OK, but what if they can have a case that cost $50? In you scenerio above, they'd save $625,000 over using the same cases as the Powermacs, and they'd save $1,000,000 over paying full price for all 125,000 cases.
I think the existing cases are probably not designed with cost savings in mind-- they're designed for cooling & silence first, with economy coming in a distant third. Apple can definitely design lower cost enclosures for an "econobox" machine.
Interesting from the standpoint that Apple would save money and perhaps be able to offer cheaper towers, but the current G5 towers are huge! As someone who prefers all-in-ones, I think it would be preferable to most folks that any low-end tower be made much smaller, even if it's like a tall cube so it can hold one full-size PCI card.
Perhaps most people have more space than I do, but I think it's a hassle trying to figure out where to put a tower. If it's right on your desk, there is, obviously, less room on your desk. If it's under or beside the desk, it's hard to get at the optical drive. The iMac takes only as much space as any display and the optical drive is right there in front of you. Why people prefer towers, I have no idea, unless they really need the power (and most people don't).
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just defending the all-in-one concept.
As has been pointed out in the above posts, a 'prosumer' machine is either a prettied up consumer model, or a stunted pro machine.
Between the 20 inch iMac (with G5 coming soon) and low end Powermac, there is little room for product (or price) differentiation. Even the cube, a stunning computer, was unable to establish a niche for itself. Unfortunately there is a significant proportion of people who want G5 power, but can only afford an iMac.
It's obvious that people would buy a 2 gig G5 headless for under $1000, if it were available. However such a machine would not fit Apple's high-margin/strongly differentiated product/tight product matrix philosophy. It would muddy the waters, and cannibalise sales.
Worse still, if Apple did persue the low cost/high volume approach, all the inovation that makes a Mac a Mac would eventually be erroded away by cost cutting, and Apple would end up as just another (mediocre) Dell clone, which happens to have it's own OS.
The 'headless' 1k Mac is a pipe dream. If it ever eventuated, it would be the end of the Apple (as we know it, and presumably like it)
The point, at least as I see it, is that Apple's product line does not fill all of the niches that are available in the market today. In particular is that of a consumer level (I really don't like the Pro-sumer moniker) computer that is not an AIO, which covers the majority of consumer level computers sold on the PC side.
The Cube is not a good example because for most of its life on the market it was priced as a boutique item, not a consumer model. Even with that, I believe that if it would have stayed on the market for 6 months longer, at the price point it was when it was EOL'ed, sales would have picked up considerably. One factor that most people fail to count for in it's "failure" is the economy which was turning down at the time, and another is that corporate America just got over a big buying binge to cover Y2K fears. I think the Cube had a lot to offer the market, and know first hand that my company would have purchased quite a few of them within 6 months after they were canceled. Of course we would have purchased fewer low end PowerMacs, which are overkill for most of the computers that we purchase because do not add PC cards, and rarely add a second HD (We have plenty of network space which is safer to store work on because it is backed up nightly). The Cube also suffered from the stagnation of Motorola's G4 processor. All in all, I think that the Cube had a lot to offer the Mac product line, but due to the timing of its release and original price point, it did not do as well as it could have.
The current G4 tower kind of fills the bill as well, but for the speed of the processor that is offered should be less expensive than it is, and is just a stop-gap measure by appearances to continue to support OS 9, which the publishing industry is still using (and probably will be for the next 6-12 months).
Still Steve has stated that growing market share is at least a long-term strategy for Apple. To do this they have to find markets that they are not covering with their current products. They have a very strong presence in the laptop market, which is the fastest growing market today. They have competent, if underpowered, AIO products on the market, and they have just released a respectable professional computer. The iMacs could use a boost, and could get it when they get the next generation processor, be it G5 or the rumored G3 derivative that IBM is working on. But there is still that market that covers the bulk of Windows boxes sold today, which means less expensive than a PM and no monitor, which Apple should address in an attempt to GROW market share.
The bottom line is that for Apple to regain market share that they have lost they need to address new markets, as well as parts of their current markets that they are not covering as well as the competition, and yes Dell is the competition not Apple. They have strong software, a solid brand identity, and good design and quality. They are lacking in product offerings to cover portions of the consumer level, business, and enterprise solutions. Right now, at least based on rumor, they seem to be centering their next attack on enterprise solutions. The other two areas could be covered with one computer design with multiple levels just as the iMac and PM's cover their respective markets.
The 'headless' 1k Mac is a pipe dream. If it ever eventuated, it would be the end of the Apple (as we know it, and presumably like it)
That's just a wee bit alarmist, don't you think? I fail to see how a cube-like G5 1.6GHz machine at $1299 (with room for one optical, one hard drive, four ram slots, and an AGP slot) would signal the death of Apple. I do see it as a great way to appeal to a mass of consumer fence sitters as well as the enterprise market for an average office worker's desktop machine.
Gamblor is that what you want??? or what the business world wants? hehe
Most businesses I see shoot for machines that cost about $1200 for the typical cubical denizen. The machine I mention above would work just fine for them, if it were brought out today.
And no, that's not what I want. I'd buy the $1499 1.8GHz model right above it.
Apple does need an additional line for the desktop.
They had a good Idea with the cube but did not take it far enough and charged too much.
This new machine should have
1 CPU
1 AGP slot
1 PCI-X slot
4 Memory slots
1 internal hard Drive at least 100Gig
1 DVD-R,RW,+R,RW
The pricing of this should be such that when bundled with either the 17" or 20" monitor it should be about $200 more than an iMac. The reason for this pricing difference is because it is giving the user much more capability.
Among the many things, that Apple needs to bring to market in hardware is a new line of monitors. The present line of cinema displays is great but for Office work they have a flaw. The 16:10 aspect ratio is great for most graphics work but most office work is directed to the 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper. If we want Apple to be considered and bought by the enterprise it must match their needs so a 19" LCD with a 4:3 aspect ratio sounds great As well as a 22" with the same specifications. The same is true of layout. they are geared to the printed page not the movie screen and a 26"or 27" with a 4X3 aspect ration would be great. If it will also work with Wintel machines Apple could gain a presence in Windows shops because it has what no one else has.
The next thing that Apple needs to manufacture is an Ergonomic keyboard of high quality similar to the Microsoft keyboards I have seen NO keyboards that are of adequate quality that I would move to before my keyboard went bad. The alternative to this is to work with the Ergonomic keyboard manufacturers, such as kenisis, to make a mode designed for the Mac not just a Windows keyboard adapted for the Mac.
I should have stated above that the pricing for the iMac should drop to $999 for the base model and corresponding decreases for the rest of the line. This would put the proposed models approximately where the present iMacs are when sold with a monitor.
As has been pointed out in the above posts, a 'prosumer' machine is either a prettied up consumer model, or a stunted pro machine.
I disagree. I think there is need out there for a Mac that has one PCI slot, is smaller and cheaper than the current G5, and doesn't have a built-in monitor.
Sorry about that, kraig911. I am out of town on vacation, so I haven't gotten back to your question until today. Lest you think I was ignoring you, I wanted to address your questions.
I browse the web, create and edit digital movies, use office productivity software, and play video games across the web.
Quote:
What is so customizable on the PC side of the pool than the mac side? I've never seen one platform be able to run, photoshop, office, and a unix terminal at once.
Well, I agree that if the *NIX interface is a requirement, then OSX is hard to beat for that criterion. However, I try my hardest to steer clear of the *NIX interface whenever I can--even at work.
Don't think of it so much as customization. Think of it as seamless usability. With the Macintosh platform, I can buy a certain subset of the total software market that will work perfectly with the OS. If I want to utilize software outside this subset, I must completely switch platforms.
With the Windows operating system, there is VERY LITTLE software that I cannot run--EVER.
Now, we can debate which operating system is more functional and easier to operate. Of course, it's bound to be the Macintosh OS. But having a great operating system that does not allow me to run the software I want does very little in the way of making me want to pay $1299 for the hardware that runs the MacOS.
Quote:
Personally I find windows much more working against the user than making itself customizable.
No arguments, here. With respect to security and spyware, the Windows operating systems DEFINITELY works AGAINST me.
Quote:
the only windows excels in is, video games, and I think personally database stuff (but then I don't know much about those sorta things)
Well, not exactly. Actually, Windows excels in software compatibility (as mentioned above), and in hardware driver compatibility.
While using my Macintosh, I had nothing but problems running my Brother laser printer and HP inkjet printer. The reason? Brother and HP put out inferior drivers for the Macintosh platform as compared to the Windows platform.
Is this Apple's fault? Well, it doesn't MATTER whether it's Apple's fault or not. The fact is, I can run these printers faster, with less compatibility problems than on the Macintosh.
Quote:
The sad thing is what a person thinks they need (want) with whats available.
Actually, the things I think are really sad are:
1) Macintosh users put up with a lack of software and inflated hardware prices just because they really like the (truly great) OS. Why should we have to compromise ANYTHING when owning a Macintosh?
2) The Apple Corporation has a great tradition of innovation and technological breakthroughs, and yet, they are stunted by a really crappy sense of marketing and distribution. After 19 years of business, their market share CONTINUES to shrink when it should be rising exponentially.
Quote:
Why does dell sell you a monitor with your computer or try really really hard too? because that lets them increase the price that much more. Percieved value. We need an AIO, for the majority, and a headless computer at the same time.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't think I should have to pay apple $1299 for the purpose of using my own CRT monitor (which, by the way, is an Apple 17" Studio Display that I ALREADY BOUGHT FROM THEM 3 YEARS AGO!)
Going all the way back to the miniturization argument. To say that it costs to make something smaller, and hence a cube m ust cost a lot is not to look at the situation for what it is.
Look at Powerbooks. The smaller the machine, the cheaper it is. 12 is less than 15 is less than 17. Yes, the LCD comes into play, but that isn't the deciding factor any more than size is.
If the same components are used, then there isn't any miniturization penalty, so using less of them automatically makes for a cheaper to produce machine. Apple isn't a PC maker, they have to make their own (or have it made) in every case -- since there's no generic G5 mobo in liu of a SFF G5 mobo, whichever one has the least components will cost less, period.
I suspect that it's also true in the case of the SFF PC mobo versus the ATX. It's not more expensive because it has to be, but rather because the target market will pay. (and it really is not more expensive unless you seriously mismatch) Furthermore, in the case of PC's, the difference is not so dramatic, since the budget towers are extremely cheap, they're not trying to get to a price with the SFF product, just a form.
Powermacs are not cheap at all, a small headless mac would be aimed at PC-towers -- something that takes a few mac values like size and integration and combines them with some solid PC values like flexibility/upgradability/expansion and price. So they are completely different machines, the SFF and a potential cube, because the mac has to come into the consumer price range to be viable while the SFF is already there -- whether either costs a bit more or less than some budget PC towers is completely incedental.
Get a headless consumer mac into the SFF space and they'll fly off the shelves, dead simple.
Small form factor machines on the PC side are more expensive for the same basic reason AIOs are: ATX boards and cases flood the market from dozens of vendors. They enjoy unparalleled economies of scale and tremendous downward price pressure. If a vendor goes the ATX route, the number of components available off the shelf is mindboggling. As long as that is true, nothing will compete with ATX standard components on price. It's not a design issue, it's an economics issue. Worse, some components, like the CPUs, have come to assume that they'll be in large boxes, making any other design difficult as well as expensive. In the price-driven PC market, this automatically makes 95% of the available PCs come in ATX form factors. The usability and suitability of those standards for consumers are considered irrelevant if they're considered at all.
Since Apple cannot tap into the PC component market more than they already have, there is no price advantage to a tower configuration. Since the basic design is pushing 30 years old, and since it never took consumer needs or wants into account, there is no reason for Apple to favor the design.
I think there is demand in the professional market for a small, quiet workstation. I also think the iMac is getting there, frankly. Once it hops off the G4 bus it should make a fine 2D workstation and an excellent corporate desktop (for its size, quiet, and peerless ergonomics).
I'm afraid I simply cannot comprehend how someone would not buy a computer for the sake of a monitor that's probably worth $50 in perfect condition.
Apple needs a sub $1000 tower because right now, plenty of Apple users are giving PC builders or even PC companies money that could go to Apple.
At of the say 4% of Mac users that exist worldwide, I would bet that half, like myself are dual platform users. That means that they have their Mac, usually an older G4, iBook, or a laptop, and then they have a blazing fast, cheap PC that they use for games, cross platform development, 3d rendering, etc.
The point is really that I would bet half of Apple's user base is sitting on the fence. They were waiting for the G5's and now they are here. However they didn't expect Apple to raise the average price point of their towers while introducing them. Instead they expected them to be able to lower them. Apple is pretty much the ONLY company that has been able to do this. No one is saying Apple has to break their backs trying to compete with $500 PC's that are sold at Walmart. But they should be able to do something reasonable at double that price offered without a monitor.
Apple should be able to do the current G5 with a few mods at a maximum of $1099-1199. There is NOTHING about that machine that demands anything special. The memory is commonplace DDR-333. The Nvidia 5200 is a joke of a card. Even the Superdrive is available retail for about $130 now. There is nothing about a single serial HD or a single [email protected] that requires the massive cooling of the current tower.
We have waited for the G5, and likely as Apple loyalist would pay the $1499 that use the be the tower minimum price point so long ago. However $1799 for that machine is just insulting which means you are really spending $2500 for a tower.
Since that is pretty much insulting those folks make due with what they have for now, but that balance could tip quickly. I know I'm on the fence a bit myself. It feels ridiculous with current Apple quality control to spend $2500 on a tower that has noisy digital audio out, drive bays that overheat even with 9 fans, clicking from the power supply with processor cycling, and no one but Apple to turn to with regard to solving these problems.
I went to ABS Computers (abspc.com) and configured a cheap, headless consumer model for under $900. I went with the Awesome 2300 with
- Athlon XP 2600 Barton 333 FSB
- 512 MB PC-3200
- 160 GB 7200RPM SATA drive
- Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE 8X AGP
- 16X DVD-ROM/48 X CD-ROM
- 4X DVD+/RW Recorder
- On Board 10/100 Ethernet
- On Board Sound
In light of the above I don't see why Apple can't price a 1.4 GHZ G4 tower w/ 256 MB memory, an 80 GB 5400 RPM Hard-drive, and a Superdrive for under $1000.
If Apple is concerned their image would be hurt by building a plain, cheap box, than I suggest they resurrect the POWERCOMPUTING brand, sell these "cheap" boxes online without ever mentioning that they're "Apples"(think Toyota/Lexus).
get tech support from abs computing or wal-mart's northgate.... they only sell for profit folks, there's nothing to them except from stealing from the regular computer manufacturers as dells, and hps. Hardly anybody uses PCI slots anymore... wtf are people bring it up for? Being in pro video department myself I barely need mine... when something comes along thats new, I might buy a whole new machine to take advantage of instead of choking it with whatever I have at the time. Its a common practice. same with business, business's don't buy 1200 dollar machines... they buy 1200 dollar machines with 500 $ service contracts.
LBB that is a case someone in Japan made for themselves out of plastic.
I do agree that Apple could and should make a lower priced consumer Mac (not Prosumeer) with a good, low footprint plastic case, and a matching LCD cinema monitor to go with it. What I don't understand is why they don't have one out already. Then again they were late out with CDR's, so they aren't perfect.
By your posts in this, and other threads, one would think that you don't like the iMac 2 that much...
Comments
I think the existing cases are probably not designed with cost savings in mind-- they're designed for cooling & silence first, with economy coming in a distant third. Apple can definitely design lower cost enclosures for an "econobox" machine.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Interesting idea, JCG.
Interesting from the standpoint that Apple would save money and perhaps be able to offer cheaper towers, but the current G5 towers are huge! As someone who prefers all-in-ones, I think it would be preferable to most folks that any low-end tower be made much smaller, even if it's like a tall cube so it can hold one full-size PCI card.
Perhaps most people have more space than I do, but I think it's a hassle trying to figure out where to put a tower. If it's right on your desk, there is, obviously, less room on your desk. If it's under or beside the desk, it's hard to get at the optical drive. The iMac takes only as much space as any display and the optical drive is right there in front of you. Why people prefer towers, I have no idea, unless they really need the power (and most people don't).
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just defending the all-in-one concept.
Between the 20 inch iMac (with G5 coming soon) and low end Powermac, there is little room for product (or price) differentiation. Even the cube, a stunning computer, was unable to establish a niche for itself. Unfortunately there is a significant proportion of people who want G5 power, but can only afford an iMac.
It's obvious that people would buy a 2 gig G5 headless for under $1000, if it were available. However such a machine would not fit Apple's high-margin/strongly differentiated product/tight product matrix philosophy. It would muddy the waters, and cannibalise sales.
Worse still, if Apple did persue the low cost/high volume approach, all the inovation that makes a Mac a Mac would eventually be erroded away by cost cutting, and Apple would end up as just another (mediocre) Dell clone, which happens to have it's own OS.
The 'headless' 1k Mac is a pipe dream. If it ever eventuated, it would be the end of the Apple (as we know it, and presumably like it)
The Cube is not a good example because for most of its life on the market it was priced as a boutique item, not a consumer model. Even with that, I believe that if it would have stayed on the market for 6 months longer, at the price point it was when it was EOL'ed, sales would have picked up considerably. One factor that most people fail to count for in it's "failure" is the economy which was turning down at the time, and another is that corporate America just got over a big buying binge to cover Y2K fears. I think the Cube had a lot to offer the market, and know first hand that my company would have purchased quite a few of them within 6 months after they were canceled. Of course we would have purchased fewer low end PowerMacs, which are overkill for most of the computers that we purchase because do not add PC cards, and rarely add a second HD (We have plenty of network space which is safer to store work on because it is backed up nightly). The Cube also suffered from the stagnation of Motorola's G4 processor. All in all, I think that the Cube had a lot to offer the Mac product line, but due to the timing of its release and original price point, it did not do as well as it could have.
The current G4 tower kind of fills the bill as well, but for the speed of the processor that is offered should be less expensive than it is, and is just a stop-gap measure by appearances to continue to support OS 9, which the publishing industry is still using (and probably will be for the next 6-12 months).
Still Steve has stated that growing market share is at least a long-term strategy for Apple. To do this they have to find markets that they are not covering with their current products. They have a very strong presence in the laptop market, which is the fastest growing market today. They have competent, if underpowered, AIO products on the market, and they have just released a respectable professional computer. The iMacs could use a boost, and could get it when they get the next generation processor, be it G5 or the rumored G3 derivative that IBM is working on. But there is still that market that covers the bulk of Windows boxes sold today, which means less expensive than a PM and no monitor, which Apple should address in an attempt to GROW market share.
The bottom line is that for Apple to regain market share that they have lost they need to address new markets, as well as parts of their current markets that they are not covering as well as the competition, and yes Dell is the competition not Apple. They have strong software, a solid brand identity, and good design and quality. They are lacking in product offerings to cover portions of the consumer level, business, and enterprise solutions. Right now, at least based on rumor, they seem to be centering their next attack on enterprise solutions. The other two areas could be covered with one computer design with multiple levels just as the iMac and PM's cover their respective markets.
The 'headless' 1k Mac is a pipe dream. If it ever eventuated, it would be the end of the Apple (as we know it, and presumably like it)
That's just a wee bit alarmist, don't you think? I fail to see how a cube-like G5 1.6GHz machine at $1299 (with room for one optical, one hard drive, four ram slots, and an AGP slot) would signal the death of Apple. I do see it as a great way to appeal to a mass of consumer fence sitters as well as the enterprise market for an average office worker's desktop machine.
Scottsdale... ahh I have an ex that is from there
Gamblor is that what you want??? or what the business world wants? hehe
Most businesses I see shoot for machines that cost about $1200 for the typical cubical denizen. The machine I mention above would work just fine for them, if it were brought out today.
And no, that's not what I want. I'd buy the $1499 1.8GHz model right above it.
They had a good Idea with the cube but did not take it far enough and charged too much.
This new machine should have
1 CPU
1 AGP slot
1 PCI-X slot
4 Memory slots
1 internal hard Drive at least 100Gig
1 DVD-R,RW,+R,RW
The pricing of this should be such that when bundled with either the 17" or 20" monitor it should be about $200 more than an iMac. The reason for this pricing difference is because it is giving the user much more capability.
Among the many things, that Apple needs to bring to market in hardware is a new line of monitors. The present line of cinema displays is great but for Office work they have a flaw. The 16:10 aspect ratio is great for most graphics work but most office work is directed to the 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper. If we want Apple to be considered and bought by the enterprise it must match their needs so a 19" LCD with a 4:3 aspect ratio sounds great As well as a 22" with the same specifications. The same is true of layout. they are geared to the printed page not the movie screen and a 26"or 27" with a 4X3 aspect ration would be great. If it will also work with Wintel machines Apple could gain a presence in Windows shops because it has what no one else has.
The next thing that Apple needs to manufacture is an Ergonomic keyboard of high quality similar to the Microsoft keyboards I have seen NO keyboards that are of adequate quality that I would move to before my keyboard went bad. The alternative to this is to work with the Ergonomic keyboard manufacturers, such as kenisis, to make a mode designed for the Mac not just a Windows keyboard adapted for the Mac.
Originally posted by HungDaddy
As has been pointed out in the above posts, a 'prosumer' machine is either a prettied up consumer model, or a stunted pro machine.
I disagree. I think there is need out there for a Mac that has one PCI slot, is smaller and cheaper than the current G5, and doesn't have a built-in monitor.
Originally posted by kraig911
What exactly are your computing needs?
Sorry about that, kraig911. I am out of town on vacation, so I haven't gotten back to your question until today. Lest you think I was ignoring you, I wanted to address your questions.
I browse the web, create and edit digital movies, use office productivity software, and play video games across the web.
What is so customizable on the PC side of the pool than the mac side? I've never seen one platform be able to run, photoshop, office, and a unix terminal at once.
Well, I agree that if the *NIX interface is a requirement, then OSX is hard to beat for that criterion. However, I try my hardest to steer clear of the *NIX interface whenever I can--even at work.
Don't think of it so much as customization. Think of it as seamless usability. With the Macintosh platform, I can buy a certain subset of the total software market that will work perfectly with the OS. If I want to utilize software outside this subset, I must completely switch platforms.
With the Windows operating system, there is VERY LITTLE software that I cannot run--EVER.
Now, we can debate which operating system is more functional and easier to operate. Of course, it's bound to be the Macintosh OS. But having a great operating system that does not allow me to run the software I want does very little in the way of making me want to pay $1299 for the hardware that runs the MacOS.
Personally I find windows much more working against the user than making itself customizable.
No arguments, here. With respect to security and spyware, the Windows operating systems DEFINITELY works AGAINST me.
the only windows excels in is, video games, and I think personally database stuff (but then I don't know much about those sorta things)
Well, not exactly. Actually, Windows excels in software compatibility (as mentioned above), and in hardware driver compatibility.
While using my Macintosh, I had nothing but problems running my Brother laser printer and HP inkjet printer. The reason? Brother and HP put out inferior drivers for the Macintosh platform as compared to the Windows platform.
Is this Apple's fault? Well, it doesn't MATTER whether it's Apple's fault or not. The fact is, I can run these printers faster, with less compatibility problems than on the Macintosh.
The sad thing is what a person thinks they need (want) with whats available.
Actually, the things I think are really sad are:
1) Macintosh users put up with a lack of software and inflated hardware prices just because they really like the (truly great) OS. Why should we have to compromise ANYTHING when owning a Macintosh?
2) The Apple Corporation has a great tradition of innovation and technological breakthroughs, and yet, they are stunted by a really crappy sense of marketing and distribution. After 19 years of business, their market share CONTINUES to shrink when it should be rising exponentially.
Why does dell sell you a monitor with your computer or try really really hard too? because that lets them increase the price that much more. Percieved value. We need an AIO, for the majority, and a headless computer at the same time.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't think I should have to pay apple $1299 for the purpose of using my own CRT monitor (which, by the way, is an Apple 17" Studio Display that I ALREADY BOUGHT FROM THEM 3 YEARS AGO!)
Look at Powerbooks. The smaller the machine, the cheaper it is. 12 is less than 15 is less than 17. Yes, the LCD comes into play, but that isn't the deciding factor any more than size is.
If the same components are used, then there isn't any miniturization penalty, so using less of them automatically makes for a cheaper to produce machine. Apple isn't a PC maker, they have to make their own (or have it made) in every case -- since there's no generic G5 mobo in liu of a SFF G5 mobo, whichever one has the least components will cost less, period.
I suspect that it's also true in the case of the SFF PC mobo versus the ATX. It's not more expensive because it has to be, but rather because the target market will pay. (and it really is not more expensive unless you seriously mismatch) Furthermore, in the case of PC's, the difference is not so dramatic, since the budget towers are extremely cheap, they're not trying to get to a price with the SFF product, just a form.
Powermacs are not cheap at all, a small headless mac would be aimed at PC-towers -- something that takes a few mac values like size and integration and combines them with some solid PC values like flexibility/upgradability/expansion and price. So they are completely different machines, the SFF and a potential cube, because the mac has to come into the consumer price range to be viable while the SFF is already there -- whether either costs a bit more or less than some budget PC towers is completely incedental.
Get a headless consumer mac into the SFF space and they'll fly off the shelves, dead simple.
Since Apple cannot tap into the PC component market more than they already have, there is no price advantage to a tower configuration. Since the basic design is pushing 30 years old, and since it never took consumer needs or wants into account, there is no reason for Apple to favor the design.
I think there is demand in the professional market for a small, quiet workstation. I also think the iMac is getting there, frankly. Once it hops off the G4 bus it should make a fine 2D workstation and an excellent corporate desktop (for its size, quiet, and peerless ergonomics).
I'm afraid I simply cannot comprehend how someone would not buy a computer for the sake of a monitor that's probably worth $50 in perfect condition.
At of the say 4% of Mac users that exist worldwide, I would bet that half, like myself are dual platform users. That means that they have their Mac, usually an older G4, iBook, or a laptop, and then they have a blazing fast, cheap PC that they use for games, cross platform development, 3d rendering, etc.
The point is really that I would bet half of Apple's user base is sitting on the fence. They were waiting for the G5's and now they are here. However they didn't expect Apple to raise the average price point of their towers while introducing them. Instead they expected them to be able to lower them. Apple is pretty much the ONLY company that has been able to do this. No one is saying Apple has to break their backs trying to compete with $500 PC's that are sold at Walmart. But they should be able to do something reasonable at double that price offered without a monitor.
Apple should be able to do the current G5 with a few mods at a maximum of $1099-1199. There is NOTHING about that machine that demands anything special. The memory is commonplace DDR-333. The Nvidia 5200 is a joke of a card. Even the Superdrive is available retail for about $130 now. There is nothing about a single serial HD or a single [email protected] that requires the massive cooling of the current tower.
We have waited for the G5, and likely as Apple loyalist would pay the $1499 that use the be the tower minimum price point so long ago. However $1799 for that machine is just insulting which means you are really spending $2500 for a tower.
Since that is pretty much insulting those folks make due with what they have for now, but that balance could tip quickly. I know I'm on the fence a bit myself. It feels ridiculous with current Apple quality control to spend $2500 on a tower that has noisy digital audio out, drive bays that overheat even with 9 fans, clicking from the power supply with processor cycling, and no one but Apple to turn to with regard to solving these problems.
Nick
- Athlon XP 2600 Barton 333 FSB
- 512 MB PC-3200
- 160 GB 7200RPM SATA drive
- Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE 8X AGP
- 16X DVD-ROM/48 X CD-ROM
- 4X DVD+/RW Recorder
- On Board 10/100 Ethernet
- On Board Sound
In light of the above I don't see why Apple can't price a 1.4 GHZ G4 tower w/ 256 MB memory, an 80 GB 5400 RPM Hard-drive, and a Superdrive for under $1000.
If Apple is concerned their image would be hurt by building a plain, cheap box, than I suggest they resurrect the POWERCOMPUTING brand, sell these "cheap" boxes online without ever mentioning that they're "Apples"(think Toyota/Lexus).
For $500.00, Walmart will sell you a Northgate Computer running Windows XP "Home Edition" with:
-Athlon XP 2000+ CPU (1.66 GHz)
-256 KB L2 cache
-256 MB DDR
-40 GB Ultra ATA hard drive
-DVD-ROM drive
-1.44-inch floppy disk drive
-6 in 1 card reader
-Integrated S3 Graphics ProSavage8 AGP 4x 3D (shared memory of 32 MB)
-56 Kbps/V.90 fax modem
-10/100 ethernet
-Integrated AC97 audio with 2 speakers and microphone/headset
-101-key Internet keyboard
-Optical mouse
-6 USB 2.0 connections
and SIX pci slots.
I guess that makes the $500 Northgate a "Prosumer" model.
£699-£999 inc Vat 1.6-2 gig single cpu.
Half the materials in the case. Old G5 speed grades. Maybe a cheaper/less expandable motherboard.
Single G5/more expandable/Dual G5s for PowerMac line. 1K-2K-ish.
It's so simple and I think it would get Apple way more switchers.
Ignorance maybe one of Apple's chief problems. But so is not having the right consumer desktop. Two identical AIO lines aint it.
Lard ass and Lamp man. What an AIO team...
Is there a need for a new Sub-K Apple machine?
Yes.
And it's that gorgeous sexy beast of a PowerCube. Mock or no.
It's got my number...
(drool...)
Lemon Bon Bon
I do agree that Apple could and should make a lower priced consumer Mac (not Prosumeer) with a good, low footprint plastic case, and a matching LCD cinema monitor to go with it. What I don't understand is why they don't have one out already. Then again they were late out with CDR's, so they aren't perfect.
By your posts in this, and other threads, one would think that you don't like the iMac 2 that much...