Right... although I think this minority is substantially larger than those who complained about glossy screen on MBP, and given that Apple recently fixed that mistake (on the MBP 17", at least), I don't think it's 100% inconceivable that they might introduce a headless desktop model... it is the loudest of all whining about Macs, after all.
Thats the most sensible argument I have heard. Apple may introduce a headless mac model, but its very unlikely. Apple's product rang is very succinct because they don't want to run into the problem of self competition. They don't want a headless Mac to simply overtake the all in one iMac - the main product differentiator that Apple has versus its other hardware vendors. Releasing a headless model would be an admission of failure on many fronts. They don't want to release a flagship product thats just like everybody else that gets buried under a desk like other workstations. They would rather leave that to their workstation and server models which get sold to companies who are going to buy a Mac regardless.
Apple has to be very conscientious about their products getting compared to what is already out there or even worse, what they already have. Apple's approach to hardware is very different to the approaches that HP, Dell, etc all take because they are selling an integrated unit. Other PC vendors are simply windows resellers and are interested in pushing out hardware in sheer volume for as cheap as possible since thats it the only real way to compete with each other. What investment does Dell, HP, Lennovo make into Windows? Very little if anything at all. Thats why they produce the beige boxes, they are just making something that is going to run Windows almost identically to their competitor. Apple has to convince people to conscientiously buy their product over the rest of the guys and therefore makes their hardware look attractive and distinctive. Headless models are very difficult to make distinctive.
I don't think any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the relative failure of their last (?) headless consumer desktop. It was really weak, and the alternative (iMac) had desktop-grade components back then, plus the step up to more powerful PowerMacs wasn't too steep. Also, the demand for expansion and upgrade abilities wasn't nearly as big as it is today when video cards, RAM and extra hard drives are selling like hotcakes... we didn't pimp our minitowers much in the 90's and early 2000's.
Really? Headless models get sold because thats mostly what's out there and because its easier to re-tool factories to make the profitable workstation. To be honest, I don't know that many people that actually upgrade any components that they get in their computers unless its one that they built themselves or they are adding on a second graphics card to do multiple screens (they buy the cheapest components). Outside of that, memory is the biggest thing that gets upgraded. The vast majority of people that I deal with simply buy a new computer when their current model breaks down.
Headless computers do allow for upgrading and flexibility, but most people seem to never do that, preferring to hide their tower under their desk and forget about them. Some do take advantage of their flexibility, but, most often people are upgrading the same components that you can do on any of the Mac.
Of course Laptops are the big sellers nowadays and they suffer from the lack of upgradeability anyway. Most people will either buy the cheapest thing out there without any regard to components, or they get when they need from the get go and upgrade a couple of components later on. If they need something that outclasses their current computer, they just buy a newer one. I find that most tweakers are people that buy their own computer anyway. Apple doesn't want to accommodate them anymore than Nintendo wants to cater to hardcore, powerhouse, HD gaming, Blue Ray, purists. Sony caters to that and they are a distant third compared to Nintendo. Apple caters to simplicity and looks over complexity, blandness, and brute force.
Furthermore, like I said above, they didn't really stop offering desktop-grade processors on purpose -- it was a product of a form-over-function decision on the iMac, combined with going Xeon-only on the Mac Pro.
Exactly. Form over function isn't always a bad choice. Apple does offer more powerful options, they come at a premium of course. We should point out that Apple's lack of choice and flexibility allows them to focus on quality and integration that works. Its not going to work 100% of the time and their are going to be misses or things that aren't as good as a competitor.
We have to remember that Apple is not out to be the jesus computer company or the be all and end all of computers. Thats kind of silly - Apple knows that MS will be the market leader tomorrow and for the foreseeable future. Apple wants to be known for creating "better" computers that offer things that PC's can only dream of. Better doesn't have to be related to specs. It can mean a lot of things. Apple's innovations are what keep the PC industry from becoming a dull bland tool that just does many things. They do many of the same things that PC's do (and more sometimes) with attractiveness and style. It may not always be necessary, but a lot of the times its really nice.
I really dislike people trying to compare Apple with Microsoft as I am sure both companies dislike comparisons with each other. Microsoft is a software company through and through. Their goal is to make code that gets the job done. They are not Apple nor will they ever be Apple. Apple is the company that says no to the typical mold and innovates the industry. Thats why MS copies Apple. They create the most things that work. MS rarely if ever innovates on ideas and when they do, they rarely ever exploit them. Their successes lie in maintaining their core and copying the outside. Ask yourself, does Apple want to become Microsoft? Maybe a little bit, but not any more than what a business has to in order to be successful. I certainly wouldn't want Apple to survive purely on momentum like the rest of the industry seems to do. I want Apple to use their assets and take advantage of them to their extreme and for Apple, vertical integration works. The last time they tried horizontal integration it failed. Imagine is Microsoft developed everything in house. It wouldn't work all that well and MS would be a minority player. I say let MS be what they are and try to do better than Apple. If they do something that works, Apple may take a page on that and do better. I do know this. Apple is not going to take something that the PC market does and outright clone it. Despite what people say, its not going to fly. Apple does not play by MS's book.
