but they are now in the x86 market and on the high end they are useing sever cpus and laptop cpus on the low end. Where is the mid end system with a desk top cpu?
For all the discussion about componentry, I think this a key question that is being overlooked in this discussion. We can hope that once Apple refreshes the CPUs, the iMac will at least gain a proper desktop chip, while leaving the mini with the laptop chips. Then, how about a non all-in-one computer with desktop chips.
Hmmm, the iMac actually does have a desktop chip. Granted, its not Core 2 Duo yet, but it is the desktop variant of the Core Duo. They aren't as different as Merom and Conroe...
It also uses 3.5" HDs, and dedicated graphics processor.
In fact, it is essentially the Mac Cube you all are crying for, just plastered to the back of an LCD screen.
On another note, I absolutely love that Mac Pro Junior. Its so cute!
Everyone keeps talking about how a machine like this would "cannibalize" iMac sales or Mac pro sales. Why not just change the pricing structure so that no matter what mac you bought they still made the same amount of money as they did before.
Obviously only Apple has the kinds of figures it would take to calculate such things but it seems like before they couldn't do it because they had a very limited number of options as far as processors go, but now that really isn't the case.
Also i'd like to add that Apple is obviously different from Dell or Microsoft in that they are and they control the whole ecosystem. With that said it comes down to they need to sell more macs period. If someone doesn't buy a Dell, Microsoft is still going to be around and vice versa, Apple needs to keep it's ecosystem alive and healthy and they have been getting by pretty good lately on what they have been doing. I think that they need to do a better job though to ensure that the mac platform will be here definitively for many many years to come. And I don't think you can do that by only selling iMacs, mac books, mac pros and mac book pros.... and mini's.
p.s. Didn't quite a few people say before the mini was released that it was going to kill iMac sales?
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
All that's needed is a higher-end Mini that allows for one more RAM slot and a replaceable graphics card.
No PCI slots or extra HD bays. If you want those, get a Mac Pro.
Ah, thanks, but I actually do specify an extra HD bay (two total), and of course both disks would be desktop 3.5"drives. The extra drive is particularly relevant now since it could be used as the "Time Machine" drive.
I should also note that the Mini already has two RAM slots. The difference is that that in my version the slots become standard DIMMs.
But I do consider an extra PCI slot a "Pro" feature, since I associate that with advanced video editing cards, pro sound cards, or similar hardware meant for professional environments.
And I also think that extra drives beyond two are pro territory, and this seems to be the consensus.
I think that the cheaper desktop hardware would allow the machine to be both highly profitable and fairly cheap, while filling in a mid-point between two extremes.
Ah, thanks, but I actually do specify an extra HD bay (two total), and of course both disks would be desktop 3.5"drives. The extra drive is particularly relevant now since it could be used as the "Time Machine" drive.
I should also note that the Mini already has two RAM slots. The difference is that that in my version the slots become standard DIMMs.
But I do consider an extra PCI slot a "Pro" feature, since I associate that with advanced video editing cards, pro sound cards, or similar hardware meant for professional environments.
And I also think that extra drives beyond two are pro territory, and this seems to be the consensus.
I think that the cheaper desktop hardware would allow the machine to be both highly profitable and fairly cheap, while filling in a mid-point between two extremes.
There should be 4 RAM slots for a total of 4 GB memory with two matched paires. One of the "problems" with the Cube was only one AGP slot. This limited the use of consumer cards such as Video In (DVR anyone?), sound cards, and MIDI "stuff. Sure some of these are at the pro level but there are a lot of them that people purchase to support hobbies as well. If you are going to offer expansion in this way then you want to put enough for people to use, which means at least 1 free after the video card.
There should be 4 RAM slots for a total of 4 GB memory with two matched paires. One of the "problems" with the Cube was only one AGP slot. This limited the use of consumer cards such as Video In (DVR anyone?), sound cards, and MIDI "stuff. Sure some of these are at the pro level but there are a lot of them that people purchase to support hobbies as well. If you are going to offer expansion in this way then you want to put enough for people to use, which means at least 1 free after the video card.
I understand that idea and I can see a lot of people agree with you.
I don't see it that way, however.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
As for the extra slot, hobby-grade video-in can be done through USB 2.0 boxes rather well these days, as well as MIDI stuff.
Ultimately this is Apple's call. The important thing is that we both agree that a non-AIO middle machine is needed at some point between the Mini and the Pro. The exact price/feature set point should be a result of market research and manufacturing considerations we can't really do here. But you don't need to be an expert to see that the gap in the current lineup is definitely real.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
really?
i think 1GB i absolutely bare minimum for running tiger.
2GB is more like "it'll keep you running for some time..'
i'm not buying a new computer today if there are not slots enough for at least 4GB. (ie. two free slots.)
afaik, no computer in the current consumer intel line-up can handle more than 2GB and that's why im still using this old sawtooth of mine... (with 1GB of ram)
I don't understand why so many are wanting to cripple Apples lower end machines, You guys must work for Nikon. They're notorious for crippling their lower end cameras so you have to buy the higher end stuff. Even if it doesn't cost them anything to implement those features into all their cameras. On the other hand Canon doesn't and they sell alot more cameras.
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
I understand that idea and I can see a lot of people agree with you.
I don't see it that way, however.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
As for the extra slot, hobby-grade video-in can be done through USB 2.0 boxes rather well these days, as well as MIDI stuff.
Ultimately this is Apple's call. The important thing is that we both agree that a non-AIO middle machine is needed at some point between the Mini and the Pro. The exact price/feature set point should be a result of market research and manufacturing considerations we can't really do here. But you don't need to be an expert to see that the gap in the current lineup is definitely real.
On the Ram front, I believe that the new mother boards take advantage of synchronis RAM, so you want to install them in pairs. For the consumer, and for Apple's BTO people, it would be easier to upgrade RAM if extra slots were available above and beyond the ones that make up the standard configuration of 512 (currently 2 X 256 mb "sticks" make up the standard configuration). This and for future software proofing the system extra RAM slots are desirable. And as Turbogirl pointed out 1 GB really is the minimum you want for real world performance in today's systems and using the newest OS version. This is even more apparent with Rosetta as I understand it.
As for "extra's" expansion slots are a cleaner install, not requireing a seperate power supply or external box and extra wire to hook them up. They also tend to be less expensive for those very reasons. Personal preference but I would buy an internal option over USB/FW if given the option.
I do understand you opinion, and to a point I agree with you. I wouldn't consider those things "Pro" though, today Pro means 4 of expansion slots and 8 RAM slots, half of that seems good to me and would be equil to or less than competative models on the market.
For myself I'm planning on replacing my Cube with an iMac so I wouldn't be in the market for this hypothetical computer if it came out. 2 GB will work fine for a while, and I will probably replace it a lot sooner than I have held out with the Cube.
I don't understand why so many are wanting to cripple Apples lower end machines, You guys must work for Nikon. They're notorious for crippling their lower end cameras so you have to buy the higher end stuff. Even if it doesn't cost them anything to implement those features into all their cameras. On the other hand Canon doesn't and they sell alot more cameras.
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
No, it's just that some of us understand how Apple thinks, and others don't.
I don't understand why so many are wanting to cripple Apples lower end machines, You guys must work for Nikon. They're notorious for crippling their lower end cameras so you have to buy the higher end stuff. Even if it doesn't cost them anything to implement those features into all their cameras. On the other hand Canon doesn't and they sell alot more cameras.
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
You seem to think that the only thing that should differentiate different lines is processor power. I think that's ridiculous. Apple agrees with me.
No, it's just that some of us understand how Apple thinks, and others don't.
Well maybe Apple needs to start thinking different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
You seem to think that the only thing that should differentiate different lines is processor power. I think that's ridiculous. Apple agrees with me.
Dual Xeons is a pretty huge difference. Go ask any average PC user if they use Xeons in their system. Heck go ask most PC users who build their own powerful systems if they use Xeons. Most will say no that it's overkill and too expensive. Those are top of the line chips. There is certainly room in Apples line for an average desktop chip in a lower priced tower. Without Apple needing to cripple that tower just so they can create another difference between the systems.
I mean it's one thing to give the Mac Pro more since you're paying more. But it's something else to cripple a lower end tower just to make a mac pro look even better.
Apple could be afraid right now of killing off the Mac Pro before it has a chance to get off the ground. So first you introduce that, get as much money out of the market as you can. And then release something cheaper with Conroe. By that time the Mac Pro will have 4 cores or 8 cores or whatever so the gulf will also be greater.
Also, Apple had a lot on its hands with this transition and I think it's common sense to transition your existing product lines first, before adding a new line.
However, I think that Apple will want to do something different that just a plain old midtower. People were clamoring for a cheap headless mac, but did anyone expect the mini? That's the kind of thing apple likes to do. It gets attention, it differentiates them and makes direct price comparisons more difficult (good for a premium product like the mac).
I have no idea what apple will do - the basics are obvious enough: (1) replaceable video card; (2) 2-3 internal drives; (3) single processor; (4) maybe a card slot or two.
Maybe a gamer Mac? Mac Mini Pro? (Shuttle's can take a video card).
I don't think this will threaten the iMac. Priced in the same range as the iMac, people would still have to buy a monitor. Most would choose the iMac.
It would take some sales from the Mac Pro, but you know the iMac has also taken sales from the Mac Pro. Truth is, fewer people today need something like the Mac Pro. Apple needs it and an important segment of Apple's customer base needs it. As long as it's doing reasonable well (and taking business from one of Dell's few profitable lines!), Apple is probably happy.
Then it can bring out the Mac Mini Pro. I think that would be a good fit. Bigger, but still not a clunkly midtower. They could cripple it a little, lower memory capacity, slot loading optical. But not go so far as cripping it with a notebook HD or nonupgradeable graphics card.
There's no question there's demand, but it would take sales from the Mac Pro. That's the biggest issue.
Funny, in another thread people thought a Mid range mac tower would canabalize sales from iMac.
It would take sales away from all non-portable lines, up to a point. But those of us who favor this thing think it would also add net sales as well.
Just which lines would suffer most depends on the feature set, size, and price range. A smallish, weaker offering would hit the Mini more, while a larger, more expandable version would hit the Pro.
Since the Pro is more profitable, the logical thing would be for Apple to favor losing Mini sales, since these would be converted to a higher priced machine, an "upsale". So I would expect more of a "Super Mini", rather than a "Junior Pro". Just a guess though. Apple could also do something completly orthogonal and come up with a gamer edition or who knows what. Here are some random ideas:
1. A rack-mount Mac for high-end home stereo racks or prosumer audio/video studios. Apple could also sell a matching amplifier with surround support and HD reception, the rack itself, a rack-mount monitor, and other hardware. This set would borrow design language from the server, but would have better audio and video support.
2. A 15" low-power iMac with a folding base (i.e. a "transportable"). For children and Third World markets.
3. A reinforced Mac portable or transportable (drop-proof, waterproof, very forgiving of electrical conditions, etc.), with a reinforced case. For on-location movie sets, construction sites, and outdoors types.
4. An executive Mac portable. Ultra slim, extremely high-quality finish, and all of that.
Non Mac:
1. A recording iPod. Would record in stereo from the headphones, so you could record your environment, conversations, etc. in a seamless way.
2. Noise cancellation iPod. If you have microphones in your headphones you can easily setup noise cancellation, used today in aircraft headsets for pilots. Great for travellers. Does not block high frequency sounds such as so it would not be a safety hazard.
3. Decibel control: You should be able to program an iPod so it never exceeds a given dB level, assuming you are using Apple-supplied headphones. This wasn't possible with analog sources, but with digital you can look for the peak of the whole track and adjust the volume accordingly beforehand (so no clipping).
4. Bluetooth iPod headphones. I can't believe they haven't done this yet. The cord is a real pain. And by giving it some memory the headphone by itself could act like a small-capacity bluetooth iPod Shuffle! So...
5. Headphone iPod Shuffle with bluetooth. This thing would be a complete iPod in a phone-compatible bluetooth headphone. If actually used with a bluetooth phone it would gently tone down the music and privately "ring". Press the play/pause button and take the call, or ignore it by raising the volume. It would sync and charge through USB.
Apple is all about design, so let's look at their Apple store display to figure out the puzzle.
MacBook family and Mac desktops.
$1099 --- --- --- $1999
$599 --- $1299 --- $2499
$700 difference between Mac mini and iMac.
$1200 difference between iMac and Mac Pro.
So let's half the difference between the iMac and Mac Pro and that is your new Tower price point.
New Price Structure for desktops.
$599 -- $1299 -- $1899 -- $2499
So the new Tower would be $1899. Well that's kinda high. Just a hundred more then Cube but you get expandability greater then it. I just don't see Apple releasing a tower for a grand. But the Mac Pro can be reduced in price to about $2100 now by chosing slower parts. So maybe knock some expandibility off the new tower or something and your at $1699-1799.
Bah. Apple won't release another tower. Why? Won't fit in their Apple Store display. Too many desktops, too few notebooks. Might just be a reason for Steve.
Comments
but they are now in the x86 market and on the high end they are useing sever cpus and laptop cpus on the low end. Where is the mid end system with a desk top cpu?
For all the discussion about componentry, I think this a key question that is being overlooked in this discussion. We can hope that once Apple refreshes the CPUs, the iMac will at least gain a proper desktop chip, while leaving the mini with the laptop chips. Then, how about a non all-in-one computer with desktop chips.
It also uses 3.5" HDs, and dedicated graphics processor.
In fact, it is essentially the Mac Cube you all are crying for, just plastered to the back of an LCD screen.
On another note, I absolutely love that Mac Pro Junior. Its so cute!
Obviously only Apple has the kinds of figures it would take to calculate such things but it seems like before they couldn't do it because they had a very limited number of options as far as processors go, but now that really isn't the case.
Also i'd like to add that Apple is obviously different from Dell or Microsoft in that they are and they control the whole ecosystem. With that said it comes down to they need to sell more macs period. If someone doesn't buy a Dell, Microsoft is still going to be around and vice versa, Apple needs to keep it's ecosystem alive and healthy and they have been getting by pretty good lately on what they have been doing. I think that they need to do a better job though to ensure that the mac platform will be here definitively for many many years to come. And I don't think you can do that by only selling iMacs, mac books, mac pros and mac book pros.... and mini's.
p.s. Didn't quite a few people say before the mini was released that it was going to kill iMac sales?
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
Then you should have a lot of fun with VISTA..
All that's needed is a higher-end Mini that allows for one more RAM slot and a replaceable graphics card.
No PCI slots or extra HD bays. If you want those, get a Mac Pro.
Alfonso's pretty much got it.
All that's needed is a higher-end Mini that allows for one more RAM slot and a replaceable graphics card.
No PCI slots or extra HD bays. If you want those, get a Mac Pro.
Ah, thanks, but I actually do specify an extra HD bay (two total), and of course both disks would be desktop 3.5"drives. The extra drive is particularly relevant now since it could be used as the "Time Machine" drive.
I should also note that the Mini already has two RAM slots. The difference is that that in my version the slots become standard DIMMs.
But I do consider an extra PCI slot a "Pro" feature, since I associate that with advanced video editing cards, pro sound cards, or similar hardware meant for professional environments.
And I also think that extra drives beyond two are pro territory, and this seems to be the consensus.
I think that the cheaper desktop hardware would allow the machine to be both highly profitable and fairly cheap, while filling in a mid-point between two extremes.
My agreement was more with the general idea - expanding the Mini line instead of creating a new minitower line.
I think Apple would be far better off introducing a $999 Mini than bringing in a separate minitower that would take sales from the Pro line.
The WWDC demonstrated Time Machine showing an iMac and an external hard drive.
If we're asking for "an iMac without the screen" we're going to get one built-in drive. Period.
Yes, I did mean two "standard" Ram slots. I'm a lazy typist.
Ah, thanks, but I actually do specify an extra HD bay (two total), and of course both disks would be desktop 3.5"drives. The extra drive is particularly relevant now since it could be used as the "Time Machine" drive.
I should also note that the Mini already has two RAM slots. The difference is that that in my version the slots become standard DIMMs.
But I do consider an extra PCI slot a "Pro" feature, since I associate that with advanced video editing cards, pro sound cards, or similar hardware meant for professional environments.
And I also think that extra drives beyond two are pro territory, and this seems to be the consensus.
I think that the cheaper desktop hardware would allow the machine to be both highly profitable and fairly cheap, while filling in a mid-point between two extremes.
There should be 4 RAM slots for a total of 4 GB memory with two matched paires. One of the "problems" with the Cube was only one AGP slot. This limited the use of consumer cards such as Video In (DVR anyone?), sound cards, and MIDI "stuff. Sure some of these are at the pro level but there are a lot of them that people purchase to support hobbies as well. If you are going to offer expansion in this way then you want to put enough for people to use, which means at least 1 free after the video card.
There should be 4 RAM slots for a total of 4 GB memory with two matched paires. One of the "problems" with the Cube was only one AGP slot. This limited the use of consumer cards such as Video In (DVR anyone?), sound cards, and MIDI "stuff. Sure some of these are at the pro level but there are a lot of them that people purchase to support hobbies as well. If you are going to offer expansion in this way then you want to put enough for people to use, which means at least 1 free after the video card.
I understand that idea and I can see a lot of people agree with you.
I don't see it that way, however.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
As for the extra slot, hobby-grade video-in can be done through USB 2.0 boxes rather well these days, as well as MIDI stuff.
Ultimately this is Apple's call. The important thing is that we both agree that a non-AIO middle machine is needed at some point between the Mini and the Pro. The exact price/feature set point should be a result of market research and manufacturing considerations we can't really do here. But you don't need to be an expert to see that the gap in the current lineup is definitely real.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
really?
i think 1GB i absolutely bare minimum for running tiger.
2GB is more like "it'll keep you running for some time..'
i'm not buying a new computer today if there are not slots enough for at least 4GB. (ie. two free slots.)
afaik, no computer in the current consumer intel line-up can handle more than 2GB and that's why im still using this old sawtooth of mine... (with 1GB of ram)
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
I understand that idea and I can see a lot of people agree with you.
I don't see it that way, however.
On the RAM side I'd say that memory beyond 2GB is really Pro territory. 1 GB is plenty for normal use, let alone 2 GB.
As for the extra slot, hobby-grade video-in can be done through USB 2.0 boxes rather well these days, as well as MIDI stuff.
Ultimately this is Apple's call. The important thing is that we both agree that a non-AIO middle machine is needed at some point between the Mini and the Pro. The exact price/feature set point should be a result of market research and manufacturing considerations we can't really do here. But you don't need to be an expert to see that the gap in the current lineup is definitely real.
On the Ram front, I believe that the new mother boards take advantage of synchronis RAM, so you want to install them in pairs. For the consumer, and for Apple's BTO people, it would be easier to upgrade RAM if extra slots were available above and beyond the ones that make up the standard configuration of 512 (currently 2 X 256 mb "sticks" make up the standard configuration). This and for future software proofing the system extra RAM slots are desirable. And as Turbogirl pointed out 1 GB really is the minimum you want for real world performance in today's systems and using the newest OS version. This is even more apparent with Rosetta as I understand it.
As for "extra's" expansion slots are a cleaner install, not requireing a seperate power supply or external box and extra wire to hook them up. They also tend to be less expensive for those very reasons. Personal preference but I would buy an internal option over USB/FW if given the option.
I do understand you opinion, and to a point I agree with you. I wouldn't consider those things "Pro" though, today Pro means 4 of expansion slots and 8 RAM slots, half of that seems good to me and would be equil to or less than competative models on the market.
For myself I'm planning on replacing my Cube with an iMac so I wouldn't be in the market for this hypothetical computer if it came out. 2 GB will work fine for a while, and I will probably replace it a lot sooner than I have held out with the Cube.
I don't understand why so many are wanting to cripple Apples lower end machines, You guys must work for Nikon. They're notorious for crippling their lower end cameras so you have to buy the higher end stuff. Even if it doesn't cost them anything to implement those features into all their cameras. On the other hand Canon doesn't and they sell alot more cameras.
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
No, it's just that some of us understand how Apple thinks, and others don't.
I don't understand why so many are wanting to cripple Apples lower end machines, You guys must work for Nikon. They're notorious for crippling their lower end cameras so you have to buy the higher end stuff. Even if it doesn't cost them anything to implement those features into all their cameras. On the other hand Canon doesn't and they sell alot more cameras.
Do you guys really think Dell's lower end machines hurt it's upper end because they offer some PCI slots and drive bays? Don't be ridiculous.
You guys keep on with this notion that a lower end tower is going to hurt Apple's top of the line workstation. The people who aren't in the market for a dual dualcore xeon workstation aren't going to spend $2100 so they can swap out the video card and add another hard drive. Instead they'll just settle for a mini/imac (if they're already loyal to Apple) or they'll buy a PC instead. Apple is hurting themselves by not offering a tower. Not some retarded cube that's all crippled and costs more then what most people pay for a desktop PC these days ($600) but an actual consumer tower.
You seem to think that the only thing that should differentiate different lines is processor power. I think that's ridiculous. Apple agrees with me.
No, it's just that some of us understand how Apple thinks, and others don't.
Well maybe Apple needs to start thinking different.
You seem to think that the only thing that should differentiate different lines is processor power. I think that's ridiculous. Apple agrees with me.
Dual Xeons is a pretty huge difference. Go ask any average PC user if they use Xeons in their system. Heck go ask most PC users who build their own powerful systems if they use Xeons. Most will say no that it's overkill and too expensive. Those are top of the line chips. There is certainly room in Apples line for an average desktop chip in a lower priced tower. Without Apple needing to cripple that tower just so they can create another difference between the systems.
I mean it's one thing to give the Mac Pro more since you're paying more. But it's something else to cripple a lower end tower just to make a mac pro look even better.
Also, Apple had a lot on its hands with this transition and I think it's common sense to transition your existing product lines first, before adding a new line.
However, I think that Apple will want to do something different that just a plain old midtower. People were clamoring for a cheap headless mac, but did anyone expect the mini? That's the kind of thing apple likes to do. It gets attention, it differentiates them and makes direct price comparisons more difficult (good for a premium product like the mac).
I have no idea what apple will do - the basics are obvious enough: (1) replaceable video card; (2) 2-3 internal drives; (3) single processor; (4) maybe a card slot or two.
Maybe a gamer Mac? Mac Mini Pro? (Shuttle's can take a video card).
I don't think this will threaten the iMac. Priced in the same range as the iMac, people would still have to buy a monitor. Most would choose the iMac.
It would take some sales from the Mac Pro, but you know the iMac has also taken sales from the Mac Pro. Truth is, fewer people today need something like the Mac Pro. Apple needs it and an important segment of Apple's customer base needs it. As long as it's doing reasonable well (and taking business from one of Dell's few profitable lines!), Apple is probably happy.
Then it can bring out the Mac Mini Pro. I think that would be a good fit. Bigger, but still not a clunkly midtower. They could cripple it a little, lower memory capacity, slot loading optical. But not go so far as cripping it with a notebook HD or nonupgradeable graphics card.
There's no question there's demand, but it would take sales from the Mac Pro. That's the biggest issue.
Funny, in another thread people thought a Mid range mac tower would canabalize sales from iMac.
It would take sales away from all non-portable lines, up to a point. But those of us who favor this thing think it would also add net sales as well.
Just which lines would suffer most depends on the feature set, size, and price range. A smallish, weaker offering would hit the Mini more, while a larger, more expandable version would hit the Pro.
Since the Pro is more profitable, the logical thing would be for Apple to favor losing Mini sales, since these would be converted to a higher priced machine, an "upsale". So I would expect more of a "Super Mini", rather than a "Junior Pro". Just a guess though. Apple could also do something completly orthogonal and come up with a gamer edition or who knows what. Here are some random ideas:
1. A rack-mount Mac for high-end home stereo racks or prosumer audio/video studios. Apple could also sell a matching amplifier with surround support and HD reception, the rack itself, a rack-mount monitor, and other hardware. This set would borrow design language from the server, but would have better audio and video support.
2. A 15" low-power iMac with a folding base (i.e. a "transportable"). For children and Third World markets.
3. A reinforced Mac portable or transportable (drop-proof, waterproof, very forgiving of electrical conditions, etc.), with a reinforced case. For on-location movie sets, construction sites, and outdoors types.
4. An executive Mac portable. Ultra slim, extremely high-quality finish, and all of that.
Non Mac:
1. A recording iPod. Would record in stereo from the headphones, so you could record your environment, conversations, etc. in a seamless way.
2. Noise cancellation iPod. If you have microphones in your headphones you can easily setup noise cancellation, used today in aircraft headsets for pilots. Great for travellers. Does not block high frequency sounds such as so it would not be a safety hazard.
3. Decibel control: You should be able to program an iPod so it never exceeds a given dB level, assuming you are using Apple-supplied headphones. This wasn't possible with analog sources, but with digital you can look for the peak of the whole track and adjust the volume accordingly beforehand (so no clipping).
4. Bluetooth iPod headphones. I can't believe they haven't done this yet. The cord is a real pain. And by giving it some memory the headphone by itself could act like a small-capacity bluetooth iPod Shuffle! So...
5. Headphone iPod Shuffle with bluetooth. This thing would be a complete iPod in a phone-compatible bluetooth headphone. If actually used with a bluetooth phone it would gently tone down the music and privately "ring". Press the play/pause button and take the call, or ignore it by raising the volume. It would sync and charge through USB.
MacBook family and Mac desktops.
$1099 --- --- --- $1999
$599 --- $1299 --- $2499
$700 difference between Mac mini and iMac.
$1200 difference between iMac and Mac Pro.
So let's half the difference between the iMac and Mac Pro and that is your new Tower price point.
New Price Structure for desktops.
$599 -- $1299 -- $1899 -- $2499
So the new Tower would be $1899. Well that's kinda high. Just a hundred more then Cube but you get expandability greater then it. I just don't see Apple releasing a tower for a grand. But the Mac Pro can be reduced in price to about $2100 now by chosing slower parts. So maybe knock some expandibility off the new tower or something and your at $1699-1799.
Bah. Apple won't release another tower. Why? Won't fit in their Apple Store display. Too many desktops, too few notebooks. Might just be a reason for Steve.