Does Apple leave potential costomers behind?

[Shayne]

I have been authorized by corporate to purchase a new personal workstation with a budget of up to $3000 CAD ($2750? USD). I can put it to anything my heart desires (laptop, desktop, etc) with the strict instructions to file all the receipts and properly filled out paper work. Primarily this machine will be used for a variety of tasks from the mundane programming (Zend Studio/Visual Studio 2005/Dreamweaver CS3) to the more intense (Fireworks CS3, Photoshop CS3) to the more extreme (3D Gaming (STALKER, Counter-Strike, Starcraft 2!)).

<background!>Apple has always been my first choice. I purchased an Apple Macbook C1D days after their launch as it had everything I wanted in a laptop (size, features, price) with the ability to duel boot. Upon receiving the machine I promptly installed XP and didn't look at OSX for months. Before my wedding/honeymoon in the Dominican this February I decided to clean sweep the whole machine and set it up from scratch. After the fresh install I played around a bit with OSX and liked what I saw in the core applications (mainly iPhoto). As an amateur photographer I love the way iPhoto works, its so simple, does a great job organizing. I have been using iTunes for a very long time (since i got my 4G iPod) in Windows and it being a native Apple application was a nice feature. Long story short I have grown to really enjoy using OSX and feel that its a very big selling feature for me moving forward. Im still a Windows guy, but OSX is a nice environment to work within.</background!>

While I know that Apple is in the process of updating its entire line with new technology and new features I can't help but feel that they are leaving potential customers behind with their slow updating and lack of a midrange machine.

I love the 24" iMac. Its the perfect solution for me. While I already own a 24" Dell display (and a 19" Viewsonic second display) I anticipate the awesomeness that will come with the available desktop space provided to me by duel 24". The biggest issue I have with the iMac is that its simply a desktop laptop. Its anemic in power and void of upgradability (new words are fun) and platform flexibility. Perhaps the upcoming (we have no idea, don't kid yourself) version will be more powerful but still the power will be anemic (particularly in the GPU department).

The Mac Pro is far to expensive for what you get initially. I'm sure the price tag comes closer to earth as you requirements increase and the more junk you put into it, but for the average consumer looking for a workstation and a gaming platform a couple Xeons and a half assed video card won't cut it.

I already own a Macbook and its works great for what i use it for. The Macbook Pro seems a bit overpriced (ooo backlite keyboard *yawn*) and you lose a bit of portability with the increase in size. I'm not in the market for a laptop, I want a desktop.

To compare pricing with what Apple is providing I consulted both Dell and my local geek shop. In the case of Dell I was able to create a pretty good system for far less price as the iMac but with far superior hardware (granted no monitor, and the big ugly box below ones desk). The geek shop is where things got real interesting however with a build including E6600 CPU, 8800 GTX Video Card, 2GB high end RAM, Duel 500GB Wester Digital Drives, Highend motherboard, 600 W powersupply, etc all for ~$2100 (no monitor) without cheaping out on anything (Asus, BFG, and other various reputable brand names).

Ive been building my own computers for years (10?) and I know that while you do gain a discount in price, you can at time have issues with device compatibility, device reliability, etc. If you go through a good company you can get some pretty good warranty (the place I shop will charge a nominal fee (1%) for over the counter exchanges and they do the RMA on a busted part).

Basically what I'm getting at is that the industry moves a lot faster then 259 days (last iMac/Mac Mini update) and with Apple and its "batched updates" you wonder if they leave customers behind who get tired of the waiting and move on to better hardware for a cheaper price. You lose OSX, but their is a point where people like me who are primarily Windows but want both have to jump into the market and buy and when price vs features are compared, this late in the game Apple looks pretty weak. I can't justify the cost of the iMac for year old hardware. I will however be waiting for the rumored June refresh and see where things land.

I'm sure this is the wrong place to lay out my frustrations as most comments I read (long time lurker, first time poster) are pretty fanatical about Apple and its do-no-wrong buisness practices, but I think in terms of system building a more Dell like approach (faster availability of new technology, more varied part selection and more product skus) would lead to a much more satisfied customer and remove the large drop off in computer sales near the end of a product life (how many are waiting on the refresh? seems like everyone).

[flopticalcube]

Lots of people on MacRumors have noted the "hole" in Apples line up. A mini tower Mac Pro. You are not alone in your frustration.

[CalBoy]

I think in your case, an iMac is the wrong way to go. In fact, because you like tinkering with your computers, the Mac Pro seems to be the only computer you would be happy with. However, like you said, it doesn't have enough for its price, so that's out of consideration. Apple's focus as a company is to deliver "complete" products, ie, it doesn't want you to worry about upgrading the computer yourself. Apple is good for people who don't want to worry about messing with their computer's innards.

Apple has done a bad job of updating their products this year. Every product, save the macbook and Mac Pro, are very old. I don't think its Apple leaving their products behind, I think it has to do with the iPhone. It seems far more attention is being devoted to that one product, which if successful, will generate a great deal of revenue.

Six months ago, Apple's products were very well priced relative to the industry. That's one of the quirks of Apple: when products are updated, you get a great deal for a few months, an ok deal a few months after that, and a bad deal until updates happen again.

Maybe after the Mac Minis are updated, you should buy one of those. Since you want a desktop, I think this would work well for you.

[Shayne]

Damn the iPhone! Such a niche product compared to freaking desktop computer!

[flopticalcube]

Its been a dry year so far for Macs. I wouldn't even call the Mac Pro or MacBooks "updated". More like "refreshed".

[CalBoy]

Damn the iPhone! Such a niche product compared to freaking desktop computer!

It is a niche product for the moment, but it has a great deal of potential. In terms of sales, the iPhone will probably yield a great deal more. Also remember that desktops are becoming more and more rare. For the past few years, Apple, and the PC industry as a whole, has been selling far more laptops than desktops. However, this still doesn't excuse a nine month lag in updating a primary product.

[richard4339]

Apple definately sells expensive computers, and there is a definite gap. There also is a definite shortage of Mac related updates at the moment. I'm hoping they correct this soon, but who knows what Apple will do?

[Pressure]

Its been a dry year so far for Macs.

And ordinary PCs as well. The truth is, there really haven't been anything exciting or new to put inside a computer for a while. Of course, it would be nice if Apple decided to support more graphic cards but that should be coming this year.

[djkny]

It is a niche product for the moment, but it has a great deal of potential. In terms of sales, the iPhone will probably yield a great deal more. Also remember that desktops are becoming more and more rare. For the past few years, Apple, and the PC industry as a whole, has been selling far more laptops than desktops. However, this still doesn't excuse a nine month lag in updating a primary product.

iPhone IS a novelty item and after the hype wears off, consumers will come to their senses and tank this product. Remeber the first 5GB iPod for $499? That's where the iPhone is at. Get the price point DOWN, take it off Cingular (ludicrous dropped calls compared to Verizon) and maybe you'll have a deal.

[CalBoy]

iPhone IS a novelty item and after the hype wears off, consumers will come to their senses and tank this product. Remeber the first 5GB iPod for $499? That's where the iPhone is at. Get the price point DOWN, take it off Cingular (ludicrous dropped calls compared to Verizon) and maybe you'll have a deal.

The price probably will come down, and the phone will probably get more features too. It's just about to be released, which means that a lot of things will change by the time it's put out to pasture. As for Verizon, remember that Verizon turned it down? What else was Apple going to do?

[DeaconGraves]

iPhone IS a novelty item and after the hype wears off, consumers will come to their senses and tank this product. Remeber the first 5GB iPod for $499? That's where the iPhone is at. Get the price point DOWN, take it off Cingular (ludicrous dropped calls compared to Verizon) and maybe you'll have a deal.

People bought that iPod though, didn't they? Hell, I bought that disaster of a product that was the 1st Windows iPod.

Apple knows that the first wave of people will buy the iPhone just because its an Apple (much like the first iPod). Once that dies down, price drops and it becomes more of a deal.

And quit the Cingular bashing. I've been a member for 5 years with hardly a problem.

[Veritas&Equitas]

And quit the Cingular bashing. I've been a member for 5 years with hardly a problem.
Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

[DeaconGraves]

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.



Its definitely a "to each his own" issue when it comes to cell phone service. My call quality in the two places I've lived (NC and Dallas) has been fine (except for a while in NC but it turned out that was more due to the phone). But I'm sure there are several places where Cingular ends up with better reception than Verizon, and other where Sprint trumps them both.

I guess what I meant to say is "quit the Cingular bashing just because its not your network." Of course Apple was going exclusive with one of the networks (and as someone already said, Verizon would deal) so regardless of the situation about 80% of the people were going to be pissed off.

[CalBoy]

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

I have Cingular, and in many places, my friends who have Verizon get service when I don't. In a handful of places, I'll get service when my friends won't. On balance though, it seems that Cingular has worse service. Sometimes, my voicemail won't update for several hours...not exactly "fewest dropped calls" quality:(

[SMM]

So the machine is for programming, graphics, gaming...sure you did not leave something out?

Apple's sales, profits, marketshare have continued to grow at a steady pace. I would hesitate to think they were leaving too many potential 'costomers' behind (you must have written this in Windows, otherwise the Mac would have caught the spelling error).

You really should have left the juvenile sarcasm behind here:

"...Its anemic in power and void of upgradability (new words are fun) and platform flexibility. Perhaps the upcoming (we have no idea, don't kid yourself) version will be more powerful but still the power will be anemic (particularly in the GPU department).

I really doubt you are qualified to make such a claim.

The Mac Pro is far to expensive for what you get initially. I'm sure the price tag comes closer to earth as you requirements increase and the more junk you put into it, but for the average consumer looking for a workstation and a gaming platform a couple Xeons and a half assed video card won't cut it.

I already own a Macbook and its works great for what i use it for. The Macbook Pro seems a bit overpriced (ooo backlite keyboard *yawn*) and you lose a bit of portability with the increase in size. I'm not in the market for a laptop, I want a desktop."

You just blew the credibility you were trying to establish; that of a thoughtful, sensible person trying to logically discuss an issue. You just sound like a troll now. Your statement of the Mac Pro being too expensive.. shows a very limited knowledge of hardware systems. Go compare a Dell 690, configured as close as you can with an entry-level Mac Pro. The Mac is hundreds of dollars cheaper...surprise!

There is a much debated desire for a mid-sized Mac desktop. That is no secret. Many people have said this. How big is that market? Well, if you are the person who wants one, it probably appears huge. But, how big is it really? Most businesses in the construction, manufacturing, distribution, retailing, insurance, banking, etc industries, run some enterprise system. For them, a Mini class computer works fine. In fact, many use thin-clients, or dumb terminals. Most other businesses are networked. Files, and data, are usually not stored locally, but are on network shares. That way they can be backed-up every day.

The industries which do have large engineering, R & D, video/audio, etc departments, usually do not have issues with buying MacPro class computers. For home computer users, Minis and iMacs are very popular for their compactness and simplicity. So, it seems to me that the mid-size tower would not have as big a market as some might expect.

There is some market there, no question. One group in that market, are those who just mainly play games on the computer. I have noticed they all want the latest and greatest. And like the old saying, "She want what she want and she wants it when she wants it". If I were in Apple's shoes, I would not pander to that small segment.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would expect Apple to offer a product between the Mini and Mac Pro, but not an iMac. It would have to compete with the iMac (as things now stand). But, it has only been 5 quarters since the Intel move was announced. If you think about it, they have accomplished an incredible amount in that time. Sure, Dell can put out a new product line faster than Apple. You can do that when you do not do your own engineering and are willing to buy >90% of your materials off-the-shelf.

The bottomline for me is, those who like the company, the engineering, the attitude, will continue to use the finest products there are. There is enough momentum right now. Apple needs to keep doing that which got them here. We do not need another Dell, thank you!

[thejadedmonkey]

iPhone IS a novelty item and after the hype wears off, consumers will come to their senses and tank this product. Remeber the first 5GB iPod for $499? That's where the iPhone is at. Get the price point DOWN, take it off Cingular (ludicrous dropped calls compared to Verizon) and maybe you'll have a deal.

I remember that first iPod, it was amazing. Far from novelty, it changed how people listened to music, and definitely worth every penny.

[dejo]

I have been authorized by corporate to purchase a new personal workstation with a budget of up to $3000 CAD ($2750? USD). I can put it to anything my heart desires (laptop, desktop, etc) with the strict instructions to file all the receipts and properly filled out paper work. Primarily this machine will be used for a variety of tasks from the mundane programming (Zend Studio/Visual Studio 2005/Dreamweaver CS3) to the more intense (Fireworks CS3, Photoshop CS3) to the more extreme (3D Gaming (STALKER, Counter-Strike, Starcraft 2!)).
Corporate is okay with you playing games on your workstation? What kind of job do you have? :confused:

[CalBoy]

I remember that first iPod, it was amazing. Far from novelty, it changed how people listened to music, and definitely worth every penny.

That's true, but the iPhone isn't changing the industry by leaps and bounds. When the iPod first came out, people used to buy CD's, and no one had thought of using a player linked to a computer.
There are already smart phones around, and many of them are cheaper. Apple is bringing new features to the table, and of coarse good design, but it won't be a runaway success. Like the iPod, it will take a few generations of iPhones before Apple will be able to establish itself as a "premier" smart phone company.

[Turkish]

Lots of people on MacRumors have noted the "hole" in Apples line up.

$999 17" iMac Basic
$1199 17" iMac "Better"
$1499 20" iMac
$1999 24" iMac
$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro
$2499 2.66 GHz Mac Pro
$3298 3.0 GHz Mac Pro

What hole?

This is the most annoying whining that comes out of this board.

Just because you (I don't mean you specifically) can't afford something doesn't mean there is a hole in the lineup.

[CalBoy]

What hole?

This is the most annoying whining that comes out of this board.

Just because you (I don't mean you specifically) can't afford something doesn't mean there is a hole in the lineup.

I think he was refering to the fact that you can't buy an iMac level machine without a moniter. While I would prefer to save up and buy a Mac Pro (although I wouldn't, because I like laptops) in its place.

[mags631]

Apple most certainly leaves potential customers behind... as do all companies. Being all things to all people is not a good strategy and those who try to do such fail in pretty much everything. I'm not excusing Apple or claiming your statements are wrong -- I think it's just the reality of Apple. Apple has intentionally decided to target certain market segments.

That being said, I share your passion for building machines (built 2 of my own) and recently have been trying to spec out a mini-itx system to go along with a soon-to-be purchased MBP. I think if this is your passion, then Apple will never, ever meet your needs. Maybe in the future you will be able to legally run Mac OS X on a home-built machine (without support from Apple), but don't stake any money on it and don't think for a second that you will achieve the same quality experience as running it on Apple hardware.

Enjoy building your home-brew PC!

[maximatron]

$999 17" iMac Basic
$1199 17" iMac "Better"
$1499 20" iMac
$1999 24" iMac
$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro
$2499 2.66 GHz Mac Pro
$3298 3.0 GHz Mac Pro

What hole?

This is the most annoying whining that comes out of this board.

Just because you (I don't mean you specifically) can't afford something doesn't mean there is a hole in the lineup.

IMO there is a huge hole, since I'm in the process of buying a new computer at the moment, I wanted an Apple badly, but had to follow the reason and get a PC; here's why. First of all, you want to pay about 1200-1500 for a descent PC with a C2D E6600 and 2GhZ of DDR2 800, 512MB GeForce 7, you know typical _desktop_ components that performs. You can go on and say "yea add the screen to that and you way off the iMac," but the thing is that the iMac performs like a laptop, period. I don't want that, I'm in my home I got space for a desktop! I don't want anything of a 667 MhZ BUS... So add the screen to that, let's say a 22 inch LG at 350$ and you get a 1550-1850 PC that goes blazing fast. Now if you want a _real_ apple desktop, you pay ~2200.00 + screen of 350 (and even there you just _can't_ buy a Mac Pro without an ACD, but for the needs of the cause we will stick with the LG) you get a $2550 _way-too-much_ powerful Mac and you still only have 1Gig of RAM.

No really there _is_ a hole, and could be filled by a nice option to put a C2D in the Mac Pro... They would have to make new mother boards and everything but at that moment they will hit the spot and I would bet 1000$ their sales would fly. They _need_ and upgradable affordable desktop, thats what the industry of the PC is, and that's why no matter how hard they try they'll never get the "mass market" with all-in-one un-upgradable laptop-performing desktop.

[CalBoy]

No really there _is_ a hole, and could be filled by a nice option to put a C2D in the Mac Pro... They would have to make new mother boards and everything but at that moment they will hit the spot and I would bet 1000$ their sales would fly. They _need_ and upgradable affordable desktop, thats what the industry of the PC is, and that's why no matter how hard they try they'll never get the "mass market" with all-in-one un-upgradable laptop-performing desktop.

Upgradable desktops are a niche market, most general consumers want a computer that will do what they need it to do, and they want it to do it without a lot of trouble.

As it is, desktops are lagging in terms of sales, why should Apple be adding a fourth desktop line? They should be putting that time, money, and effort into creating a small pro notebook and a 15" consumer laptop, both of which are very lucrative markets.

[Eidorian]

Lots of people on MacRumors have noted the "hole" in Apples line up. A mini tower Mac Pro. You are not alone in your frustration.We have noted and complained about this "hole" for ages.

Too be honest, here we ago again for the headless iMac thread.

[MusicallySilent]

I think he was refering to the fact that you can't buy an iMac level machine without a moniter. While I would prefer to save up and buy a Mac Pro (although I wouldn't, because I like laptops) in its place.

Yea there is no "Desktop" as in components and upgradibility mac in the middle they should bring back powermac name and put it there or come up with a repleacement for the name pro in mac pro and put it at about 1500 stock with 1 or 2 xeons if they can fit it... one memory board two pci express slots 2-3 hdd cages in a midtower case :D

[CalBoy]

Yea there is no "Desktop" as in components and upgradibility mac in the middle they should bring back powermac name and put it there or come up with a repleacement for the name pro in mac pro and put it at about 1500 stock with 1 or 2 xeons if they can fit it... one memory board two pci express slots 2-3 hdd cages in a midtower case :D

I'm sure that there are people who would like this, but I don't think that this is Apple's target demographic. Apple wants to show the average person how easy and simple it is to use a Mac. To do that, they have to make entry-level machines and even mid-level machines somewhat rigid. The average consumer doesn't want to go upgrading things; the average consumer just wants something that will work "right out of the box." I think a cheap upgradeable desktop would nullify this strategy.

[skwij]

Most people who buy a computer don't know how to even take the sides off the tower, let alone what they're looking at inside. Upgrade RAM? Egad, how the heck do you do that???? ;)

Harddrive?? What's that? RAM...huh? ;)

That said, yes, there's a gap in the Apple lineup as to TOWER machines that a savvy user can customise. Although, that opens the door to conflicts, which is what plagues the Windoze world.

I do agree that the base Mac Pro should be at a better price point. For those that are looking at an upgradeable system without a tonne of peripheral drives (HDD), and accessible RAM upgrades, and GPU tweaks, the base Mac Pro is a little overpriced, compared to a "build your own" system.

Not everyone is wanting a laptop. Not everyone can justify the price of the MBP, either. Not everyone is happy with the iMac, as upgrading can be daunting, unless going with externals. Then again, messing about with RAM in the iMac is akin to taking a lappie apart, which MOST people don't even want to know about.

So, the average consumer won't even know the difference, let alone give a rats a$$. The computer-savvy coming from the PC world will be like "wtf" is up with this? Expensive, and not even the latest??????

Just my $0.02

[CalBoy]

The computer-savvy coming from the PC world will be like "wtf" is up with this? Expensive, and not even the latest??????

Exactly, the computer-savvy. Apple isn't looking to attract computer-savvy customers in the $0-2000 range. They figure anyone in this range is just looking for a simple computing solution, so for those who are committed to taking their computers apart, you have to settle for a high-end machine that "is not even the latest." Some might find this to be a "hole" in Apple's line, but is it a hole if Apple isn't looking to attract these customers? Remember, one company can't be everything to everyone.

[Fahrwahr]

I may be one of a few who think this way, but one of my primary reasons for desiring an iMac sans monitor is the ability to reuse / mix and match computer components. Sure, the all-in-one design provides clean lines and portability, but what happens when some part inside the computer dies? Yes, there's a possibility of it being under warranty for one to three years, but after that, how much would I have to shell out to replace a part on an otherwise-working computer? I would be unlikely to buy another television set with an integrated VCR or DVD player -- you get a tape or disc stuck in one, you pay the price -- so unless I'm dealing with a laptop, I don't want another all-in-one computer.

My main criteria for this computer are a separate monitor and easy access to memory and media (hard disk, optical). I don't necessarily need access to the CPU or graphics card -- if one of those goes out or gets obsolete, chances are I probably need a new computer anyway -- but these other parts should be easily replacable. If the screen goes bad, no big deal -- easy replacement. The hard disk and optical drive should be full-sized and connected to industry-standard connectors as well -- no specialty optical drives that will be hard to find down the road (a la the tray-loading iMac).

The Mac mini would fit these criteria IF getting to these basic parts was a bit easier. Truth be told, I'm a bit concerned that the components are packed into that thing too tightly for the machine to last due to heat buildup. Additionally, the Mac mini's specs are bottom of the barrel and rarely get a boost. On the other extreme, the Mac Pro is overkill and overpriced -- I don't need THAT much futureproofing.

Maybe the disincentives for such an addition to the lineup are too high. Maybe such a machine would fly in the face of "Look! Macs are simple -- it's all in one box!" (but then again, doesn't a Mac mini?). Maybe many of us who have been Mac aficionados remember the dark times of the Performa 630, 631, 635, 636, 638, and variants with "CD" added to the end -- we certainly don't want to go back to that confusion. Still, if Apple is truly serious about capitalizing on the "halo effect" of the iPod, it needs to have a reasonably-priced, reasonably-powerful, reasonably-accessible machine that will give computer buyers peace of mind for the future.

Err... did I just slip into life insurance salesman mode? :p

[volvoben]

I don't particularly want to go off on another headless mac tangent, but here's the bottom line as best I can distinguish it:

it won't happen.

The reasons are many, but simply put, it's not worth Apple's effort. It'd compete with the imac and the mac pro, most of apple's customers will never upgrade anything on their computer, laptops are more important these days (they need to churn out santa rosa MBPs, a subcompact and a 15" MB before too long), and Apple knows the iphone could keep them in the black for a long time coming (face it, computers didn't save apple, battery powered hard drives with screens did).

The best we can hope for is a cheaper incarnation of the Mac Pro. With the 2.0ghz version they've made it almost attainable for some folks, and if they could put in a conroe board and chip we could have a $1500 'pro' mac desktop again (won't happen either). Perhaps the next updates for the mac pro will keep the 2.66ghz 4 core version but at a lower price point to reflect intel's pricing drop (assuming intel will also drop prices in whatever deal apple gets), maybe $2k with a 7600/7800?

[skwij]

Exactly, the computer-savvy. Apple isn't looking to attract computer-savvy customers in the $0-2000 range. They figure anyone in this range is just looking for a simple computing solution, so for those who are committed to taking their computers apart, you have to settle for a high-end machine that "is not even the latest." Some might find this to be a "hole" in Apple's line, but is it a hole if Apple isn't looking to attract these customers? Remember, one company can't be everything to everyone.


When Dell's are available, with decent specs, for under 1K, it's really hard to convince a PC user that a Mac is the way to go. Then try and convince someone who can tweak their own hardware!
The OS is what convinces people who see my MB. They're like "wow, there are windows!"
Yeah, OK, sure.

It's OS/X's efficiency that tips the balance, IMO. Sure the stock machines aren't the "latest and greatest" but with Tiger, you don't NEED the latest and greatest to even run the OS (think Vista----ACK!)

Most users are perfectly happy muddling thru. For those that want something a little "more", and have a "little" know-how, the current Apple lineup could be considered lacking in the "wanna-be" geek category.

[Turkish]

When Dell's are available, with decent specs, for under 1K, it's really hard to convince a PC user that a Mac is the way to go

No it isn't. You build two side by side and show them what you have to add to a Dell to get what the Mac has built in.

[richard4339]

And quit the Cingular bashing. I've been a member for 5 years with hardly a problem.

Some cities are better than others. Orlando, for example, has excellent service from Cingular and Sprint; Verizon is complete and total crap there. There were tons of times I was there that Sprint/Cingular customers would be talking away happily on their cell phones, and I'd have no service. Unfortunately, I've never been in another city where this is the case. Time and time again, I've had great service with Verizon and not with Cingular.

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

This is pretty much the problem I've always had with Cingular phones. If the call doesn't go through in the first place, no one really cares if the calls are dropped... At least with Verizon if my call is dropped, my phone disconnects and tells me I've lost the call. Cingular's commercials where the line goes dead is only accurate because that IS what repeatedly happened to me on Cingular when I actually was able to get through. Verizon has suited me well since my switch.

[LoganT]

I don't understand why people say a Mid-Ranged mac is a bad idea. They say it would take off sales of the iMac?

Who cares? The Mac Mini is taking off sales of the iMac, the iMac is taking off sales of the Mac Pro. Should Apple just have the Mac Pro?

[Shayne]

I didn't mean to come off as a troll (as one person suggested), I'm merely frustrated that I want to give Apple my $3000 but they don't have a product thats worth the $3000 TO ME. For what I want in a workstation/gaming platform Apple does not offer. While I did say that the Mac Pro was expensive, I was saying this for my budget as well as the hardware in it compared to what I need (duel Xeons vs C2D).

When people say their is no hole in the line up and then start suggesting prices that go from "$1999 24" iMac" to "$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro" they tend to leave out the fact that the 24" iMac comes with a 24" monitor while the Mac Pro does not (so add on whatever Apple is charging for 24" displays).

Its not so much that their is a hole in the line up is that their is a lack of choice within the line up. Apple really does make toasters. DON'T GET ME WRONG! this isn't always a bad thing. Stability of the OS and reliability of the platform hinges on the low choices. They probably spend countless man hours making sure that the items they choose create no conflicts in the limited combinations they offer.

Having read over most of this thread (and skimming through the iPhone stuff) and taking a lot of your opinions and criticisms seriously I think waiting till WWDC to see what is in the new OSX is probably better then settling on a machine. The reason I want an Apple is for the operating system; isn't that why we all do? If new computers do not come out that meet my needs for "the everything and the kitchen sink" perhaps I just have to be more focused and buy a "work"station and use my own capital on a gaming platform.

A few asked me what kind of job I have that my company is dropping down the cash for a personal machine for work and for gaming. I normally work from home for a safety auditing and training company. I make their products and services available online (online training, testing, certification) and on their PDAs (accident reporting forms, pictures, etc synced to a remote database server). I used to work as a contractor, but benefits and a steady income are hard to pass up.

[steelfist]

a main concern is Apple's habit of very slow and minor updates that makes them fall farther and farther behind and making their computers more pricier compared to the competition. for a lot of people, they like to look at numbers and features, and compare the price.

the next is expandability. a lot of people, including me would really appreciate the ability to upgrade and replace nearlly any part of their computers, from graphics cards to DVD burners. as a high school student, my parents would find it ridiculous to buy a mac pro, but on the other hand, my imac does not have the ability to be continuously updated at a low price.

these two really compliment each other you know :mad:. i'm sorry, but i'm still upset about the macbook updates :rolleyes:, so i'm a bit ranting now.

[dejo]

for a lot of people, they like to look at numbers and features, and compare the price.
But many of these people, spec-whores as some may call them, can tend to forget to consider the hard-to-quantify, qualitative factors that are involved. If one is so mired down in the numbers, they can forget to look up and "smell the roses", as it were.

[CalBoy]

But many of these people, spec-whores as some may call them, can tend to forget to consider the hard-to-quantify, qualitative factors that are involved. If one is so mired down in the numbers, they can forget to look up and "smell the roses", as it were.

So true. PC laptops are ugly, for the most part anyway. Those that are made to look good are usually quite pricey. I like to add a certain amount of "worth" to a laptop based on well good it looks and how its exterior is organized. the macbooks and macbook pros win major points in this category, they are some of the best looking laptops around, if not the best. I think this is important, because while you want the computer to do what you need it to do, it is also important for you to be comfortable with it. Part of comfort is the way it looks on the outside, and how well it works on the inside.

[steelfist]

A good point, even i argue about it. still, it did lose a lot of potential buyers, and gained a lot of flaming against mac users in my school.

i have this friend who used to consider buying an ibook, until he realiized that it only has one button, so he bought an ibm. not a strong reason, but still, another customer lost.

[CalBoy]

A good point, even i argue about it. still, it did lose a lot of potential buyers, and gained a lot of flaming against mac users in my school.

I think that happens at a lot of places, and the best way is to educate. I always engage people who disagree with me, and even if I can't convince them, I make sure that they aren't ignorant.

i have this friend who used to consider buying an ibook, until he realiized that it only has one button, so he bought an ibm. not a strong reason, but still, another customer lost.

I can understand some of that at. Remember before it was difficult for you to "right-click?" If he was looking at an iBook before the software was available, it's a big deal breaker. At least it's no longer a problem.

[krunk]

$999 17" iMac Basic
$1199 17" iMac "Better"
$1499 20" iMac
$1999 24" iMac
$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro
$2499 2.66 GHz Mac Pro
$3298 3.0 GHz Mac Pro

What hole?

This is the most annoying whining that comes out of this board.

Just because you (I don't mean you specifically) can't afford something doesn't mean there is a hole in the lineup.

Price isn't the issue for me. For me it's spending a the money on a solution that is geared toward a work station environment when what I want is a blazing fast desktop.

For example,

-) the xeon is the same or slightly slower in the vast majority of desktop applications

-) Xeon based systems must use FBDIMMS, creating a high latency memory bottleneck in memory intensive applications

-) ECC ram also adds a layer of latency unneccessary in many workstation or desktop applications

Most of these performance drawbacks are the cost of providing highly reliable and error resistant processing. Though beneficial in some areas, it is completely unnecessary in the vast majority.

And yes, we can throw the gaming problem out there. Intel macs brought the capability of running windows, and windows apps & games, to mac. You discount the gaming community, but the pc gaming community is largely made up of two very, very important demographics.

a) adolescent males
b) college students

The number one reason given by these demographics for not giving a mac a shot is the inability to play games at an acceptable level.

If you doubt the potential of this market, look at the laptop sales. Most people who buy laptops are not concerned with gaming (they buy desktops for that). With apple weighing in at about 10&#37; of the laptop market anyone whose walked a college campus recently could tell you without a doubt where that boost came from. Why aren't they buying desktops too?

The "geek gamer" adolescent or college student is who everyone asks for opinions on what to buy. . mom's, dad's, future employers. Ignoring them is a fairly significant oversight.


Here are the facts, not opinions or speculations:

-) the Mac Pro line is not optimal in any shape or form for the "best performance desktop machine" category. Not even close.

-) The mac pro is ideal for a very, very narrow sub section of the workstation market.

-) The rest of the workstation market could be equally, or better served by a performance desktop

Now somewhat anecdotal observations. I work at a uni under tech support facilities. I also live in LA. As such, I'm in touch with the two highest purchasing demographics apple has, hollywood/artsie types and the college scene:

-) Most of the people who buy mac workstations don't use them under a capacity of a workstation, but a desktop.

-) FAR more people buy an x1900 card "so they can game too" rather then the 1500 dollar quadro.

-) The current, and long standing, number one reason for not switching to not switching to mac is.....

a) Why spend all that money on a slow ass machine compared to it's pc counterparts? (this is where most mac-o-philes get confused, what the "pc guy" is comparing is the core 2 duo solution compared to a ton of xeon and bottlenecked ram that ends up being slower then a system for 1/2 the cost....in other words, wrong tool for the job)

b) Some geek guy told me they cost too much for what I want to do. (what the mac-o-phile is missing here is that that guy that gave the advise was probably some geeky, young, gamer dude that they trusted as computer savvy and though thte imac or mac mini or what have you is probably fine for what they do that's not what this gamer guy compared when he went to buy......he compared the mac pro to a dell core 2 duo in speed and cost)


Wow, long post.

Here's the short version:

What the Mac line is missing is: A real performance desktop solution.

[Evergreen]

Look at Apple's profits. They don't want or need the customers they are losing.

I'd buy a PC in a heartbeat if I thought I could run OS X on it reliably. The high cost of Mac hardware has always irritated me, but not as much as Windows. :D

[krunk]

Look at Apple's profits. They don't want or need the customers they are losing.


Yeah, their profits are ok. However, one could use a similar line of reasoning and say:

"Look at apple's market share. It's obvious their line of computers has a HUGE hole in it. With a mere 16% of the market, it would appear that Apple''s solutions aren't the right fit for 84% of computer users."

Besides, Apple is a business. It's not a church or a cult (though some act that way). To say that a business doesn't want or need. . . more business, especially when there is so very, very much more of the market untapped, is just plain silly.

[wyatt23]

wow. i think the OP certainly obtained the result he wanted... i don't think he wanted a mac as much as he wanted a flame war. what a troll. of course he made sure to mention video cards, upgradablilty, and price.

troll, troll, troll. everyone just stop entertaining these arguments.

try to stop judging everything for what you want it to be. from apple's point of view having a middle of the road desktop could be a hole in their profits...

who knows? certainly not me. but most likely not anyone here either. unless of course there are some apple accountants on the forums :rolleyes: .

So let's just admit that this was an attempt to start a discussion that has absolutely no end, because we aren't making the decisions... apple is.


[HOWEVER]

in the event i'm wrong about the OP...

I'd say go with the iMac 24" C2D. horsepower and fairly decent graphics. I'm sure you can game pretty well on it [while at work of course], resource heavy programs comparable to an intro macpro. plus the dell lcd will be sexy as all hell.


[oh, boy. preparing for the fallout a logical post can bring]

[krunk]

I'd say go with the iMac 24" C2D. horsepower and fairly decent graphics. I'm sure you can game pretty well on it [while at work of course], resource heavy programs comparable to an intro macpro. plus the dell lcd will be sexy as all hell.

[oh, boy. preparing for the fallout a logical post can bring]

Personally if gaming is remotely important to you, I'd go with the mac pro due to upgradeabiltiy. It won't be the best gaming machine, but you'll be able to upgrade to newer cards as they come out. And by the video card selection alone, it'll be better then the iMac.

[wyatt23]

Personally if gaming is remotely important to you, I'd go with the mac pro due to upgradeabiltiy. It won't be the best gaming machine, but you'll be able to upgrade to newer cards as they come out. And by the video card selection alone, it'll be better then the iMac.

fair enough. then the OP should spec down the mac pro @ $2200, with the dual 2.0 xeons. then he can upgrade to his hearts content. perhaps :o

[WillJS]

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

Same situation here in TN. :(

It was rather stupid of Verizon imo though. I mean.. we'll see after their knockoff goes on sale.

[WannaGoMac]

Yikes, let me summarize this thread, as it is just a repeat of the normal arguement.

Thread Starts: Apple sucks/greedy/rediculous/whatever since they take forever to update hardware.

Apple Fanboys: Apple does no wrong. YOU SUCK. You just don't understand how much you're getting for your dollar. This isn't their business model. Go back to windoze, we don't need you in our "pretty white colored world."

Apple Enthusiasts/Realists: You're right OP. It is ridiculous. I love apple, but they are crazy with what they are doing and harken back to their arrogance of the late 1980s that ultimately proved to kill Apple (in relation to the Microsoft Apple war) in the 1990s.

Apple Fanboys: Why don't you go back to Windoze as you clearly don't understand how great is Mac.

Summary:
Lol, nice to see so many people excited about a company's products, to fight and defend etc. This loyalty really doesn't happen anymore. Apple must be doing something right :)

[skubish]

I didn't mean to come off as a troll (as one person suggested), I'm merely frustrated that I want to give Apple my $3000 but they don't have a product thats worth the $3000 TO ME. For what I want in a workstation/gaming platform Apple does not offer. While I did say that the Mac Pro was expensive, I was saying this for my budget as well as the hardware in it compared to what I need (duel Xeons vs C2D).

When people say their is no hole in the line up and then start suggesting prices that go from "$1999 24" iMac" to "$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro" they tend to leave out the fact that the 24" iMac comes with a 24" monitor while the Mac Pro does not (so add on whatever Apple is charging for 24" displays).

Its not so much that their is a hole in the line up is that their is a lack of choice within the line up. Apple really does make toasters. DON'T GET ME WRONG! this isn't always a bad thing. Stability of the OS and reliability of the platform hinges on the low choices. They probably spend countless man hours making sure that the items they choose create no conflicts in the limited combinations they offer.

Having read over most of this thread (and skimming through the iPhone stuff) and taking a lot of your opinions and criticisms seriously I think waiting till WWDC to see what is in the new OSX is probably better then settling on a machine. The reason I want an Apple is for the operating system; isn't that why we all do? If new computers do not come out that meet my needs for "the everything and the kitchen sink" perhaps I just have to be more focused and buy a "work"station and use my own capital on a gaming platform.

A few asked me what kind of job I have that my company is dropping down the cash for a personal machine for work and for gaming. I normally work from home for a safety auditing and training company. I make their products and services available online (online training, testing, certification) and on their PDAs (accident reporting forms, pictures, etc synced to a remote database server). I used to work as a contractor, but benefits and a steady income are hard to pass up.

If you can't understand why Apple products are worth the price, then you don't need to buy one. $3000 is worth it to me for a Mac Pro. Remember Steve Jobs has shown that a comparable Dell with Xenon processors in more expensive.

They only thing to complain about is the video card. You only need that to play games. MACS ARE NOT FOR PLAYING GAMES. DON'T BUY ONE TO PLAY GAMES!

I am sorry but these trash threads show up once per week. Apple's lineup is fine and doesn't need to change.

[WannaGoMac]

If you can't understand why Apple products are worth the price, then you don't need to buy one. $3000 is worth it to me for a Mac Pro. Remember Steve Jobs has shown that a comparable Dell with Xenon processors in more expensive.

They only thing to complain about is the video card. You only need that to play games. MACS ARE NOT FOR PLAYING GAMES. DON'T BUY ONE TO PLAY GAMES!

I am sorry but these trash threads show up once per week. Apple's lineup is fine and doesn't need to change.

Thanks for illustrating the Mac Fanboy so well! lol :d

[synth3tik]

The industry as a whole is stagnant. You can't blame Apple for something that every computer manufacturer is dealing with.

[WannaGoMac]

The industry as a whole is stagnant. You can't blame Apple for something that every computer manufacturer is dealing with.

You really think so? Wow, I thought a lot of things changed recently. Santa Rosa, 800 FSB, 802.11N to name a few. Perhaps you're mistaking Apple's slowness to update the Macs with the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:

[suneohair]

You really think so? Wow, I thought a lot of things changed recently. Santa Rosa, 800 FSB, 802.11N to name a few. Perhaps you're mistaking Apple's slowness to update the Macs with the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:

Oh wow, 800FSB, too bad most of the companies aren't offering memory to match those speeds.

802.11N... last time I checked my C2D has that. Anyone, the Santa Rosa platform has shown to be a minimal upgrade. Apple will do it, but what is the point if it doesn't offer any extra performance and adds to the cost (for Apple that is). Sorry business 101 bud.

Whats more, Apple doesn't seel enough computers to drop all their stock for a minimal upgrade. Whether you like it or not, Apple is a business and I expect them to make rationale decisions as to how they handle their products.

[WannaGoMac]

I think it would be best to just summarize all this as follows:

Apple makes money from Macs by selling older computer hardware at current hardware prices in order to balance out the cost of developing superior software.

That should make everyone happy. Let's close the thread now... :p

[synth3tik]

You really think so? Wow, I thought a lot of things changed recently. Santa Rosa, 800 FSB, 802.11N to name a few. Perhaps you're mistaking Apple's slowness to update the Macs with the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:



and where are they implemented?


Intel made an 80-core processor but you don't see that.

[WannaGoMac]

Oh wow, 800FSB, too bad most of the companies aren't offering memory to match those speeds.

802.11N... last time I checked my C2D has that. Anyone, the Santa Rosa platform has shown to be a minimal upgrade. Apple will do it, but what is the point if it doesn't offer any extra performance and adds to the cost (for Apple that is). Sorry business 101 bud.

Whats more, Apple doesn't seel enough computers to drop all their stock for a minimal upgrade. Whether you like it or not, Apple is a business and I expect them to make rationale decisions as to how they handle their products.

and where are they implemented?


Intel made an 80-core processor but you don't see that.


You're both 100% right. Happy now? :eek:

Funny, the OP posted 1 message and this forum went crazy on it. too funny...

[suneohair]

You're both 100% right. Happy now? :eek:

Funny, the OP posted 1 message and this forum went crazy on it. too funny...

You seem to be the one going crazy. If you don't like a companies practice well then you don't. Simple as that. If you don't want to buy "outdated" hardware. Don't. No one is making you.

I don't understand why people rehash the same topics over and over. It always turns into a silly argument where peopel have to "haha, the forum went crazy, too funny." Give me a break.

Yes, Apple it selling slighty outdated (although recently refreshed) hardware. Anything else? Apple is a small company, they can't stay on the heels of tech even with the best planning. And I ask you this.

There are better things coming besides Santa Rosa (which is here now), such as 45nm chips. But anyhow, yes Apple is selling "old" hardware. Your point was?

One more thing, in response to the "iMac is a laptop" garbage. First off, yes it runs a mobile chip. Which just happen to be the same chips that bin at the same speeds but at a lower voltage than the equivelent desktop machine. WHat does that mean kids? Hmm, better longevity, reliability and stability. Heck, it was all the rage to O/C mobile because of these factors.

Overall mobile are a higher bin than their power hungry desktop counterparts.

Bus speed. Hmm. Head over to Dell and take a look at the E520 running 667mhz memory, even though you can push to 1066 and beyond now. I guess they are keeping up with the times too huh?

If you want to build a PC. I can't argue, yes you can get insane clocks and memory clocks. However, on the PC market Apple is far from behind. Hell, Dells XPS boxes are running 667 memory.

And, note FSB is nearly worthless without the memory speed being equal. And yes, I know that the bus in reality is 667x2, however running memory at 1066 for example offers much better perfomance in terms of bandwidth.

[WannaGoMac]

You seem to be the one going crazy. If you don't like a companies practice well then you don't. Simple as that. If you don't want to buy "outdated" hardware. Don't. No one is making you.

I don't understand why people rehash the same topics over and over. It always turns into a silly argument where peopel have to "haha, the forum went crazy, too funny." Give me a break.

Yes, Apple it selling slighty outdated (although recently refreshed) hardware. Anything else? Apple is a small company, they can't stay on the heels of tech even with the best planning. And I ask you this.

There are better things coming besides Santa Rosa (which is here now), such as 45nm chips. But anyhow, yes Apple is selling "old" hardware. Your point was?

One more thing, in response to the "iMac is a laptop" garbage. First off, yes it runs a mobile chip. Which just happen to be the same chips that bin at the same speeds but at a lower voltage than the equivelent desktop machine. WHat does that mean kids? Hmm, better longevity, reliability and stability. Heck, it was all the rage to O/C mobile because of these factors.

Overall mobile are a higher bin than their power hungry desktop counterparts.

Bus speed. Hmm. Head over to Dell and take a look at the E520 running 667mhz memory, even though you can push to 1066 and beyond now. I guess they are keeping up with the times too huh?

If you want to build a PC. I can't argue, yes you can get insane clocks and memory clocks. However, on the PC market Apple is far from behind. Hell, Dells XPS boxes are running 667 memory.

And, note FSB is nearly worthless without the memory speed being equal. And yes, I know that the bus in reality is 667x2, however running memory at 1066 for example offers much better perfomance in terms of bandwidth.

Lol I am the one going crazy? uh did you look at the length of you responses compared to my couple sentence responses? Whose panties are in a bigger bunch here? toodles...

[suneohair]

Grow up. Since when does the length of responses determine ones "going crazy?" Please. If you would actually read, you could see my "panties aren't in a bunch." You should try actually making an intelligent post sometime. Makes you look "smarter."

"You're both 100% right. Happy now?

Funny, the OP posted 1 message and this forum went crazy on it. too funny..."

Here is what I mean. You can't actually discuss, just drive by with comments that add zero to the discussion. You need manners on the Internet too, just FYI.


Lol I am the one going crazy? uh did you look at the length of you responses compared to my couple sentence responses? Whose panties are in a bigger bunch here? toodles...

[cnybud]

My beef was this:

I needed a replacement desktop because my old Pentium 4 died a fairly quick death. because it happened without any notice as these things do, I was forced to look at buying a new computer fairly quickly. So i looked at the Mac first because for the longest time i was curious. I had a monitor that i like (19" LCD great picture) a keyboard and a wireless mouse set up. I do a lot of photo work and needed a computer that could handle Lightroom, and or handle photoshop without giving me any crap.

*Sidebar: I am going to use the word affordable here after and yes I know the value of the Mac and the components compared to the PC as i have been involved with computers for twenty years.

So i went out to try an affordable replacement and what i came up with was either a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro. Why i left out the option of the iMac was because of said monitor and keyboard. Now the Mini was priced pretty reasonable and a friend of mine actually bought one and raved about it so i considered it until I read some reviews that said it handled CS2 slower. So I shelved that and looked at the Mac pro. I liked this one right off the bat but the price . . . Yes it may very well be worth the price but i could not afford it.

So What i want is a Mac with the Dell experience. I want to go to the Mac website and start with a baseline and build my way to what i need either by budget or by power. Yes you can add a couple of things on the current site but i want I guess as others have said a mid option without a built in monitor. I suppose that may be asking for too much right now as this is not the Mac way, but for me, and my friends the people i know it is hard as ever to switch without this choice.

JM2C

[Pressure]

Honestly, I can't see how you can be a potential customer if you do not consider buying Apple in the first place.

They current line-up seems to work quite well, especially looking at Apple Inc. market value compared to Dell (twice the value of Dell currently).

But as everyone points out, PC users would love to have a mid-tower to play with but Macs are not a hobby computer to fiddle around with. You place it somewhere and it works.

Apple does very good because they still manage to offer enough performance at every segment with a reasonable price. At least 90% of the market does not need a Mac to be upgradeable, and thus they thrive.

If computer users are after bang for the buck gaming, I highly recommend looking at consoles. They offer much better value in that sense (I know, I would rather play on my PC for the most part).