It appears large because a very small minority is very vocal in tying the xMac to every damn topic they possibly can.
A lot of those topics wouldn't need to be there in the first place if Apple made one though. Plus if nobody says anything then Apple would never know that their lineup isn't good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Marvin the front of those two cases look hideous. I can't believe your even comparing them with a Mac case.
I know, that's why I compared them. emig647 said they were cool looking cases and I looked them up and I don't really think they are. Although there are enclosures around that come close to Apple's designs, they are not mainstream so the xMac would sell on design if it really needed a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
I see a point in both computers. iMac for my folks, xMac for me. I believe both have a good sized market.
I do too. I can see how the xMac *could* kill off the imac but I can see them co-existing. If it did die off then all it means is that it deserved to because that's the way the market is.
Seriously, you have the college professor syndrome. You make assumptions without actually talking to anyone outside your own homogeneous group and based solely own your own biases. I don't know why we don't just ignore you. All you do in discussions is troll anyone who is outside your definition of some kind of Mac purity. The only answer you will accept is for everyone to turn over their ability to think to Apple.
Actually, I'd settle for some actual THOUGHT among the midpro zealots. And yeah...ignore me...that's fine. Just stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting "xMac, xMac, xMac" and maybe Apple will release one...whether you need it or not. Oh, and you know nothing about my "group." How could you?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
Sony has come out with some pretty cool looking AIOs. I don't think there's anything about OSX that makes it more suitable, or the only OS that is suitable, for an AIO design.
Agreed.
Quote:
IMO, the reason that AIOs haven't caught on for Windows is that if people want a small Desktop form factor, they buy a laptop (and also get portability you don't get with an AIO). If they want expandibility/upgradeability (and better bang/buck), they get a regular Tower.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
Quote:
Thats a total generalization.
No, it's a perception based on my personal experience.
Quote:
I for one, don't want an AIO like the iMac. I want an mid-priced tower. It's not that I want more power that an iMac, I want to add a second HD, internally. I may want to use the monitor I have. Maybe in a couple years I'll want to add a HD DVD burner. Why do I have to over-spend on a MacPro to get this capibility?
That's a reasonable point. That said, why do you want to add a second internal drive? Why must it be internal? Why won't an external HD-DVD burner do? It'll be more portable and versatile that way (blu-ray, since HD-DVD is doomed ).
Quote:
I think if Mr. Jobs really wanted people to switch to a Mac, offering a Mid Tower would be the perfect model to lure them over. Afterall, it's what we're used to and like.
Apparently Apple disagrees. Apple has never been about copying the Windows model. So I think it's likely that Mr. Jobs disagrees too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
I don't think you mean that, exactly. I'm assuming you mean being picky about subtile differences in word usage. In this I agree with you. However, in my reply, I went out of the way to play down semantics. For example, we are talking about market segments, but I only used the word segment once, and even then put segment in parenthesis to down play it.
Yet in this discussion, we have some differences in meaning, which are important. Logic is a process by which we can prove something. Evidence is simply data by which we can support a theory. This is a very big difference. Also, regarding my use of the word subgroup, like the Mac or Windows subgroup, it was only to satisfy you if you happened to be picky about word usage. Since you're not, just ignore it.
Thanks for the lesson, professor.
Quote:
Now, you say that any data about Mac and Windows users obtained from a forum or survey is worthless, a subjective measure. So be it if that is what you believe.
I believe that because it's true. Any statistician would agree with me. A poll taken here or even on every Mac enthusiast site would be statistically invalid.
Quote:
Yet, in previous posts, you and others have said that if Mac users wanted a mid-tower, Apple would build it. For this statement, there is no evidence at all, just pure faith in how Apple operates.
You're right. There is no evidence. There is just...logic. Apple would not utterly ignore a major, profitable consumer demand for years on end. There is no incentive to do that.
Quote:
And Apple sells mostly iMacs, therefore Mac users buy mostly iMacs. You have demonstrated nothing by your statement.
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
Quote:
That is simply ridiculous, unless you have actually interviewed Wintel users who visit Apple stores. (And obviously, some do buy the iMac.) In contrast, using taking data from AI forums we are in effect getting interviews with many Mac users who want a mid-tower, or some such Mac. As expected we get those who like the iMac too. No one is saying we all must like the same thing, only that many of us want a different choice, one that is not currently available.
I'm merely sharing my perception. I've not labeled it as anything else. I'm also asking if others have seen something other than I have. So far, no takers. And one more time, champ: A poll on a Mac enthusiast site is not market research. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If someone needs a Raid setup, do they want or need two internal drives?
If I understand it correctly, it would be a "want." That said, people that would need RAID generally are pro-level users anyway.
Quote:
Also, someone wanted 4 Ram slots and you seemed to be ok with that and that's a want.
True, but I think most would agree it's a reasonable want. I didn't say wants were bad.
Quote:
Wants and needs can't be separated easily. There are some things that people want badly enough that it borders on a need but that need will vary from person to person. I need matching displays but others can live with one glossy, one matte.
Wants and needs can be separated pretty easily in most cases.
Quote:
Whatever you call them, the reasons are simply given because they are reasons why we either don't own an iMac or don't like owning one. It's not about convincing you the reasons are valid, the reasons are valid enough for us that we would get an alternative.
I understand the reasons. I just think some of them are being misrepresented as true needs when they are really just preferences.
Quote:
You know why it is and you know that's not it.
I don't have any idea what you mean by that.
Quote:
Their desktop sales are lagging,
That's inaccurate. Desktops sales are more stagnant than lagging. They're still selling reasonably well nonetheless.
Quote:
profits are high because their products are overpriced and they make a lot of money in other products
Apparently their products aren't overpriced, because they're selling. Considered that? They do have high margins, it's true. However, Apple's prices are much lower than they used to be for a lot of products. Yet, they still keep making more money.
Quote:
and the marketshare gain isn't due to desktop sales nor is it necessarily due to any of their computer products.
Uh, we're only talking about computer products, sir. We're not talking about iPods. I agree that their market share gain is not due to desktop sales, though that point is not actually all that significant because you claimed that Apple was "pushing away customers" or whatever the quote was. Clearly they're not....the customers are just buying laptops, which they feel meet their needs.
Quote:
So what you're saying is that we have good reasons but your only reason is you don't think enough people will buy it. Given what we know about where the new buyers will come from (PC land) and that they own mid-range towers, I think we can safely say the demand will be high enough.
I think some of the reasons are good. And no, I don't think enough people will buy it. Your second statement appears to be reasonable, but it really is just a guess. There's no supporting evidence for it at all. And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
Quote:
Quite easily.
Mac Mini (entry level) -> media center, PC switcher, tryout model
xMac (mid level) -> prosumer, gamer
iMac (mid level designer model) -> AIO niche people, people who like a clean work space
Mac Pro (high end) -> people who need the most raw power, high end pros who need a workstation not a desktop
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
All of these questions have answers. But Apple has made things so that those questions never even have to asked in the first place. That's the ticket.
Quote:
It's not semantics if they have different meanings. You are trying to estimate a market based on logic i.e you are making up conclusions from your preconceptions, which is worthless. Snoopy was using the evidence that some Mac users are unhappy with Apple's lineup and PC users don't appear to be unhappy with towers.
And his evidence was statistically worthless. Totally.
Quote:
You don't really know that though, it's an assumption you keep making.
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
Quote:
The other assumption you keep making is that we are basing our opinions on that.
You are. Over and over again.
Quote:
We are giving some reasons why we prefer towers and we think for some reason the people who have those opinions covers[sic] a range far broader than the mid-tower advocates on this forum. OK, actually we're just guessing that's the case. You got us there.
Fixed that for you.
Quote:
They manage it with all their other products. What separates a Macbook Pro from Dell laptops which are $500 or so less for the same spec? Apple makes it worth more simply due to design and their OS.
Good...with ya there....
Quote:
Where are all the beautiful mid-range PCs? They are still all big ugly beige boxes or funky alien designs that just look absolutely terrible. If Apple made one like that G5 cube, PC users would be all over it. Who cares if they run Windows on it? Apple is a hardware company.
Yup...still on board....wait...hold on....what's this?
Quote:
The best way to get them to switch is to do it in steps. Offer a form factor they are used to with the expansion they are used to and give them the system they are used to. Then keep switching the parts gradually until in 5 years they are OS X fanatics with octo core tablets.
So the way to get people to switch to what Apple is all about is to.....change what Apple is all about?
It seems you're now engaging in a bit of mission creep.
First it was "we want this."
Then it was "we need this."
Then it was "lots of people want this!"
Now it's become "Apple needs to do this to get people to switch."
Vinea, OS X is compelling to anyone who gives it a chance. I think Apples market share is going to snowball - especially, IF Apple puts out a !@#$%^&* mini tower.
94% of the market appears to disagree. The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
94% of the market appears to disagree. The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
Yeah, I never understood the thought that people will switch once they try OS X -- I like OS X and all (more stable, prettier, etc.) -- but myself and most everyone I know live in their apps, not in their os. We work in our writing programs when we're writing scripts or prose, if we're editing we're in our video/film editing programs. When we record, we're in our music recording apps. I switch back and forth between operating systems depending on what's around machine-wide; it's about the apps, for me. And, in the case of Apple laptops, just plain sexier machines.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
Whaaat?? So they can't sell one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
No, it's a perception based on my personal experience.
And what is your "personal experience"? Unless you've done some type of study, I would say the number of times a "build an X-Mac and we will buy it thread" comes up, and the number of people participate seems like pretty good evidence that there is a market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
That's a reasonable point. That said, why do you want to add a second internal drive? Why must it be internal? Why won't an external HD-DVD burner do? It'll be more portable and versatile that way (blu-ray, since HD-DVD is doomed ).
I have enough junk on my desk as it is to not want to add peripheral drives and the tangle of wires that come with it. I thought the whole point of the iMac was to avoid this?? Right now I have two internal HDs and it's working out just snooky, though at some point I would like to add a portable for off-site backups. When I mentioned HD-DVD it was more in the generic sense, not literally. Just whichever HD format is the "standard" (or dual format) in a couple years. Portability in a DVD drive doesn't strike me as being necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Apparently Apple disagrees. Apple has never been about copying the Windows model. So I think it's likely that Mr. Jobs disagrees too.
Didn't they used to make a tower that wasn't a "high-end" type server design? I think Apple has a great OS, but they're hardware decisions are just wierd. My only guess is they're afraid the xMac would cannibalize iMac sales. So? Charge enough so it wouldn't matter. It's not like the dollars are going to go to another company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
You're right. There is no evidence. There is just...logic. Apple would not utterly ignore a major, profitable consumer demand for years on end. There is no incentive to do that.
Remember, Apple gives us what we need, not what we want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
Why mostly towers? Why hasn't the Sony AIOs caught on better, or why haven't more manufacturers jumped in on the AIO market? Because towers work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
A poll on a Mac enthusiast site is not market research. Period.
True, but you know by the way these threads go there are a lot more people out there that are in this camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I understand the reasons. I just think some of them are being misrepresented as true needs when they are really just preferences.
Here's where I'm coming from, FWIW. I have a 7 year old Dell. It's a little slow, but gets by OK. The reason it's still getting the job done is I've replaced my CD-RW drive with a DVD-RW drive, replaced my 40GB HD with an 80 GB HD and moved the old one to my second internaldrive. I've added USB2 and Firewire cards. I also had my 19" Sony Trinitron monitor's power switch replaced for $100.
Now, to the "wants vs needs" point. I don't need a new computer at the moment, but I do want one. What I want is a mid-priced Apple tower that would allow me to do similar things down the line as new technology becomes available, or parts wear out. The iMac doesn't really fit the bill and the MacPro is overkill and over budget. Until Apple offers something that merges my wants/needs, they don't have a new "switcher" (from Windows) customer. I know, that's not a majority of people, but I'd guess there are enough people that feel as I do that it'd be worth it financially for Apple to at least try a mid-tower design. So what if that's the same package Windows comes in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Desktops sales are more stagnant than lagging. They're still selling reasonably well nonetheless.
I think all the negative Vista press has held new PCs sales lower than they could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
I think the Pros out there will still be buying them, and the people who (want a mid-tower)aren't, have had to settle for an iMac. They're the ones who would buy an xMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
All of these questions have answers. But Apple has made things so that those questions never even have to asked in the first place. That's the ticket.
Those are the people who buy an iMac, nothing wrong with that at all. But if there were such a lack of middle ground between people who just want to plug in their computer and use it vs graphic Pros, why are there so many companies able to make money building PC mid towers? The gamer's market isn't the only reason. Why does Dell let people customize so much? Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to say "this is what we have"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
Not everybody that buys a Mac buys it through an Apple store, so to be fair, I think you'd also have to include Internet sales and maybe even Best Buy.
Sony has come out with some pretty cool looking AIOs. I don't think there's anything about OSX that makes it more suitable, or the only OS that is suitable, for an AIO design. IMO, the reason that AIOs haven't caught on for Windows is that if people want a small Desktop form factor, they buy a laptop (and also get portability you don't get with an AIO). If they want expandibility/upgradeability (and better bang/buck), they get a regular Tower.
Agreed. This is so patently obvious it is hard to believe people refuse to accept it.
Question is, Apple also knows this, then why don't they offer a mid priced tower? Me, IMHO, I believe it is Apple's and Steve Job's firm belief that computers should be considered appliances that consumers don't ever need to modify, upgrade or in general do the things that the other 96% of the computer users do.
.... xMac proponents in the forums are very much the minority in comparison to the 600K/qtr desktop Mac buyers. The number of threads and posters is actually very small. It appears large because a very small minority is very vocal in tying the xMac to every damn topic they possibly can.
This argument seems to ignore the blogs about the hole in Apple's line up that received thousands of diggs. Yes, the number of threads is small compared to the 600,000 desktops sold, so what. The 600,000 desktops Apple sold pales in comparison to the total number sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Arguably xMac proponents are raining on the parade of those that favor the current line up. Introduce an xMac at the price points discussed and you can write off the iMac as a viable product. Folks may think that's okay (and have said so repeatedly) given that "most users prefer a tower" but you can make the same argument about OSX itself. Most users prefer Windows. Therefore the extinction of a niche OS alternative is no more important than the extinction of the AIO alternative.
What parade? Apple desktop sales are flat, have been flat for a long time.
One of Apple's claims, at least IMHO, that really stands out is that about half of all computer sales are to new buyers. They've made this claim for about two years. Desktop sales are flat, this is a fact, no? Then the conclusion is that long time Mac users are not buying Apple desktop computers. Either the millions of long time Mac users are completely switching to laptops or they are waiting for something that appeals to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Personally I'm no fan of the iMac but lets not attach some dubious ethical or moral high ground for the xMac. Success of the xMac will come at the expense of the iMac and its fans.
Curious, I am a fan of the iMac, but truly believe Apple could offer both an AIO and mid priced tower and be successful. However, the AIO and its' ease of use and small footprint might mean it should be targeted at the less demanding user and/or the new user. This would necessitate a lower price, less cutting edge processors, graphics and whatnot. Forcing the more demanding users(ie: the mid priced tower crowd) to only the options of an iMac or Mac Pro is what spawns these threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Your assertion that there are so many xMac supporters is dubious. Perhaps opponents are simply tired of the arguments and perhaps most folks aren't actual opponents as simply apathetic.
Your assertions are just as dubious and can be refuted by the product matrix available to the other 96% of the buying public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Those few that do care to rain on it are perhaps damn tired of the xMac topic being brought up in nearly every thread in the forum by a few zealot supporters. I would guess most folks that "oppose" the xMac simply feel that its not happening under Jobs and, all things being equal, Apple is far better off having Jobs over having an xMac.
You can not make the assertion that there are only a few zealot supporters. A recent blog, which probably is unkown to the vast majority of the computer using public still generated over 4000 diggs. If just one unkown blogger can get 4000 diggs, it at least makes me wonder how many people do in fact have xMac lust.
One of Apple's claims, at least IMHO, that really stands out is that about half of all computer sales are to new buyers. They've made this claim for about two years. Desktop sales are flat, this is a fact, no? Then the conclusion is that long time Mac users are not buying Apple desktop computers. Either the millions of long time Mac users are completely switching to laptops or they are waiting for something that appeals to them.
Most longtime Apple users CAN wait a long time before upgrading. New OS releases on the Mac tend to breath new life into old machines instead of making them obsolete. That's going to change a little with Leopard as it looks like many g4s are excluded and others may struggle with Leopard. People will moan and groan but most will get an iMac or Mac Pro.
FWIW, Apple's current market share simply does allow it to offer machines in all market segments. For better or for worse, Apple has cast it's lot in AOIs in the mid level market.
There are two market segments that are not served well by Apple currently, IMO. The bargain basement level entry system and a enthusiast level system. I don't think Apple will ever try to cater to the bargain basement crowd. As market share increases then I think they will go after the enthusiast. Apple just isn't there yet.
Curious, I am a fan of the iMac, but truly believe Apple could offer both an AIO and mid priced tower and be successful.
Yes.
They offered the Cube. They sold in excess of 100,000 units upon its debut. 60,000 after that...and a measly 20k I think...to mop up the last of it.
Shame. Because if they'd dropped the price sooner aka the iPhone then they would have proven that their mid-tower/prosumer market does exist. It does. The pc market does...and sells plenty. Otherwise...why aren't they all out of business?
The iMac is just a slightly better and more lust worthy Mac Book Pro. Bigger screen and...uhm...it's a desktop. Oh. You can config' a faster cpu...and a bigger hd.
iMac or Laptop? You get iMac for a desktop. Laptop for portability.
Tower uber? Unlimited Power (Emperor voice.)
Eh. Mid-Tower? Don't need server class cpus...want maybe 2 hds, 4 gigs of ram and a gpu OF MY CHOICE. And erhm...obviously price is lower than 'uber-line...'..but...oh...Apple doesn't offer one. Why. Well, because it would cannibalize laptop, oops, iMac sales.
Say, wait a minute, doesn't the Mac Book (so affordable now...) cannib' the iMac? And the Macbook Pro cannib' the Mac Pro....and yes...poor iMac and Mac Pro suffer terrible desktop cannib' of their sales...so...yes. I guess Apple ought to just continue them and concentrate on laptops....
What? Ignore a good 50%-60% of desktop sales? Sure, why not.
Better still, why not start expandable computers at around £1700!)!))? HOW MUCH?
Tumble weeds.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Anticipating Penryn and his 'mid-tower' or an iMac with a decent GPU instead of the apologetic 2600 Pro.
They offered the Cube. They sold in excess of 100,000 units upon its debut. 60,000 after that...and a measly 20k I think...to mop up the last of it
Shame. Because if they'd dropped the price sooner aka the iPhone then they would have proven that their mid-tower/prosumer market does exist. It does. The pc market does...and sells plenty. Otherwise...why aren't they all out of business?
They also offered the regular PowerMac G4. Most buyers went with that instead. In was faster, cheaper, and overall a better machine. It didn't fail because of price, it failed because the prosumer SFF market is pretty tiny. Most will take the large and practical towers.
Quote:
The iMac is just a slightly better and more lust worthy Mac Book Pro. Bigger screen and...uhm...it's a desktop. Oh. You can config' a faster cpu...and a bigger hd.
It's a desktop only in the sense that it sets on a desk. The rest of it, save the hard drive, are laptop parts. The only thing stopping the Macbook Pro from having the x7900 is its ultra slim form factor.
Quote:
What? Ignore a good 50%-60% of desktop sales? Sure, why not.
Yeah, it's not like Apple has ever catered to those users. All there there has ever been is all in ones. Wait, I'm getting flash backs to five years back when the PowerMac was Apple's main desktop.
Quote:
Better still, why not start expandable computers at around £1700!)!))? HOW MUCH?
Yeah it's not like we other things to do with that money like pay the rent, pay the internet service bill, start saving so I can retire in 2045 or so, etc.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
He said regular tower not workstation. Let's not make any pretense about what the Mac Pro is. It's a high end workstation not a consumer desktop and the iMac is not a desktop because it uses laptop components.
Mac Mini = consumer laptop without portability
iMac = laptop without portability
Macbook = consumer laptop
Macbook Pro = laptop
Mac Pro = workstation
Where is the desktop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Apple would not utterly ignore a major, profitable consumer demand for years on end. There is no incentive to do that.
How many people would have said this about the smartphone market two years ago? Oh but now the iphone is the best thing since sliced bread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
But why are they *all* selling towers? If you take a step back and look at the overall picture, why is it that Apple is the only one pushing AIOs so hard? So much so they only have one such product to target the largest portion of the desktop market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Uh, we're only talking about computer products, sir.
Yeah but people are saying that Apple's market share is going up so their products must be ok. What I'm saying is that if someone gets an iphone or ipod, that could easily encourage them into getting a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
I agree that their market share gain is not due to desktop sales, though that point is not actually all that significant because you claimed that Apple was "pushing away customers" or whatever the quote was. Clearly they're not....the customers are just buying laptops, which they feel meet their needs.
Ok that's a fair point but that still means their desktop lineup is unsatisfactory. For my home computer, if I'm going to upgrade from my Mini, this is what I'm going to be thinking:
I use workstations at work and they are too big for me at home and I don't need to put out the expense.
The new Mini is still not powerful enough.
The iMac has a built-in glossy screen, isn't portable and the GPU isn't great.
The Macbook has a glossy screen, GPU is not good enough but is portable (don't need portability though).
The Macbook Pro has a matte screen, good GPU and is portable (don't need portability though). However, I could almost get a Mac Pro for the same price as the low end model.
In summary, none of them are satisfactory but a mid-range desktop is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
Hmm, Apple used to sell an iMac with flowers on it, I don't think we should base current opinion on all the things they've done wrongly in the past. Apple are in a completely different ballpark now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
It's funny how you seem to be implying that mainly stupid people go for Macs. After all, most people already have towers so if this is as big a problem as you make out then they must all be smart enough not to have had any trouble and the people who have had trouble just buy a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
I talked to 5 of them:
Betty, grandmother said: 'I'd buy an xMac because I can't lift an imac'
Dave, IT consultant said: 'Of course I'd buy an xMac, that's what I came in for and when they said they only sold iMacs for the mid-range, I fell over laughing'
Diane, receptionist said: 'I like changing my displays to match my toenails so it makes sense to get an xMac'
SDW2001, General PITA (sorry Major PITA, he got promoted recently) said: 'Sure I'd buy one, just don't tell anyone on AI 'cos I have a really long pointless argument going trying to convince people their needs are not valid needs relative to my own'
Steve Jobs, face on faceless corporation said: 'the xMac is the true Mac. The Mac cube, the Next Cube, the cube store. Apple are very much about the cube design and we hope to have one in store soon.'
read on for the proper answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
You are. Over and over again.
I've met a lot of people over the past couple of years and they've all said the same things about Apple's hardware. My family and friends on top of that. It's quite naive to think that our opinions are based on this forum otherwise nobody's opinion has any value because it would mean your own opinion is based on this forum and since you only see a handful (80+ though so a big handful) of people who want this product then it's not enough for you. However since you are basing your opinion on this thread then it's meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
So the way to get people to switch to what Apple is all about is to.....change what Apple is all about?
But what exactly are Apple about and how does a mid-range tower change this any more than the low-end tower (the Mini) or the high-end tower (the Mac Pro)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Now it's become "Apple needs to do this to get people to switch."
They don't *need* to do this (see I told you needs and wants could get mixed up) but it would help their crusade. If I can for a second compare the cult of Apple to a religion. If a religious person comes to your door and their religion doesn't have what you need, do you think that them jamming their foot in the door or spreading the word to other people to do the same is going to get you to convert?
OR
Would it be better if they were actually selling something that you wanted anyway? My point is that Apple shouldn't need a switch campaign at all. Apple's lineup is missing what people are wanting to buy and if Apple had what they want in a nice package at a reasonable price, think how much less persuasion they'd need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
Matter in what sense? Matter to Apple's marketshare, customer satisfaction? How can you prove those things any more than you could prove that people do or don't need to be loved? We *need* the love but there's no way we can prove it to you short of giving you a petition with 100 million signatures on it. And even then SDW2001 would say that it's not enough to justify a product and that the people who signed it didn't really need one, they are just deluded.
You can't prove what effect the absence of something has without comparing it to when it was there and doing so is comparing to a different generation of product and you can't say what the presence of it is with regard to Apple because they don't currently have it. What you can say is that the PC market has both and people are buying towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
Why mostly towers? Why hasn't the Sony AIOs caught on better, or why haven't more manufacturers jumped in on the AIO market? Because towers work.
Has that point been answered yet? Why is it when the overwhelming majority of the computer population are given a choice between AIO and tower and the AIO is very close to spec/price/design to Apple's, they go for towers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
I think the Pros out there will still be buying them, and the people who (want a mid-tower)aren't, have had to settle for an iMac. They're the ones who would buy an xMac.
I agree, I think most people who would get the xMac are people looking at the Mac Pro and looking for something less than a workstation. The iMac is not satisfactory because it's a different product. You can't sit an iMac beside a Mac Pro and say they are meant for the same audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
Why does Dell let people customize so much?
Yeah and yet still make far more sales. People who say that having too many options will confuse Apple Store customers are clearly wrong on this. If idiots can buy Dells in all their form factors and options then they can buy Macs with just one more product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
They also offered the regular PowerMac G4. Most buyers went with that instead. In was faster, cheaper, and overall a better machine. It didn't fail because of price, it failed because the prosumer SFF market is pretty tiny. Most will take the large and practical towers.
I think it did fail on price, you really said that yourself. They were selling a better, faster, cheaper machine than the original Cube so it can't have failed because the market wasn't there. Who would spend more for a worse deal?
FWIW, Apple's current market share simply does allow it to offer machines in all market segments. For better or for worse, Apple has cast it's lot in AOIs in the mid level market.
Adding one more model shouldn't stress Apple too much.
FWIW, Apple has a larger market share than other manufactures that do offer a more extensive produt line, minus the AIO and Mac mini form factors.
Yeah but they don't make a profit or very little, like Gateway.
Where's your evidence that any manufacturer doesn't make a profit on computers sold in the >$799 range. This is precisely the range of computers that other OEMs make profit on in their unending attempt to make up for the razor thin profits on the low end computers. Even Micheal Dell admitted this in a quarterly statement.
not interested in a smaller/mid-size desktop mac - happy with the current line up.
That's all well and good for you. No one here is advocating Apple drop or discontinue any of their current line up. Many here and on other Mac centric boards do wish Apple would sell an additional desktop model that more closely serves the needs of the mid to upper end of the consumer markets.
I find it interesting that people are so against apple releasing a mid-tower.
I don't quite understand it. It doesn't mean taking away from the current line-up, just adding to it. So they wouldn't be losing anything.
You aren't in the group that is missing out. There are "prosumers" / "gamers" that need something more than an iMac, and the Mac Pro's specs / cost are too high. Why is it the end of the world is apple releases a mid-tower? It's not.
Comments
If OSX was as compelling as we think it is then Apple would have larger market share regardless of AIO, tower, laptop, whatever.
Alas, no.
It probably has more to do with Government and Big Business' decision early on to go with the Windows platform.
It appears large because a very small minority is very vocal in tying the xMac to every damn topic they possibly can.
A lot of those topics wouldn't need to be there in the first place if Apple made one though. Plus if nobody says anything then Apple would never know that their lineup isn't good enough.
Marvin the front of those two cases look hideous. I can't believe your even comparing them with a Mac case.
I know, that's why I compared them. emig647 said they were cool looking cases and I looked them up and I don't really think they are. Although there are enclosures around that come close to Apple's designs, they are not mainstream so the xMac would sell on design if it really needed a reason.
I see a point in both computers. iMac for my folks, xMac for me. I believe both have a good sized market.
I do too. I can see how the xMac *could* kill off the imac but I can see them co-existing. If it did die off then all it means is that it deserved to because that's the way the market is.
Seriously, you have the college professor syndrome. You make assumptions without actually talking to anyone outside your own homogeneous group and based solely own your own biases. I don't know why we don't just ignore you. All you do in discussions is troll anyone who is outside your definition of some kind of Mac purity. The only answer you will accept is for everyone to turn over their ability to think to Apple.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Sony has come out with some pretty cool looking AIOs. I don't think there's anything about OSX that makes it more suitable, or the only OS that is suitable, for an AIO design.
Agreed.
IMO, the reason that AIOs haven't caught on for Windows is that if people want a small Desktop form factor, they buy a laptop (and also get portability you don't get with an AIO). If they want expandibility/upgradeability (and better bang/buck), they get a regular Tower.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
Thats a total generalization.
No, it's a perception based on my personal experience.
I for one, don't want an AIO like the iMac. I want an mid-priced tower. It's not that I want more power that an iMac, I want to add a second HD, internally. I may want to use the monitor I have. Maybe in a couple years I'll want to add a HD DVD burner. Why do I have to over-spend on a MacPro to get this capibility?
That's a reasonable point. That said, why do you want to add a second internal drive? Why must it be internal? Why won't an external HD-DVD burner do? It'll be more portable and versatile that way (blu-ray, since HD-DVD is doomed
I think if Mr. Jobs really wanted people to switch to a Mac, offering a Mid Tower would be the perfect model to lure them over. Afterall, it's what we're used to and like.
Apparently Apple disagrees. Apple has never been about copying the Windows model. So I think it's likely that Mr. Jobs disagrees too.
I don't think you mean that, exactly. I'm assuming you mean being picky about subtile differences in word usage. In this I agree with you. However, in my reply, I went out of the way to play down semantics. For example, we are talking about market segments, but I only used the word segment once, and even then put segment in parenthesis to down play it.
Yet in this discussion, we have some differences in meaning, which are important. Logic is a process by which we can prove something. Evidence is simply data by which we can support a theory. This is a very big difference. Also, regarding my use of the word subgroup, like the Mac or Windows subgroup, it was only to satisfy you if you happened to be picky about word usage. Since you're not, just ignore it.
Thanks for the lesson, professor.
Now, you say that any data about Mac and Windows users obtained from a forum or survey is worthless, a subjective measure. So be it if that is what you believe.
I believe that because it's true. Any statistician would agree with me. A poll taken here or even on every Mac enthusiast site would be statistically invalid.
Yet, in previous posts, you and others have said that if Mac users wanted a mid-tower, Apple would build it. For this statement, there is no evidence at all, just pure faith in how Apple operates.
You're right. There is no evidence. There is just...logic.
And Apple sells mostly iMacs, therefore Mac users buy mostly iMacs. You have demonstrated nothing by your statement.
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
That is simply ridiculous, unless you have actually interviewed Wintel users who visit Apple stores. (And obviously, some do buy the iMac.) In contrast, using taking data from AI forums we are in effect getting interviews with many Mac users who want a mid-tower, or some such Mac. As expected we get those who like the iMac too. No one is saying we all must like the same thing, only that many of us want a different choice, one that is not currently available.
I'm merely sharing my perception. I've not labeled it as anything else. I'm also asking if others have seen something other than I have. So far, no takers. And one more time, champ: A poll on a Mac enthusiast site is not market research. Period.
If someone needs a Raid setup, do they want or need two internal drives?
If I understand it correctly, it would be a "want." That said, people that would need RAID generally are pro-level users anyway.
Also, someone wanted 4 Ram slots and you seemed to be ok with that and that's a want.
True, but I think most would agree it's a reasonable want. I didn't say wants were bad.
Wants and needs can't be separated easily. There are some things that people want badly enough that it borders on a need but that need will vary from person to person. I need matching displays but others can live with one glossy, one matte.
Wants and needs can be separated pretty easily in most cases.
Whatever you call them, the reasons are simply given because they are reasons why we either don't own an iMac or don't like owning one. It's not about convincing you the reasons are valid, the reasons are valid enough for us that we would get an alternative.
I understand the reasons. I just think some of them are being misrepresented as true needs when they are really just preferences.
You know why it is and you know that's not it.
I don't have any idea what you mean by that.
Their desktop sales are lagging,
That's inaccurate. Desktops sales are more stagnant than lagging. They're still selling reasonably well nonetheless.
profits are high because their products are overpriced and they make a lot of money in other products
Apparently their products aren't overpriced, because they're selling. Considered that? They do have high margins, it's true. However, Apple's prices are much lower than they used to be for a lot of products. Yet, they still keep making more money.
and the marketshare gain isn't due to desktop sales nor is it necessarily due to any of their computer products.
Uh, we're only talking about computer products, sir. We're not talking about iPods. I agree that their market share gain is not due to desktop sales, though that point is not actually all that significant because you claimed that Apple was "pushing away customers" or whatever the quote was. Clearly they're not....the customers are just buying laptops, which they feel meet their needs.
So what you're saying is that we have good reasons but your only reason is you don't think enough people will buy it. Given what we know about where the new buyers will come from (PC land) and that they own mid-range towers, I think we can safely say the demand will be high enough.
I think some of the reasons are good. And no, I don't think enough people will buy it. Your second statement appears to be reasonable, but it really is just a guess. There's no supporting evidence for it at all. And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
Quite easily.
Mac Mini (entry level) -> media center, PC switcher, tryout model
xMac (mid level) -> prosumer, gamer
iMac (mid level designer model) -> AIO niche people, people who like a clean work space
Mac Pro (high end) -> people who need the most raw power, high end pros who need a workstation not a desktop
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
All of these questions have answers. But Apple has made things so that those questions never even have to asked in the first place. That's the ticket.
It's not semantics if they have different meanings. You are trying to estimate a market based on logic i.e you are making up conclusions from your preconceptions, which is worthless. Snoopy was using the evidence that some Mac users are unhappy with Apple's lineup and PC users don't appear to be unhappy with towers.
And his evidence was statistically worthless. Totally.
You don't really know that though, it's an assumption you keep making.
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
The other assumption you keep making is that we are basing our opinions on that.
You are. Over and over again.
We are giving some reasons why we prefer towers and we think for some reason the people who have those opinions covers[sic] a range far broader than the mid-tower advocates on this forum. OK, actually we're just guessing that's the case. You got us there.
Fixed that for you.
They manage it with all their other products. What separates a Macbook Pro from Dell laptops which are $500 or so less for the same spec? Apple makes it worth more simply due to design and their OS.
Good...with ya there....
Where are all the beautiful mid-range PCs? They are still all big ugly beige boxes or funky alien designs that just look absolutely terrible. If Apple made one like that G5 cube, PC users would be all over it. Who cares if they run Windows on it? Apple is a hardware company.
Yup...still on board....wait...hold on....what's this?
The best way to get them to switch is to do it in steps. Offer a form factor they are used to with the expansion they are used to and give them the system they are used to. Then keep switching the parts gradually until in 5 years they are OS X fanatics with octo core tablets.
So the way to get people to switch to what Apple is all about is to.....change what Apple is all about?
It seems you're now engaging in a bit of mission creep.
First it was "we want this."
Then it was "we need this."
Then it was "lots of people want this!"
Now it's become "Apple needs to do this to get people to switch."
Vinea, OS X is compelling to anyone who gives it a chance. I think Apples market share is going to snowball - especially, IF Apple puts out a !@#$%^&* mini tower.
94% of the market appears to disagree. The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
94% of the market appears to disagree. The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
Yeah, I never understood the thought that people will switch once they try OS X -- I like OS X and all (more stable, prettier, etc.) -- but myself and most everyone I know live in their apps, not in their os. We work in our writing programs when we're writing scripts or prose, if we're editing we're in our video/film editing programs. When we record, we're in our music recording apps. I switch back and forth between operating systems depending on what's around machine-wide; it's about the apps, for me. And, in the case of Apple laptops, just plain sexier machines.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
Whaaat?? So they can't sell one?
No, it's a perception based on my personal experience.
And what is your "personal experience"? Unless you've done some type of study, I would say the number of times a "build an X-Mac and we will buy it thread" comes up, and the number of people participate seems like pretty good evidence that there is a market.
That's a reasonable point. That said, why do you want to add a second internal drive? Why must it be internal? Why won't an external HD-DVD burner do? It'll be more portable and versatile that way (blu-ray, since HD-DVD is doomed
I have enough junk on my desk as it is to not want to add peripheral drives and the tangle of wires that come with it. I thought the whole point of the iMac was to avoid this?? Right now I have two internal HDs and it's working out just snooky, though at some point I would like to add a portable for off-site backups. When I mentioned HD-DVD it was more in the generic sense, not literally. Just whichever HD format is the "standard" (or dual format) in a couple years. Portability in a DVD drive doesn't strike me as being necessary.
Apparently Apple disagrees. Apple has never been about copying the Windows model. So I think it's likely that Mr. Jobs disagrees too.
Didn't they used to make a tower that wasn't a "high-end" type server design? I think Apple has a great OS, but they're hardware decisions are just wierd. My only guess is they're afraid the xMac would cannibalize iMac sales. So? Charge enough so it wouldn't matter. It's not like the dollars are going to go to another company.
You're right. There is no evidence. There is just...logic.
Remember, Apple gives us what we need, not what we want.
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
Why mostly towers? Why hasn't the Sony AIOs caught on better, or why haven't more manufacturers jumped in on the AIO market? Because towers work.
A poll on a Mac enthusiast site is not market research. Period.
True, but you know by the way these threads go there are a lot more people out there that are in this camp.
I understand the reasons. I just think some of them are being misrepresented as true needs when they are really just preferences.
Here's where I'm coming from, FWIW. I have a 7 year old Dell. It's a little slow, but gets by OK. The reason it's still getting the job done is I've replaced my CD-RW drive with a DVD-RW drive, replaced my 40GB HD with an 80 GB HD and moved the old one to my second internaldrive. I've added USB2 and Firewire cards. I also had my 19" Sony Trinitron monitor's power switch replaced for $100.
Now, to the "wants vs needs" point. I don't need a new computer at the moment, but I do want one. What I want is a mid-priced Apple tower that would allow me to do similar things down the line as new technology becomes available, or parts wear out. The iMac doesn't really fit the bill and the MacPro is overkill and over budget. Until Apple offers something that merges my wants/needs, they don't have a new "switcher" (from Windows) customer. I know, that's not a majority of people, but I'd guess there are enough people that feel as I do that it'd be worth it financially for Apple to at least try a mid-tower design. So what if that's the same package Windows comes in?
Desktops sales are more stagnant than lagging. They're still selling reasonably well nonetheless.
I think all the negative Vista press has held new PCs sales lower than they could be.
And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
I think the Pros out there will still be buying them, and the people who (want a mid-tower)aren't, have had to settle for an iMac. They're the ones who would buy an xMac.
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
All of these questions have answers. But Apple has made things so that those questions never even have to asked in the first place. That's the ticket.
Those are the people who buy an iMac, nothing wrong with that at all. But if there were such a lack of middle ground between people who just want to plug in their computer and use it vs graphic Pros, why are there so many companies able to make money building PC mid towers? The gamer's market isn't the only reason. Why does Dell let people customize so much? Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to say "this is what we have"?
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
Not everybody that buys a Mac buys it through an Apple store, so to be fair, I think you'd also have to include Internet sales and maybe even Best Buy.
Sony has come out with some pretty cool looking AIOs. I don't think there's anything about OSX that makes it more suitable, or the only OS that is suitable, for an AIO design. IMO, the reason that AIOs haven't caught on for Windows is that if people want a small Desktop form factor, they buy a laptop (and also get portability you don't get with an AIO). If they want expandibility/upgradeability (and better bang/buck), they get a regular Tower.
Agreed. This is so patently obvious it is hard to believe people refuse to accept it.
Question is, Apple also knows this, then why don't they offer a mid priced tower? Me, IMHO, I believe it is Apple's and Steve Job's firm belief that computers should be considered appliances that consumers don't ever need to modify, upgrade or in general do the things that the other 96% of the computer users do.
If OSX was as compelling as we think it is then Apple would have larger market share regardless of AIO, tower, laptop, whatever.
Alas, no.
Except it appears that it is indeed enough to increase market share in laptops.
Question is, why not desktops?
and around and around it goes.
.... xMac proponents in the forums are very much the minority in comparison to the 600K/qtr desktop Mac buyers. The number of threads and posters is actually very small. It appears large because a very small minority is very vocal in tying the xMac to every damn topic they possibly can.
This argument seems to ignore the blogs about the hole in Apple's line up that received thousands of diggs. Yes, the number of threads is small compared to the 600,000 desktops sold, so what. The 600,000 desktops Apple sold pales in comparison to the total number sold.
Arguably xMac proponents are raining on the parade of those that favor the current line up. Introduce an xMac at the price points discussed and you can write off the iMac as a viable product. Folks may think that's okay (and have said so repeatedly) given that "most users prefer a tower" but you can make the same argument about OSX itself. Most users prefer Windows. Therefore the extinction of a niche OS alternative is no more important than the extinction of the AIO alternative.
What parade? Apple desktop sales are flat, have been flat for a long time.
One of Apple's claims, at least IMHO, that really stands out is that about half of all computer sales are to new buyers. They've made this claim for about two years. Desktop sales are flat, this is a fact, no? Then the conclusion is that long time Mac users are not buying Apple desktop computers. Either the millions of long time Mac users are completely switching to laptops or they are waiting for something that appeals to them.
Personally I'm no fan of the iMac but lets not attach some dubious ethical or moral high ground for the xMac. Success of the xMac will come at the expense of the iMac and its fans.
Curious, I am a fan of the iMac, but truly believe Apple could offer both an AIO and mid priced tower and be successful. However, the AIO and its' ease of use and small footprint might mean it should be targeted at the less demanding user and/or the new user. This would necessitate a lower price, less cutting edge processors, graphics and whatnot. Forcing the more demanding users(ie: the mid priced tower crowd) to only the options of an iMac or Mac Pro is what spawns these threads.
Your assertion that there are so many xMac supporters is dubious. Perhaps opponents are simply tired of the arguments and perhaps most folks aren't actual opponents as simply apathetic.
Your assertions are just as dubious and can be refuted by the product matrix available to the other 96% of the buying public.
Those few that do care to rain on it are perhaps damn tired of the xMac topic being brought up in nearly every thread in the forum by a few zealot supporters. I would guess most folks that "oppose" the xMac simply feel that its not happening under Jobs and, all things being equal, Apple is far better off having Jobs over having an xMac.
You can not make the assertion that there are only a few zealot supporters. A recent blog, which probably is unkown to the vast majority of the computer using public still generated over 4000 diggs. If just one unkown blogger can get 4000 diggs, it at least makes me wonder how many people do in fact have xMac lust.
Except it appears that it is indeed enough to increase market share in laptops.
Question is, why not desktops?
and around and around it goes.
I usually don't answer rhetorical questions, but this post needs a closer look by those who don't see it.
Look at what apple offers for desktops. Isn't it obvious?
One of Apple's claims, at least IMHO, that really stands out is that about half of all computer sales are to new buyers. They've made this claim for about two years. Desktop sales are flat, this is a fact, no? Then the conclusion is that long time Mac users are not buying Apple desktop computers. Either the millions of long time Mac users are completely switching to laptops or they are waiting for something that appeals to them.
Most longtime Apple users CAN wait a long time before upgrading. New OS releases on the Mac tend to breath new life into old machines instead of making them obsolete. That's going to change a little with Leopard as it looks like many g4s are excluded and others may struggle with Leopard. People will moan and groan but most will get an iMac or Mac Pro.
FWIW, Apple's current market share simply does allow it to offer machines in all market segments. For better or for worse, Apple has cast it's lot in AOIs in the mid level market.
There are two market segments that are not served well by Apple currently, IMO. The bargain basement level entry system and a enthusiast level system. I don't think Apple will ever try to cater to the bargain basement crowd. As market share increases then I think they will go after the enthusiast. Apple just isn't there yet.
Curious, I am a fan of the iMac, but truly believe Apple could offer both an AIO and mid priced tower and be successful.
Yes.
They offered the Cube. They sold in excess of 100,000 units upon its debut. 60,000 after that...and a measly 20k I think...to mop up the last of it.
Shame. Because if they'd dropped the price sooner aka the iPhone then they would have proven that their mid-tower/prosumer market does exist. It does. The pc market does...and sells plenty. Otherwise...why aren't they all out of business?
The iMac is just a slightly better and more lust worthy Mac Book Pro. Bigger screen and...uhm...it's a desktop. Oh. You can config' a faster cpu...and a bigger hd.
iMac or Laptop? You get iMac for a desktop. Laptop for portability.
Tower uber? Unlimited Power (Emperor voice.)
Eh. Mid-Tower? Don't need server class cpus...want maybe 2 hds, 4 gigs of ram and a gpu OF MY CHOICE. And erhm...obviously price is lower than 'uber-line...'..but...oh...Apple doesn't offer one. Why. Well, because it would cannibalize laptop, oops, iMac sales.
Say, wait a minute, doesn't the Mac Book (so affordable now...) cannib' the iMac? And the Macbook Pro cannib' the Mac Pro....and yes...poor iMac and Mac Pro suffer terrible desktop cannib' of their sales...so...yes. I guess Apple ought to just continue them and concentrate on laptops....
What? Ignore a good 50%-60% of desktop sales? Sure, why not.
Better still, why not start expandable computers at around £1700!)!))? HOW MUCH?
Tumble weeds.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Anticipating Penryn and his 'mid-tower' or an iMac with a decent GPU instead of the apologetic 2600 Pro.
Yes.
They offered the Cube. They sold in excess of 100,000 units upon its debut. 60,000 after that...and a measly 20k I think...to mop up the last of it
Shame. Because if they'd dropped the price sooner aka the iPhone then they would have proven that their mid-tower/prosumer market does exist. It does. The pc market does...and sells plenty. Otherwise...why aren't they all out of business?
They also offered the regular PowerMac G4. Most buyers went with that instead. In was faster, cheaper, and overall a better machine. It didn't fail because of price, it failed because the prosumer SFF market is pretty tiny. Most will take the large and practical towers.
The iMac is just a slightly better and more lust worthy Mac Book Pro. Bigger screen and...uhm...it's a desktop. Oh. You can config' a faster cpu...and a bigger hd.
It's a desktop only in the sense that it sets on a desk. The rest of it, save the hard drive, are laptop parts. The only thing stopping the Macbook Pro from having the x7900 is its ultra slim form factor.
What? Ignore a good 50%-60% of desktop sales? Sure, why not.
Yeah, it's not like Apple has ever catered to those users. All there there has ever been is all in ones. Wait, I'm getting flash backs to five years back when the PowerMac was Apple's main desktop.
Better still, why not start expandable computers at around £1700!)!))? HOW MUCH?
Yeah it's not like we other things to do with that money like pay the rent, pay the internet service bill, start saving so I can retire in 2045 or so, etc.
Well, that's also the reason Apple doesn't make a midpro, ironically enough.
He said regular tower not workstation. Let's not make any pretense about what the Mac Pro is. It's a high end workstation not a consumer desktop and the iMac is not a desktop because it uses laptop components.
Mac Mini = consumer laptop without portability
iMac = laptop without portability
Macbook = consumer laptop
Macbook Pro = laptop
Mac Pro = workstation
Where is the desktop?
Apple would not utterly ignore a major, profitable consumer demand for years on end. There is no incentive to do that.
How many people would have said this about the smartphone market two years ago? Oh but now the iphone is the best thing since sliced bread.
Apple does not sell mostly iMacs. Apple is also one manufacturer. Wintel is a huge conglomerate of sorts. And they tell towers.
But why are they *all* selling towers? If you take a step back and look at the overall picture, why is it that Apple is the only one pushing AIOs so hard? So much so they only have one such product to target the largest portion of the desktop market.
Uh, we're only talking about computer products, sir.
Yeah but people are saying that Apple's market share is going up so their products must be ok. What I'm saying is that if someone gets an iphone or ipod, that could easily encourage them into getting a Mac.
I agree that their market share gain is not due to desktop sales, though that point is not actually all that significant because you claimed that Apple was "pushing away customers" or whatever the quote was. Clearly they're not....the customers are just buying laptops, which they feel meet their needs.
Ok that's a fair point but that still means their desktop lineup is unsatisfactory. For my home computer, if I'm going to upgrade from my Mini, this is what I'm going to be thinking:
I use workstations at work and they are too big for me at home and I don't need to put out the expense.
The new Mini is still not powerful enough.
The iMac has a built-in glossy screen, isn't portable and the GPU isn't great.
The Macbook has a glossy screen, GPU is not good enough but is portable (don't need portability though).
The Macbook Pro has a matte screen, good GPU and is portable (don't need portability though). However, I could almost get a Mac Pro for the same price as the low end model.
In summary, none of them are satisfactory but a mid-range desktop is.
And given...cough...what we know about Apple's previous product offerings (when they tried to be more "PC like", we can safely say there's a good chance the product will fail while cannibalizing Mac Pro sales.
Hmm, Apple used to sell an iMac with flowers on it, I don't think we should base current opinion on all the things they've done wrongly in the past. Apple are in a completely different ballpark now.
That sounds all warm and fuzzy, but I've seen people in the Apple Store, haven't you? It wouldn't be that simple. "You mean I need a monitor for the first two, not the iMac, but for the Mac Pro?" "What's a PCI slot?.....Why doesn't the iMac have them? Do I need one? Or two? Why should I spend twice as much on the xMac as on the mini?....Why is the xMac almost as much as the iMac, but it doesn't include a monitor?...."
It's funny how you seem to be implying that mainly stupid people go for Macs. After all, most people already have towers so if this is as big a problem as you make out then they must all be smart enough not to have had any trouble and the people who have had trouble just buy a Mac.
Oh come on. You can't be for real. I'll actually bet you $100 right now. Go out and talk to 20 people at the Apple Store and tell me that their opinions are in line with ours (in general) as Mac enthusiasts. I think you know you're full of shit on this one.
I talked to 5 of them:
Betty, grandmother said: 'I'd buy an xMac because I can't lift an imac'
Dave, IT consultant said: 'Of course I'd buy an xMac, that's what I came in for and when they said they only sold iMacs for the mid-range, I fell over laughing'
Diane, receptionist said: 'I like changing my displays to match my toenails so it makes sense to get an xMac'
SDW2001, General PITA (sorry Major PITA, he got promoted recently) said: 'Sure I'd buy one, just don't tell anyone on AI 'cos I have a really long pointless argument going trying to convince people their needs are not valid needs relative to my own'
Steve Jobs, face on faceless corporation said: 'the xMac is the true Mac. The Mac cube, the Next Cube, the cube store. Apple are very much about the cube design and we hope to have one in store soon.'
read on for the proper answer.
You are. Over and over again.
I've met a lot of people over the past couple of years and they've all said the same things about Apple's hardware. My family and friends on top of that. It's quite naive to think that our opinions are based on this forum otherwise nobody's opinion has any value because it would mean your own opinion is based on this forum and since you only see a handful (80+ though so a big handful) of people who want this product then it's not enough for you. However since you are basing your opinion on this thread then it's meaningless.
So the way to get people to switch to what Apple is all about is to.....change what Apple is all about?
But what exactly are Apple about and how does a mid-range tower change this any more than the low-end tower (the Mini) or the high-end tower (the Mac Pro)?
Now it's become "Apple needs to do this to get people to switch."
They don't *need* to do this (see I told you needs and wants could get mixed up) but it would help their crusade. If I can for a second compare the cult of Apple to a religion. If a religious person comes to your door and their religion doesn't have what you need, do you think that them jamming their foot in the door or spreading the word to other people to do the same is going to get you to convert?
OR
Would it be better if they were actually selling something that you wanted anyway? My point is that Apple shouldn't need a switch campaign at all. Apple's lineup is missing what people are wanting to buy and if Apple had what they want in a nice package at a reasonable price, think how much less persuasion they'd need.
The presence or absence of a tower hasn't been proven to matter by anyone in this thread.
Matter in what sense? Matter to Apple's marketshare, customer satisfaction? How can you prove those things any more than you could prove that people do or don't need to be loved? We *need* the love but there's no way we can prove it to you short of giving you a petition with 100 million signatures on it. And even then SDW2001 would say that it's not enough to justify a product and that the people who signed it didn't really need one, they are just deluded.
You can't prove what effect the absence of something has without comparing it to when it was there and doing so is comparing to a different generation of product and you can't say what the presence of it is with regard to Apple because they don't currently have it. What you can say is that the PC market has both and people are buying towers.
Why mostly towers? Why hasn't the Sony AIOs caught on better, or why haven't more manufacturers jumped in on the AIO market? Because towers work.
Has that point been answered yet? Why is it when the overwhelming majority of the computer population are given a choice between AIO and tower and the AIO is very close to spec/price/design to Apple's, they go for towers?
I think the Pros out there will still be buying them, and the people who (want a mid-tower)aren't, have had to settle for an iMac. They're the ones who would buy an xMac.
I agree, I think most people who would get the xMac are people looking at the Mac Pro and looking for something less than a workstation. The iMac is not satisfactory because it's a different product. You can't sit an iMac beside a Mac Pro and say they are meant for the same audience.
Why does Dell let people customize so much?
Yeah and yet still make far more sales. People who say that having too many options will confuse Apple Store customers are clearly wrong on this. If idiots can buy Dells in all their form factors and options then they can buy Macs with just one more product.
They also offered the regular PowerMac G4. Most buyers went with that instead. In was faster, cheaper, and overall a better machine. It didn't fail because of price, it failed because the prosumer SFF market is pretty tiny. Most will take the large and practical towers.
I think it did fail on price, you really said that yourself. They were selling a better, faster, cheaper machine than the original Cube so it can't have failed because the market wasn't there. Who would spend more for a worse deal?
...
FWIW, Apple's current market share simply does allow it to offer machines in all market segments. For better or for worse, Apple has cast it's lot in AOIs in the mid level market.
Adding one more model shouldn't stress Apple too much.
FWIW, Apple has a larger market share than other manufactures that do offer a more extensive produt line, minus the AIO and Mac mini form factors.
FWIW, Apple has a larger market share than other manufactures that do offer a more extensive produt line, minus the AIO and Mac mini form factors.
Yeah but they don't make a profit or very little, like Gateway.
Yeah but they don't make a profit or very little, like Gateway.
Where's your evidence that any manufacturer doesn't make a profit on computers sold in the >$799 range. This is precisely the range of computers that other OEMs make profit on in their unending attempt to make up for the razor thin profits on the low end computers. Even Micheal Dell admitted this in a quarterly statement.
not interested in a smaller/mid-size desktop mac - happy with the current line up.
That's all well and good for you. No one here is advocating Apple drop or discontinue any of their current line up. Many here and on other Mac centric boards do wish Apple would sell an additional desktop model that more closely serves the needs of the mid to upper end of the consumer markets.
I don't quite understand it. It doesn't mean taking away from the current line-up, just adding to it. So they wouldn't be losing anything.
You aren't in the group that is missing out. There are "prosumers" / "gamers" that need something more than an iMac, and the Mac Pro's specs / cost are too high. Why is it the end of the world is apple releases a mid-tower? It's not.