Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[lifeinhd]

Personally, I don't give a hoot about Apple itself. If they make a good product at a fair price, I buy it. I bought an iPod Touch and two AppleTV units, but I bought my Mac USED because a MacMini just isn't for me. I needed a tower with internal storage. I would have bought a new one, but that would have meant a MacPro, which is insanely high priced for what I actually need a tower for and yet there are no other options from Apple. Oddly enough, a Psystar or Hackintosh would have fit the bill for about the same price as upgrading an old PowerMac and would have had considerably more power. Yeah, I feel a little stupid for buying the used Mac when I could have made a Hackintosh. I would never buy the MacPro, though, because it's way overpriced as a consumer desktop machine and iMacs simply don't interest me with no options for clean internal storage (I don't want to mess up the top of my desk).

So, as you can see, personal feelings can sway either direction. You can love Psystar or you can hate it, but there is no denying that if they win the case the consumer will win too with lower official prices and plenty of alternatives to Apple's overpriced hardware.

You can argue their OS cost them X amount to make, but then you're just telling me that OSX is undervalued. Given they tend to make you buy a $129 update every 1-2 years on average, I don't really believe it's undervalued. Look how much longer shelf life you get out of Windows. It costs more, but you don't have to buy an update every 1-2 years either so it ends up being the same thing when all is said and done. So do you want Windows Ultimate Vista for $400, which will last you the next 4 years or do you want to pay $129 every year for the next 4 years? It's your choice, but it costs about the same. Snow Leopard is set to be released next year with "no new features" but I bet it costs the same $129 to get it all over again.

First off, you have to remember what the Mac Pro really is before you can call it overpriced. Two 8-core Xeons? A 320 gig hard drive, 2GBs of fuly buffered RAM, and a case that goes for $480? I recently did a comparison of a Mac Pro and a computer with as similar specs to a Mac Pro as I could find. I found all the parts at NewEgg, except the case, which I found on this site, the keyboard and mouse, which I got from Apple, and the OS and iLife, which I also got from Apple. All in all, it came out to being only a hundred dollars less than a base Mac Pro. And what do you get for that extra hundred dollars? You don't have to spend time building a machine, getting the OS patched and installed, getting around updates, having LAN ports not work, whatever. If I were in the market for a computer in that class, I would not look any further than a Mac Pro. I understand that you didn't need something with that much power, and I understand that. The only point I'm trying to prove is that the Mac Pro is not overpriced for what it is.

Also, Microsoft is already working on Windows 7. It should be out next year, two years tops. If you buy a copy of Vista Ultimate (which really stands for Ultimate Profit, btw-- it's insanely overpriced for what it is), it will be out of date in about a year. When Gates was in charge, he even admitted that a new OS should come out every 2.5 years or so, and that XP was way overdue. You're basing your statement that Vista will last you four years based on an exception. You could make the argument that you're not forced to upgrade Windows every time a new version comes out, but the same goes for OS X as well. The thing is, it's just so cheap, that it doesn't hurt the wallet that badly to upgrade every year or two, therefore most people do. But they don't have to. And while Snow Leopard will have no new features, it will have many bug fixes, and it should be a lot faster and a ton stabler. Let's see Microsoft accomplish that....

 

[diamond.g]

Two 8-core Xeons?

Where did you find 8 core Xeons at??

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

First off, you have to remember what the Mac Pro really is before you can call it overpriced. Two 8-core Xeons?

What YOU have to remember is that I don't NEED two 4-core Xeons (no such thing as an 8-core Xenon)! I already said that and I think I made it perfectly clear. My point is if you want a TOWER and expandable storage and OSX, your ONLY choice is a $2700 (or $2400 with 4-cores) MacPro. There is NOTHING in the $500-2000 range PERIOD. That is RIDICULOUS. The only people that don't think so are typically Mac fanatics that tend to think everything Apple does is fabulous and you cannot convince them otherwise no matter how much logic you throw at them. Telling someone to go buy a Windows machine is stupid too. If I wanted to run Windows, I would have bought such a machine already. I'm not that dumb. Wanting OSX and wanting Apple hardware are two different things. But you cannot convince some people of that. They think they are one and the same thing even though Hackintoshes and Psystar both proved otherwise.

Note also that I DID buy a Windows machine AND a used PowerMac which I upgraded to the specs I wanted for a 'useful' machine for the purposes I need (which again does not include 8-cores). For about a total of $2000 (still several hundred less than a new MacPro), I got TWO computers, one of which can run all the Windows games out there and the other of which is a Mac tower that can run my whole house audio system and plenty of Mac productivity apps like financing that I don't want to do on a Windows machine due to susceptibility to viruses, etc. The only downside is I COULD have gotten a Hackintosh for about $1200 that could do the same thing as both of these computers (minus the ability to do two completely separate things like gaming and whatever else at the same time) and saved $800.

It's not that I don't wan to buy an Apple Mac; it's that Apple doesn't want to sell me a reasonably priced tower. Psystar wouldn't even exist if that market segment was already filled by Apple. So this should be a wake up call to Apple, but given Jobs' ego, it won't be.

 

[BenRoethig]

What YOU have to remember is that I don't NEED two 4-core Xeons (no such thing as an 8-core Xenon)! I already said that and I think I made it perfectly clear. My point is if you want a TOWER and expandable storage and OSX, your ONLY choice is a $2700 (or $2400 with 4-cores) MacPro. There is NOTHING in the $500-2000 range PERIOD. That is RIDICULOUS. The only people that don't think so are typically Mac fanatics that tend to think everything Apple does is fabulous and you cannot convince them otherwise no matter how much logic you throw at them. Telling someone to go buy a Windows machine is stupid too. If I wanted to run Windows, I would have bought such a machine already. I'm not that dumb. Wanting OSX and wanting Apple hardware are two different things. But you cannot convince some people of that. They think they are one and the same thing even though Hackintoshes and Psystar both proved otherwise.

Note also that I DID buy a Windows machine AND a used PowerMac which I upgraded to the specs I wanted for a 'useful' machine for the purposes I need (which again does not include 8-cores). For about a total of $2000 (still several hundred less than a new MacPro), I got TWO computers, one of which can run all the Windows games out there and the other of which is a Mac tower that can run my whole house audio system and plenty of Mac productivity apps like financing that I don't want to do on a Windows machine due to susceptibility to viruses, etc. The only downside is I COULD have gotten a Hackintosh for about $1200 that could do the same thing as both of these computers (minus the ability to do two completely separate things like gaming and whatever else at the same time) and saved $800.

It's not that I don't wan to buy an Apple Mac; it's that Apple doesn't want to sell me a reasonably priced tower. Psystar wouldn't even exist if that market segment was already filled by Apple. So this should be a wake up call to Apple, but given Jobs' ego, it won't be.

Agreed. The kicker is that Apple did fill this segment and for many years. They just unilaterally decided that everyone under 4-cores and $2300 should be buying all in ones instead.

 

[r.j.s]

Agreed. The kicker is that Apple did fill this segment and for many years. They just unilaterally decided that everyone under 4-cores and $2300 should be buying all in ones instead.

They must have decided the demand just wasnt there anymore. A few dozen people on a forum does not create a reasonable demand.

 

[lifeinhd]

Where did you find 8 core Xeons at??

Sorry, I meant quad core. My bad.

 

[CWallace]

Apple has not suddenly decided to become elitists and decided that two CPUs are the only option for a "professional desktop".

Look at the prices of the G5 series. The entry-level single CPU models were usually $1999 and the faster single-CPU (or slower dual-CPU) model was $2499.

Now, Apple could have likely released a slower single-CPU Harpertown (say the 2.33GHz or 2.0GHz) unit for $1999, but really, how popular would it have been? Especially if it was on a special motherboard that couldn't have a second CPU added to it? And that special motherboard, not being able to be used with any other Mac Pro, would have raised the inventory costs of the model and reduced the profit margins.

Now I understand that what many (if not most) people want is the Core2 Quad in a tower because the CPU and the systemboards are much cheaper then the Xeon family.

But when Apple transitioned from the G4 to the G5, they didn't keep a lower-priced G4 model in the original case in the line-up going forward. It would have been cheaper to offer then the G5 models and would have been differentiated in the product lineup (the PowerMac G4 and PowerMac G5), but Apple chose not to do so.

I wasn't around back then, but was there as much angst being directed at Apple when they moved from the G4 to the dual-G5 and raised the price?

 

[lifeinhd]

What YOU have to remember is that I don't NEED two 4-core Xeons (no such thing as an 8-core Xenon)! I already said that and I think I made it perfectly clear. My point is if you want a TOWER and expandable storage and OSX, your ONLY choice is a $2700 (or $2400 with 4-cores) MacPro. There is NOTHING in the $500-2000 range PERIOD. That is RIDICULOUS. The only people that don't think so are typically Mac fanatics that tend to think everything Apple does is fabulous and you cannot convince them otherwise no matter how much logic you throw at them. Telling someone to go buy a Windows machine is stupid too. If I wanted to run Windows, I would have bought such a machine already. I'm not that dumb. Wanting OSX and wanting Apple hardware are two different things. But you cannot convince some people of that. They think they are one and the same thing even though Hackintoshes and Psystar both proved otherwise.

Note also that I DID buy a Windows machine AND a used PowerMac which I upgraded to the specs I wanted for a 'useful' machine for the purposes I need (which again does not include 8-cores). For about a total of $2000 (still several hundred less than a new MacPro), I got TWO computers, one of which can run all the Windows games out there and the other of which is a Mac tower that can run my whole house audio system and plenty of Mac productivity apps like financing that I don't want to do on a Windows machine due to susceptibility to viruses, etc. The only downside is I COULD have gotten a Hackintosh for about $1200 that could do the same thing as both of these computers (minus the ability to do two completely separate things like gaming and whatever else at the same time) and saved $800.

It's not that I don't wan to buy an Apple Mac; it's that Apple doesn't want to sell me a reasonably priced tower. Psystar wouldn't even exist if that market segment was already filled by Apple. So this should be a wake up call to Apple, but given Jobs' ego, it won't be.

Perhaps YOU don't need 8 cores (sorry about the two 8 core xeon thing), but that doesn't mean that OTHER people feel the same way. People who buy Mac Pros are usually graphic design artists, or people who work with video projects and use other applications that require large quantities of processing power. All I'm saying is if a person needed the power, the Mac Pro is not overpriced for what it is. I am in no way implying that you are this type of person. You said that the Mac Pro is way overpriced, and I'm simply explaining that it's not. Admittedly, you said it's way overpriced as a consumer desktop, but that's not the group it's targeted at.

You might call me a fanboy, but I try not to be. There are some Apple products I would never even consider buying, such as an iPod or an Apple TV. I like to get the best thing I can for the least amount of money I can, as do most consumers, and iPods and Apple TVs simply don't fit the bill for me. There are much better devices out there that give you more for less, such as my Archos. But in terms of computers, I think that, at least as of right now, the Mac is the best computer you can get. I consider myself to be quite cross-platform, actually, as I used Windows for most of my life, and I do have a distro of Linux installed under Parallels that I use occasionally. I decided that I really need two things from a computer: compatibility and reliability. Macs fit the bill best. Many more applications are becoming available for Mac, and I have Parallels, so I can use Windows if need be, plus OS X is incredibly stable. I will admit that this is not true all the time, but if you don't use Safari, which for some raeson always crashes for me, OS X becomes a very stable, very robust operating system. Windows is great for compatability, but not so much for reliability. Linux is great in terms of reliability, but not compatability. What I'm trying to say is, Buy what fits your needs and budget. If a Hackintosh is what you want, go for it. I would have gone hackintosh, but then I give up both aspects of what I have come to love in a Mac.

 

[gehrbox]

Perhaps YOU don't need 8 cores (sorry about the two 8 core xeon thing), but that doesn't mean that OTHER people feel the same way.

Now you know MagnusVonMagnum is going to have to post another reply that is longer then yours

Even though you said "I understand that you didn't need something with that much power, and I understand that. The only point I'm trying to prove is that the Mac Pro is not overpriced for what it is."

He still felt the need to say "What YOU have to remember is that I don't NEED two 4-core Xeons (no such thing as an 8-core Xenon)! I already said that and I think I made it perfectly clear."

Clearly nobody is going to convince him he is wrong. Your statements have gotten the point across loud and clear.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Perhaps YOU don't need 8 cores (sorry about the two 8 core xeon thing), but that doesn't mean that OTHER people feel the same way. People who buy Mac Pros are usually graphic design artists, or people who work with video projects and use other applications that require large quantities of processing power. All I'm saying is if a person needed the power, the Mac Pro is not overpriced for what it is. I am in no way implying that you are this type of person. You said that the Mac Pro is way overpriced, and I'm simply explaining that it's not. Admittedly, you said it's way overpriced as a consumer desktop, but that's not the group it's targeted at.

You might call me a fanboy, but I try not to be. There are some Apple products I would never even consider buying, such as an iPod or an Apple TV. I like to get the best thing I can for the least amount of money I can, as do most consumers, and iPods and Apple TVs simply don't fit the bill for me. There are much better devices out there that give you more for less, such as my Archos. But in terms of computers, I think that, at least as of right now, the Mac is the best computer you can get. I consider myself to be quite cross-platform, actually, as I used Windows for most of my life, and I do have a distro of Linux installed under Parallels that I use occasionally. I decided that I really need two things from a computer: compatibility and reliability. Macs fit the bill best. Many more applications are becoming available for Mac, and I have Parallels, so I can use Windows if need be, plus OS X is incredibly stable. I will admit that this is not true all the time, but if you don't use Safari, which for some raeson always crashes for me, OS X becomes a very stable, very robust operating system. Windows is great for compatability, but not so much for reliability. Linux is great in terms of reliability, but not compatability. What I'm trying to say is, Buy what fits your needs and budget. If a Hackintosh is what you want, go for it. I would have gone hackintosh, but then I give up both aspects of what I have come to love in a Mac.

and you complete miss the point of his post and the problem with apple line up. They have a huge gapping hole in there line up. Just a lot of Apple fanitics turn a blind eye to it and when some one points it out they get all huffy like you just did.
Accept the facts. Apple has a hole in there line up that you can drive a Mack truck though.

 

[iMacmatician]

Clearly nobody is going to convince him he is wrong. Your statements have gotten the point across loud and clear.

Nobody is, and nobody needs to. Let the posts speak for themselves.

and you complete miss the point of his post and the problem with apple line up. They have a huge gapping hole in there line up. Just a lot of Apple fanitics turn a blind eye to it and when some one points it out they get all huffy like you just did.
Accept the facts. Apple has a hole in there line up that you can drive a Mack truck though.

Hole or no hole, the Mac Pro isn't bad value for money.

 

[gehrbox]

and you complete miss the point of his post and the problem with apple line up. They have a huge gapping hole in there line up. Just a lot of Apple fanitics turn a blind eye to it and when some one points it out they get all huffy like you just did.
Accept the facts. Apple has a hole in there line up that you can drive a Mack truck though.

I don't think any fans are turning a blind eye to Apples product lineup. Apple chooses not to market some products that many would like. In any case it does not seem to be hurting Apples sales.

When SJ leaves Apple you might see the products people are dreaming about. Steve has his plan and it does not seem to include products to fill the hole you are talking about.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Nobody is, and nobody needs to. Let the posts speak for themselves.

Hole or no hole, the Mac Pro isn't bad value for money.

true it may be a good value for you what get.

But in term of cost compared to what one needs it is a very poor value.

When a PC can be built. OS and so on for 1500 or less that it takes a 3K plus mac to just match just to get some of the basic requirements that cheap PC has it is a sad day.

When I built my PC 4 years ago I spent 1500 on it to with everything and all software legal on it that I needed. It took me at the time to get a mac that covered all the requirements I wanted and put in that PC was some was over 3k bucks. It was rather sad (a dell was roughly 2k for the match the major requirements I believe) Prices do not include monitor.


Now you tell me which seems like a better deal.

 

[gehrbox]

Now you tell me which seems like a better deal.

Function is not the only ingredient driving peoples purchase decisions.

 

[gehrbox]

true it may be a good value for you what get.

But in term of cost compared to what one needs it is a very poor value.

When a PC can be built. OS and so on for 1500 or less that it takes a 3K plus mac to just match just to get some of the basic requirements that cheap PC has it is a sad day.

When I built my PC 4 years ago I spent 1500 on it to with everything and all software legal on it that I needed. It took me at the time to get a mac that covered all the requirements I wanted and put in that PC was some was over 3k bucks. It was rather sad (a dell was roughly 2k for the match the major requirements I believe) Prices do not include monitor.


Now you tell me which seems like a better deal.

According to Toms Hardware Mac's are not any more expensive then a similarly configured Windows machine

 

[CWallace]

They have a huge gaping hole in there line up.

So I take it Apple had a huge gaping hole in their line-up in October of 2005 when they offered the $1699 20" 2.13GHz iMac G5 and the next machine was the $1999 2.0GHz single CPU Power Mac G5?

After all, the 2.8GHz 24" iMac was only $200 less then the single 2.8GHz CPU Mac Pro in August of last year. And the Mac Pro is better all-around then the iMac, which likely wasn't the case with the respective G5 models.

Apple hasn't made a mid-range tower since Steve regained control of the company, so why would he do so now?

The PowerMac G3, G4 and G5 were just like the current Mac Pro - one size case with different processor speeds and counts at different price levels.

I imagine part of the problem is IBM and Motorola only had a single family of PowerPC chips in each generation vs. the five Intel offers (Xeon, Core2 Extreme, Core2, PentiumD and CeleronD), but the fact is that Apple could have made a smaller case for the single CPU G4 and G5 models and chose not to.

Why that was not seen as a "bad thing" then, but somehow is a "bad thing" now escapes me other then people evidently believe that since Apple now uses "commodity" hardware, it should have a "commodity" price.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

They must have decided the demand just wasnt there anymore. A few dozen people on a forum does not create a reasonable demand.

The flaw in your logic is that Apple is supposedly trying to attract more Windows 'switchers' with things like Boot Camp and promoting Parallels and Fusion on their web site. Given 90+% of all Windows desktops are towers or mini-towers these days, I'd imagine a logical person might just assume there's more than a few dozen people on ONE set of Mac forums that might WANT a reasonable priced tower.

The difference with fanatics is that they do NOT draw that conclusion. They think it's perfectly reasonable to assume because only a few dozen people on a MAC forum (that probably already own Macs and therefore aren't potential 'switchers' to increase the Macintosh market share instead of relying only on the tiny percentage of Mac users that already exist) are the only ones on those forums begging for a mid-range or even low-range tower that those must be the ONLY demand for it!

Whereas someone like me assumes the hundreds of MILLIONS of potential NEW Mac users might just want computer hardware that compares to what they already have and not radical laptops rolled into the back of a monitor designs that few other than Apple sell in any numbers. In other words, if "all in ones" (like the iMac) are so fantastic for the general computing population why is it I don't know a single Windows user that has anything like that hardware? It IS available from Dell and others. But no one chooses it because it's so limited (you can't get a great graphics card for it; you can't add extra internal hard drives, etc.). When you consider most desks include a nook under them to hold a tower and leave your desktop CLEAN (that means extra hard drives don't have to be on top of your desk), I don't see what's supposed to be so great about something like the iMac to begin with. You have to choose your overall hardware based on the monitor size and vice versa! What if I want a 40" monitor? I have to buy an EXTRA monitor to get it? What do I do with the first monitor? I have to have it on the desk too? Maybe that's good and maybe it's not. Maybe I just wanted a 40" monitor to begin with. So then I have to buy an underpowered and underwhelming Mac-Mini OR a massively expensive professional level workstation just to get that 40" monitor when any $500 El Cheapo PC tower can use it just fine. THAT is what I find ridiculous about iMacs. I see a limited market for them, but they should not be the mainstream consumer Mac, IMO and I have to wonder how much more market penetration the Mac might have by now if they offered competitive COMPARABLE hardware to the average PC now that Macs can run Windows also. I think they'd be selling in even greater numbers and that would be no bad thing for Apple.

 

[r.j.s]

First, the first part of my argument can't be flawed, if it was, Apple would have come out with the xMac already.

You make a good argument for the xMac, and personally I could care less if they offered one (the MB is good enough for me right now), but that's not what this thread is about - let's all try to stay on topic, instead of evolving this into a complete argument for and against the xMac.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So I take it Apple had a huge gaping hole in their line-up in October of 2005 when they offered the $1699 20" 2.13GHz iMac G5 and the next machine was the $1999 2.0GHz single CPU Power Mac G5?

After all, the 2.8GHz 24" iMac was only $200 less then the single 2.8GHz CPU Mac Pro in August of last year. And the Mac Pro is better all-around then the iMac, which likely wasn't the case with the respective G5 models.

Apple hasn't made a mid-range tower since Steve regained control of the company, so why would he do so now?

The PowerMac G3, G4 and G5 were just like the current Mac Pro - one size case with different processor speeds and counts at different price levels.

I imagine part of the problem is IBM and Motorola only had a single family of PowerPC chips in each generation vs. the five Intel offers (Xeon, Core2 Extreme, Core2, PentiumD and CeleronD), but the fact is that Apple could have made a smaller case for the single CPU G4 and G5 models and chose not to.

Why that was not seen as a "bad thing" then, but somehow is a "bad thing" now escapes me other then people evidently believe that since Apple now uses "commodity" hardware, it should have a "commodity" price.

I been complaining about the hole in the line up since well before I built my computer in the summer of 2004. there has been a huge hole in there line up since Jobs took over.

The hole has only gotten bigger over the years. This gapping hole is the exact reason why I refuse to own an apple desk top. When I have to pay over 2 times the money to fill my wants/needs over a PC it is rather pathetic. People saying a Mid price tower would steal sells from the mac pro are right in the way that people are getting rip off right now buying more computer than they need.

Apple line up lap tops are great. Apple desk top line up on the other hand is crap.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

According to Toms Hardware Mac's are not any more expensive then a similarly configured Windows machine

again you missed the point of my post. For a similar PC yes they are about the same price.

Read my exact words. I said to meet my needs it cost 2 times as much for the Mac pro... Guess what 2 of the big requirements where the caused me to have to go to the mac pro. Graphic card and updatability. Those two on the killers to anything less than a mac pro and then the graphic card jack up the mac pro pricing along with the additional ram requirements.

The Mac Pro processors where massive Over-kill and I had to pay out the rear for over kill. Along with other minro things but the big one was I was paying for massive over kill in the processors.

 

[BenRoethig]

According to Toms Hardware Mac's are not any more expensive then a similarly configured Windows machine

The trick is getting one similarly configured. The Mac Pro is by far the most affordable DP xeon workstation. However, since Apple has no desktop and has to fill that role, its is also compared to full ATX towers. It is also, available in a limited number of CPU configurations and starts at the higher end of the scale.

 

[BenRoethig]

So I take it Apple had a huge gaping hole in their line-up in October of 2005 when they offered the $1699 20" 2.13GHz iMac G5 and the next machine was the $1999 2.0GHz single CPU Power Mac G5?

After all, the 2.8GHz 24" iMac was only $200 less then the single 2.8GHz CPU Mac Pro in August of last year. And the Mac Pro is better all-around then the iMac, which likely wasn't the case with the respective G5 models.

Apple hasn't made a mid-range tower since Steve regained control of the company, so why would he do so now?

The PowerMac G3, G4 and G5 were just like the current Mac Pro - one size case with different processor speeds and counts at different price levels.

I imagine part of the problem is IBM and Motorola only had a single family of PowerPC chips in each generation vs. the five Intel offers (Xeon, Core2 Extreme, Core2, PentiumD and CeleronD), but the fact is that Apple could have made a smaller case for the single CPU G4 and G5 models and chose not to.

Why that was not seen as a "bad thing" then, but somehow is a "bad thing" now escapes me other then people evidently believe that since Apple now uses "commodity" hardware, it should have a "commodity" price.

He hasn't made a midrange tower? That's what the PowerMac was and despite your desire to revise things, it was made in affordable configurations well into the G5 days and believe it or not, the affordable ones had a different chipset. When the Mac Pro game out, Apple moved the entire range into the high end workstation class with the massive price increase that came with it. He figured everyone who wasn't a movie or record producer could get by with the tower (and feature)-less wonder instead.

First, the first part of my argument can't be flawed, if it was, Apple would have come out with the xMac already.

Its inherently flawed by the fact that depends on blind faith in Apple. They did come out with the xMac already. They then decided, without user input, that we should all be using all in ones instead.

 

[CWallace]

He hasn't made a midrange tower? That's what the PowerMac was and despite your desire to revise things, it was made in affordable configurations well into the G5 days and believe it or not, the affordable ones had a different chipset.

In October of 2005, the price difference between the top-end G5 iMac and the low-end G5 PowerMac was $300.

In August of 2007, the price difference between the top-end Intel iMac and the low-end Mac Pro was $200.

The cheapest G5 PowerMac I can find was the 1.6GHz model in November 2003 which was $1799. Every other G5 PowerMac config I could find started at $1999, including the 1.6GHz model when it was released in June of 2003. At the same time, the iMac was still on the G4 and was $1799 at the top-end. So a $200 price premium for the PowerMac, which had a more powerful CPU - just like now.

Now, the G4 model was available for $1499 in a 1.0GHz model in January of 2003. This was $300 cheaper then the top-end iMac, but LCD displays back then were much more expensive then they are now and that no doubt skewed the price delta then more then it does now.

When the Mac Pro game out, Apple moved the entire range into the high end workstation class with the massive price increase that came with it.

Apple's entire marketing message during the PowerPC years was that the PowerMac was a "workstation class PC" and as such was more powerful then the Windows PCs of the same period running on their slow "commodity hardware". And they pushed the fact that the PowerPC was available in multi-CPU models which was not possible with the Pentium 4 family (only Xeons could be had in two CPU configurations).

If Apple had launched the Mac Pro only as a single CPU solution, they effectively proved their entire marketing message during the PowerPC years was pure balonium by showing that they needed two PowerPC CPUs to do the work of one Pentium or Core CPU. And their "most powerful" PC would have been in direct competition with the entire Windows PC community, which adopts technology at a much faster rate then Apple does (thanks to having thousands of players all fighting each other for an advantage).

And that PC would still have cost more then a Windows model because Apple demands a minimum margin level that is much higher then PC makers. So instead of $2299 it would be $1999 - not $1799, to say nothing of $1499. Even "fanboi's" would stand-up and notice that price difference, just as they do on the MacBook (Pro) which can be compared 1:1 to Windows PC models.

However, as Xeon-based workstations go, the Mac Pro is actually among the cheapest. We use HP workstations with the same parts at work and they are well over one thousand dollars more. And folks have priced out Dell workstations using the same parts and they, too, close on a four-figure premium over the Mac Pro.

And it stands to reason that Apple didn't think of Grand Central in May of 2008. It is likely they have been working on it for at least a year and likely longer since the G5 was also available with two cores per CPU and was employed in PowerMacs. They seem to be pretty tight with Intel and Intel has not exactly been quiet these past couple of years on their multi-core CPU plans. Is it not unreasonable that when Apple planned the Mac Pro's move from PowerPC to Intel they did not take into account how multi-core CPUs could be leveraged in the future? And that having a PC with eight or even sixteen cores could really give them an edge over a PC with two or four?

 

[BenRoethig]

In October of 2005, the price difference between the top-end G5 iMac and the low-end G5 PowerMac was $300.

In August of 2007, the price difference between the top-end Intel iMac and the low-end Mac Pro was $200.

That's because Apple moved the iMac upscale into the PowerMac territory.

The cheapest G5 PowerMac I can find was the 1.6GHz model in November 2003 which was $1799. Every other G5 PowerMac config I could find started at $1999, including the 1.6GHz model when it was released in June of 2003. At the same time, the iMac was still on the G4 and was $1799 at the top-end. So a $200 price premium for the PowerMac, which had a more powerful CPU - just like now.

Fall '04 1.8ghz Single cpu G5 $1499.

Apple's entire marketing message during the PowerPC years was that the PowerMac was a "workstation class PC" and as such was more powerful then the Windows PCs of the same period running on their slow "commodity hardware". And they pushed the fact that the PowerPC was available in multi-CPU models which was not possible with the Pentium 4 family (only Xeons could be had in two CPU configurations).

If Apple had launched the Mac Pro only as a single CPU solution, they effectively proved their entire marketing message during the PowerPC years was pure balonium by showing that they needed two PowerPC CPUs to do the work of one Pentium or Core CPU. And their "most powerful" PC would have been in direct competition with the entire Windows PC community, which adopts technology at a much faster rate then Apple does (thanks to having thousands of players all fighting each other for an advantage).

Uh, by the time Apple had gone to intel multiple cores were standard.

And that PC would still have cost more then a Windows model because Apple demands a minimum margin level that is much higher then PC makers. So instead of $2299 it would be $1999 - not $1799, to say nothing of $1499. Even "fanboi's" would stand-up and notice that price difference, just as they do on the MacBook (Pro) which can be compared 1:1 to Windows PC models.

Yes we all know about higher margins and are willing to pay them. However, there is also an very high cost in using a workstation motherboard, workstation FB-DIMMs, and workstation CPUs as the single 2.83ghz quad shows. The single quad core demonstrates that. Using a C2Q Q9550, high end, x38 DDR2/3 DIMMs like in other high end single CPU machines you would save several hundred dollars while having the same performance and features.

However, as Xeon-based workstations go, the Mac Pro is actually among the cheapest. We use HP workstations with the same parts at work and they are well over one thousand dollars more. And folks have priced out Dell workstations using the same parts and they, too, close on a four-figure premium over the Mac Pro.

Yes I know. Great for the Pros, bad for the semi-pros who just had to spend $6-800 more than what they did on their PowerMac. Even worse for those who can't afford that extra cost and are stuck with an iMac that doesn't do the job.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

First, the first part of my argument can't be flawed, if it was, Apple would have come out with the xMac already.

The first part? I assume you mean the first of two sentences total? And since when did we start calling a tower mid-range Mac the "xMac" anyway? In any case, your 'argument' is flawed so much as the market would bear if Apple would release such a machine. Until they do release such a machine to compare sales with iMacs, etc., there is only speculation, not facts.

Thus, your argument is only as right as Apple has correctly speculated the demand for such a machine and as the stock markets bear witness, companies make bad and incorrect decisions on a daily basis. However, speculation is not the only criteria when it comes to Apple. Steve Jobs is a notorious control freak (dating back to the first Mac where certain expansion was nixed in favor of Apple retaining control over the entire machine) and thus his interests may go beyond mere market demand or money but rather a desire to keep existing Mac customers using outdated graphics hardware at the time they buy the machine so they they can sell them another outdated GPU in 1-2 years and repeat the process indefinitely. Thus, I submit the supposition that Steve has been choosing a slower market gain in favor of retaining long term repeat sales from fanatics that will buy anything he sells at almost any price and not only love it, but tirelessly defend him in the process.

You make a good argument for the xMac, and personally I could care less if they offered one (the MB is good enough for me right now), but that's not what this thread is about - let's all try to stay on topic, instead of evolving this into a complete argument for and against the xMac.

I could care less too, but then I cared a great deal to begin with. I imagine you really could NOT care less, though.