Apple needs a MID Tower.....

[tmuller]

I've been silent long enough. The jump from the imac to the mac pro IMHO is too large and apple needs a mid tower (just take the make pro and cut in half) to fill in the gap.

Now, sure, you'll say, well the base line mac pro is only 400 dollars more than the TOL imac, but too me there needs to be something in the pro desktop line without a monitor that is more capable than the imac, but less than the pro.

I'd say something like a single processor quad/octo core nehalem with up to 8 gigs of RAM and dual hot swap disks in a cube like format (bigger though) for around 1899. I think you'd see more and more sales of macs if something like that came out.

What else do you think?

[m1stake]

You are the first person to ever feel this way. Congratulations, you are utterly unique.

[sickmacdoc]

You are the first person to ever feel this way. Congratulations, you are utterly unique.

Response of the year nominee... ;)

[Schtumple]

Wasteland?

To the OP, this has discussed to death, if you'd searched you probably would've found all the discussion on this already...

[sickmacdoc]

Here are three threads on it to get you started:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=538626
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=414244
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=416788

[nick9191]

You would not see more sales of Macs. No one gives a rats ass about this computer except a few geeks who know nothing about how Apples product strategy works.

[Lord Zedd]

Just get a single CPU MacPro and stop whining.

[ceres]

Just get a single CPU MacPro and stop whining.

Nevertheless too expensive because of server hardware. Current P45 desktop boards can handle 16 GB of Ram, X58 can manage 24 GB right now. Apart from the additional CPU there is no real benefit in using server hardware.
Apple surely can put a great desktop machine into the market for around 1200-1400 USD. They don´t want to. That´s clear which is a pity for a few million potential buyers.

[peejack]

Just get a single CPU MacPro and stop whining.

Better still just get a PC, you sound like you need one ;)

[CWallace]

Folks need to not confuse their wants with Apple's needs.

I for one am hoping Apple just drops the price $300 on the Mac Pro, so the single CPU model is $1999 and the dual-CPU model is $2499 just like all the PowerMac G4s and G5s and then nobody has a legitimate complaint. :)

Of course, for the extra $300 you are paying now, you get a single-CPU model faster then the dual-CPU PPC models, but whatever...

[Techguy172]

Well, Guess what it's not happening, That's just what you get when you go apple you have to pay more and get limited selection.

[CWallace]

Well, Guess what it's not happening, That's just what you get when you go apple you have to pay more and get limited selection.

Limited selection is not always a detriment.

Having worked in computer retail in the past, having only three options each for a laptop or desktop with clear differentiation between them makes it much easier to clearly and concisely identify the right product for your customer compared to offering a hundred different combination of models and manufacturers.

It is far easier to sell a customer a $2000 computer when they're comfortable it is the right choice for them then sell them a $1500 computer when they're trying to decide between three or four and hoping they're not making a mistake.

And that is a large part as to why Apple is seeing ~40% quarter to quarter sales growth.

[tmuller]

Wasteland?

To the OP, this has discussed to death, if you'd searched you probably would've found all the discussion on this already...

Shocker, never thought of that. Probably why I didnt' do a search for "tower" and find anything because the search engine sucks and can't determine if "tower" existed anywhere, so I posted.

Now, looking at the wonderful mid tower posts, I see that it was discussed to death (oh boy, like 60 posts).

[tmuller]

Better still just get a PC, you sound like you need one ;)

This is the exact constructive criticism I've always needed. Someone to do nothing more than whine. Great. Get a life and say something worth while or don't say it at all.

[wheezy]

I agree with you TMuller, heaven forbid someone wants to discuss something on a forum.

Who cares if it's been discussed to death. If that's true, no one is making you join in on the new discussion. What do you think major news is anymore? The same crap (Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Branjolina, Lohan etc) over and over and over and over again. Discussed to death.

I agree that searching on forums is crap, I never find any post relevant to what I'm looking for, people generally have to post direct links as they participated in the discussion and remember the name.

If you notice. Arn never bitches to someone about this, follow his example.

NOW, to the post. I would love a headless iMac. I'm confident the power in an iMac is perfect for what I do (Web Design and Photography) but since the switch to Glossy Screens I'm completely turned off on them for any color-correct work. I have a great Dell Matte screen to be great on color choice, but it would drive me nuts to have a glossy and a matte if I ran an iMac with dual screens.

I'm not too picky on super power, so make it a single Quad, 8GB of RAM and 2 or 3 HD Bays. Perfect. Just like you said TMuller. Sadly, I also don't see this one coming, so I'll hopefully be purchasing a single Quad MP in the next month.

[jwt]

No one gives a rats ass about this computer ...
That's why this topic keeps popping up over and over and over and over again, huh?

...that is a large part as to why Apple is seeing ~40% quarter to quarter sales growth.
Or they could be enjoying over 50% or 60% growth if they chose to sell the type of machine under discussion, which happens to be the type of machine that sits on the desktop in the house of everyone I know and in every business for which I've ever worked. Of course, I could be wrong too. Neither one of us knows for sure, so stop taking such a definitive attitude.

Apple is not a perfect company. It is great at making easy to use innovative products, but it is not great at the business aspect of things. If you agree that they make a better product, then explain why they've been relegated to 2-5% market share for more than a decade. Apple has made many many business mistakes in the past, and they are not infallible in the present.

[CharlieKirk]

Uh stop crying, just get a low mac pro. Seriously... the jump is tiny. a 3.06GHz processor, for the price of a single cpu mac pro (nearly), do you really need something in the middle, at what, $1965.37, just get a totl imac, or a botl mp

[Diatribe]

Seriously, again??? :rolleyes:

In most Apple computers you can change the HD yourself. And if you're worried about the upgradeability of the graphics card... if you're a pro get a Mac Pro and if you're a Gamer get a PC or a console.

There is really no constructive argument for a computer like this.

[Killyp]

It kinda irks me that (relative) newbies come along and complain they've seen it a hundred times before, and those of us who've been on the forum a little longer have seen it a thousand times before and we don't feel the need to complain :rolleyes:

On top of that, doesn't the amount of threads appearing on the forum about this give you some kind of indication RE the potential of such a product? I seem to remember something similar happening with the Apple Phone rumours for years and years, with most responders saying it'll never happen, and yet it did?

I actually agree with the OP, a mid-range tower would be fine. Stick a desktop class Core2Duo in it, max it out at 16 gb of RAM, two hard drive slots, a single optical drive slot and 2 expansion slots and I'd buy one in a flash. Price it at £1000 and it's still nearly half a grand off the price of an entry level MacPro and I doubt they'll see much of an impact on the sales of the Pro.

[whooleytoo]

And if you're worried about the upgradeability of the graphics card... if you're a pro get a Mac Pro and if you're a Gamer get a PC or a console.

There is really no constructive argument for a computer like this.

Yes, there is.

"I want a Mac for gaming, with an upgradable graphics card."

I don't get this circular logic: Macs are no good for gaming -> No one should use them for gaming -> there is no need to make Macs better for gaming. ???

[Techguy172]

Limited selection is not always a detriment.

Having worked in computer retail in the past, having only three options each for a laptop or desktop with clear differentiation between them makes it much easier to clearly and concisely identify the right product for your customer compared to offering a hundred different combination of models and manufacturers.

It is far easier to sell a customer a $2000 computer when they're comfortable it is the right choice for them then sell them a $1500 computer when they're trying to decide between three or four and hoping they're not making a mistake.

And that is a large part as to why Apple is seeing ~40% quarter to quarter sales growth.

No I never said it was bad infact it's good. I like the way they do it.

[CWallace]

Or they could be enjoying over 50% or 60% growth if they chose to sell the type of machine under discussion, which happens to be the type of machine that sits on the desktop in the house of everyone I know and in every business for which I've ever worked.

And yet, Psystar is selling only a few thousand machines at a price that downright embarrasses Apple and the Hackintosh community measures in the tens of thousands. But when you point that out, the folks who think Apple needs to offer every Wintel model niche quickly try and change the subject.

Of course, I could be wrong too. Neither one of us knows for sure, so stop taking such a definitive attitude.

It is the folks who think Apple needs to offer every Wintel model niche who are the ones expressing the definitive attitude.

And yes, neither of us knows for sure, but I expect Apple has the best idea about how successful it would be of any of us since, well, they actually design, build and sell the bleedin' things.

And they have yet to do it...

[grue]

Wow, there are some people here with their head stuck squarely between Apple's legs. Apparently the "If Apple doesn't like it, Apple is always right" mentality still exists among the zealots.

"Buy a low-end Mac Pro", for over $2,000. 404, good value not found for someone who just wants a machine that won't be completely outdated in 2 years.

If Apple were to offer a midtower based on, say, the Core 2 Extreme with a single PCI-X slot, 4 DDR3 memory slots, 2 5.25" bays and 2 3.5" bays, it'd be an excellent compliment to their lineup. It'd also be a great transition machine for the people in the PC world who would switch if there was an equivalent to their current machine.

Why? Because not everybody wants a piss-weak desktop with no power, like a Mini.

Likewise, not everyone wants to bend over and take it like a little guy in prison on a base Mac Pro which is completely overkill for their needs.

Furthermore, the iMac is a truly bad purchase for some people, because of the lack of upgradability inherent with the machine. It's a throwaway computer, which isn't what some people would like to do.

The only downside to the machine would be that it would lower the amount of Mac Pro purchases made by people so frustrated that they're forced to buy them because of hte lack of a machine that'd actually fit their needs.
But then again, Apple has shown for years upon years that they don't like their customers, and catering to what they actually want would be a sign of weakness. Why change things now?

[CWallace]

Wow, there are some people here with their head stuck squarely between Apple's legs. Apparently the "If Apple doesn't like it, Apple is always right" mentality still exists among the zealots.

Both sides have their zealots, thank you.

"Buy a low-end Mac Pro", for over $2,000. 404, good value not found for someone who just wants a machine that won't be completely outdated in 2 years.

Considering how long people kept (and continue to keep, for that matter) their $2000 "low-end" PowerMac G3s, G4s and G5s, two years is certainly not the average lifetime of a $2300 Mac Pro.

If Apple were to offer a midtower based on, say, the Core 2 Extreme with a single PCI-X slot, 4 DDR3 memory slots, 2 5.25" bays and 2 3.5" bays, it'd be an excellent compliment to their lineup.

It would also kill the Mac Pro because the people who actually need 8 CPU cores and 32GB of RAM are insufficient to justify offering the model. It would also kill the iMac because it and an ACD would be the same price so why buy the all-in-one? And of course nobody would buy a Mini.

So Apple would just sell "The Mac". One model to rule them all and at the cash register, bind them.

On the plus side, since it would be BTO-only (to accommodate the dozens of CPU, GPU, HDD and memory options it would have), that would leave more space in the Apple Stores to stock iPhones. :p

[gibbz]

I was waiting for this, so I'll just throw it up.
http://masculinists.org/images/picard.jpg

[CWallace]

I was waiting for this, so I'll just throw it up...

You forgot to add the "Not this ****** again!" quote. :D

[nick9191]

That's why this topic keeps popping up over and over and over and over again, huh?

By a few thousand geeks yes.

By a normal consumer, or someone with an understanding on how Apple's product strategy works, no.

I'm sorry but if you need Quad core processing, or more than 1tb Internal storage then your either a pro user, or your massively over estimating the specs you need.

Buy the 2300 dollar Pro. It will last you a hell of a lot longer than a mid tower that needs replacing every few years, and will probably save you money in the long run.

[CWallace]

I'm sorry but if you need Quad core processing, or more than 1tb Internal storage then your either a pro user, or your massively over estimating the specs you need.

Not entirely true, IMO.

I am not a professional user, but I want a Mac Pro. Why? Because I want to convert my DVD collection to digital video because I love the convenience of having converted my CD collection to digital audio. The datasets involved require a great deal of CPU power to do quickly and a great deal of storage space to contain.

Now, my MacBook Pro can rip and convert those DVDs and I can daisy-chain a bunch of 1TB Studio Editions via FW800, but a Mac Pro will convert much faster and the ability to put 4-6TB of HDD space inside the machine is more convenient then having it arranged on my desk.

And a single Core 2 Quad CPU would be much quicker then my Core 2 Duo at performing the work, even if it wasn't as fast as two Xeon Quad CPUs. And a minitower with two HDD bays would mean I only need two 1TB studio editions instead of four or six. And while it will take longer to stream a movie to my AppleTV via Gigabit Ethernet using a Mac MiniTower vs. a Mac Pro, I can pop some popcorn while I wait.

Or I can buy the Mac Pro, even if it is $1000 more, and need not suffer any compromises. :cool:

[Saladinos]

Yes, there is.

"I want a Mac for gaming, with an upgradable graphics card."

I don't get this circular logic: Macs are no good for gaming -> No one should use them for gaming -> there is no need to make Macs better for gaming. ???

There's a counter argument:

Macs aren't good for gaming -> Apple doesn't focus on gamers -> Developers ignore the Mac.

in 1997, Jobs said Apple needed to concentrate on its most profitable markets (like education) to get themselves out of crisis. Nobody would attempt to argue that Apple are in any crisis right now. Apple would be more sensible to try and tempt developers to OSX by releasing macs better suited for gaming, than trying to pump some life out of the Mac Mini or AppleTV.

[grue]

Considering how long people kept (and continue to keep, for that matter) their $2000 "low-end" PowerMac G3s, G4s and G5s, two years is certainly not the average lifetime of a $2300 Mac Pro.

I'm not implying the Mac Pro has a usable lifetime of 2 years, I'm implying the iMac does for a power user who can't justify the comparatively huge outlay of a Mac Pro.

[grue]

I'm sorry but if you need Quad core processing, or more than 1tb Internal storage then your either a pro user, or your massively over estimating the specs you need.

1TB isn't really all that much anymore. Yes, Joe Average User can easily get by on it, but Joe Average User wouldn't be the target for a midtower.

[darklyt]

1TB isn't really all that much anymore. Yes, Joe Average User can easily get by on it, but Joe Average User wouldn't be the target for a midtower.

Isn't that the major buying market for a midtower that would attract Apple?

[cube]

To the OP: Don't mind the zealots. We are right. That's why I'm still using my Cube and Apple has not got any hardware sale from me in almost 3 upgrade cycles.

[grue]

Isn't that the major buying market for a midtower that would attract Apple?


Yup. People who need more than an iMac, but not something as overkill as a Mac Pro. But again, Apple hates their customers and potential customers.

[markfc]

I'd buy tomorrow if it had 3 x 3.5" Bays.

One disk for Boot/Apps and two 1tb in a raid 1 for protected data!

:-)

[CWallace]

I'm not implying the Mac Pro has a usable lifetime of 2 years, I'm implying the iMac does for a power user who can't justify the comparatively huge outlay of a Mac Pro.

But it honestly isn't that huge of an outlay, especially if you are a "power user" who wants/needs a PC that lasts more then a few years.

Many focus on how much more expensive the Mac Pro is, while ignoring how much more effective it is. And also ignoring how the PowerMacs were also positioned just as high-up the food chain compared to the PowerPC iMacs.

The Mac Pro is 14% more expensive then the PowerMac and yet it crushes a PowerMac in CPU performance, GPU performance, memory performance, HDD performance, and network performance by far more then 14%.





I personally believe the people who most clamor for a Mac MiniTower are Windows users who now want to move to the Mac, but have become conditioned by the low prices competition has brought about in the Wintel market. It's difficult to pay $2000 for a Wintel PC, much less $3000, so they can't comprehend why Apple charges $2300-2700 for what, to them, would be the "mainstream" desktop product. Based on their experiences with Wintel parts and pricing, using workstation parts in a desktop is just not done.

And I am in no way, shape, or form implying or stating these people are "cheap" with my beliefs. I had sticker shock when I switched from Wintel to the Mac, as well. I wanted a Mac Pro, but when faced with a $4000 system I balked and paid $2000 for a 24" iMac. So I fully understand where these folks are coming from because a year ago, I was in the same position they were now.

But in that intervening year, I have come to understand how Apple approaches the market. And what at first looked like an abject cash-grab in fact turned out to be a pretty competent addressing of the market they operate in - and choose to operate in.

Apple could save a great deal of money using desktop CPUs and chipsets. This would involve larger cases with louder fans to offset the significantly higher power draw and heat generation that such components bring to the table. The 2.8GHz Xeon in the Mac Pro has a TDP 15 watts lower then the 2.83 GHz Core 2 Quad desktop CPU. So you are not going to be able to put an Intel Q9650 and an nVidia 9000 series GPU in a Mac Cube. It's going to need a large case with a number of 120mm fans to keep it running cool enough. And before someone points out their Hackintosh running at 4GHz with a single 80mm fan ( :) ), Apple would need to design their PCs for a wide range of environments, including ones with high ambient temperatures as well as assuming people will never, ever clean out their case so they need to take into account what three years of dust accumulation is going to do to the thermal loads, in order to protect themselves as much as possible from warranty claims.

Compared to a $1999 24" 2.8GHz iMac with a 500GB HDD and an nVidia 8800GS GPU, a $2549 2.8GHz Mac Pro with a 500GB HDD and an nVidia 8800GT card is expensive. Especially when you need to add a monitor on top of that.

But that Mac Pro's 2.8GHz CPU is more powerful and will get work done quicker. And the GPU is faster, as well. And you can add up to 6TB of internal storage to the Mac Pro, vs. 1TB for the iMac. And if you don't like glossy displays or need something larger then 24", you have that option with the Mac Pro which you do not with the iMac (since it lacks a dual-DVI output). And it will have significantly better network throughput over Gigabit Ethernet.

It differentiates itself from the iMac on many levels which is what helps Apple sell it. Just as the iMac differentiates itself from the Mac Mini on many levels, which is what helps Apple sell it, as well. There really is method to their seeming product line madness. :)

[cube]

Mac Pro is overengineered except for a tiny fraction of uber power users.

[CWallace]

But again, Apple hates their customers and potential customers.

And HP hates their customers because they want $1500 more for an xw8600 configured exactly as a Mac Pro. :p

And Dell... They make HP look magnanimous in pricing for what they want compared to a Mac Pro. They really hate their customers. :(

Mac Pro is overengineered except for a tiny fraction of uber power users.

So were all the PowerMacs. What's different now? :rolleyes:

[nplima]

There is really no constructive argument for a computer like this.

One guy might have limited space, want to use the LCD TV screen for TV and for the computer
Another might not want to use a glossy screen
Another could want to 3 LCD screens with DVI connectors
Another might need 6 USB ports, external hubs won't do with the peripherals already owned
Another might dual boot and will not use the same HDD for different OSs

just some ideas...

[Schtumple]

Mac Pro is overengineered except for a tiny fraction of uber power users.

And you know, video/media corporations, scientists, audio engineers...

I went to a small business in london for some work experience where they had 25 mac pros, the majority were used for video work, some just basic word processing and emailing, but they paid the extra so during peak amounts of work, they had the performance in the machines to get the work done...

Apple doesn't just make computers for consumers looking to play UT on bootcamp...

[cherry su]

is that right? i've got one. it's called the Mac Hac®. google it

[Sun Baked]

Is the search button broken again?

Those newbies always seem to be breaking it.

[cube]

So were all the PowerMacs. What's different now? :rolleyes:

Power Macs were not octocore and did not use server chips, server RAM.

If you're going to argue you can get a quad-core Mac Pro, they waste all that server stuff.

[cube]

And you know, video/media corporations, scientists, audio engineers...

I went to a small business in london for some work experience where they had 25 mac pros, the majority were used for video work, some just basic word processing and emailing, but they paid the extra so during peak amounts of work, they had the performance in the machines to get the work done...

Apple doesn't just make computers for consumers looking to play UT on bootcamp...

They make nothing for the average professional.

[noushy]

boy this discussion topic really raises tempers, and I agree it has been discussed thousands of times across many forums. Apple went with the simplified product layout to save costs, save display space in retails settings, save distributors from stocking multiple configurations, and just plain offer great computers that work. I also wish Apple had a midtower or middle model between the imac and macpro that offered expansion capability along with external monitor(s) but for now, Apple will stick with (1) Pro machine (2) imac and/or macmini with notebook hardware (3) notebooks. This strategy has worked, and until there is enough demand for a mid model prosumer machine, keep on wishing..... Plus imagine how much apple saves on buying basically two intel chip and chipset lines (xeons and mobile core2 chips) in volume, that is how they offer a 2.8 1600fsb machine at $800-1500 less than the competition.

Noushy

[CWallace]

Power Macs were not octo-core and did not use server chips...

Technology advances and Intel's technology advanced faster then the AIM Alliance's. As such, PowerMacs were not octo-core because there is no octo-core PowerPC. Heck, there is no quad-core PowerPC, for that matter (that I can find). POWER7 is supposed to have eight cores, so I suppose if Apple had stayed with PPC, we'd might see an 8-core PowerMac in 2009 or 2010. And I bet it would cost a great deal more then $2700.

(Apple) make nothing for the average professional.

Which is why I can't comprehend why so many average professionals have Apple Macs... :confused:

I work in aerospace. We do a lot of heavy computing. And our average professional has a 2GHz Core 2 Duo in their small form factor desktop (not mini-tower) and it seems to work fine for them. Yes, the heavy hitters (myself included) have 8-core Xeons, but we're by far the minority.

[localoid]

Five minute YouTube video:

Why Apple Hasn't Produced A Mid-Tower (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndkl3WmemI)

[gibbz]

Great video! I think this explains it all.

[Schtumple]

Five minute YouTube video:

Why Apple Hasn't Produced A Mid-Tower (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndkl3WmemI)

Can this just be pasted into all of these threads, then the threads be closed, makes everything so much easier.

[Cave Man]

Five minute YouTube video:

Why Apple Hasn't Produced A Mid-Tower (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndkl3WmemI)

Ten years old, and the operative phrase occurs at 4:28. There's a hole in Apple's lineup and if they come to the conclusion that filling that hole would benefit their bottom line, they'll do it.

[localoid]

Ten years old, and the operative phrase occurs at 4:28. There's a hole in Apple's lineup and if they come to the conclusion that filling that hole would benefit their bottom line, they'll do it.

"Life will find a way." (The Lost World: Jurassic Park)

I thought about replacing the word "life" with "hackers" but because the average person thinks hackers = Velociraptors, I didn't... ;)

[Cave Man]

I don't consider myself a hacker; more of a tailor. That's why I have the "Mac" I need and want and the Apple TV I need and want and the iPhone I need and want. I would not presume they are for anyone else.

[whooleytoo]

Five minute YouTube video:

Why Apple Hasn't Produced A Mid-Tower (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4ndkl3WmemI)

Yeah, I hear ya. 4 key products and that's it!

Well ok, there's also the Mac mini. So there's actually 5 key products. But that's it. No more.

Well ok, then there's the MacBook Air, but seriously now. There can only be 6 key product lines and no more.

Apart from maybe the Apple TV. Ok, you're killing me here, I wouldn't do this for anyone else. 7. 7 key product lines.

And maaaaybe the iPod, which is 1, or 3 product lines, depending on how you look at it.

But we will never, ever have more than 10 key product lines*

(* unless you include the iPhone...)

That video is so irrelevant to the Apple of today, it's just not funny. The only reason (which I'd have thought everyone knew) that Apple aren't making a mid-tower isn't that it wouldn't sell, but that it would sell too well and reduce sales of the higher-margin MacPros.

[localoid]

I don't consider myself a hacker; more of a tailor. That's why I have the "Mac" I need and want and the Apple TV I need and want and the iPhone I need and want. I would not presume they are for anyone else.

Tailor is good... Personally, I always liked "synthesizer"... :p

[CWallace]

The only reason (which I'd have thought everyone knew) that Apple aren't making a mid-tower isn't that it wouldn't sell, but that it would sell too well and reduce sales of the higher-margin MacPros.

I imagine the Mac Pro is likely the model with the lowest average margins, based on the raw cost of the components in it. That is one of the reasons why I think they don't sell it for $1999/$2499 like they did the PowerMac.

Operating under the plausible assumption that Apple would use mobile parts for their mid-tower (which would actually be more like a Shuttle SFF then a tower) to keep the size and the noise down (less power equals less heat which equals smaller fans with lower speeds), prices likely would be only about $500 lower then a 24" iMac with the same specifications - and a descent 24" S-PVA display would eat that right there, to say nothing of an ACD. And the quad-core model would likely be almost as much as the single-CPU Mac Pro since the CPU price for a mobile quad-core is up to hundreds more then that of a Xeon.

[Trip.Tucker]

I was waiting for this, so I'll just throw it up.
http://masculinists.org/images/picard.jpg


Already done. By meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......:D

My forum name should be the clue ;)

[Trip.Tucker]

Shocker, never thought of that. Probably why I didnt' do a search for "tower" and find anything because the search engine sucks and can't determine if "tower" existed anywhere, so I posted.

Now, looking at the wonderful mid tower posts, I see that it was discussed to death (oh boy, like 60 posts).


Funny, I found over 247 hits... are you sure you spelled 'tower' correctly? *sigh*

[NT1440]

is there really that many people that havent figured out taht apple will put out the products that THEY want to?

Just because there is no mid tower, doesnt mean they NEED to release one. Apple makes people fall in love with what they offer, other companies throw nothing but configurations at you. Pick one approach u like and stick with it. Im sure apple isnt sweating about losing your support.

[Umbongo]

is there really that many people that havent figured out taht apple will put out the products that THEY want to?

Just because there is no mid tower, doesnt mean they NEED to release one. Apple makes people fall in love with what they offer, other companies throw nothing but configurations at you. Pick one approach u like and stick with it. Im sure apple isnt sweating about losing your support.

Entitlement is rife in the parts of society that frequent technology associated forums.

[nplima]

Operating under the plausible assumption that Apple would use mobile parts for their mid-tower (which would [...] suck) ;)


You are right, actually.

While I would love to get a Mac that is... less of a Mac than the current models, I find it more likely they'll re-release the Mini by grabbing the MacBook Air and removing the screen. A true successor to the ZX Spectrum :D

[Diatribe]

None of the reasons warrant a new model.

One guy might have limited space, want to use the LCD TV screen for TV and for the computer


Get a mini.


Another might not want to use a glossy screen


That's like saying Apple should produce another laptop because the MacBooks come with a glossy screen. Get a mini or a Pro.


Another could want to 3 LCD screens with DVI connectors


Nerd alarm. Or if a pro, get a Mac Pro ;)


Another might need 6 USB ports, external hubs won't do with the peripherals already owned


Why again won't hubs do? :confused:


Another might dual boot and will not use the same HDD for different OSs


No reason to, but if you really want to do it just buy external HDs.


Yes, there is.

"I want a Mac for gaming, with an upgradable graphics card."

I don't get this circular logic: Macs are no good for gaming -> No one should use them for gaming -> there is no need to make Macs better for gaming. ???

To build a gaming PC you need half the money it costs to buy a Mac. Why would Apple want to compete with that? Besides there are hardly any games.

[MacVault]

Yes, Apple Needs to build an affordable Mid-tower Mac.
Yes, This has been discussed to death.
Yes, unfortunately, as long as Steve Jobs is alive we will never see any such Mac.
Yes, this makes me very MAD :mad:

[Cave Man]

Yes, unfortunately, as long as Steve Jobs is alive we will never see any such Mac.

If Stevie becomes convinced that it would improve Apple's bottom line, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Stevie's a businessman first, and everything else second.

[Diatribe]

If Stevie becomes convinced that it would improve Apple's bottom line, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Stevie's a businessman first, and everything else second.

Exactly. Which is why it doesn't make sense. If it would financially, there would be one.

[jwt]

And yet, Psystar is selling only a few thousand machines at a price that downright embarrasses Apple and the Hackintosh community measures in the tens of thousands. But when you point that out, the folks who think Apple needs to offer every Wintel model niche quickly try and change the subject.

You're using some stupid little company illegally peddling cheap buggy hardware as your counterargument? Please.

And yes, neither of us knows for sure, but I expect Apple has the best idea about how successful it would be of any of us since, well, they actually design, build and sell the bleedin' things.

And they have yet to do it...
Ooo, you win! *sarcasm*

[CWallace]

You're using some stupid little company illegally peddling cheap buggy hardware as your counterargument? Please.

The folks who keep posting Apple needs a mid-tower need to actually make an argument first in order for me to counter it.

Unfortunately, all they seem to be able to do is insult people who don't agree with them. :(

[Anuba]

Seriously, again??? :rolleyes:

In most Apple computers you can change the HD yourself. And if you're worried about the upgradeability of the graphics card... if you're a pro get a Mac Pro and if you're a Gamer get a PC or a console.
And if you're a semi-pro with limited resources? There are millions of home studio musicians, graphic designers, video producers etc who need the power and connectivity/configurability of a desktop machine, and ideally a dual-screen setup. The iMac doesn't cut it and the Mac Pro is ludicrously expensive and overpowered (you don't need 4 or 8 cores for these purposes). These hobbyists and small business guys often end up getting a desktop PC instead, for half the starting price of a Mac Pro.

Apple is like a car company that offers a super compact á la Mini Cooper, a compact á la VW Rabbit/Golf, and a monster SUV á la Hummer H1, but no normal sized family sedan or station wagon in the middle.

[Cave Man]

Apple is like a car company that offers a super compact á la Mini Cooper, a compact á la VW Rabbit/Golf, and a monster SUV á la Hummer H1, but no normal sized family sedan or station wagon in the middle.

Sheesh. Now I have to put stripes on my Mini?

[CWallace]

And if you're a semi-pro with limited resources? There are millions of home studio musicians, graphic designers, video producers etc who need the power and connectivity/configurability of a desktop machine, and ideally a dual-screen setup. The iMac doesn't cut it...

Honest question - in what way would an iMac "not cut it"?

It has very fast dual-core processors (since you noted four-cores are superfluous). It can take 4GB of RAM. You can get it with a decent video card. It can have internal HDD space of up to 1TB and you can add to it with FW800. Same with an external Blu-ray reader/writer. And it can drive a second 24" display at 1920x1200.

The only thing I can think of that it can't do is hold the extra HDDs and optical drives inside like a mid-tower can.

[jwt]

The folks who keep posting Apple needs a mid-tower need to actually make an argument first in order for me to counter it.

Unfortunately, all they seem to be able to do is insult people who don't agree with them. :(

Funny, I've observed the same thing in the opposite direction. There have been tons of solid points made in favor of the headless iMac. I think you gloss past them. I, like another here stated, waited 6 years to upgrade from my PowerMac G4 because Apple did not have a reasonably price mid-tower. Consumers don't spend $2500 on a mid-tower computer, and mid-towers are the largest market segment. They spend $1000, and by Apple not offering a mid-tower in this price range, they are saying no to money. That business model works in the bizzarro world. It doesn't work on planet Earth. Many of us here simply cannot comprehend why Apple does not want even a small slice of such a huge pie.

[CWallace]

Most of the points I have seen being made in favor of a mid-tower Mac is the expectation that it would be cheap. Not cheaper, mind you, but cheap.

Those making the point often assume that an Apple mid-tower would be the same price as a mid-range Dell or HP tower - $999-1199 for something like a 3.0GHz dual-core/2.6GHz quad-core with 2GB of RAM, a 500GB HDD, a 512MB nVidia 8000-series GPU and a DVD-burner.

However, they don't seem to understand that Apple likely would not use desktop-class components like those Wintel boxes, but instead stay with mobile-class components which are substantially more expensive for the same levels of performance. Apple would do this because their design aesthetics dictate the use of such components. And they also don't seem to realize that a Wintel PC has a profit margin below 10% while a Mac has one over 30%. As such, a 3.06GHz dual-core or 2.26GHz quad-core with 2GB of RAM, 500GB of storage space, nVidia 8800GS video card and a DVD burner would be more like $1499-1699 as opposed to the assumed $999-1199 desktop-component price. And I expect they would be of the opinion that those prices are also too expensive and not worth buying.

Others have pointed out that Apple offered single-CPU PowerMac G4s and G5s for $1999 - $300 less then the Mac Pro. And I have pointed out that the Power Mac, for 14% more money, offers a great deal more then 14% more power then the $1999 G4 or G5 did so it may cost more, but it is a better value. And just looking at PowerMac G4 and G5 prices, the Mac Pro's pricing is actually the same or better - and each time you get more for your money.

Many of those who want it as a cheap(er) gaming rig also seem to believe that they will have the freedom to use any video card they want, just like a Wintel box. Except Apple doesn't operate that way. If Apple won't certify a powerful video card for the Mac Pro, why would they certify one for a lower-spec mid-tower model? You might get lucky and see enough sales to convince nVidia and ATI themselves certify a card (as ATI has done for the Mac Pro), but that's not guaranteed.

[grue]

Honest question - in what way would an iMac "not cut it"?

It has very fast dual-core processors (since you noted four-cores are superfluous). It can take 4GB of RAM. You can get it with a decent video card. It can have internal HDD space of up to 1TB and you can add to it with FW800. Same with an external Blu-ray reader/writer. And it can drive a second 24" display at 1920x1200.

The only thing I can think of that it can't do is hold the extra HDDs and optical drives inside like a mid-tower can.

1. First and foremost, glossy displays are the devil. Satan's anus in display form.

2. Decent video card, not a good one. So you're already fighting an uphill battle, and you can't upgrade it later.

3. It's a mobile CPU, and a mobile GPU. They're quite a bit slower than their desktop counterparts.

[m1stake]

One issue might be that Apple's product offerings in the computer department are very different looking. One is a very small box, one is an all in one display, and one is a huge tower. That sort of visual difference is very telling for someone who isn't computer savvy. What would Apple make this mid tower like? A 1.5' tall white box is awfully bland. I would expect them to have a better concept than just a white box, but there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room.

[November]

Yeah, I hear ya. 4 key products and that's it!

Well ok, there's also the Mac mini. So there's actually 5 key products. But that's it. No more.

Well ok, then there's the MacBook Air, but seriously now. There can only be 6 key product lines and no more.

Apart from maybe the Apple TV. Ok, you're killing me here, I wouldn't do this for anyone else. 7. 7 key product lines.

And maaaaybe the iPod, which is 1, or 3 product lines, depending on how you look at it.

But we will never, ever have more than 10 key product lines*

(* unless you include the iPhone...)

That video is so irrelevant to the Apple of today, it's just not funny. The only reason (which I'd have thought everyone knew) that Apple aren't making a mid-tower isn't that it wouldn't sell, but that it would sell too well and reduce sales of the higher-margin MacPros.

Because markets do not expand over 10 years....

The theory that is presented there still applies today and to their current product line up.

[Kpjoslee]

There is no way Apple will release mid-tower when desktop market is no longer growing...I would love to see Apple release mid-tower Mac but market is moving toward low power and more portability...

[m1stake]

There is no way Apple will release mid-tower when desktop market is no longer growing...I would love to see Apple release mid-tower Mac but market is moving toward low power and more portability...

Great addition, this is the best argument in the thread. The laptop business is growing exponentially, the desktop business... Is not.

[UltraNEO*]

If you want a midi tower, get a bleedin PC thing!! I'm sure you'll be over the moon!! Cause you can tweak and customize the accordingly... But how mnay PC boards can handle 32Gb of RAM and Dual Xeon's?


The MacPro is aim at Professional users (aka Power users) who'll utilises whatever power it can output, for those who need it, they'll have a render farm in the net room with fully air-conditioned environments!! Who needs kind of power? People who actually do constructive work!!

You might think server technology is a overkill but have you tried processing production video at a broadcasting quality with multiple channels of audio, sound clips for effects and special FX added on top? I'm guessing few have...

I can tell you Core2Duos can't handle it, it's a bleedin nightmare!! We're talking days of processing here, if not weeks. It's just ridiculous!! The processors simply can't handle the masses of data, there are bottlenecks everywhere!! Because it's actual video, it's not something the GPU can handle. So upping the GPU would have little to no effect!!

The rest of you's who own a MacPro so you can play games, watch or download junk ain't really making any uses of the extreme processing and expansion power the MacPro can utilize. For you guys, 90% of the MacPro is completely wasted. Might as well be Folding@Home while you tinker with your BMX.

[grue]

If you want a midi tower, get a bleedin PC thing!! I'm sure you'll be over the moon!! Cause you can tweak and customize the accordingly... But how mnay PC boards can handle 32Gb of RAM and Dual Xeon's?


The MacPro is aim at Professional users (aka Power users) who'll utilises whatever power it can output, for those who need it, they'll have a render farm in the net room with fully air-conditioned environments!! Who needs kind of power? People who actually do constructive work!!

You might think server technology is a overkill but have you tried processing production video at a broadcasting quality with multiple channels of audio, sound clips for effects and special FX added on top? I'm guessing few have...

I can tell you Core2Duos can't handle it, it's a bleedin nightmare!! We're talking days of processing here, if not weeks. It's just ridiculous!! The processors simply can't handle the masses of data, there are bottlenecks everywhere!! Because it's actual video, it's not something the GPU can handle. So upping the GPU would have little to no effect!!

The rest of you's who own a MacPro so you can play games, watch or download junk ain't really making any uses of the extreme processing and expansion power the MacPro can utilize. For you guys, 90% of the MacPro is completely wasted. Might as well be Folding@Home while you tinker with your BMX.



Thank you for proving our point. iMac is weaksauce, Mac Pro is overkill for most people. Apple has a HUGE gap in their product line for the people who want a reasonably fast computer to use for a wide variety of tasks, with the ability to keep it up to date.

I don't think anyone is saying "God, the Mac Pro sucks, Apple shouldn't make it", they're just wishing Apple would offer something to fit their needs. Personally, I needed the Mac Pro for the reasons you state, but I definitely see where the midrange/gamer users are coming from.

[hexonxonx]

The rest of you's who own a MacPro so you can play games, watch or download junk ain't really making any uses of the extreme processing and expansion power the MacPro can utilize. For you guys, 90% of the MacPro is completely wasted. Might as well be Folding@Home while you tinker with your BMX.

I have a Mac Pro simply for it's 4TB of storage space. I don't have to attach external drives to thing to store massive videos and music I buy in iTunes. To me that is good enough reason to own one. And yes, get ready to cringe, when I am not using it to sync my iPhone or watch the X-Files, it is crunching numbers for Seti@home. I'm find with my $3000 Mac Pro being used for what it is doing. I'm also fine using the 23" ACD for watching Chips Season 2. It still has the 2GB ram it came with because I don't need anymore for what I'm doing with it and I'm fine with that too.

Life is good with some great music, a nice movie or two and a Mac Pro. ;)

[Anuba]

Sheesh. Now I have to put stripes on my Mini?
Nah, just a chequered roof. ;)

Honest question - in what way would an iMac "not cut it"?
Well, one of the areas I mentioned was music production, and personally I don't find the iMac particularly suited as a digital audio workstation. I have an iMac 24" but I certainly don't use it for that.

One, you want the ability to stick a full sized PCI card into the computer. Two, you want to distance yourself from fan noise (some even stick the computer inside a soundproofed box), which is a no-go with the iMac where the fan is right in your face. Three, you want a huge amount of screen real estate (1920x1200 is nowhere near adequate) because you need a complete overview of a number of audio and midi tracks, the mixer and numerous instrument and FX device panels. I myself have a 3-screen setup with a total of 4960x1600 pixels, and even then there are plenty of windows and panels I have to keep minimized. I guess you could get an iMac 24" and plug another 24" monitor into it, but if you're even remotely concerned about a symmetrical and otherwise aesthetically pleasing setup you're not gonna want that. So the mid-tower form factor is the preferable one.

The thing about music production is that you need a professional setup to get somewhere, but no matter how talented you are you won't be seeing any money in ages, so you're on a budget. It's not just the computer and its peripherals you need, you also need MIDI controllers, monitor speakers, external audio interface and tons of expensive software. So where can you cut costs? Well, one good place to start is to not buy a Mac Pro. Here in Sweden, the Mac Pro starts at 23,995 SEK ($3668), and that's just the bare-bones default configuration -- you'll easily be at 30,000 SEK ($4587) before you check out from the Apple Store. Meanwhile you can get the middle brother of the Dell Precision series (Dell's 'pro' lineup), the T5400, which starts at 10,360 SEK ($1584) and for that you get a quad-core Xeon 2,33 with 2GB RAM and dual NVidia 256 MB video cards, which is more than adequate for the task at hand. Throw in some more RAM and an extra hard drive and you're still only at HALF the STARTING price of the Mac Pro. And that's the upper range Precision series; if you go for the consumer Inspiron series you can get four of them for the price of a Mac Pro.

Then consider that these guys have to replace their machines at least once every 3 years, so it's more than just swallowing one very tough purchase, you're gonna have to do it again and again.

I work in music software and I can tell you that I've seen first hand quite a few in our user base who have actually switched from Mac to PC over this issue. All the software they need is cross-platform anyway, and for the money saved on not buying a Mac Pro they can afford all that other stuff they need for music production - the dual screens, the monitor speakers, the works. So they ask themselves if they love the Mac so much they're willing to sell their car or move back in with their parents, and if the answer is no, they reluctantly abandon the Mac and take the PC route. And that's not really what Steve and his fans want, is it? People in a notoriously Mac-loving crowd (=musicians) switching to PC?

[CWallace]

1. First and foremost, glossy displays are the devil. Satan's anus in display form.

I happen to like glossy displays, but I will spot you this one because I know many who work with photos, graphics and video do not.

2. Decent video card, not a good one. So you're already fighting an uphill battle, and you can't upgrade it later.

Also true, but remember even the Mac Pro also offers the same ATI X2600 and nVidia 8800 technologies (admittedly with faster clocks, but not tremendously so).

3. It's a mobile CPU, and a mobile GPU. They're quite a bit slower than their desktop counterparts.

And I am pretty confident a Mac Mid-Tower would have the same mobile CPUs and GPUs. Desktop components are cheap, but they are hot and they are power-hungry. That means larger cases with louder active ventilation (fans) to keep cool and both don't seem to mix well with Apple's design aesthetics. And trying to be seen as a "green" company is not helped by using machines that draw hundreds of watts of power and convert most of it to waste heat.

[CWallace]

Here in Sweden, the Mac Pro starts at 23,995 SEK ($3668), and that's just the bare-bones default configuration -- you'll easily be at 30,000 SEK ($4587) before you check out from the Apple Store. Meanwhile you can get the middle brother of the Dell Precision series (Dell's 'pro' lineup), the T5400, which starts at 10,360 SEK ($1584) and for that you get a quad-core Xeon 2,33 with 2GB RAM and dual NVidia 256 MB video cards, which is more than adequate for the task at hand.

Now see, here in the US, a Dell Workstation is about $1000 more then a Mac Pro in identical configuration. We use HP's at work and I have a machine that is identical to a Mac Pro in every single category and component - and it retails for $7,200, which is $1,500 more then what the Apple Store wants.

But, in the end, the same thing would apply with a Mac Mini-Tower. If it is $1500 in the US, it would be 15,000 SEK ($2322) because, for whatever reasons, the price of Apple products in Sweden are much higher then they are in the US.


Then consider that these guys have to replace their machines at least once every 3 years, so it's more than just swallowing one very tough purchase, you're gonna have to do it again and again.

With respect, if you need to replace a quad-core desktop machine every three years, you should be buying a Mac Pro (base or tricked-out) as it will last longer thanks to having more CPU power, more RAM, more HDD expandability and better network throughput which, all together, offers better performance that lasts longer.

[Anuba]

Now see, here in the US, a Dell Workstation is about $1000 more then a Mac Pro in identical configuration. We use HP's at work and I have a machine that is identical to a Mac Pro in every single category and component - and it retails for $7,200, which is $1,500 more then what the Apple Store wants.
Wow.

But, in the end, the same thing would apply with a Mac Mini-Tower. If it is $1500 in the US, it would be 15,000 SEK ($2322) because, for whatever reasons, the price of Apple products in Sweden are much higher then they are in the US.
I'm guessing the issue with the prices is that Dell and Apple handle the weak dollar in diametrically opposite ways. A few years ago the US dollar was worth 12 SEK. Now it's down to 6 SEK. Normally this should result in cheaper American products in Sweden, and with Dell this holds true -- their prices have been dropping continuously. But Apple's prices in SEK have stayed the same as when the dollar was worth twice as much.

In other words, Dell is taking the opportunity to peddle more machines overseas, while Apple is taking the opportunity to squeeze out higher profits from their overseas sales. Apple could have used the opportunity to increase their market share overseas, but they got greedy and short-sighted.

[CWallace]

In other words, Dell is taking the opportunity to peddle more machines overseas, while Apple is taking the opportunity to squeeze out higher profits from their overseas sales. Apple could have used the opportunity to increase their market share overseas, but they got greedy and short-sighted.

It is also possible Apple sees limited sales opportunities in Sweden and therefore wants to extract the maximum revenues they can from that market.

Or Apple might have limited stock that they can ship to Sweden, and therefore keep prices high to force demand down to match the available supply.

Or perhaps Dell has done deals or something that lowers their costs to operate/ship to Sweden and Apple has not.

It does not just have to be raw greed on Apple's part. They make 35% margin here in the US, after all, which is amazingly high for computers.

[ceres]

I happen to like glossy displays, but I will spot you this one because I know many who work with photos, graphics and video do not.



Also true, but remember even the Mac Pro also offers the same ATI X2600 and nVidia 8800 technologies (admittedly with faster clocks, but not tremendously so).



And I am pretty confident a Mac Mid-Tower would have the same mobile CPUs and GPUs. Desktop components are cheap, but they are hot and they are power-hungry. That means larger cases with louder active ventilation (fans) to keep cool and both don't seem to mix well with Apple's design aesthetics. And trying to be seen as a "green" company is not helped by using machines that draw hundreds of watts of power and convert most of it to waste heat.

Glossy hin, Glossy her, the iMac AL Screens are crap, especially the 24in versions. It´s good for youtube and iChild apps but gets squashed by any 400 USD screen and totally useless for more demanding tasks.
The only place this is disputed is here by the acolytes of the Apple.
Apple as a green company is of course a marketing joke.
Potent desktop cpus can be had with a 65W TDP. The Mac Pro has a >1KW PSU but idles at around 176 W. A toned down midi version would come in at 120-130W idle. So where are the few hundred W w/o the 280GTX at full blast?
Certainly, there is a huge gap between the iToy and the Mac Pro.
A lot of people would like processing power in between and not pay premium for server hardware in the 1 CPU MP configuration.

[ceres]

Wow.


I'm guessing the issue with the prices is that Dell and Apple handle the weak dollar in diametrically opposite ways. A few years ago the US dollar was worth 12 SEK. Now it's down to 6 SEK. Normally this should result in cheaper American products in Sweden, and with Dell this holds true -- their prices have been dropping continuously. But Apple's prices in SEK have stayed the same as when the dollar was worth twice as much.

In other words, Dell is taking the opportunity to peddle more machines overseas, while Apple is taking the opportunity to squeeze out higher profits from their overseas sales. Apple could have used the opportunity to increase their market share overseas, but they got greedy and short-sighted.

Hi there!
As Sweden is a EU member country you can import duty-free from the continent. I am not aware of the current exchange rate but I assume the Krona has fared well recently.

[Saladinos]

Great addition, this is the best argument in the thread. The laptop business is growing exponentially, the desktop business... Is not.

It's not exponential growth. Don't exaggerate.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=14336

"Apple is brand at No. 6, a position the company has held since Q3 2007. The company’s total fourth-quarter PC shipments grew 39.3% YoY, with equally strong growth for its desktop and notebook businesses"

IDC think that the desktop:laptop ratio at the end of 2008 with be 1:1 (or 50:50). If your desktop offerings are poor, you're excluding 50% of the market. I don't expect this to change significantly in the next 5 years. Besides, I'd bet much of the growth in the laptop segment is because of cheap 'netbooks', an area where Apple is entirely absent.

Apple's laptop strategy excludes them from the boon in laptop sales, and their desktop strategy is alienating a major part of the market. It'll be a long time before desktops become 'niche'. If that does happen, it'll potentially mean less money for all OEMs - rather than buy a desktop for home and laptop, people will just buy a laptop. If Apple re-entered the space properly, with exciting hardware innovations, they could be responsible for a rejuvenation of the market in their favour.

[ceres]

It is also possible Apple sees limited sales opportunities in Sweden and therefore wants to extract the maximum revenues they can from that market.

Or Apple might have limited stock that they can ship to Sweden, and therefore keep prices high to force demand down to match the available supply.

Or perhaps Dell has done deals or something that lowers their costs to operate/ship to Sweden and Apple has not.

It does not just have to be raw greed on Apple's part. They make 35% margin here in the US, after all, which is amazingly high for computers.

Swedes are (statistically) ultra-wealthy and enjoy (statistically) about the highest per capita income in the world. Of course, Apple tries to extract the living ***** out of the beautiful blondes.

[Anuba]

Swedes are (statistically) ultra-wealthy and enjoy (statistically) about the highest per capita income in the world. Of course, Apple tries to extract the living ***** out of the beautiful blondes.
No, no... the blondes are still here, but the statistics are from the 1960's. Last time I checked, Sweden had dropped to the 19th spot in income per capita. We also have a ludicrous 25% sales tax, so we don't need the manufacturers to jack up the prices, the government takes care of that thankyouverymuch.

The thing about our supposed wealth was that we came out of WWII completely unscathed and our factories were standing ready to deliver the goods for rebuilding the rest of Europe, which was basically a pile of rubble. That advantage sustained us all the way through the 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's, but since the mid-90's, Sweden's economy has been mediocre.

As for the blondes, you can have'em. People tend to prefer exotic beauties, and in Sweden, blonde hair is the least exotic feature of all. You guys probably wanted Rachel on Friends, but we wanted Monica. I'll trade you a million blondes for a million brunettes... provided that they're all reasonably tall, like our blondes. No midgets!

It is also possible Apple sees limited sales opportunities in Sweden and therefore wants to extract the maximum revenues they can from that market.
Well... define "limited". It's a small country of 9 million, but also one of the most gadget and hitech-crazy. We have the highest broadband penetration in the world and everyone and his grandma is online 24/7. Per capita, it could potentially be one of Apple's best markets.
Or perhaps Dell has done deals or something that lowers their costs to operate/ship to Sweden and Apple has not.
Well... all I know is that Dell assembles all their machines in Ireland so technically it's not really an American product per se (Asian parts assembled in Ireland with an American logo slapped on). But I was under the impression that Apple does the same thing... anyway, Ireland is some kind of European central for Apple products. When I buy an iPod or a Mac Mini from the Swedish Apple store, it's shipped from Ireland. I'd imagine the same goes for Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of EU.

[CWallace]

Apple's laptop strategy excludes them from the boon in laptop sales, and their desktop strategy is alienating a major part of the market.

Could it be just a major part of the Wintel market?

After all, if Apple is seeing 40% growth in both desktops and laptops, their desktop offerings must not be as poor as is claimed by some? Especially since Apple's strongest retail growth is in machines that cost more then $2000 - a retail market they currently control two-thirds of?

A common argument is that Apple must offer a mid-tower because Windows users predominately have mid-tower models and therefore Apple must have one too in order to appeal to them to switch.

And yet what is the model Apple created specifically to attract Windows users? The Mac Mini. And Apple has done very little to it since they created it. About the only product Apple gets more stick about then the mid-tower is the Mini. A large number of Windows mid-tower owners evidently seem to want to use the Mini to become introduced to OS X and the entire Apple experience, even though it's small and it cannot be expanded. All they want is something newer then technology that wasn't cutting edge 24 months ago inside of it.

Even in the Wintel world, mid-towers are starting to fall by the wayside - especially amongst corporate customers. More and more companies are moving to small form factor PCs because they take up less space, draw less power and more then meet the needs of their users. Even retail Wintel boxes are getting progressively smaller over time. I travel a good bit for work and all my suppliers (and these are big companies with thousands of desktops) are all either using SFF machines or are replacing their towers with SFF machines to a very heavy extent.

The biggest market going forward for mid-towers will be the enthusiast market who either build them themselves or want them for very narrowly-focused purposes - like gaming or media center rigs. Those who build it themselves do so for both the challenge and the labor savings, so an Apple mid-tower would not appeal to them since Apple builds it for them and therefore no labor savings can be obtained. And those who want a gaming or media-center rig will be disappointed both by the lack of high-performance gaming cards available and Apple's desire to serve media content from the web - not a big box of disks in the closet.

[CWallace]

Well... define "limited". It's a small country of 9 million, but also one of the most gadget and hitech-crazy. We have the highest broadband penetration in the world and everyone and his grandma is online 24/7. Per capita, it could potentially be one of Apple's best markets.

Well Apple ships around 12 million Macs a year, but I cannot find any breakdowns of where they go, so I do not know how well Apple sells in Sweden.

Well... all I know is that Dell assembles all their machines in Ireland so technically it's not really an American product per se (Asian parts assembled in Ireland with an American logo slapped on). But I was under the impression that Apple does the same thing...

All Macs are built in China. Apple may use Ireland as a shipping depot, but they do not assemble them there. So perhaps since Dell assembles EU-sold product in the EU, they get tax breaks or something that allows them to sell lower then Apple, which imports assembled product from China.

[jwt]

Most of the points I have seen being made in favor of a mid-tower Mac is the expectation that it would be cheap. Not cheaper, mind you, but cheap.

Those making the point often assume that an Apple mid-tower would be the same price as a mid-range Dell or HP tower - $999-1199 for something like a 3.0GHz dual-core/2.6GHz quad-core with 2GB of RAM, a 500GB HDD, a 512MB nVidia 8000-series GPU and a DVD-burner.

However, they don't seem to understand that Apple likely would not use desktop-class components like those Wintel boxes, but instead stay with mobile-class components which are substantially more expensive for the same levels of performance. Apple would do this because their design aesthetics dictate the use of such components. And they also don't seem to realize that a Wintel PC has a profit margin below 10% while a Mac has one over 30%. As such, a 3.06GHz dual-core or 2.26GHz quad-core with 2GB of RAM, 500GB of storage space, nVidia 8800GS video card and a DVD burner would be more like $1499-1699 as opposed to the assumed $999-1199 desktop-component price. And I expect they would be of the opinion that those prices are also too expensive and not worth buying.

Others have pointed out that Apple offered single-CPU PowerMac G4s and G5s for $1999 - $300 less then the Mac Pro. And I have pointed out that the Power Mac, for 14% more money, offers a great deal more then 14% more power then the $1999 G4 or G5 did so it may cost more, but it is a better value. And just looking at PowerMac G4 and G5 prices, the Mac Pro's pricing is actually the same or better - and each time you get more for your money.

Many of those who want it as a cheap(er) gaming rig also seem to believe that they will have the freedom to use any video card they want, just like a Wintel box. Except Apple doesn't operate that way. If Apple won't certify a powerful video card for the Mac Pro, why would they certify one for a lower-spec mid-tower model? You might get lucky and see enough sales to convince nVidia and ATI themselves certify a card (as ATI has done for the Mac Pro), but that's not guaranteed.

You make too many assumptions, my friend. An iMac minus the flat panel display minus the engineering costs involved in building such a unique case should be cheaper to build than the iMac itself. If sold at the same price as the iMac, this new hypothetical machine would be in the price range consumers are looking for and the margin would be higher.

Additionally, to use your point, $1499 to $1699 is still more attractive to budget-minded consumers than $2299 for the SP MacPro.

[jwt]

...if Apple is seeing 40% growth in both desktops and laptops, their desktop offerings must not be as poor as is claimed by some?
That only means that they are successful in reaching their target audience. They, however, still aren't targeting the biggest audience: the consumer oriented mid-tower.

[Cave Man]

I am not aware of the current exchange rate but I assume the Krona has fared well recently.

I though Krona was a Mexican beer. :confused:

[Anuba]

I though Krona was a Mexican beer. :confused:

After a few beers, it probably is. ;)

Corona is Latin and Spanish for 'crown'. Unsurprisingly, that's what 'krona' means as well.

[CWallace]

You make too many assumptions, my friend. An iMac minus the flat panel display minus the engineering costs involved in building such a unique case should be cheaper to build than the iMac itself. If sold at the same price as the iMac, this new hypothetical machine would be in the price range consumers are looking for and the margin would be higher.

Apple would never sell a mid-tower with iMac specs for the same price as an iMac. You think people riot now about a $2399 Mac Pro, they'd really riot for a $2199 mid-tower with the same specs as the 3.06GHz iMac without the monitor. :eek: :D

The case is likely one of the cheaper parts of the iMac. If they pay more then $50 for it, they're being robbed. :) And the LM240WU1 24" LCD in the iMac has a wholesale cost to Apple of no more then $300. So you'd be looking at a savings of around $400 ($300 for the panel and $100 for the margin on that panel) that means:

3.06GHz DC / 2.26GHz QC Model - $1699-1799
2.80GHz DC Model - $1399-1499

Which is exactly what I have been saying these machines would cost. And is exactly anywhere from $400-800 more then many who advocate a mid-tower expect it to cost - or even demand it should cost.

And considering the HP LP2465 display - with the same panel as the iMac - costs around $600, it is arguably cheaper to buy the iMac. :)

[Firefly2002]

You are the first person to ever feel this way. Congratulations, you are utterly unique.

Obnoxious much?

[CWallace]

That only means that they are successful in reaching their target audience. They, however, still aren't targeting the biggest audience: the consumer oriented mid-tower.

The biggest audience may not be the best audience to target for Apple. It may come across as a cliché, but Apple has been the one to innovate, not imitate. If they build a mini-tower just like every other Wintel mini-tower, what sets them apart? OS X?

Well, if OS X is why people buy a Mac, then they'll be at least somewhat inclined to buy the Mac form factors being offered - just like many are now.

[Anuba]

The biggest audience may not be the best audience to target for Apple. It may come across as a cliché, but Apple has been the one to innovate, not imitate. If they build a mini-tower just like every other Wintel mini-tower, what sets them apart? OS X?
But the Mac Pro and MacBooks aren't particularly innovative either. The Pro may be a little neater on the inside than its PC counterparts, but its form factor isn't exactly revolutionary. If foolish 'think different' pride is a valid reason to not offer a particular product, then Apple should discontinue pretty much all of their current offerings.

The one innovative concept they do have in their computer lineup is the iMac, and it's also the product that's closest to the Mac heritage -- it's the 2008 interpretation of the original Macintosh. Then again you might also argue that the iMac is nothing but an extremely bulky tablet PC minus touchscreen. ;)

[CWallace]

I think the Mac Pro is quite innovative, especially in being clean.

I miss the old IBM PS/2 models because they were so clean and tidy. Everything plugged into something. No rails. No cables. No wires. It was all just really nice.

Looking at the Mac Pro, it reminds me of the...elegance...of the PS/2's innards. And that is what I love about Apple and OS X - it's elegant. Elegant to look at and elegant to work with. Heck, even the old PowerMac G4s were pretty easy to work on, even with their cables everywhere.

I do hope that Apple moves to SATA optical drives in the Mac Pro and makes those bays direct-connect like they do their HDD drives. That way we lose two more sets of cables. Everything is well-organized and easy to access.

And I think the MacBook Pros and MacBooks are innovative. They have built in cameras. The MBP has a backlit keyboard for use in low light conditions. They have real FireWire - not the four-pin un-powered version. They don't need grills everywhere with high-speed fans to keep cool so they generally run much quieter then Wintel laptops I have used (and I have used scores of models from almost a dozen Tier One Wintel OEMs).

[Toronto Mike]

Apple needs a MID Tower?

I think Apple knows exactly what they are doing regarding the MID Tower. The stock price is back up there around $170. They are pushing their other lines until the market is saturated (iPhone, iPods, iTunes) - and when the goldrush is over in those areas and is squeezed by the competition - out comes the MID Tower. They know how large the PC desktop market is - a market that is ripe to tap into and take customers away. For now these other products are keeping the stock up so they can sell pieces of paper on the stock exchanges (money for nothing).

Again, when the stock needs a boost because all other products are slowing down relative to investor expectations, the MID Tower will arrive amidst the fanfare of sheer brilliance from the all wise, all knowing, Apple corporate leadership. Until then, I think we who want one will have to wait. In my case, I'll just keep buying the previous generation, used, at prices that make sense for a rapidly depreciating piece of equipment and software.

Mike

[Anuba]

I think the Mac Pro is quite innovative, especially in being clean.

I miss the old IBM PS/2 models because they were so clean and tidy. Everything plugged into something. No rails. No cables. No wires. It was all just really nice.

Looking at the Mac Pro, it reminds me of the...elegance...of the PS/2's innards. And that is what I love about Apple and OS X - it's elegant. Elegant to look at and elegant to work with. Heck, even the old PowerMac G4s were pretty easy to work on, even with their cables everywhere.

I do hope that Apple moves to SATA optical drives in the Mac Pro and makes those bays direct-connect like they do their HDD drives. That way we lose two more sets of cables. Everything is well-organized and easy to access.

And I think the MacBook Pros and MacBooks are innovative. They have built in cameras. The MBP has a backlit keyboard for use in low light conditions. They have real FireWire - not the four-pin un-powered version. They don't need grills everywhere with high-speed fans to keep cool so they generally run much quieter then Wintel laptops I have used (and I have used scores of models from almost a dozen Tier One Wintel OEMs).
Yeah, Apple's engineers are very good at making the puzzle fit together neatly and squeezing an absurd amount of stuff into very small enclosures, and they're not afraid to try new materials.

But sometimes they get carried away and the gamble backfires on them when they release stuff that hasn't undergone proper real world tests. Sometimes the products crack (iPhone 3G, Mac Cube), sometimes they break easily (original PB G4 hinges), sometimes there are heating problems (MBA)... and they also tend to use materials that are very scratch prone and sensitive to wear and tear. The chrome back on iPods always looks like crap after a couple of days. The alu on MBA is extremely easy to scratch. And then there's... I don't know, I don't have any stats on it, but our company has a user base of about 50,000 (a mixed bag of PC and Mac users) and I often talk to them on the forum, and one thing I've noticed about the Mac camp is an excessive amount of hard drive crashes, particularly on iBooks, PowerBooks and MacBooks. Some have had their drives replaced up to 3 times. I'm starting to wonder if the Mac portables are built too thin and cramped for their own good, if the drives get too hot or if there's too little protecting them. The hard drive on my Dell notebook is suspended in some kind of shock absorbing thingamabob, I'm on my 4th Dell and I've never had a hard drive failure even though these machines have all taken a hard beating... the may be uglier, heavier and thicker than Macs, but the conservative better-safe-than-sorry approach on the part of the Wintel engineers has paid off for me so far.

Anyway... a mid tower doesn't have to be a plain, boring brick á la Wintel. The 'Mac Midi' could be considerably smaller, halfway between the Mini and the Pro. Nifty but still large enough to hold more USB ports, couple of 3.5" drives, dualhead video and a full sized PCI card or two.

[oban14]

Well, Guess what it's not happening, That's just what you get when you go apple you have to pay more and get limited selection.

Yeah, just go build a hackintosh. If you get the right hardware it's essentially problem free and you'll only need to spend around 800.

[Saladinos]

Could it be just a major part of the Wintel market?

After all, if Apple is seeing 40% growth in both desktops and laptops, their desktop offerings must not be as poor as is claimed by some? Especially since Apple's strongest retail growth is in machines that cost more then $2000 - a retail market they currently control two-thirds of?

A common argument is that Apple must offer a mid-tower because Windows users predominately have mid-tower models and therefore Apple must have one too in order to appeal to them to switch.

And yet what is the model Apple created specifically to attract Windows users? The Mac Mini. And Apple has done very little to it since they created it. About the only product Apple gets more stick about then the mid-tower is the Mini. A large number of Windows mid-tower owners evidently seem to want to use the Mini to become introduced to OS X and the entire Apple experience, even though it's small and it cannot be expanded. All they want is something newer then technology that wasn't cutting edge 24 months ago inside of it.

Even in the Wintel world, mid-towers are starting to fall by the wayside - especially amongst corporate customers. More and more companies are moving to small form factor PCs because they take up less space, draw less power and more then meet the needs of their users. Even retail Wintel boxes are getting progressively smaller over time. I travel a good bit for work and all my suppliers (and these are big companies with thousands of desktops) are all either using SFF machines or are replacing their towers with SFF machines to a very heavy extent.

The biggest market going forward for mid-towers will be the enthusiast market who either build them themselves or want them for very narrowly-focused purposes - like gaming or media center rigs. Those who build it themselves do so for both the challenge and the labor savings, so an Apple mid-tower would not appeal to them since Apple builds it for them and therefore no labor savings can be obtained. And those who want a gaming or media-center rig will be disappointed both by the lack of high-performance gaming cards available and Apple's desire to serve media content from the web - not a big box of disks in the closet.

If Apple is seeing 40% growth in its desktop products, that doesn't mean the offerings aren't bad. There could be bigger growth figures if Apple directly appealed to its switchers with a MID.

The small computers businesses are migrating to are often thin-clients. Yes, I know this isn't the 90s, but thin clients are still becoming more popular. This is due to more applications being web-based, and businesses centralising processing. So you could have a cheap client with a powerful server, and use terminal services to use the server's power remotely.

Power consumption isn't a major concern. The biggest savings would be in changing their air-conditioned servers. Those things take massive amounts of power, are often on 24/7, and require large amounts of energy just to cool them down.

The Mac Mini is a poor offering and doesn't generate many sales. That's the reason Apple haven't updated it. There's no reason to - not because it isn't selling well, but because it's a product with no clear target market, and refreshing it wouldn't help change that. Families don't buy small macs to experiment with them. When they buy a new computer, they buy something they're going to keep. It's also psychological - the mini is so small, people don't believe it'll give them the performance they need. They don't know it's way powerful enough to browse the web and make home movies. They've been told for years by Dell that the towers are necessary for performance. Bigger = better. It's not correct, but that's what lots of people believe.

Apple work by providing limited functionality, but doing whatever they do implement really well. Microsoft do the opposite - they try and do everything, and end up not being very good at doing anything. People are used to Microsoft's way of doing things. It's a huge mentality shift. It's the reason people don't like Apple products that can't open up, even though they've never tried to do it with their PC. You can't sell an MS-Mentality person the idea that they don't have the option to do something they won't do anyway. They're used to lots of options.

The mentality shift is one of the reasons Apple products have a 'halo effect'. As people use the iPod and iPhone, they like the product's focus on quality, and realise the lack of options isn't a problem. A MID would help bridge the gap even further.

[QCassidy352]

There is really no constructive argument for a computer like this.

I disagree. My problem is that I can't get a mac with a dedicated graphics card and a matte screen unless I go for a mac pro. The imac is plenty of power. I don't need to upgrade. I just want a matte screen and dedicated graphics.

[kabunaru]

I just want a matte screen and dedicated graphics.

1. http://www.photodon.com/lcdprotect-sheet.htm
2. iMac does have dedicated video card.

[Chilz0r]

This is the problem, most people don't understand Steve's vision for the personal computer. It's designed to be an all in one box that doesn't need to be upgraded or tinkered with. It's supposed to just work and I don't think people get that :rolleyes:

"Okay, where did the computer go" I think just about sums it up. The key is in that message and Apple defines itself by being different to the competition in challenging the way people normally think about computers by making the form factor different and inspiring, with a simple to use operating system that runs on hardware complementing the whole package.

So the iMac is the Mid-Tower...for now! but if Apple's market share grows substantially who knows what we might see. The Mini hasn't been updated in a long time :eek:

[Imhotep397]

You would not see more sales of Macs. No one gives a rats ass about this computer except a few geeks who know nothing about how Apples product strategy works.

There are a lot of VFX/Animation studios and studios that edit that buy computers in bulk that have overlooked Apple, not because they didn't like the hardware or the OS, but because there was no flexibility in pricing based on the lack of hardware configuration options. I've heard more than one studio executive say that they were going to switch to Apple/Final Cut, but decided to go with Avid because of a better price that they got by form fitting hardware configurations to what each department really needed. I suspect that there are a lot of enterprises in the same boat that are just unwilling to pay iMac prices to stock their floors when better configuration options can get them better pricing for performance. Core i& mid Towers from Apple, or a "Microbrew" style OEM that they could acquire would be just what the doctor ordered.

[dr. shdw]

There are a lot of VFX/Animation studios and studios that edit that buy computers in bulk that have overlooked Apple, not because they didn't like the hardware or the OS, but because there was no flexibility in pricing based on the lack of hardware configuration options. I've heard more than one studio executive say that they were going to switch to Apple/Final Cut, but decided to go with Avid because of a better price that they got by form fitting hardware configurations to what each department really needed. I suspect that there are a lot of enterprises in the same boat that are just unwilling to pay iMac prices to stock their floors when better configuration options can get them better pricing for performance. Core i& mid Towers from Apple, or a "Microbrew" style OEM that they could acquire would be just what the doctor ordered.

I'm pretty sure Apple gives volume discounts and a iMac/Mac Pro's hardware is pretty flexible.

[Tallest Skil]

I'm pretty sure Apple gives volume discounts

Not historically...:confused:

and a iMac/Mac Pro's hardware is pretty flexible.

Flexible in use, not in upgrading.

[dr. shdw]

Glossy hin, Glossy her, the iMac AL Screens are crap, especially the 24in versions. It´s good for youtube and iChild apps but gets squashed by any 400 USD screen and totally useless for more demanding tasks.
The only place this is disputed is here by the acolytes of the Apple.
Apple as a green company is of course a marketing joke.
Potent desktop cpus can be had with a 65W TDP. The Mac Pro has a >1KW PSU but idles at around 176 W. A toned down midi version would come in at 120-130W idle. So where are the few hundred W w/o the 280GTX at full blast?
Certainly, there is a huge gap between the iToy and the Mac Pro.
A lot of people would like processing power in between and not pay premium for server hardware in the 1 CPU MP configuration.

The 24" ALU iMacs have IPS screens, the best there is. Whether you like glossy or not is your choice, but the panels themselves are excellent.

Also you can't run dual 65W TDP desktop CPUs side by side. Also the 1KW PSU doesn't draw as much power from the wall if it's not required, please go read up on PSUs and how they work. If you really want power now, get a PC with i7 and not wait for the Xeon (Nehalem) Mac Pros..

[sushi]

I'm pretty sure Apple gives volume discounts and a iMac/Mac Pro's hardware is pretty flexible.
They do if you order large quantities.

However, their discount is minimal overall.

As for a Midtower Mac, don't see a need for it unless Apple did away with their Mac Pro form factor and made it smaller.

In the 90's, Apple had too many models. It was confusing for the customer and geeks as well. When SJ returned, one of the first things he did was simplify the lineup via cutting products and the clones and focusing Apple's efforts on the iMac (All-in-One) concept

Basically, Apple maintains a Pro desktop (Mac Pro) & laptop (MBP) and a consumer desktop (iMac) and laptop (MB). In addition, they offer the MBA and the Mac Mini. A decent lineup overall IMHO.

[dr. shdw]

Not historically...:confused:

Flexible in use, not in upgrading.

There is a discount in volume purchases, you're looking at 5-10% depending on the number.

Also the example the person gave was regarding purchasing different configs and not upgrading.

[tom.]

There is definitely discount on volume purchases - as mentioned above, it will vary on the amount you buy of course.