"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...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple needs a MID Tower.....
- Thread starter tmuller
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"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...
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.
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.
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.
I was waiting for this, so I'll just throw it up.
Already done. By meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
My forum name should be the clue
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.
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.
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
None of the reasons warrant a new model.
Get a mini.
That's like saying Apple should produce another laptop because the MacBooks come with a glossy screen. Get a mini or a Pro.
Nerd alarm. Or if a pro, get a Mac Pro
Why again won't hubs do?
No reason to, but if you really want to do it just buy external HDs.
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.
Get a mini.
That's like saying Apple should produce another laptop because the MacBooks come with a glossy screen. Get a mini or a Pro.
Nerd alarm. Or if a pro, get a Mac Pro
Why again won't hubs do?
No reason to, but if you really want to do it just buy external HDs.
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.
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
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
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.
You're using some stupid little company illegally peddling cheap buggy hardware as your counterargument? Please.
Ooo, you win! *sarcasm*
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.Seriously, again???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because markets do not expand over 10 years....
The theory that is presented there still applies today and to their current product line up.