The Gaping Hole in Apple's Desktop Line
 |
by
August 13th, 2007
"Every generation needs a new revolution."
- Thomas Jefferson
I am going to argue that there is an emerging hole in Apple's desktop line of computers. That hole is growing larger because of the change in the way we use our desktop systems. In this case, however, it's not just me with that thought.
This column is a first for me because it is based on a recent TMO forum discussion. Several wise and thoughtful people contributed to a discussion, and so I will do my best to transform this essay from one person's experienced opinion into an opinion that has been crafted by experienced and articulate Apple customers.
Here is the crux of the argument. Both ordinary home and technical professional users who use a desktop Mac are transitioning from a productivity workflow into a video and interactive workflow. In concert with this, our broadband pipeline is slowly growing. As a result, there is a growing gap between the iMac, engineered for home users and the Mac Pro, engineered for Pro-level work in Hollywood video production and scientific computing.
The new iMacs introduced on August 7th don't do anything to change the situation.
Apple's Side
I'm not going to argue that Apple isn't aware of its customer patterns. They know a lot about their customer needs and preferences. They also have the analysis of their sales down to a fine art. At some point, Apple's fine tuned understanding springs forth into exciting products. Of course, if Apple doesn't get the guidance it needs, because customers don't understand the technology, then we end up with Reality Distortion Fields instead of what we really wanted.
As we all know, the sales of notebook computers are off the charts. Everyone loves MacBooks and MacBook Pros for their great design and portability. They're just plain sexy, and for a mobile society of technical professionals, they're perfect.
The desktop systems, on the other hand, have grown passe. In the past, Apple has transitioned the G4 PowerMac into the G5 as a high end tower for people who want certain features, such as better video cards, expandability, and more memory space. Recently, however, the Mac Pro has transitioned into a severely high end work station that doesn't make sense for users who want the features of a powerful, expandable desktop but can't justify the cost of a Mac Pro. So far, that's been okay with Apple because most users simply settle for an iMac, propelled by a little Apple RDF. Equally important, Apple must continue to cater to Final Cut Pro and CS3 power users, and so there is no clear idea of how a third desktop (like the dreaded Cube) would fit into Apple's lineup. Even more doubtful is the sales potential of such a system given that even Mac Pro sales are not stellar while MacBook sales are astronomical.
So I will grant all that. And yet...
The Customer's Side
One of the keys to this discussion is the current state-of-the-art in CPU design. We all know that as processors got faster and faster, around 2003, an effect called transistor leakage cropped up. It was related to the fact that as the clock speeds of the single core CPUs increased, there was increased heat generated due to an inefficiency of the electrical current flowing through each transistor. When you have hundreds of millions of transistors, it all adds up. We ran out of cost effective cooling capacity.
These days, IBM and Intel have made improvements that reduce that effect, but not so much that it doesn't make sense to add processing power with more cores and less clock, so to speak.
As a result, we've moved into a valley of death, a plateau in the 2+ GHz range, where the major chip makers add cores for the sake of competition and exotic benchmarks, but everyday developers are hard pressed to keep up with designing software that can exploit four or eight cores.
As a result, the eight core Mac Pro is essentially designed for very expensive production software or custom research software that can exploit such a monster. If you look at the typical benchmarks that don't take into account extensive threading, you'll find that the Mac Pro's Xeon processors aren't exactly smoking the Core 2 Duo.
This doesn't mean a lot for the average home user or even the mobile professional who surfs in the evening, trades e-mail with colleagues, updates LinkedIn.com, and may even catch up with an episode of Lost on abc.com.
It does mean something for younger people who have grown up on PC games and YouTube. It means something to people who are sizing up the HD industry and deciding what role their home Mac is going to play in a future of a 1080p video library. It means something to technical professionals who do work at home. And it means something to those customers who have their own display, sometimes multiple displays, thank you, and want a very fast computer for the sake of the sex appeal of a very fast computer.
Face it, the Mac Pro is an ugly beast of a computer.
The (Intel) PowerMac Returns
It doesn't make sense to suggest that Apple build a computer that is so exotically fast that its price point would only appeal to a few percent of the population. We're well familiar with the steep curve associated with the fastest and the best hardware, and climbing that curve means pricing the computer out of the range of target customers. SGI tried that and got into big trouble. They're not out of business, but they're on life support. We don't want to go there.
Even so, I will add my voice to those in the recent forum discussion and suggest that Apple has ignored some of the more muscular CPUs from Intel, compromised the memory bandwidth (to save on cost) in preference to the obvious hoopla of eight cores in the Mac Pro, ignored the fact that many power users find it psychologically difficult to buy a computer with a built-in display (which is seen as a less capable, consumer machine), and has held on to the G5 cheese grater design for far too long.
There is another problem, and it has to do with positioning the product. An Intel PowerMac with a balanced architecture, optimized for video and optimized for the most typical desktop applications that can only exploit two or four cores might end up with benchmarks that could borderline embarrass the MacPro. That would create a perception problem regarding the differentiation Apple's desktop line.
On the other hand, Apple seems to want it both ways. They keep the price of the Mac Pro barely within reach of the power user: Too expensive to justify compared to a nice MacBook Pro but not so expensive that it's dismissed out of hand. And then, there's that nagging necessity to retain the perception that the best Macs are no more expensive than the best PCs. If Apple added $500 to the price of the Mac Pro to eradicate some engineering compromises, the PC world would jump down Apple's throat and many users might not notice the difference with their typical software. No win there.
All the above may sound like I've talked myself out of the proposition. But I haven't.
Boldly Going ... Out of the Comfort Zone
Right now, Apple is in a comfortable spot. They like their Mac Pro's acceptance in business, government, research, science, and professional video editing. Consumers are buying iMacs and loving them. The new ones are spectacular looking. What's not to like?Intel is in a comfortable position as well. They've figured out how to add more cores, and it won't be long before we see 16 core CPUs, all scrambling for memory access, straining the limits of an SMP system. No matter, just jazz up a few benchmarks and lead the consumer down the path of "twice as many cores means oh so yummy goodness and, ahem, twice as fast." Sure.
By and by, the general population is going to stop buying that story. A general perception could ensue that the iMac remains an exotic toy for John and Mary Doe to file their taxes and read Grandma's e-mails because Apple has steadfastly deprecated games, raw power, and Blu-ray on their consumer desktop.
In that scenario, the coarseness (for Mr. Jobs, read simplicity) of the Apple desktop line could become a weakness in the very near future. And a weakness in Apple is just what some competitors would like to find now that Apple appears distracted by the iPhone and strained by getting Leopard out the door. The path is not without difficulties. I mentioned a lot of them above. And yet, change is inevitable. Apple knows we are all dreamers. Apple loves to be the best at everything. There's a big fat hole in Apple's desktop line up that's been conveniently glossed over in all the buzz surrounding Apple's success.
It would be oh, so easy to give up on the dream. The dream of of an ultra-sleek, beautiful, designed-by-Ive, quad core, Blu-ray, omigod-gotta-have-it personal desktop. Fast FSB. Game-class video card. eSata interface.
Giving up is so easy to do, after all.
Customers would want the Intel PowerMac to have expandability and flexibility. Those of modest means would want to get one for a reasonable sum yet let the more affluent load it up. This would be the next generation desktop that we've all been waiting for, and the Mac Pro would remain in its rightful place as the ugly, behemoth, put-it-under-the-desk workhorse Pro machine it has evolved into. Downward price pressure and engineering compromise in the Mac Pro would be eliminated. Maybe Apple will sell fewer Mac Pros, but they'd sell a lot more digital hub desktops. An Intel Power Mac.
Notebook computers and iMacs have their uses, but managing our terabyte video lives is not one of them.
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.
Hidden Dimensions Archives.
Observer Comments
Wow. Nice article as I've been thinking the same thing lately. I just put CS3 on my G4 Dual450 and it finally seems slow; I may stop using Illustrator CS3 because of it. I saw the new iMacs and they seem nice, but I have the nagging feeling that I can't upgrade it enough to last as long as my G4. Longevity is what I am looking for, and the tower's expandability has always provided that. But the MacPros are just overkill for what I need (InDesign, Illustrator, Xpress, and Photoshop use, with dabbling in Painter) and the price has prevented me from upgrading. An inbetween machine would fit my needs well; I already have two monitors so I don't want to pay for the iMacs screen (not to mention I'm still not sold on LCDs for graphics work); on the other end I don't need 4 drive bays and the bell's and whistles of the MacPro. Help me Apple, I want to give you money!
I really don't understand what Apple's policy is on this one? They spend all that time, effort and money on advertising how good macs are versus Microsoft equipped PC's, encouraging us to switch? Well I did switch I bought a mac mini 18 months ago, learnt how to use OSX, and loved it. Unfortunately I have to keep the old PC around to play games. Its like having two girlfriends, one stylish, reliable and sexy, but who is no good in the sack, whilst still having the ex-girlfriend around, as she is so much fun in the sack, but is a bit of a sick psycho, who'll you'll never ever understand, and who has invited all sorts of "programs" to come and have some "fun" too.
I need only one machine, a first class Intel or AMD based computer, that has the safety and security of a Mac, and can at least play some decent games too. I was hoping that the new range of Imacs might get there, but alas no. I'm certainly not willing to fork out $2500+ for a Mac Pro, that is at best on par with my 3 year old shuttle SB75G2 (XT1950Pro). My Mac mini is good enough for email, basic photo editing, web-sites, movies etc. So why move to an Imac? or a Mac Pro? I'm still going to need that slut of shuttle for fun? I don't believe that I'm alone in this belief. I suspect that Apple don't want to compete in that market, as they'd have to churn out so many more machines with reduced markup. In the meantime I'll wait till they do and just save my money. Just half the height of that Pro, two HD bays, one CD/DVD/Blueray slot thingy
Mr Jobs there is a huge Market for an Apple product that is somewhere between the mini and the Pro. Guess you don't want my cash?
I also notice that most of the key people in Apple are getting old too? Perhaps they need some new blood?
Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:20 pm Subject: I don't see the hole?
With a Mac Pro you can start out cheap or expensive, the choice is yours. You can add video card, drives, PCie cards until you soup up your Mac. I can make it much more powerful than my PC is. If you want to play games then get a PC or better yet a Playstation, Wii or Xbox. Microsoft released crappy development tools but they did a great thing with DirectX, making program lazy the world over. You will never see the amount of games release for the Mac as the PC and their are several reasons for that....none of which really comes down to the computer. I think Apples line-up is just fine as-is. With the AppleTV to the Top of the line Mac Pro. There is one for every price range.
One has to figure that the R&D for a mid-level Mac would be next to nothing, as far as these things go. All of the parts would be pretty much off the shelf. Spend a little time and effort to put it in a nice chassis, and you're done.
Some nice specs might be: Either dual or four core processor, eSATA hard drive, up to 8 GB of RAM, a Superdrive, and your standard USB and Firewire ports. Toss in a removable graphics card, one or two empty slots, and space for one or two extra drives. Make Blu-Ray or a high-end graphics card BTO options, and call it a day. Price it at $899 for the base model, and whatever is necessary for the higher end models. All of the pieces exist right now, and wouldn't require any real development on Apple's part. And yet, Apple would rather that people buy PCs to fit this niche (because no one is going to buy a Mac Pro instead of one of these).
Apple: A sale is a sale is a sale. Even if a machine like this would cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro just a little (and I think you would wind up selling more machines in the end anyway), you would still be making money off of it.
Mac Mini: $599-799
Mac Pro: $2200-HolyCowThat'sExpensive
That's a $1400 difference there between machines that don't come with monitors. And the low-end one can't be upgraded (except for RAM). You honestly don't see a hole there?
Maybe you work for Apple, and this is why we have this problem to begin with?
Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:36 pm Subject: So what are we really asking Apple for?
I think Apple's product line is very logical. You buy a Mac Pro for the power and future proofing... it is what the name of the product is: a professional grade machine. So what are we saying when we make the case for the "gaping hole" between iMacs and Mac Pro's? "Gee Apple, we want the expandability of a Mac Pro, but we don't want to pay for it"?
You know, the price difference between the consumer and pro laptops is about the same; I find it odd that noone complains about that. For that matter, I would make the argument that there already IS a machine between the iMac and Mac Pro: the Macbook Pro.
I priced out Apple's offerings in anticipation of buying a new Intel machine sometime early next year, and the price difference between the pro tower and top level laptops is really close.
Mr. Martellaro, one factor you've completely overlooked is the fact that a pro tower is an investment: you might pay another $1000 up front for that buhweemoth (as opposed to an iMac), but you're buying a machine that will EASILY still be useful for more than twice the lifetime of the next best machine.
But I know, I know... we don't want to pay so much for one of those, right? For those who say "yes", I offer you my 1.8ghz SP G5 as evidence of why you're wrong. Sure, I got it cheap, but I've already maxed out the RAM and hedging on whether I should get a better video card or not... it can run all my stuff, but it's still not fast enough for me. I've only had it for a couple of years, and given the latest software offerings (namely Adobe CS3), it's already time for a replacement.
Yes but I've got a Mac, and a PC, how many pieces of electronics do you need to have lying around? We don't all have bottomless pockets or money trees in the garden. I don't want a WII or a PSP, ESP or Xbox. I really don't think it is beyond them to make such a unit. I'm as interested as the next Apple devotee in them expanding and making money, getting new switchers and customers, as it benfits everyone. I have a 24" inch monitor, so an Imac is not a sensible choice, is it? But I know deep down in my heart that the moment that I buy a Mac Pro, they will release the "dream machine" DOH!
They are missing a huge market, and now is the time to strike, to really deal a blow to MS, when the IPOD is at its Zenith, the IPHONE going where no Apple product has gone before, a record number of switchers. But still the heathen hordes of Teenagers and Geeks still cry out "It can't play games" and turn back to their "unclean" ones for fun. Well hell, produce a mid priced unit bigger than the mini, smaller than the Pro and clean up!
btw I'm starting to get tired of telling my friends to switch to the wholesome Apple, whilst I still keep my "slut" in the back bedroom, my guilty secret.
The Mac Pro STARTS at over $2000. The Mac Mini is $599. That's not a hole, it's a gaping chasm. Give us something starting around 1,000 with some upgrade potential. Just a few PCI slots and an empty drive bay, that's all we ask! Just because rspress thinks $2000 is "cheap" doesn't mean the rest of us are willing to spend that much. But Apple is terrified that a few upgrade dollars will go to some third party company. So they only sell closed boxes now, unless you want to spend a small fortune. Woz must be very sad.
I couldn't agree with the above couple of comments more. The simplicity of the line up is great in that it helps those who have no idea make a choice, and then gives a couple of other options to meet their budget. iMacs can be cheap computers starting at $1199 for something that kicks the pants off an average family PC, or they can go up to the $3499 mark. Every possible circumstance can be met as far as I can see, with that kind of flexibility and simplicity in a single line up.
I'd also like to stand up for the Mac Pro. It's a wonderful machine. Uber powerful, bags of upgradability, super stylish (yes, I said that, it looks awesome!) and can be considered a real investment.
Mac minis are great for just about everything that doesn't require high end graphics. Wonderfully versitile machine. The MacBooks are selling better than anything, and that speaks for itself. The MacBook Pro's are generally the machine of choice for mobile professionals now and for good reason.
Where is this hole?
Oh, and finally I would like to point out that the iMac having a built in display is not a bad thing. Many business' like this because it saves on clutter and cuts either 599 or $899 off the price of the machine... How can you go wrong with a free ACD built into each machine. This is madness.
Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 pm Subject: here's a different perspective
Thank you Apple for not wasting your time, resources, and our money on games. That has been done to death. I applaud the conscious decision to avoid the gaming market. When you're known for making the best margins in the business, why oh why would you want to dive into an overcrowded commoditized bit such as gaming. You've done well enough now to put $8 billion into the bank.
I appreciate having a machine, now five years old and cranking. The upgradeability of Mac Towers is what has led to its market dominant position for TCO. It cost $2,200 then. It has 4 PCI slots and one AGP. All are filled Connects to virtually anything I want it to. Holds multiple hard drives (currently has 2 internal and 2 external). And it computes. It is NOT a toy. Or a game console. (Wii is in the house).
I also have a year+ old Mini. Does its job. Runs Parallels when I need it to (silly fundraising software they won't port to platform agnostic level).
The one group of people who are left without a box are our secretaries and counselors. You see, the Mini is just too niche to be off the radar for the middle-office employees. The iMacs are nice, but you're restricted to one screen or mirrored video only (natively, hacks not withstanding). Almost all of us are running dual monitors these days. The cost of LCDs is just nothing compared to 3 years ago.
So, bring back a headless Mac that supports dual monitors and has at least ONE expansion slot.
Oh come on. This argument is as old as time itself. John were you searching through TMO user posts from 5 years ago and suddenly found inspiration for this amazing new idea? At least there are plenty of clueless people here to eat up your drivel. I can't fault you for writing to your audience.
QuoteWell, if you really want an all-in-one Apple computer that will replace your PC and game machine(s), then the Mac Pro is the obvious answer for you.Akula971 wrote:
Yes but I've got a Mac, and a PC, how many pieces of electronics do you need to have lying around?
I know you're pining for a cheaper box, but instead of comparing apples to apples (ha!), you should really be pricing Mac Pro's against Alienware towers: don't forget that you can also run Windows natively on your Mac. Suddenly, they're not looking so darn expensive, are they?
Some of y'all are defending the fact that Apple has only ONE machine in which the graphics card can be upgraded, and that this one machine STARTS at over $2000?
No wonder PC users think we Mac users are such a bunch of dupes.
BTW, no one is saying that the Mac Pro isn't a great machine, just that it's twice the machine that most of us mere mortals need. Apple doesn't need to focus on gamers, but they do need to acknowledge that some people do play games once in a while, and that they might want a nice video card to do it with.
Tiger makes a lot of good points but also makes one factual error
Tiger states that
"The iMacs are nice, but you're restricted to one screen or mirrored video only"
And yet, the description of the video card for the new iMac says this:
All iMac models let you connect a second display in either extended desktop mode or video mirroring mode.
Its a gap that's existed for several years, Mr Martallero, and I don't think Apple's that worried. One pundit was pointing out that the iPhone (and Apple's products in general) do not chase the traditional business market, which is where every other manufacturer begins their quest for sales. They focus on the consumer market and from that point of view, Apple only has three machines in its lineup. Laptop, iMac and Mini.
Laptops are the big growth area, iMac is for those who'd prefer big disks and sit at a table, and then there's the Mini. ..
The Mini is a curious beast, as it doesn't have a screen and is oddly small and useful (have one powering my Sony LCD). It just doesn't quite fit into the line up does it?
If Apple was to plug a gap (lets say midway up the iMac price range), I'd like to see a Mac Maxi, at least one proper 3.5" HD, lots of memory and a fast graphics card for the impending growth in Mac games. Processor - the fastest Intel make that can be cooled as quietly as the Mini is now.
I'm sure it would only need to be twice the size of the Mini, so the form factor would still make it useful as a Media Server and if they'd pursue that avenue, lets have a couple of digital TV tuners in there. Price at $1100/1300, watch the sales roll in.
I agree with the concept; there needs to be a upper mid range machine. An iMac with space for a second drive and one slot for something; video card, exotic networking thing, etc. etc. A headless chasses with much less upgradability or power than the pro. Something for those of us that need more adaptability than the iMac but not the massive muscle of the Pro.
What I disagree with is the idea of this being an emerging hole. Writers on many sites have pointed out this gap and called for Apple to make "a computer for the rest of us" (e.g. not a pro user but not willing to throw an old unit away because it was slow andnot upgradable.)I've been reading this sort of thing since the iMac came out.
Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:36 pm Subject: I want (total) upgradability
Quotehoultmac wrote:
Oh, and finally I would like to point out that the iMac having a built in display is not a bad thing. Many business' like this because it saves on clutter and cuts either 599 or $899 off the price of the machine... How can you go wrong with a free ACD built into each machine. This is madness.
It's cheaper for adding a new machine, but not when you replace old ones, since you can't reuse the monitor at all. But it is really nice to have it all in one box.
<rant>
The more techy side of me wants the ability to change ANY part of my computer. But the iMac just looks soo coool, and it is incredibly useful in a college setting to have it in one device.
However, real reason I'm still using a Mac after more than 10 years, is the Mac OS. I hate Windows, depsite being quite a proficient Windows user, and Linux gives me nothing but grief for almost no benifit. In Linux, you still can't install apps anywhere you like (and then move them later). That is -- if I had to pick just one -- the single greatest benifit of using Mac OS X.
</rant>
So I agree that there needs to be a simple box with upgradebility. If not, then I just might go with a laptop next time where the lack of upgradability is a well-known, acceptable trade-off.
Here's what I'd like to see in an upper middle class Mac.
Core 2 Duo, The ones in the iMac are good enough but please put it on a daughtorcard so we can upgrade them in a year.
4 memory slots so you can really cram memory into these things
Gb Ethernet
6 USB 2.0 Ports and 2 Firewire Ports.
Two spaces for SATA drives. You always need more space.
A good video card with BTO options for better and best.
One slot for something extras Second Video Card, Extra sound or music card, or something that doesn't exist now.
Headless. I have a good monitor and if I want to go dual monitor I want a matched set.
So what do we call them?
Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:46 pm Subject: No hole, only the perception of one
It seems that Mr. Martellaro has hit a nerve with this article. But many are missing the fact that the iPhone is the "4th" computer line for Apple.
The iPhone is what I would like to call the "ultra hyper portable" handheld computer, that only lacks a super fast way to connect wirelessly to projectors/TV screens/monitors/etc before it becomes the first real pocket PC. Imagine it combined with a roll-up bluetoothed keyboard as well...any monitor becomes your computer in seconds.
But I digress. The Apple line is missing the "computer in the middle" and the Mac Mini established footprint will give us that machine. As many previous comments have stated, not everyone wants a computer with a monitor combined- especially if only the top of the line (24 inch model) comes already with a wall bracket.
The Mac Mini footprint (Mac Maxi is a great name idea!) will be easily expanded vertically to "tower" format with extra hard drives, the TV tuner, etc. and fit right into the modern living room, where the Macbook (or any other laptop) can fit rignt in also while you lean back on the couch.
No need for "slots" when you can keep adding "tower floors"...
I also agree that the gamers out there will wait a long, cold, hard time for Apple to meet their needs. Why should Apple go where Xbox, Wii, etc. are already going? Only if Apple actually buys an existing game producing and/or game hardware producing company will it get into the "game" field seriously.
Until a few days ago, the iMacs ONLY supported video mirroring mode. Somebody must have figured out that hackers had solved that dilemma in 2004 and finally incorporated it into the OS. Thanks for the heads up.
Now, if ONLY Star Tech would start supporting the Mac platform. I could attach my dual 20" monitors to the 20" iMac for a great 3 monitor setup!
http://www.startech.com/Product/ItemDetail.aspx?productid=USB2VGA&c=US
"The iMacs are nice, but you're restricted to one screen or mirrored video only (natively, hacks not withstanding)."
Tiger
Just as an FYI, the iMacs are fully capable of desktop spanning, not just mirroring, no hacks necessary. The brand new aluminum iMacs as well as the previous generation white plastic versions have this feature. This capability may go back to even older models, but I can't say for sure. I have the previous generation 20" model hooked up to a Dell 20" with the desktop spanned across BOTH monitors, no hacks. Works great.
There's no real reason Apple couldn't ask Intel for a single-socket motherboard with a quad-core processor, DDR-2 RAM, a RAID chip and an EFI bios chip. Plop the whole thing in a Mac Pro case, and sell a zillion at $1600. However, when people realized that for the vast bulk of applications, there was little to no difference between this 'Mac Midi' and the Mac Pro, Apple would have cannibalized a good-sized chunk of it's obscene markup on the current Mac Pro. "ERRRRNNNNT - Not gonna happen." I don't think they really want to sell all that many PCs in the first place. The high-margin, low-turns boutique market suits their egos just fine...
-Lizardo
Not offering a consumer-level expandable desktop computer is part of the same Apple strategy that gave us the MagSafe plug on the power adapter.
As a result, most consumers buying Apple products have to buy a monitor from Apple--it's built in. That's a higher profit margin for Apple and zero profit for companies making monitors. The more popular Apple gets, the worse it will be for Viewsonic and the rest. If you're an Apple user and you want a cheap, expandable desktop computer, what are you going to do...buy a Windoze box? Exactly.
The same goes for the MagSafe. How many alternatives do you now have for buying an AC adapter that works with your MacBook or MacBook Pro? Zero! So all the profit margin that was going to Newer Technology is now going to Apple.
Apple has some of highest profits per "computer box" (probably THE highest) in the industry. There is no way they could generate that amount of profit, per box, by offering a cheap, expandable desktop computer.
Before Apple came out with the current enclosure you could buy a low end Power PC based Tower for about $1, 599. That was roughly the price of a mid ranged iMac. The cost of owning an iMac in that time frame has not went up much. However, it now costs $2, 499 to buy an entry level Tower.
I think the spanning was an added feature when the iMacs went Intel. Prior to that I think only mirroring worked. Same was true for the ibooks.
QuoteGuest wrote:
"The iMacs are nice, but you're restricted to one screen or mirrored video only (natively, hacks not withstanding)."
Tiger
Just as an FYI, the iMacs are fully capable of desktop spanning, not just mirroring, no hacks necessary. The brand new aluminum iMacs as well as the previous generation white plastic versions have this feature. This capability may go back to even older models, but I can't say for sure. I have the previous generation 20" model hooked up to a Dell 20" with the desktop spanned across BOTH monitors, no hacks. Works great.
Actually, I think the low model starts out at $2499.
QuoteGuest wrote:
Mac Mini: $599-799
Mac Pro: $2200-HolyCowThat'sExpensive
That's a $1400 difference there between machines that don't come with monitors. And the low-end one can't be upgraded (except for RAM). You honestly don't see a hole there?
Maybe you work for Apple, and this is why we have this problem to begin with?
Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Trapped on the Plateau and boxed in too
In addition to the 2.0+ GHz performance plateau, it also seems technical professional Mac users are trapped on one side by Hollywood politics (affecting the hardware) and on the other by Apple's insatiable desire for gross profit margins.
It may be that Apple can no longer deliver the ultimate desktop, merely something that looks cool and is a little better designed than the competition.
If true, that starts a whole new thought process about the state-of-the-Mac.
I'm one of those who "settled" on an iMac C2D. I couldn't justify the cost of the MacPro (especially knowing it wouldn't be long before I'd need a new display as well). CS3 is pretty much my whole life (on the computer, anyways!), and I've been very impressed with the iMac's performance in this regard.
But if Apple would've had something in-between the iMac & the MacPro, I probably would've done that.
I know this iMac won't last almost 6 years like my old g4 Dual 500 did, but at least I'll get a new computer sooner! (I suppose that's what Apple was wanting all along!)
QuoteTiger wrote:
Why doesn't the TMO cookie work on Safari? Is there some auto logout built in now? I have to re-login every time I come back to the page? It used to work fine. Not anymore. I did reply to the guest above. See Stand Corrected.
TMO has been working on this for many months. There were a couple of threads on this topic a while back. It's been a really annoying issue for a lot of us
Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: $1600 for a pro tower?!? Don't count on it.
QuoteThat's not entirely true: the SP G5 they offered was basically a hobbled tower; it also had some issues that could only be fixed with a firmware update. It wasn't even available for sale for a full year, so if you wanted to get in on a ground level work station you had to act quick. I'm also telling you that if you're using one for creative work and need to be able to multi-task efficiently, they're already obsolete.Terrin wrote:
Before Apple came out with the current enclosure you could buy a low end Power PC based Tower for about $1, 599. However, it now costs $2, 499 to buy an entry level Tower.
As for anyone who would bitch and moan about Apple trying to hornswoggle you with those extravagent tower prices or not making a "computer for the rest of us", I'd remind you that Apple has been pretty darn consistent with their pricing over the years. Care to guess what the cost was for the original Mac 128k? $2495.
I agree with your thinking as I've been doing the same for 2 years. Apple doesn't use any of Intel's desktop chips. It's either the portable lines or the server/workstation line. It's time for a new Mac; that's right just Mac. Perhaps the 45 nanometer chips coming this Fall will work. If not, Intel's working on the 26 nanometer chip family. A single 4 core Penryn design running at 3.0 mhz or above in a mid-size desktop is possible before Christmas! With the associated components that are cheaper and faster than the portable chip family Apple could make a good profit at about $1,200. Add a screen and you have a solution for the lowest priced Pro box. Apple needs more than the iMac; and the Mini may go away once the TV box matures.
Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:12 pm Subject:
QuoteAdding a midrange tower wouldn't confuse the situation at all. It would be nothing like the situation in the 90s. The situation now is like a car company having one model of car available for $15,000, with the next step up available for over $30,000; the car company has other vehicles available that fill in the price gap, but they are motorcycles, which is great for some people, but not for everyone.Intruder wrote:
Apple went down this path in the '90s, with the Quadra, Centris and Performa lines. The product lines got so convoluted that nobody could keep them straight. One of the first things Jobs did when he came back was to simplify the product lines.
QuoteIntruder wrote:
Apple went down this path in the '90s, with the Quadra, Centris and Performa lines. The product lines got so convoluted that nobody could keep them straight. One of the first things Jobs did when he came back was to simplify the product lines.
I agree totally with this comment. However the range diversity in those days was based on poorly conceived marketing rather than well-designed product differentiation.
Look back a bit further to the Motorola 680x0 days, and Apple had it right at one point. The SE was the basic box, and the IIx was the top of the line, with 6 expansion slots etc. In-between was the IIcx with fewer slots, and the SE/30 in the same form factor as the SE but as fast as the bigger boxes.
A box a bit bigger than a mini (how about a cube? ... last time that was tried, Apple had a pretty good design, but spoilt it by pricing it too high for the market) with 2 PCI Express slots instead of 4, and the option of going up to 4 cores instead of 8, 1 HD bay, one optical drive bay and the full range of external interfaces on the iMac would be good -- if Apple could make it for significantly less than the Mac Pro. To really hit the mark, it should be possible to buy without a graphics card.
As the current range stands, you can buy a maxed out iMac for little more than the bottom of the range Pro with no screen.
I'd call that a gap. Something that cost slightly more than an iMac once you add in a screen could be a big seller for those who want fast graphics but don't need 8 cores or 4 graphics cards, etc.
Intel iMacs have always supported multiple, individual monitors from day one, with no hacks required. Get a mini-dvi cable, plug in the monitor up to 1200x1920 pixels, that's it. Same with the MacBook and MacBook Pro, and that's how I'm using my iMac for months now. I can't imagine what gives you the idea that any hacks would be necessary for that.
I also think there is a gap. The cube was a great design just overpriced for its power. I'm stting here next to 2 older towers with all slots empty, fans whirring, and desk space constrained. I'm typing on a silent Mac mini that takes little space. I can't see paying the premium for another tower when all I need it for is the speed. Its better to just wait 1-2 years and get a new low end machine. I would pay extra for a Mac cube that was faster than the Mini with a couple of drive bays. That would be perfect.
When it came out it was designed for PC users to give the Mac a try at minimum costs - they even used their own KDM (or MKD, DKM, whatever).
Those new users who loved their Mac mini and wanted to upgrade only had the MacPro available if they wanted to continue to use their existing display. that set up the original gap. Before the mini there was only a cliff . . .
While I think that the mid range Mac would be great the versatility of it would also add problems for Apple. Users would want processor choices so there needs to be a single dual or quad core available. Then there would be demands on graphic card options, which would be somewhat limited because of the availability of drivers.
In the end this looks like it would have a higher BTO rate than most Macs, causing some difficulty in the retail supply chain - especially for the major resellers.
Personally I would love to see it, but believe it's not arriving soon.
...for just Ђ749.00
includes:
CPU Intel® Core™2 Quad QX6600@6700 ExtremeCPU/Prozessor / CPU: Core 2 Duo / Sockel: Socket 775 / Taktfrequenz: 4 x 2400 MHz / Prozessorkern: Conroe / L2-Cache: 4 x 2048 KB / Front Side Bus: 1066 MHz / Spannung: 1,40 V / Dualcore / Strukturbreite: 65 nm / inkl. Kьhlung
2048 MB Ram DDR2-800 (Marke Elixier, Corsair, o.a.)
Dual-Channel, 2 x 1024 MB Module (max. 8 GB)
250 GB Festplatte Sata II (Marke Samsung)
7200 u/min, 8 MB Cache, 300 SATA, Gerдuscheentwicklung: 28 db
Zugriffszeit 8,9 ms, sehr leise und gute Performance
512 MB Grafikkarte Nvidia 8600 GT (neuester Grafikchip)
Grafikchipsatz: GeForce 8600 GT / Steckplatz: PCIe / Schnittstellen: DVI (Dual Link),VGA, TV-Out (HDTV) / SpeichergrцЯe: 512 MB / Speichertyp: GDDR2 / Speicherinterface: 128 Bit / Chiptakt: 540 MHz / Speichertakt: 1.200 MHz / DirectX-Unterstьtzung: 10.0 / Shader-Model: 4.0 / Unified Shader: 32 / Kьhlung: aktiv (Referenzdesign) / Hцhe (Steckplдtze): 1 / HDCP-Unterstьtzung
– German system (Toletec)
add a Samsung 244T monitor (around Ђ800)
– comes in cheaper than the new 24 inch iMac!
and uses the same amount of wires as a MacPro system, Steve!
We all would like to see Apple "maximize" their profits by filling the tower gap, but growing at three times the rest of market seems to be good enough for them. While, of course, birthing the (true) mobile computer market.
Lack of a midrange tower DOES seem like an oversight, but we aren't privvy to Apple's strategy, now are we? What do the vast majority of the computers that Apple sells have in common? The iSight camera.
My guess is that Apple is looking at the spread of WiFi infrastructure and seeding the iSight camera is important for a future initiative that includes their mobile technology and iChat.
As far as Apple is concerned, the midrange tower will be subsumed by the mobile market within the foreseeable future. They have bigger fish to fry.
And BTW, Apple has THIRTEEN billion in the bank nowadays.
Quoterspress wrote:
If you want to play games then get a PC
No.
No.
Again, no.
"Get a PC" is never a reasonable option as far as I'm concerned. Especially now that Macs can run Windows. Even if you're happy running Windows (is that possible?), Macs aren't great for gaming. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy running Parallels just for games (I hear it has good 3D performance now), but without the hardware...sorry.
Every few years Apple acts like they're serious about gaming (they did it again this year at WWDC), but they always just go through the motions. They never really change anything.
I'll say again what I've been saying for years: All I really want is a minitower. Think Mac Mini on steroids. Keep the specs simple — I really don't need more than two cores — but make it upgradeable. The starting cost should be $1000 or less. In other words, I should be able to get one, plus an iMac-quality monitor, for about the cost of an iMac. The iMac would be repositioned to the market it was originally intended for: people who just want simplicity.
For me, the iMac is not even an option. I'll never buy another all-in-one, period. Cords really don't scare me, so all-in-ones have zero benefit to me, and many downsides.
The idea is good but if Apple had to sell it the cost would be twice that of an 8 core Mac Pro. It wouldn't sell. It's to expensive as of yet. That's why Sony and Microsoft are in a big hole with there gaming systems. Both have HD players and both are losing money hand over fist. And as always Microsoft can't get there quality under control either with 30% of there Xboxes Failing out of the box. Outragious!
Apple's not going there and I don't blame them one bit.
Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.
Recent Headlines - Updated February 11th
- Sat, 4:11 PM
- MacOS KenDensed - MacOS KenDensed: iPad 3 Frenzy, Big-time Apple & Steve Jobs, G-Man
- Fri, 8:10 PM
- News - Apple Sues Motorola Mobility in California Over German Case
- 7:54 PM
- Free on iTunes - OnLive Desktop: Windows & Office on Your iPad
- 7:43 PM
- Product News - Apple Rolls Out MacBook Air Configurations for Education
- 6:35 PM
- Just a Peek - Battle Pocket Bulge With The Hint for iPhone
- 6:01 PM
- Rumor - Apple Reportedly Bringing MacBook Air Styling to Pro Line
- 4:50 PM
- Particle Debris - The Hidden Gotchas of Browser Security
- 3:56 PM
- Apple Stock Watch - Analyst: Paying a Dividend Makes Sense for Apple
- 2:58 PM
- Deal Brothers - iMac 27-inch 2.93GHz Intel Quad-Core i7 processor: $1,999
- 2:45 PM
- In-Depth Review - Theodolite App for iOS is Breathtaking
- 12:52 PM
- Apple Stock Watch - Mizuho Securities Starts Apple Coverage with $635 Target
- 11:35 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Forum Poll: Are You Planning on Buying a New iPad?
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
TypeStyler 11 is now in the Mac App Store!! -- Special Introductory Price of $59.95!! -- To Buy From The Mac App Store Click Here Now!! Or buy direct
from Strider Software.
Mac RAM Upgrades: MacBook Pro 16GB kits $475, 8GB Kits for $119.99! iMac 16GB RAM Kits (4x 4GB) for $229.99! Mac Pro Memory 32GB Kit for $399.99, 64GB Kit for $889.99! Mac Hard Drives 2TB Seagate SATA II for $249.99! Click Here!
-
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Online Poker Mac.
This mac poker and online casino mac site
actually does the unthinkable, it actually rewards! -
-
-
-
-
-
