Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Desktop Processors?

[Eric S.]

yeah the xMac (or whatever you call it) discussion is old but looking at the amount of threads which turn into such discussion again and again it seems to be more alive than ever before

And yet one constant argument voiced by opponents of such a system is that there is no interest in it.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Make it user-serviceable - socketed CPU, standard memory DIMMs, standard 3.5" hard drives, standard 5.25 optical slots, standard PCIe x16 graphics card slot with PCIe power connector, a couple of standard PCIe expansion slots. Enough power and cooling to handle midrange CPUs and graphics. No laptop parts.

I don't care if the length, width and height are identical - it can be cube-shaped as long as it is easy for a user (or the Geek Squad) to upgrade with standard parts either at the time-of-sale or later.




I made an entry in that thread - I suggest a small family of systems like these, identical except for expansion:

***Drool*** ***slurp***

Sorry, I just love that word..... S.T.A.N.D.A.R.D. it has such a nice and friendly ring to it.

And yet one constant argument voiced by those that don't have a clue of such a system is that there is no interest in it.

Fixed that for you, though it didn't need fixing.... clarification I guess. I used to be such a person, and that group seriously just doesn't have a clue.

iMac is wonderful for some, but so many people would get by just fine with a tower config, or a cheaper Mac Pro that started at $1699 at the very least.

 

[-hh]

I singled you out as one of the few rational ppl who won't argue 'til their blue in the face that the company Apple is most afraid of losing sales to is themselves. Occasionally a seasoned veteran will allude to the time when Apple confused consumers with its myriad product lines as if that relates somehow to the present in which they have exactly 3 laptop lines and 3 desktop lines. When I started following apple they had only 2 of each, and if a tablet is feasible, then why not a midrange tower?

To a certain degree, some of the differences in perspective might be based on how one chooses to count.

For example, I disagree that there's only currently 3+3 product lines: I'd say that there's currently 5+5: that's 5 laptop lines (Air, White, MB, 15" MBP, 17" MBP) and 5desktop lines (mini, TV, 20" iMac, 24" iMac, MacPro), as well as 5 "other" lines (shuffle, nano, classic, touch, iPhone).

My rationale for making the distinction in this fashion comes from manufacturing: I consider the 20" iMac to be similar, but not the same as a 24" iMac because its differences are more than some small interchangable components (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD) which are relatively trivial swap-outs on a production line: their differences include a different LCD monitor and enclosure case too, which would tend to drive manufacturing to having a separate assembly line for it.

In any event, while I agree that its a fair enough point to be willing to accept some broadening of the product line ... indeed, Apple's retention of the White MacBook in the most recent update arguably is doing just this ... my general counterpoint is that the company was impacted to its core by the "confusing myriad" proliferation, so for better or worse, there's a very strong cultural resistance to increased product proliferation still to this day. I'm not defending them for doing this, but merely pointing it out as an observation of their general behavior.

I singled you out because you'd be more likely to mention what -hh ended up hinting at: planned obsolescence and the advantages of a business model that tends to limit the end-user's upgrade options.

I thought that I was stronger than merely hinting at it: I wholehearetedly agree that some of Apple's choices are indeed very much self-serving from a business sales perspetive.

However, I'm going to moderately disagree that there's a heavy motive here of planned obsolescence. By this, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen or that it isn't somewhat a factor, but rather that its more of a combination of other factors that make it lesser of a consideration.

First off, the days of where Moore's Law was roaring and each new PC perceptively felt 2x faster in every way was introduced every ~6 months (it seemed like) are behind us. As such, there's less "being left in the dust by new hardware" occurring today.

Second, there's the niggling problem of the high degree of popularity of laptops in today's consumer segment...by some counts, 50%-70% of all new sales. While Apple gets hammered for the mini and iMac being "non-upgradable", the reality is that they're just as (un)upgradable as all of those laptops being sold - - both PC and Mac laptops. As such, today's mainstream consumer is voting with his wallet that he's not necessarily as concerned about ease-of-upgradability.

Apple dictates terms to its customer base simply because it can without upsetting the niche market for whom it caters. Why fill the gap in the product line when the bulk of your customers are so enamoured of everything you do that they'll take the time to tell ppl who demand such a product that they're wrong for doing so (I don't mean you or -hh, I mean the ppl who will argue unequivocally that there is no such gap)?

No offense taken. I think that it is hard to grasp the concept that a gap may exist when looking at technical hardware performance values, but at the same time, the gap doesn't functionally exist when looking at business performance values ... ie, product sales.

All salient points, -hh, and I agree with you for the most part, but I think that the shift towards laptops belies the fact that more family members have their own computers nowadays. There are no more roadwarriors than there used to be, just ppl who also bring their laptop to work, but very few households have a laptop as their primary computer. Nor do they want an all-in-one.

I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is that I do think that a certain amount of "family trickle-down" does still occur, although I also agree that it doesn't happen as much anymore. The second is that I don't think we necessarily need to get hung up on why individuals are buying fewer desktops / more laptops: just that they are, and regardless of whatever their reason for doing so is, reduced DIY upgradability is an irrefutable consequence of their decision.

Similarly, an IT manager whose CEO has an MBA/MBP may be asked to look into the feasibility of switching to mac, but once they weigh up how many desks will need imacs vs mac minis, and how often those minis will need to be replaced (probably not factoring in the fact that they have the best resale value of any mac), they will probably decide against it out of a similar disdain for the AIO.

Personally, I would expect the Mac to make inroads into the Enterprise in areas other than the AIO. Its more likely to start with managers who want a Mac laptop on the road and Cubical Tecchies who want the Mac Pro horsepower.

Your attempt to belittle the xmac crowd to a dozen or so ppl is immensely unfair, when you consider the fact that the best part of the market for such a computer would not frequent these forums to discuss its absence. As such, the only xmac fans on the forum are ppl like me disgruntled with the fact their imac didn't have the longevity ppl associate with macs and low-end powermac users who find the server-class processors price them out of the (semi-)pro market. But as you say, midrange customers who aren't going to upgrade too often aren't apple's biggest priority.

My "dozen" comment is sarcasm that is alluding to the statistical fallacies of trying to gain useful market insight when you have sampling bias from a self-selected sample. This has nothing to do with the issue under contention: its simply that a happy customer will tell "X" people, whereas an unhappy customer will tell "3X" people.

In general, the business risk is that its hard to gage the true demand because its hard to tell if 1,000 hits means that its 1,000 people quietly grumbling at Volume=1, or if its just 10 guys shouting at Volume=100.

My sincere suggestion to the die-hard xMac fans is to hire a lawyer and have each member put up a $1000 deposit in escrow. Once the total pot size reaches a sufficiently "interesting" total (eg, $1M, $5M, $10M, etc), have the lawyer contact Apple and tell them that he represents a block of clients with deposits already in place who's ready to buy a Macintosh of the certain general specifications (xMac) and ask them if they would be interested in replying. The fact that the lawyer is holding a bag of real world money is what will encourage Apple to take the request seriously.

And as I've said...I wouldn't mind having an xMac either - - the problem is that I simply don't see it as a profitable business model for Apple to pursue, so based on business realities, I have to doubt that its going to happen.

But your suggestion that such ppl should buy 2nd-hand 2.66's just doesn't cut it.

Even if it was cheaper than a 20" iMac? Most people would probably claim that at that price point, they would sell like hotcakes. My point here is that its my opinion that a fairly large segment of the xMac advocates aren't opposed to anything technical regarding the Mac Pro, but simply can't bring themselves "up" to its current price point.

Mac Pros are overkill in more ways than just money and size. They also consume way too much electricity to be a primary computer for a home. My bosses tell me it costs £100s a year to leave a mac pro on and there's no way I could use one as my primary computer.

As per this and this page at Apple, a Mac Pro consumes 171W-250W of power (idle/max), which would be US$120/year (fairly close to £100/year at the current exchange rate) at an electrical generation cost of $0.10/Kwh.

However, a 20" iMac similarly run 24/7 uses $58/year, so the "Mac Pro tax" is really $120-$58 = $62/year.

And peeling the onion to apply the OS X energy saver to both of these, and only use the computer actively for 8 hours/day, then the costs become $44/year vs $21/year = $23/year difference...less than a dime per day. Kind of hard to see any boss really worrying about this magnitude, even in larger numbers: it takes 435 machines to crack $10K/year in fiscal significance.

Besides, having a computer that is far too big and powerhungry for the purpose its required just isn't very apple.

Chevy Corvette
Ford Mustang
Dodge Vyper
Plymouth Prowler
Porsche GT2
Audi R8
...
Apple Mac Pro
Dell XPS
etc

Your right: the idea of "More Power" flagships never happens.

... But apple would rather be a market leader, designing new products altogether so that it can dictate terms, set prices and keep higher margins.

To a degree, but one needs to read deeper into Tim Cook's comments from yesterday:

"We believe that we're on the face of the Earth to make great products, and that's not changing. We're constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.

We believe in saying no to thousands of projects so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot."​

In simplistic terms, there's a business niche for "Fastest Mac" and "Smallest Mac", perhaps we can claim that the iMac is the "Prettiest Mac". The question is under this philosophy expression, what is the 'significant contribution' that is the contribution from the xMac?

While we're beginning to ponder that, make sure to go watch the (circa 2007) "Top Gear" review of the Porsche Cayman, paying particular note to the allusions to management disallowing their engineers from having it out-Porsche their own 911. One of the things that we can suspect that Apple learned with the 7500/7600/8500/8600/9500 PowerMacs was what can happen when you allow the CPU be on an easily replacable riser card.


-hh