What he said was that because of general interest, roadmaps and rumors, he pegs the likelihood of a release at 25% -- not that it would account for 25% of sales.
Read it again:
Exactly. Thanks for explaining. I was trying to distance myself from the people who think a $799 windows-killer with better specs than a $1399 dell is coming out next tuesday.
Were there really people who said that? Morons.
I couldn't care less about the cannibalism idea, personally, so I don't know where you're coming from singling me out.
This is why there won't be an xMac anytime soon:
Remember the Macintosh 128k? Heard of the iMac line? Do you know why they were all-in-one computers?
This is from the mouth of a (really) old Apple engineer, "Because Steve Jobs didn't want the end-user messing around with his (Jobs') hardware."
A computer with user-expandability goes against Jobs' business model.
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?
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. 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)?
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.
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.
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.
But your suggestion that such ppl should buy 2nd-hand 2.66's just doesn't cut it. 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. Besides, having a computer that is far too big and powerhungry for the purpose its required just isn't very apple. Dell can produce all the predictably shaped midrange towers they want but if apple rereleased the cube with a quad-core intel chip at the peak of the halo effect with typical 30-40% apple tax, the press attention, pool of potential switchers and eventual marketshare it would attract would be insane. But apple would rather be a market leader, designing new products altogether so that it can dictate terms, set prices and keep higher margins.
