The Mac Paradox [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 09:50 PM

Mac laptops are great. They look great, they are light, and they have great specs for what you're paying for. Look at the macbook pro. It looks better than any other comp on the market. It weights little. Good battery life. One of the best video cards on the market. Competatively priced for a student. I paid 1800-free ipod (200) - free printer (100). So 1500 for a very nice laptop.

BUT

desktops are mac's weakpoint

it is no wonder why people say that macs don't game well

they have subpar components for what you are paying

sure the imac looks great..but you're paying desktop prices for laptop components. While it may be aesthetically pleasing to have your monitor the same as your computer..it lacks some fundamental things that set it apart from a tower, making it inherently flawed. First off, as I mentioned earlier, you are getting laptop components in a desktop. This means that you are getting worse performance for higher component costs. Upgradability. Little to none. Specs...sub par. All so your computer looks like a monitor? Think of a typical PC desktop. Most put the desktop on the floor and the monitor on the desk. You're not really saving any space by having it all in one. You are still just having a monitor on the desk...its just that you also have an unobtrusive desktop in an unused space on the floor. If you manage your cables well..it looks plenty aesthetically pleasing.

And its not like apple never came out with a tower itself. The Mac Pro is a beast of a tower. It has 2 processors..it looks great..it can handle a lot of ram. But..it is also horribly overpriced. 3k and you get a last gen radeon? Also..the thing is huge. It may look nice..but it takes up much more space than a similar PC desktop.

mac mini? I won't even bother talking about it. It is a joke. $600 for a last gen laptop parts with no screen and not a laptop.

Apple needs to shape up.

1. make a smaller tower that is actually competitive.
2. release bios flashes for current cards for the mac pro so people can fully upgrade their upgradable computers. I don't care if its up to the card manufacturers to do this. Apple obviously asks them to do this for them in the first place. They can ask them to do this for other cards too. I wouldnt be suprised if apple in fact asks the card manufactures not to release this because it would cut into their profits of buying the cards through apple.
3. make the imac able to plug into a computer and act as a monitor...so its not useless 5+ years from now and you can use that 24" monitor for something.
4. charge more competatively..mac pro anyone?

laptops are just fine..desktops need work. No wonder apple always says their laptops outsell their desktops...b\c their desktops are overpriced, outdated, and fundamentally flawed in their design.

form over function?

decksnap

Sep 4, 2007, 10:07 PM

The iMac and Macpro are both really good buys. If you are that into games, you shouldn't be buying a Mac to begin with.

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:13 PM

The iMac and Macpro are both really good buys. If you are that into games, you shouldn't be buying a Mac to begin with.

well..thats kinda the point. Why should I not be able to game well when apple is advertising bootcamp as the perfect solution? Why should I not be able to buy a mac and game? This situation is created entirely by apple. There is no good reason why macs can't also game besides apple's inability to build computers comparatively to the PC world in this area.

Furthermore, my main point has nothing to do with gaming at all.

the imac, mac pro, and mac mini are NOT good buys b\c of the reasons listed. Apple caters to a niche market of people that love OSX. Fine. But, if they designed their macs with function in mind over or coinciding with form, my whole argument would disappear. There is no reason why they can't build a computer that has up to date specs for a competitive price. It doesn't have to be the lowest price on the market..just something close that makes sense. I don't mind spending 100 or even 150 more for OSX. But I expect the same quality parts and functionality I would expect from a PC for only 100 or 150 more...not hundreds more for less. Apple laptops exceed in this area. Apple desktops do not.

MikeL

Sep 4, 2007, 10:15 PM

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:23 PM

The steps between models and product lines are small enough to encourage people to bump up their buy. It's really, really well done, and I don't think Apple ever gets enough credit for this. No other computer company makes it so easy or compelling to spend just a little bit more. As a shareholder, I absolutely love this.

Apple isn't a discount brand. They never will be.

The step between models is not a small step at all. The difference between a mac mini, an imac, and a mac pro is each roughly $1000. The component increases and customizability of the model for each is similar to any other computer company.

thejadedmonkey

Sep 4, 2007, 10:26 PM

Apple isn't a discount brand. They never will be.So why do they use 2 year old video cards in their top-of-the-line tower?

flopticalcube

Sep 4, 2007, 10:28 PM

Apple's share price speaks for itself. They are firing on all cylinders at the moment. Sure they have gaps in their products and don't refresh often enough but the greater market seems not to care.

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:30 PM

Apple's share price speaks for itself. They are firing on all cylinders at the moment. Sure they have gaps in their products and don't refresh often enough but the greater market seems not to care.

apple's share prices are driven marginally by their macs

it is obviously driven more by ipod, iphone, etc sales

take the recent delay of lepoard for example..or the complete neglect of the mac mini......

decksnap

Sep 4, 2007, 10:31 PM

the imac, mac pro, and mac mini are NOT good buys b\c of the reasons listed.

This argument has been had. At the end of the day, it's always from a gamer, whom Apple really doesn't cater to. Nor should they, if it increases the price I pay.

flopticalcube

Sep 4, 2007, 10:33 PM

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:34 PM

This argument has been had. At the end of the day, it's always from a gamer, whom Apple really doesn't cater to. Nor should they, if it increases the price I pay.

for the record...i play xbox 360 games

other than tiberium wars, I haven't bought a PC game in years.

Sure I may be a "gamer" in some respects. This respect is the respect of having good hardware when i'm paying top dollar for a computer. For the record..there are other uses of good hardware other than playing games. If no one cared about having good hardware..no one would update their macs every time a new model is released.

increases the price you pay? You are already paying more than your buddy with a PC desktop with better parts. Your price is already increased.

ezekielrage_99

Sep 4, 2007, 10:37 PM

The iMac and Macpro are both really good buys. If you are that into games, you shouldn't be buying a Mac to begin with.

I play games on my iMac and it's pretty darn good, I'm guessing I'm missing the point of the post?

flopticalcube

Sep 4, 2007, 10:43 PM

I play games on my iMac and it's pretty darn good, I'm guessing I'm missing the point of the post?

There isn't one, its a troll post.

decksnap

Sep 4, 2007, 10:43 PM

increases the price you pay? You are already paying more than your buddy with a PC desktop with better parts. Your price is already increased.

That's (one of) the flaw(s) in your argument. When I bought my Macpro, you couldn't spec a similar system from anybody else to beat the price.

EDIT: Holy *&^. I've got Steve Jobs on the line right now. He's only got a minute but he wanted me to ask you personally what he should put in his computers and how much they should cost. He says he 'doesn't know much about computers.'

EDIT 2: Alright I lost him. His iPhone lost service. But he said he'll be in touch directly, and that 'everything is going to be alright'.

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:43 PM

Which is probably why they dropped computer from their name.

which is also probably why they are obviously neglecting their desktop computer business..

flopticalcube

Sep 4, 2007, 10:44 PM

which is also probably why they are obviously neglecting their desktop computer business..

except its growing faster than any other leading PC retailer. :rolleyes:

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:45 PM

That's (one of) the flaw(s) in your argument. When I bought my Macpro, you couldn't spec a similar system from anybody else to beat the price.

that was also a year ago. Today, this argument is no longer valid. Furthermore, I did not post this rant a year ago. The mac pro has been largely unchanged in nearly a year. I find this problematic.

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 10:45 PM

except its growing faster than any other leading PC retailer. :rolleyes:

which is mostly due to their laptop sales :rolleyes:

MikeL

Sep 4, 2007, 11:19 PM

The step between models is not a small step at all. The difference between a mac mini, an imac, and a mac pro is each roughly $1000. The component increases and customizability of the model for each is similar to any other computer company.

Now I know you're just ignorant. Thanks. :)

Let me guess, you're 20?

Freyqq

Sep 4, 2007, 11:23 PM

Now I know you're just ignorant. Thanks. :)

Let me guess, you're 20?

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that 1000 isn't much money.

Ok..maybe to you it isn't but to the general consumer that is use to spending under 1000 on a computer would tend to disagree. I can build a mac pro equivolent computer for 1500 when they go for 3000. That is entirely besides the point anyhow. Its not even about money..I was only responding to your point where you said that the jump in price is marginal. You literally CAN NOT buy a mac pro that has the specs of a good high-end PC. It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay.

GavinTing

Sep 4, 2007, 11:37 PM

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that 1000 isn't much money.

Ok..maybe to you it isn't but to the general consumer that is use to spending under 1000 on a computer would tend to disagree. I can build a mac pro equivolent computer for 1500 when they go for 3000. That is entirely besides the point anyhow. Its not even about money..I was only responding to your point where you said that the jump in price is marginal. You literally CAN NOT buy a mac pro that has the specs of a good high-end PC. It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay.

Thats why we.. Don't..

Apple stuff is usually great when it first comes out, but because of their very very slow updates, PC makers catch up. The current mac pro managed to stay viable for quite a while you know.. Just now we need to wait for another update, before it will be years ahead of the PC crowd again. :rolleyes:

Plus, I think people buy iMacs for the cool factor.. Like, you don't need an LV bag, you can get a nice big sack with more pockets for much cheaper! But people still buy the LV.

MikeL

Sep 4, 2007, 11:37 PM

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that 1000 isn't much money.

Ok..maybe to you it isn't but to the general consumer that is use to spending under 1000 on a computer would tend to disagree. I can build a mac pro equivolent computer for 1500 when they go for 3000. That is entirely besides the point anyhow. Its not even about money..I was only responding to your point where you said that the jump in price is marginal. You literally CAN NOT buy a mac pro that has the specs of a good high-end PC. It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay.

No, it's the part where I tell you your numbers are wrong, and that you're massaging them to fit your argument. That's just poor thinking.

You don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the asset that Apple has created in their pricing structure. Take some marketing classes. Read some studies. Watch how other companies struggle--and fail--to build such an easy to navigate and compelling set of product lines.

I don't expect you to get this. I don't think you can. It's beyond where you are. Someday, though, you might. You just need to learn a bit. The computer business isn't what you mistakenly think it is about.

suneohair

Sep 4, 2007, 11:48 PM

Freyqq

Sep 5, 2007, 12:16 AM

No, it's the part where I tell you your numbers are wrong, and that you're massaging them to fit your argument. That's just poor thinking.

You don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the asset that Apple has created in their pricing structure. Take some marketing classes. Read some studies. Watch how other companies struggle--and fail--to build such an easy to navigate and compelling set of product lines.

I don't expect you to get this. I don't think you can. It's beyond where you are. Someday, though, you might. You just need to learn a bit. The computer business isn't what you mistakenly think it is about.

....

....

....

yeah i know all about that. Sure its GREAT from apple's point of view. They make plenty of profit..look at their margins on the iphone for instance. They built a user base that will pay a lot of money for a product that costs half of what they sell it for to make. That profit is used to pay for jobs, RND, advertising, packaging, stores, you name it. Apple margins are huge compared to dell or other manufactures. This is also something you seem to understand. Great. Yay. Go apple. Your product lines are straightforward and easy to understand. etc etc etc. But..consider from a consumer point of view. I'm paying apple way more than I should for an inferior product hardwarewise. Why?

You could argue that they have to. In order to keep up with dell etc who sell way more computers than apple does, they charge more and take more profit. Not quite. If they charge more, demand decreases due to the increase in price. Therefore, they want to find the perfect price where they exact the most profit per total units sold. This happens to be pretty high.

So what.

This doesn't change anything. This does not explain why they can't tweak the current lines as I said, add a new line that is more competitive to drive in sales and converts, and actually update their product lines with up to date hardware.

It is you that miss the point, not I.

ffakr

Sep 5, 2007, 12:27 AM

You know what's funny.. I really want to have a LAN party. I wired my house with Cat5e and a 100Mb switch years ago for this reason and I've had a few in the past.

The problem is, I really can't find a PC game I care about. I like historical war style FPS but it's been done over and over and over again.
The PC gaming industry is stale. They've got maybe 3-5 old standards that they go back to again and again with slightly better graphics each time.

I was a strong advocate for Apple and gaming for years. Every WWDC I suggested to Apple that they subsidize the game vendors with free developmental hardware and training for their developers as well as a pipeline directly into Apple's graphics group. Of course, the response from Apple's reps was always "we're not in the business of loosing money anymore" when I suggest they give anything away.

At this point, though, I can see Apple's reluctance to get into gaming hard core. It's a niche market. It's impossible to even play in without full on support from software AND [graphics] hardware vendors.
Add to that.. the market is stale and it does seem to be going back to the consoles. Especially with HD TVs, the consoles may not be as good as high end PCs but they're good enough and there's a LOT of them out there.

I hate to say it, but from a cost-return basis, Apple's probably best to stay out of the gaming industry. I don't see them making money by competing with Falcon or other gaming companies (heck, even Dell XPS line)

One other thing, people bitch and moan about the laptop components in the iMacs but iMacs are pretty capable gaming machines if you don't expect to run something like Elder Scrolls at high rez (which is designed to crush hardware). I run Battlefield 2142 on my 15" Macbook Pro (gen 1) respectably well and it's not nearly as fast as a current iMac. On our Gen1 17" iMac we run older FPS fine [UT2003 and BF 1942 run fantastic].
IMHO, though I would like more Umph as an option in the iMac, it's fast enough to run nearly any multi-play FPS fine (though don't expect 120 fps at full rez on the 24" monitor). Bleeding Edge gaming rig? NO. Run games well? IMHO, yes.
And yes.. iMacs are packed tight, you won't get a real cutting edge graphics chipset in there. I bet Apple would sell more if you could get one with a 8800GTS (or GT) and the heat sink ribs running up the back. :-) I'd have to get one I think.

ffakr

Sep 5, 2007, 12:33 AM

....
I'm paying apple way more than I should for an inferior product hardwarewise. Why?

Buy a Dell. I recommend plenty at work, I just bought one for my Uncle. They're perfectly fine computers.

I, on the other hand, think Macs are well worth what my employer pays for mine :-) (and worth what I paid for my mother's).

Ffakr (on my employers 15" Macbook Pro w/ 3GB ram.. Yea work!!)

Freyqq

Sep 5, 2007, 12:33 AM

yeah..i agree completely

games are very scalable these days and sure..you can run bioshock on an imac. It will run. It won't run well..or as well as a 1500 PC vs your 1500 imac, but it will run.

You can game on an imac.

BUT

it will not approach the gaming of a PC. Not the price and not the performance.

Freyqq

Sep 5, 2007, 12:36 AM

Buy a Dell. I recommend plenty at work, I just bought one for my Uncle. They're perfectly fine computers.

I, on the other hand, think Macs are well worth what my employer pays for mine :-) (and worth what I paid for my mother's).

Ffakr (on my employers 15" Macbook Pro w/ 3GB ram.. Yea work!!)

eh i would build my own..but my mbp is enough for me. I just hook up a 24" monitor and a bluetooth keyboard and a wireless mouse and I'm good to go. It's plenty portable too. I get fine fps in the few pc games i even play. In osx, it can handle anything I've done with it.

mbp 2.2 stock is a good computer

CalBoy

Sep 5, 2007, 12:39 AM

apple's share prices are driven marginally by their macs

it is obviously driven more by ipod, iphone, etc sales

take the recent delay of lepoard for example..or the complete neglect of the mac mini......

Ummm...Macs made up 60% of Apple's revenue last quarter. Maybe you need to do some research before you make blanket assumptions. The iPod does well, but Macs have retaken center stage when it comes to revenue and potential growth.

I It really doesn't make much sense for them to cater to that crowd, as there just isn't software available.

Nor are there many PC gamers left. That market is so small, it would cost Apple more to create those machines than it could possibly earn in revenue. Apple is doing the right thing by staying out of it.

Apple's product line is a thing of beauty. It begs people to spend more than they had planned. The steps between models and product lines are small enough to encourage people to bump up their buy. It's really, really well done, and I don't think Apple ever gets enough credit for this. No other computer company makes it so easy or compelling to spend just a little bit more. As a shareholder, I absolutely love this.

I love it too. From a simple consumer standpoint, it represents an easy to follow line. If I'm looking for a portable, there are only six options that progressively add more features. If I want a desktop, the same rule applies. It's easy, it's clean, and it's clear. It's much easier than trying to figure out other PC makers' lines. They have ten digit model numbers with only slight variations between them. Sure, that's much better:rolleyes:
Great post MikeL:)

MikeL

Sep 5, 2007, 12:44 AM

P.S.S. MikeL, chill with the high and mighty "you aren't there yet" it is the Internet man. Seriously.

Thanks, Chief.

flopticalcube

Sep 5, 2007, 12:55 AM

Nor are there many PC gamers left. That market is so small

and dying.

ModestPenguin

Sep 5, 2007, 12:57 AM

Who cares? Buy what you want and shut it up.

P.S. The Mac Pro needs an update. Not video cards specifically before we start assuming.

P.S.S. MikeL, chill with the high and mighty "you aren't there yet" it is the Internet man. Seriously.

Good advice.

P.S. P.S. stands for post script.

P.P.S. P.S.S. stands for post script script.

P.P.P.S. P.P.S. stands for post post script and is what you meant.:D:D:D

Freyqq

Sep 5, 2007, 01:41 AM

...

again..this was never a..apple is abandoning gamers...rant

good hardware can be used for a lot of other applications

There are people that buy high-end systems that don't game..

furthermore, the better your hardware is when you buy it..the longer the computer should last

desktop components are CHEAPER than laptop components and provide GREATER performance..going back to my imac argument.

CalBoy

Sep 5, 2007, 01:43 AM

and dying.

Seriously, most people, even those with gaming PCs, use consoles.

sndcj1

Sep 5, 2007, 02:18 AM

You literally CAN NOT buy a mac pro that has the specs of a good high-end PC. It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay.

Besides the graphics card, which I think everybody agrees needs a bit of a bump, what part of a mac pro is not in the same league as the PC counter parts? Is it the processors? The 8 cores @ 3ghz that you can not configure on a dell? The 16 gigs of ram limit? I realize that can cramp your style, but since you are saying 1000 bucks is a bit of cash, I don't see you putting in a bunch of fully buffered 2 gig chips into anything you are building. You do realize there is a difference in the woodcrest line of workstation processors, and the standard core 2 duo, right? Newegg sells a single woodcrest 2.66 dual core for $722. A pair of those, and a motherboard to throw them on, runs you almost $1700. No ram yet, no graphics card, no cooling, no case, no power supply, no keyboard, no mouse. Until the Penryn based processors come out, nobody is building a substantially more powerful desktop than the mac pro, and apple will probably update their line at the same time.
HOWEVER, it is an extremely overpriced gaming machine, with a sub-par gaming graphics card. Yes, a 1500 self built machine with a single dual core processor and an 8800 gtx graphics card will probably beat the pants off this machine in clocking frames per second in any game. So what has this exercise proven? Apple doesn't build gaming machines. Hasn't since that powerhouse in gaming market, the Pippin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin), and probably won't put much effort towards that in the future either.

queshy

Sep 10, 2007, 03:02 AM

Apple won't ever release a midrange tower because they love the all-in-one factor - SJ even said that's the better way to go on august 7.

ezekielrage_99

Sep 11, 2007, 12:59 AM

There isn't one, its a troll post.

I was waiting for a reply, but it seems as though the trolls can dish out the anti-apple stuff on a mac forum but can't give a reasonable response for a reasonable answer.

It's another one of those Dell vs Apple threads....

Freyqq

Sep 11, 2007, 01:25 AM

I play games on my iMac and it's pretty darn good, I'm guessing I'm missing the point of the post?

you can play pong pretty darn good on a pentium 100mhz

the point is.....:

yes the imac can play games...it was never my point to say otherwise

but

it can't perform in anything the way a real tower desktop can because it is using expensive laptop parts versus cheap and more powerful desktop parts - yet..you are playing a desktop price for a desktop machine. It makes no sense except for asthetics..which if you read the original post don't really make sense..

you guys have been completely contorting my argument and my points

remember I own an mac too..i'm not some troll that needs to be shunned..i have a pretty solid point. Mac desktops, not laptops, simply not worth it.

bartelby

Sep 11, 2007, 01:27 AM

It makes no sense except for aesthetics..

and there's your answer...

ezekielrage_99

Sep 12, 2007, 09:01 PM

you can play pong pretty darn good on a pentium 100mhz

the point is.....:

yes the imac can play games...it was never my point to say otherwise

but

it can't perform in anything the way a real tower desktop can because it is using expensive laptop parts versus cheap and more powerful desktop parts - yet..you are playing a desktop price for a desktop machine. It makes no sense except for asthetics..which if you read the original post don't really make sense..

you guys have been completely contorting my argument and my points

remember I own an mac too..i'm not some troll that needs to be shunned..i have a pretty solid point. Mac desktops, not laptops, simply not worth it.

I have a 20" iMac with 3GB RAM and it runs WoW fine, I also play COD2 and few others of the newer games and I have really had no problems.

That's why I question when someone says you can't be a gamer on a mac it puzzles me a little.

I do understand that Apple uses the laptop parts so they can fit everything in without the machine overheating, I know it a practicality thing as well not just for the overall aesthetics of the iMac design.

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 12:21 PM

I love these threads. They speak to a niche market. Apple just doesn't chose to compete for the hardcore gamers. They never have, and likely never will. It really doesn't make much sense for them to cater to that crowd, as there just isn't software available.

This kind of post also shows a lack of sophistication when it comes to marketing. Apple's product line is a thing of beauty. It begs people to spend more than they had planned. The steps between models and product lines are small enough to encourage people to bump up their buy. It's really, really well done, and I don't think Apple ever gets enough credit for this. No other computer company makes it so easy or compelling to spend just a little bit more. As a shareholder, I absolutely love this.

Apple isn't a discount brand. They never will be.
I'm also an Apple shareholder and I disagree with you. First off, the AIO iMac and Mac minis also represent a niche markets. Look around, what % of the market are AIO computers? Very small indeed. The most common desktop computers sold in the US and Worldwide are towers of some form.

You may be right that Apple's line-up is a thing of beauty but it does have a gapping hole in the desktop line-up. These threads occur in virtually every Mac centric bulletin board, why do you think that is?

Saying these posts show "a lack of sophistication when it comes to marketing" is pure arrogance on your part. No one has convinced me, nor the inumberable other posters pointing out this hole in the desktop line-up, that Apple couldn't sell more computers and be just as profitable as they are now.

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 12:22 PM

This argument has been had. At the end of the day, it's always from a gamer, whom Apple really doesn't cater to. Nor should they, if it increases the price I pay.
I'm not a gamer and I contend that there is indeed a gap in Apple's desktop line-up. I'm not alone either.

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 12:27 PM

except its growing faster than any other leading PC retailer. :rolleyes:

Not in desktop sales.

Quarterly Report_______Desktops in 1000s
12/25/04__________________623
3/26/05___________________608
6/25/05___________________687
12/31/05__________________667
4/1/06____________________614
7/1/06____________________529
12/30/06__________________637
3/31/07___________________626
7/25/07___________________634

Apple sold more computers in the 4th fiscal quarter of 2005 and the following 1st fiscal quarter than they have in 2007.

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 12:33 PM

Apple won't ever release a midrange tower because they love the all-in-one factor - SJ even said that's the better way to go on august 7.
Unfortunately, you are spot on here. Apple will probably never offer an mid range Mac tower, ever again.

MikeL

Sep 15, 2007, 12:33 PM

Blue Velvet

Sep 15, 2007, 12:37 PM

Gosh, you're right. The most common desktop computers sold in the US and Worldwide are towers of some form running Windows. Apple is clearly off the mark.

And just how many of those are for high-volume business sales; a market that Apple shows little interest in?

CalBoy

Sep 15, 2007, 12:38 PM

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 12:44 PM

I was waiting for a reply, but it seems as though the trolls can dish out the anti-apple stuff on a mac forum but can't give a reasonable response for a reasonable answer.

It's another one of those Dell vs Apple threads....
It's not about Dell vs Apple. It's about the hole in Apple's desktop line-up.

Rhosfelt

Sep 15, 2007, 12:58 PM

My iMac kicks ass.. Especially in the gaming department, the only cpu I can't beat is the one my friend built himself, which is completely understandable, because he has a 2.5ghz duel core (which i gave him..), and a BFG GeForce 7900GS OC video card.. And yet he barely beats me.

I paid 1900 and when you think about it great deal to me..I don't know what you are talking about. My iMac is seriously one of the fastest computers i have ever used. Aside from my friends G5, and that is barely faster.

LethalWolfe

Sep 15, 2007, 01:04 PM

4. charge more competatively..mac pro anyone?

Spec out a similar Dell, HP, Gateway, or Sony and you'll see a competitive price.

Start pricing comparable software and you'll see the scales start to tip heavily in Apple's favor.

Lethal

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 01:18 PM

Let's assume Apple develops a tower aimed at the market you're describing. The costs wouldn't be too high for development because the tower that's used for the Mac Pro could be used in a slightly altered form. Now, it would come down to guaging the market.

Apple already sells more notebooks than it does desktops; I believe the ratio has come to nearly 2:1 now. So, we already know that the desktop market is gradually shrinking. Mind you, it will probably level off at some point, but it will probably level off at something around 20% of any company's total sales. Knowing this, why would Apple commit the resources to develop a product whose market is gradually being eaten away? This is one nail in the coffin for your tower.

Now, let's assume that Apple would be able to develop the tower and make enough sales off of it in order to pay off sunk costs like design, marketing, production of the first ten thousand units, etc. Would the product continue to sell in numbers great enough to give Apple it's 25%+ profit margin? Since the iMac starts at $1200, and the Mini ends at $800, Apple would have to somehow convince buyers to forgo the built-in display, and cough up more money for a what is essentially a better Mini. Since $1000 seems to be a good in between marker, let's say that's the entry price for one of these towers. How many consumers do you think, aside from yourself, would go into a store, look at a $1000 machine with no moniter, and then at a $1200 machine with everything built-in, and say, "I want the $1000 machine."? There's a major conflict in terms of price points and features. Granted, the $1000 tower would be more powerful than the iMac, but how many average consumers are going to think about this? For the average computer know-nothing, it's easier to buy everything in a single package. This tower only appeals to those who are going to game, or who need a powerful desktop.

Well, I have good news for you. You can get the powerful desktop, it's called a Mac Pro;)

No PC maker is doing well in desktop sales, esspecially to home users. By far, most desktops that are sold are sold to the business market.
PS: merge your posts next time by double-quoting.
I don't want a Mac Pro. I don't need dual processors nor do I need the expensive ram it requires. I do not need a workstation.

Without knowing Apple's margins on the iMac or Mac mini, any claims concerning profit margins of them compared to a mid priced tower are speculation. My speculation is that when compared to other computer manufactures, on a feature for feature basis, the iMac is often quite competitively priced. This flucuates as time goes on, most probably based on the introduction of newer, higher priced/higher margin cpus and technology, etc. This seems to hold true more for the higher end than the lower end models. In the price range for the iMac, other manufactures are also making their higer margins. Is it 25%+, I contend that it is. It almost has to be for companies like Dell to end up with margins in the 14 - 16% range.

As far as I know the desktop market is not shrinking, it just growing more slowly than the laptop market.

The iMac and Mac mini use more expensive laptop cpus and ram, the mini uses a laptop harddrive. This at the expense of flexibility.

I own an iMac G5 iSight, I like it, but would rather have bought an Apple mid priced tower. Why should I buy an Apple tv? It uses the next generation of wireless, I've no upgrade path. Should I spend more money for an external wireless router, a la Airport? Makes no sense.

With Leopard coming out, I'd like to buy a relatively(relative to external) inexpensive eSata hard drive for Time machine, opps can't do that, no upgrade path, leaving me to buy a relatively expensive external harddrive with either USB 2 or Firewire ports.

I can only hope that Apple doesn't depricate my computer further by using more of the graphics processor for the OS, core image and audio. I could've just bought a newer generation graphics card, but not for the iMac or Mac mini. When Apple abandoned Firewire on the iPods and went exclusively with USB 2, what were the millions of iMac owners to do if they wanted to buy a new iPod. They could buy their new iPod and suffer the hiddiously slow speed of USB 1 transfer speeds, not buy a new iPod, or buy an new computer that cost at the time >$1000. What did all the Windows user have to do, well, they could go out and buy a $30 or less USB 2 card and install it within minutes in their clunky towers.

Will I sell my Apple stock, no. Will I switch to Windows, no. I value the Mac OS more than what advantages there are with other systems. But, how many switchers will give up their monitor to go to an iMac. How many would give up any internal harddrives or optical drives to go to the Mac mini?

IMHO Apple's extraordinary increase in market share for laptops signals an interest in the OS. The languishing of Apple's desktop market share, to me at least, shows a severe lack of interest in their desktop line-up. Maybe I'm all wrong, but this topic has been a recurring theme throughout most all Mac centric bulletin boards for quite some time.

Blue Velvet

Sep 15, 2007, 01:22 PM

Maybe I'm all wrong, but this topic has been a recurring theme throughout most all Mac centric bulletin boards for quite some time.

The assumption that those who post on Mac-centric boards are representative of, and identical to, Apple's target markets for hardware sales is one that is also a recurring theme on Mac-centric boards. ;)

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 01:29 PM

Spec out a similar Dell, HP, Gateway, or Sony and you'll see a competitive price.

Start pricing comparable software and you'll see the scales start to tip heavily in Apple's favor.
Lethal
Agreed. Then that begs the question concerning Apple's margins, doesn't it.
If Apple's margins are indeed so much greater on computers than their competitors, how?

One explanation is that Apple gets parts for a lower price. That can't be for Intel cpus because of the law suit with AMD. Economies of scale would indicate that it wouldn't hold true for any of their other parts either. In fact, just the alluminum case puts them at a price disadvantage.

Another explanation would be manufacturing efficiency. Are Apple's contractors that much more efficient than their competitors? Maybe, but I doubt it would make that much of a difference.

Apple has made the decision to compete on price with the Mac Pro. Can anyone prove they don't do the same thing with the iMacs? How much of their last quarters 35% margins were do to favorable pricing on memory for the ipods?

The assumption that those who post on Mac-centric boards are representative of, and identical to, Apple's target markets for hardware sales is one that is also a recurring theme on Mac-centric boards. ;)
I never made that assumption. What it does indicate is that there is interest in a mid priced tower. One recent blog got over 4000 diggs. How many people are even aware of that blog, my guess is, not many. Yet, 4000 + people gave it a digg. Not very scientific, but does indicate interest.

Just a note. I like Apple and believe they will be profitable and are not going to exit the computer business, nor will a lack of mid priced tower effect my purchasing their stock. But, I do believe a mid priced tower would benifit them both in sales and on the bottom line.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2007, 01:40 PM

It's not about Dell vs Apple. It's about the hole in Apple's desktop line-up.

Haven't we been hearing this complaint for positive eons? The funny thing about it, behind this perennial gripe there seems to be an inherent assumption that maybe Apple just hasn't considered this issue, that they haven't developed prototypes, that the haven't run the numbers, that they aren't staying clear of this market for a very good reason. And what is that reason? I think it's because the margins stink.

flopticalcube

Sep 15, 2007, 01:42 PM

I think it's because the margins stink.

QFT. PC box shifters go out of business faster than sub-prime lenders.

-::ubermann::-

Sep 15, 2007, 01:50 PM

rickag

Sep 15, 2007, 01:57 PM

Haven't we been hearing this complaint for positive eons? The funny thing about it, behind this perennial gripe there seems to be an inherent assumption that maybe Apple just hasn't considered this issue, that they haven't developed prototypes, that the haven't run the numbers, that they aren't staying clear of this market for a very good reason. And what is that reason? I think it's because the margins stink.
You may be right, but I doubt the margins on computers in the $899 to >$2000 range represented by the typical single processor Conroe towers don't stink, they boost the margins of the company, to offset the razor thin margins of the low end, as in Micheal Dell's statement after a quarterly report awhile ago. At the time Dell's margins were in the 14% - 16% range.

How high would the margins on the mid to upper end towers have to be to offset the razor thin margins of the low end if the low end outsells them by say a ratio of 6 or 8 to one?

Could it be that Apple has always felt the consumer should consider a computer to be an appliance? Doesn't Steve Jobs recent statement indicate this? Does it have more to do with a company wide belief in what is best for the consumer? Even the Woz was in disagreement with Jobs on these very issues.

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 02:34 PM

Apple already sells more notebooks than it does desktops; I believe the ratio has come to nearly 2:1 now.

Have you ever considered that laptops outsell desktops 2:1, not because mac users necessarily all want laptops, but because of the gaping problems with apple's desktop lineup.

The userbase of the PC world has every option available to them. They have the ability to buy tablet pcs, regular laptops, desktop replacement laptops, towers, all in ones, small systems like shuttles, etc etc etc

they clearly favor the tower desktop form factor.

evidently there are people that want towers and I know for a fact it is holding back many users from getting macs. A completely upgradeable system for a slightly premium price would get more people to buy macs. If apple adjusts the margins on their products correctly, they won't be losing any money from offering a new line.

Believe it or not, not everyone wants the form factor of the imac or needs the power of a mac pro.

about the whole SJ thing..SJ said he didn't like putting video on an ipod and...now just about every ipod can do video. At the time, all in one might be way to go b\c there simply isn't an alternative present in the lineup. This can be easily changed..

flopticalcube

Sep 15, 2007, 02:37 PM

The same thing is happening in the PC world. Laptops sales are growing much faster than desktop. Nobody can make decent margins on desktops anymore.

LethalWolfe

Sep 15, 2007, 02:52 PM

Have you ever considered that laptops outsell desktops 2:1, not because mac users necessarily all want laptops, but because of the gaping problems with apple's desktop lineup.
As flopticalcube said, the trend is industry wide not Apple centric. Laptops have become practical enough (both in price and performance) to be on par with desktops in the most commonly used applications. And as more households get more than one computer it's easier to make room for a laptop than a desktop.

they clearly favor the tower desktop form factor.

They clearly don't ;), but maybe one reason you don't see many AIO PCs is that there isn't a decent AIO PC available?

Lethal

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 02:59 PM

As flopticalcube said, the trend is industry wide not Apple centric. Laptops have become practical enough (both in price and performance) to be on par with desktops in the most commonly used applications. And as more households get more than one computer it's easier to make room for a laptop than a desktop.

They clearly don't ;), but maybe one reason you don't see many AIO PCs is that there isn't a decent AIO PC available?

Lethal

there is a difference between growth and units sold

at the present time in the PC world, desktops far outsell laptops

TheAnswer

Sep 15, 2007, 03:10 PM

The problem is that this "gap" in the desktop lineup is filled with potential buyers with different needs.

Some percentage just want to be able to swap up their graphics card and attach their own monitor, a "headless iMac", if you will.

Other's won't be happy until you add in a PCI slot. Others want two slots, but a smaller case (and price) than the MacPro. Others demand hard drive expansion (but don't want external drives for aesthetic reasons). Again, some want two drives, some three.

There are so many divergent needs and people in this "gap" seem highly sensitive to the price point as well. So, they're often uncompromising about exactly how this machine should be configured, because they don't want to pay for features they'll never use.

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 03:17 PM

CalBoy

Sep 15, 2007, 03:18 PM

I don't want a Mac Pro. I don't need dual processors nor do I need the expensive ram it requires. I do not need a workstation.
If you don't need a work station, then an iMac would be right for you. You're basing your complaint on the fact that you already have a display, and that the iMac forces you to buy another one. That isn't an argument favoring the tower, it's an argument that's using your personal needs. Like I said before, most consumer go in and want to get all of their stuff at once. Even Dell sells packages with towers and displays together. Apple just does it with style.

As for the margins on the hypothetical tower, I was using Apple's margins from the first quarter of 2007. I believe I read that story here; it basically stated that the margins on Macs are as high as 30% in some products, but that the average is around 25%. That's why I said Apple should be able to keep their margin around there for the tower you suggest. As for whether or not Apple can do this, I'm going to defer to a post which summed up my feelings on this quite well:???

Haven't we been hearing this complaint for positive eons? The funny thing about it, behind this perennial gripe there seems to be an inherent assumption that maybe Apple just hasn't considered this issue, that they haven't developed prototypes, that the haven't run the numbers, that they aren't staying clear of this market for a very good reason. And what is that reason? I think it's because the margins stink.

Thank you for understanding; where would I be without you?:)

QFT. PC box shifters go out of business faster than sub-prime lenders.
Scary huh? If only is wasn't so real, it would funny (the housing part that is, I could care less about PC box makers).

Have you ever considered that laptops outsell desktops 2:1, not because mac users necessarily all want laptops, but because of the gaping problems with apple's desktop lineup.

Laptops are movable, lighter, smaller, more convenient, and don't have the same lack of power issues they had before. They are popular because of their own merits, not because Apple's desktops are bad.

The userbase of the PC world has every option available to them. They have the ability to buy tablet pcs, regular laptops, desktop replacement laptops, towers, all in ones, small systems like shuttles, etc etc etc

I wouldn't say every option, but on the whole, they do have more options. But remember, Apple is one company. All of the products you mentioned are supplied by dozens of companies in the PC world. Very few (if any) offer a complete range of products exactly like you would like. There's always a drawback somewhere, whether it's price, Windows, size, Windows, style, Windows, quality, Windows, design, or Windows.

they clearly favor the tower desktop form factor.
No they don't. Even in the PC world, laptops out pace desktop sales by a considerable (I believe something like 60:40) margin. The trend is industry wide. Apple is simply ahead of the curve because Apple customers tend to be more affluent, better educated, and more intelligent than the average PC customer. And no, this isn't Fanboy-ism talking. More than half of all Mac users have a college degree, as opposed to a much smaller (something like 30%) of PC users.

evidently there are people that want towers and I know for a fact it is holding back many users from getting macs. A completely upgradeable system for a slightly premium price would get more people to buy macs. If apple adjusts the margins on their products correctly, they won't be losing any money from offering a new line.

Forgive me, but your anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. Even if you know ten people who are withholding their purchase because they want a tower, it wouldn't be much compared to the thousands of people who are ready to buy what Apple already has. No one is saying that the tower won't increase sales; we're questioning whether or not it will make a dramatic difference. And by the way, Apple can lose money by offering a new line. Remember the Cube? Newton? Jobs is being more careful these days, and I can see why a tower is not on the agenda.

Believe it or not, not everyone wants the form factor of the imac or needs the power of a mac pro.
I believe it. They also don't have to buy a Mac. There are other possibilities.

about the whole SJ thing..SJ said he didn't like putting video on an ipod and...now just about every ipod can do video. At the time, all in one might be way to go b\c there simply isn't an alternative present in the lineup. This can be easily changed..

I actually agree with you here:eek::) Just because Jobs said it once doesn't mean it's not subject to change. Anything is possible, but if anything, we'll see more of Apple's resources go towards iPods, iPhones, and notebooks; it's where the future is.

CalBoy

Sep 15, 2007, 03:21 PM

there is a difference between growth and units sold

at the present time in the PC world, desktops far outsell laptops

No they don't (http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/04/laptops-outsell-desktops-for-the-first-time-again/). And that story is two years old.

TheAnswer

Sep 15, 2007, 03:31 PM

that is the definition of a tower

Yes...but the problem is how big/how much? And the problem is that the group that would be served by a midrange tower doesn't really agree on what features such a tower should offer.

It seems aesthetics and price point are big factors in why this group feels it's needs aren't met. It's filled with people who don't want an AIO machine, yet some of them seem to hate the idea of using external drives. Some want PCI slots, others don't. And, like I mentioned before, the people that don't want PCI expansion don't want to pay for it as a feature. Likewise, the person that just wants one PCI slot and one hard drive bay doesn't want to pay for a machine with two slots and two or three bays. On the other hand, I seen people argue that any such tower would have to offer three hard drive bays and that they wouldn't settle for anything less. Additionally, there are a lot of people out there who won't be satisfied until Apple offers them all the features of the MacPro at half the cost.

LethalWolfe

Sep 15, 2007, 03:34 PM

there is a difference between growth and units sold

at the present time in the PC world, desktops far outsell laptops

No they don't and here is another link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6474581.stm).

Last year, a report by research firm Current Analysis found that 2005 was the first year that laptops outsold desktop computers in the US.

Lethal

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 04:35 PM

Yes...but the problem is how big/how much? And the problem is that the group that would be served by a midrange tower doesn't really agree on what features such a tower should offer.

It seems aesthetics and price point are big factors in why this group feels it's needs aren't met. It's filled with people who don't want an AIO machine, yet some of them seem to hate the idea of using external drives. Some want PCI slots, others don't. And, like I mentioned before, the people that don't want PCI expansion don't want to pay for it as a feature. Likewise, the person that just wants one PCI slot and one hard drive bay doesn't want to pay for a machine with two slots and two or three bays. On the other hand, I seen people argue that any such tower would have to offer three hard drive bays and that they wouldn't settle for anything less. Additionally, there are a lot of people out there who won't be satisfied until Apple offers them all the features of the MacPro at half the cost.

well..those are issues that face every computer made by every company

look at the imac for instance, I personally don't want to pay for that screen..i already own a 24" external screen...but if i want a "midrange" mac I have to.

you give a little, you take a little, and you offer a wide range of customizabilty...if people want 2 hds..let them have 2 hds...but don't make them pay for 2 if they only want one...its not a novel idea.

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 04:41 PM

No they don't and here is another link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6474581.stm).

Lethal

"Laptops will overtake desktop PCs as the dominant form of computer in 2011, according to a report by analysts IDC." -BBC

ok..maybe in 2011 if trends continue the desktop will be overtaken by the laptop. Fine. In 2011. It is 2007. The desktop remains a very important part of the computer market. Even after 2011 if trends continue...it will remain an important part of the computer market.

Second..the articles referenced refer to a single month of sales of laptops overtaking desktops...if by a very small percentage. There are many many months were desktop sales overtake laptops.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2007, 04:51 PM

You may be right, but I doubt the margins on computers in the $899 to >$2000 range represented by the typical single processor Conroe towers don't stink, they boost the margins of the company, to offset the razor thin margins of the low end, as in Micheal Dell's statement after a quarterly report awhile ago. At the time Dell's margins were in the 14% - 16% range.

How high would the margins on the mid to upper end towers have to be to offset the razor thin margins of the low end if the low end outsells them by say a ratio of 6 or 8 to one?

Could it be that Apple has always felt the consumer should consider a computer to be an appliance? Doesn't Steve Jobs recent statement indicate this? Does it have more to do with a company wide belief in what is best for the consumer? Even the Woz was in disagreement with Jobs on these very issues.

In my experience, in business, philosophy generally takes a back seat to profits. My point being, everyone who argues so vehemently that Apple is missing a huge, profitable market for their computers, probably isn't looking at the same numbers as Apple is, and so it doesn't make much sense to seek out philosophical rationales for what is most likely a very pragmatic business strategy. Even more to the point, Apple can't possibly match every Windows box maker product-for-product. There's just too damn many of them -- and a lot of them sell frighteningly close to cost. My instinct tells me that Apple is selling into the markets where they want to be selling, for reasons that have a lot more to do with making a buck than what Steve Jobs believes.

Blubbert

Sep 15, 2007, 04:58 PM

I dont understand this clamoring for a midsize desktop from Apple. The current iMac lineup provides performance on the level or exceeding current midsized desktops. For those who need more power than that, there is always a Mac Pro.
Another complaint i dont understand is this need for super upgradeablility. IMHO the only parts of the computer that need to be upgradeable are the RAM and the hard drive. Everything beyond that is simply unneeded, especially considering the long useablity one can get from a mac and the fact that after two-three years to upgrade a computer you basically have to hollow it out and place everything new in there.

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 04:59 PM

What if...:

what if apple came out with a midrange tower tomorrow. It had a conroe processor, a 8600GTS Nvidia card, 2 gigs of ram, a 320 gig hd, and a dvd burner for 1200. The case is basically the same as a mac pro, just half the size. It has 2 hd slots and 4 ram slots total.

There is still a huge margin on that. Look up the parts on newegg..i could build that for hundreds cheaper. I'd still buy it b\c it has osx. Its got good parts, the conroe processor is nice and the 8600GTS is a good midrange card.

If this happened tomorrow, would everyone that has proclaimed the concept of a midrange tower mac heresy immediately decry apple for releasing a tower, or would they immediately embrace the idea that apple is now offering a decently competitively priced tower? I think i've been on this board long enough to know that the would be praised and lauded by everyone here.

Just because Apple hasn't done it or doesn't look like they are going to do it does NOT mean it isn't a good idea AND does not mean that it might not be pursued a later date...

I dont understand this clamoring for a midsize desktop from Apple. The current iMac lineup provides performance on the level or exceeding current midsized desktops. For those who need more power than that, there is always a Mac Pro.
Another complaint i dont understand is this need for super upgradeablility. IMHO the only parts of the computer that need to be upgradeable are the RAM and the hard drive. Everything beyond that is simply unneeded, especially considering the long useablity one can get from a mac and the fact that after two-three years to upgrade a computer you basically have to hollow it out and place everything new in there.

good luck upgrading that one harddrive slot on that new imac

the only problem is that you have to take the computer apart and void your warranty to do it

CmdrLaForge

Sep 15, 2007, 05:28 PM

The iMac and Macpro are both really good buys. If you are that into games, you shouldn't be buying a Mac to begin with.

I have to agree with what you are saying,

what does the ribbon mean ?

TheAnswer

Sep 15, 2007, 05:36 PM

what does the ribbon mean ?

Contest winners get ribbons next to their posts. decksnap won the Best 1,000,000 Post Avatar Contest (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=86480).

Blubbert

Sep 15, 2007, 05:37 PM

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 05:40 PM

And that performance is similar to an iMac in many regards. There is simply no need for what you are asking. If you want a workstation get a mac pro, if you want a personal computer get the iMac. There is no inbetween, because the inbetween doesnt exist.

the performance is similar to the imac in no regard whatsoever. It has a faster processor, more ram, a good videocard, and desktop components. Believe it or not, these faster desktop components are cheaper than the laptop counterparts in the imac. The tradeoff vs the imac is that your not getting a monitor. Instead, you can pick your own monitor. No forced glossy anyone? Get whatever monitor you want. 17" or 30" your choice. The inbetween obviously does exist. I just said it. This would benchmark much faster than an imac, but would fall short of a mac pro.

Blubbert

Sep 15, 2007, 05:55 PM

the performance is similar to the imac in no regard whatsoever. It has a faster processor, more ram, a good videocard, and desktop components. Believe it or not, these faster desktop components are cheaper than the laptop counterparts in the imac. The tradeoff vs the imac is that your not getting a monitor. Instead, you can pick your own monitor. No forced glossy anyone? Get whatever monitor you want. 17" or 30" your choice. The inbetween obviously does exist. I just said it. This would benchmark much faster than an imac, but would fall short of a mac pro.

Please do tell me what exactly would be a purpose of the computer you are proposing?
The iMac's are perfect for what most people need in a personal computer, they can surf the web, do multimedia stuff, and of course play some videogames.
The Mac Pro on the other hand is a perfect workstation and super fast. Just what someone who needs a professional computer wants and requires.
I dont see a point in introducing some sort of intermediary computer between the iMac and the Mac Pro just for the marginal speed increase and the option to choose your own screen. That is just silly, and any company who would even consider doing that, well, i wouldnt buy its stock...

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 06:01 PM

Please do tell me what exactly would be a purpose of the computer you are proposing?
just for the marginal speed increase and the option to choose your own screen

The speed increase is MAJOR and HUGE...probably approaching 3x the framerates in games (yeah i know no one here cares about games but games are a good way to show system speed), much much faster rendering times with double the ram of a standard imac and a much faster processor..i could go on and on. This would top an imac in every way speedwise pretty handily. You would be lucky if the imac released a year from now could beat this proposed computer in any one sector of performance.

The option to chose your own screen should not be taken lightly. If you were a graphics professional who relied on screen accuracy and wanted something better than a glossy imac screen, or wanted a 30" screen, but did not want a mac pro....you would love this.

balamw

Sep 15, 2007, 06:28 PM

The option to chose your own screen should not be taken lightly.
IMHO this is the ONLY valid reason for wanting the midrange desktop.

The G4 Mac mini is more computer than most folks ever need or actually use.

Apple certainly caters to a segment of the market who want their computers to be less obtrusive than your average PC. Quieter, smaller, less power hungry but still powerful enough. All these things have value, which is often forgotten by the folks who seem to want a mid range headless Mac. Heck, I'd buy one, but I woudn't want it to sound like a wind tunnel and look like a brick, like the machines most people build from newegg parts.

All I want is an iMac sans screen, maybe in a pizza box format so I can use a different screen.

B

Blubbert

Sep 15, 2007, 06:43 PM

The speed increase is MAJOR and HUGE...probably approaching 3x the framerates in games (yeah i know no one here cares about games but games are a good way to show system speed), much much faster rendering times with double the ram of a standard imac and a much faster processor..i could go on and on. This would top an imac in every way speedwise pretty handily. You would be lucky if the imac released a year from now could beat this proposed computer in any one sector of performance.

The option to chose your own screen should not be taken lightly. If you were a graphics professional who relied on screen accuracy and wanted something better than a glossy imac screen, or wanted a 30" screen, but did not want a mac pro....you would love this.

You are missing my point here, for all the uses that an computer like the iMac might be employed, it is perfect. Browsing, watching pictures, watching movies, listening to music, do some light image editing work or light movie editing, all of these things run perfectly fine on a iMac.
For all users who need more there is always the option of the Mac Pro, which, IMHO suits the needs of any professional better than any midlevel tower. I dont believe that any serious professional in any field would take a 30'' screen and pair it with a subpar computer (subpar when compared to the MP).
Somehow im getting the impression that this midlevel tower would be almost perfect for a medium to heavy gamer, which is, as others have stated, not only a niche market, but also totally pointless on any OS but windows, as games come out for it in greater number than for any other operating system.
What im trying to say that to an ordinary consumer there will be no significant difference in performance, as the iMac already does all they want fast enough for them and the professionals will not care for a step between an iMac and a Mac Pro because they are going for pure power and strength, which is a hallmark of the MP line. Your tower would be a product bought by few.

IJ Reilly

Sep 15, 2007, 06:54 PM

I think some of you are forgetting the times when Apple tried to build a box for every possible need. These are usually thought of as "the bad old days."

CalBoy

Sep 15, 2007, 06:54 PM

"Laptops will overtake desktop PCs as the dominant form of computer in 2011, according to a report by analysts IDC." -BBC

ok..maybe in 2011 if trends continue the desktop will be overtaken by the laptop. Fine. In 2011. It is 2007. The desktop remains a very important part of the computer market. Even after 2011 if trends continue...it will remain an important part of the computer market.

Second..the articles referenced refer to a single month of sales of laptops overtaking desktops...if by a very small percentage. There are many many months were desktop sales overtake laptops.

Remember that the BBC story probably counted business desktops as well. From a consumer perspective, desktops are dead. Most people who walk into a computer store go in wanting a notebook. Granted there are a few gamers and nerds who want their own desktop tower so they can fix it up how they want to, but this is a niche market. By and large, consumers want notebooks. The BBC article clearly stated that in 2005, the year as a whole, notebooks outsold desktops. I doubt that's changed over the course of the last two years. The article's mention of "dominant form of computing" is vague and doesn't mean that desktop sales will be less than half by that point. Since desktops tend to outlast notebooks, notebooks will have higher sales in order to replace those that have gone bad. That's why desktop sales can be less than 50%, but usage can be above 50%.

With that said, you have to look at it from a company's point of view. If you know that desktops are on the decline, why would you spend your resources on that weakening market? It would wiser to put your R&D into make more notebooks, which is clearly what the consumer wants.

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 08:39 PM

You are missing my point here, for all the uses that an computer like the iMac might be employed, it is perfect. Browsing, watching pictures, watching movies, listening to music, do some light image editing work or light movie editing, all of these things run perfectly fine on a iMac.
For all users who need more there is always the option of the Mac Pro, which, IMHO suits the needs of any professional better than any midlevel tower. I dont believe that any serious professional in any field would take a 30'' screen and pair it with a subpar computer (subpar when compared to the MP).
Somehow im getting the impression that this midlevel tower would be almost perfect for a medium to heavy gamer, which is, as others have stated, not only a niche market, but also totally pointless on any OS but windows, as games come out for it in greater number than for any other operating system.
What im trying to say that to an ordinary consumer there will be no significant difference in performance, as the iMac already does all they want fast enough for them and the professionals will not care for a step between an iMac and a Mac Pro because they are going for pure power and strength, which is a hallmark of the MP line. Your tower would be a product bought by few.

computing power is always a good thing. If you don't need it now, you'll need it later. It makes your computer last longer. Today you might not need that 8600GTS, but what if you got a blue ray drive in the future? That would drive blue ray/hddvd.

IMHO this is the ONLY valid reason for wanting the midrange desktop.

The G4 Mac mini is more computer than most folks ever need or actually use.

Apple certainly caters to a segment of the market who want their computers to be less obtrusive than your average PC. Quieter, smaller, less power hungry but still powerful enough. All these things have value, which is often forgotten by the folks who seem to want a mid range headless Mac. Heck, I'd buy one, but I woudn't want it to sound like a wind tunnel and look like a brick, like the machines most people build from newegg parts.

All I want is an iMac sans screen, maybe in a pizza box format so I can use a different screen.

B

Your arguement that the average user needs nothing over a G4 is shortsighted. If the average user really only needed a G4, then go buy a G4. If average users only need a G4, why doesn't apple release a cheap G4 imac that costs a few hundred?

Ok..so lets say the "average" user buys an imac for their uses. Fine. What about the above average user? What if i want something just a little bit better because I don't just read email on my computer? Is it so wrong not to make a computer designed for that market? Is it that outrageous?

Believe it or not, OSX itself is a niche market. The mac pro is a niche market..only high end professionals that want 2 processors go for it. All in ones? Definitely a niche market. Mac mini? Niche market...subpc. A flexable tower is probably the LEAST niche of a market of the desktop line.

CalBoy

Sep 15, 2007, 08:42 PM

Your arguement that the average user needs nothing over a G4 is shortsighted. If the average user really only needed a G4, then go buy a G4. If average users only need a G4, why doesn't apple release a cheap G4 imac that costs a few hundred?

Forgive me, but where in his post (that you quoted) did he mention a G4?

balamw

Sep 15, 2007, 08:44 PM

computing power is always a good thing.
No. It's. Not.

If it means more power consumption, larger size, more noise. I'll take a solution that is powerful enough but no more.

B

Freyqq

Sep 15, 2007, 08:46 PM

No. It's. Not.

If it means more power consumption, larger size, more noise. I'll take a solution that is powerful enough but no more.

B

so if someone offered you a mac pro you would turn it down for a imac? fine your call but i doubt the general public would agree.

ffakr

Sep 15, 2007, 11:30 PM

I'm also an Apple shareholder and I disagree with you. First off, the AIO iMac and Mac minis also represent a niche markets. Look around, what % of the market are AIO computers? Very small indeed. The most common desktop computers sold in the US and Worldwide are towers of some form.

Saying these posts show "a lack of sophistication when it comes to marketing" is pure arrogance on your part.

There's a bit of irony here. Chastising another poster for his arrogance in talking about marketing when you don't seem to understand marketing in your post. :-)

I'm not in marketing, I'm an IT guy but it seems to me that the "market" is not the product. The iMac [AIO] is the product. The manufacturer develops the product to satisfy the "market". The product is not the market.
In fact, if you look up Market in the dictionary you'll find that a market is the sum of people who looking to purchase a product (or a place with shops :-) )

When you say, "what % of the market are AIO computers".. I know what you're saying but I think you want to ask; what % of shipping desktops are AIO? There could be a large demand in the market for good AIO Windows PCs that simply isn't met by the vendors. When Apple went to Intel I had questions about buying an iMac to run Windows on full-time because there is simply nothing like the iMac available in the PC market [nothing as good].

Now, aside from that bit marketing info.. I figure I should address your contention that the iMac and Mini address a niche market.
I believe you could make this argument with the mini since the niche is primarially Windows switchers who already have USB devices and monitors. I also know more than a few purchasers of Minis who just wanted a small, quiet, stand alone computers. I happen to know of a whole department of Theoretical Physicists that run G4 Minis (currently migrating to faster Macs). Apple targeted a niche, but it was one that Apple believed was essential to their long term business plan.. Windows users interested in trying a Mac.
The iMac is absolutely NOT a niche product. It is Apple's desktop computer. In Apple's mind, it's the default option for consumer desktops. The Mini is the niche product of a sort, the Mac Pro is a Pro not a Consumer grade machine [Mac Pro is a "workstation" not a "desktop".. Multi-socket, ECC, lots of DIMMs, optional OGL cards...]

Now, the iMac isn't the desktop that YOU want but it is the standard desktop computer for consumers. It isn't a niche product because it targets nearly every consumer user interested in a Macintosh that is tethered to the wall.

You've missed the point[s] by a wide mark here.
The real question here is not whether the iMac is a niche product.
The real question is; Is Apple targeting their consumers properly with the iMac?

In my opinion, no, if only for the following reasons:
- Most consumer desktop purchasers are Windows users. Apple wants these customers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers therefore are used to Tower computers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers [from my exp] believe they need the expandability/upgradability of a tower. I've seen way too many people who bought Dell's thinking they could upgrade any given component in the future just because it was in a mid-tower case. Ironically, most PC purchasers never upgrade other than adding memory or repairing a part like a fan or PS. Gamers are the exception.

IMHO..
Gaming on the mac is a chicken/egg problem. No consumer grade gaming machines mean no market for Video Cards and other gaming paraphernalia. (Yes, IMacs can play many games fine.. not what I consider a gaming machine though).
A general lack of interest in the gaming hardware community is another indication to software vendors that there is no Mac gaming market. Conversely, no great interest by software vendors demonstrates to hardware vendors that there is no Mac gaming market, and of course there is the lack of upgradeable consumer Macs for cards. Imagine how the Physics chips would go over in Macintoshes if the vendor simply wrote drivers to intercept calls to the Accellerate Framework. Plug one in and EVERYTHING that uses Accellerate would speed up, not just games that are custom compiled to support the Physics card. Unfortuntately we don't see Aegea rushing with Mac support when the gaming market is small and running iMacs. :-(

Someone has to make a move to break the stalemate.

The software vendors (2 of them) made a tolken effort at WWDC. Apple can step up with a Mini-Tower. IMHO, it is a completely reasonable and obvious move. It targets the major market, Consumers.. particularly Windows switchers. It targets Mac users who won't buy a full on Pro because of price but who want a better machine (Graphic Designers and gamers come to mind). It even targets those Mac users who hate the iMac because they believe their data is tied to the life of an LCD monitor.

I think Apple should offer a mini-Tower. I'm thinking 2/3 or 1/2 Cheeze grater without the handles. 1 optical drive, 4 DDR2 slots, One Core2 Dual or Core2 Quad, 1 PCI-E 16x, 2 PCI-E 4x, onboard audio and GigE and integrated Intel video would be nice for those that don't need a nice video card. 2 PCI-E 16x would be nice but Intel chipsets only support ATI crossfire and this would require a monster PowerSupply.
Here's the marketing genius. :-) Apple offeres the Cheeze Grater in Anodized Silver, Black, ipod colors, and Freaking Chrome. :-) Offer free engraving like on the iPod, but bigger (any Apple font).

Or, I could be wrong. :-P

nateDEEZY

Sep 16, 2007, 12:00 AM

in my opinion apple's bad machines are precisely the high end ones, ridiculously expensive, compare a macbook pro with dell xps line, xps just kicks mbp's ass, with a significant lower price, not to mentions mac pros, osx is nice but you can run linux and have a good os too
only mac worthy for me is the macbook

Wrong, have you even visited dell's site and tried to build an XPS? Current gen MBP's are on the santa rosa platform while the XPS's are still using the 667mhz FSB from what I can tell.

balamw

Sep 16, 2007, 01:04 AM

so if someone offered you a mac pro you would turn it down for a imac? fine your call but i doubt the general public would agree.

I don't think you represent the general public either.

It depends for what purpose. I certainly don't want a Mac Pro in my living room, but the iMac fits in quite nicely, and performs very well for the tasks asked of it. Thank you.

B

Freyqq

Sep 16, 2007, 02:21 AM

I don't think you represent the general public either.

It depends for what purpose. I certainly don't want a Mac Pro in my living room, but the iMac fits in quite nicely, and performs very well for the tasks asked of it. Thank you.

B

its not like i'm saying apple should end the imac line..i'm saying other viable options..like possibly a midrange tower...should definitely be present

martychang

Sep 16, 2007, 02:47 AM

I'm a serious Desktop user who's dissapointed with Apple's desktop offerings as well, but I don't think they're going to jump into the whole idea of this midrange tower at this point in the game. People: the kind who don't really think too hard about computers, ARE going to gravitate towards laptops.

Me? I like things that run cool, and have separate screens. I like a LOT of fans: I don't care if it sounds like a space shuttle, Florida is hot enough and my computer should be blowing air conditioning on me. The iMacs and laptops really agitate me for this reason, they don't just cram expensive components into small spaces to generate heat, they also place a value on acoustics that I can't identify with.

I like things to be as modular as possible: not because I'm going to upgrade it, but because I want to be able to repair or replace failing parts easily. The iMac's screen integration is totally unacceptable to me, at least there's a WAY to take the screens off most laptops, my understanding is that iMacs are totally unserviceable by users. Dead pixels should not send me to a store to have my computer operated on, I should order a new screen and hook it up, and be done.

Personally, I'm just switching because I'd like a commercially supported, professionally developed UNIX system, with polish: I KNOW I'm not going to be happy with Apple from a hardware standpoint, since I'm literally on the opposite side of the fence.

I think Apple has come as far as it has because it doesn't try to make everyone totally happy, it just makes one thing that everyone will love(it's software) and sits back knowing that anyone who REALLY wants that will put up with not being marketed to directly.

maestrokev

Sep 16, 2007, 02:52 AM

Most important rule I learned in marketing ... is there a gap in the market and is there a market in the gap?

I don't think Apple wants to be all things to everyone anymore, they tried that when Jobs left and almost died. Look up Michael Porter's articles on generic strategies and competing on cost (eg. Dell)

Best post I've read in this thread is how people who post in MR assume they're representative of the market ... I doubt that's the case.

Other than the Apple fanboys (who usually started out as students on limited budgets and always talk about their EDU discounts on MR) the rest of us switched to Apple for the simplicity of the AIO. We realize that it's not easily upgradeable if at all. We don't need towers so we can replace components as we realize the lifespan of a box is short and we'd rather just buy a new one in a few years.

Have you noticed how the entry level MB and iMac are so competitively priced now? That's the lure to get us ex-PC guys to switch, hopefully fall in love with Mac OS and then keep upgrading within the Apple line.

Another reason for desktop PC's declining market share is that dual core is out now and narrows the gap between desktop and laptop performance. The rest of us email checking, non-gaming, MS Office non-artist corporate types who do a little family video/photo don't need supercomputers. Funny how Apple's iLife and iWork suite perfectly suits me.

Perfectly happy with my non-upgradeable iMac, and the MBP/MB for the wife and kids.

Hmm, I wonder if I'm Apple's target market ;)

CalBoy

Sep 16, 2007, 02:58 AM

its not like i'm saying apple should end the imac line..i'm saying other viable options..like possibly a midrange tower...should definitely be present

Viable to whom? Anything is viable for a consumer, as long as it's the right price and does what the consumer wants it to do. For a company however, it's a very different set of standards which define the word "viable."

Since we've hashed out this topic several times, I'll leave you with this: if Apple could make a tower with the specs you seek, and keep it profitable, don't you think it would have occured to them to enter that market? Obviously someone's looked at it and thought about all of the relevant factors. For Apple, it just isn't a good business decision. I know you want a Mac Tower, but it's not going to happen. It's a part of life. I'm sure there are people out there who would like Mercedes to build a fuel efficient, stylish, and feature rich car for under 20k, but let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. Mercedes has clearly decided what its market is, and is doing fine in that market, just like Apple is. If you want a low price tower, choose one of the fifty PC companies which build them. If you want OS X, choose one of the three desktops Apple offers, and make the best of it. That's my best suggestion.

PS: I've been meaning to mention this, but I've been forgetting. Your thread is inappropriately named. A paradox is a statement which contradicts or seems to contradict itself or other truths. You never presented an assertion about Apple or Macs which contradicted itself or a generally accepted view of Apple. Perhaps a better title would have been "The Mac Hole" or something. At least I wouldn't have been able to argue with that. ;)

mahonmeister

Sep 16, 2007, 03:00 AM

its not like i'm saying apple should end the imac line..i'm saying other viable options..like possibly a midrange tower...should definitely be presentUnfortunately, I doubt Apple would ever produce a mid-range tower while they have the iMac. The iMac is Apple's mid-range tower, there is no gap in the line-up to fill with a tower.

I've never seen the point in the 'all-in-one' form factor. I'd prefer to have a slim lcd monitor with out a 'chin', as the iMac has, and a tower on the floor, where all the noises it makes will be less audible because it isn't right in front of my face. The only cables you don't have to plug in is the lcd cable and the speakers. When you do plug stuff into the iMac, it becomes very cluttered, because everything has to be right there on your desktop. My neighbor has 2 external HDDs, a printer, memory card reader, USB hub, iPod, and a few other things connected to their iMac and it is very messy. If they had a tower then all these cables could be behind their desk rather then on it.

The bottom line is that Apple's desktops are too expensive for most consumers, and many of those that can afford them instead choose to buy a PC because they can get better hardware for the same price.

Freyqq

Sep 16, 2007, 03:12 AM

Viable to whom? Anything is viable for a consumer, as long as it's the right price and does what the consumer wants it to do. For a company however, it's a very different set of standards which define the word "viable."

Since we've hashed out this topic several times, I'll leave you with this: if Apple could make a tower with the specs you seek, and keep it profitable, don't you think it would have occured to them to enter that market? Obviously someone's looked at it and thought about all of the relevant factors. For Apple, it just isn't a good business decision. I know you want a Mac Tower, but it's not going to happen. It's a part of life. I'm sure there are people out there who would like Mercedes to build a fuel efficient, stylish, and feature rich car for under 20k, but let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. Mercedes has clearly decided what its market is, and is doing fine in that market, just like Apple is. If you want a low price tower, choose one of the fifty PC companies which build them. If you want OS X, choose one of the three desktops Apple offers, and make the best of it. That's my best suggestion.

Apple works under the guise of a niche market. Every one of their desktop lines offers something that the average desktop does not. The mac mini is really small. The imac is an AIO..which is rare. The mac pro has 2 processors and 4 hd slots. There is no "normal" non-niche desktop machine available. Why is it that apple makes niche products instead of mainstream products? Fear of the competition. They can't compete with desktop tower PC machines, so they spice up their line with creative designs. While formwise they look great.....functionwise they are lacking compared to their PC counterparts.

If apple licensed osx...which they would never do b\c they lose to much money...who here would build their own mac or buy a competing company's product with osx installed? Is having a faster computer for half the price worth a slight aesthetic loss?

My point was never..is it economical for apple to make a midrange tower. It doesn't matter. There is no way anyone here even knows if it is economical. You don't know the margins or have access the apple's financial information. My point is..do the consumers want to accept a midrange tower for an adequate price?

CalBoy

Sep 16, 2007, 04:10 AM

Apple works under the guise of a niche market. Every one of their desktop lines offers something that the average desktop does not. The mac mini is really small. The imac is an AIO..which is rare. The mac pro has 2 processors and 4 hd slots. There is no "normal" non-niche desktop machine available. Why is it that apple makes niche products instead of mainstream products? Fear of the competition. They can't compete with desktop tower PC machines, so they spice up their line with creative designs. While formwise they look great.....functionwise they are lacking compared to their PC counterparts.

If apple licensed osx...which they would never do b\c they lose to much money...who here would build their own mac or buy a competing company's product with osx installed? Is having a faster computer for half the price worth a slight aesthetic loss?

My point was never..is it economical for apple to make a midrange tower. It doesn't matter. There is no way anyone here even knows if it is economical. You don't know the margins or have access the apple's financial information. My point is..do the consumers want to accept a midrange tower for an adequate price?

I'll agree with you that Apple desktops languish a bit behind PC makers.

However, you last point about econimics is way off. I posted above that the risk for more options doesn't lie with the consumer, it lies with the business. There are always going to be a few people, like you, who will want a Mac tower. However, if we were to compare that number to the total number of people who really don't care about a tower, it will be dwarfed. Now, you're quite right in saying that I don't know this for sure; I don't have access to information like that, and I'm not privy to any insider information. However, given what we know about the desktop market and its near future and the fact that Apple has ignored this market for some time gives us some good clues. Remember, Apple is very aware of its size and its potential. It took a lot of research and forsight for Apple to launch a product in a very competitive field. I'm refering to the iPhone of course. Don't assume that Apple hasn't thought of this tower. That company has a lot of well educated, intelligent, and hard working people at its disposal, and their information eventually led them to believe that the tower market wasn't one worth entering into. I know you want to believe that this is a demand-side question, but I'm telling you it's not. This is very much a supply-side question. Can Apple afford to enter the tower market: probably not.

So, I'll provide a summary:
A small percentage of the population wants towers of the kind you describe.
A smaller precentage of that population wants towers of the kind you describe with OS X.
Thus, the OS X tower market can be described to be a "niche" at best.
Apple, a company which has to be selective in its product variety in order to maintain good margins, chooses not to develop a tower of the kind you describe.
This final point isn't based on cold hard facts, but based on Apple's actions over the past couple of years, and the fact that we know Jobs and Co. are no fools. They know what they're doing, and they're doing it quite well.

balamw

Sep 16, 2007, 10:56 AM

There is no "normal" non-niche desktop machine available. Why is it that apple makes niche products instead of mainstream products? Fear of the competition.

Fear of the competition? ROFL. Apple is eating the competition's lunch in the markets they choose to go after.

It's still hard to find a PC laptop that is truly competitive with the MacBook from another vendor. So much so that people do buy them even if they are not planning to run OS X on them. No one else makes an AIO solution like the iMac.

The fact that many of us on MR (myself included) would buy a mid range headless Mac doesn't mean that this would be something Apple would ultimately consider a profitable business case.

Every time I go to the mall with the Apple store I see folks leaving the store with a new iMac or MacBook/MBP I think to myself that Apple are marketing geniuses. With their tiny well marked boxes they get plenty of free advertising as people walk around through the mall.

The store is constantly packed with people looking at Macs, many of which are first time computer buyers.

You're coming at this all wrong, by assuming that what you want is what Apple needs to fill some perceived gap in their product line.

The Wii s a "lousy" game system. It basically uses the same hardware as a GameCube. It doesn't support HD, it doesn't even play standard DVDs. OK, so they added Bluetooth and WiFi and a very nifty controller. Yet, is the best selling system of the current generation of game systems, having just surpassed the 360 in total number of units sold. Nintendo is eating Sony and Microsoft's lunch. Almost a year after it's release it's still hard to find a system in some places. [Even the flagship Nintendo store in NYC had limited supplies (1 per customer) last month.]

Why?

Because it's fun! The fact that the system is smaller and cheaper than the other current generation systems doesn't hurt either. With it Nintendo has managed to get a whole bunch of people who would never buy a PS2, PS3 or 360 to buy a game system.

B

decksnap

Sep 16, 2007, 12:30 PM

yeah i know no one here cares about games but games are a good way to show system speed),

yeah... no. A good way to measure a card maybe. My Macpro runs games like ass compared to many PCs twice as slow. Again- gamers... who cares?

The option to chose your own screen should not be taken lightly. If you were a graphics professional who relied on screen accuracy and wanted something better than a glossy imac screen, or wanted a 30" screen, but did not want a mac pro....you would love this.

If you were a graphics professional and you wanted something better than an iMac, you would want.... a Macpro. :rolleyes:

Freyqq

Sep 16, 2007, 12:34 PM

Fear of the competition?

The fact that many of us on MR (myself included) would buy a mid range headless Mac doesn't mean that this would be something Apple would ultimately consider a profitable business case.

B

If a lot of people would buy the computer..it would be profitable if apple simply adjusts its margins on the product. I never said it had to compete pricewise with PC vendors..i'm just saying it needs to be there.

Freyqq

Sep 16, 2007, 12:40 PM

yeah... no. A good way to measure a card maybe. My Macpro runs games like ass compared to many PCs twice as slow. Again- gamers... who cares?

If you were a graphics professional and you wanted something better than an iMac, you would want.... a Macpro. :rolleyes:

do you know what games do? Games render frames. If you did any 3d work on that mac pro of yours that is faster than every pc as you say...you might actually need a good card. Believe it or not..some people do 3d work and need a nice graphics card. Just because you don't doesn't mean the capability should not be there.

do graphics professionals really need a mac pro? Do you need a 3k computer to do photoshop? It is easy to dismiss the concept by saying that a professional should get a pro computer..but honestly who are you to say that every graphics professional needs to put down 3k in order to work professionally? Prior to the release of the new imac with glossy screen...PLENTY of people did their photoshop work on imacs. Now that the glossy screen is present..many are forced to upgrade to a mac pro and pay twice as much for a computer that has not been upgraded by apple in a year despite not needing that kind of power.

TheAnswer

Sep 16, 2007, 12:44 PM

My point was never..is it economical for apple to make a midrange tower. It doesn't matter.

I'm guessing it matters to Apple's executives, shareholders and anyone concerned with the future of the company.

There is no way anyone here even knows if it is economical. You don't know the margins or have access the apple's financial information.

And neither do you. But guess who does...it's the people inside Apple. The same people who have chosen not to release such a product.

My point is..do the consumers want to accept a midrange tower for an adequate price?

That's not a point...that's a question.

If a lot of people would buy the computer..it would be profitable if apple simply adjusts its margins on the product.

Again, without access to Apple's numbers...who are you to suggest that such a margin adjustment would be wise?

I never said it had to compete pricewise with PC vendors..i'm just saying it needs to be there.

As I've said before, the prospective midrange tower customer appears to shop mainly on price, so if it's not competitive pricewise...what's the point?

Blue Velvet

Sep 16, 2007, 12:45 PM

Do you need a 3k computer to do photoshop?

That's a meaningless question. 'Doing' Photoshop can vary between someone doing a little GIF for a website up to a 2-3gb file in CMYK 16bit with untold layers... some work I do, the 2.5 dual G5 at work struggles with, even with fast scratch disks. They were the fastest Macs we could buy at the time and are starting to show their age. Time is money.

TheAnswer

Sep 16, 2007, 12:49 PM

Time is money.

Which reminds me of another point...

If all these midrange tower/mini-tower proponents stopped worrying about their FPS in the games they are playing and worked more billable hours, many of them could then afford to buy the Mac Pro they really want.

IJ Reilly

Sep 16, 2007, 12:54 PM

My point was never..is it economical for apple to make a midrange tower. It doesn't matter. There is no way anyone here even knows if it is economical. You don't know the margins or have access the apple's financial information. My point is..do the consumers want to accept a midrange tower for an adequate price?

Quite to the contrary, this is one thing we do know. If Apple could make good money selling a midrange tower, then they'd be selling a midrange tower. Ipso facto. Once again, we have the rather ridiculous assumption inherent with this argument that Apple simply hasn't considered such a product, that if they aren't selling one it's because they've got some (for lack of a better word) religious objections to it.

Second, I think we should drop the term "niche product" from this discussion, unless someone can come up with a useful working definition for it. I can't. Virtually all products are "niche products," if only because not everyone buys them.

balamw

Sep 16, 2007, 01:00 PM

If a lot of people would buy the computer..it would be profitable if apple simply adjusts its margins on the product. I never said it had to compete pricewise with PC vendors..i'm just saying it needs to be there.

Sigh. You can't read can you.

Some sizable fraction of MR users does not translate to "a lot of people". Most people buy a Mac over a PC because it's different, filling a hole that exists on the PC side, not because it's a head-to-head competitive product with Dell. And those people are not always well represented on MR.

Apple is doing fine without filling this hole, and they definitely know what they are doing.

Second, I think we should drop the term "niche product" from this discussion, unless someone can come up with a useful working definition for it. I can't. Virtually all products are "niche products," if only because not everyone buys them.

Prexactly. The iPod line as a whole is not a niche product and is dominant, but it does represent a number of individual "niches". Some prefer the shuffle, others the 160 GB classic. The shuffle user wants size & convenience, while the classic user wants to have their entire library on them at all times. Different strokes for different folks. The classic user will be quite unsatisfied with the shuffle and vice versa.

B

martychang

Sep 16, 2007, 01:06 PM

Which reminds me of another point...

If all these midrange tower/mini-tower proponents stopped worrying about their FPS in the games they are playing and worked more billable hours, many of them could then afford to buy the Mac Pro they really want.

Just because someone plays a game every now and then, instead of watching TV or reading a book doesn't mean they don't work an 8-12 hour day at a decent job.

CalBoy

Sep 16, 2007, 01:39 PM

If a lot of people would buy the computer..it would be profitable if apple simply adjusts its margins on the product. I never said it had to compete pricewise with PC vendors..i'm just saying it needs to be there.

*Slaps face*

Ok, we've been over this many times now and I don't care to repeat it for the tenth time; balamw, IJ Reilly, TheAnswer, maestrokev, Blubbert and others, have given you good answers in their posts. If you really can't understand what we're trying to say, then I feel sorry for you. I really do.

decksnap

Sep 16, 2007, 03:22 PM

do you know what games do? Games render frames. If you did any 3d work on that mac pro of yours that is faster than every pc as you say...you might actually need a good card. Believe it or not..some people do 3d work and need a nice graphics card. Just because you don't doesn't mean the capability should not be there.

do graphics professionals really need a mac pro? Do you need a 3k computer to do photoshop? It is easy to dismiss the concept by saying that a professional should get a pro computer..but honestly who are you to say that every graphics professional needs to put down 3k in order to work professionally? Prior to the release of the new imac with glossy screen...PLENTY of people did their photoshop work on imacs. Now that the glossy screen is present..many are forced to upgrade to a mac pro and pay twice as much for a computer that has not been upgraded by apple in a year despite not needing that kind of power.

Well no, I don't need a good card. But sure, the 3D people do. So all you really want is a tower that's like the Macpro, but with a $1500 gaming card in it, but for a lot less money, right? Sounds simple enough. :rolleyes:

Freyqq

Sep 16, 2007, 05:05 PM

Well no, I don't need a good card. But sure, the 3D people do. So all you really want is a tower that's like the Macpro, but with a $1500 gaming card in it, but for a lot less money, right? Sounds simple enough. :rolleyes:

ignorance...

there is no such thing as a $1500 gaming card

the 8800GTX, pretty much the best card you can buy right now..is $500

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130072

incidentally, the radeon 1900 apple sells is $500 and it can't do half what this card can do

but hey..you don't need to put that card in a tower mac. That is overkill..right?

8600GTS - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130286

$200

not $1500

sounds simple enough to me.

CalBoy

Sep 16, 2007, 07:08 PM

there is no such thing as a $1500 gaming card

I think he may have been using that number in hyperbole;) Take it easy.

maestrokev

Sep 17, 2007, 12:26 AM

That's a meaningless question. 'Doing' Photoshop can vary between someone doing a little GIF for a website up to a 2-3gb file in CMYK 16bit with untold layers... some work I do, the 2.5 dual G5 at work struggles with, even with fast scratch disks. They were the fastest Macs we could buy at the time and are starting to show their age. Time is money.

Blue Velvet: exactly, time is money. I think lots of people like the OP think they're graphics designers or Photoshop people because they do some work on the side. I've never seen successful professionals with back to back profitable contracts stop to say "hey, let's cut some corners and get the cheaper tool and take our chances." Most successful professionals I know whether it's graphic arts to dentists to plumbers get the right tool for the job - cost isn't an issue unless you're starting out since it's amortized and expensed. The people who keep arguing they can do the same work on an iMac or MB probably also like to buy their rock climbing gear from WalMart :D

*Slaps face*

Ok, we've been over this many times now and I don't care to repeat it for the tenth time; balamw, IJ Reilly, TheAnswer, maestrokev, Blubbert and others, have given you good answers in their posts. If you really can't understand what we're trying to say, then I feel sorry for you. I really do.

CalBoy, you know those people at school/work who don't seem to "get it" no matter how many times a concept is explained to them ... you start to wonder whether they're just being argumentative for the sake of it or ...

Freyqq

Sep 17, 2007, 12:33 AM

Blue Velvet: exactly, time is money. I think lots of people like the OP think they're graphics designers or Photoshop people because they do some work on the side. I've never seen successful professionals with back to back profitable contracts stop to say "hey, let's cut some corners and get the cheaper tool and take our chances." Most successful professionals I know whether it's graphic arts to dentists to plumbers get the right tool for the job - cost isn't an issue unless you're starting out since it's amortized and expensed. The people who keep arguing they can do the same work on an iMac or MB probably also like to buy their rock climbing gear from WalMart :D

using that logic, it would be most beneficial to completely deck out the mac pro with every available option in order to cut rendering times by mere seconds. Why stop there? Keep upgrading every time a new option comes available. Buy that 6k decked out mac pro and buy a new one every year...decked out of course. After all..time is money..or is it?

There is always a point where the cost associated with the computer exceeds the increase in profit associated with the upgrade. Not everyone can justify spending 3k+ on a mac pro. The tools for the job as you say don't always call for a mac pro.

CalBoy

Sep 17, 2007, 12:57 AM

CalBoy, you know those people at school/work who don't seem to "get it" no matter how many times a concept is explained to them ... you start to wonder whether they're just being argumentative for the sake of it or ...

Yeah...I guess that's what it is. I kind of feel bad for the OP though, because I can see why he wants the product. It's just too bad that not too many others do. It's almost like being a Fresca fan.

There is always a point where the cost associated with the computer exceeds the increase in profit associated with the upgrade. Not everyone can justify spending 3k+ on a mac pro. The tools for the job as you say don't always call for a mac pro.

Yes, you're quite correct. Even for businesses, there isn't always an interest in buying the most advanced equipment every few months.

contoursvt

Oct 27, 2007, 11:57 PM

I was just curious to see how much a pro workstation can be built for if I wanted something really heavy duty similar to an 8 core mac pro but as a machine I build for myself. This should not be taken as me comparing prices directly because a DIY PC will likely be cheaper but curious anyway....Prices in canadian $$

Chassis - Antec P180 $140
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=18512&vpn=P180B&manufacture=ANTEC

Power Supply - Antec Truepower 1000W $235
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=25655&vpn=TPQ-1000&manufacture=ANTEC

Mainboard - Tyan Tempest 5000X, dual CPU, dual PCI-E 16X, dual PCI-X, 32GB Max RAM, 6x SATA, 8X SAS, HW RAID, etc etc etc, $540
http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=233481

Processors - 2x Quad Core 2.33Ghz 1333FSB 8MB Cache xeon $1062
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=23746&vpn=BX80563E5345A&manufacture=Intel

Memory - 8GB of 2GB FBDIMM (4x 2GB) $560
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=24056&vpn=CT2KIT25672AF667&manufacture=CRUCIAL%20TECHNOLOGY

HD1 - 74GB Fujitsu 15,000RPM SAS $399
http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=detail&id=17432

HD2 - 750GB Hitachi Deskstar SATA2 $215
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=25448&vpn=0A35154&manufacture=Hitachi

DVD burner -Pioneer 112 $40
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=22862&vpn=DVR-112DBK&manufacture=Pioneer

Video card - XFX 8800GTS 640MB $379
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=25865&vpn=PVT80GTHE4&manufacture=XFX

So it all comes to $3566.

Its expensive and above my budget but man I'd love to build it and play with this thing :)

8 core 2.33Ghz (yes its not super fast compared to 8core 3Ghz but its not dirty slow either ;)
8GB memory with 4 slots free
Full tower case with 1000W PSU
Dual layer 16x DVD burner
2x HD, 74GB 15K SAS as boot and 750GB 7200 RPM SATA for data
8800GTS video with 640MB RAM
6x SATA II ports
8x SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) ports
8 channel audio
8 USB 2.0
2 Firewire 400
Dual gigabit
Hardware raid support built in on both SATA and SAS

zap2

Oct 28, 2007, 12:58 AM

The people who keep arguing they can do the same work on an iMac or MB probably also like to buy their rock climbing gear from WalMart :D

I'll give you the MacBook is slower, but the iMac can kick some arse, ignoring gaming, that 2.8Ghz is fast!

ffakr

Oct 28, 2007, 01:01 AM

8 core 2.33Ghz (yes its not super fast compared to 8core 3Ghz but its not dirty slow either ;)
8GB memory with 4 slots free
Full tower case with 1000W PSU
Dual layer 16x DVD burner
2x HD, 74GB 15K SAS as boot and 750GB 7200 RPM SATA for data
8800GTS video with 640MB RAM
6x SATA II ports
8x SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) ports
8 channel audio
8 USB 2.0
2 Firewire 400
Dual gigabit
Hardware raid support built in on both SATA and SAS

Don't get me wrong.. I understand your post is about 'boy I'd like to build one of these' but it brings up an interesting topic.

I've got a sys admin who had done stuff like build machines of this nature for work. Worse yet, why build a server with ECC when you can just build a Fast desktop and use it as a server??

I have to remind him, and others like this.. who do you call when it breaks? Who ships the replacement part and how long does it take to get it?
The moron built his own backup server an regardless of my warnings, didn't buy duplicate parts. It was down for at least a week because he had to order a new power supply AFTER it died and the part was on back order. I think it was a Xeon or Opteron PS with some extra pins so he couldn't pick up any generic Powersupply for it.

It's always tempting to try and go cheap. It's always tempting to build your own toys.. but there's a down side depending on the application of the toy.

Freyqq

Oct 28, 2007, 01:17 AM

Don't get me wrong.. I understand your post is about 'boy I'd like to build one of these' but it brings up an interesting topic.

I've got a sys admin who had done stuff like build machines of this nature for work. Worse yet, why build a server with ECC when you can just build a Fast desktop and use it as a server??

I have to remind him, and others like this.. who do you call when it breaks? Who ships the replacement part and how long does it take to get it?
The moron built his own backup server an regardless of my warnings, didn't buy duplicate parts. It was down for at least a week because he had to order a new power supply AFTER it died and the part was on back order. I think it was a Xeon or Opteron PS with some extra pins so he couldn't pick up any generic Powersupply for it.

It's always tempting to try and go cheap. It's always tempting to build your own toys.. but there's a down side depending on the application of the toy.

i fail to see your point. If the power supply in a mac died, it would require time on the phone with tech support to convince them that it is broken and then it would take at least a week to mail it into apple, have them replace it, and send it back. If you built your own computer..at least you could go to a multitude of stores and buy a replacement part that day or order it online yourself. I see this was a custom part, but the principle is the same..

You can build a quality machine yourself. All you have to do is buy quality parts.

contoursvt

Oct 28, 2007, 01:20 AM

Well a server would be a different animal than a workstation IMO.

For servers, I'd stick with HP Proliant but workstations for a home based business or even just a home computer, I think is fine if its custom built as long as its for yourself and you're prepared to support it (which of course if I built the box I would do so).

I would never recommend a home built machine for anyone non technical or anything mission critical because if it breaks, it goes back to the person who built it ;) I dont wanna support anyone but myself.

Having said that, I'm typing right now on a Q6600 quad core PC running Vista64. Its got SCSI drives, 4Gigs RAM and a half decent video card. I enjoyed building it and I'm really happy with the performance. My G4 is still kicking around as my secondary machine :)

ffakr

Oct 28, 2007, 01:51 AM

i fail to see your point. If the power supply in a mac died, it would require time on the phone with tech support to convince them that it is broken and then it would take at least a week to mail it into apple, have them replace it, and send it back. If you built your own computer..at least you could go to a multitude of stores and buy a replacement part that day or order it online yourself. I see this was a custom part, but the principle is the same..

You can build a quality machine yourself. All you have to do is buy quality parts.

You fail to see my point because a) you don't work in enterprise or b) you shouldn't work in enterprise.
;-P

If I used a Mac Pro as a server, I would put it into a role that was redundant or not critical. I would also not call Apple and convince them my part was broken, I'd pull it for the campus Apple tech so he could order the part. Apple isn't always fast but it shouldn't take me a week for a power supply.

My Point was about the larger issue of building high end systems. People don't typically build quad core Xeon machines for home. They build them for work because they have small budgets, and often they think they can impress the boss by saving $500-$1000.
As I mentioned, I understand the post was about 'gee, I'd like to build one of those' but I posted about a larger issue.

The thing is, an 8 core Xeon is a workstation or a server. Apple is exceptional in that they don't offer real workstation grade warranty support for the Mac Pros even though they are clearly workstations. Any other vendor selling 2 socket Xeons will offer a workstation/server grade warranty with usually starts at expedited parts depot as a bare minimum.. usually next business day is the minimum service level.

The point that you fail to get is, when you're considering building a big bad ass 8 core system.. think twice before you do it for work. There are advantages to getting a box from a single vendor with real service contract.

What happens in 2 years when that dead part you need is obsolete or at least not in stock? What if that dead powersupply isn't a basic ATX and it burns out on you? Dual CPU boards tend to use non-standard ATX power, like "EPS12V Ver 2.0" & AMD "ATXGES" standards. You can't buy those at best buy.

ffakr.

Freyqq

Oct 28, 2007, 01:57 AM

You fail to see my point because a) you don't work in enterprise or b) you shouldn't work in enterprise.
;-P

If I used a Mac Pro as a server, I would put it into a role that was redundant or not critical. I would also not call Apple and convince them my part was broken, I'd pull it for the campus Apple tech so he could order the part. Apple isn't always fast but it shouldn't take me a week for a power supply.

My Point was about the larger issue of building high end systems. People don't typically build quad core Xeon machines for home. They build them for work because they have small budgets, and often they think they can impress the boss by saving $500-$1000.
As I mentioned, I understand the post was about 'gee, I'd like to build one of those' but I posted about a larger issue.

The thing is, an 8 core Xeon is a workstation or a server. Apple is exceptional in that they don't offer real workstation grade warranty support for the Mac Pros even though they are clearly workstations. Any other vendor selling 2 socket Xeons will offer a workstation/server grade warranty with usually starts at expedited parts depot as a bare minimum.. usually next business day is the minimum service level.

The point that you fail to get is, when you're considering building a big bad ass 8 core system.. think twice before you do it for work. There are advantages to getting a box from a single vendor with real service contract.

What happens in 2 years when that dead part you need is obsolete or at least not in stock? What if that dead powersupply isn't a basic ATX and it burns out on you? Dual CPU boards tend to use non-standard ATX power, like "EPS12V Ver 2.0" & AMD "ATXGES" standards. You can't buy those at best buy.

ffakr.

most parts have their own warranties with the manufacturer

anyways, you agreed with me in saying that apple in particular doesn't handle part replacement for mac pros as would be appropriate in a setting that you described. Also, both of these systems described would not function well as servers anyways. Servers are different than desktops and workstations.

also, the purpose of the thread in general was about home use desktops. I have no opinion on corporate use.

ffakr

Oct 28, 2007, 02:54 AM

most parts have their own warranties with the manufacturer

anyways, you agreed with me in saying that apple in particular doesn't handle part replacement for mac pros as would be appropriate in a setting that you described. Also, both of these systems described would not function well as servers anyways. Servers are different than desktops and workstations.

also, the purpose of the thread in general was about home use desktops. I have no opinion on corporate use.

I agree. :-)
.. except that workstations are generally treated like servers. Real "workstations" in the PC world have 4x24x7 support contracts if you want to pay for it. Apple wants to have it both ways. They want to sell big bad ass "Pro" machines but they don't want to offer real support contracts.

I suspect this is mainly because all roads leave back to Apple for support. Dell provides 4 hour support all over the country by subcontracting to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who wants to pass an "A+" quality test to become a Dell certified support shop.
Apple's just the ultimate control freak. They'd probably offer 4 hour support contracts on any piece of hardware if they had apple techs stationed all over the nation.

ffakr.

TheMonarch

Oct 28, 2007, 04:07 AM

I think Apple's biggest problem with their computers as a whole are the graphics cards. They are a complete joke.

All of them.

Seriously, graphics cards aren't just for gaming as everyone seems to assume, but there a many people who rely on the graphics capabilities just as much as the graphics designer who handles multi-GB relies on raw CPU power.

Currently there is no Mac that can be built that can be classified as 'Pro' in the 3D imaging department.

Even their $1600+ add-on graphics card, seemingly the only 'Pro' graphics solution for the Mac can't even render shadows properly in industry standard software such as Maya. That leaves those who want an accurate real-time render in their viewport, or don't have $1600 for a graphics card alone to use the consumer-based cards which are so pathetically behind [but can render properly].

Before anyone says that it may not be Apple's fault, and that its Nvidia's drivers [I don't know if thats the case, nor should the consumer have to worry about that], it still does not change the fact that a 'Pro' solution does not exist for the Mac in the 3D imaging department. People don't realize how important graphical capabilities are and what a huge role they play in other things besides gaming.

Yet lots of Mac people dismiss graphics as the 'only thing' the Apple lags behind, and only gamers obsess about graphics, and that it's not Apple's target market.