I don't say that I necessarily agree or disagree with [Apple's] strategy but there must be some reason that they choose not to offer a mid-tower other than stupidity.
Apple may be working on a mini tower right now for all we know. It makes sense that Apple would complete their product lineup first, then introduce the new models afterward. No one is saying they're stupid IMHO.
Quote:
My perception is that a $999 mini-tower would cannibalize iMac sales to the point that you might as well not offer the iMac and that appears to be the main sticking point with Apple. That's based on observation of past behavior.
Can you show even one example where a low cost tower hurt the sales of iMacs? I can't. Obviously a mini tower of comparable features and performance will not hurt the sales of an iMac that is price a little lower. It's simply a matter of pricing it right.
Quote:
No, I'm saying that a $999 or $1299 mid ranged tower can be (more) directly compared against a Dell tower allowing Dell to do the same thing Apple did with the Mac Pro...show that they are the lower cost solution.
Well that isn't what you said when you claimed that Apple would have to compete "head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers." There's a BIG difference. Let Dell say their mini towers cost less. No harm done. Everyone knows it.
Quote:
I think both switchers and current customers would choose [a Mac mini tower] over the iMac as it represents better value. The question for Apple is whether the volume of switchers increases sufficiently to offset their perceived negatives for offering a mini-tower in that price range.
These include marginalization of the iMac line, reduced LCD panel sales, reduced control over the deployment of iSight (although they could bundle it), increased price comparison, potential cannibalization of the Mac Pro line, etc.
Pure speculation.
Quote:
Simply saying that the iMac deserves to die . . .
Nobody said this to my knowledge. If somebody actually did, then properly quote him or her. Yor are imagining things.
Again, I'm wondering why you think it would be a bad decision for Apple to release a mid range tower. Is it because you feel it would cananbalize sales from existing Mac models or becaus it would compare unfavorable with mid range machine from pc vendors like Dell?
I'm not sure its a bad decision. I just think its unlikely.
I'm also not sure its a good decision depending on Job's goals which doesn't always seem to correlate with increased share or profitability although he leans toward the latter much much more over the former.
As I said, I'm not a huge fan of the AIO form factor but I do like Apple's vision.
Let me put it this way...I think both RMS and Jobs to be visionary idealists trying to change computing to fit their worldview. I don't care for RMS, GPL or the Free Software movement but I don't demand they diverge from either their goals or methods*. Instead I support open source, apache/bsd/other licenses and proprietary software based on those (like for example OSX).
I am more or less in tune with Job's vision of seamless computing that's easy to use and doesn't suck. It seems AIOs are part of that vision and I'm willing to live with that peculiarity in Apple's lineup just as I'm willing to live with some of the quirks of opensource development with forking, cat herding and prima donna devs.
You can get rid of some of those quirks but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of open source.
Likewise you can get rid of the AIOs in favor of towers but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of Apple.
Yes, yes, argue that no one is saying get rid of the AIOs but please...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a tower is a better value at $999 and the iMac even further marginalized.
Vinea
* I do call GPL proponents on half truths and deceptive arguments...for example that GPL isn't viral. It is, that's the whole point. Or that folks steal from BSD. They can't steal what is freely given, that's the whole point. Or that GPL is more free than BSD...only under the influence of RMS RDF.
I'd rather not see a midrange headless Mac. Why not? Because I don't want to see Apple go down the same road other PC manufacturing brands did. Remember when IBM still sold PCs? Didn't think so.
Apples and oranges.
IBM was competing with the same platform as everyone else.
Will switchers ignore a $999 mac tower? No, I don't think so. I think both switchers and current customers would choose it over the iMac as it represents better value.
Why does a price point of $999 mandate that it be a better value than iMac?
Lets remember that Apple has the ability to tweek the relative value of such a box by adding or removing features, or by increasing or decreasing price. I don't think this is an asertion that it is apropriate to make about a generic and undefined computer.
Lets also remember that iMac, as an AIO appeals to a specific kind of user: the kind who wants a small footprint, and who wants the computer to be simple. Make it JUST WORK. That idea is, in my own practical experience, mutually exclusive with the idea of significant expandability. The more variables, the more there is to go wrong and all that. I suspect, and I HOPE that this would be comon sense to most computer users, though I can definately see the brand new, never had a computer before person who wants it ALL. We all have our moments of Naivite (did I spell that right?). But if they are comming from the world of PC, I think they will already have this sense of expandability=complexity=pain-in-the-neck.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you can tell I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of comedy.
My apologies...its just that some of my statements have been taken so bizzarely lately that it was hard to be sure so it was easier to just play the straight man.
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
<snip>.....
Vinea
I can't prove it, but I don't think this is the market where they are the strongest, be it Dell, HP or Compac. I believe these are the models, along with the upper end consumer and workstation models, that are used to subsidize the abysmal profit margins on the low end. Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly statement(re: something to the effect that the profit margins had been hurt by the low end computers. I don't remember him mentioning any other models).
We certainly can see this in the Mac Pro's competitive pricing. To a lesser extent, IMHO, Apple could do the same thing in the mid to upper end consumer markets. Come on Apple, pull the trigger, take a calculated chance for the market share you have been stating you want.
My apologies...its just that some of my statements have been taken so bizzarely lately that it was hard to be sure so it was easier to just play the straight man.
Vinea
I'd likely do the same had I as many acetalene torches pointed at my ass.
you know what?
WE NEED A STINKING SPELL CHECKER IN THIS FORUM!
<sigh> yeah, I could use word, but ON MY PC, which is unfortunately the only computer I have right now, it takes almost a minute to load, and bogs everything down in a most horrible way.
More of a consensus seems to be that a mini-tower would be a good Mac, but doesn't fit in to SJs vision of changing the computer landscape into 'simple' AIO unit that works & is fun, from the nerdy computer world - ie take some of the fear out of computing & concentrating on what it can do rather than how it does it?
More of a consensus seems to be that a mini-tower would be a good Mac, but doesn't fit in to SJs vision of changing the computer landscape into 'simple' AIO unit that works & is fun, from the nerdy computer world - ie take some of the fear out of computing & concentrating on what it can do rather than how it does it?
We wait with anticipation - come on Steve
Has he explicitly expressed this intent, or is this simply extrapolation? <--question, not challenge
Personally, probably biased toward my own preferences, I tend to view the Acts Of Jobs as being simply to clean up the computer, make it work right, focusing on results rather than process, and taking the fear out. Just what you said. But without a special emphasis on AIO. I feel AIO DEFINATELY has a place, and an important one, for a very large and important segment. As does a sub-tower, a full tower, a mini, and loptaps.
Has he explicitly expressed this intent, or is this simply extrapolation? <--question, not challenge
Personally, probably biased toward my own preferences, I tend to view the Acts Of Jobs as being simply to clean up the computer, make it work right, focusing on results rather than process, and taking the fear out. Just what you said. But without a special emphasis on AIO. I feel AIO DEFINATELY has a place, and an important one, for a very large and important segment. As does a sub-tower, a full tower, a mini, and loptaps.
I was extrapolating & trying to summarise a bit - just trying to be constructive.
I agree with you - the iMac definately has its place, especially for the non-computer minded home user & it is excellent for that.
I would love to see a mini-tower with a good graphics card & conroe so I can use aperture with a 30" ACD but know this may not happen. A 20" iMac doesn't offer that much over my 17" MBP save a bigger HDD
I was extrapolating & trying to summarise a bit - just trying to be constructive.
I agree with you - the iMac definately has its place, especially for the non-computer minded home user & it is excellent for that.
I would love to see a mini-tower with a good graphics card & conroe so I can use aperture with a 30" ACD but know this may not happen. A 20" iMac doesn't offer that much over my 17" MBP save a bigger HDD
Ok, I didn't know if that was the case or if he had at some point issued a vision statement of some kind.
is mbp insufficient for aperture?
Someone started another thread specifically about what hardware configuration would be good if such a thing came into existance. I personally like what someone posted which was along the lines of an old quadra, or PM7200. Pizza box, in other words. well, more like 3 pizza boxes, but you catch my drift. Just enough expandability, and diferent enough in form that it will be mistaken neither for an iMac nor for a MacPro. Help to make it clear what it's purpose is.
I'd really just like to see a MBP with MXM (it's like pcie, but for laptops) rather than soldered on graphics, and a socketed merom... and Wacom Penabled display. Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, that would just about be the perfect laptop right there. Oh, and express bus 5? rather than 34. yep.
I'm not sure its a bad decision. I just think its unlikely.
I'm also not sure its a good decision depending on Job's goals which doesn't always seem to correlate with increased share or profitability although he leans toward the latter much much more over the former.
As I said, I'm not a huge fan of the AIO form factor but I do like Apple's vision.
Let me put it this way...I think both RMS and Jobs to be visionary idealists trying to change computing to fit their worldview. I don't care for RMS, GPL or the Free Software movement but I don't demand they diverge from either their goals or methods*. Instead I support open source, apache/bsd/other licenses and proprietary software based on those (like for example OSX).
I am more or less in tune with Job's vision of seamless computing that's easy to use and doesn't suck. It seems AIOs are part of that vision and I'm willing to live with that peculiarity in Apple's lineup just as I'm willing to live with some of the quirks of opensource development with forking, cat herding and prima donna devs.
You can get rid of some of those quirks but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of open source.
Likewise you can get rid of the AIOs in favor of towers but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of Apple.
Yes, yes, argue that no one is saying get rid of the AIOs but please...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a tower is a better value at $999 and the iMac even further marginalized.
Vinea
* I do call GPL proponents on half truths and deceptive arguments...for example that GPL isn't viral. It is, that's the whole point. Or that folks steal from BSD. They can't steal what is freely given, that's the whole point. Or that GPL is more free than BSD...only under the influence of RMS RDF.
Vinea,
I don't mean to distract you from the others who assault you but, does Apple's vision of tight hardware and software intergration depend on an AIO? Doesn't seem necessary to me but maybe I'm missing something. iSight? I'm all for iMac, i want to get one for home use but I think Apple may be missing an opportunity by not offering a Mid range tower. In ppc days perhaps that was difficult as there wasn't enough choices in processors to differentiate models. That wouldn't be a problem now. For instance, the iMacs could use the lower clock speed conroes (or merom) while the towers could use the faster ones.
I don't mean to distract you from the others who assault you but, does Apple's vision of tight hardware and software intergration depend on an AIO? Doesn't seem necessary to me but maybe I'm missing something. iSight?
I dunno either. Much of what I say is based on personal observation and opinion. I'm not Steve.
I will say that for whatever reason my impression is that Jobs has a much higher opinion about the value of iChat (based on how much keynote and dev time it gets) than I might personally expect it to have...and I believe collaboration is a key element of computing...
Its somewhat odd as I don't believe collaboration technology as a competitive advantage...in as much that stovepiped collaboration (ie mac only), no matter how good, is going to get folks to switch. Its just something that Microsoft will get around to copying. Perhaps it doesn't matter to Steve but I think it would given his opinion that "Microsoft has no taste".
I agree about the processor not being an issue anymore. That does make a mid-ranged tower more likely since there's a good set of differences between a conroe tower 1and a woodcrest workstation.
Why does a price point of $999 mandate that it be a better value than iMac?
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Why does it have to be less bang for the buck than an iMac?
am I agravating you yet?
iMac is a good value. All Macs are a good value. For the particular customer that each mac is aimed at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
Vinea
or is it a $1998 profit?
I won't argue price points with anyone because I'm really not qualified to. I know just about < > much about marketing.
I do feel that anyone who wants a headless mac and can't make do with a mini, probably has some moderate level processing and upgrading in mind... $999 seems to me to be too little for a high quality machine to fit those intentions. I want my Mac clean after all. Good sturdy polycarbonate and steel/magnesium/something other than crap aluminum. and enough stock hardware to make it worth the upgrade from an iMac. yeah, an upgrade from an iMac. I'd expect to pay around $1500-1600 MSRP for a good one. prolly round 999 through the ADC hardware purchase program.
I repeat, I WILL NOT argue this with anyone. so if you disagree, COOL!
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
Vinea
Sort of agree with you here but the maths only work if you are going to buy a mini-tower instead of an iMac. I would buy a mini-tower but doubt I will get an iMac unless there are more BTO options etc, so this is extra profit for apple. I do admit that I don't know the market well enough to know how many would be additional sales etc & looking back atprevious examples isn't really going to tell us, as the market has moved on & these are different machines now...
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
Go back a few posts. I described one. The mini tower range is $999 to say about $2499 and even higher depending on configuration. A $1299 mini tower would be configured like an iMac, but of course has no display. That is the price advantage of the iMac at this price point.
Now, please explain. Why can't we lower the performance and equipment on a mini tower to give us a model that is just $300 cheaper? Heck. Just a lower performance graphics card and CPU should be more than enough to do that. If it's still not enough, put in a cheaper HDD and optical drive.
Go back a few posts. I described one. The mini tower range is $999 to say about $2499 and even higher depending on configuration. A $1299 mini tower would be configured like an iMac, but of course has no display. That is the price advantage of the iMac at this price point.
Now, please explain. Why can't we lower the performance and equipment on a mini tower to give us a model that is just $300 cheaper? Heck. Just a lower performance graphics card and CPU should be more than enough to do that. If it's still not enough, put in a cheaper HDD and optical drive.
Snoop,
I can see where Vinea is coming from (even though I disagree). Best Buy was advertising a tower system this week in our loal newspaper. I don't have all the specs in front of me but generally it was core 2 e6400, 17 in'' monitor, 1 gb ram, 250(500?) gb hard drive, and a dvd burner (don't recall those specs of hand just know it had one). Cost, $1300. If apple were to offera mini tower mac like that, I could see it eat into iMac sales. However I would say if that happens, so be it the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
PS to me the issue isn't how you cripple the minitower but how do you lower the specs on iMac and drop it's price to be more of an entry level machine.
Comments
I don't say that I necessarily agree or disagree with [Apple's] strategy but there must be some reason that they choose not to offer a mid-tower other than stupidity.
Apple may be working on a mini tower right now for all we know. It makes sense that Apple would complete their product lineup first, then introduce the new models afterward. No one is saying they're stupid IMHO.
My perception is that a $999 mini-tower would cannibalize iMac sales to the point that you might as well not offer the iMac and that appears to be the main sticking point with Apple. That's based on observation of past behavior.
Can you show even one example where a low cost tower hurt the sales of iMacs? I can't. Obviously a mini tower of comparable features and performance will not hurt the sales of an iMac that is price a little lower. It's simply a matter of pricing it right.
No, I'm saying that a $999 or $1299 mid ranged tower can be (more) directly compared against a Dell tower allowing Dell to do the same thing Apple did with the Mac Pro...show that they are the lower cost solution.
Well that isn't what you said when you claimed that Apple would have to compete "head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers." There's a BIG difference. Let Dell say their mini towers cost less. No harm done. Everyone knows it.
I think both switchers and current customers would choose [a Mac mini tower] over the iMac as it represents better value. The question for Apple is whether the volume of switchers increases sufficiently to offset their perceived negatives for offering a mini-tower in that price range.
These include marginalization of the iMac line, reduced LCD panel sales, reduced control over the deployment of iSight (although they could bundle it), increased price comparison, potential cannibalization of the Mac Pro line, etc.
Pure speculation.
Simply saying that the iMac deserves to die . . .
Nobody said this to my knowledge. If somebody actually did, then properly quote him or her. Yor are imagining things.
Vinea,
Again, I'm wondering why you think it would be a bad decision for Apple to release a mid range tower. Is it because you feel it would cananbalize sales from existing Mac models or becaus it would compare unfavorable with mid range machine from pc vendors like Dell?
I'm not sure its a bad decision. I just think its unlikely.
I'm also not sure its a good decision depending on Job's goals which doesn't always seem to correlate with increased share or profitability although he leans toward the latter much much more over the former.
As I said, I'm not a huge fan of the AIO form factor but I do like Apple's vision.
Let me put it this way...I think both RMS and Jobs to be visionary idealists trying to change computing to fit their worldview. I don't care for RMS, GPL or the Free Software movement but I don't demand they diverge from either their goals or methods*. Instead I support open source, apache/bsd/other licenses and proprietary software based on those (like for example OSX).
I am more or less in tune with Job's vision of seamless computing that's easy to use and doesn't suck. It seems AIOs are part of that vision and I'm willing to live with that peculiarity in Apple's lineup just as I'm willing to live with some of the quirks of opensource development with forking, cat herding and prima donna devs.
You can get rid of some of those quirks but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of open source.
Likewise you can get rid of the AIOs in favor of towers but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of Apple.
Yes, yes, argue that no one is saying get rid of the AIOs but please...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a tower is a better value at $999 and the iMac even further marginalized.
Vinea
* I do call GPL proponents on half truths and deceptive arguments...for example that GPL isn't viral. It is, that's the whole point. Or that folks steal from BSD. They can't steal what is freely given, that's the whole point. Or that GPL is more free than BSD...only under the influence of RMS RDF.
I'm thinking more like $1499 for the standard model.
Ben (if I may call you Ben) why do you think we disagree?
If you advocate $1499 I'm in agreement but I think $1699 is more likely.
If I advocate $1699 you're in agreement (at least that it is better than $2100 anyway) but think $1499 much better.
/shrug
That's why I asked if all we're arguing about is $200 a page or two back.
Vinea
I'd rather not see a midrange headless Mac. Why not? Because I don't want to see Apple go down the same road other PC manufacturing brands did. Remember when IBM still sold PCs? Didn't think so.
Apples and oranges.
IBM was competing with the same platform as everyone else.
Will switchers ignore a $999 mac tower? No, I don't think so. I think both switchers and current customers would choose it over the iMac as it represents better value.
Why does a price point of $999 mandate that it be a better value than iMac?
Lets remember that Apple has the ability to tweek the relative value of such a box by adding or removing features, or by increasing or decreasing price. I don't think this is an asertion that it is apropriate to make about a generic and undefined computer.
Lets also remember that iMac, as an AIO appeals to a specific kind of user: the kind who wants a small footprint, and who wants the computer to be simple. Make it JUST WORK. That idea is, in my own practical experience, mutually exclusive with the idea of significant expandability. The more variables, the more there is to go wrong and all that. I suspect, and I HOPE that this would be comon sense to most computer users, though I can definately see the brand new, never had a computer before person who wants it ALL. We all have our moments of Naivite (did I spell that right?). But if they are comming from the world of PC, I think they will already have this sense of expandability=complexity=pain-in-the-neck.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you can tell I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of comedy.
My apologies...its just that some of my statements have been taken so bizzarely lately that it was hard to be sure so it was easier to just play the straight man.
Vinea
......<snip>
You're advocating going head on against one of the toughest PC competitors in one of the areas they are strongest in: mid range towers.
<snip>.....
Vinea
I can't prove it, but I don't think this is the market where they are the strongest, be it Dell, HP or Compac. I believe these are the models, along with the upper end consumer and workstation models, that are used to subsidize the abysmal profit margins on the low end. Michael Dell even admitted as much in a quarterly statement(re: something to the effect that the profit margins had been hurt by the low end computers. I don't remember him mentioning any other models).
We certainly can see this in the Mac Pro's competitive pricing. To a lesser extent, IMHO, Apple could do the same thing in the mid to upper end consumer markets. Come on Apple, pull the trigger, take a calculated chance for the market share you have been stating you want.
My apologies...its just that some of my statements have been taken so bizzarely lately that it was hard to be sure so it was easier to just play the straight man.
Vinea
I'd likely do the same had I as many acetalene torches pointed at my ass.
you know what?
WE NEED A STINKING SPELL CHECKER IN THIS FORUM!
<sigh> yeah, I could use word, but ON MY PC, which is unfortunately the only computer I have right now, it takes almost a minute to load, and bogs everything down in a most horrible way.
More of a consensus seems to be that a mini-tower would be a good Mac, but doesn't fit in to SJs vision of changing the computer landscape into 'simple' AIO unit that works & is fun, from the nerdy computer world - ie take some of the fear out of computing & concentrating on what it can do rather than how it does it?
We wait with anticipation - come on Steve
Thanks for clarififying your position Vinea
More of a consensus seems to be that a mini-tower would be a good Mac, but doesn't fit in to SJs vision of changing the computer landscape into 'simple' AIO unit that works & is fun, from the nerdy computer world - ie take some of the fear out of computing & concentrating on what it can do rather than how it does it?
We wait with anticipation - come on Steve
Personally, probably biased toward my own preferences, I tend to view the Acts Of Jobs as being simply to clean up the computer, make it work right, focusing on results rather than process, and taking the fear out. Just what you said. But without a special emphasis on AIO. I feel AIO DEFINATELY has a place, and an important one, for a very large and important segment. As does a sub-tower, a full tower, a mini, and loptaps.
Personally, probably biased toward my own preferences, I tend to view the Acts Of Jobs as being simply to clean up the computer, make it work right, focusing on results rather than process, and taking the fear out. Just what you said. But without a special emphasis on AIO. I feel AIO DEFINATELY has a place, and an important one, for a very large and important segment. As does a sub-tower, a full tower, a mini, and loptaps.
I was extrapolating & trying to summarise a bit - just trying to be constructive.
I agree with you - the iMac definately has its place, especially for the non-computer minded home user & it is excellent for that.
I would love to see a mini-tower with a good graphics card & conroe so I can use aperture with a 30" ACD but know this may not happen. A 20" iMac doesn't offer that much over my 17" MBP save a bigger HDD
I was extrapolating & trying to summarise a bit - just trying to be constructive.
I agree with you - the iMac definately has its place, especially for the non-computer minded home user & it is excellent for that.
I would love to see a mini-tower with a good graphics card & conroe so I can use aperture with a 30" ACD but know this may not happen. A 20" iMac doesn't offer that much over my 17" MBP save a bigger HDD
Ok, I didn't know if that was the case or if he had at some point issued a vision statement of some kind.
is mbp insufficient for aperture?
Someone started another thread specifically about what hardware configuration would be good if such a thing came into existance. I personally like what someone posted which was along the lines of an old quadra, or PM7200. Pizza box, in other words. well, more like 3 pizza boxes, but you catch my drift. Just enough expandability, and diferent enough in form that it will be mistaken neither for an iMac nor for a MacPro. Help to make it clear what it's purpose is.
I'd really just like to see a MBP with MXM (it's like pcie, but for laptops) rather than soldered on graphics, and a socketed merom... and Wacom Penabled display. Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, that would just about be the perfect laptop right there. Oh, and express bus 5? rather than 34. yep.
I'm not sure its a bad decision. I just think its unlikely.
I'm also not sure its a good decision depending on Job's goals which doesn't always seem to correlate with increased share or profitability although he leans toward the latter much much more over the former.
As I said, I'm not a huge fan of the AIO form factor but I do like Apple's vision.
Let me put it this way...I think both RMS and Jobs to be visionary idealists trying to change computing to fit their worldview. I don't care for RMS, GPL or the Free Software movement but I don't demand they diverge from either their goals or methods*. Instead I support open source, apache/bsd/other licenses and proprietary software based on those (like for example OSX).
I am more or less in tune with Job's vision of seamless computing that's easy to use and doesn't suck. It seems AIOs are part of that vision and I'm willing to live with that peculiarity in Apple's lineup just as I'm willing to live with some of the quirks of opensource development with forking, cat herding and prima donna devs.
You can get rid of some of those quirks but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of open source.
Likewise you can get rid of the AIOs in favor of towers but I dunno that the result will retain the spirit of Apple.
Yes, yes, argue that no one is saying get rid of the AIOs but please...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a tower is a better value at $999 and the iMac even further marginalized.
Vinea
* I do call GPL proponents on half truths and deceptive arguments...for example that GPL isn't viral. It is, that's the whole point. Or that folks steal from BSD. They can't steal what is freely given, that's the whole point. Or that GPL is more free than BSD...only under the influence of RMS RDF.
Vinea,
I don't mean to distract you from the others who assault you but, does Apple's vision of tight hardware and software intergration depend on an AIO? Doesn't seem necessary to me but maybe I'm missing something. iSight? I'm all for iMac, i want to get one for home use but I think Apple may be missing an opportunity by not offering a Mid range tower. In ppc days perhaps that was difficult as there wasn't enough choices in processors to differentiate models. That wouldn't be a problem now. For instance, the iMacs could use the lower clock speed conroes (or merom) while the towers could use the faster ones.
Vinea,
I don't mean to distract you from the others who assault you but, does Apple's vision of tight hardware and software intergration depend on an AIO? Doesn't seem necessary to me but maybe I'm missing something. iSight?
I dunno either. Much of what I say is based on personal observation and opinion. I'm not Steve.
I will say that for whatever reason my impression is that Jobs has a much higher opinion about the value of iChat (based on how much keynote and dev time it gets) than I might personally expect it to have...and I believe collaboration is a key element of computing...
Its somewhat odd as I don't believe collaboration technology as a competitive advantage...in as much that stovepiped collaboration (ie mac only), no matter how good, is going to get folks to switch. Its just something that Microsoft will get around to copying. Perhaps it doesn't matter to Steve but I think it would given his opinion that "Microsoft has no taste".
I agree about the processor not being an issue anymore. That does make a mid-ranged tower more likely since there's a good set of differences between a conroe tower 1and a woodcrest workstation.
Vinea
Why does a price point of $999 mandate that it be a better value than iMac?
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
Vinea
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Why does it have to be less bang for the buck than an iMac?
iMac is a good value. All Macs are a good value. For the particular customer that each mac is aimed at.
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
Vinea
or is it a $1998 profit?
I won't argue price points with anyone because I'm really not qualified to. I know just about < > much about marketing.
I do feel that anyone who wants a headless mac and can't make do with a mini, probably has some moderate level processing and upgrading in mind... $999 seems to me to be too little for a high quality machine to fit those intentions. I want my Mac clean after all. Good sturdy polycarbonate and steel/magnesium/something other than crap aluminum. and enough stock hardware to make it worth the upgrade from an iMac. yeah, an upgrade from an iMac. I'd expect to pay around $1500-1600 MSRP for a good one. prolly round 999 through the ADC hardware purchase program.
I repeat, I WILL NOT argue this with anyone.
I thought I responded but I guess not. I guess my opinion is based on the configurations listed in this thread and the general concept that a tower is a headless Conroe iMac.
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
You could cripple the tower (slower bus, fewer memory and other slots, etc) but I'm not sure how and achieve a machine that meets mid ranged machine expectation.
Perhaps if the glass is cheap enough you move the 20" down to the 17", add the 23" iMac where the 20" is today and reserve the 17" for eMac. Because as it stands I could get a $999 xMac and a 24" WS display from Dell for $703 for a total $1702 (plus extra shipping).
Assuming I keep that Dell 2407WFP the next cycle that's a $1400 loss for Apple for two xMac sales over two iMac sales...but its a $700+ win for me ($3398 for 2 generations of iMacs vs $2702 for 2 xMacs and a Dell screen).
That's got to be a one crippled tower to make up a $700 difference. Or if you expect me to buy a ACD the difference is still $399.
Vinea
Sort of agree with you here but the maths only work if you are going to buy a mini-tower instead of an iMac. I would buy a mini-tower but doubt I will get an iMac unless there are more BTO options etc, so this is extra profit for apple. I do admit that I don't know the market well enough to know how many would be additional sales etc & looking back atprevious examples isn't really going to tell us, as the market has moved on & these are different machines now...
Mmmm...define a $999 mac tower that is both a poorer bang for the buck than an iMac AND doesn't suck and I'll change my mind on that score.
Go back a few posts. I described one. The mini tower range is $999 to say about $2499 and even higher depending on configuration. A $1299 mini tower would be configured like an iMac, but of course has no display. That is the price advantage of the iMac at this price point.
Now, please explain. Why can't we lower the performance and equipment on a mini tower to give us a model that is just $300 cheaper? Heck. Just a lower performance graphics card and CPU should be more than enough to do that. If it's still not enough, put in a cheaper HDD and optical drive.
Go back a few posts. I described one. The mini tower range is $999 to say about $2499 and even higher depending on configuration. A $1299 mini tower would be configured like an iMac, but of course has no display. That is the price advantage of the iMac at this price point.
Now, please explain. Why can't we lower the performance and equipment on a mini tower to give us a model that is just $300 cheaper? Heck. Just a lower performance graphics card and CPU should be more than enough to do that. If it's still not enough, put in a cheaper HDD and optical drive.
Snoop,
I can see where Vinea is coming from (even though I disagree). Best Buy was advertising a tower system this week in our loal newspaper. I don't have all the specs in front of me but generally it was core 2 e6400, 17 in'' monitor, 1 gb ram, 250(500?) gb hard drive, and a dvd burner (don't recall those specs of hand just know it had one). Cost, $1300. If apple were to offera mini tower mac like that, I could see it eat into iMac sales. However I would say if that happens, so be it the market has spoken and it prefers towers.
PS to me the issue isn't how you cripple the minitower but how do you lower the specs on iMac and drop it's price to be more of an entry level machine.
Why does it have to be less bang for the buck than an iMac?
No, if I was going to get aggravated it would have been with someone else.
Vinea