OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?
Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.
I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.
As far as the "numbers being against" me...shall we compare the margins and profitability of Gateway and Dell to Apple again? I say that Apple is doing quite well in its overall strategy...and that INCLUDES the desktop segment. You want to change course...I'd say the "onus" is all on you.
Vinea
Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.
The Intel transistion of the Mac mini and the iMac didn't help in raising desktop sales (q2 and q3 show a decrease in desktop sales), but the introduction of the Intel MacBook made the notebook sales increase by 300,000 units (!!!) from the previous quarter.
I don't believe the Mac Pro sales, even if great, will make this kind of increase in desktop sales.
The Mac mini and the iMac are past due to an upgrade, and I hope Apple will make the choices needed to bring back up the desktop numbers.
I'd love to see 800,000 numbers for both the notebooks and the desktops, next quarter or the following one.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters . . . While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, . . .
Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against. This agrees with my visit to an Apple store where I heard that it's the Mac Book that has been selling really well, which is the lower priced, consumer notebook. I would expect the same thing to happen in the Mac desktop market if we got a lower priced, consumer tower. It would be selling really well.
OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?
Apple tried something like that once and it was a complete failure. As would something like this. You don't always have to reinvent the wheel, sometimes you just have to make your wheel better. Apple already has a superior case. Why not use it.
Numbers don't matter to the hardcore Apple AIO fans...the fact that in the life on the iMac, from 1998 to right now, I could get a faster preformance from an equal priced PC, and while the price of PCs since 1998 has been cut in about half, the mother fucking iMac has DOUBLED!
The iMac as originally envisioned and the iMac as of now are somewhat different animals. The original iMac is closer to the EDU iMac that for some illogical reason Apple doesn't sell to the public. Offer it for $999 and at places where people actually buy computers and Apple might sell a few. Then again, it's apple and they seem to love shooting themselves in the foot.
Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.
I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.
Vinea
I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice? are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Eh...I'll have a 17" MBP KVM'd to a 24" or 30" WS Dell monitor alongside a Precision 670.
Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.
While the dip is hefty in Q3 year to year the overall flatness is expected given that IDC projects a 4.5% drop in desktop sales coupled with a 24% increase in laptop sales.
Overall strategy seems solid relative to industy. Apple likely sees a magnified effect on the transistion from desktop to laptops given the larger percentage of their sales into the edu market compared to companies with a much stronger business presence. A 6% drop vs 4.5% is likely on par given the pent up demand for the Mac Pro and the wait for a Conroe/Merom iMac given intel's announcemnts.
I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice?
Yes.
The question isn't whether a headless mac would be good for you or me as an individual but whether it would be good for Apple in comparison to their current lineup.
Would it be great to have OSX on a $999 headless computer? Sure. Unless it impairs Apple's ability to self fund further innovation because you've reduced its overall revenue stream.
I like OSX. I prefer Apple stay very healthy and its current path is healthy. Proponents of the cheaper tower advocate a different path...so the burden of proof is on them to show that Apple is even healther afterwards.
If Apple was executing poorly (like right after the Cube debacle) I could see the rationale for calling for change. Right now its hitting the ball out of the park and being very agile in response to change/markets. Hence my assertion that they are executing well.
Quote:
are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?
Sure. The question is whether this number of folks makes up for the difference in revenue and what else they might be satisfied with beyond a $999 Mac mid-tower.
In any case, I haven't argued against a $1600-$1800 Mac Pro all that much except in terms of timing and whether its required RIGHT NOW.
Quote:
Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?
Eh, I could easily have named any Dell PC...for example the 3 year old workstation that was replaced by the Precision. It just happens to be what I have. The relevent portion is that I have both a Dell tower and will have a Mac laptop connected to a Dell monitor. You don't lose the capital investment in the expensive monitors by going Apple, even one with a screen. I dunno that I would choose an iMac but a MBP seems like a good compromise.
Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against.
Please, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Without showing laptop vs desktop trends in the overall market the flatness of the desktop sales in comparison to the gains in laptops is not an indicator by itself that Apple is executing poorly in the desktop arena.
So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? Not only that but picked the right moment where Intel is beating AMD for a change to do that transition? With software emulation and universal binaries that appears to work?
Executing poorly is 2000 with the Cube. I'm sure Apple will stumble again in the future but it isn't occuring right now.
Now I can't even tell which side of the argument you're on. You seemed to be all in support of this idea, and now you're saying that such a machine would only compete with Apple's own machines? If you think that, then you really should also think that there's no point spending $$ developing such a machine in the first place. . .
Holy Cow! How did I miss this post of yours? I just spotted it as I was searching back for something.
Let me reword my opinion. It has been said by two or more people now that a Mac mini tower would be competing head to head with Dell and other Windows vendors. The notion seems to come from the belief that since a Mac now runs Windows software very well, it then must compete directly with all the other Windows computers. I happen to disagree with that, although it may be partly correct sometime in the future, if and when the buying public ever has a different view of the computer marketplace. But that's another topic for another day.
I have been trying to point out that Windows and Macs compete on the basis of their platform, not individual models. When someone is in the market for a computer today, they are looking for either a Windows PC or a Mac. Buyers tend to buy the same platform they have been using, providing they are satisfied. So in this regard, a Mac mini tower would not compete with a Windows mini tower. A Mac is not even an option to most Windows buyers. Also a Windows mini tower is not an option to most Mac buyers. In the case of Mac buyers, they are currently out of luck if they want a brand new 'consumer tower.' However, there is always eBay if they can be satisfied with the G5 or newer G4s. As someone pointed out, eBay is likely Apple's biggest competitor.
Now, once someone declares himself or herself to be a Mac user, all the Mac computers compete with each other for attention. It is simply like this. Yet, if the mini tower is correctly price, it will compete with other Macs but take only a few sales from them. It will take Mac sales away from eBay, however, and attract many of those switching. This is what Apple would like. Most of the sales it will take away from other Macs will be customers who really want a mini tower, but have given up hope. Today these customers settle for a Mac Pro if they have the money, or an iMac if they can talk themselves into an AIO, or a Mini if they want to go cheap until Apple gets their act together and offers a mini tower.
I hope this clarifies my position. Obviously I think a Mac mini tower is a good idea, and in fact want one or two of them for myself.
So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? . . .
No, not at all. Apple is executing very well, but not building the right product yet.
I agree I don't think Apple is doing bad right now at all. And that has to do with a lot of things. So I think right now is a good time to strike. To bring out a machine that may not fill any particular price gap but certainly a perception gap.
Dell isn't exactly suffering by selling certain machines cheaper. As much as people want to call their machines cheap crap, that isn't the case with all the machines they make. While Apple certainly doesn't need as extensive of a line up of hardware as Dell sells, it's about time they offer more then just 6 machines. And a good place to start is a consumer tower. Personally I think Apple is going there, they just haven't announced anything yet.
Plus just to add you have to keep in mind this isn't the Apple of the early 1990's. They are in a much better hardware and marketplace position. They can once again afford to expand their line.
Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :
Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.
Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.
For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.
Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :
Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.
Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.
For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.
Like I said, Apple already makes a case. They just don't offer a conroe version. Is a conroe professor and a GeForce 7600GT in the Pro Mac really too much to ask of Apple?
Like I said, Apple already makes a case. They just don't offer a conroe version. Is a conroe processor and a GeForce 7600GT in the Pro Mac really too much to ask of Apple?
They couldn't reach $999 with the Mac Pro case, and I think that having the same expandability in the mid-range tower would pose too great a risk of cannibalising sales of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro case is huge and would likely put-off your average consumer.
Better to have a smaller tower with less expandability that can start at a significantly lower price point.
Comments
OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?
Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.
I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.
Vinea
As far as the "numbers being against" me...shall we compare the margins and profitability of Gateway and Dell to Apple again? I say that Apple is doing quite well in its overall strategy...and that INCLUDES the desktop segment. You want to change course...I'd say the "onus" is all on you.
Vinea
Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.
Here are the numbers from Q1-2005 to Q3-2006:
Desktops: 623,000 608,000 687,000 602,000 667,000 614,000 529,000
Notebooks: 423,000 462,000 495,000 634,000 587,000 498,000 798,000
The Intel transistion of the Mac mini and the iMac didn't help in raising desktop sales (q2 and q3 show a decrease in desktop sales), but the introduction of the Intel MacBook made the notebook sales increase by 300,000 units (!!!) from the previous quarter.
I don't believe the Mac Pro sales, even if great, will make this kind of increase in desktop sales.
The Mac mini and the iMac are past due to an upgrade, and I hope Apple will make the choices needed to bring back up the desktop numbers.
I'd love to see 800,000 numbers for both the notebooks and the desktops, next quarter or the following one.
The first rev of the iMac in 1998 was $1299.
Yeah I know. The other guy just said he remembered a certain price so I found a link.
Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters . . . While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, . . .
Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against. This agrees with my visit to an Apple store where I heard that it's the Mac Book that has been selling really well, which is the lower priced, consumer notebook. I would expect the same thing to happen in the Mac desktop market if we got a lower priced, consumer tower. It would be selling really well.
OK: what is so bad about the notion of doubling the height of the MacMini, adding a PCIe GPU slot (a single would work, no double wide needed here), a desktop optical and HD Drive, and maybe something spiffy like FrontRow for $999?
Apple tried something like that once and it was a complete failure. As would something like this. You don't always have to reinvent the wheel, sometimes you just have to make your wheel better. Apple already has a superior case. Why not use it.
Numbers don't matter to the hardcore Apple AIO fans...the fact that in the life on the iMac, from 1998 to right now, I could get a faster preformance from an equal priced PC, and while the price of PCs since 1998 has been cut in about half, the mother fucking iMac has DOUBLED!
The iMac as originally envisioned and the iMac as of now are somewhat different animals. The original iMac is closer to the EDU iMac that for some illogical reason Apple doesn't sell to the public. Offer it for $999 and at places where people actually buy computers and Apple might sell a few. Then again, it's apple and they seem to love shooting themselves in the foot.
Might be okay with Merom and the iMacs go Conroe. Still will likely see cannibalization AND whining about the new Cube not being conroe.
I dunno that the PCIe GPU slot would fit a standard sized card with that form factor from just doubling the mini height.
Vinea
I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice? are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?
Eh...I'll have a 17" MBP KVM'd to a 24" or 30" WS Dell monitor alongside a Precision 670.
Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?
Sorry but I can't agree with that.
Desktop sales have been pretty flat the last 7 quarters (the only numbers I felt like looking into) at around 650,000 units per quarter, but desktop sales were down to less than 530,000 units last quarter. While notebook sales have been climbing (hecticly I have to say), with a big jump to close to 800,000 units last quarter, the quarter in which notebooks sales were really better than desktop sales.
While the dip is hefty in Q3 year to year the overall flatness is expected given that IDC projects a 4.5% drop in desktop sales coupled with a 24% increase in laptop sales.
Overall strategy seems solid relative to industy. Apple likely sees a magnified effect on the transistion from desktop to laptops given the larger percentage of their sales into the edu market compared to companies with a much stronger business presence. A 6% drop vs 4.5% is likely on par given the pent up demand for the Mac Pro and the wait for a Conroe/Merom iMac given intel's announcemnts.
Vinea
I'm just not sure I understand why you are so high behind this "cannaibalization of the iMac sales" idea. It couldn't be because you know as well as some others of us that people aren't buying the iMac because they want to... but because they have no other choice?
Yes.
The question isn't whether a headless mac would be good for you or me as an individual but whether it would be good for Apple in comparison to their current lineup.
Would it be great to have OSX on a $999 headless computer? Sure. Unless it impairs Apple's ability to self fund further innovation because you've reduced its overall revenue stream.
I like OSX. I prefer Apple stay very healthy and its current path is healthy. Proponents of the cheaper tower advocate a different path...so the burden of proof is on them to show that Apple is even healther afterwards.
If Apple was executing poorly (like right after the Cube debacle) I could see the rationale for calling for change. Right now its hitting the ball out of the park and being very agile in response to change/markets. Hence my assertion that they are executing well.
are you trying to say that there just are not that many people willing to purchase an Apple computer that sales of both iMacs and an inexpensive Mac Pro can't be supported? Do you really think there aren't people out there who are holding back, that won't buy an iMac at any price, that just do not have that extra $400-$500 to step up to a full Mac Pro but could let loose of $1600 to $1800 for something in the middle that isn't an AIO?
Sure. The question is whether this number of folks makes up for the difference in revenue and what else they might be satisfied with beyond a $999 Mac mid-tower.
In any case, I haven't argued against a $1600-$1800 Mac Pro all that much except in terms of timing and whether its required RIGHT NOW.
Not all of us have the resources to afford this more than $6550 system you mentioned in a previous post (though I doubt anyone would claim not to dream of such!). Nor can all of us swing the $2200-$2500 entry price of the Mac Pro. But dear God we do want a Macintosh! What is wrong with asking that Apple address this pent up demand by offering something we want, can afford, and would buy in a New York minute if available?
Eh, I could easily have named any Dell PC...for example the 3 year old workstation that was replaced by the Precision. It just happens to be what I have. The relevent portion is that I have both a Dell tower and will have a Mac laptop connected to a Dell monitor. You don't lose the capital investment in the expensive monitors by going Apple, even one with a screen. I dunno that I would choose an iMac but a MBP seems like a good compromise.
Vinea
Thank you for providing some facts, which can't be argued against.
Please, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Without showing laptop vs desktop trends in the overall market the flatness of the desktop sales in comparison to the gains in laptops is not an indicator by itself that Apple is executing poorly in the desktop arena.
So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? Not only that but picked the right moment where Intel is beating AMD for a change to do that transition? With software emulation and universal binaries that appears to work?
Executing poorly is 2000 with the Cube. I'm sure Apple will stumble again in the future but it isn't occuring right now.
Vinea
Now I can't even tell which side of the argument you're on. You seemed to be all in support of this idea, and now you're saying that such a machine would only compete with Apple's own machines? If you think that, then you really should also think that there's no point spending $$ developing such a machine in the first place. . .
Holy Cow! How did I miss this post of yours? I just spotted it as I was searching back for something.
Let me reword my opinion. It has been said by two or more people now that a Mac mini tower would be competing head to head with Dell and other Windows vendors. The notion seems to come from the belief that since a Mac now runs Windows software very well, it then must compete directly with all the other Windows computers. I happen to disagree with that, although it may be partly correct sometime in the future, if and when the buying public ever has a different view of the computer marketplace. But that's another topic for another day.
I have been trying to point out that Windows and Macs compete on the basis of their platform, not individual models. When someone is in the market for a computer today, they are looking for either a Windows PC or a Mac. Buyers tend to buy the same platform they have been using, providing they are satisfied. So in this regard, a Mac mini tower would not compete with a Windows mini tower. A Mac is not even an option to most Windows buyers. Also a Windows mini tower is not an option to most Mac buyers. In the case of Mac buyers, they are currently out of luck if they want a brand new 'consumer tower.' However, there is always eBay if they can be satisfied with the G5 or newer G4s. As someone pointed out, eBay is likely Apple's biggest competitor.
Now, once someone declares himself or herself to be a Mac user, all the Mac computers compete with each other for attention. It is simply like this. Yet, if the mini tower is correctly price, it will compete with other Macs but take only a few sales from them. It will take Mac sales away from eBay, however, and attract many of those switching. This is what Apple would like. Most of the sales it will take away from other Macs will be customers who really want a mini tower, but have given up hope. Today these customers settle for a Mac Pro if they have the money, or an iMac if they can talk themselves into an AIO, or a Mini if they want to go cheap until Apple gets their act together and offers a mini tower.
I hope this clarifies my position. Obviously I think a Mac mini tower is a good idea, and in fact want one or two of them for myself.
Jerry
So the two of you believe that a company that transitioned its entire desktop line from PPC to Intel ahead of schedule while improving performance across the board and keeping prices more or less the same is executing poorly in the desktop arena? . . .
No, not at all. Apple is executing very well, but not building the right product yet.
Dell isn't exactly suffering by selling certain machines cheaper. As much as people want to call their machines cheap crap, that isn't the case with all the machines they make. While Apple certainly doesn't need as extensive of a line up of hardware as Dell sells, it's about time they offer more then just 6 machines. And a good place to start is a consumer tower. Personally I think Apple is going there, they just haven't announced anything yet.
Apple tried something like that once and it was a complete failure. As would something like this.
Was the Cube expandable? NO
Did the Cube have PCI slots? NO
Did the Cube have free hard disk bays? NO
Did the Cube have open optical bays? NO
Did the Cube have a replaceable graphics card? Yes, but you couldn't fit a full-length card in there, it had to be specially made for the Cube
Did the Cube cost less than the Power Mac? NO, it cost MORE!
What does the Cube have in common with the proposed mini-tower?
... it's small?
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :
Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.
Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.
For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.
Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
Which would differ from an average PC tower exactly how?
Which Apple could make a high profit margin from exactly how?
Which Apple could market exactly how?
4*1Gb [..]*20'
4 Gigabits of RAM and a*20 feet screen, I see.
Btw, I'm not interested in some clone of PC Tower.
I'm interested in a Mac wich could have some expansions capacities without being to much as is Mac Pro.
I don't want a cheap computer, I want a quality computer wich I could upgrade in the usual three upgrades :
Memory : 4 slots (so I could use 4*1Gb).
Hard Disk/Optical : Second slot.
Graphic card : remember actual top standard graphic card are PCI 16 AND of huge size, thanks to allow me to use the future middle range in taking the same dimension in account (for power too), and allow me to use a standard graphic card, not a spcecially designed for the Mac.
Some kind of iMac wich the possibility to put an X1900XT in ... And if engineering would be so kind to make it easy to upgrade, even in making the case a bit to great (as mac Pro), I would be happy.
For me the price, with an 20' monitor, can be a bit higher as the standard 20' iMac in same configuration.
Like I said, Apple already makes a case. They just don't offer a conroe version. Is a conroe professor and a GeForce 7600GT in the Pro Mac really too much to ask of Apple?
No, not at all. Apple is executing very well, but not building the right product yet.
Apple needs two things, a $1k-2k tower profesional/consumer, and a mobile workstation to complete their lineup.
Like I said, Apple already makes a case. They just don't offer a conroe version. Is a conroe processor and a GeForce 7600GT in the Pro Mac really too much to ask of Apple?
They couldn't reach $999 with the Mac Pro case, and I think that having the same expandability in the mid-range tower would pose too great a risk of cannibalising sales of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro case is huge and would likely put-off your average consumer.
Better to have a smaller tower with less expandability that can start at a significantly lower price point.