DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: 8GB iPod Touch: $229 Delivered
 |
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!)