Really? And what does that "superior performance" get the average user? I mean the AVERAGE user, not a gamer, not someone who applies 200 photoshop filters, etc... I mean the people who would otherwise buy a desktop HP for 700 bucks at Best Buy. I have a 1.83 mini with 2 gigs RAM. All laptop parts.
I like to think I'm an average user.
I render quicktime movies from the family camcorder, burn CDs sometimes, surf the Internet, email, chat (not video), use a word processor, text editor, and spreadsheets, watch online videos, and do a little illustration in Painter. What is an X-mac going to get an average user?
One less bounce in the dock from Mail? I only get one bounce on all but Rosetta-emulated programs. Exactly what superior performance is going to sway me to buy something bigger, noisier, and more expensive that contains desktop parts. Please, tell me.
Despite the condescending tone of your post, I'll answer you.
The Mini is $600 for a puny 1 gig of RAM and a miniscule 120 GB hard drive. If it used desktop components, it could easily match the $800 model (2gig and 320 GB hard drive) and then some. Leopard runs poorly on only 1 gig of RAM so the average user would certainly see a benefit there. Plus, plenty of "average users" like lots of hard drive space, especially for video. Laptop hard drives are typically about 50% more expensive than a desktop drive with twice the storage. Sure, you can get an external hard drive, but USB drives are very slow (the average user would notice) and having a FW controller on a drive adds $50 to the cost and is still slower than eSATA. And since you'll probably want a backup, that's a second drive (taking up extra space, with extra cables and using an extra outlet) to add to the mix.
Plus there's nothing wrong with a bigger computer for desktops. My desktop sits on the floor out of the way of everything. I personally wouldn't want my computer on my desk, it would take up space. Plus small computers make easy theft targets, especially Macs, so security is a bonus too.
Who says the desktop has to be more expensive? Why not a $750-900 tower that exceeds the higher Mini's specs and includes a keyboard and multi-touch mouse?
Apple's "desktops are dead" mantra is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have a poor offering of desktops (a nice AIO, a neglected starter model, and an incredibly expensive workstation) and trumpet the relative lack of sales as proof that nobody wants desktops.
I don't get the dismissive attitude towards gamers either. Gamers are a big market and I'm sure a lot of them would love to own a Mac and set up a dual boot system just for their games.
For me personally, I use my PC (I have a Macbook as well) for music production (not an insigficant niche). A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill. I really wanted to buy a desktop Mac after the Intel switch but since no suitable model was offered I had to buy a PC. I'm sure plenty of others have their own unique reasons for why they want an xMac.
Not at all; there's much more to the Mac Pro than just the processor. It has two optical drive bays, four internal HDD bays, four PCI-E slots, I/O ports galore (including four Firewire 800 ports and two gigabit ethernet ports), and a mammoth power supply somewhere in the region of 1 kW). The xMac was envisioned as a much simpler machine - two HDD bays, one optical drive bay, 1 PCI-E slot (for the graphics card, no-one uses internal expansion cards any more), fewer I/O ports and a much less powerful PSU. All of that dramatically reduces the size of the case. There's a lot of savings to be made there.
put in at least 2 pci-e slots with usb 3.0, light peak, firewire 1600,3200 cards, cable card 2-6 tuner cards coming you do need pci-e slots.
Despite the condescending tone of your post, I'll answer you.
The Mini is $600 for a puny 1 gig of RAM and a miniscule 120 GB hard drive. If it used desktop components, it could easily match the $800 model (2gig and 320 GB hard drive) and then some. Leopard runs poorly on only 1 gig of RAM so the average user would certainly see a benefit there. Plus, plenty of "average users" like lots of hard drive space, especially for video. Laptop hard drives are typically about 50% more expensive than a desktop drive with twice the storage. Sure, you can get an external hard drive, but USB drives are very slow (the average user would notice) and having a FW controller on a drive adds $50 to the cost and is still slower than eSATA. And since you'll probably want a backup, that's a second drive (taking up extra space, with extra cables and using an extra outlet) to add to the mix.
if "A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill." is your only answer to my question, then my tone was apparently just right. So, rather than tell me about the awesomeness of your PC components and their relative costs, tell me what benefits in performance I'd see. Better yet, do it without gaming benchmarks.
Quote:
Plus there's nothing wrong with a bigger computer for desktops. My desktop sits on the floor out of the way of everything. I personally wouldn't want my computer on my desk, it would take up space. Plus small computers make easy theft targets, especially Macs, so security is a bonus too.
As for size? Small size is a benefit. Theft isn't really an issue in the real-world where I Iive, but having a silent computer is. Desk space is indeed at a premium, but when I am working with CDs and DVDs and other physical media, cameras, iPod, etc... it's much more convenient to have the computer in the desk so I don't have to crawl around on the floor or have to manage a USB or FW hub.
Quote:
Who says the desktop has to be more expensive? Why not a $750-900 tower that exceeds the higher Mini's specs and includes a keyboard and multi-touch mouse?
I paid 800 for my Mini, bought a keyboard and had a mouse and monitor. I fall right in the middle of your range. I don't see your point here.
Quote:
Apple's "desktops are dead" mantra is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have a poor offering of desktops (a nice AIO, a neglected starter model, and an incredibly expensive workstation) and trumpet the relative lack of sales as proof that nobody wants desktops.
I never said they were dead. I asked what benefits I'd see in real-worl performance from an xMac. So far I have no answer.
Quote:
I don't get the dismissive attitude towards gamers either. Gamers are a big market and I'm sure a lot of them would love to own a Mac and set up a dual boot system just for their games.
Gamers are as important to the computing market as any other miniscule sub-percentage of users. Since the advent of good consoles that connect to HD TVs, the drive for creating machine with AWESOME HAXXOR SPECCS FOR PWNAGE is virtually non existent. The dismissive attitude is from being here through a hundred BS xMac threads that finally boil down to one thing once all the BS is stripped out of the argument. "I want a headless iMac/xMac because when I want to dual boot and play INSERT GAME NAME HERE and get PWNAGE."
Gamers are kids.
Quote:
For me personally, I use my PC (I have a Macbook as well) for music production (not an insigficant niche). A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill. I really wanted to buy a desktop Mac after the Intel switch but since no suitable model was offered I had to buy a PC. I'm sure plenty of others have their own unique reasons for why they want an xMac.
Why is a desktop PC better suited to music production than a Mini with plenty of RAM?
Back in my day, these went on for thousands of pages and brave men went mad defending their ancestral homelands.
As I recall, these terrible battles were finally resolved with the Great Treaty of a While Back, which read: They Should, But They Won't.
That was later amended by The Somewhat More Forceful Restating, which read: They Really, Really Should, Believe Us, We Feel Your Pain And Frustration And They Are Entirely Justified, But Honest, No Shit, They Never, Ever, Ever, Ever Will, So Probably Best To Be Bugged By Something Else.
And looks like it was a post-and-run. Where's the OP? But hey, carry on.
1. People are confused about Apples role in the market and their vision. Apple is much closer to Sony than they are to Dell or HP. How many desktop PC's does Sony make?
Why do people keep wishing for Apple to offer products like Dell or HP?!
2. I think there are five distinct markets for desktop computers:
a. High budget gaming rigs with high-end graphics cards (Voodoo, Alien, etc.)
b. Low budget entry-level desktops aimed at low income families who would probably prefer a laptop or nice all-in-one but can't afford it
c. Low budget desktops aimed at corporate users (non-mobile office workers)
d. All-in-one computers that non-technical mom and dad can plunk down on the counter and turn on without any fuss
e. High-end workstations for creative professionals, researchers, etc.
So which of these markets make sense for Apple to pursue? Which do they have products for? They have the Mac Mini for (b), the iMac for (d) and the Mac Pro for (e). It doesn't make sense for them to make a gaming platform which for the most part are just workstation machines in gawdy lit up cases. And there's no money to be made in budget desktops unless you can add additional value and charge at the top of the price structure like they have with the mini making it compact and silent for a premium.
Even looking at Dell's product line on their site, it's exactly aligned with these market segments...
(a) Alien
(b/c) Inspiron
(d) Studio
(e) XPS
3. I'm starting to think that the only people here that could want an xMac are those who want a gaming machine but just aren't happy about paying the price for a Mac Pro. If this isn't it, what's your need that cannot be adequately met by Apple in some other way?
(There's around 20 different models listed on frys.com)
How many consumer PC desktops sold are expensive, powerful machines that compete with a Mac Pro?
How many consumer PC desktops sold are little mini desktops that compete with a Mac Mini?
That leaves you with the rest. Upgradable, reasonably priced, consumer PC towers.
How many of those cost less than $ 600.00? You know that Apple is not going to go there. (One again... on frys.com... over 60 different models)
So, finally you are left with PC towers (sold to consumers) priced from around $700-$1500.
It's a niche! I reckon that represents no more than 10% of all the computers sold annually in the US.
One last question. How many of the type of PC buyers who enjoy those particular kind of computers... are going to switch to a Mac?
Yes, right just because Fry's offers 20 AIO model means nothing. AIOs don't sell except for Apple and only because it is the only option for most buyers except the few people that like the Mac mini.
Apple could make as much money selling an Xmac as they do with the iMac and sell more of them. It's gotten to the point there is a thriving hackintosh community and 3 companies were formed to sell Mac clones.
This debate comtinous on and on for a reason, that being there is a market. Why you ask.
Because desktops should have desktop parts. Much of the buying public sees value in separate monitor. Much of the buying public sees value in slots as protection against progressing technology, just ask those people who can add external SATA, or USB 2 for the new iPods when firerwire was canned or each new iteration of wireless from b to n, or those that decided later to upgade graphics if wanted.
AIO by design targets the least demanding users yet Apple targets the higher demanding users. And as prices drop it will only become a harder sell for Apple.
And yes the reviews of Windows new OS are generally quite good, which will make switchers harder and harder to come by.
Apple has intentionally relagated itself to a small niche market. Maybe this was needed
during the dark days in order survive, no longer is this needed.
3. I'm starting to think that the only people here that could want an xMac are those who want a gaming machine but just aren't happy about paying the price for a Mac Pro. If this isn't it, what's your need that cannot be adequately met by Apple in some other way?
Read the thread I linked to earlier. Should keep you occupied a good while.
I reject your notion that only low-income families buy inexpensive products. The majority of people, regardless of how much they earn, will not pay more for products than they think they have to. Faced with product "A" and product "B", if the potential purchaser considers the functionality of "A" and "B" to be equal, but "A" is cheaper, they'll buy "A".
I LOL at your suggestion that the Mac Mini fits your stated "b." market. The Mini is very, very expensive for what you get.
The base Mini is $599 with no keyboard, mouse or monitor and includes:
2 GHz Core 2 Duo
1 GiB RAM
120 GB HDD
8 x DVD burner
9400M integrated Nvidia graphics
In contrast, the $399 (33% less than the Mini) or $469 (22% less than the Mini) with 802.11n WiFi Dell Studio Slim has:
2.6 GHz Dual-core Pentium (a Core microarchitecture processor (i.e., same as the Core 2 in the Mini) with 1 MiB less L2 cache than the Mini's processor and a slower FSB, however, the higher clock speed likely results in higher overall performance in most cases)
2 GiB RAM
500 GB HDD
16 x DVD burner
Intel integrated X4500HD graphics
Keyboard
Mouse
So, for 22-33% less cash, you've a machine that's slightly faster CPU wise, offers twice the RAM, HDD space and DVD burning speed, and includes a keyboard and mouse. The only performance advantage the Mac has is graphics, but let's face it: neither of these machines will set the world on fire graphics-performance wise.
The core of the debate is not about raw horsepower or expandability, it's about value for money; Apple's desktops massively fail on this point.
You are absolutely correct, however, because I need text more than graphics, the difference for me is only the OS.
One of the things that bugs me about Apple is their making it difficult to add RAM and a HDD to the Mini and then, adding insult to injury, charging three times the price of third party memory. My desire for a mini-tower is only to be able to easily add memory and HDD's like I could with my old G4. I wouldn't care if the mini-tower was no more powerful than my mini. I always feel that SJ is sitting up in his ivory tower laughing at Apple-faithful users as he steadfastly refuses to offer what a lot of us want. I think we are being pranked.
BTW, note that I used the plural 'their' in referring to Apple. As I live on the west side of the pond, I'd appreciate it if you didn't report me to the 'grammar police'.
BTW, note that I used the plural 'their' in referring to Apple. As I live on the west side of the pond, I'd appreciate it if you didn't report me to the 'grammar police'.
I am the grammar police When offered the position of moderator, there wasn't room for "language police" (my former title) and "global moderator" so I decided to go with the latter.
I think it's actually more usual for Americans to refer to a company in the singular, but for Brits to use the plural. Further, I am under the impression that many would in fact consider it "wrong" in American English to refer to a company in the plural; either form is acceptable in British English, context usually dictates which "sounds" best.
Yes, right just because Fry's offers 20 AIO model means nothing. AIOs don't sell except for Apple and only because...
Frankly I was a little surprised to see so many models of AIOs available from manufacturers other than Apple.
Why are they building them... and why are retailers offering them for sale?
You say that they just "don't sell" but you have nothing to back it up.
I am not trying to prove that AIO's are more popular than towers... just that any PC user who owns one is more likely to be a potential iMac switcher... than an xMac switcher.
Does the fact that Frys also carries such a large amount of cheap (sub $600) PC towers mean nothing? Do you think that PC users who buy those machines are going to rush over to Apple if they release a $1000 or $1500 xMac?
Unscientific, I know, but if you want some more retail info (that you can ignore) head over to Amazon and check out their desktop best sellers. Not many towers there.
Quote:
Apple could make as much money selling an Xmac as they do with the iMac and sell more of them.
They could if the potential market was large enough but you have shown little evidence that it is....
Quote:
It's gotten to the point there is a thriving hackintosh community and 3 companies were formed to sell Mac clones.
Brilliant!. So the market for the xMac consists largely of people who can either build their own xMac or who can convert any PC to an xMac.
Quote:
Much of the buying public sees value in separate monitor.
So much so that they are buying notebooks, and now netbooks in droves.
Quote:
Much of the buying public sees value in slots as protection against progressing technology
Much of the buying public, indeed most of them don't even know what slots are.
In all these threads I have been waiting for someone to tell me how large this potential xMac market is. What's the number of consumer PC tower buyers? How many would likely switch? But it's always the same answer. Geeks, tinkerers, DIY hobbyists, upgraders... now you have added few hundred Psystar customers!
Not only do these people constitute a tiny part of the computer market but, on the PC side of things, their numbers also include a high percentage of people who would never buy a Mac.. of any flavour.
A can never quite understand why Apple is so busy fleecing it's customers by selling over-priced Mac Pro's and under-specced iMacs that they are stupidly ignoring all the money that's alegedly sitting on the xMac table.
Does the fact that Frys also carries such a large amount of cheap (sub $600) PC towers mean nothing? Do you think that PC users who buy those machines are going to rush over to Apple if they release a $1000 or $1500 xMac?
I'd always envisioned the starting price of the xMac to be 10 to 20% more than the cheapest decent PC desktop. So what Dell sells for $399, Apple would sell the same hardware specs for $440 to $480.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
In all these threads I have been waiting for someone to tell me how large this potential xMac market is.
Five or six years ago, the potential market was big enough to warrant it. I'm sure that plenty of people would have been prepared to pay a 10 to 20% Apple premium to get access to OS X and a slightly more elegant-looking machine. Apple's missed the boat now; there's no point any more.
I am the grammar police When offered the position of moderator, there wasn't room for "language police" (my former title) and "global moderator" so I decided to go with the latter.
I think it's actually more usual for Americans to refer to a company in the singular, but for Brits to use the plural. Further, I am under the impression that many would in fact consider it "wrong" in American English to refer to a company in the plural; either form is acceptable in British English, context usually dictates which "sounds" best.
Yes, I remembered your former title. That's why I mentioned it, but I evidently didn't recall the exact title. My bad. And yes, in the US, it's in very bad form to use a plural pronoun or plural verb when referring to a collective noun. The text books I teach from state emphatically that collective nouns are singular. The United States 'IS'.... I'd go on, but I'm sure it would cause a riot and a deluge of posts.
BTW, I'm glad to see you agreed to be a moderator. You are one of the AI members I alluded to, in another post as being knowledgeable, helpful, etc. Although that post failed to bring out the kudos I had hoped for, I want to thank you for helping to make AI a better forum. I have joined several since becoming a Mac user, but have dropped all but AI.
BTW, I'm glad to see you agreed to be a moderator. You are one of the AI members I alluded to, in another post as being knowledgeable, helpful, etc. Although that post failed to bring out the kudos I had hoped for, I want to thank you for helping to make AI a better forum.
So what Dell sells for $399, Apple would sell the same hardware specs for $440 to $480.
Well, at $150 LESS than a Mini... you know that Apple would never do that.
Quote:
Five or six years ago, the potential market was big enough to warrant it. ........ Apple's missed the boat now; there's no point any more.
Agreed. However Apple actually started turning the corner on Mac sales and market share.. so I am not sure that they mind missing that boat.
I don't think the mythical xMac will ever materialise. However I think that there is a chance that in 12-18 months we might see a $1999 Mac Pro. That might just satisfy a few of the hi-end xMaccers.
So, for 22-33% less cash, you've a machine that's slightly faster CPU wise, offers twice the RAM, HDD space and DVD burning speed, and includes a keyboard and mouse. The only performance advantage the Mac has is graphics, but let's face it: neither of these machines will set the world on fire graphics-performance wise.
The core of the debate is not about raw horsepower or expandability, it's about value for money; Apple's desktops massively fail on this point.
Both products you quote serve the same market... different specs and different prices but ultimately do the exact same job for the same type of user. The Apple attracts a more discerning clientele willing to pay a premium for the form factor and OSX. The Dell appeals to the budget shopper. Both ultimately end up doing the exact same tasks.
If you want a cheap, expandable machine, buy a Dell. Niether Apple nor Sony dabble in that sh!tty low-margin, crap product, market.
Both products you quote serve the same market... different specs and different prices but ultimately do the exact same job for the same type of user.
Exactly. And most people would think it crazy to spend 28% more money to get a lower specified machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualRain
dabble in that sh!tty low-margin, crap product, market.
How is it a crap product? Just because it's got higher specifications than a Mini despite being very significantly cheaper? When comparing the Mini to that Dell, I come to a different conclusion as to which is the crap product.
No I'm not being rude. Your first post suggests that you want to spend around $1500 dollars on a tower... and replace it in nine years time!
That's probably not the case, but if it were, so what? I've heard a lot of Apple folks brag about how well made Apples are and how may years they've gotten out of them. I agree, 9 years is pushing it and nobody's making a lot of money on people like me, but there are plenty of desktop owners out there that relpace their towers in three years when faster hardware comes out.
Comments
Really? And what does that "superior performance" get the average user? I mean the AVERAGE user, not a gamer, not someone who applies 200 photoshop filters, etc... I mean the people who would otherwise buy a desktop HP for 700 bucks at Best Buy. I have a 1.83 mini with 2 gigs RAM. All laptop parts.
I like to think I'm an average user.
I render quicktime movies from the family camcorder, burn CDs sometimes, surf the Internet, email, chat (not video), use a word processor, text editor, and spreadsheets, watch online videos, and do a little illustration in Painter. What is an X-mac going to get an average user?
One less bounce in the dock from Mail? I only get one bounce on all but Rosetta-emulated programs. Exactly what superior performance is going to sway me to buy something bigger, noisier, and more expensive that contains desktop parts. Please, tell me.
Despite the condescending tone of your post, I'll answer you.
The Mini is $600 for a puny 1 gig of RAM and a miniscule 120 GB hard drive. If it used desktop components, it could easily match the $800 model (2gig and 320 GB hard drive) and then some. Leopard runs poorly on only 1 gig of RAM so the average user would certainly see a benefit there. Plus, plenty of "average users" like lots of hard drive space, especially for video. Laptop hard drives are typically about 50% more expensive than a desktop drive with twice the storage. Sure, you can get an external hard drive, but USB drives are very slow (the average user would notice) and having a FW controller on a drive adds $50 to the cost and is still slower than eSATA. And since you'll probably want a backup, that's a second drive (taking up extra space, with extra cables and using an extra outlet) to add to the mix.
Plus there's nothing wrong with a bigger computer for desktops. My desktop sits on the floor out of the way of everything. I personally wouldn't want my computer on my desk, it would take up space. Plus small computers make easy theft targets, especially Macs, so security is a bonus too.
Who says the desktop has to be more expensive? Why not a $750-900 tower that exceeds the higher Mini's specs and includes a keyboard and multi-touch mouse?
Apple's "desktops are dead" mantra is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have a poor offering of desktops (a nice AIO, a neglected starter model, and an incredibly expensive workstation) and trumpet the relative lack of sales as proof that nobody wants desktops.
I don't get the dismissive attitude towards gamers either. Gamers are a big market and I'm sure a lot of them would love to own a Mac and set up a dual boot system just for their games.
For me personally, I use my PC (I have a Macbook as well) for music production (not an insigficant niche). A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill. I really wanted to buy a desktop Mac after the Intel switch but since no suitable model was offered I had to buy a PC. I'm sure plenty of others have their own unique reasons for why they want an xMac.
Not at all; there's much more to the Mac Pro than just the processor. It has two optical drive bays, four internal HDD bays, four PCI-E slots, I/O ports galore (including four Firewire 800 ports and two gigabit ethernet ports), and a mammoth power supply somewhere in the region of 1 kW). The xMac was envisioned as a much simpler machine - two HDD bays, one optical drive bay, 1 PCI-E slot (for the graphics card, no-one uses internal expansion cards any more), fewer I/O ports and a much less powerful PSU. All of that dramatically reduces the size of the case. There's a lot of savings to be made there.
put in at least 2 pci-e slots with usb 3.0, light peak, firewire 1600,3200 cards, cable card 2-6 tuner cards coming you do need pci-e slots.
Despite the condescending tone of your post, I'll answer you.
The Mini is $600 for a puny 1 gig of RAM and a miniscule 120 GB hard drive. If it used desktop components, it could easily match the $800 model (2gig and 320 GB hard drive) and then some. Leopard runs poorly on only 1 gig of RAM so the average user would certainly see a benefit there. Plus, plenty of "average users" like lots of hard drive space, especially for video. Laptop hard drives are typically about 50% more expensive than a desktop drive with twice the storage. Sure, you can get an external hard drive, but USB drives are very slow (the average user would notice) and having a FW controller on a drive adds $50 to the cost and is still slower than eSATA. And since you'll probably want a backup, that's a second drive (taking up extra space, with extra cables and using an extra outlet) to add to the mix.
if "A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill." is your only answer to my question, then my tone was apparently just right. So, rather than tell me about the awesomeness of your PC components and their relative costs, tell me what benefits in performance I'd see. Better yet, do it without gaming benchmarks.
Plus there's nothing wrong with a bigger computer for desktops. My desktop sits on the floor out of the way of everything. I personally wouldn't want my computer on my desk, it would take up space. Plus small computers make easy theft targets, especially Macs, so security is a bonus too.
As for size? Small size is a benefit. Theft isn't really an issue in the real-world where I Iive, but having a silent computer is. Desk space is indeed at a premium, but when I am working with CDs and DVDs and other physical media, cameras, iPod, etc... it's much more convenient to have the computer in the desk so I don't have to crawl around on the floor or have to manage a USB or FW hub.
Who says the desktop has to be more expensive? Why not a $750-900 tower that exceeds the higher Mini's specs and includes a keyboard and multi-touch mouse?
I paid 800 for my Mini, bought a keyboard and had a mouse and monitor. I fall right in the middle of your range. I don't see your point here.
Apple's "desktops are dead" mantra is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have a poor offering of desktops (a nice AIO, a neglected starter model, and an incredibly expensive workstation) and trumpet the relative lack of sales as proof that nobody wants desktops.
I never said they were dead. I asked what benefits I'd see in real-worl performance from an xMac. So far I have no answer.
I don't get the dismissive attitude towards gamers either. Gamers are a big market and I'm sure a lot of them would love to own a Mac and set up a dual boot system just for their games.
Gamers are as important to the computing market as any other miniscule sub-percentage of users. Since the advent of good consoles that connect to HD TVs, the drive for creating machine with AWESOME HAXXOR SPECCS FOR PWNAGE is virtually non existent. The dismissive attitude is from being here through a hundred BS xMac threads that finally boil down to one thing once all the BS is stripped out of the argument. "I want a headless iMac/xMac because when I want to dual boot and play INSERT GAME NAME HERE and get PWNAGE."
Gamers are kids.
For me personally, I use my PC (I have a Macbook as well) for music production (not an insigficant niche). A desktop is far better suited for this purpose and the Mac Pro is way overkill. I really wanted to buy a desktop Mac after the Intel switch but since no suitable model was offered I had to buy a PC. I'm sure plenty of others have their own unique reasons for why they want an xMac.
Why is a desktop PC better suited to music production than a Mini with plenty of RAM?
I wouldn't expect Apple to offer a consumer desktop that actually offers
desktop CPUs
separate monitors
any PCI slots
empty bays for adding hard drives or optical drives
Obviously, there is no market for such a computer....
Oh wait, my mistake virtually every consumer desktop does, but not from Apple.
The debate that never ends.
Obviously, there is no market for such a computer....
Oh wait, my mistake virtually every consumer desktop does, but not from Apple.
Show me the money!
How many consumer PC desktops sold are AIO's?
(There's around 20 different models listed on frys.com)
How many consumer PC desktops sold are expensive, powerful machines that compete with a Mac Pro?
How many consumer PC desktops sold are little mini desktops that compete with a Mac Mini?
That leaves you with the rest. Upgradable, reasonably priced, consumer PC towers.
How many of those cost less than $ 600.00? You know that Apple is not going to go there. (One again... on frys.com... over 60 different models)
So, finally you are left with PC towers (sold to consumers) priced from around $700-$1500.
It's a niche! I reckon that represents no more than 10% of all the computers sold annually in the US.
One last question. How many of the type of PC buyers who enjoy those particular kind of computers... are going to switch to a Mac?
Gather 'round, kids, it's an Xmac thread!
Back in my day, these went on for thousands of pages and brave men went mad defending their ancestral homelands.
As I recall, these terrible battles were finally resolved with the Great Treaty of a While Back, which read: They Should, But They Won't.
That was later amended by The Somewhat More Forceful Restating, which read: They Really, Really Should, Believe Us, We Feel Your Pain And Frustration And They Are Entirely Justified, But Honest, No Shit, They Never, Ever, Ever, Ever Will, So Probably Best To Be Bugged By Something Else.
And looks like it was a post-and-run. Where's the OP? But hey, carry on.
1. People are confused about Apples role in the market and their vision. Apple is much closer to Sony than they are to Dell or HP. How many desktop PC's does Sony make?
Why do people keep wishing for Apple to offer products like Dell or HP?!
2. I think there are five distinct markets for desktop computers:
a. High budget gaming rigs with high-end graphics cards (Voodoo, Alien, etc.)
b. Low budget entry-level desktops aimed at low income families who would probably prefer a laptop or nice all-in-one but can't afford it
c. Low budget desktops aimed at corporate users (non-mobile office workers)
d. All-in-one computers that non-technical mom and dad can plunk down on the counter and turn on without any fuss
e. High-end workstations for creative professionals, researchers, etc.
So which of these markets make sense for Apple to pursue? Which do they have products for? They have the Mac Mini for (b), the iMac for (d) and the Mac Pro for (e). It doesn't make sense for them to make a gaming platform which for the most part are just workstation machines in gawdy lit up cases. And there's no money to be made in budget desktops unless you can add additional value and charge at the top of the price structure like they have with the mini making it compact and silent for a premium.
Even looking at Dell's product line on their site, it's exactly aligned with these market segments...
(a) Alien
(b/c) Inspiron
(d) Studio
(e) XPS
3. I'm starting to think that the only people here that could want an xMac are those who want a gaming machine but just aren't happy about paying the price for a Mac Pro. If this isn't it, what's your need that cannot be adequately met by Apple in some other way?
Show me the money!
How many consumer PC desktops sold are AIO's?
(There's around 20 different models listed on frys.com)
How many consumer PC desktops sold are expensive, powerful machines that compete with a Mac Pro?
How many consumer PC desktops sold are little mini desktops that compete with a Mac Mini?
That leaves you with the rest. Upgradable, reasonably priced, consumer PC towers.
How many of those cost less than $ 600.00? You know that Apple is not going to go there. (One again... on frys.com... over 60 different models)
So, finally you are left with PC towers (sold to consumers) priced from around $700-$1500.
It's a niche! I reckon that represents no more than 10% of all the computers sold annually in the US.
One last question. How many of the type of PC buyers who enjoy those particular kind of computers... are going to switch to a Mac?
Yes, right just because Fry's offers 20 AIO model means nothing. AIOs don't sell except for Apple and only because it is the only option for most buyers except the few people that like the Mac mini.
Apple could make as much money selling an Xmac as they do with the iMac and sell more of them. It's gotten to the point there is a thriving hackintosh community and 3 companies were formed to sell Mac clones.
This debate comtinous on and on for a reason, that being there is a market. Why you ask.
Because desktops should have desktop parts. Much of the buying public sees value in separate monitor. Much of the buying public sees value in slots as protection against progressing technology, just ask those people who can add external SATA, or USB 2 for the new iPods when firerwire was canned or each new iteration of wireless from b to n, or those that decided later to upgade graphics if wanted.
AIO by design targets the least demanding users yet Apple targets the higher demanding users. And as prices drop it will only become a harder sell for Apple.
And yes the reviews of Windows new OS are generally quite good, which will make switchers harder and harder to come by.
Apple has intentionally relagated itself to a small niche market. Maybe this was needed
during the dark days in order survive, no longer is this needed.
3. I'm starting to think that the only people here that could want an xMac are those who want a gaming machine but just aren't happy about paying the price for a Mac Pro. If this isn't it, what's your need that cannot be adequately met by Apple in some other way?
Read the thread I linked to earlier. Should keep you occupied a good while.
I reject your notion that only low-income families buy inexpensive products. The majority of people, regardless of how much they earn, will not pay more for products than they think they have to. Faced with product "A" and product "B", if the potential purchaser considers the functionality of "A" and "B" to be equal, but "A" is cheaper, they'll buy "A".
I LOL at your suggestion that the Mac Mini fits your stated "b." market. The Mini is very, very expensive for what you get.
The base Mini is $599 with no keyboard, mouse or monitor and includes:
- 2 GHz Core 2 Duo
- 1 GiB RAM
- 120 GB HDD
- 8 x DVD burner
- 9400M integrated Nvidia graphics
In contrast, the $399 (33% less than the Mini) or $469 (22% less than the Mini) with 802.11n WiFi Dell Studio Slim has:- 2.6 GHz Dual-core Pentium (a Core microarchitecture processor (i.e., same as the Core 2 in the Mini) with 1 MiB less L2 cache than the Mini's processor and a slower FSB, however, the higher clock speed likely results in higher overall performance in most cases)
- 2 GiB RAM
- 500 GB HDD
- 16 x DVD burner
- Intel integrated X4500HD graphics
- Keyboard
- Mouse
So, for 22-33% less cash, you've a machine that's slightly faster CPU wise, offers twice the RAM, HDD space and DVD burning speed, and includes a keyboard and mouse. The only performance advantage the Mac has is graphics, but let's face it: neither of these machines will set the world on fire graphics-performance wise.The core of the debate is not about raw horsepower or expandability, it's about value for money; Apple's desktops massively fail on this point.
You are absolutely correct, however, because I need text more than graphics, the difference for me is only the OS.
One of the things that bugs me about Apple is their making it difficult to add RAM and a HDD to the Mini and then, adding insult to injury, charging three times the price of third party memory. My desire for a mini-tower is only to be able to easily add memory and HDD's like I could with my old G4. I wouldn't care if the mini-tower was no more powerful than my mini. I always feel that SJ is sitting up in his ivory tower laughing at Apple-faithful users as he steadfastly refuses to offer what a lot of us want. I think we are being pranked.
BTW, note that I used the plural 'their' in referring to Apple. As I live on the west side of the pond, I'd appreciate it if you didn't report me to the 'grammar police'.
BTW, note that I used the plural 'their' in referring to Apple. As I live on the west side of the pond, I'd appreciate it if you didn't report me to the 'grammar police'.
I am the grammar police
I think it's actually more usual for Americans to refer to a company in the singular, but for Brits to use the plural. Further, I am under the impression that many would in fact consider it "wrong" in American English to refer to a company in the plural; either form is acceptable in British English, context usually dictates which "sounds" best.
Yes, right just because Fry's offers 20 AIO model means nothing. AIOs don't sell except for Apple and only because...
Frankly I was a little surprised to see so many models of AIOs available from manufacturers other than Apple.
Why are they building them... and why are retailers offering them for sale?
You say that they just "don't sell" but you have nothing to back it up.
I am not trying to prove that AIO's are more popular than towers... just that any PC user who owns one is more likely to be a potential iMac switcher... than an xMac switcher.
Does the fact that Frys also carries such a large amount of cheap (sub $600) PC towers mean nothing? Do you think that PC users who buy those machines are going to rush over to Apple if they release a $1000 or $1500 xMac?
Unscientific, I know, but if you want some more retail info (that you can ignore) head over to Amazon and check out their desktop best sellers. Not many towers there.
Apple could make as much money selling an Xmac as they do with the iMac and sell more of them.
They could if the potential market was large enough but you have shown little evidence that it is....
It's gotten to the point there is a thriving hackintosh community and 3 companies were formed to sell Mac clones.
Brilliant!. So the market for the xMac consists largely of people who can either build their own xMac or who can convert any PC to an xMac.
Much of the buying public sees value in separate monitor.
So much so that they are buying notebooks, and now netbooks in droves.
Much of the buying public sees value in slots as protection against progressing technology
Much of the buying public, indeed most of them don't even know what slots are.
In all these threads I have been waiting for someone to tell me how large this potential xMac market is. What's the number of consumer PC tower buyers? How many would likely switch? But it's always the same answer. Geeks, tinkerers, DIY hobbyists, upgraders... now you have added few hundred Psystar customers!
Not only do these people constitute a tiny part of the computer market but, on the PC side of things, their numbers also include a high percentage of people who would never buy a Mac.. of any flavour.
A can never quite understand why Apple is so busy fleecing it's customers by selling over-priced Mac Pro's and under-specced iMacs that they are stupidly ignoring all the money that's alegedly sitting on the xMac table.
Apple is so busy fleecing it's customers by selling over-priced Mac Pro's
Yuck. Read my sig. Learn.
Does the fact that Frys also carries such a large amount of cheap (sub $600) PC towers mean nothing? Do you think that PC users who buy those machines are going to rush over to Apple if they release a $1000 or $1500 xMac?
I'd always envisioned the starting price of the xMac to be 10 to 20% more than the cheapest decent PC desktop. So what Dell sells for $399, Apple would sell the same hardware specs for $440 to $480.
In all these threads I have been waiting for someone to tell me how large this potential xMac market is.
Five or six years ago, the potential market was big enough to warrant it. I'm sure that plenty of people would have been prepared to pay a 10 to 20% Apple premium to get access to OS X and a slightly more elegant-looking machine. Apple's missed the boat now; there's no point any more.
I am the grammar police
I think it's actually more usual for Americans to refer to a company in the singular, but for Brits to use the plural. Further, I am under the impression that many would in fact consider it "wrong" in American English to refer to a company in the plural; either form is acceptable in British English, context usually dictates which "sounds" best.
Yes, I remembered your former title. That's why I mentioned it, but I evidently didn't recall the exact title. My bad. And yes, in the US, it's in very bad form to use a plural pronoun or plural verb when referring to a collective noun. The text books I teach from state emphatically that collective nouns are singular. The United States 'IS'.... I'd go on, but I'm sure it would cause a riot and a deluge of posts.
BTW, I'm glad to see you agreed to be a moderator. You are one of the AI members I alluded to, in another post as being knowledgeable, helpful, etc. Although that post failed to bring out the kudos I had hoped for, I want to thank you for helping to make AI a better forum. I have joined several since becoming a Mac user, but have dropped all but AI.
BTW, I'm glad to see you agreed to be a moderator. You are one of the AI members I alluded to, in another post as being knowledgeable, helpful, etc. Although that post failed to bring out the kudos I had hoped for, I want to thank you for helping to make AI a better forum.
Shucks! Thank you
So what Dell sells for $399, Apple would sell the same hardware specs for $440 to $480.
Well, at $150 LESS than a Mini... you know that Apple would never do that.
Five or six years ago, the potential market was big enough to warrant it. ........ Apple's missed the boat now; there's no point any more.
Agreed. However Apple actually started turning the corner on Mac sales and market share.. so I am not sure that they mind missing that boat.
I don't think the mythical xMac will ever materialise. However I think that there is a chance that in 12-18 months we might see a $1999 Mac Pro. That might just satisfy a few of the hi-end xMaccers.
So, for 22-33% less cash, you've a machine that's slightly faster CPU wise, offers twice the RAM, HDD space and DVD burning speed, and includes a keyboard and mouse. The only performance advantage the Mac has is graphics, but let's face it: neither of these machines will set the world on fire graphics-performance wise.
The core of the debate is not about raw horsepower or expandability, it's about value for money; Apple's desktops massively fail on this point.
Both products you quote serve the same market... different specs and different prices but ultimately do the exact same job for the same type of user. The Apple attracts a more discerning clientele willing to pay a premium for the form factor and OSX. The Dell appeals to the budget shopper. Both ultimately end up doing the exact same tasks.
If you want a cheap, expandable machine, buy a Dell. Niether Apple nor Sony dabble in that sh!tty low-margin, crap product, market.
Both products you quote serve the same market... different specs and different prices but ultimately do the exact same job for the same type of user.
dabble in that sh!tty low-margin, crap product, market.
How is it a crap product? Just because it's got higher specifications than a Mini despite being very significantly cheaper? When comparing the Mini to that Dell, I come to a different conclusion as to which is the crap product.
People like you!
No I'm not being rude. Your first post suggests that you want to spend around $1500 dollars on a tower... and replace it in nine years time!
That's probably not the case, but if it were, so what? I've heard a lot of Apple folks brag about how well made Apples are and how may years they've gotten out of them. I agree, 9 years is pushing it and nobody's making a lot of money on people like me, but there are plenty of desktop owners out there that relpace their towers in three years when faster hardware comes out.
Steve needs a new jet. Buy a Mac pro.
What was your first statement again?