"In the beginning..."
Those complaining about the cost of the base Mac Pro and the lack of a cheaper tower should consider that Apple's hardware line since the G3 days has been pretty much the same as it is now: A "consumer-level" machine with no internal expandability (the iMac) and a "pro-level" machine with internal expandability (the Power Mac[intosh] / Mac Pro).*
Those two lines have served Apple well with their existing constituency while keeping costs down and profits high. Since Apple's sales volumes are admittedly laughable compared to the major Windows PC retailers, their per-unit costs are much higher. As such, Apple needs to be careful with how many models they release, lest they cannibalize themselves and hurt the RoI on each model.
A Core2 Extreme minitower with an nVidia 9xxx-series GPU would be popular with the gamers, to be sure. And likely it would appeal to many professionals now using Mac Pros. But Apple needs to sell a certain amount of iMacs and Mac Pros to keep the lines profitable. By definition, a Mac Tower is going to take sales away from both the iMac and Power Mac lines, making both of those lines less profitable for Apple**. And because people will still buy both iMacs and Mac Pros instead of Mac Towers, it's going to make the Mac Tower less profitable, as well. It becomes a cycle of attrition - all contained within Apple's product line.
* - With the PowerPC G4 Apple added the Mac Mini, but I view it more as a way for folks with PCs to test the waters of the Mac at a lower price-point. Folks with Power Mac(intoshes) or Mac Pros are not likely to purchase it, nor are iMac users likely to buy it and a Cinema Display vs. a new iMac.
** - And yes, there are Windows PC users who would not buy an iMac or a Mac Mini and cannot afford the Mac Pro. However, they're not customers now so it's a moot point to Apple since they are not costing Apple existing iMac or Mac Pro sales, which Apple users offered a Mac Tower would.
Those complaining about the cost of the base Mac Pro and the lack of a cheaper tower should consider that Apple's hardware line since the G3 days has been pretty much the same as it is now: A "consumer-level" machine with no internal expandability (the iMac) and a "pro-level" machine with internal expandability (the Power Mac[intosh] / Mac Pro).*
Those two lines have served Apple well with their existing constituency while keeping costs down and profits high. Since Apple's sales volumes are admittedly laughable compared to the major Windows PC retailers, their per-unit costs are much higher. As such, Apple needs to be careful with how many models they release, lest they cannibalize themselves and hurt the RoI on each model.
A Core2 Extreme minitower with an nVidia 9xxx-series GPU would be popular with the gamers, to be sure. And likely it would appeal to many professionals now using Mac Pros. But Apple needs to sell a certain amount of iMacs and Mac Pros to keep the lines profitable. By definition, a Mac Tower is going to take sales away from both the iMac and Power Mac lines, making both of those lines less profitable for Apple**. And because people will still buy both iMacs and Mac Pros instead of Mac Towers, it's going to make the Mac Tower less profitable, as well. It becomes a cycle of attrition - all contained within Apple's product line.
* - With the PowerPC G4 Apple added the Mac Mini, but I view it more as a way for folks with PCs to test the waters of the Mac at a lower price-point. Folks with Power Mac(intoshes) or Mac Pros are not likely to purchase it, nor are iMac users likely to buy it and a Cinema Display vs. a new iMac.
** - And yes, there are Windows PC users who would not buy an iMac or a Mac Mini and cannot afford the Mac Pro. However, they're not customers now so it's a moot point to Apple since they are not costing Apple existing iMac or Mac Pro sales, which Apple users offered a Mac Tower would.
