Thunderbolt isn't NAS. It is Direct attached storage (DAS). It will actually help make the "sneaker net" solution more viable. While technically thunderbolt could be classified a network, pragmatically it is a hierarchical direct attach set-up ( with the computer being the central orchestrator).
Ok, we're getting into semantics. If some external box is sharing data to multiple computers, through what ever means, and that's is only real job, its close enough to a NAS for this discussion's purpose. And many things will have both Gbit/10Gbit and thunderbold (
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10607).
Chuckle there are even storage solutions that won't tackle 20 drives. For example,
http://www.small-tree.com/GraniteSTOR_Shared_Storage_s/94.htm
There is nothing in the line up that tackles 20 drives in a single box and these are video storage oriented solutions. It is easy to pick a "large enough" number that Apple can't hit. They don't make everything.
WTF? What is your point of contention here? We are in agreement, are we not? So, you're contesting that I shouldn't point out that its unreasonable to expect apple to make a solution for the poster that needs 40 TB of space? Seriously....? Do you just like to see yourself type or something? Do you have this much need to prove how smart you are?
There is little to no motivation though to try to fit an consumer A/V storage cabinet console with the form factor. A 1/3 smaller Mac Pro could have 4+ drive bays and fullfill its primary desktop PC mission. If someone want to stick that on the floor beside a A/V center in a living room they could.
Exactly.
The issue is that boxes primarily targeted at HTPC problems are typically much smaller than a 1/3 smaller Mac Pro. They typically not what most users are looking for in a "faster than a Mac mini and iMac " desktop.
The ones with 4 3.5" bay space make tradeoffs for lower power CPU and GPUs and limited power supplies. All three of the latter would be bad for a "faster than iMac because price is higher" Mac offering.
This is simply not a logical argument. Many HTPCs are very small, some are not. Just because many are smaller than what I'm suggesting, doesn't mean it should be and thus if it were it wouldn't be "faster than a Mac Mini or iMac." Do not create a straw man.
I doubt Apple is going to put a BTO config highly optimized for HTPC. If they really believed there was a big, highly segmented HTPC market they'd probably make one. They don't. For an embedded context like highly dedicated HTPC OS X isn't really a good match. That is probably a large contributor why they don't. Also little to no motivation to adding relatively very low volume BTO options to a Mac product.
Depends on what you mean by "highly optimized." The Mac Mini already makes a good HTPC. Its major weakness is only that its expensive for its capabilities and can't expand above about 2TBs with today's 2.5 HDDs. This would be something a little different that could also be, as part of its job, an HTPC. In a single form factor Apple could fill a few different rolls it is missing all at once. It could be a combo HTPC/home server with more HDD space than the Mac Mini. It could be a home server/desktop PC for those that might be interested in Mac Pro but its too costly and too big. It could be a nice data server/computational node as part of a larger network. And it could be your primary workstation, if the E5-1600s and other aspects are bit of over kill for you or if you just need something closer to $2000 rather than $2500.
You suggested something very similar that would actually take very little extra effort to expand it functionality and not take away anything from what you suggested.