What you are proposing jeromba is basically what the cube was before it died. A cheap (~$1200), unexpandable, computer which performed like a low end Power Mac.
And it didn't work. Performance requires expandability.
Also, you haven't factored in the cost of engineering a new motherboard (remember, the Cube used the Power Mac chipset. You still need a new size and shape mobo), and cooling system. R&D needs to be repaid.
Why make a crippled machine? Make it a simple innovative tower, as small as possible, while being able to handle the latest graphics cards. As all of you have said.
But why cripple the processor. We want performance per dollar.........not just cheap. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't pay just a little more for performance.
If you are going to make a computer that's upgradeable, then you had better put hardware in it that will live into the future.
<strong>What you are proposing jeromba is basically what the cube was before it died. A cheap (~$1200), unexpandable, computer which performed like a low end Power Mac.
And it didn't work. Performance requires expandability.
Also, you haven't factored in the cost of engineering a new motherboard (remember, the Cube used the Power Mac chipset. You still need a new size and shape mobo), and cooling system. R&D needs to be repaid.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it was a cool expensive $1599 unexpandable low end pMac.
Right, and when the price dropped to $1200, they went quicker then the first downloads of the Pam and Tommy video. You couldn't find any after that because $1200 was a great price.
powerful == "Faster" at least (no compromise on speed)
silent (as original)
"Fastest", fat Graphics == Radeon 970 (or whatever is best/new when C2 is released).
All the rest, USB2, FW800, BT, 1G+ RAM, fat hard drives, etc.
-=-
The old cube was never best-of-breed performance and graphics wise, and that's why I never bought one (which I still partially regret). For the quality of design and price, it should have been no-compromise, and therefore a no-brainer purchase. I know I am not the only one who held off purchasing the cube awaiting its next generation.
This is why the cube died. The professionals wanted something more powerful and expandable, so they bought Powermacs. The consumers saw the iMacs, which cost less, and the consumers didn't need a G4. So they bought iMacs. The only people that bought the Cube bought it, in essence, for its awesome looks.
<strong>This is why the cube died. The professionals wanted something more powerful and expandable, so they bought Powermacs. The consumers saw the iMacs, which cost less, and the consumers didn't need a G4. So they bought iMacs. The only people that bought the Cube bought it, in essence, for its awesome looks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think that Apple had close to the right price when they stoped producing them, add a lower end model for $999, possibly drop the high end Cube price by $100-200, and you had a great product mix. I think that Apple just didnt let the Cube live quite long enough to make it a profitable design. I know my company was prepared to replace all the computers in the Design department (10 units) with Cubes, but due to economic conditions the purchase came about 8 months too late, so they bought PM's. They probably would have bought some Cubes for the Imaging (7) and Productin (about 50) departments as well, becouse these computers never have PCI cards put in them, and we never buy the top end computers for these departments.
The bottom line is that the economy is partly to blame for the demise of the Cube.
A cube ought to be an alternative to an iMac, not to a pro machine. Lemon Bon Bon is spot on, when the prices on the cubes dropped for the last time, despite being slow, they were essentially sold out within days. People wanted them, they just didn't want to get reamed (even by Apple's sphincter stretching standards)
I gotta say, I'm not as completely opposed to AIO's, I'd never buy one, be sure about that, but they have their purposes. My parents could use one, if I had unlimited cash, I'd buy one for them, as it is, they get my old PC, wiped clean, set up for minimal tinkering, and ready for e-mail chat and word... It's in a crap location in the house, a gum-drop or AIO would solve that buy letting them put it a nice nook in the kitchen or fold down desk inthe family room. But you know, they just don't need so expensive of a machine for that. That's why although I think there is a place for AIO's (provided they're substantially cheaper than their kissing cousin -- the laptop) I think Apple has pretty much sold as many AIO's as they're going to sell at current prices. But a lot of consumers want/need a headless expandable computer.
Such a cube redux, priced pretty much parallel to the iMac provides the choice Apple MUST provide if they have any hopes of expanding their market. Let the consumer choose between a screen and integration or upgradability and slightly more power. Done, like that. PM sales would be safe with DP configs, a high-end cube could even sport a single 970, if Apple can sell an SP tower for 1500, then surely it can sell the same tower, cut down but with a superdrive added for similar money. That's you're low end tower -- cubes in the 1200-1500 range with decent expansion, plentiful RAM slots, AGP slot, PCI slot fast firewire etc etc...
Even something approximately the size of a phonebook woulod be great. Even for schools, make a cheap one with basic (32MB MX2 graphics, small HDD and read only optical. It's even better than an AIO. With Apple's USB keyboard, you could lock the box under a desk and have only the monitor/keyboard/mouse on the desk with an empty USB slot ofr thumb-drives...
I'm happy to see so many people actively contributing their ideas about the Cube 2. It's good to see that while Uncle Steve put the Cube on ice, it's still in a lot of our hearts. I have a feeling that with the new 970 lineup Steve could re-release the Cube as an upgradeable iMac equivalent. That way if you want a bigger screen, you can have one. It must support the new Fire Wire though because that's Apple's baby and it would be stupid to no include it, considering people's comments about Fire Wire in other threads dealing with Audio Interfaces in the home. So that would have to be included. All in all, I think Apple could do it, but the question really is will they? A minit tower that is as sleek as the Cube would be great to have for those of us who don't have a nice office to put a Tower in. We have to use the little space we have to the best of our ability and a Cube would be a great answer to that. As for the silent comments, I agree with you there, but they have ultra quiet fans these days (obviously not used in the Wind Tunnel PM's) that could keep the inside cool, and keep the noise to an absolute minimum. If the Cube was SJ's idea then he may once again push for it to be re-released with the new 970. Hey, we can dream can't we?
Whoa, a bit touchy-feely there about the Cube, Brian Green...it ain't a memorial service you know. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> If you guys are talkin' a Dell competitor out of the Cube, there is a giant factor that is not being calculated: the screen. At the prices that are being predicted for a basic Cube, a 17" Apple FP display will cost almost the same as the CPU itself. And Apple most certainly will not market a cheap as hell, low-quality flat panel to accompany a Dell-crusher. That would be against Apple's integrity as a company, and would cut into the more expensive display's sales. Just sayin' it as it is. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
The majority of PM buyers don't buy an Apple display to accompany their machine anyway. They are high-end (20 and 23) or grossly overpriced (17 and former 15) people will have perfectly good CRt's and LCD's that they'll want to use. Offices and school boards are full of such machines.
If a low end SP tower can cost 1500, then that tower with a few slots removed, a smaller box and less drive bays can certainly cost 1500 with a superdrive (which is what a high-end cube should be) a low end cube could easily cost 800-1000. Apple does sell 3rd party monitors on their site, you could buy one of those. Most people wouldn't even ask for that much. Just gimme the box, I'll look after the display myself.
Comments
And it didn't work. Performance requires expandability.
Also, you haven't factored in the cost of engineering a new motherboard (remember, the Cube used the Power Mac chipset. You still need a new size and shape mobo), and cooling system. R&D needs to be repaid.
Barto
But why cripple the processor. We want performance per dollar.........not just cheap. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't pay just a little more for performance.
If you are going to make a computer that's upgradeable, then you had better put hardware in it that will live into the future.
<strong>What you are proposing jeromba is basically what the cube was before it died. A cheap (~$1200), unexpandable, computer which performed like a low end Power Mac.
And it didn't work. Performance requires expandability.
Also, you haven't factored in the cost of engineering a new motherboard (remember, the Cube used the Power Mac chipset. You still need a new size and shape mobo), and cooling system. R&D needs to be repaid.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it was a cool expensive $1599 unexpandable low end pMac.
Barto
powerful == "Faster" at least (no compromise on speed)
silent (as original)
"Fastest", fat Graphics == Radeon 970 (or whatever is best/new when C2 is released).
All the rest, USB2, FW800, BT, 1G+ RAM, fat hard drives, etc.
-=-
The old cube was never best-of-breed performance and graphics wise, and that's why I never bought one (which I still partially regret). For the quality of design and price, it should have been no-compromise, and therefore a no-brainer purchase. I know I am not the only one who held off purchasing the cube awaiting its next generation.
I hope C2 (or slab) is no compromise and silent.
If you liked the movie "Cube" I highly recommend not to watch Cube2 the movie. It is plain awful, one of the worst movies I've seen in a long while.
Now how does this relate to the subject? Well it's cube^2 anyways..
-JB
<strong>This is why the cube died. The professionals wanted something more powerful and expandable, so they bought Powermacs. The consumers saw the iMacs, which cost less, and the consumers didn't need a G4. So they bought iMacs. The only people that bought the Cube bought it, in essence, for its awesome looks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think that Apple had close to the right price when they stoped producing them, add a lower end model for $999, possibly drop the high end Cube price by $100-200, and you had a great product mix. I think that Apple just didnt let the Cube live quite long enough to make it a profitable design. I know my company was prepared to replace all the computers in the Design department (10 units) with Cubes, but due to economic conditions the purchase came about 8 months too late, so they bought PM's. They probably would have bought some Cubes for the Imaging (7) and Productin (about 50) departments as well, becouse these computers never have PCI cards put in them, and we never buy the top end computers for these departments.
The bottom line is that the economy is partly to blame for the demise of the Cube.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>
That was the single, simplest, biggest reason for its demise.
Lemon Bon Bon
I gotta say, I'm not as completely opposed to AIO's, I'd never buy one, be sure about that, but they have their purposes. My parents could use one, if I had unlimited cash, I'd buy one for them, as it is, they get my old PC, wiped clean, set up for minimal tinkering, and ready for e-mail chat and word... It's in a crap location in the house, a gum-drop or AIO would solve that buy letting them put it a nice nook in the kitchen or fold down desk inthe family room. But you know, they just don't need so expensive of a machine for that. That's why although I think there is a place for AIO's (provided they're substantially cheaper than their kissing cousin -- the laptop) I think Apple has pretty much sold as many AIO's as they're going to sell at current prices. But a lot of consumers want/need a headless expandable computer.
Such a cube redux, priced pretty much parallel to the iMac provides the choice Apple MUST provide if they have any hopes of expanding their market. Let the consumer choose between a screen and integration or upgradability and slightly more power. Done, like that. PM sales would be safe with DP configs, a high-end cube could even sport a single 970, if Apple can sell an SP tower for 1500, then surely it can sell the same tower, cut down but with a superdrive added for similar money. That's you're low end tower -- cubes in the 1200-1500 range with decent expansion, plentiful RAM slots, AGP slot, PCI slot fast firewire etc etc...
Even something approximately the size of a phonebook woulod be great. Even for schools, make a cheap one with basic (32MB MX2 graphics, small HDD and read only optical. It's even better than an AIO. With Apple's USB keyboard, you could lock the box under a desk and have only the monitor/keyboard/mouse on the desk with an empty USB slot ofr thumb-drives...
Ooops, gotta work, more later.
If a low end SP tower can cost 1500, then that tower with a few slots removed, a smaller box and less drive bays can certainly cost 1500 with a superdrive (which is what a high-end cube should be) a low end cube could easily cost 800-1000. Apple does sell 3rd party monitors on their site, you could buy one of those. Most people wouldn't even ask for that much. Just gimme the box, I'll look after the display myself.