Apple Needs Midrange Tower - dream system?

[Grimace]

another one of these threads? geez. A mid-range tower is not a part of what Apple wants to focus on. Consumer/home machines and Pro machines are how Apple divies it up:

1. Consumer/home -- the iMac fulfills what Apple thinks the creative home user would want.
2. Pro -- the Mac Pro takes care of the expandibility.

The price of the MacPro is the issue. If it were half the price, you probably wouldn't see 10 threads a week on this topic...

 

[jono_3]

all you need to do is be able to change the video card and hard drive on an imac, then everyones happy

 

[Digital Skunk]

There's a ton of PC people which don't like wimpy machines (mini), all-in-ones and which won't or can't pay for a Mac Pro. If apple had a normal box they would buy it because their main concern is Windows, with OSX being something to try out.

By ton do you mean four 500 pound fat geeks with nothing else to do but tinker with their machines and play games?

Or do you mean eight 250 pound geeks that want to upgrade their machines so they can make them last forever...

Come on. Apple's machines have a lot of staying power even with their limitations, just like any PC that can be upgraded for years to come. Much of the upgrades geeks talk about are incremental... like .05Ghz or 128MB or something insignificant.

The consumer market doesn't care about upgrading their machines... the only time they worry about what is inside their machine is when it is over 3 years old and broken... then they just buy a new one and sell their old one to guys like me who fix them and give them away to some college kid who can't afford anything. Most pros don't even upgrade their machines... most are too busy doing actual work to worry about some new graphics card that costs $1500 and gives a 15% increase in frame rate.

As for gamers... (I Love Apple and Macs) but you just have to get the Windows PC or the MacPro. If I were a gamer it would be a no brainer... I am not going to wait 6 months for a game to be ported over to the Mac platform while all of my comrades are getting sick (good) at playing Halo 3 or Command & Conquer. Then I try to go up against them and get my arse handed to me on a platter. If I were a gamer it would be MacPro, Parallels, 4GB of RAM, and Dell 30" monitor... or that ugly Dell XPS.

Here could be a possibility:
2.13GHz "E6420" Conroe Mid-Tower Mac Pro
1GB DDR2 667mhz memory, up to 8GB in total
4 hard drive bays and 160GB hard drive standard
nVidia GeForce 8600GT and an option of ATI Radeon X1950 XT
supports 20", 23" and 30" Displays
uses PCI-express
Blu-ray disc drive option
$1999

So not happening... by the time anyone of these gamers put the stuff they wanted into it it would be the price of the base MacPro.... not to mention that you can get up to 16GB, and it has FOUR Xeon processor cores in it for just $500 more. If you go for the quad 2Ghz BTO option you only have to pay $200 more.

Market people.... study the market... this config makes no sense.

all you need to do is be able to change the video card and hard drive on an imac, then everyones happy

NO

I think he meant video card and monitor... that is the big thing I keep hearing over and over again in these threads.

There is something wrong, because one reason discouraging me from the Mac Pro is the bulk and weight. Two bays would be enough so that one doesn't need to fiddle with external drive assembly when upgrading hard disks.

You make it sound so hard.... plug the FW400 plug into the iMac or FW400 port on your computer.... then plug the other end into the HDD. Oh yeah! And put the little rubber feet on the bottom of the drive.. can't forget about that.

 

[cube]

all you need to do is be able to change the video card and hard drive on an imac, then everyones happy

NO

 

[dartzorichalcos]

this config makes no sense.

Sorry, it was just a prediction. I just like to predict stuff.

 

[dongmin]

Mac Cube, anyone?

Upgradability is overrated, I agree. But the Mini sacrifices a lot of function for the form factor. The Cube, if you guys remember, had a 3.5" drive AND a real graphics card. This is all people really need. No need for a lot of PCI slots or HD space.

Mac Cube = Mac Mini + 3.5" drive + discrete graphics + desktop RAM

The only real added cost is the discrete graphics which is a good opportunity for Apple to up-sell through BTO options. You could very easily sell a low-end for $699 and higher end for $899. Put it in a stylish case and Apple would sell truckloads.

And the best part is that it doesn't eat into any other product lines except maybe the Mac Mini, which, frankly, needs a price drop in a big way.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Sorry, it was just a prediction. I just like to predict stuff.

That's okay... you can and it makes for a very interesting discussion. I am sorry if I sounded harsh in my post. And if I did point it out and I will make the changes. What makes predictions more believable is the research done behind them, and the ability for the new "hardware" to actually fit Apple's linup. Someone in the iMac forum posted specs about a 27" iMac...

That won't happen... unless Apple wants to bring in new displays. There are rumors flying around that the 23" Cinema Display was going to be replaced by a 24" display so Apple can track just one type of display instead of two of them with a 1" difference in screen size. Now if Apple were going to make an iMac that was larger than the 24" it would probably be a 30" iMac since Apple already sells and orders 30" panels.

Now if Apple makes a 30" iMac (which would be kind of un Godly huge) then they could make room for two 3.5" HDDs and maybe a single PCIx slot for the user to upgrade. Maybe Apple could program MacOS X to switch to the fastest and latest card for driving the monitor, so when the user installs a better graphics card on this large iMac the display would automaticall run itself off of that card... BUT... that would render the built in card useless, so that makes no sense at that point.

That's kinda how ya gotta think... or you could just post stuff and have other people correcting you all the time.

Keep on predicting stuff... it's good for the imagination.

Upgradability is overrated, I agree. But the Mini sacrifices a lot of function for the form factor. The Cube, if you guys remember, had a 3.5" drive AND a real graphics card. This is all people really need. No need for a lot of PCI slots or HD space.

Mac Cube = Mac Mini + 3.5" drive + discrete graphics + desktop RAM

The only real added cost is the discrete graphics which is a good opportunity for Apple to up-sell through BTO options. You could very easily sell a low-end for $699 and higher end for $899. Put it in a stylish case and Apple would sell truckloads.

And the best part is that it doesn't eat into any other product lines except maybe the Mac Mini, which, frankly, needs a price drop in a big way.

I hope to my Lord and Savior that they never make another Cube... I know Apple won't since they don't usually repeat old designs, only refresh them. But what real benefit is there to making a machine like that at that price point that give most users nothing? The gamers want a full expandable machine... and everyone else is happy with the iMac, which is only $200 more for the monitor, speakers, iSight, and better design.

 

[dongmin]

I hope to my Lord and Savior that they never make another Cube... I know Apple won't since they don't usually repeat old designs, only refresh them. But what real benefit is there to making a machine like that at that price point that give most users nothing? The gamers want a full expandable machine... and everyone else is happy with the iMac, which is only $200 more for the monitor, speakers, iSight, and better design.

1. Allow BTO options for the graphics card.

2. Let's users pick/choose their own display. I know a lot of people who'd prefer to play their games on a 42" HDTV as opposed to a 20" LCD. This also works with businesses that already have a lot invested in their displays and other peripherals.

3. Improve performance with minimal added cost.

4. The Cube was a great little machine in its day. It's weakness was in its price. If Apple could do a similar form factor for under $700, it'd do well.

 

[Digital Skunk]

1. Allow BTO options for the graphics card.

2. Let's users pick/choose their own display. I know a lot of people who'd prefer to play their games on a 42" HDTV as opposed to a 20" LCD. This also works with businesses that already have a lot invested in their displays and other peripherals.

3. Improve performance with minimal added cost.

4. The Cube was a great little machine in its day. It's weakness was in its price. If Apple could do a similar form factor for under $700, it'd do well.

Yeah.. I agree with you on that... it would do well... but remember this is Apple Inc. I used to be (and still am) for the headless Mac. But that isn't what Apple has been gaining market share from, and not everyone is just settling for an iMac... they like the machine enough to spend $1500 on it.

1. They never create a machine with an old design... very rarely a rehashed one that already failed... bringing back bad memories.

2. There is no way you would get it for under $700 or even $1200 for that matter once SJ has it designed, tested, and makes it as easy to upgrade as the MacPro but in a smaller case. The starting price may be right near the price of the 20" iMac.

3. What are the specs? Most of the geeks want a,b, and c and they fail to neglect the fact that they can have those in a machine that doesn't have to be a mini-tower.

4. The MacPro is not that expensive when you really look at what many want. The Quad 2Ghz is $2150 a bit much well worth it in terms of longevity. When someone asks for longevity and upgradeability in a machine that costs half as much they are asking for something that only they and a small group of people want.

5. Most businesses can afford to buy new monitors with their hardware... and the iMac isn't that expensive. The businesses point isn't a very good one to make, it's understandable, but not that strong. Most businesses don't upgrade their machines that often and when they do it is just RAM or HDD space... not graphics cards. To offset the cost of their old machines... donate them to some inner-city high school and make it a tax write off. Other than the display, every other peripheral works with the iMac. Any business that needs to upgrade more than that needs to get a MacPro, since it is only $600 more from the 20" iMac --> Quad 2Ghz MacPro; or 24" iMac --> Quad 2.66GHz MacPro, where's the problem?

6. Hooking up the iMac to a larger display is not hard. It will look terrible on a TV but then again most will if it isn't an LCD TV.

7. The Cube failed based on the reasons you said... plus for what you want from it as well. Apple tried making a headless mini tower that could be upgraded and what have you, and people opted for the iMac G3 and iBooks. Most people... more than everyone thinks... rather have a computer that just works for 4 years, then starts having problems and showing its age, than a computer that will last for 1.5 --> 2 years that they have to upgrade down the road to keep up with the times. Apple doesn't make anything that is underclocked... there are no Core Solos or Pentium 4s or G5s in the lineup. There is no option to get an iMac with a single core or a MacPro with a single Dual Core chip. It just isn't how Apple works.

There won't be a headless tower for under $700... we'd be lucky to see one for under $1400. And to be honest what we really need is an iMac with more power from the start. One with the best of the best nVidia GPUs, two HDD bays, as many ports as the MacPro, four cores and up to 8GB of RAM. If we can build it to order as we feel necessary then I am happy. If Apple or someone else sells graphics cards that can be easily dropped into the machine then that is even better. I can just open up the back of my iMac after the warranty has expired and hack into all of the part like most iMac owners do already.

 

[dusanv]

There is definite need for a midtower Mac. Where I work, we only buy midtower PCs (and servers). Nobody here wants an all-in-one. I think people buy iMacs because they think iMac is cool or because they just don't have a choice. I do not see why someone would pick a all-in-one over a tower other than aesthetics.

 

[statikcat]

Wouldnt this really be a one processor Mac Pro? Considering the processors take up such a big cost of the Mac Pro this could be an easy way to get a cheaper desktop.

 

[cube]

It would be one-processor, of Mac Pro it could only have the name, as it would use a desktop chipset, a desktop CPU, and desktop memory.

To better address the needs of its market, it could also be smaller, if it had only 2 PCIe slots (x16, x4), 1 optical drive bay and two hard disk bays.

 

[Digital Skunk]

There is definite need for a midtower Mac. Where I work, we only buy midtower PCs (and servers). Nobody here wants an all-in-one. I think people buy iMacs because they think iMac is cool or because they just don't have a choice. I do not see why someone would pick a all-in-one over a tower other than aesthetics.

Most of us that are saying that there is a need for one but it won't happen aren't Mac Fan boys. When was the last time Apple had a real headless mini tower since the Cube... not including the iMac without a screen Mac Mini? Apples desktops haven't been stagnating for years... where did you get that?

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800758

Wouldnt this really be a one processor Mac Pro? Considering the processors take up such a big cost of the Mac Pro this could be an easy way to get a cheaper desktop.

The design of the guts takes up most of the price. The MacPro's insides are the best in the market in terms of layout and configuration.

I agree that having the MacPro's specs cut in half and put inside a mini-tower are the way to go, but how will it really fit into Apple's method of doing things? It isn't just going to be a shortened MacPro with a G5 looking facade and a price tag or $1000.

 

[Grimace]

I think we are ignoring the fact that Steve and Apple may just not want to go there. Even if there is a "need" - they may not want to fill it. Steve picks everything very carefully, including his customers.

It might not be the best (profitable) business model, but it may be the best business model for what Apple wants to be.

 

[cube]

Apple replaced FireWire for USB 2.0 in iPods, released iTunes and Safari for Windows, moved from PPC to x86, plus it created BootCamp only to cater to Windows, so an inexpensive practical machine matches this market orientation.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think we are ignoring the fact that Steve and Apple may just not want to go there. Even if there is a "need" - they may not want to fill it. Steve picks everything very carefully, including his customers.

It might not be the best (profitable) business model, but it may be the best business model for what Apple wants to be.

Good point. Apple has yet to make a tablet Mac or an ultraportable machine yet... they may never do it and there are plenty of people waiting for them patiently. Apple heads where Apple wants to go, instead of investing R&D into every small piece of the computing world.

Apple replaced FireWire for USB 2.0 in iPods, released iTunes and Safari for Windows, moved from PPC to x86, plus it created BootCamp only to cater to Windows, so an inexpensive practical machine matches this market orientation.

How does it match the market orientation? And if it did, remember that Apple won't make one just because a few people want it. I would love to have an under-clocked laptop for under $900, but Apple will never make one. It would boost market share and Apple has had the means to make one for years, but it may never happen since that is not what Apple seems to be doing.

I think an upgradeable all-in-one is more on the lines of what Apple will do, or a big price drop in the MacPro.

 

[Eraserhead]

I don't really count the iMac as a desktop it's a nice machine but really it's a laptop that you don't move, I think Apple does need a $1000 desktop tower, if you look the Laptop sales have increased by 70% but the desktop sales are the same as before the transition. The iMac would be better if it used a desktop chip like the iMac G5, and if the graphics card was in a PCI-Express slot internally (so upgradable), that would solve all the issue apart from the monitor which is only really an issue to the MR+Ars crowd as pointed out by BV.

The 24" model could probably fit two HD's as well. There is definitely space in the computer for this stuff.

 

[cube]

How does it match the market orientation?

It matches in the sense that apple is oriented towards making really mass market products that forgo being the best or elegant to cater to the practical requirements of the PC people.

 

[mahashel]

I would typically agree with all the naysayers around here stating that Apple's marketing has prevented a mid-tower for good reason.
However, after the last keynote (EA, ID, Steve saying Apple wants to "fix" the gaming problem), I'm left with the feeling that Apple may be revisiting the viability of the gamer market.
Apple has always been a pro-consumer company. They like things simple, elegant, and low-maintenance. Courting the gamer market opens them up to the typical abuse that system-tweaking gamer nerds (like myself) bring to the table.
Hard to say what Apple will do. However, please don't marginalize the gamer crowd. If there "weren't that many of us" then why IS there a Dell XPS line? Why are the big PC hardware players climbing over each other to buy the gamer-specialized PC builders (Voodoo, Alienware, etc..)? There are huge margins in the gamer scene. From BTO options, to upselling, to providing supported component upgrades for a premium price, the margins remain thick in an otherwise skin & bones PC industry.
Again, for those who are saying Apple is happy to simply "let them play consoles" must've missed the first 10 minutes of the WWDC '07 keynote.

 

[Digital Skunk]

&ot

I would typically agree with all the naysayers around here stating that Apple's marketing has prevented a mid-tower for good reason.
However, after the last keynote (EA, ID, Steve saying Apple wants to "fix" the gaming problem), I'm left with the feeling that Apple may be revisiting the viability of the gamer market.
Apple has always been a pro-consumer company. They like things simple, elegant, and low-maintenance. Courting the gamer market opens them up to the typical abuse that system-tweaking gamer nerds (like myself) bring to the table.
Hard to say what Apple will do. However, please don't marginalize the gamer crowd. If there "weren't that many of us; then why IS there a Dell XPS line? Why are the big PC hardware players climbing over each other to buy the gamer-specialized PC builders (Voodoo, Alienware, etc..)? There are huge margins in the gamer scene. From BTO options, to upselling, to providing supported component upgrades for a premium price, the margins remain thick in an otherwise skin & bones PC industry.
Again, for those who are saying Apple is happy to simply "let them play consoles" must've missed the first 10 minutes of the WWDC '07 keynote.

I like when people have something good to say... I am talking about you Mahashel. I agree with you and I hope that Apple makes an elegant and powerful full fledged desktop machine, one that is as easy to upgrade and nice enough to put on your desk as the MacPro. The gamer market... the real gamer market is about as big as the "Ooh! Star Wars Convention... let me get my Chewbaka costume" market is... it is large, but the rest of the still growing rather rapidly computing world is the one that makes much of the other markets small. Even the pro market isn't as large as them... maybe 20% of the whole. The rest of the iMac and MacBook/MacBook Pro users consist of college students, average working joes and janes, grade school students, the entire education market, and those businesses that don't need MacPros.

If Apple had a dual boot gaming system that was a real desktop at a good price ($1600) then there would be a lot more switchers that could make the transition to a Mac that was upgradeable...

It matches in the sense that apple is oriented towards making really mass market products that forgo being the best or elegant to cater to the practical requirements of the PC people.

That sounds more like the PC market ... like Dell, and HP, who forgo making the best or elegant machines possible to cater to the practical needs of the majority of PC users. Apple tends to be more elitist and closed in. You can't do anything with your machine to upgrade it except add RAM and peripherals, but your machine has the "latest" (I use this word loosely) and the best award winning design on the market. Alienware would be the PC equivalent. You buy an Area 51 laptop for $4000 and it has stuff only gamers could want; or people that want the best built and best looking PC on the market for video editing.

I don't really count the iMac as a desktop it's a nice machine but really it's a laptop that you don't move, I think Apple does need a $1000 desktop tower, if you look the Laptop sales have increased by 70% but the desktop sales are the same as before the transition. The iMac would be better if it used a desktop chip like the iMac G5, and if the graphics card was in a PCI-Express slot internally (so upgradable), that would solve all the issue apart from the monitor which is only really an issue to the MR+Ars crowd as pointed out by BV.

The 24" model could probably fit two HD's as well. There is definitely space in the computer for this stuff.

The thing that gets me is the price.... if Apple made a desktop mini tower for $1000 it would take the same parts from the iMac and put it in a tower that was half the size of a MacPro, give it some PCi slots and two HDD bays and call it the MacPro Mini. I say you either want an Apple tower... or you don't.

The price is going to be around $1200 if we are lucky and that is the bottom of the line. I really think it will start just about were the 20" iMac leaves off at $1499. Hopefully it will come with the half the innards as the MacPro and start with a gig of RAM and a 250GB HDD. And a much better design that what most people, including myself, are thinking.

Oh... and the whole desktop numbers falling isn't true at all. Laptops are outselling desktops by leaps and bounds, but desktops are moving up ever so slowly... and it is market wide... not just Apple.

 

[SDAVE]

This is another idiotic thread. If people want a gaming machine, they can go the Windows route.

Most Macs (especially Mac Pros) are used in high end design houses, and not by hobbyists. Apple does not want a mid range computer because they don't need it. You either get the iMac or get the Mac Pro. They did this on purposes.

By the way, OSX sells Macs...and indeed OSX is a selling power for Apple.

 

[docprego]

What confuses me about the absence of a consumer level desktop in Apple's lineup is that EVERY company in the world that manufacturers computers has one. I know it would cannibalize iMac sales, so what it will increase Cinema Display sales. I know market research says people don't want it, I guess they never surveyed anyone on ANY mac forum. Ok, Ok people on Mac forums make up a negligible percentage of Apple's target market, can't argue with that one.

Unless Apple fills the lower end with an updated Mini or new model, MANY computer shoppers won't even look twice at a Mac. Imagine the line starting with the 20 inch iMac. Even if it dropped to $1299, do you realize how many people out there are in the $500-$1000 budget for a system????

 

[dusanv]

Apples desktops haven't been stagnating for years... where did you get that?

From Apple. Try here for last quarter financials (Q2 2007). See laptop sales nearly double while desktops grew ~2%, year to year. See here for the Q1 2007 report. Desktop sales dropped almost 5% while laptop sales, guess what, nearly doubled. See the stagnation pattern yet? Keep looking back, it's been like that for years.

 

[Digital Skunk]

From Apple. Try here for last quarter financials (Q2 2007). See laptop sales nearly double while desktops grew ~2%, year to year. See here for the Q1 2007 report. Desktop sales dropped almost 5% while laptop sales, guess what, nearly doubled. See the stagnation pattern yet? Keep looking back, it's been like that for years.

Did you even look at my links? They give a bit more data and include the entire market and they seem a bit more accurate. Also... remember that Apple hasn't upgraded it desktop lineup in almost 6 months or more... so most users are waiting for that update and holding off buying a machine for fear that Apple would unveil a newer faster model... the laptops have been updated within the last month so users feel safe buying them...

The mini hasn't seen one in a year+ and the iMac is almost 8 months. Even the MacPro isn't the state of the art machine it used to be. iPod sales dropped for the past two quarters as well for the same reason.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Well, see i'm not a dummie, alot of people want this type of towerL

CHECK maccentral.com , big opinion piece and talk back on the comments.

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/midrangemac/index.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mythical midrange Mac minitower

By Dan Frakes

I know most of you are just aching for more iPhone commentary, but let me offer a slight diversion into the world of other Mac hardware. Now that the Worldwide Developers Conference has passed with no new hardware announcements, and many people are pining for new Macs, it’s time to start speculating. Or at least wishing.

You see, I’ve been wishing for several years now that Apple would fill the gaping hole in its desktop product lineup between the low-end, non-expandable Mac mini and the high-end, super-expandable Mac Pro (previously played by the Power Mac G5). What’s that? You say it’s called the iMac? Unfortunately, the iMac doesn’t really count—it’s a great machine, but in terms of expansion and upgrade options, it’s akin to a Mac mini with a built-in display, which, in some ways, makes it even less upgradeable than the mini.

As a Macworld forum member—a recent switcher from Windows—recently wrote:

I need to replace my desktop PC and, as I just purchased a MacBook which totally satisfied my expectations, I tried to look at Apple’s product lineup to find something that can, as I said, replace my desktop PC. There isn’t a single product in the whole lineup which can do that. The Mac Pro offers the possibility to install up to 16GB of RAM, 4 graphic cards, 6 hard drives, 2 CPUs… all those things are something I don’t need and I don’t want to pay for.

Amen, brother. What I’d like to see is a minitower design with—and this is just one possible configuration that would fulfill my wish—a reasonably powerful processor (perhaps a higher-end Core 2 Duo or a single Xeon); a good graphics card in an upgradeable slot; a decent amount of RAM and hard-drive space; a single free PCI Express slot; and room for one additional hard drive. The ability to swap out the optical drive would be a nice touch. I think such a machine would be a nearly-perfect middle ground between the Mac mini and Mac Pro; my code name for it is Mythical Midrange Mac Minitower—MMMM for short. (Feel free to call it the Mac medium, instead.) And in my ongoing daydream, the MMMM would sell for a relatively reasonable $1,499 to $1,599.

Sounds great, eh? A no-brainer, right? Well, I’m sure that the wise folks at Apple have considered just such a product. Discussions have likely involved issues of production, inventory, and increased product-line complexity. But perhaps most of all, there’s surely considerable fear that sales of the more-expensive Mac Pro would fall as some people buy MMMMs instead.

Even if this fear has merit—and I think it does—I contend that the overall upside is worth the risk. Consider the following four groups of people who would be prime candidates for the MMMM:

1. People who have in the past bought a Mac Pro or Power Mac G5, even though it was overkill, because it was the only real option for them—the Mac mini and iMac simply didn’t have the power or modest expandability these people needed. People in this group would, given the opportunity, purchase the MMMM instead of a Mac Pro.
2. People who would be satisfied with the power and features of the top-of-the-line iMac but who already have their own display or who don’t want an all-in-one machine that forces them to buy a new display every time they buy a new computer. A few of these people who would have purchased an iMac will buy the MMMM instead, but some will buy an Apple display with it. And I’ll bet there are plenty of people in this group who wouldn’t buy an iMac, for the reasons I just noted, but would buy the MMMM.
3. People who truly need some degree of upgradeability but don’t need—or can’t afford—the power or total expandability of a Mac Pro. There are plenty of people out there right now, especially Windows users, who want to buy a Mac, but don’t see a machine that fits their needs at a reasonable price. For this group, the MMMM is the Missing Mac.
4. People who don’t actually need upgradability but are convinced they do. The reality of the computer market is that the proportion of people who actually upgrade their computers beyond adding RAM is quite small. But at the same time, many of the people who will never upgrade their computers still think they’ll upgrade their computers—or at least want the security and comfort of knowing that they could. Many of these people would be well-served by the capabilities of an iMac, or even a souped-up Mac mini, but will never buy a “non-upgradeable” computer. The MMMM could quickly bring these people into the Mac fold.

The first group represents a possible loss of revenue. There’s also a risk, noted above, that sales of iMacs would decrease as people in Group 2 buy the MMMM instead; this may or may not affect profits, depending on the profit margins of each computer.

But here’s the thing: First, serious pros are still going to buy the Mac Pro. (Heck, I’d still buy one—I’m sitting here next to a Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM, four SATA hard drives, two optical drives, and two video cards, so the MMMM wouldn’t be sufficient for my geeky needs.) And, in fact, many of these people might buy multiple MMMMs, either instead of a single Mac Pro or in addition to one; for example, I know many developers who would love to have a few MMMMs sitting in their offices.

Second, there’s a good chance that enough people in Groups 3 and 4, above, would buy the MMMM, along with people in Group 2 who would buy the MMMM and an Apple display, that any loss of Mac Pro revenue would not only be offset, but would actually be surpassed by additional sales.

In other words, the MMMM’s potential market, which includes new customers as well as additional sales to current Mac owners, is large enough to make the MMMM worth making.

It’s for these reasons that I think Apple will eventually produce such a machine. Now that the first few surges of Mac Pro sales—when the Mac Pro was first released and when the Adobe apps went Universal, for example—are in our rear-view mirrors, thus reducing cannibalization of Mac Pro sales, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we’ll be seeing the MMMM, or something like it, soon.

With that wish—and prediction—out of the way, I can turn my attention to my next pipe dream: a smaller, lighter Mac notebook…