac. IMHO it has everything to do with Apple's and Steve Jobs philophy concerning what the consumer needs, not what the consumer wants.
You can't even admit that a separate monitor has advantages, this alone makes arguing with you somewhat pointless. Even the most ardent defenders of Apple's consumer desktop line-up admit there are advantages to having a separate monitor, the advantages are obvious and have been presented repeatedly. Based on this, I can only conclude that you post for the explicit purpose of being irritating and not disposed to present reasonable arguments.
Yes, the Mac Pro is too expensive for the typical consumer, this has been expressed repeatedly by many posters here. I take them at their word. How many typical consumers, not professionals, do you know have a Mac Pro, me, I know none.
The iMac only reduces clutter if no external peripherals are added, like a hard drive, or optical drive. Because the ports are on the back of the iMac, my family has USB cables for my daughter's iPod charger, my Shuffle charger, my wife's camera, my wife's PDA, firewire cables for our external hard drive for back-ups dangling around our desktop, my Canopus analog to digital converter. The harddrive and the Canopus converter could have been internal. Where's the reduced clutter. Again, I'm not alone. And don't bring up the standard argument that iPods, Shuffles, etc would create the same clutter as the iMac. No, they wouldn't, with ports on the front of the computer the cables would be plugged in when needed and removed and stored in a convenient desktdrawer. On top of that, the in our case the cables from the computer to the printer, cable modem, wireless router, wireless mous would come out the back of the compupter which would have been conveniently placed in the side cabinet of the desk, hence all these cables would come out behind the desk and be out of sight reducing clutter further. You have yet to shoe how the iMac reduces clutter except in the extreme case that the consmer adds no external devices at all.
You also just wave off reduced cost as if it doesn't matter. It does. You've admitted that it is reasonable to believe people are switching to Apple computers because of OS X. This means the market is indeed elastic. Because it is elastic, economic theory becomes important relative to cost and price. The cost either drops to Apple's bottom line or reduces price. In an elastic market, reducing price increases sales. Either way Apple wins, the consumer wins.
Well said!
In this forum you are a minority. In the desktop market AIOs are a minority. You've yet to explain this, if indeed consumers only need AIO or Mac minis(re: that place a huge premium on size). You only explain this away saying that the consumers don't know what the need or want.
Yes they do support my argument and denying it without any reasons other than people that prefer OS X also prefer laptops, or that people don't know what they need or want or not valid arguments.
I only have Apple's number to go by. Desktop sales are flat, have been for awhile. If they are getting switchers at their reported rate of 50% then that only indicated current Apple consumers are not buying their desktops.
I fit into that category 3.5 years ago. Apple didn't offer a desktop I wanted so I bought a laptop, mostly for work. I really only needed a Macbook but I went ahead and got a Powerbook, so I could still use Final Cut Express for home videos. I did this with the expectation that Apple would eventually sell a consumer desktop, I was wrong. I ended up with an iMac, with all its' disadvantages, I live and deal with it. I basically like the iMac, I don't like dealing with its' disadvantages.
People swear by Sony's laptops and their design. Ultimately, it is the same form factor.
What you said was,"So let me get this straight...I'm posting just to piss people off? That's what flame bait is, champ."
My response was,"Your reasons are known only to you, the results are obvious."
This was not "Rhetorical nonsense". It is simply stating a fact that is obvious that posters here have gotten angered by some of your posts and the way in which you post.
If it is maybe true, IMHO it is worth it to Apple to take a relatively low risk option(re: when compared to the risks of an iPod or iPhone) and introduce an xMac.
Eveyone is subjective about appearance, elegance, etc. Subjective values lead to contention and disagreement that can not resolve themselves.
I own an iMac and do believe it has an attractive appearance and a certain wow factor in "is that really the whole computer". This doesn't make me blind to its' disadvantages and desire the flexibility of a tower.
I leave the design in Apple's more than capable hands to distinguish it from the run of the mill Windows boxes.
We agree.
We partially agree.
We agree.
Yes, the Mac mini will satisfy the needs of many consumers. However, it appears to not sell very well.
We partially agree.
I will say that I don't expect Apple to ever introduce an xMac after Steve Jobs' statements recently concerning AIO. Me, I'll stay with Apple and do the best I can to satisfy my desires with Apple products, be they new or used. Maybe in 5 -10 years AIO and/or the Mac mini will more than surpass any software demands and it won't mattter, we'll see. I'll still want an xMac though.
Well guys, it's really become as pissing contest at this point. I think it still boils down to this:
---There is no large, demonstrable market for the product. There just isn't. If there was, Apple would clearly release one.
---Most people don't actually "need" the machine. They might want one for reasons of varying importance and sensibility. I do respect the person who has iMac power level needs, has a nice LCD panel, and doesn't have the $2K for a Mac Pro. But the problem is, that specific market isn't large enough for the product, apparently.
So you guys still want it desperately, and I still think it makes no sense. Whatever. Hopefully you can find what you need from what's out there at present.
So you guys still want it desperately, and I still think it makes no sense. Whatever. Hopefully you can find what you need from what's out there at present.
There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.
It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.
There is no large, demonstrable market for the product. There just isn't. If there was, Apple would clearly release one.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.
Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.
I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.
I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.
Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
This is the crux of the matter. All that Apple needs to do is reboot the Mini's form factor to allow easy consumer access to the RAM, hard drive and graphics card. That's it. End of discussion.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
It's not about market segments or even entirely about protecting the Pro line. This is about Jobs and his personality. While he's mellowed since he was thrown out of Apple, he still has issues about control that show up in the hardware he greenlights.
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
This is the crux of the matter. All that Apple needs to do is reboot the Mini's form factor to allow easy consumer access to the RAM, hard drive and graphics card. That's it. End of discussion.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
It's not about market segments or even entirely about protecting the Pro line. This is about Jobs and his personality. While he's mellowed since he was thrown out of Apple, he still has issues about control that show up in the hardware he greenlights.
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
Amen.
Lemon Bon Bon.
1T HD. £200.
Quad 2.4 gig. 2.66 gig? £300?
GTX 8800. £300?
2gigs of Ram? £80?
Samsung 22inch monitor. £250
These wouldn't be the prices Apple pay?
It's easy for them to offer a sub-Pro tower. Easy.
Components have never been this cheap for so much more.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.
Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.
Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.
Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.
Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.
I see iMacs around here with a second display. In any case, the ACDs aren't really all that competitive. The Dell 30" (HC...the one with the W-CCFL) is better than the ACD 30"...or at least better then the 30" ACD I have...
But at $1299 vs $1799 its a wonder that Apple sells many 30" ACDs at all.
There is no reason a 2007 Mac Mini should be less accessible than a Mac LC from the early 90's. None.
...
I agree with him on the idea that PCI slots should remain a Pro-level feature, but forcing consumers to go to a service centre just to replace RAM or a hard drive is silly and counter-productive, and erases the Mac TCO advantage.
By the book, the LC had the same service stipulations, and lacked any notable user expansion. The mini is much better than the LC was, since the mini comes with the same Core 2 Duo as most of the other macs. The LC had no FPU, no MMU, and a 16 bit bus. Kind of shit. The mini is much less compromised.
I think the mini would be better served by being cheaper, first and foremost. 3.5" disks are cheaper, so that makes sense, as does using a cheaper Core chip. I think it's much more likely that we'll simply see a cheaper mini that's otherwise very similar to today's mini than we will see one with PCIe.