Hidden Dimensions -- Pondering Apple's Next Desktop Mac
by John Martellaro
May 19th, 2006
"When you always do what you've always done, you always get what you've always got."
- Anon
It is fitting that Apple has held back the introduction of the next Intel-based desktop Mac -- which some have dubbed the "Mac Pro." For it is the desktop platform that poses so many challenges for Apple and the industry as a whole.
We all know that mobile computing is taking off and that fewer and fewer professional customers see a compelling reason for having a large, clunky tower on their desk (or even below it) unless they have a very special need.
Tower computers take up a lot of room, and they can be noisy. Originally, desktop systems, going back for years, were designed for expansion -- meaning slots. These days, USB 2 and FireWire have all but eliminated the need for HBA cards except in rare professional uses of Myrinet, InfiniBand and Fibre Channel cards. And these are more typical in the Xserve than a desktop.
The most typical use of these "Pro" desktops is when the user needs all the computational power and memory she can get on her desktop plus Mac OS X; forget the heat load. Now, Apple's primary professional markets include design and publishing, film and video, photography and graphics, music and audio, as well as bioscience and research. That sounds big, but when summed up, these professional markets constitute a very small percentage of Apple's sales. So the burning question is, given the popularity of the iMac for consumer sales (and some penetration now into Pro markets!) the trend towards mobile computing, the diminished need for internal expansion, what role should a new Apple Pro desktop play?
Certainly Apple outright owns most of these markets and doesn't want to give them up. So putting a desktop-class Intel CPU in the same old classic PowerMac G5 tower enclosure is certainly a possibility. Indeed likely. It'll still be a nice box and have all the cool Mac technologies. Will customers drool at the appearance and get the sudden urge to buy one? Probably not. There will be routine upgrades from PowerMac G5s to "Mac Pros." Yawn. It doesn't sound very exciting or imaginative to me. In fact, something doesn't seem to ring true here.
Consider the following:
We have some evidence that Apple is working on a media center.
Apple likes to design products whose mere appearance creates the urge to buy.
Apple desktop sales, even before the Intel announcement, were never very stellar.
Dell just bought Alienware. That tells me they're proactively bracing for Apple's Intel desktop.
Apple wouldn't mind converting some of its low volume Pro products over to a more lucrative high volume consumer model.
Let's look at how this evidence could affect the Mac Pro design.
Back in the days of the Blue & White G3 tower, Apple had an industrial design that was far superior to the so-called beige box PCs. The curvy, warm, blue plastic case and the easy side-door access put it way beyond PCs of the day. The movement to the G4 with more subdued grayish tones and some missteps in design diluted the appeal of the G4 tower. When the G5 was introduced in 2003, Apple changed from a soft, rounded look to an aluminum, edgy, and masculine look that spoke to raw power. But anyone who has handled the G5 tower knows that it's heavy and awkward to handle. And three years later, it's beginning to look dated.
One could imagine the marching orders to Jonathan Ive for the next Mac desktop.
A beautiful, appealing box that looks professional.
Smaller, lighter, quieter. Did I mention smaller?
A recognition that this new desktop Mac, like all the other Intel Macs, is going to be running Windows in many Pro markets, so it had better look a lot better than the typical tower PC.
Some have suggested that this next Mac will have the Intel "Conroe" chip. This is a 64-bit, dual core chip with SSE4 and destined to be called the Core 2 Duo. No matter. It'll have the best 64-bit CPU that Apple can integrate before 2006 is over.
I would also expect this desktop Mac to take advantage of Intel's "vPro" technology that allows virtualization to create operational partitions in the hardware that afford monitoring and security screening for the OS.
Let's get back to the industrial design. When I think about really cool desktop computers with extraordinary computational power, I think of the heyday of SGI and their "O2" and "Octane" workstations and the current day AlienWare systems. The designers of these systems have used clever construction techniques to suggest raw speed and to create a futuristic, technical look. If Apple decided to change the "Mac Pro" case, I would expect them to do no less. So would Dell Computer. I suspect Dell wants a high-end system in their lineup to have more than just the commodity desktop blasé box sold by the millions to the enterprise and placed in cubicles. Otherwise, they would certainly end up ceding a chunk of the high end Pro market to Intel-based Macs that run Windows.
Drawing on all the above, what would be some of the design considerations?
Apple knows that they won't sell a whole lot of these desktop systems compared to their consumer systems. They'll be very popular in some enterprise and government circles, but numbers aren't likely to shoot up radically compared to the PowerMac G5. Apple also knows that the modest market for them gets even smaller as the base price goes much above $3,000. That's a lot of bucks even in the Pro markets. And so that constraint places limits on the technologies Apple can utilize.
How could Apple raise the manufacturing volume so that they could reduce component costs and obtain technical leverage against HP and Dell? If there were some added factor that made the Pro desktop irresitible to, say, Apple's consumer population, that would do it.
How about making the new Apple Pro desktop the Apple Media Center as well?
Some have predicted that the Mac mini would grow to fill this role. However, price constraints and both the exterior and interior design may rule that out -- despite the mini's excellent graphics system. The iMac, while great for watching video in an isolated setting, just doesn't fit in with a home High Definition system that already has a large HD display. And so, that leaves, tah-dah!, the Apple Pro desktop system.
Accordingly, a media center and workstation-class computer suggests a return to the horizontal format. Why? The first reason is related to design and desired contrast to PCs. We've seen Apple do this this from time to time. When all the notebooks were black plastic, Apple came out with Titanium. Now that many notebooks are silver in color, Apple comes out with a black MacBook. [1]
The second reason is the need for a lower profile unit in a home stereo/TV system A horizontal format affords the look of an exotic stereo system component and fits better on most stereo cabinets. And since a lot of stereo gear comes in silver or black, and Apple thinks that black is now really cool, I wouldn't bet against black.
If it were thin enough, and metal, placing an Apple Cinema display on top would not be a problem. The horizontal format works very well with hard disks and various optical storage systems. Because the PowerMac G5 and the Xserve pull air though in horizontal layers, I will guess that vertical convection is not a requirement. Moreover, the extreme size of our current displays, and sometimes dual displays, makes it awkward to place a vertical tower on the desktop beside or behind the displays. (Catalogs show it with no problem, but the uncluttered desk in catalog pages isn't very realistic.)
On the other hand, putting a smaller unit on the floor, where your feet can bump it or dust bunnies can threaten, is not only unsavory, but doesn't showcase Apple's legendary industrial design. However, in a "pizza-box" [2] configuration, raising the display a few inches is probably better for one's neck anyway. No matter what display is used, that Apple desktop will always be in front of the user's face.
What's the bottom line? When we look at this hypothetical desktop Mac, we see a sleek, possibly black, horizontal box that conjures up images (!) of a video processor component and a science-fiction-esque desktop workstation. It's clearly differentiated from ugly PC towers that are best shoved under a desk or placed behind the display.
For the Pro user in the office or the power user at home, it'll fit nicely under the display. In the consumer space, it'll fit in with the living room's stereo/TV components and cabinets. [3]
Apple will have achieved convergence of the professional high performance workstation and a state-of-the-art media center. Higher sales volume will reduce costs and allow Apple to use more advanced hardware technologies that would have been impractical at lower sales volumes. This will give Apple sales leverage against the PCs.
Did I mention the drool factor?
Apple could and likely will do something completely different with the next desktop Mac, but I do know that the design and execution of a desktop system is more challenging than ever given the current market conditions. Apple has to give all its customers a really good reason to fork over the better part of three large for a new desktop Mac.
All this is just a guess based on looking at the five pieces of evidence above and analyzing the marketing and ergonomics. In any case, few on the planet know what Apple will do with the next Mac Pro desktop. I just hope they're saving the best for last.
[1] Apple has created the myth that when they do something
better, it's different. So different must be better. Bad
logic. Great salesmanship.
[2] A term applied to workstations in years past. It's not a bad
association to have.
[3] Operated with Apple's remote and Front Row.
John Martellaro is a senior scientist and author. A former U.S. Air Force officer,he has worked for NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Apple Computer. During his five years at Apple, he worked as a Senior Marketing Manager for science and technology, Federal Account Executive, and High Performance Computing Manager. His interests include alpine skiing, SciFi, astronomy, and Perl. John lives in Denver, Colorado.
Send polite comments to
, or post your comments below.
This whole argument is just crazy. Media center duties really are best-served with a dedicated device, not a computer. Microsoft is learning that the hard way. When you want to watch movies or listen to some tunes, you don't want to fiddle with boot-ups, crashing, navigating tons of icons, worrying about repairing permissions, or any of that jazz. You want something much more like the iPod -- simple, clean, and restricted in use. Think. How many uses does a TV have? One. It plays whatever signal it can pick up. How many uses does an iPod (officially) have? One. It plays whatever music you stuff on it. When you get home at the end of a long day, the last thing you want to do is futz around with your ill-tempered "does it all" media center. No. You want to click a remote, sink into the couch, and watch your favorite movie.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri May 19, 2006 5:13 pmSubject: Cards
Well, Apple can't make too much of a design shift for a simple reason--add-in cards are built with specific box sizes in mind. So Apple can't really make a thin pizza-box style Mac and expect somebody to add-in a high-end graphics card. At least, not without leaving the box open...
Years and years ago, when IBM released the PS/2, the low-end model used an ISA-bus (versus IBM's microchannel bus) just like the IBM PC-AT. The problem was that the PC-AT was about half-an-inch taller than the PS/2 Model 30. Thus, you couldn't use many PC-AT cards because you couldn't close the box afterwards.
And, as you say, the people who are interested in the Macintosh Pro are more interested in doing stuff with their boxes than having them look neat-o. So having a pizza-box or a cube won't interest too many of them.
The question is how to increase the sales volume of the Mac Pro by providing it with a major home consumer use. It's assumed it will meet the needs of professionals in those business markets mentioned in the article.
I could envision the Mac Pro being the media hub that can wirelessly serve up multiple different media streams to multiple displays/stereos throughout the house.
I think the Mac Pro will include a blu-ray drive and a pre-ratified 802.11n wireless capability.
I think Apple TV displays with either built-in 802.11n wireless links and digital encoding/decoding/ encrypting/decrypting, or an add-on box to do so will be available at the same time. (If in the add-on box form, it can also be used with an iPod Hi-Fi.)
While I agree with your guess as to the pizza box form of an entertainment server I don't believe this will be the next Desktop/Workstation/Game Machine.
Another guess is the return of the "cube". With the N.Y. City store's opening and it's signature glass entry I can see that Jobs still has this form on his mind. I do believe that Apple will have to utilize a singular box for their desktop markets. Exterior finish and color may vary for the "gamers'" box and the top end workstation. A cube may be able to hold many of the cards that audio/video workstations still like. I believe the workstation/gamers' models will be pushed with advancing Intel technologies allowing more frequent upgrades and customizing. A large enough cube would allow the enthusiasts to upgrade it to their hearts' content.
Who are these idiots?! With the new media push and OS problems with external devices, the safe bet is internal drives and the like. That is why I haven't gotten a G5. No room. My TOL FW800 is nicely packed and you can't do that with a G5. Speed . . . well that's relative and mostly numbers on paper that only affect impatient people.
I just wish that they weren't phasing out the PPC via bad OS updates.
Come on people. This is Apple we're talking about. Steve Jobs. You know, the guy who designed the NeXT cube. The guy who designed the G4 Cube. The guy who already showed his hand on what the next Apple desktop will look like when he designed this:
Yes, the new IntelMac cube will be 32 feet high, made of glass, have a circular glass stairway leading to the basement, and will be water cooled (during the rainy season). Naturally, it will connect to the full line of Apple Cinema Displays, all the way up to 30". The power brick, hard drive, etc. will be stored underground out of site.
Last edited by Bosco on Fri May 19, 2006 8:15 pm; edited 2 times in total Reply | Quote
Although your hypothesis is interesting, I don't agree with your conclusion. As a "Pro" user responsible for 20+ quad G5s, I don't want to have a media center as part of the box that pays the bills. It would serve no purpose in this setting and putting a 30" (soon to be bigger) ACD on top would make expansion that much more cumbersome. I do agree that an equally powerful unit in a slim horizontal configuration is ideal for a high-end consumer's digital audio-video setup.
I would very much prefer a "squished" version of the existing G5, perhaps with a slightly different (?black) finish. A cube, in terms of usable volume would be ideal, although cooling may be more of an issue. I don't want a conspicous unit with lots of buttons, displays, etc. that by necessity is part of a media center, if only to monitor what's going on. In my workspace, both at home and at work, the Mac is not on the desktop; it's either on a ledge underneath the desk or on the floor. Dust is a problem, but with modern office building air filtration systems, the location of the Mac makes little difference.
Anyway, my 2˘
We'll find out next month or in July, I suspect. I just want some quadcore Woodcrest units, space for 4 internal HD, a couple of opticals and most importantly, a video card worthy of such a machine. That's the Achilles heel of all of the quad G5s, and Apple has been strangely refractory about allowing upgrades to the video card after purchase. The price premium for Macintosh compatible high end video cards is already a problem; the reluctance to allow those who need faster cards to even buy them at Apple's marked up prices annoys me no end.
The 1U form factor fits nicely for the pro and consumer markets. 2U would even be acceptable. Just give me a bunch of PCIe slots and drive bays like the XServes and I'll be a happy camper. I'll use an entry-level Core Duo 1U consumer Mac Rack for my entertainment system sans rack ears. Then for my pro Mac Rack system, gimme a Core 2 Quad with rack ears. It'll integrate nicely with all my other rackmounted gear. It would great if Apple came out with a RAID5 NAS for the rest of us. With gigabit ethernet standard on all new Macs, it's be an easy plug and play for screaming media transfer speeds.
Okay having seen the Da Vinci Code movie this afternoon I have noticed how similar the Apple Cube Store looks like the Louvre pyramid under which is buried the Holy Grail. True that the store is not a pyramid, but the construction is similar and a cube is the "neXT" logical step from a pyramid.
On topic. Apple will probably not drop the desktop.
Quote
Bosco wrote: Come on people. This is Apple we're talking about. Steve Jobs. You know, the guy who designed the NeXT cube. The guy who designed the G4 Cube. The guy who already showed his hand on what the next Apple desktop will look like when he designed this:
Yes, the new IntelMac cube will be 32 feet high, made of glass, have a circular glass stairway leading to the basement, and will be water cooled (during the rainy season). Naturally, it will connect to the full line of Apple Cinema Displays, all the way up to 30". The power brick, hard drive, etc. will be stored underground out of site.
Alienware is the antithisis of Apple design, thankfully so they offer nothing externally at least, to guide us here.
I do find the massive emphasis on the cube at the new store interesting, not only the store itself but in terms of the way it has been backed up on all sorts of graphic material too. May be a hint but equally it could simply be Steve getting his ultimate way having been unable to get it accepted by the masses on the desktop he bringd the desktop to the cube. Steve does love a bit of symbolism and hates defeat. Maybe this is his attempt at closure on the subject. We shall see.
A pizza box has areal proble I feel in being accepted as a professional system unless he can identify it with the servers.
Which brings us to the media centre. Personally I have never really seen the point of a pizza box design for this just because all units it will be with are of this format. Fact is that while the general shape is geneerally the same I have yet to find anything that works together in a satisfying way UNLESS they are from the same manufacturer designed to fit together. Why therefore restrict your unit to just a profunctary gesture to such units? Why not as indeed many of the top end hi fi units do escape from this predictable form factor and go for a powerful, unique technological statement? Especially when the minimalism of an Apple device is even less in keeping with the run of the mill over complex hi fi units anyway. People will want it to stand out and be recognisable surely esppecially if they were to pay the extra for such a top end media centre that the writer suggests.
And that is the point. Why would Apple 'cpy' the unsuccessful white elephant approach of the PC media centre - all things to all men but despite being the most expensive computer in the house can raely be used for computing. Illogical in my mind which is why Apple has taken the more logical approach of producing functionality from the bottom and mid range as additions to the normal computer. The next step would when tecnology and price allows point to the mini of something like it being presented as a mdia centre which is where it is heading, no over hyped over designed expensive be all to both professionals and consumers device. That would be a disaster and totally at odds with Apple's approach of creating specific devices that do the job it is designed for well, and doesnt confuse the consumer as PC media centres do.
I thought that Dell bought Alienware to get into the 'Gamers PC' market, following the failure of their own high-end games machines - the problem for Dell is that they have a 'cut-price' image, just as Apple find it hard to shift their 'overpriced' image. (In both cases because there is a lot of truth in there).
I don't find Alienware's design that appealing myself - yes, they've made more of an effort than many PC firms, but it's a bit teenage; it's certainly not 'pro' (although their specs are). The other thing about the Pro market is that it really does need that option to customise - for some takes, dual 256 Mb graphics cards are going to make your work more productive, in some cases it might be an excess of memory, in others multi-multi-core CPU. Equally, they may be 'niche' but they punch above their weight - every film and music studios using Powermacs must have resulted in 10x that number of Powerbook sales.
Other thoughts :
Personally I think even the Mini is too expensive for a home media centre. The Home Media Centre needs to be a specific device, although one that can use home network storage.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat May 20, 2006 2:46 pmSubject:
Few would fork over 3 large for even the best media center computer. I predict one enclosure with two or three color grades, using the same enclosure design for the super pc and the media pc, differentiating their type by color.
Although I like the idea of trying to combine the pro boxes with a media center in order to maintain maximum profits, there are so many reasons this would fail that I cannot carry even the hypothetical argument very far. Here are a few:
– sound. It must be virtually silent, which means external power supply and no fans, if possible (and it is possible... see HUSH Technologies). Also slower, cooler-running CPUs.
– expandability. Pros need it, media center doesn't. Except perhaps for a video card, if part of the market is to provide a Windows-booting game box for the living room (aka xBox). I don't see Apple taking that route – their sights are set much higher, aimed squarely at downloadable movies.
– I/O and controls. A media center will need more and different buttons and ports than a production machine. Personally, I would not want to mix the two... why pay for something that is not mission critical? A nice option for an Apple media center would be to have a built-in iPod dock or two for quick transfer of music and movies. Place them on top and you'll help guarantee that the device will not be on the bottom of the component stack.
– mission-driven design. If Apple is pushing to develop iTunes for movies, they will build a tamper-proof design. Much like the iPod, it will be built for a dedicated purpose, and not as a multi-function machine.
– price. Apple wants iPod-level success, and it simply won't come with a $2k+ box. They'll want them for sale at WalMart and Best Buy... those shoppers just won't bite. Especially when compared with a $400 Xbox and a $600 PS3 for the holiday season.
The best bet is a redesigned and slightly larger (standard component width) mini. Like it or not, the mini has nearly all the features needed already, except for hard drive space and front ports. I expect Apple to widen the box, add a 3.5" HDD (CTO up to 750GB), and then add ports and buttons. The rest will be largely the same, with the possible exception of a dedicated GPU (not likely... the integrated graphics will do 1080i). The base unit will be priced the same as the mini (and the PS3), but CTO options will push it past $1k.
As for the pro boxes, I expect an all-new package (it's about that time) that is smaller and visually distinct from the current models. Not black. Emphasis will be on power and expandability, as it should be, and that simply takes a bigger, louder box than a media PC.
This makes sense. They could share the motherboard with the Xserve and drop in a better video card. Use standard RAM instead of ECC since it is less critical than in a rack server.
Whats your point about simplicity, if its a mac running front row, than why would there be any problem with simplicty? If someone would want to watch a dvd, all they'd have to do is hit a button on the remote to bring it from sleep (cuz thats what you would leave it in, in the morning, you wouldn't shut down a mac just for the day) then pop in a dvd, dvd player launches automatically, and ur watching a DVD.
Anyone who equates "extraordinary computational power" and "Alienware" has no credibility. Please delete your blog, cancel your internet service, and climb into the nearest sewer.
I feel like I'm watching an episode of Seinfeld where Kramer has somehow finagled his way into writing a mac column. John, it's amost as if you have no understanding of what you're talking about.
Some of the more obvious problems with your article:
1) Marketing/Branding Problems
Can you imagine selling an SGI 02 to 3D modelers at Lucasfilm and selling the same machine to Joe Sixpack for his entertainment system? Idiotic. Pros desiring the most powerful machine possible will not imagine a home media center has that kind of power and wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
2) Expandability Problems
As someone else said, pros need expandability and most professional level 3rd party expansion options are big PCI cards. These will not fit in your stereo component sized media center. A pro desktop that has no 3rd party expansion card options will not sell well.
3) Pricing/Margin Problems
Pros buy desktops for power. And they pay a premium for acquiring this power. Apple also has premium margins on pro hardware. Conversely, consumers are notoriously cheap. How are you going to sell something that will command a premium price and margin to someone who is notoriously cheap? Answer: You can't.
Do you really think the Alienware towers have a pleasing design? They're childish and garish. Alienware towers are the computing equivalent of putting a giant whale tail on your old hooptie Honda. Not even close to the elegant sophistication of Apple design.
I can only thank my lucky stars that you're merely writing about Apple and not actually working for them. Otherwise the company would have drowned in red ink and I'd be stuck using some fugly PC.
As several have already mentioned, the cube form-factor (taking it's cue from the new NYC store) is a good bet. But I'd also bet they'll do something new with it.
It can't be completely transparent, but they could borrow from their previous design as well as what they now do with iMacs. What I'm thinking of is thick clear plastic encasing a mirror-like chrome finish (not like the plastic used in their G4 cube design, but more like the clear plastic used in their iMac design).
The biggest problem with the idea of the Mac Pro as media center is that a media center needs to appeal to a mass consumer market. The average Joe is not going to drop $2500 for a media center that does what? Records TV shows? Stores DVDs on it? Allow you to buy low-quality videos from iTunes to play on you HDTV?
If I'm given $2500 to build a media center for my home, I'm going to by separate components - an HD DVD or Blu-Ray player, a Tivo, HDTV & On Demand cable services. And I'd still have money left over.
If Apple is building a media center, it needs to be a compelling product that replaces several other components in the home theater and adds new enhancements. And it needs to be cheap enough that convenience of one box that does-it-all seems worthwhile.
The Mac Pro needs to play the same role that Apple's Pro Desktops always have --- it needs to be the showcase for the highest end and most powerful technology available AND it needs to deliver the horsepower that pro-users require to get their jobs done more quickly as each generation of software becomes more complex, and more taxing on the CPU.
A pizza box design is not only outmoded, but it's aesthetically bankrupt. As you say - Apple machines must always be front and center -- I can't see them EVER stacking a 30" cinema display on top of a Mac Pro. Vertical says "power" -- just visually it is tall, strong, monumental.
I expect a slight modification to the case (if any), probably with a thinner profile, and hopefully with more intelligent heat-dissipation design - so it doesn't run as hot as this Mac Book Pro I am typing on. I expect dual dual-cores, possibly even a quad dual core setup at the highest end. If they're intelligent they will further standardize their motherboard so their customers can take advantage of the same high-end graphics cards available to PC users.
Their #1 challenge is going to be building a machine that looks and says "high-end PC" better than anything else on the market. It doesn't matter if they don't sell heaps of them -- it's all about spreading the mind-share that Apple makes the fastest Intel computers. After all, for the first time, they are competing head-to-head with the other guys. They'll all be using the same chips, so how they use them is going to make a big difference. (actually I think Dell just announced a switch to AMD - doh!)
I, for one, am looking forward to putting my Dual 2.0Ghz G5 to rest, along with it's cricket noises, incredible heat and whining. Ugh. Please Apple - control your thermal pasters, up your quality assurance, and get this one right out of the gate.
Come on people keep it together. Its going to be a tower and its going to be made out of the same material. Maybe it will be smaller so it can fit on the desktop behind the monitor. But at the end of the day the tower is a pro system not a home entertainment system. That home entertainment option is built into the mac book/ pro and the mac mini. I dont think the pizza box is going to work. Knowing how apple likes to keep their line of machines looking alike. The Mac Pro may look more like the 360 meets the G5.
I played on a new Macbook today and I'm impressed. it was a 2 ghz dual core, black and it rocked. the keyboard is great and the screen is great even in fluorescent lighting.
Dude, this is never going to happen. There may be a window to put some Media Centre functionality into a powermac but its hardly going to be a media centre in its own right!
A pizza box will NEVER have to room to expand that these markets need unless it is huge.
A cube however I think would be a very natural progression. I remember at the time the cube was taken off the market SJ commented that they may resurrect it at some time. I can't find a link unfortunately. It is obvious SJ loves the cube design after he took so much time over the design of the NeXT work station and the recent storefront in NYC. Plus, if anything a cube could offer more expansion potential whilst chopping some of the height off the unit.
Finally, for the person who commented about portability, this is hardly something most people who buy a pro computer need. Gamers might but I still don't really see Apple making moves into this market. Its just never been their focus.
This is what computers have become for you limp-wristed journalists? Boxes to play your movies and music on?
Between this and the iPod phenomenon I'm really starting to worry that Apple and the Macintosh have been taken over by the stupid consumer with the insatiable need for entertainment.
If that will make you forget that the world is in decline; if that will make you forget you country is decaying; if that will make you forget you corrupt politicians and your empy life...
All this entertainment is just a drug. A happy pill from the corporations that are raping the earth and screwing us all.
it's just silly. nothing against John but it makes no sense. a $2000 media center not including monitor? wtf. no way. who will buy that? ok, someone would but not enough people for a product like that to make any economical or marketing sense as others have already stated.
apple needs a heavy duty pro line desktop, no doubt. sure the design may change, but it will more likely be a U3 rackmountable design, that could also be stood upright or placed on a desk, if need be. lets fact, desktops for the average joe, non-pro or non-hardcore gamer are dead, much less a media center.
Back in the days of the Blue & White G3 tower, Apple had an industrial design that was far superior to the so-called beige box PCs. The curvy, warm, blue plastic case and the easy side-door access put it way beyond PCs of the day. The movement to the G4 with more subdued grayish tones and some missteps in design diluted the appeal of the G4 tower. When the G5 was introduced in 2003, Apple changed from a soft, rounded look to an aluminum, edgy, and masculine look that spoke to raw power. But anyone who has handled the G5 tower knows that it's heavy and awkward to handle. And three years later, it's beginning to look dated.
