Would you buy a midrange mac tower?

[iMacZealot]

Well, would you?

I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the Mac Pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?

[DaveP]

YES!!!

But apparently it isn't in Apple's marketing plan....

[Eclipse278]

yes if it had pci express

[Cassie]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

[TheAnswer]

I used to be for the midrange tower, but now I think the 24" iMac fills the space. First, it's a much easier upsell from the other iMacs than a midrange tower would be. Second, the storage issue was taken out of the equation by the fact that the 24" iMac has FW800... additional rapid storage for prosumer needs is met through that.

[Allotriophagy]

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.


It should be a sphere. Or a pyramid. Or a wang.

[Zwhaler]

Or a wang.

:D I know a few people whod buy one...

[Cassie]

It should be a sphere. Or a pyramid. Or a wang.

A Sphere would be awesome.

When your Mac is not in use, you can play soccer with it.:D :o ;) :)

[iMacZealot]

I used to be for the midrange tower, but now I think the 24" iMac fills the space. First, it's a much easier upsell from the other iMacs than a midrange tower would be. Second, the storage issue was taken out of the equation by the fact that the 24" iMac has FW800... additional rapid storage for prosumer needs is met through that.

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

While I do agree that all-in-ones and the design of macs are very important, all-in-ones are not practical for the prosumer and pros. I think the iMac is a great machine for the average consumer who wants the ultimate, all-in-one digital hub. However, it's not a good solution for prosumers like me. The 24" iMac is trying to fill that space, but I don't think it does. Sure, you can buy external hard disks, but any mac can do that, and it seems like all I buy now are those. It'd be nice to just have 1TB+ of space in my iMac G5. I know the G5 couldn't, but maybe the new Intels can, but I'd really like the ability to do an extended desktop. And, no, I don't need a ton of PCI express slots to hook up 8 30" Cinemas, I just want 2 20" or 23" displays (or one of each.) And I certainly could use more than 2 FW ports.

Yes, I think it'd be a terrible idea if Apple's flagship computer was not an all-in-one like the PC companies because consumers don't need expandability nor the ability to upgrade his or her screen, but a prosumer/pro does.

[SBik2]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

i agree with you all the way

[hayduke]

Not a chance. I just got me a Mac Pro!!!!

Not only that, but I think the Mac Mini will see some reasonable upgrades that will make it a better all around machine. The pro level machines are for...pros. If you don't need a MacPro, then you need something else. Not trying to be snooty, I just think there are other good price points out there for the market at large...which differs from the macrumors market...which is more strong affected by reality distortion fields and more compelled to buy what they want, not what they need.

[balamw]

Or a wang.
:D I know a few people whod buy one...

They had their chance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Laboratories)

B

[iMacZealot]

Not a chance. I just got me a Mac Pro!!!!

Not only that, but I think the Mac Mini will see some reasonable upgrades that will make it a better all around machine. The pro level machines are for...pros. If you don't need a MacPro, then you need something else. Not trying to be snooty, I just think there are other good price points out there for the market at large...which differs from the macrumors market...which is more strong affected by reality distortion fields and more compelled to buy what they want, not what they need.

I partially agree with this. When I bought my iMac G5 nearly two years ago, it suited my needs, but my needs are growing at a strong rate because I've made a career out of my filmmaking, and I'm a little worried about how Final Cut Studio would run on it. I'm constantly running out of disk space (275 GB out of 340 GB full), and the 17" display is very limiting. I'm planning on saving up for a Mac Pro, which I'll be able to buy in about 15 months, but I wish Apple offered either a midrange tower or lower end Mac Pro that was more affordable because the Mac Pro has a lot of features I don't need, but the iMac doesn't have the features I want anymore.

[holamiamigos]

yes please

[Cassie]

Something like this (http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=gallery&model=7100&performa=off&sort=date&order=ASC) would fill the gap. (Just update it's technology and it's look, and possibibly make it a little bit smaller.)

[suneohair]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

Typical zealot.

[iMacZealot]

Something like this (http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=gallery&model=7100&performa=off&sort=date&order=ASC) would fill the gap. (Just update it's technology and it's look, and possibibly make it a little bit smaller.)

Yeah, by "tower", I mean something half the height of the Mac Pro and half the length. Nothing like the Cube, as cool as it looked. It also would be priced between the "best" iMac and "good" Mac Pro, unlike the Cube's mistake of being priced the same as a "better" PowerMac G4.

[mashinhead]

Yes, I think it'd be a terrible idea if Apple's flagship computer was not an all-in-one like the PC companies because consumers don't need expandability nor the ability to upgrade his or her screen, but a prosumer/pro does.

I totally see your point but i'm been thinking about the way people use computers and how they upgrade. And for some reason my current opinion (also after reading about SR and the Graphics Capabitilites with it) that it would be better to just offer 3 towers (mac mini, something new, and mac pro) that support multiple screens. i'm not sure, that you can hook up another screen to an imac (if you ever needed to down the road), but they look really bad next to each other. they could then expand their monitor range in sizes which would result in cheaper costs and give you the flexibility to customize your setup (say you bought a 20" imac and 3 months later you decide you need more real estate) better because they are the type of product that has a long life you don't need to upgrade them often. I know it seems PC ish, but apple would find a way to make it apple.

i just think, economically, and also with the obscelecene of technology, that it just makes more sense. instead of having to buy something new and repay for compontents you already have, that do not need to be upgraded or replaced.a set up like that is ideal. you can customize how many displays you want. It will be cheaper to upgrade. It will all look the same design wise. upgrading would be easier, cheaper, and faster.

Actully ideally it would be cool to devise a system where you can swap out processor components, or the core of what you need fast, the way you would a hard drive. That would be the future i think. don't know how i got off on to that.

[suneohair]

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Definetly not a Xeon. Xeons don't perform as well outside of an MP setup. C2D Desktop version is fine.

As long as they have the option for higher end cards. A 7300GT is not going to attract much. 7600 minimum with x1900adn beyond in reach.

PCI express, at least 1 is a must. That defeats the point of a mid tower completely.

Airport and BT optional just as in the Mac Pro.

Those prices are way too high. Give me a break. I am all for Apple design, but charging 2k for less of a machine than a Mac Pro which you can get at 2.0 for $2k is foolish.

Don't even consider the iMac in determining the price for something like this. It is irrelevant. This is basically a bigger Mac Mini.

$1299 for the base model is a good price. No more than $1500.

[roland.g]

I too would like to see one, don't know if Apple will do it. I bought my Mini to hold off on the iMac because while I like the 24" I really like the 23" ACD better. The silver polished look is great. I just want a better box than the Mini to hook it too. And the Mac Pro is overkill for my needs. At one point Apple offered G5 towers in 1.8, dual 2.0 and dual 2.3s or so. The 1.8 was an affordable single cpu option. Now the low end Mac Pro, especially with the price of RAM isn't an option. Not to mention the form factor is too big. I would like 2 full size 3.5" HDD bays and room for 4GB RAM. As far as PCI Express I don't care. I also want dedicated graphics. The other thing about the iMac that turns me off is the white. If it came in silver or black that would be great. I will get a 24" in white if that's my only option when Leopard comes out. But if a mid tower comes out at WWDC or next January at MWSF, I will sell that 24" and get it instead.

[iMacZealot]

I totally see your point but i'm been thinking about the way people use computers and how they upgrade. And for some reason my current opinion (also after reading about SR and the Graphics Capabitilites with it) that it would be better to just offer 3 towers (mac mini, something new, and mac pro) that support multiple screens. i'm not sure, that you can hook up another screen to an imac (if you ever needed to down the road), but they look really bad next to each other. they could then expand their monitor range in sizes which would result in cheaper costs and give you the flexibility to customize your setup (say you bought a 20" imac and 3 months later you decide you need more real estate) better because they are the type of product that has a long life you don't need to upgrade them often. I know it seems PC ish, but apple would find a way to make it apple.

i just think, economically, and also with the obscelecene of technology, that it just makes more sense. instead of having to buy something new and repay for compontents you already have, that do not need to be upgraded or replaced.a set up like that is ideal. you can customize how many displays you want. It will be cheaper to upgrade. It will all look the same design wise. upgrading would be easier, cheaper, and faster.

Actully ideally it would be cool to devise a system where you can swap out processor components, or the core of what you need fast, the way you would a hard drive. That would be the future i think. don't know how i got off on to that.

Well, each Mac is targeted towards a different user -- the Mac Mini is designed for people who've never owned a Mac that have a PC on its last legs, but have a perfectly working monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and it's a simple, easy way for them to test out the Mac and get a good computer. I think the iMac is designed for those people that've tried the Mac and love it, and want the ultimate digital hub -- what the iMac's always been about. That group doesn't need the ability to upgrade their hard disk or display. And the Mac Pro is intended for professionals who need the top-of-the-line power mac (sorry, but it sounded like the right adjective to use -- I don't really mean the PowerMacintosh.)

But what about us Prosumers? There hasn't really been a good solution for us. The 24" iMac, I believe, is intended for us prosumers with the big screen and FW800, but that's not what the iMac's been about. The iMac's always been about being the ultimate digital hub for the average consumer-- not the prosumer. Prosumers (at least, this is what I want) want the ability to upgrade or add on to their mac. I'm a film editor, and I would LOVE an extended desktop and more disk space on the inside. I don't need the top-of-the-line mac like what professionals need.

[iMacZealot]

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Definetly not a Xeon. Xeons don't perform as well outside of an MP setup. C2D Desktop version is fine.

As long as they have the option for higher end cards. A 7300GT is not going to attract much. 7600 minimum with x1900adn beyond in reach.

PCI express, at least 1 is a must. That defeats the point of a mid tower completely.

Airport and BT optional just as in the Mac Pro.

Those prices are way too high. Give me a break. I am all for Apple design, but charging 2k for less of a machine than a Mac Pro which you can get at 2.0 for $2k is foolish.

Don't even consider the iMac in determining the price for something like this. It is irrelevant. This is basically a bigger Mac Mini.

$1299 for the base model is a good price. No more than $1500.

I guess I forgot to mention this, but I did in another thread. I think that it'd be a good idea if Apple got rid of the 2.0 GHz Xeon altogether and increasingly billed the Mac Pro as an even more pro machine whereas this prosumer computer would fill the lower end's Mac Pro place while delivering more of what prosumers want at a better price.

[QCassidy352]

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?

well, you're certainly not aiming overly high with the features/price. Usually when people ask these kinds of questions they want all the bells and whistles starting at $1000. :rolleyes:

But actually, I think you've gone too far the other way - what you propose isn't a very good buy compared to the 2.0 Ghz mac pro currently offered. We're losing a moderate amount of functionality and saving a pretty marginal amount of money. That's not to say nobody would prefer this to the 2.0 MP, but I hardly see it targeting a different market.

If apple were to do a midrange tower, which it won't, it should be $1500 or so. A nice $1500 headless option would bridge the gap between a stripped down mac pro ($2121) and a high end mini with a gig of RAM ($874).

[Scarlet Fever]

honestly, i would love to see a tower with around the same specs as the iMac for the same price point as their corresponding models (display not included).

so i would like to see for the high end Mac Pro Mini;
-2.16GHz C2D standard, 2.33GHz C2D optional
-1GB RAM standard, up to 4GB optional
-2 SATA HDD bays, 250GB in one bay standard, up to 1.5TB optional
-superdrive, superduperdrive (blu-ray or HDDVD) optional
-1 FW 400, 1 FW 800, 4 USB
-some mid-range GPU in a PCI slot, 2 slots in total
-BT and APE standard
-FrontRow

for $3000 aussie dollars

[hayduke]

for $3000 aussie dollars

That's like, what? US$1.20? Just kidding...

That would be a nicely spec'd machine. I just think the market is pretty narrow for this machine and that is one reason Apple won't bother.

[Freyqq]

Well, would you?

I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the Mac Pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?

yes..but better specs and cheaper

if it had a desktop chip, 2 hd bays..maybe one 250 gig hd would be fair base , 2 gig ram, FW 400, USBx4 sounds good, PCI express, 1900xt radeon, airport/bluetooth for about 1299 would be fair

[siurpeeman]

i owned a dual g5. i liked it, but i was never thrilled with it. the expansion and upgradeability of it all was never for me. i really fit into apple's target demographic of imac and macbook computers. that and as others mentioned, i don't see a tower that would fit nicely between the 24" imac and the mac pro.

[iMacZealot]

a owned a dual g5. i liked it, but i was never thrilled with it. the expansion and upgradeability of it all was never for me. i really fit into apple's target demographic of imac and macbook computers. that and as others mentioned, i don't see a tower that would fit nicely between the 24" imac and the mac pro.

Yeah, the more I think about it, it'd be hard for Apple to release a midrange tower without cannibalising iMac or Mac Pro sales or vice versa. I know Apple would never do a midrange tower again, but I was in the mood to dream today. I guess I'm just stuck with saving up more for an overkill Mac Pro....:(

[suneohair]

a owned a dual g5. i liked it, but i was never thrilled with it. the expansion and upgradeability of it all was never for me. i really fit into apple's target demographic of imac and macbook computers. that and as others mentioned, i don't see a tower that would fit nicely between the 24" imac and the mac pro.

THis isn't about an iMac, it is a completely different computer. Mac mini ---- ???? ---- Mac Pro

[dopey220]

Yeah, I'd definitely buy that. I'd get the AirPort upgrade (if it wasn't included), and upgrade to 2 GB RAM and 256 MB VRAM if they didn't come standard.

EDIT: Redundancy is bad.

[solvs]

Usually when people ask these kinds of questions they want all the bells and whistles starting at $1000. :rolleyes:

Well, a nice cheapy machine with full size drives and a real video card would be great for about $999. But most of us just reasonably want something a little less than a Mac Pro with a price to match. As has been mentioned in every other thread about this, a nice Mermon with standard RAM in a smaller case for about $1200-$1500 depending on how good it is would be perfect. Basically an iMac without the screen for pretty much the same price, but with slightly more upgradability.

[iW00t]

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

Looks over function?

My... isn't someone a tad superficial?

[derboy]

i just want a cheap macpro with slower and less expensive Ram. £740 for 4gb!! This meant i bought an imac 24

[shikimo]

It should be a sphere. Or a pyramid. Or a wang.

Long live Wang!!! And yeah, let's get creative with the headless lineup; why not turn the headless line into attractive furniture the way the iMac did for the all-in-one machine? The Cube was nice-looking, but the price was a bit, um...insane. Yeah, that's the word, insane.

Yes, I think it'd be a terrible idea if Apple's flagship computer was not an all-in-one like the PC companies because consumers don't need expandability nor the ability to upgrade his or her screen, but a prosumer/pro does.

Completely true; this is a part of what makes Apple special, and is also a point of continuity--in terms of both marketing and aesthetics--with the myriad non-computer products upon which Apple has staked so much of its future. There is no reason why covering more of the market by creatively rethinking a headless line would change the flagship nature of the iMac.

I totally see your point but i'm been thinking about the way people use computers and how they upgrade. And for some reason my current opinion (also after reading about SR and the Graphics Capabitilites with it) that it would be better to just offer 3 towers (mac mini, something new, and mac pro) that support multiple screens. i'm not sure, that you can hook up another screen to an imac (if you ever needed to down the road), but they look really bad next to each other. they could then expand their monitor range in sizes which would result in cheaper costs and give you the flexibility to customize your setup (say you bought a 20" imac and 3 months later you decide you need more real estate) better because they are the type of product that has a long life you don't need to upgrade them often. I know it seems PC ish, but apple would find a way to make it apple.

i just think, economically, and also with the obscelecene of technology, that it just makes more sense. instead of having to buy something new and repay for compontents you already have, that do not need to be upgraded or replaced.a set up like that is ideal. you can customize how many displays you want. It will be cheaper to upgrade. It will all look the same design wise. upgrading would be easier, cheaper, and faster.

Actully ideally it would be cool to devise a system where you can swap out processor components, or the core of what you need fast, the way you would a hard drive. That would be the future i think. don't know how i got off on to that.

Interesting...my above comment notwithstanding, this may be an accurate vision of the future for many users. However, two observations: 1) I think Apple likes the fact that when people replace their iMacs they are obliged to replace things they have that still work cuz it boosts profit, and 2) Many consumer users want a simple box with (increasingly) few(er) cables coming out of it to take care of their computer needs, and aren't interested in swapping out parts regardless of economic and performance-related benefits.

Also, Apple would have to completely rethink its approach to display marketing to make this work :).

The more computers become integrated into the daily lives of consumer users, the more transparent they become, and the iMac form factor is waaaay ahead of anything else in this department.

[nplima]

so let's say we start with something like this and paint it white :) :

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/406642801_936bf19aff_o.jpg
(online store at www.chip7.pt)

At retail price we need some extra EUR70 to add a SATA 3.5" hard disk
+ some EUR35 for a DVD R/W
(these prices all include VAT at my local rate 21%)
= EUR484 = £333 = US$638

Since there are many shared components with the Wintel world, it's inevitable that comparisons component-by-component will have to be made. Just how do you fit this in the current product line?

This looks so unlikely that probably stacking 2 or 3 Mac Mini and set them up as Xgrid will probably the closest someone will ever get to having a headless iMac cheaper than a Mac Pro :)

Nuno

[matticus008]

Yeah, by "tower", I mean something half the height of the Mac Pro and half the length.
Half the height is doable, but half the depth is not. If you want multiple drive bays, the standard depth is absolutely inevitable unless you forgo any internal expansion slots at all--which would be ridiculous in a tower Mac.

Ultimately, it looks like all you actually want in terms of expandability is space for additional internal hard drives. Frankly, I'd just as soon have that empty space in the case eliminated. Compact computers are the way to go. It might be nice to have a little hard drive box with, say, three or four 3.5" bays for the disk-hungry prosumer to attach via an external SATA connection. But there's no real need for a tower Mac.

What would one put in it, aside from hard drives? The internal cards are pricey pro components, as is increasingly true of PCs (aside from TV tuners, where the Mac currently lacks).


But what about us Prosumers? There hasn't really been a good solution for us. The 24" iMac, I believe, is intended for us prosumers with the big screen and FW800, but that's not what the iMac's been about.
If the iMac has enough muscle, a 20" iMac with a nice second display is a winner. If it doesn't, the "mid-range tower" proposed also wouldn't be beefy enough, so that prosumer would end up with a low-end Mac Pro anyway. The built-in display is a minor inconvenience for people. If you would buy a "headless" iMac with otherwise identical specs for $200 less, then you're not really being troubled by the display.

There's nothing to upgrade beyond the display and the hard drives. If a 20 or 24" inch display won't do it for you, you're in multimonitor territory anyway, so the iMac fits well. If 24" is enough, what's the problem?

[FleurDuMal]

I would buy it. But I'd much rather have a 24" iMac with more upgradability - especially the graphics card.

A boring old tower just seems very un-Apple. Certainly wouldn't have the 'wow' factor of the iMac.

[wickedpapercut]

I know two people who would jump at this -- a mini-Pro -- same specs and options as the iMac line without the all-in-one monitor. I don't really care about user-upgradeability, just give me access to the memory banks (and maybe the HD) and it would be a perfect machine.

I don't want laptop parts in a tiny little box (the mini) but I really don't want the integrated unit of the iMac.

Sigh... it's only a dream.

[andiwm2003]

it would be nice if apple had a midsize tower.

however i can't see it for me. a powerful notebook as desktop replacement and a mac mini in my living room satisfy my needs and my lifestyle more.

[pilotError]

I think a mid-sized tower is a great idea. I got burnt buying a 20" iMac (early 2006). I really need the Draft-N, but I can't (legally) upgrade it without killing my warranty. The video is a little lacking, but good for now.

I'd rather be able to upgrade it for $300 than to buy a whole new machine.

Mac Pro is OK, but maybe a bit overkill. The form factor is a bit LARGE though.

I love the Mac Mini, but again, your limited in what you can do.

The Mini-tower is the only hole in their lineup. I know they like to control the user experience, but some technologies change so fast they are obsolete in a very short time. An upgradeable machine would also be a big attraction to the budget gamer. Buy the machine, upgrade the video cards when they get the cash or when a better supported model comes out. With the Dual cores, CPU is not really an issue anymore.

[2ndPath]

Well, would you?

I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the Mac Pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?

I would buy a midrange tower. However, if Apple offered one as you describe it, I would rather get a Mac Pro, which starts at $2121, and thus is only marginally more expensive than what you describe but offeres a lot more.

[solvs]

There's nothing to upgrade beyond the display and the hard drives.

Video card, memory (at hopefully not ridiculous prices), and maybe even the CPU.

[Keebler]

not at all.

this issue comes up from time to time.

i think what needs to happen is that the word 'prosumer' needs to be tick tacked to a bullseye at a rifle range and shot full of holes.

prosumer, shoshumer! bah!

one is either a 'consumer' or a 'professional'. how in God's name can anyone be in between??? imho, if you make MONEY or use a mac for work, you're a professional. anyone else is a consumer.

this massive error, and the world of pc thinking is what drives the 'midtower mac' conversations.

the imac is the 'midtower'. it's what you want if you won't want a laptop and don't want the mini and don't want the mac pros.

i think apple is playing it perfectly. if someone wants 1 TB of space inside their machine and doesn't want to pay for a mac pro, then there are plenty of willing 3rd party companies who manufacture quality storage units. and, with the price of those units (take your pick) and a 24" imac, it's still cheaper than a mac pro. and to boot, they are fast, reliable systems.

if you're a pro, then buy a mac pro, and give 'er! use the horsepower to make money. again, anyone not wanting to spend $$$ on a mac pro, b/c it is a large expense and commitment, shouldn't be buying one b/c they're not a pro.

i'm editing my signature to reflect this ridiculous 'prosumer'.

i hate that word :)

Cheers,
Keebler

[FleurDuMal]

not at all.

this issue comes up from time to time.

i think what needs to happen is that the word 'prosumer' needs to be tick tacked to a bullseye at a rifle range and shot full of holes.

prosumer, shoshumer! bah!

one is either a 'consumer' or a 'professional'. how in God's name can anyone be in between??? imho, if you make MONEY or use a mac for work, you're a professional. anyone else is a consumer.

this massive error, and the world of pc thinking is what drives the 'midtower mac' conversations.

the imac is the 'midtower'. it's what you want if you won't want a laptop and don't want the mini and don't want the mac pros.

i think apple is playing it perfectly. if someone wants 1 TB of space inside their machine and doesn't want to pay for a mac pro, then there are plenty of willing 3rd party companies who manufacture quality storage units. and, with the price of those units (take your pick) and a 24" imac, it's still cheaper than a mac pro. and to boot, they are fast, reliable systems.

if you're a pro, then buy a mac pro, and give 'er! use the horsepower to make money. again, anyone not wanting to spend $$$ on a mac pro, b/c it is a large expense and commitment, shouldn't be buying one b/c they're not a pro.

i'm editing my signature to reflect this ridiculous 'prosumer'.

i hate that word :)

Cheers,
Keebler

A prosumer is a consumer whose interest in whatever they want to use their Mac for demands the power that a professional would demand. Simple.

[Yvan256]

the imac is the 'midtower'. it's what you want if you won't want a laptop and don't want the mini and don't want the mac pros.

I do want the iMac. However I don't want the built-in display. I really want a "headless iMac", i.e. sell me the internal components of the iMac in a new LCD-less case. It's got a decent enough GPU with enough GRAM, it uses 3.5" drives (so it's not as slow as a laptop), it can handle a decent amount of RAM, and it has FW800.

iMac mini? BYOM iMac? I don't care what it would be called, but Apple wouldn't have much R&D to do on this one. Take the iMac boards, make a new case. Aside from converting the LCD connection to a DVI output for the main display, it's only a matter of making a new case and coming up with a new computer name.

[roland.g]

I've said before that a box about 3-4 times the size of the Mini or so would be perfect. Do it in the same anodized of the Mac Pro and displays. Spec it with:

2.33 - 2.4 Merom or Conroe
1GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, not as expensive as FB-DIMMs
Superdrive
2 HDD bays, 250GB standard, up to 1.5TB
7300 128, 7600 256 video options like the 24" iMac - also option x1900 for dual displays
2nd PCI slot for TV card or whatever
Airport and BT standard
1 FW 800, 2 FW 400 (1 front, 1 back), 4 USB (2 front, 2 back)

Priced at $1400-1800 and give me a Apple display bundling discount.
Add 20" for extra $649, 23" for extra $899, 30" for extra $1849 (probably needs special video card too?)


The Mac Pro case is too big and the power is overkill for my needs. However, I really want 2 internal drives, more RAM options, and most of all a 23" or 30" ACD connected. Of course I also want updated displays with built in iSights.

Even at $1800, adding $175 to bump to 2GB, another $125 for video upgrade and $849 for the 23" display is $2949 for a complete system. That's $400 more than a same specs 24" iMac with room for more RAM, a 2nd drive enclosure built in, and a very sexy 23" display. If you drop the base to $1700 it might be just about right.

[roland.g]

I think the reason this won't happen is not that it will cannibalize iMac sales, but that it will cannibalize Mac Pro sales. There are people buying Mac Pros who would go for this machine instead.

[xfiftyfour]

Well, would you?

I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the Mac Pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?

At that price point, no. With the student discount, I can get the 2.0Ghz Mac Pro for $1999.. so settling for less at only a couple hundred discount (considering that even at the price point, it'd be cheaper for students.. let's say 1599-1799) wouldn't be worth it to me.

I do think Apple needs a mid-range mac, though. Right now the choices are WAY too limited for the average user. If you have a nice display already, then you have three options: Sell it and get an iMac, or keep it and get an under-spec'd (rip-off) mac mini, or keep it and get an over-spec'd (for the average user) and expensive tower.

[2ndPath]

not at all.

this issue comes up from time to time.

i think what needs to happen is that the word 'prosumer' needs to be tick tacked to a bullseye at a rifle range and shot full of holes.

prosumer, shoshumer! bah!

one is either a 'consumer' or a 'professional'. how in God's name can anyone be in between??? imho, if you make MONEY or use a mac for work, you're a professional. anyone else is a consumer.

You can always define it like this. But then there are Professionals who are fine with an iMac and there are consumers who need more than what the iMac offers. Whether you're a consumer or professional does not determine your computing needs. Therefore differenciating between consumer and professional machines make only limited sense.

I think the reason this won't happen is not that it will cannibalize iMac sales, but that it will cannibalize Mac Pro sales. There are people buying Mac Pros who would go for this machine instead.

This is exactly what I think too. So I'm afraid we won't see the midrange tower anytime soon.

[gaelan]

the inability to use the screen as an external display for other devices is the only thing killing the deal for an imac at this point...

don't want to pay for a screen i don't need if i can't use it properly...such as hooking up a gaming console to it for gaming.

[FireArse]

It should be a sphere. Or a pyramid. Or a wang.

But what about a Cube?!

[volvoben]

I wouldn't buy it for $2000, no. for $300 more (2500-200 amazon rebate) I could have a mac pro at my door. the only disadvantage after that is the ram costs 1.8x as much.

Anyone who thinks towers are 'too PC-ish' needs to take a step back, release a few pounds of zealotry, then reconsider. Towers exist because they're efficient, versatile, inexpensive and well suited for expansion. Apple can make them look like Macs, please suck it up and realize that PCs have an advantage: price. For most computer users, this is the #1 reason they don't own a mac.

For 1500 I'd probably abandon my savings for a mac pro, and suggest it to other people as well. The problem with the lack of a consumer tower can be illustrated perfectly by my family's experience:

In 2001 I was in college, and my family needed a new computer. I suggested an Apple, and for their budget, an iMac G3 was really the only option. The cheapest model was $999, or about $1250 with ram and HDD upgrades (that I would do for them, not from apple). They didn't take my advice though, and got a dell with an early Pentium 4 1.8 for the same price with 17" monitor and printer.

Time passed, windows ME was a complete &$*#(&&ing disaster, so my mother got XP through her school for about $35.

Time passed, HDD filled up with music of my sister's. OK, i supplemented the 40G HDD with another 80G drive for about $100 in 2003.

Time passed, computer slowed down, I threw in 2 256mb sticks of pc2100 for about $110 in 2003, to make 640. Much improvement.

Time passed, gave my mother a Nikon D50, drives full again. No problem, took out the second CD drive that no one used and threw in a 200G HDD for $100 in 2005.

Time passed, graphics card started giving some static after the cat got tangled in the cords behind the machine. No problem, bought a $40 AGP card from newegg and we're back in business.

3 family members still use the computer daily, photoshop elements still runs fine, and now my sister uses her laptop to browse her photos and enormous music collection on the desktop, print etc. They're thinking of giving it to my grandparents whose ancient computer finally died, but if they buy a new computer they already have a monitor, giving them many more (and cheaper) options. I may end up donating my Sempron Linux server to the cause when, someday, I blow all my savings on a Mac Pro which can hold the 3HDDs currently in the server.

Moral of the story: if they had bought the Mac as I suggested, they would have needed at least 2 external drives at increased price and decreased performance, still would have needed to buy OS 10.3 or more for compatibility, would have had to tear the whole thing apart to add ram (and wouldn't have been able to use more than 2 sticks), and would have been SOL if anything like a graphics card died inside.

yup, the upgrades cost money, a little under $400 over the years, but that's somewhat less than it would cost to keep an iMac usable, and a whoooole lot less than a new computer. The dell is pretty hideous, but it's been a great computer for them and still has another few years of life in it. The 500mhz iMac would be pretty darn close to useless at this point, my girlfriend has a very similar model and despite its 768mb of ram, it sits in her childhood bedroom collecting dust next to a performa.

Moral: A desktop tower with expandability options is a much smarter investment in the long term than an all-in-one.

If you sell your computer after 2-3 years, buy an all-in-one.

If you need a small form factor for a tight place, buy an all-in-one.

If you want a pretty design with a nice monitor built right in, buy an all-in-one.

These are proper uses for an all-in-one, but these examples only describe a part of the desktop market, perhaps 50%. The other 50% would prefer a cheaper alternative and/or one that will hold up better in the long-term.

It should be noted that I own (OK, fine, my girlfriend owns it) an iMac 20" CD and thoroughly enjoy it. But I would have advised a desktop and 20" dell monitor if one had been available with similar-to-iMac specs, price and just a few other options (2 HDDs, 4 memory slots).

[combatcolin]

The 9600 and the G3 still look better than most of today's towers.

IF and WHEN Apple release a prosumer machine is when im buying another Mac.

DOn't want to be stuck with another closed system like the iMac again.

[erickkoch]

No.

If I did the only reason would be to have a system that is upgradable. I think Apple should just make the iMac upgradable, but they won't.

For me, a mid-range system means that the computer will do more than I need it to do (for low requirement applications like web-browsers) or it will be underpowered for high-end applications (graphics). I'm saving my pennies for a MacPro.

[matticus008]

Video card, memory (at hopefully not ridiculous prices), and maybe even the CPU.
Memory and CPU are upgradeable in every computer. Those aren't relevant, especially since the iMac could be socketed or the headless iMac could be soldered. As for graphics cards, there aren't that many for Macs to begin with, but I'd certainly welcome the option. I don't think there's enough demand to justify a change, though, from a business perspective.

With improvements in integrated graphics and programmable GPUs as we have now, there's even less incentive to offer an expansion slot for low- to mid-range products.

[Dont Hurt Me]

That's like, what? US$1.20? Just kidding...

That would be a nicely spec'd machine. I just think the market is pretty narrow for this machine and that is one reason Apple won't bother.Thats funny as heck, Dell & HP are thriving selling these, the only reason Apples Market is Narrow is because they have forced this issue by all in ones and workstations and no mid grade towers. Hard to have a market for a product you dont make and dont want to so you can sell your all in ones. Displays last for years, longer then the computer.

[zap2]

I'd look at it...but for 1999, your can almost buy the current Mac Pro w/ 2.0Ghz

[iW00t]

I will buy it if Apple makes the case triangular like a little pyramid :)

[iW00t]

Moral of the story: if they had bought the Mac as I suggested, they would have needed at least 2 external drives at increased price and decreased performance, still would have needed to buy OS 10.3 or more for compatibility, would have had to tear the whole thing apart to add ram (and wouldn't have been able to use more than 2 sticks), and would have been SOL if anything like a graphics card died inside.


Your story is a perfect example why I personally find Apple's desktop line lacking as well, but hey, from some other MR members' perspective we are just squares and paper pushers who can't think outside the box.

If being a conformist involves not having to scrap my car because a bird pooped on the roof of it (because it is made with some new fangled "Über Cool" material that disintegrates the minute it goes into a car wash) or own a computer with "no cables" out of the box but requires 20 miles of cables to hook up external drives after a year.... then count me in. Screw "think different" and get your own life and own identity man.

Of course, will Apple care? Apple doesn't care, and again your story is a perfect example. Had they sold an iMac with replaceable graphics cards it would have saved you from an unnecessary upgrade (or a $2000 logic board replacement levy whichever you prefer) when a minor component in your computer system dies.

Memory and CPU are upgradeable in every computer. Those aren't relevant, especially since the iMac could be socketed or the headless iMac could be soldered. As for graphics cards, there aren't that many for Macs to begin with, but I'd certainly welcome the option. I don't think there's enough demand to justify a change, though, from a business perspective.

With improvements in integrated graphics and programmable GPUs as we have now, there's even less incentive to offer an expansion slot for low- to mid-range products.

Exactly. Macs are low to mid range performance PeeCees with high performance pricing.

[Allotriophagy]

You know, Apple could have prevented a lot of threads like this one if they had used a standard MXM slot on the 24" iMac which they released new cards for.

But noooooooooooooo.

[Keebler]

A prosumer is a consumer whose interest in whatever they want to use their Mac for demands the power that a professional would demand. Simple.

really? is that your opinion or is that in a dictionary somewhere? i think it's only as simple as one being one or the other. prosumer is just another fixated word by society to fit 2 ideas into 1 for the simplicity of being lazy.

i think it's defined by money making. if you make money or are paid money, then you're a professional. if you don't, you're a 'consumer'. that is simple. :)

it doesn't matter what they want to use their machine for. if they're not making money, they're not a professional imho.

i don't know why this bothers me so much, but it really drives me nuts.

[Keebler]

You can always define it like this. But then there are Professionals who are fine with an iMac and there are consumers who need more than what the iMac offers. Whether you're a consumer or professional does not determine your computing needs. Therefore differenciating between consumer and professional machines make only limited sense.


again, i believe if you make money, you're a professional. if you don't, then you're a consumer. if the latter wants more power, then be prepared to pay for it.

This is exactly what I think too. So I'm afraid we won't see the midrange tower anytime soon.

i agree. this seems to back it up:

According to Pacific Crest Securities (reported by AppleInsider), Mac sales grew over 100% year over year during the month of January.

The firm based its numbers on recent NPD data which had implied that "year-over-year growth in Mac unit sales accelerated in January to 101 percent, up from 55 percent in December." More specifically, Mac notebook sales jumped 194% year over year in January.

Additionally, the average selling price (ASP) for Macs appears to be increasing, which consequently is increasing revenues for Apple.

stronger avg selling price probably means apple doesn't have to come up with midtower.

regardless of what we think, time will tell :)

[iMacZealot]

really? is that your opinion or is that in a dictionary somewhere? i think it's only as simple as one being one or the other. prosumer is just another fixated word by society to fit 2 ideas into 1 for the simplicity of being lazy.

i think it's defined by money making. if you make money or are paid money, then you're a professional. if you don't, you're a 'consumer'. that is simple. :)

it doesn't matter what they want to use their machine for. if they're not making money, they're not a professional imho.

i don't know why this bothers me so much, but it really drives me nuts.

I think a prosumer is someone that demands more than a consumer, but not as much as a professional. I like to consider myself a prosumer. For example, I use Final Cut Express instead of iMovie because I'm demanding more than the average user. I think prosumers also care a little more about what kind of hardware and software they use more than the average consumer who's fine with the lower end MacBooks and iMacs with ComboDrives and slower processors. On the other hand, however, prosumers don't need the power of a Mac Pro, as they are not that demanding.

Now that I've put more thought into it, I guess the prosumer marketspace is narrower than the consumer and professional marketspace. Plus, it'd be hard to make such a product without cannibalizing the sales of the iMac or Mac Pro. And there are some prosumers that are fine with a 24" iMac, for they don't feel expandability is an important factor, but there are prosumers that do. However, the more demanding prosumers still don't demand as much as a professional and can get by with a 2.0 GHz Mac Pro.

I've also realized that when I switched to a mac nearly 3 years ago, I was a consumer and could get by with iMovie. However, two years ago, when I bought my iMac, I began to demand more, so I bought Final Cut Express and became more of a prosumer. However, now, I feel that my iMac is too underpowered, too cramped for storage, and its screen is too small for my needs. Final Cut Express is even beginning to limit me, so I guess I'm turning into more of a professional. So, now that I can use *most* of the power of the Mac Pro and also have the money (or at least will have) to buy one (since I'm now more of a professional and am making a living off my work), it's a better option for me than a 24" iMac or a midrange tower that would probably begin to limit my needs sooner than a Mac Pro. I think prosumers should evaluate whether expandability is important to them and what they can afford, as well as what sort of screen they want. If a prosumer like me a year ago just wants to do FCE work and feel no need for screen upgrade options and can buy a small external hard disk when they need one, then the iMac is still a great option for them. If a prosumer does want to be able to store a lot on their mac and upgrade their screen and get more power than the iMac, then a lower end Mac Pro is a good option for them.

However, I think Apple needs to bring back a smaller pro portable. I was considering on buying a MacBook a month or two ago, but the limited graphics card (than can't run Final Cut Studio) and glossy screen found on the "high end" BlackBook can't replace the 12" PowerBook G4. I know I'd buy a 13" Mac Book Pro with a glossy display in a heartbeat (you know, if I wasn't broke) if Apple offered one. I've come to the conclusion that that is the missing link in Apple's Macintosh lineup.

[TheAnswer]

really? is that your opinion or is that in a dictionary somewhere?

i don't know why this bothers me so much, but it really drives me nuts.

From the Dictionary app...just to clear things up:

prosumer noun
1 an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use : the magazine is aimed at the prosumer who uses a $10,000 camera to make home movies of his dog.
2 a prospective consumer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or development of a product or service : a panel of prosumers weighed in on the plans for the new shampoo.
• a person who designs or produces a product for personal use or for sale : she's a driven prosumer with one idea: to make a better-smelling toothpaste.
• a well-informed and proactive consumer : prosumers read labels, sometimes obsessively.
ORIGIN blend of professional or producer or proactive and consumer.

[matticus008]

Exactly. Macs are low to mid range performance PeeCees with high performance pricing.
High performance pricing? $1200? Don't be silly.

[shikimo]

not at all.

this issue comes up from time to time.

i think what needs to happen is that the word 'prosumer' needs to be tick tacked to a bullseye at a rifle range and shot full of holes.

prosumer, shoshumer! bah!

one is either a 'consumer' or a 'professional'. how in God's name can anyone be in between??? imho, if you make MONEY or use a mac for work, you're a professional. anyone else is a consumer.

[...]

i hate that word :)

Cheers,
Keebler

Fine, but your solution causes more problems than it solves. For example: I'm a writer, I make my living via OpenOffice documents and deal with editors via web applications, things that use the barest minimum of a computer's ability. Does this make me a Professional Mac User? Hardly. However I (used to and will again--currently between Macs) use my Mac for all sorts of other things that require substantial performance and more versatility than the iMac offers but don't want to spend the dough for a MacPro that offers more than I need. If you don't like "prosumer," what do you want to call people like me and all the others like me on this board?

I do want the iMac. However I don't want the built-in display. I really want a "headless iMac", i.e. sell me the internal components of the iMac in a new LCD-less case. It's got a decent enough GPU with enough GRAM, it uses 3.5" drives (so it's not as slow as a laptop), it can handle a decent amount of RAM, and it has FW800.

iMac mini? BYOM iMac? I don't care what it would be called, but Apple wouldn't have much R&D to do on this one. Take the iMac boards, make a new case. Aside from converting the LCD connection to a DVI output for the main display, it's only a matter of making a new case and coming up with a new computer name.

Thats funny as heck, Dell & HP are thriving selling these, the only reason Apples Market is Narrow is because they have forced this issue by all in ones and workstations and no mid grade towers.

Both these ideas seem dead-on to me. The market is there, the product makes sense...perhaps the truth may lie the earlier poster's observation that a mid-range headless would hurt MacPro sales, as currently most of the people who really can't get by with an iMac or a maxed-out mini are stuck between Dell and MacPro.

[2ndPath]

As for graphics cards, there aren't that many for Macs to begin with, but I'd certainly welcome the option.

One reason for the limited number of Mac graphics cards is certainly that graphics cards can only be replaced in the top of the line Macs (Mac Pro). So an already small market (Macs) is reduced even further to an even smaller one (Mac Pros).

again, i believe if you make money, you're a professional. if you don't, then you're a consumer. if the latter wants more power, then be prepared to pay for it.

The only problem is that the variety of producs offered by Apple is very limited. So even people who don't need the power, but other features of the Mac Pro, need to pay for the power of the Mac Pro. Or, in other words, the requirements are more diverse than just the three different lines of desktop computer offered by Apple cover.

Of course for Apple the situation might be fine right now because the some of the customers buying Mac Pros now, would be perfectly fine with a midrange tower as well.

regardless of what we think, time will tell :)

About that we can certainly agree.

[matticus008]

The only problem is that the variety of producs offered by Apple is very limited. So even people who don't need the power, but other features of the Mac Pro, need to pay for the power of the Mac Pro. Or, in other words, the requirements are more diverse than just the three different lines of desktop computer offered by Apple cover.
And that's the way it will stay for the foreseeable future. There are always more complex desires than any one company can offer, so it becomes a matter of degrees. Apple has defined itself successfully by carving a niche and sticking to a relatively simple plan. Even in branching out, there are specific limits.

With the iPod, there's no FM radio or feature x that other players boast. The Apple TV is a DVR without a TV tuner. The Mac is a computer without an endless array of minute options. The iPhone isn't a Swiss Army Knife, Mad TV skit aside. They focus on a cohesive, appealing, specific product that does exactly what it's intended to do and does it well. Nothing else is relevant to their pursuit.

The argument that they could pick up another 10,000 customers if only they added option y to product z doesn't work with Apple. They're not out to make everyone happy and they're not aiming to be Microsoft or Dell. If they wanted maximum revenue, they'd be structured completely differently. Instead, they produce great products that work for a lot of people and everyone looking for something else can buy something else. A lot of that is Apple ego channeled from Jobs, but frankly I find it a more satisfying strategy than the pathetic pandering that most businesses undertake.

I buy Apple products when they do what I'm looking for them to do. If Apple doesn't offer what I need, I get it elsewhere (e.g. I have a MythTV setup for my TV recording needs but will buy an :apple:TV for iTunes portability and the convenience of the interface). That's what Apple wants, and that's what's best for me. I don't understand the desire people express for Apple to bend to their wishes as though there's nothing else out there and life as we know it will end if Apple doesn't do something or other.

[shikimo]

And that's the way it will stay for the foreseeable future. There are always more complex desires than any one company can offer, so it becomes a matter of degrees. Apple has defined itself successfully by carving a niche and sticking to a relatively simple plan. Even in branching out, there are specific limits.

With the iPod, there's no FM radio or feature x that other players boast. The Apple TV is a DVR without a TV tuner. The Mac is a computer without an endless array of minute options. The iPhone isn't a Swiss Army Knife, Mad TV skit aside. They focus on a cohesive, appealing, specific product that does exactly what it's intended to do and does it well. Nothing else is relevant to their pursuit.

The argument that they could pick up another 10,000 customers if only they added option y to product z doesn't work with Apple. They're not out to make everyone happy and they're not aiming to be Microsoft or Dell. If they wanted maximum revenue, they'd be structured completely differently. Instead, they produce great products that work for a lot of people and everyone looking for something else can buy something else. A lot of that is Apple ego channeled from Jobs, but frankly I find it a more satisfying strategy than the pathetic pandering that most businesses undertake.

I buy Apple products when they do what I'm looking for them to do. If Apple doesn't offer what I need, I get it elsewhere (e.g. I have a MythTV setup for my TV recording needs but will buy an :apple:TV for iTunes portability and the convenience of the interface). That's what Apple wants, and that's what's best for me. I don't understand the desire people express for Apple to bend to their wishes as though there's nothing else out there and life as we know it will end if Apple doesn't do something or other.


Wow...help yourself to another cup of Apple-flavored Kool-Aid :cool: .

Seriously, interseting post, but I think it's a bit much to suggest that Apple is interested in anything BUT "maximum revenue." Are they a 1000X more interesting, creative, dynamic and fun than Microsoft? Hell yeah...but they're in it for the money first and foremost. Nothing wrong with that, but no use suggesting we're dealing with an artists' cooperative here.

I also think one of Apple's great strengths--in fact the only thing that kept it alive during the lean years--is the willingness to take risks in attacking and creating new markets where other companies dare not tread, and one can make a convincing argument that a wacky and interesting headless Mac could go where the Shuttle (by Soltek, I think) form factor was not able to in the PC world. From this perspective it's got Apple written all over it...

[wickedpapercut]

While I’ve found the bickering about “prosumer” to be highly entertaining, I’m also intrigued by those who insist that Apple is ignoring the mid-range headless market because it would cannibalize sales of either the iMac or the MacPro.

Apple, like all good companies, should be interested in profit, not in protecting the popularity of its product lines as if they were children. If there are more dollars to be made by introducing a mid-range system they should do so.

Do you really believe that all of the folks desiring the mid-range simply choose from either the iMac or the Pro? Many do nothing while others stick with a Windows machine.

If marginal profits are similar, Apple should want to serve this slice of the market as well as those it already has. Their profits and market share will both increase. It’s that simple.

Of course I don’t want them to have 57 flavors of machines (like Dell, HP, and many others) but there is obviously a gap in their product line or else we wouldn’t be discussing this (over and over and over...).

Just my $.02.

[weg]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

Huh? So what's the Mac Pro? Not a tower?

[mattibek]

Seems that the problem is the price not the machines. Mac make it easy for moderate users to have a nice system. If your a pro then get a Pro.

[roland.g]

Remember that the prosumer machine 2 yrs ago was the G5 1.8. It was sub $2000, while the dual 2.0 and dual 2.3, were the definite pro machine. They dropped the single G5 from the lineup at some point. Aside from the FB-DIMM price issue, if the Mac Pro came in a Quad 2.66 and 3.0 but the low end was offered as a Dual Core 2.0 rather than a Quad Core 2.0, they could price it sub $2000. But still I don't need 4 HDD bays, 16GB of expensive RAM, or a tower that big, but I do want a 23" ACD and something bigger than the Mini with a notebook drive.

[epochblue]

24" iMac specs in a slightly "squattier" Mac Pro case....yeah, I'd consider that :)

[roland.g]

part of me says, just get a Mac Pro.

[NorCalLights]

Yeah, by "tower", I mean something half the height of the Mac Pro and half the length. Nothing like the Cube, as cool as it looked. It also would be priced between the "best" iMac and "good" Mac Pro, unlike the Cube's mistake of being priced the same as a "better" PowerMac G4.

You're talking about a machine with 25% of the interior space of a Mac Pro... I'm not sure how much "expandability" you'll get out of something that size, especially considering the minimum size of an optical drive, at least two hard drive bays, a power supply, and at least two PCI cards. I'm not one to question Apple's industrial design ability, but they're limited by physics like the rest of us.

[roland.g]

If it had a:

2.4Ghz Conroe
1Gigabytes of RAM
ATI Radeon X1950XT (nVidea GeForce 8800GTX and ATI Radeon X2800XT for Mac Pro)
160 Gigabyte 5400RPM Harddrive
Easy User Replaceble CPU, GPU, RAM and Harddrive
$1899

I would buy it

Umm, maybe stock RAM, but up to 4GB total.
250GB 7200 HDD, no notebook drives, and 2nd bay, otherwise who cares, get a Mini.
They will never offer an easy user replacable CPU, however the point of the 2 PCI slots, one for graphics is upgrading the graphics card and adding a tv tuner card or whatever else.
Only need 1 optical but I can't stress enough wanting 2 HDD bays.

As for size, 1/2 to 2/3s the height of a Mac Pro, same width, 1/2 to 2/3 the depth. I think the laws of physics would allow that.

[other]

If the iMac has enough muscle, a 20" iMac with a nice second display is a winner. If it doesn't, the "mid-range tower" proposed also wouldn't be beefy enough, so that prosumer would end up with a low-end Mac Pro anyway. The built-in display is a minor inconvenience for people. If you would buy a "headless" iMac with otherwise identical specs for $200 less, then you're not really being troubled by the display.

There's nothing to upgrade beyond the display and the hard drives. If a 20 or 24" inch display won't do it for you, you're in multimonitor territory anyway, so the iMac fits well. If 24" is enough, what's the problem?

Like people said, graphics card upgradeability.

But what I really wanted to say is: I already have a 20" monitor. If I get an iMac, and I only want one screen, should I throw mine away? I'm also guessing my monitor is better than the one in the iMac. So why should I have to pay for another monitor?

And if I want to get a new computer, I also have to get a new monitor. How can you not see the problem?

[combatcolin]

And if I want to get a new computer, I also have to get a new monitor. How can you not see the problem?

Annoying isn't it?

Every other consumer company in the world is desperately trying to find that next niche/massive product.

Apple, on the other hand don't seem to be interested in making more money from hardware sales.

And there defiantly not getting any more money from me until they release a consumer tower - my money is going on a self build PC - don't really want to but Apple solution is simply either too limited/underpowered or expensive.

[other]

And there defiantly not getting any more money from me until they release a consumer tower - my money is going on a self build PC - don't really want to but Apple solution is simply either too limited/underpowered or expensive.

Watch out! The Apple fanboys are going to attack you!

[Cult Follower]

It would depend on the feature set and the size. But I would definately consider it.

[combatcolin]

Watch out! The Apple fanboys are going to attack you!

I used to be a fanboy!

Still like Apple, but no longer affected by Steve's "reality distortion field".

[Mikael]

Well, would you?

I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the Mac Pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

>either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
>1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
>2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
>1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
>NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
>2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
>No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
>Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
>$1799-$1999 for base model

Would you buy that?
That's an overpriced excuse of a tower, if I ever saw one. 1GB RAM? 7300GT? No PCIe? And "all this" for 1800-2000 dollars? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but only an absolute retard would pay so much for so little. It would basically be a scam.

Here's what you get for 1100-1200 dollars in the God-awful PC world:

Case: Antec P150
PSU: Antec NeoHE 430W
Motherboard: ASUS P5B
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
CPU cooling: Scythe Ninja rev.B
Memory: 2GB DDR2-667
Graphics: Leadtek 7900GS 256MB
Audio: Soundblaster Audigy 4
Gigabit LAN: Integrated
Harddrive: Samsung 320GB (7200RPM, 16MB cache)
DVD: Samsung DVD-RW 16x SATA

Not only is this machine of great quality, but it's also more expandable and more feature rich. Also, it has much higher specced components than the proposed Apple mid-tower in the initial post.

I think that the specifications for the PC above would be a reasonable config for an Apple mid-tower offering. A reasonable price would be 1500 dollars. The base config should probably have less RAM, HDD space and possibly a slower CPU, but the price would of course also have to be lower. Maybe 1300 dollars? It's still more expensive than a comparable PC, but it's atleast not ridiculously overpriced. It would probably sell very well.

And, yeah, I own the PC specified above (with additional HD space and CPU at 3GHz). :p

[iW00t]

That's an overpriced excuse of a tower, if I ever saw one. 1GB RAM? 7300GT? No PCIe? And "all this" for 1800-2000 dollars? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but only an absolute retard would pay so much for so little. It would basically be a scam.

Here's what you get for 1100-1200 dollars in the God-awful PC world:

Case: Antec P150
PSU: Antec NeoHE 430W
Motherboard: ASUS P5B
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
CPU cooling: Scythe Ninja rev.B
Memory: 2GB DDR2-667
Graphics: Leadtek 7900GS 256MB
Audio: Soundblaster Audigy 4
Gigabit LAN: Integrated
Harddrive: Samsung 320GB (7200RPM, 16MB cache)
DVD: Samsung DVD-RW 16x SATA

Not only is this machine of great quality, but it's also more expandable and more feature rich. Also, it has much higher specced components than the proposed Apple mid-tower in the initial post.

I think that the specifications for the PC above would be a reasonable config for an Apple mid-tower offering. A reasonable price would be 1500 dollars. The base config should probably have less RAM, HDD space and possibly a slower CPU, but the price would of course also have to be lower. Maybe 1300 dollars? It's still more expensive than a comparable PC, but it's atleast not ridiculously overpriced. It would probably sell very well.

And, yeah, I own the PC specified above (with additional HD space and CPU at 3GHz). :p

Exactly.

For that price I got a better suggestion:


Go to Arr!Bay
Download a small file with a mysterious .torrent extension
Open it with an app that mysteriously loads a bigger file into your computer
Burn it onto a CD
Enjoy your new "Mac"


In fact that is exactly what I did (Apple lawyers! Subpeona me!)

Until Apple releases a decent up to date Mac Pro or a midrange Mac all desktop models are crap, to put it bluntly. $1800 for those kinds of specifications, and Apple doesn't even have a courtesy of putting in a real graphics card? Hahaha, that's funny, but that is exactly how they are charging right now.

[leekohler]

I would say no. Not if was $1700-1900. It would have to be cheaper. Even then, I doubt I'd buy one.

[other]

That's an overpriced excuse of a tower, if I ever saw one. 1GB RAM? 7300GT? No PCIe? And "all this" for 1800-2000 dollars? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but only an absolute retard would pay so much for so little. It would basically be a scam.

Truth! What I forgot to say was, I voted "I'd consider it", but I definitely wasn't talking about the computer mentioned in the initial post. I'm thinking along the lines of the one you mentioned at a similar price.

[other]

In fact that is exactly what I did (Apple lawyers! Subpeona me!)

Is everything working correctly?

[iW00t]

Is everything working correctly?

There are a few small kinks, but this machine is solely used for EyeTV and checking mail when I am home so I don't care less.

Does what it has to do perfectly while I wait for the line to be updated.

[matticus008]

Seriously, interseting post, but I think it's a bit much to suggest that Apple is interested in anything BUT "maximum revenue." Are they a 1000X more interesting, creative, dynamic and fun than Microsoft? Hell yeah...but they're in it for the money first and foremost. Nothing wrong with that, but no use suggesting we're dealing with an artists' cooperative here.
I certainly never implied that. There's a difference between operating with good business sense and making $10 and whoring yourself out to make $30 with no customer loyalty and nothing distinctive.

As soon as you start playing the latter game, you're going to lose. Yeah, you'll make more money while you're on top, but as soon as you fall, you get wiped out. So your entire MO becomes Microsoft or SCO-like--make it impossible for customers to avoid you.

If you're making a healthy profit, you don't try to over-reach. It's called sustainable development. It is precisely because they're motivated by profit that they don't offer a more complex and costly array of products.

[matticus008]

Here's what you get for 1100-1200 dollars in the God-awful PC world:

Case: Antec P150
PSU: Antec NeoHE 430W
Motherboard: ASUS P5B
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
CPU cooling: Scythe Ninja rev.B
Memory: 2GB DDR2-667
Graphics: Leadtek 7900GS 256MB
Audio: Soundblaster Audigy 4
Gigabit LAN: Integrated
Harddrive: Samsung 320GB (7200RPM, 16MB cache)
DVD: Samsung DVD-RW 16x SATA


It's also lacking the fact that it's OEM and therefore has no corporate overhead and it doesn't include the cost of software. That OEM machine needs at least $210 in software to make it a Mac; it needs a $25 Bluetooth adapter and a $50 Wifi card (yes, you can find these for cheaper, but if you want to compare Apples to Apples, it's a Netgear).

Add a 20" monitor (we'll say $250 and be generous to the PC side), keyboard and mouse ($60), and a webcam ($30).

So that $1200 PC is...$1835 before even getting to the remote and assuming it can use (very cheap) Apple software rather than more expensive Windows counterparts.

Meanwhile, the 20" iMac is $1499, plus $75 for another gig of RAM and a $20 differential in hard drive value. Is the better video card and higher power consumption worth $300 to you?

The bottom line is that the people who handpick components aren't going to be happy with ANY system Apple ever offers, because they're never going to have the variety of standard PC hardware market. I own both kinds of computers but it's absolutely farcical to accuse the iMac of being a bad value for consumers in general.

[solvs]

Memory and CPU are upgradeable in every computer.
The CPU part would just be nice, but the rest if important. My graphics card is beginning to show it's age, so I have to buy a whole new computer. The RAM in the only expandable desktop Mac is ridiculously overpriced.

stronger avg selling price probably means apple doesn't have to come up with midtower.
They don't have to, but it would be nice.

Instead, they produce great products that work for a lot of people and everyone looking for something else can buy something else.
Which is exactly what they do, even if they don't want to.

That's what Apple wants, and that's what's best for me.
Good for you. We're not you. We'd like something else.

I don't understand the desire people express for Apple to bend to their wishes as though there's nothing else out there and life as we know it will end if Apple doesn't do something or other.
No one's saying that. That's a straw man argument. We'd just like something everyone else provides that also runs OS X. Something cheaper than the Mac Pro with the specs to match. Something that isn't an all in one.

Just because you don't want one, and Apple doesn't feel like making one anymore (they used to) doesn't mean no one wants one. I'd buy one in a heart beat. And I'm obviously not alone.

[matticus008]

My graphics card is beginning to show it's age, so I have to buy a whole new computer. The RAM in the only expandable desktop Mac is ridiculously overpriced.
How is that any different from a notebook, tablet, or SFF PC? There's only one kind of computer that doesn't have this problem, and Apple already sells a product for that market. There are many untapped areas of computing--why should they offer two products in an ever-diminishing segment?

As for RAM, how is it overpriced? It's the same RAM as used in any other computer and the price is exactly the same. There's no special Apple memory slot.
Which is exactly what they do
And precisely what they're supposed to do.
even if they don't want to.
There it is! The irrational, quasi-religious obsession with Apple. I don't really mind when Philips, my preferred TV brand, loses out to a different brand on the occasional purchase. Having a cult following and brand loyalty is one thing, but this is absurd. Apple has no problem being profitable and finding customers for the products they do sell. If it ain't broke...
No one's saying that. That's a straw man argument.
It most certainly is not. Every week there's a thread about some great product that Apple could dominate with if only they would see the light. Each time people talk about lost customers like it's their personal mission to expand Apple market share to 90% or as though it physically pains them to have to buy some other brand. See above.
We'd just like something everyone else provides that also runs OS X. Something cheaper than the Mac Pro with the specs to match. Something that isn't an all in one.
Well that's just mutually exclusive. It can't be something everyone else provides if it runs OS X. The traditional desktop and the computing metaphor of a sum of discrete parts is dying. Apple has lead the charge away from that mentality and it would make absolutely no sense to go in the opposite direction.

Computers didn't originally come with anything on board. People resisted "paying extra" for onboard ethernet and sound, even if the add-in cards they had were inferior. Now it's cheaper to buy the all-in-one and not use it than to find something without the onboard components. Onboard graphics are increasingly prevalent and consistently improving. You don't pull out the parts of a toaster that still work when something breaks; you just buy a new toaster. It's a natural commoditization process, and the PC side of things is just doing it more slowly.

Just because you don't want one, and Apple doesn't feel like making one anymore (they used to) doesn't mean no one wants one. I'd buy one in a heart beat. And I'm obviously not alone.
Of course you're not alone. Lots of people want lots of things. I want a real OS X media center that's better than MythTV. I'd also like to transfer my more comfortable seats from my last car to my current one, and to be able to change furniture in my bedroom without it not quite matching and throwing off the balance. But it's unrealistic to expect these things.

Put another way: just because you do want something, even if other people want it too, doesn't mean it makes sense in a given situation. It also doesn't mean that Apple should do it, just because they could make money doing so.

Very few people buy desktops today because they're modular. Most people don't even buy them because they're faster. They buy them because they're cheaper. DIY enthusiasts comprise a niche market themselves which is blown entirely out of proportion on forums like this. As computers get even cheaper and even more integrated, you'll see PCs continue that march toward zero expansion slots and ever-smaller cases. It's already almost impossible to find internal cards at retail electronics stores. 10 or 15 years ago, it was quite different. Even Fry's only has a fraction of what it once did.

[solvs]

How is that any different from a notebook, tablet, or SFF PC?
We're talking about desktops.

As for RAM, how is it overpriced?
The stuff in the Mac Pro is. The only expandable computer they sell. Just like I said.

And precisely what they're supposed to do.
Loosing Apple the sale.

There it is! The irrational, quasi-religious obsession with Apple.
I just want to run OS X, and I can't do that with any thing other than an Apple.

It most certainly is not. Every week there's a thread about some great product that Apple could dominate with if only they would see the light. Each time people talk about lost customers like it's their personal mission to expand Apple market share to 90% or as though it physically pains them to have to buy some other brand. See above.
I don't see where you got that from my posts. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying to say any of that. I just thought it would be nice if they offered a mid range desktop, as do others.

Even if you don't, I don't understand why you think none of us should even bring it up.

It can't be something everyone else provides if it runs OS X.
That's my point. :rolleyes: Others offer mid-range desktops, but they don't have OS X. We would like both. No biggie for some of us if Apple doesn't provide it, but some people decide not to buy. Some decide to go with someone else because Apple doesn't provide what they want, and everyone else does. Lost sales for Apple.

I'm not saying Apple has to provide something for everyone, but this is the most requested thing and they don't seem to want to provide it. Our loss and theirs. What's so horrible about us even talking about wanting it?

If you don't like the subject, why did you bother clicking on the thread? Just to tell us all how wrong we are for wanting something others provide, but preferring OS X? Last I checked, that's what these types of forums are for.

Of course you're not alone. Lots of people want lots of things. I want a real OS X media center that's better than MythTV. I'd also like to transfer my more comfortable seats from my last car to my current one, and to be able to change furniture in my bedroom without it not quite matching and throwing off the balance. But it's unrealistic to expect these things.
Why is it unrealistic? Others offer such a thing. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much the standard out there. Someone just asked a question, we agree. I still don't see why you're going postal just because we would like to see something.

None of us are telling you that you shouldn't want Apple to do a media center, I'm sure there are lots of people who would also like one. I wouldn't, but you obviously would, and you wouldn't be alone. You don't see us telling you that you shouldn't want one from Apple.

Put another way: just because you do want something, even if other people want it too, doesn't mean it makes sense in a given situation. It also doesn't mean that Apple should do it, just because they could make money doing so.
Actually it makes perfect sense, and that's exactly why we hope they would. So we could buy it. So they could sell it. Pretty much the way it works.

Very few people buy desktops today because they're modular. Most people don't even buy them because they're faster. They buy them because they're cheaper.
That's part of it. And would help towards the number one complain about Apple. Cost. The others are just pluses, but would also help.

DIY enthusiasts comprise a niche market themselves which is blown entirely out of proportion on forums like this.
This has nothing to do with DIY.

As computers get even cheaper and even more integrated, you'll see PCs continue that march toward zero expansion slots and ever-smaller cases. It's already almost impossible to find internal cards at retail electronics stores. 10 or 15 years ago, it was quite different. Even Fry's only has a fraction of what it once did.
No internal cards? :confused: Yes, computers are commodities, but is it to much to ask that we can have a computer with full size (and full speed) drives (maybe even 2, what with Time Machine and all), a real video card, the ability to use your own monitor, and everything else everyone else offers, except they don't have OS X. If they do come out with one, you don't have to buy one. But we will. Lots of us will. Maybe not that many, but I'm sure enough to make it worth it for them. As long as they don't cripple it, like they did the Cube.

If they don't, people will continue to buy something else, we'll go back to complaining, and you can go back to criticizing us for even daring to bring it up.

[Mikael]

It's also lacking the fact that it's OEM and therefore has no corporate overhead and it doesn't include the cost of software. That OEM machine needs at least $210 in software to make it a Mac; it needs a $25 Bluetooth adapter and a $50 Wifi card (yes, you can find these for cheaper, but if you want to compare Apples to Apples, it's a Netgear).

Add a 20" monitor (we'll say $250 and be generous to the PC side), keyboard and mouse ($60), and a webcam ($30).

So that $1200 PC is...$1835 before even getting to the remote and assuming it can use (very cheap) Apple software rather than more expensive Windows counterparts.

Meanwhile, the 20" iMac is $1499, plus $75 for another gig of RAM and a $20 differential in hard drive value. Is the better video card and higher power consumption worth $300 to you?

The bottom line is that the people who handpick components aren't going to be happy with ANY system Apple ever offers, because they're never going to have the variety of standard PC hardware market. I own both kinds of computers but it's absolutely farcical to accuse the iMac of being a bad value for consumers in general.
Why are you comparing the proposed Apple mid-tower to an iMac?

Anyway, this machine is built mainly from retail parts, so the overhead you're talking about is there. Also, are you saying that Apple would have to pay more to buy stuff than any other online store selling components? It's probably the very opposite.

Say you add some 250 dollars for software and networking, you'd still be in the low 1400 range. Add some nice Apple taxes and this thing could still sell for 1500-1600 dollars. Apple would of course never do this, as they'd probably consider it to be a way too powerful machine for the money. That's one reason why I don't see myself switching to a Mac for my desktop any time soon.

[matticus008]

The stuff in the Mac Pro is. The only expandable computer they sell. Just like I said.
Every Apple computer can have additional RAM installed, unless I've died and gone to some moronic land where suddenly Macs don't have RAM slots. The Mac Pro takes standard PC2 ECC DIMMs, just like thousands of other Xeon computers on the planet.
Loosing Apple the sale.
You can't lose what you never had to begin with.
I just want to run OS X, and I can't do that with any thing other than an Apple.
Tautology.
Even if you don't, I don't understand why you think none of us should even bring it up.
That's not it at all. It's the whining and expectation and the "I'll never spend another dime on Apple until they do what I want" and the "iMacs r stoopid" histrionics. If Pane e Formaggio won't sell you a burger, go to Burgoo. If the former wants you back, they'll change. Apple obviously just isn't interested in another product which is redundant on two fronts: it's a second desktop system and it's a second midrange system. They've been trying to kill the beige tower for a decade, why would they bring it back in a pretty Apple case?
That's my point. :rolleyes: Others offer mid-range desktops, but they don't have OS X. We would like both.
And my point is, "tough cookies." Sometimes you have to weigh options and make a choice. I like the way BMWs look, but I like the way Audis drive. I drive an Audi. I'm not pining over a perfect world where I could have a BMWAudi hybrid, because in the grand scheme of things, it's a fairly trivial thing.
If you don't like the subject, why did you bother clicking on the thread?
It's a poll. If you only want responses that agree with you, you'd get a pretty distorted sample. For the record, I voted on "I'd consider it if they offered one."
Why is it unrealistic? Others offer such a thing. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much the standard out there.
It's doubly redundant and it's antithetical to two of the primary aims of Apple. Just because it's common doesn't mean it was chosen. Windows is pretty much the standard out there. That doesn't mean it's good.
I still don't see why you're going postal just because we would like to see something.
I don't see anyone going postal, and it's apparently only a push poll, since you're not actually interested in responses, it seems.
You don't see us telling you that you shouldn't want one from Apple.
I have no problem with people wanting this system, so please don't put words in my mouth. I specifically stated it's the expectation that's unfounded.
This has nothing to do with DIY.
It has everything to do with DIY. If you don't want to hand pick components for the damn thing, there's no reason for an expandable Mac to exist.
Why are you comparing the proposed Apple mid-tower to an iMac?
Because that's exactly what it is. It's a midrange PC; an iMac with no display. Anything more and it would be a Mac Pro and anything less and it would be a mini.
Anyway, this machine is built mainly from retail parts, so the overhead you're talking about is there.
It's built from OEM parts. You may have purchased the retail packaged versions of the various components, but it's not a retail PC (an HP or a Dell, etc.). It's 100% white box, without the overhead for R&D, support, system warranty (independent and on top of component warranties), marketing, logistics, and all the other services you pay for indirectly. It's the same as buying filet mignon for $19/lb at the butcher and paying $30 for a single serving at a restaurant, only computer margins aren't so high.

[miniConvert]

Every Apple computer can have additional RAM installed. The Mac Pro takes standard PC2 DIMMs, just like every other Xeon (or Core or Athlon X2) computer on the planet.
The Mac Pro only takes FB-DIMMs does it not... I don't think you can just whack standard RAM in there. I probably wouldn't have paid so much for my FB-DIMMs if that were the case!

[XIII]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

I know this has been replied to already, but I want to reply too, along similar lines.

This is ridiculous. Whilst you might not want a tower, they are far more useful for a lot of people. Some people don't want to throw away a screen every time they need a new computer, like you do with the iMac. Some people want to be able to add 4 internal hard drives, replace video cards, and upgrade many more internal components - even just being able to add a lot more RAM makes it worthwhile for some people.

What do you mean Macs weren't meant to be towers? They were meant to be personal computers, in whatever form that may be. Yes, the design of the Macs is nice, but a Mac Pro isn't exactly an ugly machine is it? And the OS is by far the main factor that makes me, and others, buy a Mac.

Really I can't stand your attitude of telling everyone definitively what is right and what is wrong. "This is what I think. This is right."

Oh - and I would buy a midrange tower, definitely.

[Macmadant]

Yeah i definitely would, i wish they bring the cube back, give it a 2.33 GHz C2D and a Nice graphics card (better than the imacs), with the same form factor as the cube, and i'd cue up outside an apple store to buy one, but the gap between the MacPro and the imac is quite big, bring the cube back and call it the MacPro mini

[matticus008]

The Mac Pro only takes FB-DIMMs does it not... I don't think you can just whack standard RAM in there. I probably wouldn't have paid so much for my FB-DIMMs if that were the case!
You're certainly correct--but FB-DIMMs are standard RAM. It's not priced to gouge you because it's for a Mac. Every chipset requiring it (be it for a blade Core Duo server, an Opteron board, or in this case, a Xeon system) uses that specification. Calling it overpriced is like calling the Xeon an overpriced Core 2 Duo or wishing that Macs took SDR SDRAM because it's cheaper, as I'm sure you know, having recently bought one!

Yeah i definitely would, i wish they bring the cube back, give it a 2.33 GHz C2D and a Nice graphics card (better than the imacs), with the same form factor as the cube, and i'd cue up outside an apple store to buy one, but the gap between the MacPro and the imac is quite big, bring the cube back and call it the MacPro mini
This is far, far more likely from Apple's market perspective. A compact, competitive Mac without the built-in display and without gaping holes for hard drives and expansion cards.

[miniConvert]

You're certainly correct--but FB-DIMMs are standard RAM. It's not priced to gouge you because it's for a Mac. Every chipset requiring it (be it for a blade Core Duo server, an Opteron board, or in this case, a Xeon system) uses that specification. Calling it overpriced is like calling the Xeon an overpriced Core 2 Duo or wishing that Macs took SDR SDRAM because it's cheaper, as I'm sure you know, having recently bought one!
That's not right... Mac mini's don't take FB-DIMMs, MacBook Pro's don't take FB-DIMMs... I'm pretty sure it's just Xeon class workstations like the Mac Pro and Dell Precision that require fully buffered RAM. You couldn't interchange the RAM from a Mac Pro with any other Mac... I'm confused.

(Edit: FWIW, I'd be 'interested' in a midrange Mac tower, but I'm certainly not going to bend Apple's ear over it. We can only buy the products that they produce - if we don't like them, we have to go elsewhere.)

[Mikael]

Because that's exactly what it is. It's a midrange PC; an iMac with no display. Anything more and it would be a Mac Pro and anything less and it would be a mini.
It would be easily possible for Apple to sell this tower for slightly less than the 20" iMac, which would make it a gerat choice for those that want a tower. Yes, with a display it would be slightly more expensive than the iMac, but it would also be a more expandable machine.

It's built from OEM parts. You may have purchased the retail packaged versions of the various components, but it's not a retail PC (an HP or a Dell, etc.). It's 100% white box, without the overhead for R&D, support, system warranty (independent and on top of component warranties), marketing, logistics, and all the other services you pay for indirectly.
Two things:

- Apple would get the parts much cheaper anyway, so that covers a lot of other expenses.

- If other companies like Dell and HP can sell their computers at prices that rival machines built from separate parts, then so can Apple.

[solvs]

The Mac Pro takes standard PC2 ECC DIMMs, just like thousands of other Xeon computers on the planet.
As said above, it takes FB-DIMMs. Which are more expensive. We aren't talking about using a Xeon, that's what we mean by overkill. Other desktop chips, like the Conroe (which would be perfect in a midrange), don't. Even a Mermon would be fine.

You can't lose what you never had to begin with.
Of course you can. :confused: That's what Apple is trying to do. Take customers from the PC world. They are already, but I'm sure a low end Tower would help.

Look around at what everyone is saying.

That's not it at all. It's the whining and expectation and the "I'll never spend another dime on Apple until they do what I want" and the "iMacs r stoopid" histrionics.
And you're going to ignore the reasoned arguments to focus on those?

If Pane e Formaggio won't sell you a burger, go to Burgoo. If the former wants you back, they'll change.
I can't run OS X on a Dell. I don't want to buy a Dell. I want to buy a Mac, but they don't sell what I want, so I don't buy. This is nothing like food. You can get the burger elsewhere. I can't get the OS X machine elsewhere. Your comparison isn't apt.

They've been trying to kill the beige tower for a decade, why would they bring it back in a pretty Apple case?
Because people would buy it?

And my point is, "tough cookies." Sometimes you have to weigh options and make a choice. I like the way BMWs look, but I like the way Audis drive. I drive an Audi. I'm not pining over a perfect world where I could have a BMWAudi hybrid, because in the grand scheme of things, it's a fairly trivial thing.
Again, not a fair comparison. Cars are not computers. They all run on the same road. You can buy a BMW or an Audi. You want Mac OS X, but have to buy a Mac. It would be nice if they offered it in a package most people buy elsewhere. Something they used to offer. Something people obviously want.

Saying "tough cookies" drives people away from Apple to go for almost good enough Windows machines that are cheaper, and as an Apple fan you shouldn't want that. It's that kind of elitist attitude that keeps us in the minority. I love Apple, typing this on an iMac right now, but I don't even pretend they're perfect, and this is one of those things I feel they are missing.

It's a poll. If you only want responses that agree with you, you'd get a pretty distorted sample. For the record, I voted on "I'd consider it if they offered one."
Then what's the big deal. So did I. You could have just said, "not for me" or "I'd like to see one, but I doubt it". That's not what you've done. You've made it seem like there's something wrong with those of us who want one, calling us all whiners because of a few posts, and telling people to go buy a Dell if they want one.

That's not helping.

It's doubly redundant and it's antithetical to two of the primary aims of Apple. Just because it's common doesn't mean it was chosen. Windows is pretty much the standard out there. That doesn't mean it's good.
They want to sell computers. People want to buy these. They don't want Windows. I still don't see what the problem is.

I don't see anyone going postal, and it's apparently only a push poll, since you're not actually interested in responses, it seems.
Your opinion is fine. You can disagree all you want. It was the way you made your argument.

I can see where some people aren't interested, but that doesn't mean we're wrong for wanting it.

I have no problem with people wanting this system, so please don't put words in my mouth. I specifically stated it's the expectation that's unfounded.
Some of us were whiny. Some of us have expectations. Not all of us. I just thought it would be nice, and don't understand why everyone else can do it, Apple even used to, but they don't now. I don't want to buy a Dell, or build my own (already done that, it's got it's pluses, but it definitely has it's minuses). I don't want other people to have to do that either.

Some of us have very realistic expectations, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

It has everything to do with DIY. If you don't want to hand pick components for the damn thing, there's no reason for an expandable Mac to exist.
DIY is buying and building from scratch. I just want to add some RAM that isn't overpriced (again, talking about the Mac Pro), maybe a secondary internal hard drive or easier access to the one that's there (full size only, not notebook), and use my own monitor. The GPU and CPU are secondary. Most of that stuff is just being able to if you want to. As you can afford it. It's actually kind of psychological really for most people.

But I'd like to have the option, because I, like many others, would actually use it.

Because that's exactly what it is. It's a midrange PC; an iMac with no display. Anything more and it would be a Mac Pro and anything less and it would be a mini.
Exactly. That's all I want. All most of us would want.

And the Cube was nice, but it was too expensive and not upgradable enough. They fixed the price issue (kinda) with the mini, and the Mac Pros are nice, but there's no middle ground. A low end Conroe with full size drives, maybe a higher model with a better video card. You tell me those won't sell. Put it at the same price points as the iMacs, people will come in to look, and half might even walk out with an iMac instead.

That model is working for the minis and the iPods, why not for a low and mid end Tower.

[MacAnkka]

I'd have to agree with the most of you: there is certainly a gap in the Mac lineup. I don't think getting a headless desktop mac with some upgradeability (good access to 2 normal HDD bays and memory) without having to spend over 2 000 euros is too much to ask.

[combatcolin]

iMac G3

a few weeks later in the shops after that ground breaking computer....

PowerMac G3

And this was 1997

(or 1998 :eek: but i think you get the point im trying to make)

[mrthieme]

Apple could offer the Macpro stripped down a little more than the base config to meet a lower price point. I would think it to be an easy way to fill the gap without making a whole new enclosure. I have been expecting to see more mobile macs as the focus moving forward. Last I saw, notebooks were 60% of total Mac sales.

[Mikael]

I'd have to agree with the most of you: there is certainly a gap in the Mac lineup. I don't think getting a headless desktop mac with some upgradeability (good access to 2 normal HDD bays and memory) without having to spend over 2 000 euros is too much to ask.
Exactly. Most computers sold are mid-towers using standard parts and have good expandability, so why wouldn't Apple offer one? I can see one big reason:

Apple wants to differ from the norm. They don't want to sell a "glorified PC", but would rather like for people to buy the slick iMac. Selling what would be very much a standard PC in a shiny shell also makes it easier than ever to compare a Mac to a Dell or HP and it's probably in Apple's best interest to avoid that. Atleast if they want to charge a good deal more than those said companies. With the pretty fierce competition in the consumer mid tower segment, Apple would probably have to sell their machines at atleast 30% lower price than they'd really want to.

[matticus008]

That's not right... Mac mini's don't take FB-DIMMs, MacBook Pro's don't take FB-DIMMs... I'm pretty sure it's just Xeon class workstations like the Mac Pro and Dell Precision that require fully buffered RAM. You couldn't interchange the RAM from a Mac Pro with any other Mac... I'm confused.
You misunderstand--FB-DIMMs are adherent to a cross-company standard. Every system that uses FB-DIMMs uses standard FB-DIMMs. The Mac Pro does not require some special, overpriced, proprietary FB-DIMM. In other words, it's not just overpriced RAM, it's different RAM. Maybe you mean "standard" as in DDR2 non-ECC DIMMs? The RAM is not interchangeable with all other computers--but it is interchangeable with all other RAM of that specification.
If other companies like Dell and HP can sell their computers at prices that rival machines built from separate parts, then so can Apple.
Dell makes something less than $10 on each of their midrange systems. Apple would shut down after about two months of that. They cannot operate on those margins, because their costs are higher and their volume is lower.

As said above, it takes FB-DIMMs. Which are more expensive.
They aren't. It takes the same FB-DIMMs that all other ECC chipsets use, which is sold at the exact same price. DDR2 RAM is more expensive than DDR RAM--should the MacBook use DDR to satisfy your whims?

And you're going to ignore the reasoned arguments to focus on those?
What reasoned argument? That they could sell it and make money? They could sell hamsters and make money. They could sell tablets and make money. They could sell paint and make money. There are several major counterarguments which you're ignoring in favor of triviality:

1. It would be utterly redundant. It's a second desktop and it's a second midrange product. This, in the context of Apple, which has just 5 Mac products and has zero products in a number of categories.
2. It would be antithetical to their drive to eliminate beige boxes in favor of compact, efficient, designs.
3. It would reverse the trend toward integration and end-to-end product harmony, stalling Apple's clear aim to make computers appliance-like and worry-free.
4. It would have no long-term prospects. Desktop computer sales are dropping rapidly, and sales of highly integrated and minimally expandable low-end boxes are rapidly dominating that shrinking market.
5. People upgrading machines are a small niche group of computer owners. Apple is a small niche in computers. In order to grow, Apple must draw from the general user base, not the DIY base which mostly rejects Apple outright because there are relatively few compatible components.
6. If they had any desire whatsoever to do something like this, they would have opted to make iMacs more upgrade-friendly already.

I can't run OS X on a Dell. I don't want to buy a Dell. I want to buy a Mac, but they don't sell what I want, so I don't buy. This is nothing like food. You can get the burger elsewhere. I can't get the OS X machine elsewhere. Your comparison isn't apt.
If you walk into a restaurant, you have to order off the menu. It really doesn't get more simple than that. Sometimes you have to make choices in life. It's hard, but it's the way it works. Is OS X more important or is hardware selection more important? I understand that you wish it didn't have to be a choice, and I respect that. That doesn't change anything.
They all run on the same road. You can buy a BMW or an Audi. You want Mac OS X, but have to buy a Mac. It would be nice if they offered it in a package most people buy elsewhere.
It seems to me that all computers run the same Internet. That's the only equivalent to roads. You want to talk engines? Well, they're not all the same and they don't all run on the same fuels. You want a diesel car? You have to buy diesel fuel. Already have lots of regular unleaded that you've previously purchased? Looks like something to consider.

Saying "tough cookies" drives people away from Apple to go for almost good enough Windows machines that are cheaper, and as an Apple fan you shouldn't want that.
I really don't care. Customers motivated by price tags are not ever going to develop brand loyalty--they'll always move on to whatever's cheapest. I'd prefer Apple didn't waste energy pandering to them for short term gains. Apple is the most profitable computer manufacturer on the planet and are growing at a steady and sustainable rate. They're not going to diversify solely because it'll bring in a few thousand more sales.

You're mistaken if you believe corporations really do operate that way. There's a concept in game theory called "satisficing." Corporations seek to maximize success and minimize effort. The net gains have to be massive to persuade a successful organization to change its methods; a desperate organization needs far less prompting.
It's that kind of elitist attitude that keeps us in the minority.
When did it become the objective to be in the majority? If Apple wanted to take over the computer industry, they have had more opportunities in the past 30 years than can be counted. It's pure fantasy to think that they were oblivious to all of them.
That's not what you've done. You've made it seem like there's something wrong with those of us who want one, calling us all whiners because of a few posts, and telling people to go buy a Dell if they want one.
Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the whining was objectionable, not that every poster was whining. I have also said countless times that there's nothing wrong with desiring such a product. It is simply unrealistic to anticipate one and inappropriate to demand one.

But yes, people absolutely should buy a Dell if it fits their needs best.

I just thought it would be nice, and don't understand why everyone else can do it, Apple even used to, but they don't now.
It's called progress and commoditization, and it's already been explained. Once upon a time, people repaired printers because they were major investments. Now it's usually cheaper to replace them for SOHO models. Upgrades used to be extremely popular because computers were expensive. Now you can buy an entire new Mac for what I paid for my first hard drive, even in spite of inflation and devaluation. People rarely work on their cars anymore, rarely repair any but the simplest problems with small appliances, and yes, very rarely do any more than add memory or replace hard drives. Video card upgrades are even going out the window with programmable GPUs and more power available standard than is needed. Even the cheapest video card is overkill for daily use. Computers last longer and cost less. I have computers that are 3 years old that still seem brand new.

You'll get five solid years out of an iMac. At $1500, that's $300/year. You could sink $300 in upgrades into it at the end and get another year out of it, or you could buy a new iMac, which will be better in every way (instead of just upgraded in a few ways) and probably even cheaper. Year over year, replacement even now is cheaper than upgrading and that will only become more true.
DIY is buying and building from scratch.
Nonsense. DIY is "do it yourself." You're overcomplicating--whether it be construction or upgrades, it's still DIY if you're holding a screwdriver and PCBs.
You tell me those won't sell.
No, I didn't. I said there's no compelling reason to offer them in light of all the reasons why it doesn't make sense. The upgrade market is abysmally small. People on the whole just don't upgrade their computers anymore. They replace them. Expandability is not a selling point for any major segment except gamers, who already have a dozen reasons not to buy a Mac.

There's nothing to add to these hypothetical machines that the iMac can't offer. The iMac could easily allow for CPU upgrades or for GPU upgrades without needing a separate product. The fact that Apple's decided against this approach and still has no problem selling them should be convincing enough on that front.

[combatcolin]

matticus008, not a follower of the short and sweet method then?

A4 sized response there man!

;)

[zioxide]

I would buy a Mac like this if it had these types of specs

2.0GHz Conroe (BTO 2.16GHz, 2.33GHz)
1GB Ram (Up to 8 with 4x2GB)
160GB SATA 7200RPM HD (BTO up to 500GB)
Second HD Bay BTO option 500GB
8x Superdrive DL
Nvidia 7300GT (BTO up to the ATI Card in the Mac Pro)
Built in wifi/bluetooth/front row

So the default specs would be equivilant to around a high-end 17'' or 20'' iMac

Base price could be like $1299 (a little bit less than the 20'' iMac but no screen is included obviously)

I'd love to get a Mac like that, I'd be able to hook it up to a 23'' ACD and have a good computer for editing.

Unfortunately, they don't have this, and theres no way I can afford a Mac Pro, so I'm probably going to end up getting a Mini because I don't like the built-in screen of the iMac

[other]

Regarding the Mac Pro: if they took out the dual Woodcrest CPUs and put in a single Conroe (2.13 or 2.4 GHz for example), wouldn't that cut cost significantly? Obviously you would need another motherboard for that.

And I'm not talking about not offering the current Mac Pro, I'm talking about an alternative.

[matticus008]

matticus008, not a follower of the short and sweet method then?

A4 sized response there man!

;)
:) Not really.

Sorry, it's a side effect of being in a profession that deals with long arguments and multiple responses. When you have come to the point where an 80-page brief is short and sweet, a page or two is nothing. It comes out on these forums when people make especially egregious conclusions from comments.

[combatcolin]

:) Not really.

Sorry, it's a side effect of being in a profession that deals with long arguments and multiple responses. When you have come to the point where an 80-page brief is short and sweet, a page or two is nothing. It comes out on these forums when people make especially egregious conclusions from comments.

Point taken, but its a personal rule of mine that i try to avoid the A4 responses from people.

If you can't say what you want in 1 or 2 short precise paragraphs then you shouldn't be saying it.

By the time i've read it (and thats not often) it will be time to collect my pension! :p

[matticus008]

Point taken, but its a personal rule of mine that i try to avoid the A4 responses from people.
Well I suppose that would have to depend on the content, but to each his own.
If you can't say what you want in 1 or 2 short precise paragraphs then you shouldn't be saying it.
Unfortunately, replying to an A4-sized post full of errors and false conclusions often requires a second A4-sized post. If the source material is long, cutting down is difficult, but you can see that I've only replied to about half of it precisely because it was getting long.

As for the 1-2 short paragraph rule--it seems arbitrary. It only encourages simply flames or multiple successive posts. Sometimes a thought is longer than a simple "yes that would be cool" and for me, the boring part of forums are the pages and pages of identical short responses that interfere with the actually interesting discussions that go on in threads. It takes roughly 2 minutes to read through the longer posts, and if it's a topic that interests you, it's not a serious commitment ;).

[booksacool1]

Regardless of what this discussion has turned into,

Yes I would consider a midrange mac tower. Especially one with removable PCIE graphics, normal DDR2 ram and a Core2Duo.

I don't think apple would do it because it might cannibalize the Powermac's sales.

But yeah it would be a perfect machine for gamers who don't want to buy a whole screen every time (imac). Honestly its one section of the market that apple has always ignored. It doesn't have to be a big machine, just support for two or so HDD's, one or two DVD burners and large PCIE slot for geforce 8800 series graphics. That would really rock, especially if apple offers compatible graphics upgrades.

[yadmonkey]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

Woof... for me, it's 90% OS and 10% design. Not meant to be a tower? Couldn't disagree more. My dual 1 gHz G4 is still a workhorse after 4.5 years of service. Why? Because I was able to add USB 2.0. Because I was able to upgrade it to 4 internal hard drives. Because I was able to add a Pro Tools PCI card. Because I was able to upgrade the video card and run large dual monitors for Pro Tools.

Do you really value design to the point where you overlook the functionality of towers completely? Are you so stuck on aesthetics that you can't imagine that others depend on pro hardware? Go to just about any music studio in the country and guess what you'll find - a Mac tower. Do you think it's because they look neat? Look at how those towers are being used. Do you think you could do that on a non-pro machine?

Sorry, but the best part about Macs design is the OS. Apple's power users are the backbone of their user base. The trendy folks come and go. Some of them are smart enough to recognise the beauty of the OS, but I guess some just want to have a trendy accessory and have the audacity to say what is meant to be for others.

[cre8design]

I had the quad 3.0 with the ATI upgraded card with 2 gigs of rams for about a week to play with, freakin screams!!!!!

BUT I had to give it back because of a hardware issue and ended up getting the quad 2.6, added and extra gig, again now have 2 gigs, (will add more in the near future) with the basic video card.

More than perfectly happy, really couldn't tell a huge difference. I have not had a chance to fully test the video card, because I know the ATI is a better card.

The one thing i did notice is, the 3.0 had the WD hard drive, and the 2.66 had a seagate, the seagate was extremely noisy, so I swapped them out, I'm sure I'm going to hear from apple, maybe not.

[FleurDuMal]

Woof... for me, it's 90% OS and 10% design. Not meant to be a tower? Couldn't disagree more. My dual 1 gHz G4 is still a workhorse after 4.5 years of service. Why? Because I was able to add USB 2.0. Because I was able to upgrade it to 4 internal hard drives. Because I was able to add a Pro Tools PCI card. Because I was able to upgrade the video card and run large dual monitors for Pro Tools.

Do you really value design to the point where you overlook the functionality of towers completely? Are you so stuck on aesthetics that you can't imagine that others depend on pro hardware? Go to just about any music studio in the country and guess what you'll find - a Mac tower. Do you think it's because they look neat? Look at how those towers are being used. Do you think you could do that on a non-pro machine?

Sorry, but the best part about Macs design is the OS. Apple's power users are the backbone of their user base. The trendy folks come and go. Some of them are smart enough to recognise the beauty of the OS, but I guess some just want to have a trendy accessory and have the audacity to say what is meant to be for others.

Well, I'm just a shallow, horrible human being who likes Apple because they make pretty things - I don't deny it. But if they were just pretty things without OSX, I wouldn't bother with Apple. I'm the type of person who is thinking about buying an iMac 24" over a Mac Pro on the basis that it involves less wires, takes up less room, and is prettier (imo).

So I dunno whether OSX or design is more important for me. I wouldn't buy for just one without the other.

That said, I'd still buy a mid-range tower if it were priced right, and if it were pretty enough, just because the potential savings over an iMac in the long term.

[TheManOfSilver]

I'm also looking to pick up a 24" iMac in the near future. I'm not a power user, and I know that an updated iMac will have enough power and upgradeability to service my needs for a number of years to come.

I would consider buying a mid-range tower if the price and options were right, but I think the iMac would win out as there seems to be a significant display discount built into the overall price.

I'm also a simple guy at heart, and the simplicity of an all in one design (not to mention the slick aesthetics) really appeals to me.

[d_and_n5000]

I wouldn't buy one because I'm not a power user, and the Dell tower we have now is about ready to drive me bonkers. Whenever I want to plug something in, its 'open the door, find the port, plug it in, thread it through the back of the desk, feed it up to where the display cable comes out of the back, plug device into cord, repeat for other devices.' I would love so much to consolidate the LCD, the speakers, and the computer itself, so all I have to do to plug something in is 'Move iMac to side, plug in cord, plug device into cord.' Plus, that takes care of most of the rat's nest behind my computer.

[Macky-Mac]

...I would consider buying a mid-range tower if the price and options were right, but I think the iMac would win out as there seems to be a significant display discount built into the overall price.....

the problem with a mid range tower is that it's always going to be compared to the specs of an imac. For a while, Apple sold a G5 single processor that was about the same price as an iMac and sure enough, people complained about what a poor deal it was since you got a display with an imac, etc.

[combatcolin]

whoops, delete me.

[combatcolin]

Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

And a tower is too pc-ish.

(Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)

I could not disagree with you more.

Check out the old 9600/8600/G3 towers.

Cool to look at and easy to open.

Design is 10 years old and is still better than most PC towers.

[jofallon]

FB-Dimms are really workstation memory, with pretty high latency. They may be best if you need a lot of memory, but for the average user they're a dead loss.

The MacPro is not so much of a high end PC as a low end workstation. Doubtless it's priced as well as the corresponding Dell, but few people probably buy that either.

When I visit the local Apple store, I rarely see anyone looking at an iMac or MacPro. Most people (especially switchers) have a good monitor already. They've never had to buy a new monitor when they get a new PC, and don't want an iMac.

[combatcolin]

FB-Dimms are really workstation memory, with pretty high latency. They may be best if you need a lot of memory, but for the average user they're a dead loss.

The MacPro is not so much of a high end PC as a low end workstation. Doubtless it's priced as well as the corresponding Dell, but few people probably buy that either.

When I visit the local Apple store, I rarely see anyone looking at an iMac or MacPro. Most people (especially switchers) have a good monitor already. They've never had to buy a new monitor when they get a new PC, and don't want an iMac.

For gaming FB DIMMS are not that good.

If your doing 10 thing at once they rule, but not for gaming.

[solvs]

Unfortunately, replying to an A4-sized post full of errors and false conclusions often requires a second A4-sized post.

Well, I wouldn't consider my post full of errors and false conclusions, but I'll try to be briefer in my response.

They used to sell a lower end desktop. G3s, G4s, G5s. If they do the same with the Intels, I will be happy. As will many others. Conroe, not Xeon. Upgradable video card. If priced right, they will sell. If not, I will continue to put off a new purchase, as my current machine is already starting to lag, but the new machines aren't discernibly faster and not worth an entire computer upgrade. I like the iMacs, I own 1, but they leave something to be desired. Only my opinion (well, mine and several others here) and I can see why they don't want to right now, but that doesn't stop me (well, us) from wanting them.

You can disagree and give us reasons why you don't think they will, but there's going to be a new thread like this popping up again just as they always do (probably even after Apple releases one) because there's always going to be a desire for a midrange sans monitor with a slot for an upgradable video card that isn't more expensive than lesser machines.

[petej]

Apple need a mid-range headless option.
The reason is not about usability but serviability especially in the corporate sector. When you have to maintain hundreds and thousands of desktop machines, servicability becomes part to the TCO equation. Running so many machines means that you tend to notice screens fading away, HD failures, memory corruption, PSU deaths etc. The iMac whilst a great machine is not serviceable. Replacing a hard disk or a screen is not a 5 min task. The mac mini is essentially a disposable computer. Great for building into kiosks and display units where space is at a premium and for granny to check her e-mail with but it is not servicable.
The mac pro is beautifully servicable for most common faults (the logic board is a bit of a challenge). It is however way too extreme for most corporate desktops, i.e. 4 hd bays and RAM that is just too exotic.
There is therefore nothing in the current lineup would be fit the corporate requirement.

I also expect AAPL to target corporates after 10.5. The foundations will be there in the OS. This will reveal the gaping hole in the model range that I expect will be filled pretty quickly afterwards.

[Stevez0r]

Only if I can use it for PC Games (WoW), Internet, eMail, iTunes and MS Office to get things done for work when I'm at home. Wait didn't I just describe a iMac?

[matticus008]

They used to sell a lower end desktop.
The past offers little guidance on the future. They used to sell computers with wooden cases. Things have a tendency to change.
If they do the same with the Intels, I will be happy. As will many others.
Fair enough.
The iMac whilst a great machine is not serviceable.
Which doesn't matter to corporations. Nearly every big organization, including the three I've worked for, purchases extended warranty coverage and phases out systems no longer supported. If Apple has a problem, it's that its computers last longer than the warranties, but they won't be able to capitalize on that benefit because big business doesn't gamble with out-of-warranty systems in any significant role.

The exceptions are the general purpose office drone machines--which are kept until they break (beyond HD failure) and then discarded. These machines do not exceed Mac mini specifications or prices. These policies include systems from Dell (x2) and HP in my past experiences, including a major university.

It's cheaper to replace an out-of-warranty machine than to attempt to stock parts for it and to pay a hardware staff. For the salary of a single qualified hardware engineer, you can replace dozens of computers each year, which is more than break in a typical department.

[elbruelsio]

I respectfully disagree. I for one am in the market for my first Mac and here the main reason why it has taken me so long to make the decision to switch.

Upgrade-ability: I want a computer that I can open up and upgrade graphics or RAM on easily after the system is a couple years old for a lower price point than the Mac Pros. I think this would bring a lot of PC users that are casual gamers over to the Mac. This is evidenced by the fact that myself and all my friends agree that the Mac OS is far superior to Windows. We all want Macs but don't want to pay the price for a Mac Pro in order to get the upgrade-ability that we are used to on the PC side.

If there was a Mac Pro available for about $1800 I would be all over it as would four of my friends as well as several other people I know that would seriously consider it. I don't think its a narrow market, I think most PC users are control freaks that want to tinker and upgrade.

[solvs]

The past offers little guidance on the future. They used to sell computers with wooden cases. Things have a tendency to change.
I'm expecting them to have headless desktops cheaper than $2000 before they have wooden ones. ;)

[combatcolin]

I'm expecting them to have headless desktops cheaper than $2000 before they have wooden ones. ;)

Saw a flat panel monitor with a real wooden beezle finish once in a department store in London.

looked very odd.

[CEAbiscuit]

Probably been said before, but I'd buy a mini right now that had the following:

2x the height, same footprint
Easy to access inside for:
- Room for more ram
- Independent Video Card
A few more Firewire and USB ports

It doesn't sound like much, but I guess it is:confused:

[Naimfan]

I tend to agree with Petej--I think he made some very good points.

Would I buy a smaller Mac Pro? Probably. I just went through that decision tree in changing out my iMac--I loved the power and the screen (I had a 20" iMac G5 2GHz), but wanted something portable, and not being able to change anything in the iMac--and thus having to replace the whole thing--biased me against a new iMac.

I suppose my ideal would be something in between the Mini and the Mac Pro, where I could use a 23" ACD, and that would be a bit more future-proof. I wound up with a MBP C2D base model with a 20" ACD. So I now have portability and a larger screen than on the MBP, but am very limited in expandability and upgradability. As others have noted, a Mac Pro is just silly for me, and I think there might well be a market for such a machine.

The biggest problem for Apple is that it would probably cannibalize iMac sales. That said, I think it would probably make up for lost iMac sales, but that's frankly more just hopeful speculation than anything else. Then again, a number of my friends have said they'd buy one--we all have solo or small law practices, and some of them need more than a Mini can deliver, but not as much as a Mac Pro. I suppose our real answer is to find a Mac Pro refurb or a used one.....but we don't want to go that route!

Best,

Bob

[yadmonkey]

I think a lot more PC users would be tempted by a "headless iMac". In fact, I know for certain that many PC users simply don't want a built-in monitor, don't want to buy a full Mac Pro, yet want something with a little more expandability and balls than a Mini. If there were a headless iMac with some open PCI ports and maybe another hard drive bay, I'd buy it in a second.

[freiheit]

Apple's previous "entry level" pro desktop, the single processor G5 PowerMac, was essentially an iMac without the display but for the same price. It wasn't very convincing.

The current MacPro is both too expensive and too powerful for "power users" or "prosumers". We don't really need dual Xeon processors when a Core 2 Duo would suffice, and 16GB of RAM is a bit much again for that prosumer/poweruser market.

What I'd jump at is something just like the MacPro but with a single dual-core processor >2GHz (say a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo or even a 2.66GHz Xeon would be acceptable) with only one RAM board for a maximum of 8GB instead of 16. I would prefer it to be otherwise identical to the MacPro (after all, I'm NOT buying an iMac because I DO want expandability). Now make the price $300-500 less than the comparably equipped MacPro (eg. $1999 instead of $2499 for Apple's baseline model) and I'd buy it in an instant. I'll probably end up with an iMac since I don't imagine Apple will do a "dual core Mac Pro" and I can't justify the cost and power of a quad Mac Pro, although I thoroughly dislike the idea of losing the use of my computer if the display should go bad and vice versa.

[wongulous]

I am so distraught. I want the power of the Mac Pro, and the ability to use my own display, as well as have two graphics cards for two separate displays (a machine that will be serving as a desktop computer and also a Personal Video Recorder and Home Theater PC).

Sure, it's two cores versus four, four times the memory card slots, tower form factor with multiple HDD bays (god, I'd love that too)... but I just can't justify the cost. Fairly-similarly-equipped iMac and Mac Pro models (well, top of the line iMac 24" and mid-range sweet spot Mac Pro) are within $80 in price... for double the computer! But--and this is a huge but--that's not including the display for the Mac Pro. :( That means another $700 (Dell 2407WFP) to $900 (Apple display) or even more.

iMac 24"
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo +$225
7600 upgrade +$113
Wireless kb&mouse +$54
AppleCare +$119
Subtotal $2411

+1GBx2 $133

Total $2544


Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon +$269
BT&EDR +$71
Wireless kb&mouse +$53
AppleCare +$199
Subtotal $2622

+512MBx2 $170
+Dell 2407WFP 24" LCD $700

Total $3492

There's no way I can swing 3500 bucks for a setup until I somehow turn it into a profitable venture, because this would really just be for communication, school tasks, entertainment, and to replace TiVo and take advantage of ATSC HD signals.