Here's my take on the xMac. Yes, it would be a good machine, but to Apple, appearance and reputation is key. And with the tower comes expandability, which is great for users at first. But with expandability, the number of different configurations increases drastically, and this presents bugs. Mac OS X was written for a very select group of hardware configurations, and the problems that come with slapping random parts together is the cause of much of Windows' problems. Windows is so open that it must support every configuration under the sun, and this causes driver problems. And as soon as Apple does this, Mac OS X will begin to move toward the conflict-ridden hell that is Windows hardware support, and Apple will become no more than another no-name PC manufacturer, one that just happens to use a different OS, but has as many problems.
Currently Apple is left out of the Quad core market segment.
Sure the Mac Pro can be quad core by crippling itys native octa core state. But you still have to pay in price and latency performance for those FB DIMMs.
Mini=Dual core
iMac=dual core
macbook=dual core
ProBook=dual core
Nobody expect Apple to make a dirt cheap tower and why should they? But something along the line of the Quadcore Dell towers at roughly half the price of the imposing MacPro and they still could make a lot of money on those macs
The common defense for the MBA is that it's "perfect for its target audience." Since that iron-clad logic can be used for anything, then the xMac is no different. Apple's "one size fits all" mantra has been too limiting. So I support things like the MBA and the xMac to get them out of their safe zone.
Quote:
From reading posts about a mid-range tower, not just this one, I get the impression that the majority of users' reason for an xMac is so they can update the graphics card to the latest and greatest.
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
Exactly. The single greatest advantage of an xMac over the Mac mini and iMac is flexibility. With this flexibility it targets a much larger market.
For those who argue that almost no one ever upgrades the video card or adds a PCI card, so what. Ask those same people if the mere presence of PCI slots bothered them, guess what their answer would be.
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time. I used to keep hoping for one but gave up, especially after Job's recent statement concerning AIOs. It may be my imagination, but I even felt there was an inflection in Job's tone of voice that appeared to show a complete utter contempt for anything but AIO for consumers. To top if off, Apple's desktop sales are reportedly outperforming the rest of the industry only reinforcing Apple's current strategy. bummers for me
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time.
It's sad, but I tend to agree.
Meanwhile people will continue to buy used Mac towers and Mac minis because there is no other logical choice. It has always amazed me how high the prices are for used Macs. Inability to buy a new mid-range headless Mac helps to explain it.
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time.
Unfortunate but true. I just have the feeling that this attitude of "to use OSX, you have to accept the entire Apple mindset" will eventually bite Apple back and hard, but their success to date with the existing line of Macs certainly doesn't do anything to encourage a mindset change.
I guess my frustration is that I haven't bought into the Apple ecosystem and frankly could care less about Apple hardware aesthetics. What I like the most and what got me to buy a Mac was OSX and in order to use OSX legitimately, you have to accept these huge compromises.
But, in the end, it's Apple that loses because they're the ones missing out on this cash cow and they're the ones that won't be getting my money.
Unfortunate but true. I just have the feeling that this attitude of "to use OSX, you have to accept the entire Apple mindset" will eventually bite Apple back and hard, but their success to date with the existing line of Macs certainly doesn't do anything to encourage a mindset change.
I guess my frustration is that I haven't bought into the Apple ecosystem and frankly could care less about Apple hardware aesthetics. What I like the most and what got me to buy a Mac was OSX and in order to use OSX legitimately, you have to accept these huge compromises.
But, in the end, it's Apple that loses because they're the ones missing out on this cash cow and they're the ones that won't be getting my money.
Not targeting the business market with any of its products? Is that why they're bringing Exchange to iPhone, IBM is bringing Lotus Notes to iPhone, that Apple continues to sell xServes and OSX Server. Let's not mistake being weak in enterprise with not targeting the business market at all.
Definitely a very good point. My mistake! I meant to say that Apple is not specifically targeting the business market with any of its Mac products. The Xserve is of course the exception to this rule, being a Mac as well, technically. I meant that on the hardware side as well, as the thread is about hardware, and not enterprise software features. I should say that with all the software-side targeting of the enterprise market, it goes as well that Apple may look into an actual Mac targeted towards that market, although I think the Mini is already that Mac. The Mini has more than enough power for business apps, and can be hooked up to existing office equipment for a relatively cheap capital expenditure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
Also, few xMac supporters want that an xMac should outperform an iMac, just one that performs at the level of an iMac. I would love an iMac if it weren't for the built in screen (or at least a screen that allowed external computers to utilize the screen). I'd also appreciate the ability to install additional internal hard drives (as someone who currently has 4 external FireWire drives with a messy daisy-chain hell across his desk)
I will not pretend to be any different from you here, as I currently have two external drives attached to my iMac via Firewire (being that it only came with a 40GB (!) internal drive). However, I don't really mind the screen being attached as I do see myself using this computer (perhaps not as a primary machine) well into the future. I did buy it with the knowledge that HD space is easy to come by through Firewire now, and the fact that space is much cheaper now in 2008 than it was in 2002 only makes this better. Nonetheless, I don't believe that we represent the majority of computer buyers, as most people may never fill the 500GB drives that are now common in new iMacs, with current data-types at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
Because the only people who buy the minitower configuration are regular schmucks? What about tech savvy users and power users for whom the Mac Pro is still overkill? A very sizable market Apple is ignoring.
It may be a sizable market, but I'm sure you aren't saying that it is in any way comparable to the total market? I made my earlier comment because it is commonly argued that the primary audience for this xMac is prosumer Mac users like you and me, and average PC buyers. Being a Mac prosumer myself, I don't find it very difficult to admit that the segment that walks into Best Buy looking for an Acer (regular schmuck segment) isn't at least 1000 times greater (at least) than the prosumer segment that we represent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
I can afford a Mac Pro, but will not purchase one because it's more money than I want to spend on a computer for what I need. I will also not purchase an iMac because it lacks internal expansion, which I would utilize, and has an AIO monitor that cannot be shared with other devices. If this "xMac" were available, I would definitely buy it. Reason being it would serve my purposes better and for less money. Therefore, more money for Apple. Why wouldn't they do that?
You're right. This is at least as credible as what I said earlier, being that both are, admittedly, anecdotal. However, I'm still not sure that the proportion of people who would never buy an iMac, but would buy an xMac is as large as you claim here. As I said before, most people don't need the upgradability that an xMac would provide. Hell, I consider myself a prosumer and I haven't even needed to upgrade my iMac beyond RAM and HD space. I doubt many people I know would either. However, as you say this is highly anecdotal, but I believe, not without merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
I think I can say with no reservations that an absolute statement like "every person who has seen ... the new iMacs thinks that they are futuristic and cool" is blatantly false. The AIO model may be the future as far as computers becoming less of a tool and more a part of our lives, but it doesn't resolve the fact that even in the future, some consumers such as myself don't want an AIO because the AIO concept does not fit everyones needs. It has nothing to do with power and everything to do with using our computers the way we want. And for people who really don't understand the reasons those of us who want an xMac don't want an iMac/mini/Pro and to preach to us why our needs are wrong is incredibly arrogant.
Fair enough! I believe that Apple believes that the AIO model is the future though, hence why we have not yet seen an xMac. Apple tends to predict what people will want before they want it, and this has been successful for them thus far. It will be interesting to see what happens in the market in the next few years. I have a feeling that aesthetically pleasing AIOs may become more and more prevalent than now. But heck, I (and Apple) have been wrong before.
Its also worth mentioning that any speculation regarding the profit margin of the xMac may or may not be accurate. We don't know exactly what Apple is paying for components, and thus it is quite difficult to prove that they could actually make more per xMac than per iMac. I submit that if this were truly the case, that Apple probably would have introduced the xMac by now.
For example, maybe Apple is getting a really nice deal on the LCD screens in the iMac.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the iMac would have higher profit margins than an xMac. Nobody really knows for sure what the actual profit would be per machine. What we do know is that Apple hasn't announced the xMac yet, which, in my mind speaks to this issue of profit.
However, I'm still not sure that the proportion of people who would never buy an iMac, but would buy an xMac is as large as you claim here. As I said before, most people don't need the upgradability that an xMac would provide. Hell, I consider myself a prosumer and I haven't even needed to upgrade my iMac beyond RAM and HD space. I doubt many people I know would either. However, as you say this is highly anecdotal, but I believe, not without merit.
Well, let me bring in this point to the iMac vs. xMac argument.
I work for a living (I'm not a lifelong student? Shocking, I know) and on a very regular basis, I bring my work home via a company issued laptop (an IBM ThinkPad). Right now, my ThinkPad dock is connected to a Dell UltraSharp via DVI along with my MacBook Pro and my old Windows minitower (the machine I want to replace with a xMac). Desk space in my Home Office is limited, which is why the iMac is simply not an option. I appreciate being able to share a single monitor between multiple devices and that the iMac (and ACDs for that matter) don't allow more than one device to use the monitors is what kills their usability for me.
I don't think that my needing to bring work home is a particularly specialized or rare occurrence, especially in this day and age of telecommuting and corporate budgeting. Admittedly anecdotal, but a lot of my family and friends do the same thing - some with a setup like mine (whether through a monitor or a smaller HDTV), others working straight off their work laptops and not connected to a larger, home display for whatever reason (possibly they don't have monitors that support multiple displays or their work doesn't provide a convenient docking solution).
I think this would be another market that doesn't necessarily require the expandability of a xMac but what they do just requires iMac power without the monitor (or a more flexible monitor)
I appreciate being able to share a single monitor between multiple devices and that the iMac (and ACDs for that matter) don't allow more than one device to use the monitors is what kills their usability for me.
This is absolutely true and I will not dispute this for a second. I, also, believe that Apple should allow the iMac's monitor to be used by other devices. It may even be possible in the firmware to switch video inputs between an external source and the internals of the iMac. I'm not an engineer though. However, it would be a really nice feature, and would eliminate your problem here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
I don't think that my needing to bring work home is a particularly specialized or rare occurrence, especially in this day and age of telecommuting and corporate budgeting.
Definitely not a rare occurrence. I know of many people in the same situation. As well, many people would like to share a monitor between desktop machines and laptops. I do think that the iMac should allow for usage as an external monitor, as it could be a background feature that would not be intrusive at all and could simply be turned on/off if and when the user needed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexTraverse
I think this would be another market that doesn't necessarily require the expandability of a xMac but what they do just requires iMac power without the monitor (or a more flexible monitor)
I suppose the refutation here is simply... why not purchase a Mac Mini if the expandability is a non-issue? The 2.0Ghz Core 2 in the mini is equivalent to the low-end iMac, and presumably comparable at least to what would be put into an xMac (unless they go Quad-core in the xMac, which I, as well as you, I'm guessing, would doubt). Another simple fix would be just to implement external video support into the iMac, of course.
I suppose the refutation here is simply... why not purchase a Mac Mini if the expandability is a non-issue? The 2.0Ghz Core 2 in the mini is equivalent to the low-end iMac
Well the counter is that the Mac mini and the iMac are not equivalent. The top of the line standard spec Mac mini vs. the lowest end iMac has a significantly smaller HDD (120GB vs 250GB, max upgrade to 160GB), less memory (1GB vs 2GB, max upgrade 2GB vs 4GB for iMac), and only integrated graphics (no graphics card available. iMacs all come with a graphics card). These are not small issues, especially given how difficult it is to upgrade things in the mini and, if you're not careful, can invalidate the warranty on the mini attempting to upgrade even user-upgradable items.
I'm sure there are people for whom the top of the line Mac mini will be enough. But spec for spec, a top spec Mac mini still doesn't hold up against the bargain basement iMac. There's more to performance than the processor.
Part of Mac OS X stability and less bugs came from the fact that Apple restrict the amount of hardware on it, if users were to be able to upgrade their Mac GPU and etc, then dont complain if OS X become less stable.
Its obvious Apple dont want people to play with their product internals.
Part of Mac OS X stability and less bugs came from the fact that Apple restrict the amount of hardware on it, if users were to be able to upgrade their Mac GPU and etc, then dont complain if OS X become less stable.
Its obvious Apple dont want people to play with their product internals.
That argument is a dinosaur from the days where there were about ten different motherboard manufacturers and your PC could have any one of a number of chipsets. Things now are quite different. Today, as a rule of thumb Intel Machine are going to use first party intel chipets, AMD computers are going to use AMD chipsets, are the enthusiast market. VIA and SIS are rarely used anymore.
The chipsets themselves are different too. They use interconnected families (like Apple's U-series chipsets) to cut down on development costs and drivers. The main reason the Hackintoshes work so well is that the drivers for Apple's own hardware work with other Intel 900-series hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
Mighty Mouse is a joke. Having to pay for it would be tragedy.
I happened to like mine...for the 90 days it actually worked.
Fair enough! I believe that Apple believes that the AIO model is the future though, hence why we have not yet seen an xMac. Apple tends to predict what people will want before they want it, and this has been successful for them thus far. It will be interesting to see what happens in the market in the next few years. I have a feeling that aesthetically pleasing AIOs may become more and more prevalent than now. But heck, I (and Apple) have been wrong before.
--mAc
They sure jumped the gun on this one then. To replace the average off the shelf business or family the iMac is revolutionary. In the case of my mother and little sister giving them my (brand new) iMac allowed them more capability then their old HP while the all in one form factor allowed them to move the machine into the living room and reclaim the guest room. Here is the catch though, the iMac is only useful as long as your perfectly content with what's shipped in the box. Its bottlenecks catch up very. Here are the main reasons that they now have it instead of myself.
1. Lack of RAM expansion and flexibility. When it comes down to it, nothing can bring your system to a halt faster than memory starvation. The iMac is limited to 4GB is 2 DIMMs, both of which are filled. Upgrading to 4GB would require replacement of both DIMMs and anything higher would be impossible. Those who think that kind of ceiling is good enough either have very basic tasks or have no comprehension of how requirements can change.
2. Lack of hard drive expansion. I planned to have three different hard drives. One for my main Mac environment, one to back up my Mac stuff, and one for a windows environment. Not going to happen with the iMac without two external devices. Oh yeah, to add insult to injury the single hard drive is not user replaceable should it fail or you find you need something larger.
3. Slot loading notebook optical drive. It has two main issues. First of all, it is slow compared to a desktop drive. I'm not talking a couple seconds here, I'm talking several minutes when burning a CD. This is perfectly fine if your burning a CD for your car or some other family task, but when it comes to either a schedule or using it for small business purposes that time is not insignificant. The slot loading drive also has one other drawback, its limited to only 5.25" disks. When my uncle asked me to put together a movie from 3.5" camcorder DVDs. I to defer to one of my PC owning family members. You're going to need an external drive to correct these problems. external drives are also slower, more expensive, and less reliable than internal drives.
4. Lack (and position) of ports. As great as it is, use of firewire (especially 800) is rare. Most devices are going to be USB. While your average tower will have 6-10 of these ports, the iMac has three. When you factor in the keyboard and printer that leaves you with one port for your iPod/iPhone, flash drive, TV tuner, card reader, external disk drive(s) (try finding a firewire one these days), or whatever other USB device you can think of. Unless you have very basic needs, you're going to need a hub. Also, the ports be be a tough reach at times. I have found myself either having to stand up to turn the system to contact devices. With a more conventional design with front ports, this isn't necessary. While this is fine with permanent devices that stay connected, having to routinely do this with "transient" devices such as a flash drive or iPod can get annoying.
5. Clutter. The iMac is supposed to be the answer to clutter right? Yes and no. If you use it as shipped out of the box as most consumers would, you will see an amazing reduction in clutter. However, that adds up fast when you add external devices to the mix. Add an HUB, TV tuner, DVD burner, and hard drive and what was clean now litters your desktop. In a tower setting those would be in your case under the floor.
6. Graphics performance. My free time is pretty diverse and during some of it I like to do a little bit of gaming. I don't care if I get 1000fps like the ones two have $10,000 SLI setups do, but when it comes to a brand new machine I expect it to run the newest games at medium settings with out any hiccups. Not only can it not do that, it has its troubles with titles that are a couple years old.
At the beginning of this decade, Apple's focus was aimed at the semi-professional, almost to the exclusion of the the family consumer. Now, its aimed at the family consumer, almost to the exclusion of the semi-professional. Why did I not get a Mac Pro then? Cost. A Mac Pro with display has swelled in price to near $3000 and honestly I had no idea the iMac would be as limited as it is. When it comes down to it, Apple has basically divided everyone into two camps lumped around the extremes. Those who really only do basic internet/email/iLife stuff and those who need something capable of commercial level work. There is really no middle ground in their current line of thought.
The common defense for the MBA is that it's "perfect for its target audience." Since that iron-clad logic can be used for anything, then the xMac is no different. Apple's "one size fits all" mantra has been too limiting. So I support things like the MBA and the xMac to get them out of their safe zone.
Except that Apple wants to service those particular target audiences.
Quote:
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
And Apple doesn't want to service the audience that wants to do this INSIDE the box except for its Pro users. Outside the box they have a nice little planned ecosystem of 3rd party vendors filling some desired niches going.
Most of the desires of folks Apple prefers get met in another way. Like more internal drives. NAS attached somewhere invisible.
Exactly. The single greatest advantage of an xMac over the Mac mini and iMac is flexibility. With this flexibility it targets a much larger market.
For those who argue that almost no one ever upgrades the video card or adds a PCI card, so what. Ask those same people if the mere presence of PCI slots bothered them, guess what their answer would be.
just wait for usb 3 or firewire 3200 to come out and see how many people go for the $20 pci / pci-e card.
4. Lack (and position) of ports. As great as it is, use of firewire (especially 800) is rare. Most devices are going to be USB.
That I don't get. Most DSLRs are USB, it seems. If you're shooting with a 10-12 MP DSLR (that's a starter DSLR these days) in RAW or high-quality JPG you're generating gigabytes of photos with little effort. Transferring that to your computer over USB must be excruciatingly slow.
That I don't get. Most DSLRs are USB, it seems. If you're shooting with a 10-12 MP DSLR (that's a starter DSLR these days) in RAW or high-quality JPG you're generating gigabytes of photos with little effort. Transferring that to your computer over USB must be excruciatingly slow.
About 3 GB a minute. Whether that's excruciating depends on your needs and disposition, but faster interfaces are coming.
Comments
Sure the Mac Pro can be quad core by crippling itys native octa core state. But you still have to pay in price and latency performance for those FB DIMMs.
Mini=Dual core
iMac=dual core
macbook=dual core
ProBook=dual core
Nobody expect Apple to make a dirt cheap tower and why should they? But something along the line of the Quadcore Dell towers at roughly half the price of the imposing MacPro and they still could make a lot of money on those macs
From reading posts about a mid-range tower, not just this one, I get the impression that the majority of users' reason for an xMac is so they can update the graphics card to the latest and greatest.
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
...
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
Exactly. The single greatest advantage of an xMac over the Mac mini and iMac is flexibility. With this flexibility it targets a much larger market.
For those who argue that almost no one ever upgrades the video card or adds a PCI card, so what. Ask those same people if the mere presence of PCI slots bothered them, guess what their answer would be.
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time. I used to keep hoping for one but gave up, especially after Job's recent statement concerning AIOs. It may be my imagination, but I even felt there was an inflection in Job's tone of voice that appeared to show a complete utter contempt for anything but AIO for consumers. To top if off, Apple's desktop sales are reportedly outperforming the rest of the industry only reinforcing Apple's current strategy. bummers for me
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time.
It's sad, but I tend to agree.
Meanwhile people will continue to buy used Mac towers and Mac minis because there is no other logical choice. It has always amazed me how high the prices are for used Macs. Inability to buy a new mid-range headless Mac helps to explain it.
However, any one expecting, or hoping, Apple will introduce the mythical xMac IMHO will be waiting a long long time.
Unfortunate but true. I just have the feeling that this attitude of "to use OSX, you have to accept the entire Apple mindset" will eventually bite Apple back and hard, but their success to date with the existing line of Macs certainly doesn't do anything to encourage a mindset change.
I guess my frustration is that I haven't bought into the Apple ecosystem and frankly could care less about Apple hardware aesthetics. What I like the most and what got me to buy a Mac was OSX and in order to use OSX legitimately, you have to accept these huge compromises.
But, in the end, it's Apple that loses because they're the ones missing out on this cash cow and they're the ones that won't be getting my money.
Unfortunate but true. I just have the feeling that this attitude of "to use OSX, you have to accept the entire Apple mindset" will eventually bite Apple back and hard, but their success to date with the existing line of Macs certainly doesn't do anything to encourage a mindset change.
I guess my frustration is that I haven't bought into the Apple ecosystem and frankly could care less about Apple hardware aesthetics. What I like the most and what got me to buy a Mac was OSX and in order to use OSX legitimately, you have to accept these huge compromises.
But, in the end, it's Apple that loses because they're the ones missing out on this cash cow and they're the ones that won't be getting my money.
True believers would go the Hackintosh route.
just kidding
Not targeting the business market with any of its products? Is that why they're bringing Exchange to iPhone, IBM is bringing Lotus Notes to iPhone, that Apple continues to sell xServes and OSX Server. Let's not mistake being weak in enterprise with not targeting the business market at all.
Definitely a very good point. My mistake! I meant to say that Apple is not specifically targeting the business market with any of its Mac products. The Xserve is of course the exception to this rule, being a Mac as well, technically. I meant that on the hardware side as well, as the thread is about hardware, and not enterprise software features. I should say that with all the software-side targeting of the enterprise market, it goes as well that Apple may look into an actual Mac targeted towards that market, although I think the Mini is already that Mac. The Mini has more than enough power for business apps, and can be hooked up to existing office equipment for a relatively cheap capital expenditure.
Also, few xMac supporters want that an xMac should outperform an iMac, just one that performs at the level of an iMac. I would love an iMac if it weren't for the built in screen (or at least a screen that allowed external computers to utilize the screen). I'd also appreciate the ability to install additional internal hard drives (as someone who currently has 4 external FireWire drives with a messy daisy-chain hell across his desk)
I will not pretend to be any different from you here, as I currently have two external drives attached to my iMac via Firewire (being that it only came with a 40GB (!) internal drive). However, I don't really mind the screen being attached as I do see myself using this computer (perhaps not as a primary machine) well into the future. I did buy it with the knowledge that HD space is easy to come by through Firewire now, and the fact that space is much cheaper now in 2008 than it was in 2002 only makes this better. Nonetheless, I don't believe that we represent the majority of computer buyers, as most people may never fill the 500GB drives that are now common in new iMacs, with current data-types at least.
Because the only people who buy the minitower configuration are regular schmucks? What about tech savvy users and power users for whom the Mac Pro is still overkill? A very sizable market Apple is ignoring.
It may be a sizable market, but I'm sure you aren't saying that it is in any way comparable to the total market? I made my earlier comment because it is commonly argued that the primary audience for this xMac is prosumer Mac users like you and me, and average PC buyers. Being a Mac prosumer myself, I don't find it very difficult to admit that the segment that walks into Best Buy looking for an Acer (regular schmuck segment) isn't at least 1000 times greater (at least) than the prosumer segment that we represent.
I can afford a Mac Pro, but will not purchase one because it's more money than I want to spend on a computer for what I need. I will also not purchase an iMac because it lacks internal expansion, which I would utilize, and has an AIO monitor that cannot be shared with other devices. If this "xMac" were available, I would definitely buy it. Reason being it would serve my purposes better and for less money. Therefore, more money for Apple. Why wouldn't they do that?
You're right. This is at least as credible as what I said earlier, being that both are, admittedly, anecdotal. However, I'm still not sure that the proportion of people who would never buy an iMac, but would buy an xMac is as large as you claim here. As I said before, most people don't need the upgradability that an xMac would provide. Hell, I consider myself a prosumer and I haven't even needed to upgrade my iMac beyond RAM and HD space. I doubt many people I know would either. However, as you say this is highly anecdotal, but I believe, not without merit.
I think I can say with no reservations that an absolute statement like "every person who has seen ... the new iMacs thinks that they are futuristic and cool" is blatantly false. The AIO model may be the future as far as computers becoming less of a tool and more a part of our lives, but it doesn't resolve the fact that even in the future, some consumers such as myself don't want an AIO because the AIO concept does not fit everyones needs. It has nothing to do with power and everything to do with using our computers the way we want. And for people who really don't understand the reasons those of us who want an xMac don't want an iMac/mini/Pro and to preach to us why our needs are wrong is incredibly arrogant.
Fair enough! I believe that Apple believes that the AIO model is the future though, hence why we have not yet seen an xMac. Apple tends to predict what people will want before they want it, and this has been successful for them thus far. It will be interesting to see what happens in the market in the next few years. I have a feeling that aesthetically pleasing AIOs may become more and more prevalent than now. But heck, I (and Apple) have been wrong before.
--mAc
For example, maybe Apple is getting a really nice deal on the LCD screens in the iMac.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the iMac would have higher profit margins than an xMac. Nobody really knows for sure what the actual profit would be per machine. What we do know is that Apple hasn't announced the xMac yet, which, in my mind speaks to this issue of profit.
--mAc
However, I'm still not sure that the proportion of people who would never buy an iMac, but would buy an xMac is as large as you claim here. As I said before, most people don't need the upgradability that an xMac would provide. Hell, I consider myself a prosumer and I haven't even needed to upgrade my iMac beyond RAM and HD space. I doubt many people I know would either. However, as you say this is highly anecdotal, but I believe, not without merit.
Well, let me bring in this point to the iMac vs. xMac argument.
I work for a living (I'm not a lifelong student? Shocking, I know) and on a very regular basis, I bring my work home via a company issued laptop (an IBM ThinkPad). Right now, my ThinkPad dock is connected to a Dell UltraSharp via DVI along with my MacBook Pro and my old Windows minitower (the machine I want to replace with a xMac). Desk space in my Home Office is limited, which is why the iMac is simply not an option. I appreciate being able to share a single monitor between multiple devices and that the iMac (and ACDs for that matter) don't allow more than one device to use the monitors is what kills their usability for me.
I don't think that my needing to bring work home is a particularly specialized or rare occurrence, especially in this day and age of telecommuting and corporate budgeting. Admittedly anecdotal, but a lot of my family and friends do the same thing - some with a setup like mine (whether through a monitor or a smaller HDTV), others working straight off their work laptops and not connected to a larger, home display for whatever reason (possibly they don't have monitors that support multiple displays or their work doesn't provide a convenient docking solution).
I think this would be another market that doesn't necessarily require the expandability of a xMac but what they do just requires iMac power without the monitor (or a more flexible monitor)
I appreciate being able to share a single monitor between multiple devices and that the iMac (and ACDs for that matter) don't allow more than one device to use the monitors is what kills their usability for me.
This is absolutely true and I will not dispute this for a second. I, also, believe that Apple should allow the iMac's monitor to be used by other devices. It may even be possible in the firmware to switch video inputs between an external source and the internals of the iMac. I'm not an engineer though. However, it would be a really nice feature, and would eliminate your problem here.
I don't think that my needing to bring work home is a particularly specialized or rare occurrence, especially in this day and age of telecommuting and corporate budgeting.
Definitely not a rare occurrence. I know of many people in the same situation. As well, many people would like to share a monitor between desktop machines and laptops. I do think that the iMac should allow for usage as an external monitor, as it could be a background feature that would not be intrusive at all and could simply be turned on/off if and when the user needed it.
I think this would be another market that doesn't necessarily require the expandability of a xMac but what they do just requires iMac power without the monitor (or a more flexible monitor)
I suppose the refutation here is simply... why not purchase a Mac Mini if the expandability is a non-issue? The 2.0Ghz Core 2 in the mini is equivalent to the low-end iMac, and presumably comparable at least to what would be put into an xMac (unless they go Quad-core in the xMac, which I, as well as you, I'm guessing, would doubt). Another simple fix would be just to implement external video support into the iMac, of course.
--mAc
I suppose the refutation here is simply... why not purchase a Mac Mini if the expandability is a non-issue? The 2.0Ghz Core 2 in the mini is equivalent to the low-end iMac
Well the counter is that the Mac mini and the iMac are not equivalent. The top of the line standard spec Mac mini vs. the lowest end iMac has a significantly smaller HDD (120GB vs 250GB, max upgrade to 160GB), less memory (1GB vs 2GB, max upgrade 2GB vs 4GB for iMac), and only integrated graphics (no graphics card available. iMacs all come with a graphics card). These are not small issues, especially given how difficult it is to upgrade things in the mini and, if you're not careful, can invalidate the warranty on the mini attempting to upgrade even user-upgradable items.
I'm sure there are people for whom the top of the line Mac mini will be enough. But spec for spec, a top spec Mac mini still doesn't hold up against the bargain basement iMac. There's more to performance than the processor.
Its obvious Apple dont want people to play with their product internals.
Part of Mac OS X stability and less bugs came from the fact that Apple restrict the amount of hardware on it, if users were to be able to upgrade their Mac GPU and etc, then dont complain if OS X become less stable.
Its obvious Apple dont want people to play with their product internals.
That argument is a dinosaur from the days where there were about ten different motherboard manufacturers and your PC could have any one of a number of chipsets. Things now are quite different. Today, as a rule of thumb Intel Machine are going to use first party intel chipets, AMD computers are going to use AMD chipsets, are the enthusiast market. VIA and SIS are rarely used anymore.
The chipsets themselves are different too. They use interconnected families (like Apple's U-series chipsets) to cut down on development costs and drivers. The main reason the Hackintoshes work so well is that the drivers for Apple's own hardware work with other Intel 900-series hardware.
Mighty Mouse is a joke. Having to pay for it would be tragedy.
I happened to like mine...for the 90 days it actually worked.
Fair enough! I believe that Apple believes that the AIO model is the future though, hence why we have not yet seen an xMac. Apple tends to predict what people will want before they want it, and this has been successful for them thus far. It will be interesting to see what happens in the market in the next few years. I have a feeling that aesthetically pleasing AIOs may become more and more prevalent than now. But heck, I (and Apple) have been wrong before.
--mAc
They sure jumped the gun on this one then. To replace the average off the shelf business or family the iMac is revolutionary. In the case of my mother and little sister giving them my (brand new) iMac allowed them more capability then their old HP while the all in one form factor allowed them to move the machine into the living room and reclaim the guest room. Here is the catch though, the iMac is only useful as long as your perfectly content with what's shipped in the box. Its bottlenecks catch up very. Here are the main reasons that they now have it instead of myself.
1. Lack of RAM expansion and flexibility. When it comes down to it, nothing can bring your system to a halt faster than memory starvation. The iMac is limited to 4GB is 2 DIMMs, both of which are filled. Upgrading to 4GB would require replacement of both DIMMs and anything higher would be impossible. Those who think that kind of ceiling is good enough either have very basic tasks or have no comprehension of how requirements can change.
2. Lack of hard drive expansion. I planned to have three different hard drives. One for my main Mac environment, one to back up my Mac stuff, and one for a windows environment. Not going to happen with the iMac without two external devices. Oh yeah, to add insult to injury the single hard drive is not user replaceable should it fail or you find you need something larger.
3. Slot loading notebook optical drive. It has two main issues. First of all, it is slow compared to a desktop drive. I'm not talking a couple seconds here, I'm talking several minutes when burning a CD. This is perfectly fine if your burning a CD for your car or some other family task, but when it comes to either a schedule or using it for small business purposes that time is not insignificant. The slot loading drive also has one other drawback, its limited to only 5.25" disks. When my uncle asked me to put together a movie from 3.5" camcorder DVDs. I to defer to one of my PC owning family members. You're going to need an external drive to correct these problems. external drives are also slower, more expensive, and less reliable than internal drives.
4. Lack (and position) of ports. As great as it is, use of firewire (especially 800) is rare. Most devices are going to be USB. While your average tower will have 6-10 of these ports, the iMac has three. When you factor in the keyboard and printer that leaves you with one port for your iPod/iPhone, flash drive, TV tuner, card reader, external disk drive(s) (try finding a firewire one these days), or whatever other USB device you can think of. Unless you have very basic needs, you're going to need a hub. Also, the ports be be a tough reach at times. I have found myself either having to stand up to turn the system to contact devices. With a more conventional design with front ports, this isn't necessary. While this is fine with permanent devices that stay connected, having to routinely do this with "transient" devices such as a flash drive or iPod can get annoying.
5. Clutter. The iMac is supposed to be the answer to clutter right? Yes and no. If you use it as shipped out of the box as most consumers would, you will see an amazing reduction in clutter. However, that adds up fast when you add external devices to the mix. Add an HUB, TV tuner, DVD burner, and hard drive and what was clean now litters your desktop. In a tower setting those would be in your case under the floor.
6. Graphics performance. My free time is pretty diverse and during some of it I like to do a little bit of gaming. I don't care if I get 1000fps like the ones two have $10,000 SLI setups do, but when it comes to a brand new machine I expect it to run the newest games at medium settings with out any hiccups. Not only can it not do that, it has its troubles with titles that are a couple years old.
At the beginning of this decade, Apple's focus was aimed at the semi-professional, almost to the exclusion of the the family consumer. Now, its aimed at the family consumer, almost to the exclusion of the semi-professional. Why did I not get a Mac Pro then? Cost. A Mac Pro with display has swelled in price to near $3000 and honestly I had no idea the iMac would be as limited as it is. When it comes down to it, Apple has basically divided everyone into two camps lumped around the extremes. Those who really only do basic internet/email/iLife stuff and those who need something capable of commercial level work. There is really no middle ground in their current line of thought.
The common defense for the MBA is that it's "perfect for its target audience." Since that iron-clad logic can be used for anything, then the xMac is no different. Apple's "one size fits all" mantra has been too limiting. So I support things like the MBA and the xMac to get them out of their safe zone.
Except that Apple wants to service those particular target audiences.
Yes and no. xMac is a different thing to different people. That's why they want the xMac -- They can make it suit them, whatever their needs are, because Apple's existing lineup doesn't work for them.
The main attraction is its versatility, moreso than any of the singular benefits like power, price, upgradability and expandability. With a theoretical xMac, you can pick whatever is important to you.
And Apple doesn't want to service the audience that wants to do this INSIDE the box except for its Pro users. Outside the box they have a nice little planned ecosystem of 3rd party vendors filling some desired niches going.
Most of the desires of folks Apple prefers get met in another way. Like more internal drives. NAS attached somewhere invisible.
Exactly. The single greatest advantage of an xMac over the Mac mini and iMac is flexibility. With this flexibility it targets a much larger market.
For those who argue that almost no one ever upgrades the video card or adds a PCI card, so what. Ask those same people if the mere presence of PCI slots bothered them, guess what their answer would be.
just wait for usb 3 or firewire 3200 to come out and see how many people go for the $20 pci / pci-e card.
just wait for usb 3 or firewire 3200 to come out and see how many people go for the $20 pci / pci-e card.
Apple logic: Why buy a $20 PCIe card when you can just buy a whole new computer!
4. Lack (and position) of ports. As great as it is, use of firewire (especially 800) is rare. Most devices are going to be USB.
That I don't get. Most DSLRs are USB, it seems. If you're shooting with a 10-12 MP DSLR (that's a starter DSLR these days) in RAW or high-quality JPG you're generating gigabytes of photos with little effort. Transferring that to your computer over USB must be excruciatingly slow.
That I don't get. Most DSLRs are USB, it seems. If you're shooting with a 10-12 MP DSLR (that's a starter DSLR these days) in RAW or high-quality JPG you're generating gigabytes of photos with little effort. Transferring that to your computer over USB must be excruciatingly slow.
About 3 GB a minute. Whether that's excruciating depends on your needs and disposition, but faster interfaces are coming.