Yeah, they should totally include an option for INFERIOR displays, with an added filter that REDUCES the optical clarity and diffuses the image, just for that minority of people that can't control the lighting at their home/work environment and can't stand a few reflections...
All most matte users want is the OPTION. My home/working environment has two walls made out of glass, try controlling that in the summer. That's a stupid comment. I use a Mac mini with a DELL display, because I ran out of decent quality old white iMacs. I simply can't use a glossy machine, and judging by the amount of times it gets flagged when new iMacs are discussed, I'm not alone. We just want the CHOICE, don't be such an apologist.
All most matte users want is the OPTION. My home/working environment has two walls made out of glass, try controlling that in the summer. That's a stupid comment. I use a Mac mini with a DELL display, because I ran out of decent quality old white iMacs. I simply can't use a glossy machine, and judging by the amount of times it gets flagged when new iMacs are discussed, I'm not alone. We just want the CHOICE, don't be such an apologist.
Wanting an option is acceptable, but expecting and crying foul when it doesn?t come is not. I haven?t read anything from you doing the latter, but that is usually how that request is presented. The antithesis of foljs? comment.
I do wonder why you aren?t controlling the light in a room with a monitor. If you are doing work that requires accurate color then simply having a matte display isn?t going to cut it if you have two walls made of glass.
PS: Are you not allowed to throw half stones?
PPS: it?s possible to remove a great deal of potential glare by removing the glass cover on the iMac. It?s only attached by magnets. It?s still a glossy display but it?s far less glossy than the panel itself. Last time I mentioned that I was told it would look ugly.
Wanting an option is acceptable, but expecting and crying foul when it doesn’t come is not. I haven’t read anything from you doing the latter, but that is usually how that request is presented. The antithesis of foljs’ comment.
I do wonder why you aren’t controlling the light in a room with a monitor. If you are doing work that requires accurate color then simply having a matte display isn’t going to cut it if you have two walls made of glass.
PS: Are you not allowed to throw half stones?
PPS: it’s possible to remove a great deal of potential glare by removing the glass cover on the iMac. It’s only attached by magnets. It’s still a glossy display but it’s far less glossy than the panel itself. Last time I mentioned that I was told it would look ugly.
I don't need the matte for the colour accuracy, I only need it so I can work in the one space my house that's ideal for a computer without straining my eyes. I'm not crying foul, I just fail to see why Apple provide the option on their MBP's but still refuse to give the option to iMac users? Surely there's a huge crossover in potential buyers in that segment? I like the Mini set-up, but it's lacking in power for some tasks, and I miss my iMac's clean lines. I now have a mini server running OS X client with the drives in a RAID 0, so I have to use an Air Superdrive. Along with the monitor the footprint is huge compared to an iMac.
I realise the glass removal is an option, but it's less than ideal, I would like to use the computer "as is" without having to remove part of it to make it functional. Part of the appeal of an iMac is the aesthetic, and it's diminished when the screen is removed as the gap is clearly visible.
p.s. Nice one. No half stones, but it's great for tomatoes.
Mac Desktop Product shipment are not declining, which is what the article was suggesting. They are just Growing a lot lot slower compare to Macbook Segment.
So is your issue a glossy display or an uncalibrated LCD? Sounds like you’re creating a false reasoning for any errors in Photoshop.
No false reasoning whatsoever. Yes, the glossy LCD is calibrated. We calibrate all of our monitors. The issue is bumped up contrast due to the glass. Colors—especially those that approach black—get unnaturally skewed toward shadow tones. It's a "beautiful skew" for viewing purposes but not for print.
I continue to be perplexed by the number of people who doubt this effect when numerous designers in the field continue to use matte screens and call out for a matte option on the iMac. Apple offers the choice of a matte screen on the 17" Macbook Pro. Little wonder—the chief reasons being those that I—and many, many others—have delineated.
I'm not crying foul, I just fail to see why Apple provide the option on their MBP's but still refuse to give the option to iMac users?
I hear you. I feel exactly as you do, but I suspect that keeping the iMac as an all-glossy lineup protects Mac Pro sales for high-end print designers. Apple knows that such folks require top-drawer monitors, and if Apple actually provided one on the iMac then sales of their most powerful desktops would decline.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print—except for the monitor issue.
Your words talk about 'the decline of the desktop' yet your graph shows number of desktop sales doubling over the 5 years your graph runs. That hardly sounds like a decline and sounds like business is booming compared to many other manufacturers!
I was thinking the same thing. The percentages are misleading because, even though sales of desktops are increasing, additional mobile product offerings have increased gross sales dramatically and reduced the percentage that desktops contribute to the whole. They're not losing desktop sales, they have created new market categories that have taken off and become a huge part of the overall business.
I hear you. I feel exactly as you do, but I suspect that keeping the iMac as an all-glossy lineup protects Mac Pro sales for high-end print designers. Apple knows that such folks require top-drawer monitors, and if Apple actually provided one on the iMac then sales of their most powerful desktops would decline.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print?except for the monitor issue.
It's the only logical explanation, but I wish they would just bite the margin bullet for once. It's not like the same people aren't going to go straight out and buy an iMac, I know I would. I would also be upgrading it every year.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print—except for the monitor issue.
You really can't depend on any monitor for accurate color when it comes to print. You need to just know color and always sample the ink densities and view the separations in Photoshop. What the composite image looks like can be deceiving especially in the really light and really dark areas. It is still an RGB representation of a CMYK image. The unfortunate thing about print these days is that you can't depend on ink jet proofing either. Because we are so picky about everything we print, I do press proofing. It can get really expensive if you have to start reburning plates. The old Match Print proofing was dead on, but it was slow, expensive and used some nasty chemicals.
Bottom line is the glossy monitors are not ideal for print but should not be a problem if you know what you are doing.
Mac Desktop Product shipment are not declining, which is what the article was suggesting. They are just Growing a lot lot slower compare to Macbook Segment.
Desktop sales revenue grew over 43% from 2009 to 2010. Macbook sales grew only 18%.
On the other hand, iPad sales grew from zero to $4.9 billion during the same period. An ∞% growth rate When that ∞% declines to, say, only 150% from FY 2010 to 2011, surely there will be those who say Apple's iPad unit is suffering.
It takes at least a cursory understanding of mathematics to analyze a company's performance, which this author clearly lacks.
I wonder if the 21 inch will be dual or quad core? Base quad would be awesome. If its the dual, then the 15 inch macbook pro would be more powerful than it.
I signed awhile ago. I continue to hold on to my old white 24in iMac. Will buy this week if matte is an option, otherwise continue to wait. I really want a new iMac, but I have my doubts that they'll give us the option. They haven't yet, so why should they start now?
Come on Apple. How hard can it be to make an iMac where removing four screens opens up the entire back, with every major component easily accessible? If you did that, you've save money on your own warranty repairs.
I think they could and should make the hard drives accessible if they switched to 2.5" drives and made pull-out trays from the bottom beside the RAM like you got with the old MacBooks. This way, you can easily slot in a 3rd-party SSD. Or they can use one of their SSD blades as a boot drive and have two slots for the 2.5" drives that can be setup in RAID or used for Time Machine. So you could have a RAID 0 for 2TB or RAID 1 mirrored or one for storage and the other for Time Machine backing up both SSD and storage.
It's way more flexible than just one 3.5" drive stuck in the middle of the machine that you can't get to. This is one huge advantage the laptops have over the desktops. Just a few screws and you get to your drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
as long as the Mac line is profitable and out growing the market in general desktop machines will still be part of the line up.
I'd say the footprint alone gives the iMac an advantage and you're right as long as they are making a profit, there's no reason to stop selling them.
It is however an important trend to be aware of and it appears to be a rapid trend. While Apple's desktops are growing in number, overall sales are expected to grow year on year and the desktops aren't growing nearly as quickly as laptops.
Laptops have grown 400% in 5 years but desktops not even 200%. The iPad may change this trend but the numbers for the past year and a half don't reflect this.
The percentage share may not mean a whole lot going forward to Apple's decisions and if anything the iMac sales volume must keep costs for the Cinema Display down so even if it went to 90:10 share in a few years, there would be some reasons to keep going with it. If desktops go under 5% though, even if the sales number is large enough, you'd have to wonder if it is worth their effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
I wonder if the 21 inch will be dual or quad core? Base quad would be awesome. If its the dual, then the 15 inch macbook pro would be more powerful than it.
I think it's time to scrap the 21.5". I also think the 27" is too big. For a normal computer viewing distance, 24" is an ideal size. I think 1080p resolution would work great but it is nice to be able to put a 1080p clip into windowed mode at native size so a resolution like 2200 x 1240 might be more appropriate.
This way they can sell much more affordable Cinema Displays too and put quad-cores across the whole line.
However, I'd expect people to only buy the entry model if this happened so I think Apple will keep the current display sizes and go dual-core in the smaller ones and quads in the 27" ones.
What do you think caused the decline of desktop? You can develop for iOS on a MacBook just fine. I personally have at least one of each computer they make, but I think a desktop is more comfortable to use than a notebook.
I'm curious why many people choose the notebook instead of a desktop. Is it because they don't have enough room for it or that they can only have one computer so they want it portable?
Maybe iPad + iMac will become a popular setup. Personally I wouldn't want to give up any of my Apple form factors.
Apple was successful with its "digital lifestyle", that's why. Most people don't use computers for "computing" or development; they use them as over-priced media players. And can't imagine them as anything else.
When your #1 interest is playing music, watching videos or surfing the Internet with a browser, you want to be mobile, or at least there is no upside to a fixed location.
Developers, etc., who invest intellectual capital in their machines, want it more locked down to avoid loss or instability. Desktop/workstations are just that ... for work, in a controlled stable environment. If you aren't using the computer for work, but just looking at screen, you can do that anywhere.
I've been in computers since soldering together my first Heathkit H8 in 1976 ... hard-core users are now marginalized in Apple's profit margin as we move toward cartoon-like, grossly simplified interfaces. Hiding complexity from ignorant users with simple needs is the be-all and end-all.
The trajectory inevitably leads to computers that are will be useless as "computers". You can see it in the new college com sci. grads coming out of school who know practically nothing about the underlying nature of the systems, only taught in high-level user-interface issues.
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
Further there has to be more demand than a few people on AI whining about their inability to work with they current monitor line up. This noise makes about as much sense as the people that try to drive their cars through a snow bank then whine that their car is no good in the snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamanPfaff
I signed awhile ago. I continue to hold on to my old white 24in iMac. Will buy this week if matte is an option, otherwise continue to wait. I really want a new iMac, but I have my doubts that they'll give us the option. They haven't yet, so why should they start now?
You really should open up your mind a bit and not allow yourself to damn something you haven't tried. Each new Mac should be evaluated on it's own merits, that includes whatever screen they install on it.
This is one huge advantage the laptops have over the desktops. Just a few screws and you get to your drive.
Funny how the two have evolved. Laptop drives used to be hard to replace; desktops, simple.
I wish it were easier to replace a hard disk, but like user-replaceable batteries there's a manufacturing cost consideration. I imagine the whole question will soon become moot as SSDs replace HDs anyway. Besides, I think Apple is soon going to offer "cloud" storage for all your local content, which will reduce users' ever-growing mass storage needs.
Quote:
If desktops go under 5% though, even if the sales number is large enough, you'd have to wonder if it is worth their effort.
5% may still be significant. The question to ask is when will their desktop segment represent Xserve's share when they dropped it - I'm guessing way less than 5%, probably less than 1%.
Apple lumped Xserve sales together with "desktops" so I don't know.
In any event I imagine iMacs and Mac Pros will continue to be sold for a long time.
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
Probably. Then you can start your own company in your parents' garage
Apple was successful with its "digital lifestyle", that's why. Most people don't use computers for "computing" or development; they use them as over-priced media players. And can't imagine them as anything else.
Sadly true! Worst is that many of these people are convinced that they know all about computers.
Quote:
When your #1 interest is playing music, watching videos or surfing the Internet with a browser, you want to be mobile, or at least there is no upside to a fixed location.
I'm not 100% convinced of that. For example a larger screen goes a long way to making videos enjoyable. The general point though is correct, today's laptops handle this fairly well.
Quote:
Developers, etc., who invest intellectual capital in their machines, want it more locked down to avoid loss or instability.
There is a lot more interest in desktops than the developer crowd. for many it is more about performance and flexibility.
Quote:
I've been in computers since soldering together my first Heathkit H8 in 1976 ... hard-core users are now marginalized in Apple's profit margin as we move toward cartoon-like, grossly simplified interfaces. Hiding complexity from ignorant users with simple needs is the be-all and end-all.
commodore c64, Heath Z100 and others here. However I think your attitude about Mac OS is a bit negative. I switched to the Mac after years with Linux because Mac OS as a whole is a better option. At least for a general purpose laptop / desktop machine.
Quote:
The trajectory inevitably leads to computers that are will be useless as "computers". You can see it in the new college com sci. grads coming out of school who know practically nothing about the underlying nature of the systems, only taught in high-level user-interface issues.
Wish I had the time to get into this point, maybe later.
Quote:
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
Comments
Yeah, they should totally include an option for INFERIOR displays, with an added filter that REDUCES the optical clarity and diffuses the image, just for that minority of people that can't control the lighting at their home/work environment and can't stand a few reflections...
All most matte users want is the OPTION. My home/working environment has two walls made out of glass, try controlling that in the summer. That's a stupid comment. I use a Mac mini with a DELL display, because I ran out of decent quality old white iMacs. I simply can't use a glossy machine, and judging by the amount of times it gets flagged when new iMacs are discussed, I'm not alone. We just want the CHOICE, don't be such an apologist.
All most matte users want is the OPTION. My home/working environment has two walls made out of glass, try controlling that in the summer. That's a stupid comment. I use a Mac mini with a DELL display, because I ran out of decent quality old white iMacs. I simply can't use a glossy machine, and judging by the amount of times it gets flagged when new iMacs are discussed, I'm not alone. We just want the CHOICE, don't be such an apologist.
Wanting an option is acceptable, but expecting and crying foul when it doesn?t come is not. I haven?t read anything from you doing the latter, but that is usually how that request is presented. The antithesis of foljs? comment.
I do wonder why you aren?t controlling the light in a room with a monitor. If you are doing work that requires accurate color then simply having a matte display isn?t going to cut it if you have two walls made of glass.
PS: Are you not allowed to throw half stones?
PPS: it?s possible to remove a great deal of potential glare by removing the glass cover on the iMac. It?s only attached by magnets. It?s still a glossy display but it?s far less glossy than the panel itself. Last time I mentioned that I was told it would look ugly.
Wanting an option is acceptable, but expecting and crying foul when it doesn’t come is not. I haven’t read anything from you doing the latter, but that is usually how that request is presented. The antithesis of foljs’ comment.
I do wonder why you aren’t controlling the light in a room with a monitor. If you are doing work that requires accurate color then simply having a matte display isn’t going to cut it if you have two walls made of glass.
PS: Are you not allowed to throw half stones?
PPS: it’s possible to remove a great deal of potential glare by removing the glass cover on the iMac. It’s only attached by magnets. It’s still a glossy display but it’s far less glossy than the panel itself. Last time I mentioned that I was told it would look ugly.
I don't need the matte for the colour accuracy, I only need it so I can work in the one space my house that's ideal for a computer without straining my eyes. I'm not crying foul, I just fail to see why Apple provide the option on their MBP's but still refuse to give the option to iMac users? Surely there's a huge crossover in potential buyers in that segment? I like the Mini set-up, but it's lacking in power for some tasks, and I miss my iMac's clean lines. I now have a mini server running OS X client with the drives in a RAID 0, so I have to use an Air Superdrive. Along with the monitor the footprint is huge compared to an iMac.
I realise the glass removal is an option, but it's less than ideal, I would like to use the computer "as is" without having to remove part of it to make it functional. Part of the appeal of an iMac is the aesthetic, and it's diminished when the screen is removed as the gap is clearly visible.
p.s. Nice one. No half stones, but it's great for tomatoes.
So is your issue a glossy display or an uncalibrated LCD? Sounds like you’re creating a false reasoning for any errors in Photoshop.
No false reasoning whatsoever. Yes, the glossy LCD is calibrated. We calibrate all of our monitors. The issue is bumped up contrast due to the glass. Colors—especially those that approach black—get unnaturally skewed toward shadow tones. It's a "beautiful skew" for viewing purposes but not for print.
I continue to be perplexed by the number of people who doubt this effect when numerous designers in the field continue to use matte screens and call out for a matte option on the iMac. Apple offers the choice of a matte screen on the 17" Macbook Pro. Little wonder—the chief reasons being those that I—and many, many others—have delineated.
I'm not crying foul, I just fail to see why Apple provide the option on their MBP's but still refuse to give the option to iMac users?
I hear you. I feel exactly as you do, but I suspect that keeping the iMac as an all-glossy lineup protects Mac Pro sales for high-end print designers. Apple knows that such folks require top-drawer monitors, and if Apple actually provided one on the iMac then sales of their most powerful desktops would decline.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print—except for the monitor issue.
Your words talk about 'the decline of the desktop' yet your graph shows number of desktop sales doubling over the 5 years your graph runs. That hardly sounds like a decline and sounds like business is booming compared to many other manufacturers!
I was thinking the same thing. The percentages are misleading because, even though sales of desktops are increasing, additional mobile product offerings have increased gross sales dramatically and reduced the percentage that desktops contribute to the whole. They're not losing desktop sales, they have created new market categories that have taken off and become a huge part of the overall business.
I hear you. I feel exactly as you do, but I suspect that keeping the iMac as an all-glossy lineup protects Mac Pro sales for high-end print designers. Apple knows that such folks require top-drawer monitors, and if Apple actually provided one on the iMac then sales of their most powerful desktops would decline.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print?except for the monitor issue.
It's the only logical explanation, but I wish they would just bite the margin bullet for once. It's not like the same people aren't going to go straight out and buy an iMac, I know I would. I would also be upgrading it every year.
Because we do video in our shop, we appreciate the power of the Mac Pro. Increasingly, though, we don't need a Mac Pro for print—except for the monitor issue.
You really can't depend on any monitor for accurate color when it comes to print. You need to just know color and always sample the ink densities and view the separations in Photoshop. What the composite image looks like can be deceiving especially in the really light and really dark areas. It is still an RGB representation of a CMYK image. The unfortunate thing about print these days is that you can't depend on ink jet proofing either. Because we are so picky about everything we print, I do press proofing. It can get really expensive if you have to start reburning plates. The old Match Print proofing was dead on, but it was slow, expensive and used some nasty chemicals.
Bottom line is the glossy monitors are not ideal for print but should not be a problem if you know what you are doing.
Mac Desktop Product shipment are not declining, which is what the article was suggesting. They are just Growing a lot lot slower compare to Macbook Segment.
Desktop sales revenue grew over 43% from 2009 to 2010. Macbook sales grew only 18%.
On the other hand, iPad sales grew from zero to $4.9 billion during the same period. An ∞% growth rate
It takes at least a cursory understanding of mathematics to analyze a company's performance, which this author clearly lacks.
It's OK, investors love this kind of "analysis".
Wonderful. Just for kicks I tried it but it refuses saying Mac OS X 10.7 can't be installed on this Mac.
I really don't consider hacking the OS installer to be a viable means of upgrading, so I will stick with my original plan to buy a new iMac instead.
Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what they did but they had to modify a few files. You could google it, but if your getting a new one anyways thats cool.
But then, if your like me, why not use the old one for messing around and see if you can do it too?
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
Sign the petition for Apple matte displays here:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
I signed awhile ago. I continue to hold on to my old white 24in iMac. Will buy this week if matte is an option, otherwise continue to wait. I really want a new iMac, but I have my doubts that they'll give us the option. They haven't yet, so why should they start now?
Come on Apple. How hard can it be to make an iMac where removing four screens opens up the entire back, with every major component easily accessible? If you did that, you've save money on your own warranty repairs.
I think they could and should make the hard drives accessible if they switched to 2.5" drives and made pull-out trays from the bottom beside the RAM like you got with the old MacBooks. This way, you can easily slot in a 3rd-party SSD. Or they can use one of their SSD blades as a boot drive and have two slots for the 2.5" drives that can be setup in RAID or used for Time Machine. So you could have a RAID 0 for 2TB or RAID 1 mirrored or one for storage and the other for Time Machine backing up both SSD and storage.
It's way more flexible than just one 3.5" drive stuck in the middle of the machine that you can't get to. This is one huge advantage the laptops have over the desktops. Just a few screws and you get to your drive.
as long as the Mac line is profitable and out growing the market in general desktop machines will still be part of the line up.
I'd say the footprint alone gives the iMac an advantage and you're right as long as they are making a profit, there's no reason to stop selling them.
It is however an important trend to be aware of and it appears to be a rapid trend. While Apple's desktops are growing in number, overall sales are expected to grow year on year and the desktops aren't growing nearly as quickly as laptops.
Laptops have grown 400% in 5 years but desktops not even 200%. The iPad may change this trend but the numbers for the past year and a half don't reflect this.
The percentage share may not mean a whole lot going forward to Apple's decisions and if anything the iMac sales volume must keep costs for the Cinema Display down so even if it went to 90:10 share in a few years, there would be some reasons to keep going with it. If desktops go under 5% though, even if the sales number is large enough, you'd have to wonder if it is worth their effort.
I wonder if the 21 inch will be dual or quad core? Base quad would be awesome. If its the dual, then the 15 inch macbook pro would be more powerful than it.
I think it's time to scrap the 21.5". I also think the 27" is too big. For a normal computer viewing distance, 24" is an ideal size. I think 1080p resolution would work great but it is nice to be able to put a 1080p clip into windowed mode at native size so a resolution like 2200 x 1240 might be more appropriate.
This way they can sell much more affordable Cinema Displays too and put quad-cores across the whole line.
However, I'd expect people to only buy the entry model if this happened so I think Apple will keep the current display sizes and go dual-core in the smaller ones and quads in the 27" ones.
What do you think caused the decline of desktop? You can develop for iOS on a MacBook just fine. I personally have at least one of each computer they make, but I think a desktop is more comfortable to use than a notebook.
I'm curious why many people choose the notebook instead of a desktop. Is it because they don't have enough room for it or that they can only have one computer so they want it portable?
Maybe iPad + iMac will become a popular setup. Personally I wouldn't want to give up any of my Apple form factors.
Apple was successful with its "digital lifestyle", that's why. Most people don't use computers for "computing" or development; they use them as over-priced media players. And can't imagine them as anything else.
When your #1 interest is playing music, watching videos or surfing the Internet with a browser, you want to be mobile, or at least there is no upside to a fixed location.
Developers, etc., who invest intellectual capital in their machines, want it more locked down to avoid loss or instability. Desktop/workstations are just that ... for work, in a controlled stable environment. If you aren't using the computer for work, but just looking at screen, you can do that anywhere.
I've been in computers since soldering together my first Heathkit H8 in 1976 ... hard-core users are now marginalized in Apple's profit margin as we move toward cartoon-like, grossly simplified interfaces. Hiding complexity from ignorant users with simple needs is the be-all and end-all.
The trajectory inevitably leads to computers that are will be useless as "computers". You can see it in the new college com sci. grads coming out of school who know practically nothing about the underlying nature of the systems, only taught in high-level user-interface issues.
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
I signed awhile ago. I continue to hold on to my old white 24in iMac. Will buy this week if matte is an option, otherwise continue to wait. I really want a new iMac, but I have my doubts that they'll give us the option. They haven't yet, so why should they start now?
You really should open up your mind a bit and not allow yourself to damn something you haven't tried. Each new Mac should be evaluated on it's own merits, that includes whatever screen they install on it.
This is one huge advantage the laptops have over the desktops. Just a few screws and you get to your drive.
Funny how the two have evolved. Laptop drives used to be hard to replace; desktops, simple.
I wish it were easier to replace a hard disk, but like user-replaceable batteries there's a manufacturing cost consideration. I imagine the whole question will soon become moot as SSDs replace HDs anyway. Besides, I think Apple is soon going to offer "cloud" storage for all your local content, which will reduce users' ever-growing mass storage needs.
If desktops go under 5% though, even if the sales number is large enough, you'd have to wonder if it is worth their effort.
5% may still be significant. The question to ask is when will their desktop segment represent Xserve's share when they dropped it - I'm guessing way less than 5%, probably less than 1%.
Apple lumped Xserve sales together with "desktops" so I don't know.
In any event I imagine iMacs and Mac Pros will continue to be sold for a long time.
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
Probably. Then you can start your own company in your parents' garage
Apple was successful with its "digital lifestyle", that's why. Most people don't use computers for "computing" or development; they use them as over-priced media players. And can't imagine them as anything else.
Sadly true! Worst is that many of these people are convinced that they know all about computers.
When your #1 interest is playing music, watching videos or surfing the Internet with a browser, you want to be mobile, or at least there is no upside to a fixed location.
I'm not 100% convinced of that. For example a larger screen goes a long way to making videos enjoyable. The general point though is correct, today's laptops handle this fairly well.
Developers, etc., who invest intellectual capital in their machines, want it more locked down to avoid loss or instability.
There is a lot more interest in desktops than the developer crowd. for many it is more about performance and flexibility.
I've been in computers since soldering together my first Heathkit H8 in 1976 ... hard-core users are now marginalized in Apple's profit margin as we move toward cartoon-like, grossly simplified interfaces. Hiding complexity from ignorant users with simple needs is the be-all and end-all.
commodore c64, Heath Z100 and others here. However I think your attitude about Mac OS is a bit negative. I switched to the Mac after years with Linux because Mac OS as a whole is a better option. At least for a general purpose laptop / desktop machine.
The trajectory inevitably leads to computers that are will be useless as "computers". You can see it in the new college com sci. grads coming out of school who know practically nothing about the underlying nature of the systems, only taught in high-level user-interface issues.
Wish I had the time to get into this point, maybe later.
Eventually we will be back to people having to build their own systems because the market percentage for "those sorts of people" will be too small for any manufacturer to bother with...
Later