unne

There’s a simple explanation for all this: Music audiofiles like the ones streamed from Apple Music and Spotify or downloaded from iTunes (or ripped from a CD for people who still buy those) are generally mastered at very loud volume levels (google volume wars) while movies are not. So the same song as part of the movie soundtrack will have much less volume since it has to have a level that fit with the rest of the movie. Movie soundtracks are mixed with much more dynamic range and so the playback system needs much more headroom.

HP is optimized for audio playback and they would need to change the gainstaging significantly to deal with soundtracks properly.

Perhaps this would be easily done in software, perhaps not. Regardless, a movie playback audio mode would have to be restricted to movie playback, or regular music would be able to totally overload and distort the HP.

Apple generally want to keep things simple for consumers, ie not allowing them to push way too loud volume to the speaker, so they would have to figure out a good way to know what type of material is being played back. I imagine that would be possible through ATV since the player would be aware of the source but not from other sources.

Its highly unlikely Apple would choose the easy way out and simply allow much higher gain. That’s what Google, Samescum etc would have done. They will take their time to figure it out or choose not to do it at all since HP is supposed to be a music device and not home theatre speakers.

As much as I would love some sort of desktop mac that features the i9 Processor, has 8 standard ram slots, two M2 SSD slots, 4 sata slots and 3 or 4 PCI slots, I just don't think Apple will ever go there again.

It's kind of a lose/lose situation for them. Either it would be a machine that would equal a generic PC in a certain price segment, say around 2000, but it would cost at least 3500, meaning everyone and their moms would bitch about the "Apple Tax" or they would sell it for close to 2000, have horrible margins (just like the rest of the PC industry), while cannibalising a lot of iMac 5K sales. 

With the new Mac Pro, at least when compared to a hypothetical PC build with similar class components, they aren't THAT much more expensive, and they also have a bunch of unique features that you can't currently get elsewhere. With the iMac Pro, it's the same thing, there are no standard all in one PC's to compare it to. And the iMac 5K is actually quite good value for the money considering the screen you're getting with it and how nice it looks. 

I just don't see a way that they could make the xMac, have it be unique enough to not get stuck in a bad looking comparison to PC builds AND have healthy margins. But I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm all good with my Hackintosh, until a few years from now when all newer Macs have the T2 (or T3, 4, 5 by then) and the latest version of MacOS is completely locked down.

crowley said:

unne said:

As much as I would love some sort of desktop mac that features the i9 Processor, has 8 standard ram slots, two M2 SSD slots, 4 sata slots and 3 or 4 PCI slots, I just don't think Apple will ever go there again.

It's kind of a lose/lose situation for them. Either it would be a machine that would equal a generic PC in a certain price segment, say around 2000, but it would cost at least 3500, meaning everyone and their moms would bitch about the "Apple Tax" or they would sell it for close to 2000, have horrible margins (just like the rest of the PC industry), while cannibalising a lot of iMac 5K sales. 

With the new Mac Pro, at least when compared to a hypothetical PC build with similar class components, they aren't THAT much more expensive, and they also have a bunch of unique features that you can't currently get elsewhere. With the iMac Pro, it's the same thing, there are no standard all in one PC's to compare it to. And the iMac 5K is actually quite good value for the money considering the screen you're getting with it and how nice it looks. 

I just don't see a way that they could make the xMac, have it be unique enough to not get stuck in a bad looking comparison to PC builds AND have healthy margins. But I hope I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm all good with my Hackintosh, until a few years from now when all newer Macs have the T2 (or T3, 4, 5 by then) and the latest version of MacOS is completely locked down.

Apple's healthy margins are normally 30-40%, right?  So why would an xMac that Apple can build for $2000 need to be sold for $3500?  A 40% margin on a computer that costs $2000 to build would be $2800.

And if Apple can build a Mac Pro that is competitive with PC hardware, and have acceptable profits, why couldn't they do the same mid-tier?  Apple's industrial design and software are always a pretty good differentiator.

Ok, my numbers where a bit exaggerated.

I agree that Apple's software is a big differentiator (for me it's THE differentiator that determines everything) and their industrial design is definitely top notch. However, my main point still stands: I just don't think it would make economic and especially marketing sense for them to do it. 

Like many have already pointed out, the target group for such a machine are quite small (yet very vocal), so it's not worth spending too much resources designing it.

Most of the people who would buy it would have otherwise been mini or iMac customers so not many sales gained, only product line complexity.

There isn't much room for Apple's kind of innovation in such a machine. With the new Pro they were able to go all out with innovative thermals, graphics packages etc. That would have to be cut for this machine, and also, depending on processor model, it would not be needed anyway.

So what's left? A regular box that is just a little prettier than most? The remaining target group (that absolutely can't make due with an iMac or a Mac Mini but also cannot afford the new Pro) don't really care at all how the machine looks, so I would say that industrial design does not make a significant differentiator for this group. I would know since I myself sit exactly in this group (music producer/mixer who built my own hackintosh because this kind of mac does not exist).

If Apple were to actually make this machine, they would gain a very small number of total sales to people like me, but their image would take a huge hit in the media. All the techie boys would scream bloody murder about how it's just a regular PC but more expensive. Apple wouldn't have any innovative coolness to back it up with. And it would be easy to design a box with the exact same specs and "prove" how Apple rips you off. Not gonna happen.

22july2013 said:

Your idea is a good idea not just because Tim'S Whiney [sic] is on Apple's back, but several governments around the world are breathing down Apple's back too. By allowing Android/Linux on iPhones, this would halt some of the silly complaints that Apple has a monopoly for app distribution for the iPhone. This is probably an ace that Apple is reserving for a future emergency. 

Yes, I was definitely not out to help Mr Whiney :-) but rather to:
1. Protect Apple from potential antitrust suits, like you suggested
2. Cause it's the right thing to do with regards to tech savvy end-users who like to tinker.

Maybe you're right that Apple should not make it simple to dual boot in terms of self interest, but I would argue, from a moral perspective, that enabling dual boot is still the right thing to do with regards to the end user. There are many use cases that are currently not doable with an iPhone, because the whole premise of the application needs the kind of hardware access that Apple (often for good reasons, security comes to mind) chooses not to allow. For those users it would be an acceptable work-around to reboot the device into Linux, run their custom software that they need for one reason or another, and then reboot again back into iOS to use their phone as they normally do. 

This approach would probably not cost them much in terms of effort and risk for potential competition, but it would give them a good moral leg to stand on when arguing they they are not restricting user choice, similar to how Tim Cook has been positioning Apple with regards to user privacy. I think it would mostly be a win/win for Apple to do this. Not saying they will though, unless their hand is forced.