Tesseract G5
Here's the mock up:
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/outsider/cubeg5.html
We all know there's a market. Will Apple continue to ignore it?
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/outsider/cubeg5.html
We all know there's a market. Will Apple continue to ignore it?
Comments
Originally posted by Outsider
Here's the mock up:
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/outsider/cubeg5.html
We all know there's a market. Will Apple continue to ignore it?
lol. yes they will. you must have missed the memo about the new iMac.
They need a headless machine with more expandability than the iMac, but not as fast/top-of-the-line as the PowerMac, I would have preferred to buy another cube-like machine over a behemoth of a PM
Id put the base line at 1499 or 1599, right between a base iMac and a base PM
Originally posted by ipodandimac
lol. yes they will. you must have missed the memo about the new iMac.
Not the same market at all. The iMac (as long as Apple doesn't break its own rules) will always be a simple, all-in-one, computer. Anything else and it isn't an iMac. But if you look back in Apple's history you will see something; there hasn't been an inexpensive headless smaller-then-huge machine in recent (Jobsian) history.
The Cube, while small and headless was not inexpensive. So you don't make it inexpensive you say. Well then you have a problem with differentiating the lines. If I could talk with some psychiatrists we can come up with a specific phobia dealing with that because that is what Apple exhibits. "Can't have anything in between, clean lines, clean lines!"
Many of us would like a SFF (Small Form Factor) Mac unit. But hey, Apple doesn't see a reason behind it, couldn't market it, "clean lines!"; a combination of those reasons or more. Our loss, their loss.
Originally posted by IonYz
Not the same market at all. The iMac (as long as Apple doesn't break its own rules) will always be a simple, all-in-one, computer. Anything else and it isn't an iMac. But if you look back in Apple's history you will see something; there hasn't been an inexpensive headless smaller-then-huge machine in recent (Jobsian) history.
The Cube, while small and headless was not inexpensive. So you don't make it inexpensive you say. Well then you have a problem with differentiating the lines. If I could talk with some psychiatrists we can come up with a specific phobia dealing with that because that is what Apple exhibits. "Can't have anything in between, clean lines, clean lines!"
Many of us would like a SFF (Small Form Factor) Mac unit. But hey, Apple doesn't see a reason behind it, couldn't market it, "clean lines!"; a combination of those reasons or more. Our loss, their loss.
ok well at any rate, the cube is dead. to fit everything into a tiny cube requires sacrificing the same performance that the iMac G5 does. I think a mini tower would be a better idea. I mean think about the Radeon 9800XT--that alone would make a cube impossible because of the fan, not to mention all the heat from the processor combined with the graphics card.
Originally posted by jaegermann
ipodandimac, the iMac doesnt fit into that category...
They need a headless machine with more expandability than the iMac, but not as fast/top-of-the-line as the PowerMac, I would have preferred to buy another cube-like machine over a behemoth of a PM
Id put the base line at 1499 or 1599, right between a base iMac and a base PM
I don't understand. You take away the expensive LCD monitor, yet the starting price of your headless machine is more than the entry level iMac? Shouldn't it be less expensive? Unless of course your headless version has more horsepower.
Cost savings of headless over AIO
...No expensive monitor
...No extrordinary design effort to accomadate G5 in quite AIO
Extra cost of headless over AIO
...AGP 8x slot
Take the same spec.s as the AIO iMac remove the LCD monitor add a standard AGP 8x slot and charge $799 - $899 depending how much profit you need.
edit: forgot to add, be prepared for a deluge of orders for the new Apple headless machine and increases in market share
Will Apple continue to ignore it? [/B]
Ignore what? A few low quality drawings designed to look like something that failed before, and drawn without any knowledge of the real-world requirements of a real design (cooling, for example - a paid of arrows, one blue and one red, is not a proper thermal design).
What exactly are they ignoring here?
Originally posted by krispie
Ignore what? A few low quality drawings designed to look like something that failed before, and drawn without any knowledge of the real-world requirements of a real design (cooling, for example - a paid of arrows, one blue and one red, is not a proper thermal design).
What exactly are they ignoring here?
The inexpensive desktop market. It started with the LC, LC II, LC III, IIsi, up to the 6100 and G3 Desktop. Market share is not as important as most people make it out to be but if MS doesn't see fit to make a real Exchange client for the Mac, or Adobe releasing their low end apps for the Mac, then what future does Apple have? We are a 95% Apple workplace, but next year we are going to be replacing tons of Apple machines with cheap Dells because Entourage SUCKS on the Mac. Even 2004. Delegate support is a joke as is GAL browsing, etc. People can't do their jobs with the Macs anymore. By the end of 2006, only our art and studio departments will be on Macs. Developer don't see the Mac market and they're not developing for it anymore. EFI isn't even releasing their printer and RIP utilities for the Mac or at lease on the same level as the Windows versions. All we're asking for is inexpensive machines and if that means taking the display out and leaving iMac guts in a small mini-tower box then so be it.
The original "tesseract" figure was silly, though. The chief expense of the old Cube was the acrylic enclosure. We sure hope Apple's learned from that one. The old Cube was not a headless AIO like the iMac, it was a shrunken tower, with an AGP slot, etc. It was not designed to be cheap, and it wasn't cheap, and it couldn't have been made cheap. Ever see the engineering of the chassis? It was a beautiful piece of hardware, with more aluminum than the MDD PowerMac.
I agree that SFF is the wave of the future and Apple will have to produce a smaller machine. But don't expect a cheap headless consumer machine. The Performa days are long gone and forgotten.
Originally posted by cubist
A new headless machine will not make Entourage any better. If your company is replacing Macs with PCs just to run Outlook, frankly, your company is run by morons. Outlook, and Exchange FTM, is a pile of stinking garbage. (Why don't you suggest they consider Notes? Eh, why bother.)
The original "tesseract" figure was silly, though. The chief expense of the old Cube was the acrylic enclosure. We sure hope Apple's learned from that one. The old Cube was not a headless AIO like the iMac, it was a shrunken tower, with an AGP slot, etc. It was not designed to be cheap, and it wasn't cheap, and it couldn't have been made cheap. Ever see the engineering of the chassis? It was a beautiful piece of hardware, with more aluminum than the MDD PowerMac.
I agree that SFF is the wave of the future and Apple will have to produce a smaller machine. But don't expect a cheap headless consumer machine. The Performa days are long gone and forgotten.
When you are locked into an Exchange solution you can't just drop it, especially if it's for 300 users. Notes? That's what they had before, and Notes is a disaster when you're trying to colaborate with clients and actually read their email. Communigate Pro, First Class, all have their issues that make running them more of a hassle than Exchange, not to mention finding IT people who actually have even heard of them. And the point is not running Entourage better, but to attract more developers to the Mac there has to actually be a significant market share of Macs in the work place.
Hey but thanks for your glorious insight. Dump Exchange! Why didn't we think of that! Doh!
Originally posted by ipodandimac
I think a mini tower would be a better idea.
Um, yeah. Exactly. A SFF unit. A Cube, a Micro-tower. Its all SFF. A "mini-tower" isn't small enough as the Power Mac G4 was a "mini-tower".
But it doesn't matter in the least now. Apple plans on gaining market share using the iMac G5 the Apple-way (huge margins). Something that would be lacking in a SFF no/monitor unit. Guess "No Pain, No Gain" is a foreign concept.
No problem, I enjoy watching our numbers dwindle. Maybe a press-release when we officially go below a percent.
Originally posted by rickag
Cost savings of headless over AIO
...
I'd just like to add lower freight costs due to lower weight to that list.
Originally posted by Outsider
When you are locked into an Exchange solution you can't just drop it, especially if it's for 300 users. Notes? That's what they had before, and Notes is a disaster when you're trying to colaborate with clients and actually read their email. Communigate Pro, First Class, all have their issues that make running them more of a hassle than Exchange, not to mention finding IT people who actually have even heard of them. And the point is not running Entourage better, but to attract more developers to the Mac there has to actually be a significant market share of Macs in the work place.
Hey but thanks for your glorious insight. Dump Exchange! Why didn't we think of that! Doh!
That's the price you pay for going with Microsoft solutions. Not that anyone will ever learn.
Still, how would any of this be solved by a cheap, headless Mac? Do you actually think MS cripples Entourage for any other reason than to keep Apple out of enterprise? They have the money to develop a robust Exchange client, they have the profit incentive, they have the knowledge, and Lord knows they'd have the gratitude of their customer base.
If anything, a successful push of Macs into enterprise would probably result in Mac Office getting worse — but only in those areas critical to enterprise, not in the sort of areas touched on in Officially Sanctioned Product Reviews™.
Macs are marginalized in business for reasons that have nothing to do with the hardware. IT people might bring up hardware as an excuse, but the reasons are mostly political. Hardware will not solve this problem.
In fact, I'm still not sure what problem a cheap headless Mac would solve. Every one of these threads that I've seen actually proposes about four different categories of headless Mac, each of which is lauded as the Silver Bullet that Solves Everything™. In fact, I imagine that any one of them would make a couple thousand enthusiasts happy and leave the rest clamoring for their headless iMac.
Meanwhile, no matter what Apple releases, MS will continue to move aggressively to protect their cash cow at Apple's expense.
Originally posted by Amorph
....
Macs are marginalized in business for reasons that have nothing to do with the hardware. IT people might bring up hardware as an excuse, but the reasons are mostly political. Hardware will not solve this problem.
In fact, I'm still not sure what problem a cheap headless Mac would solve. Every one of these threads that I've seen actually proposes about four different categories of headless Mac, each of which is lauded as the Silver Bullet that Solves Everything™. In fact, I imagine that any one of them would make a couple thousand enthusiasts happy and leave the rest clamoring for their headless iMac.
Meanwhile, no matter what Apple releases, MS will continue to move aggressively to protect their cash cow at Apple's expense.
Agreed for the most part, especially concerning business. Apple has lost the battle(s) for business, not the war just yet, but the battle(s) assuredly. For business, Apple has a few hold outs in isolated areas and their only chance resides with the xServe and Unix underpinnings, then maybe in the distant future may stage some kind of recovery.
I disagree wholeheartedly concerning the home user though. The home user is fed up with downloading endless patches and mucking around with virus protection. They're fed up with endless sessions trying to get the computer to just work. They're tired of having to get more knowledgable freinds to come in and just get the machine working. Also, the home user is a perfect target for the iApps.
One problem a headless machine would solve is the relatively high entry point pricing for an Apple computer. A headless Mac certainly is not a silver bullet, but it removes a barrier that is artificially set up by Apple, who in their own statments have set a goal of increasing market share. The other barrier in migration from Windows is software(arguably the greatest barrier), so combined with relatively high priced entry points switching becomes financially unacceptable. A headless machine lowers the entry point price and allows any potential switcher to use their existing monitor .
An AIO only narrows the potential target market and in my humble opinion will not in the long run significantly increase market share.
then again what the h@## do I know. I'm not the head of a corporation making these decisions, only an end user, and no CEO asks my opinion.
Originally posted by Amorph
That's the price you pay for going with Microsoft solutions. Not that anyone will ever learn.
Still, how would any of this be solved by a cheap, headless Mac? Do you actually think MS cripples Entourage for any other reason than to keep Apple out of enterprise? They have the money to develop a robust Exchange client, they have the profit incentive, they have the knowledge, and Lord knows they'd have the gratitude of their customer base.
If anything, a successful push of Macs into enterprise would probably result in Mac Office getting worse — but only in those areas critical to enterprise, not in the sort of areas touched on in Officially Sanctioned Product Reviews™.
Macs are marginalized in business for reasons that have nothing to do with the hardware. IT people might bring up hardware as an excuse, but the reasons are mostly political. Hardware will not solve this problem.
In fact, I'm still not sure what problem a cheap headless Mac would solve. Every one of these threads that I've seen actually proposes about four different categories of headless Mac, each of which is lauded as the Silver Bullet that Solves Everything™. In fact, I imagine that any one of them would make a couple thousand enthusiasts happy and leave the rest clamoring for their headless iMac.
Meanwhile, no matter what Apple releases, MS will continue to move aggressively to protect their cash cow at Apple's expense.
You're right when it comes to MS but it's the other developers I'm worried about. But if Macs get more market share and MS STILL doen't make a real Exchange client for the Mac, for example, suspicious eyes will start to turn towards Redmond. At least now they have the excuse that Apple has a pathetic market share in the business sector. I guess it's the chicken and the egg thing.
And if I was making the decisions at my job about what email infrastructure was being used, you better beleive there would be a push torwards something unix based and more open. Exchange is pathetic, and there are other very appealing solutions out there. But it takes a commitment either way. We're not really locked into Exchange; we CAN switch over to something else. the effort it will take to move from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2003 would be about the same as the effort to move to something entirely different like First Class. And you can even use the same hardware.
And what rickag said.
Originally posted by rickag
I disagree wholeheartedly concerning the home user though. The home user is fed up with downloading endless patches and mucking around with virus protection. They're fed up with endless sessions trying to get the computer to just work. They're tired of having to get more knowledgable freinds to come in and just get the machine working. Also, the home user is a perfect target for the iApps.
And so, the iMac is the perfect solution: It is the absolute pinnacle of simplicity.
One problem a headless machine would solve is the relatively high entry point pricing for an Apple computer. A headless Mac certainly is not a silver bullet, but it removes a barrier that is artificially set up by Apple, who in their own statments have set a goal of increasing market share. The other barrier in migration from Windows is software(arguably the greatest barrier), so combined with relatively high priced entry points switching becomes financially unacceptable. A headless machine lowers the entry point price and allows any potential switcher to use their existing monitor .
The entry level price issue is tricky, because it's artificial: You can't compare a headless machine to an AIO. Fortunately for Apple, even Dell offers bundled systems primarily to consumers now, and HP et al. have been doing that for years (and before then, CompUSA and Best Buy did it themselves). If you compare bundled system to bundled system, the iMac doesn't look so bad. And since no consumer PC is worth anything without a monitor, that's the fair comparison.
Therefore, the headless system doesn't lower the cost of entry. It just engages in the same sort of bait-and-switch that some vendors do, where they only advertise the cost of part of the system.
As for switchers keeping their existing monitors... how many times does it have to be pointed out that the vast majority of consumers don't do that? Even the ones who intend to do it don't do it, because monitors are constantly improving, and they're not really all that expensive relative to the price of a whole system, so they're easy to rationalize. We're back in hobbyist territory here. For everyone else, this is just one more thing to worry about when purchasing and again when setting up the machine, it's more desktop space, more clutter, more visual imposition.
An AIO only narrows the potential target market and in my humble opinion will not in the long run significantly increase market share.
The numbers will tell true. I've already seen one review (in PC Magazine) that favorably compares the iMac to a desknote, confirming my hunch that desknotes are the new consumer desktops, and the iMac is a better desknote. PC Magazine gives the iMac 5 out of 5 stars, for what it's worth.
The iMac is the closest thing Apple's released yet to a true consumer product: If you go wireless, then there's no assembly required. You just plug it in, turn it on and use it, like every other electrical appliance on the consumer market.
By contrast, the PC consumer desktops are just specially configured enterprise desktops. The myth that the enterprise market dwarfs the consumer market (it doesn't) comes from the fact that as far as sales of PC desktops go, the enterprise market dwarfs the consumer market. But all that means is that PC desktops never achieved the level of penetration in the consumer market that they reached in the enterprise market. Apple is aware that there's a huge untapped market out there, and that's what they're targeting. They're targeting it by looking at the way every other successful consumer product is designed (they have one in-house: iPod) and building the iMac around those rules. Obviously, my opinion of the success of this strategy carries exactly as much weight as yours in the grand scheme of things, but I can certainly see this working. The major obstacle has been the perception of the Macintosh line itself, which is one reasong why Apple is hitching the iMac to the far more widely accepted iPod brand.
It could work, but of course the only way to know is to watch and wait for the numbers.
Originally posted by Outsider
The inexpensive desktop market. It started with the LC, LC II, LC III, IIsi, up to the 6100 and G3 Desktop. Market share is not as important as most people make it out to be but if MS doesn't see fit to make a real Exchange client for the Mac, or Adobe releasing their low end apps for the Mac, then what future does Apple have? We are a 95% Apple workplace, but next year we are going to be replacing tons of Apple machines with cheap Dells because Entourage SUCKS on the Mac. Even 2004. Delegate support is a joke as is GAL browsing, etc. People can't do their jobs with the Macs anymore. By the end of 2006, only our art and studio departments will be on Macs. Developer don't see the Mac market and they're not developing for it anymore. EFI isn't even releasing their printer and RIP utilities for the Mac or at lease on the same level as the Windows versions. All we're asking for is inexpensive machines and if that means taking the display out and leaving iMac guts in a small mini-tower box then so be it.
a) Exchange sucks, so why not replace it with IMAP, for example?
b) If you are looking for a cheap Mac, eMacs are precisely designed for that.
Originally posted by Outsider
When you are locked into an Exchange solution you can't just drop it, especially if it's for 300 users. ...
Have you considered using Outlook Web Access? We have some users who prefer it to Outlook itself. It works very well, thanks to some clever client-side Javascript. On the Mac you'll have to use Netscape 7 or perhaps Mozilla or Firefox. It crashes far less than Outlook does.
I agree with your point regarding marketshare. An SFF machine is the way to get corporate marketshare, and unless Apple goes after a broader customer base, there won't be any point in developing software for it - a "negative network effect" will ensue. And this is the time to do it - the Linux tidal wave is about to wash over the computing world.
Originally posted by cubist
I agree with your point regarding marketshare. An SFF machine is the way to get corporate marketshare, and unless Apple goes after a broader customer base, there won't be any point in developing software for it - a "negative network effect" will ensue. And this is the time to do it - the Linux tidal wave is about to wash over the computing world.
First, the consumer market is still largely untapped, so Apple can expand their userbase considerably without even looking at enterprise.
Second, the new iMac is a brilliant enterprise machine. It's ergonomic (not so much as the previous iMac, but still head and shoulders above other options), it has a big screen but a tiny footprint, it can be mounted on VESA mounts, and if anything it's easier to service than most SFF or tower PCs. However, Apple can't push anything into the enterprise market for as long as MS is trying to push them out. The Xserve is a clever backdoor strategy to warm IT up to the Apple brand, but until IT decides to move the back room to Mac- or UNIX-friendly protocols, the most Apple can do on the desktop front is make their desktops as attractive as possible and hope that they're noticed. Even if a SFF Mac was a better solution for enterprise in a vacuum, it wouldn't change the lack of Access, or a good Exchange server, etc. And those are the real obstacles.
1) Plugging in a monitor to a computer isn't hard, period.
2) A seldom mentioned thing about AIOs is the very obvious thing that you are going to have to like it's design to really concider it. A case you can put away from the reach of your eyes, but a screen is allmost allways there. This is one of three reasons why I wouldn't not concider an iMac if I was after a new desktop. The eMac is to deep for my desk and too weak preformace whise.
Is it really reasonable to force people who want a desktop Mac to buy a Power Mac (or nothing at all) based on something as silly as space needs or design preferences?
3) About a month ago someone stated here in the forums that a recent survey in Germany showed that a larger percentage of people bought there machines without a monitor then bundled (iirc they stated that they used there old one).
4) The iMac isn't the perfect consumer desctop, mainly because IMO you can't use such a word meaningfully. To be that it'd have to satisfy all the needs that a consumer might have, and the iMac doesn't. Though it do is a very nice small formfactor machine that a larger portion of the "consumer" market should look at.