Wow, that keynote video is terrible... considering how good of quality stuff steve is presenting, I'd expect Apple to at least post the keynote in a presentable format on iTunes, or online. That really sucks, I can't watch the keynote now!
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.
August 7th Updates: iMacs, iLife '08, iWork '08, Mac Mini and More...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They did move it . . .
How did they not move it more to the high end? Sure, they dropped the price on the "still available" models, but you can no longer buy the 17" model, which was the less expensive model. There is no longer a sub-$1000 all-in-one.
I would agree with your statement if they'd done the same update/price drop on the 17" and left it in the lineup. But with dropping the 17" they are definately moving the iMac slowly but surely away from the mid-range. And I'd argue it already is.
How did they not move it more to the high end? Sure, they dropped the price on the "still available" models, but you can no longer buy the 17" model, which was the less expensive model. There is no longer a sub-$1000 all-in-one.
I would agree with your statement if they'd done the same update/price drop on the 17" and left it in the lineup. But with dropping the 17" they are definately moving the iMac slowly but surely away from the mid-range. And I'd argue it already is.
It wasn't a friggin' keynote folks... a "keynote" is the "main" speech at an event that kicks it off, sets the theme, etc. for the rest of the event (week of WWDC session for example).
Anyway... this was simply a press event to a small select audience held in a small auditorium on the Apple campus. It wasn't a big ticket event like you see at MacWorld or WWDC.
OK so what did we get?
OK so what did we get?
1) iMac, changed the color of the cover from white to metal and did a minor speed bump, Discontinued the smaller size. Removed the anti-glare feature from the screen.
2) iLife The big news here is that they skipped a year. They are calling it "08". I guess the developers took a year off to work on a phone
3) iWork See above. But finally a spread sheet, that's good
Two Thirds of Apple's computer sales are notebooks. I think we can see why. They need to make a "mainstream" desktop computer if they want to sell more.
OK so what did we get?
1) iMac, changed the color of the cover from white to metal and did a minor speed bump, Discontinued the smaller size. Removed the anti-glare feature from the screen.
2) iLife The big news here is that they skipped a year. They are calling it "08". I guess the developers took a year off to work on a phone
3) iWork See above. But finally a spread sheet, that's good
Two Thirds of Apple's computer sales are notebooks. I think we can see why. They need to make a "mainstream" desktop computer if they want to sell more.
Consider this ...
Consider this ... if there would not be places like MacRumors ... those improvements made in the new iMac wouldn´t have to compete against those speculations and hypes that bring the people to believe those guys at apple can do magic tricks ! They don´t and they won´t ! It is solid development and being on steriods after visiting "rumor" sites ... how can you satisfy anyone anyway !
Just keep in mind what the magic of the iMac was ! Or do you judge your wife (or life partner) also that harsh and then dump them if they don´t satisfy your fantasies anymore ?
Consider this ... if there would not be places like MacRumors ... those improvements made in the new iMac wouldn´t have to compete against those speculations and hypes that bring the people to believe those guys at apple can do magic tricks ! They don´t and they won´t ! It is solid development and being on steriods after visiting "rumor" sites ... how can you satisfy anyone anyway !
Just keep in mind what the magic of the iMac was ! Or do you judge your wife (or life partner) also that harsh and then dump them if they don´t satisfy your fantasies anymore ?
Poop pants!!!
why couldnt they have just added blu-ray to the imacs? thats the only thing missing from this update. apple is on their board of directors theyre a company that if they put it in their machines standard, they would help blu-ray kill off hd-dvd. im bummed about no blu-ray capabilities. it would have been nice to have a computer that is a blu-ray movie player/burner.
why couldnt they have just added blu-ray to the imacs? thats the only thing missing from this update. apple is on their board of directors theyre a company that if they put it in their machines standard, they would help blu-ray kill off hd-dvd. im bummed about no blu-ray capabilities. it would have been nice to have a computer that is a blu-ray movie player/burner.
I'm with RealMcCoy -
The updates were good to great. The imac are slick, and affordable and apple is paying solid attention to its mac software again - I'm happy.
On the otherhand l could do what others on this forum would like and throw away those raccoon lookin imac bastards - dumb scary things would be their own tombstones.
The updates were good to great. The imac are slick, and affordable and apple is paying solid attention to its mac software again - I'm happy.
On the otherhand l could do what others on this forum would like and throw away those raccoon lookin imac bastards - dumb scary things would be their own tombstones.
Well put. It's always been the nuances that have kept me interested in my iBook. In going over reviews and looking over desktop components, I've really become focused on the technical aspects and the numbers behind performance.
That being said, computing is such a fluent part of daily life that perhaps it isn't just numbers that should be focused on. With the upcoming release of Leopard, the intuitiveness of OS/X and the sheer joy which I've had in using my Mac for the last few years, I think I will find myself buying an iMac in the coming weeks.
My question is this:
What will the upgrade to Leopard require (in terms of uprgrading costs and downloading), and in your opinions, is it worth waiting until late October to pick up an iMac?
Could you have provided more clarity/specificity as to what you would have liked to see?
Are you also worried that Ferrari will not mass produce machine-made cars instead of their hand-assembled $250,000 cars with custom-molded engines and hand stitched leather?
Ok... that's a slight exaggeration but here's my point: Apple is not and never was in the business of making cheap computers. I think the issue gets confusing because they have traditionally put some focus into the education market with price points better than their usual retail. However, let's be clear that Apple's presence in education owes a lot more to Steve Wozniak than it does Steve Jobs. It dates back to the Apple II... but Apple II wasn't a cheap computer, either. So, many schools (including mine) ended up buying the much cheaper (and illegitimately made) Franklin Ace.
As for Macintosh, Steve Wozniak has had very little if anything to do with that project, from the early 1980's to the present. It has always been a product category with a high price point. To wit, Jobs' initial design criteria for the Macintosh dictated that it should be more "like a Porsche"... With manufacturing processes like zero-draft molding and corner radius requirements defined down to the millimeter, they clearly were not just slapping boxes together on the cheap... nor are they still.
I submit to you that my school paid upwards of $10,000 for a Macintosh IIfx workstation back in the day, for their telecommunications lab.
I submit to you that the iMacs, even the newest ones, are emerging at some of the lowest introductory price points Apple has ever had for an all-in-one with monitor included... and the monitor that's included is the most advanced they've ever made.
I submit to you that the displays that Mac uses, which are SWOP-certified, are so expensive that pairing them with a cheap Dell or Compaq would produce a package more expensive than the newest line of iMacs (especially once you even out all the other features for an apples to, well, Apples comparison).
Apple's highest priority with Macintosh has always been industrial design... not low cost. The truth is that experiments like the mini have only confused this branding strategy and that I think is one of the reasons Apple seems to be distancing themselves from it.
Apple is a brand that is associated with high quality, industrial design... and it is from THERE where this sense of "status symbol" has emerged. Brands like Lexus are a different story... Lexus manufactured their credibility by slapping a different badge on what were essentially $55,000 Toyotas. Mercedes-Benz on the other hand built credibility over the past 100 years of car manufacturing... and then they blew their credibility by trying to make "economical" Benzes and by acquiring Chrysler... an association that didn't help them in form, substance, or brand psychology.
The idea of Apple as a "status symbol" didn't emerge simply out of cool marketing.. though Chiat/Day's genius certainly hasn't hurt their image. It comes because Apple makes cool stuff with great industrial design... and doing so isn't cheap. Can you imagine Dell making an iMac, the materials they'd use and the cheap assembly and the clunky form factors (picture a manual tension knob on the swivel joint of the display, and plastic everywhere).
But let's look at another issue... branding. In case you haven't noticed, for the past ten years at least if not more, Apple hasn't kept on lower models and reduced their price points while introducing newer models. To avoid product cannibalization (that is, the presence of one similarly-featured model eating into the sales of another), they're very careful about their product lines...
What happens almost every single time a product change comes along is this... the new products with feature upgrades entirely replace yesterday's model lineup at the same or slightly higher price points. Yesterday's models are not kept on at a reduced price... Check it out, you'll see this is nothing new for Apple. It's been their strategy since well before the Mac Mini came along.
Now, regarding the Mini... that's a different class of computer entirely... and it's a sort of experiment that I gather isn't a big winner for Apple. So be it. But within a product class, Apple keeps about 2-3 models and does exactly as I said... they bring in newer models with upgraded features/design at the same price points and take the old ones off the shelf entirely. Again, nothing new.
Granted, not everyone can afford an iMac... but it's not a utility like electricity, or a necessity like shelter. Computers are a luxury... mind you I'm not a neocon ultracapitalist and I don't defend the corporations that knowingly abuse the consumer. What I do advocate is consumer awareness, and part of that awareness includes understanding the difference between necessities and luxuries.
Not everyone can afford a Ferrari... but does that mean that Ferrari should start producing mediocre cars just so they can be affordable? What would then be the point? What would the Ferrari name then represent if it resigned itself to building cars that are mechanically no better than Ford? Let's be honest and say that the ulterior motive of a consumer urging Ferrari to do so is because the consumer wants to be able to say they own a Ferrari. Whether you're rich or middle-class or poor, that isn't a good reason.
Granted, you're seeing the issue a little differently. I don't think you're just desiring to own an Apple for the sake of owning an Apple. I think you believe that it is possible for Apple to make an appealing computer that is affordable to you. So what, though? Has Apple somehow wronged you because they chose to stick with a business model that has worked for them and produced a very high degree of confidence and satisfaction in their brand overall? Granted, Apple made a $1000 iMac... but regardless of size, it wasn't the same materials or specs.
Notwithstanding what's down the road... Consider the product cannibalization issue. Why is Apple eliminating anything smaller than a 17" iMac? One reason may be due to the fact that larger displays are getting cheaper. Another reason may be due to the fact that there are 17" portables out there.
This is a very important consideration because very soon, Apple is going to be putting tremendous focus on their portables... iPhone is the "toe in the water" experiment. It seems like a flagship for a new product category, but it isn't. Every time Apple goes into a new product category, they don't whip out their flagship concept after they've tested smaller concepts with lesser features on the market to gain feedback and insight into what that flagship should be.
In the case of the ultra-portables, there's lots of evidence they're creating a new class of sub-notebook computers with communications platforms of one kind or another... be it EDGE, Wi-Fi, HSDPA, WiMax, whatever. Under the new paradigm, the portables have the potential to cannibalize sales of the desktops, because people are using portables as their primary more and more... the exception is in the case of towers like Mac Pro because there's an expandability issue there that cannot be surpassed for certain necessary applications like video post-production.
However, outside of that professional application, there seems to be waning interest among the average consumer in expandable/upgradable computers because the cost of piecemeal upgrades is now substantially more expensive than simply waiting a year or two for an entirely refreshed product with advanced features all around.
With use of portables and use of mobile internet access growing like never before, products like iMac are now at greater risk of cross-cannibalization with laptops and other portables... so what I'm figuring is that there's actually a couple of things going on here:
1. Apple has given consumers a larger screen for the price of the 17".
2. Apple is avoiding cannibalization of the 17" Macbook Pro, which is especially risky since it's likely a 17" iMac in today's lineup could be used in place of a 17" Macbook Pro and at a much lower price which gives some people less incentive to look at the 17".
The second point is not a consideration so much from the consumer side, but both are considerations from the Apple side.
What isn't known and may be a possibility is that Apple may be gearing up to produce a 17" Mac that is neither a laptop nor a desktop.
To close on the original issue... If the purpose of your argument was driven by your desire to own an Apple (regardless of what you say, you don't absolutely NEED to own one), and the reasons for doing so involve at least some of the things that make Apple as desirable as they are... then if Apple starts making cheaper machines so they can be more affordable doesn't that largely negate one of the biggest reasons why anyone (you included) would want to own one in the first place?
yeah, lets totally f!ck up imovie.....good call steve
As long time video editor and extensive user of Final Cut i've converted many imovie users to Final Cut and Final Cut Express -> why because imovie is way more difficult to use PERIOD. Even for simple stuff - after an hour or so of orientation all my clients/friends were very happy about switching.
My point is you can't f!ck up imovie - it already is! Actually the absolute worst piece of software in iLife - i can't believe it got any praise at all.
Great design is not drastic change.
The theme of all your problems is that Apple didn't change "enough". For example you're mad they didn't update the mouse... to what? Aluminum? Do you realize how hard and expensive it would be to make the mouse out of aluminum. It's not a bunch of flat sheets with subtle curves... it's basically one big curve. It still matches the keyboards (which still have white plastic keys). Many people claim that Apple changes things "just because" with no good reason. Yet, here you are complaining they don't do it enough.
Apple has a very definite design that they have been working toward: Minimalist and functional. The changes are getting less drastic because you can only get so minimal until you have nothing left. The iMac is an example where they've kind of changed things arbitrarily (color, materials) to make it "new" because there isn't much they can do otherwise. At this point, they would need to "add" things in order to change their products. This is not something that is likely because a) it goes against their philosophy and b) design at that point becomes much more subjective (like sculpture) where just as many are sure to hate it as like it.
Your budget all-in-one Mac for under a grand... why do you want this when you already admit that the last time apple did this it was "underpowered". A macbook is $100 more than a grand and a new iMac is $200... not really a dealbreaking difference in my book.
There will never be an "AppleTV/Mac min pro" because nobody would buy it. I know there is a vocal minority who are interested, but you're losing sight of the bigger picture. Sales on things like this would be a blip... easily outclassed by the iMacs they are offering now. Same goes with the minitower. Fact is, basically nobody "upgrades" computers anymore. Only a small niche at this point (hobbyists and gamers). Apple is much smarter than making a product that i knows will not sell well.
The mac mini and AppleTV being combined into one product may be the worst suggestion ever. Completely misses the point of both products. I would not buy an media center product that required me to use a desktop-level OS for even a second... the whole point of the AppleTV is to get rid of that.
You also complain that the iPhone is not revolutionary because of AT&T. Are you for real? 1) the two have nothing to do with each other when it comes to Apple's design. 2) Every provider sucks. If this thing wasn't on AT&T they would have maybe gained somebody else but they would have lost me. Sprint's coverage is a joke, Verizon is overpriced, etc. The only "perfect" move Apple could have pulled was to be on every carrier, but we all know there are many factors making this impossible right now. Again: not Apple's fault.
If you can't recognize the revolutionary aspects of the iPhone you've lost all credibility when judging the rest of Apple's line (IMO). And your whole "I would have liked this if it hadn't been delayed from a release date that never existed in the first place" logic is just dumb.
Actually, no, we can't see why. How are the mini and iMac not "mainstream" desktop computers. Are you referring to price? I'll go you one better and say this: the iMac is the most mainstream desktop computer every made, since inception and to this day.
i assume they didn't add blu-ray because... well, because blu-ray is a big fat joke!... optical discs are becoming obsolete, especially an optical disc that costs like $20 for one... honestly, how pissed would you be if there was a write-error during a burn?
vistaprint
do be careful though...they will fill your inbox with spam...just use a junk mail account to sign up.
but they are cheap and timely and the work i have gotten from them looks great.
hth,
~kyle
Point of interest regarding iMovie
I don't know if it's directly mentioned in the keynote but is everyone aware that iMovie from '08 wont work in a G4? I know I wasn't when I went out and purchased it today.
iPhoto and iWeb have some nice new improvements but all in all I'm a little bugged by the fact the iMovie is no longer supported on my dual 1.42 G4.
I don't know if it's directly mentioned in the keynote but is everyone aware that iMovie from '08 wont work in a G4? I know I wasn't when I went out and purchased it today.
iPhoto and iWeb have some nice new improvements but all in all I'm a little bugged by the fact the iMovie is no longer supported on my dual 1.42 G4.
Anyone know if Apple is using Avivo and UVD in OS X ?
Sorry for the big block quote, but I found this interesting. It might be a factor in Apple's choice of the 2xxx stuff from ATi. This is from ATi's site, describing under windows how the new UVD and Avivo stuff included in the 2400 and 2600 (but not 2900) series do big time hardware speedups with H.264, both decoding and encoding. Encoding interests me most because 90% of the waiting I do on my Mac is waiting for video to encode. Anyone know if Apple is taping this to help out with its encoding video for ipod, iPhone, Apple TV and OS X video apps in general? From what I could see, Nvidia isn't doing this level of hardware support yet in the 8XXX series, and certainly didn't in the 7xxx series.
"ATI’s Avivo Video Converter can take a 30 minute recorded show, and convert it into a format playable by an iPod in less than 5 minutes. It can cut the conversion time by 80% or more. When compared to competitive solutions, the Avivo Video Converter easily beats them. This means you’ll be watching more, and waiting less.
Easily accessible through ATI Catalyst™ Control Center
The Avivo Video Converter greatly simplifies the process of converting videos from one format to another. A wizard found within Catalyst Control Center enables even a novice user to quickly and easily transcode their videos. Simply select the input file format, the output format and quality level, and file location for the new transcoded video files—the Avivo Video Converter does the rest.
The Avivo Video Converter accepts almost any video file format as a source, and outputs to many different file formats including MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4/DivX, WMV, H.264/AVC™*, and more. Compared to conventional conversion file methods, the Avivo Video Converter cuts total transcoding time by up to 80%, making it the new benchmark for high performance transcoding.
H.264 support
The Avivo Video Converter also supports the H.264 video format; a next-generation video compression technology that is becoming the leading global standard for mobile devices, broadcast devices, satellite technologies, and beyond. H.264 is the most efficient codec at compressing video, yielding both the highest quality and smallest file size for interoperable consumer and professional products ranging from mobile phones to HDTV."
Sorry for the big block quote, but I found this interesting. It might be a factor in Apple's choice of the 2xxx stuff from ATi. This is from ATi's site, describing under windows how the new UVD and Avivo stuff included in the 2400 and 2600 (but not 2900) series do big time hardware speedups with H.264, both decoding and encoding. Encoding interests me most because 90% of the waiting I do on my Mac is waiting for video to encode. Anyone know if Apple is taping this to help out with its encoding video for ipod, iPhone, Apple TV and OS X video apps in general? From what I could see, Nvidia isn't doing this level of hardware support yet in the 8XXX series, and certainly didn't in the 7xxx series.
"ATI’s Avivo Video Converter can take a 30 minute recorded show, and convert it into a format playable by an iPod in less than 5 minutes. It can cut the conversion time by 80% or more. When compared to competitive solutions, the Avivo Video Converter easily beats them. This means you’ll be watching more, and waiting less.
Easily accessible through ATI Catalyst™ Control Center
The Avivo Video Converter greatly simplifies the process of converting videos from one format to another. A wizard found within Catalyst Control Center enables even a novice user to quickly and easily transcode their videos. Simply select the input file format, the output format and quality level, and file location for the new transcoded video files—the Avivo Video Converter does the rest.
The Avivo Video Converter accepts almost any video file format as a source, and outputs to many different file formats including MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4/DivX, WMV, H.264/AVC™*, and more. Compared to conventional conversion file methods, the Avivo Video Converter cuts total transcoding time by up to 80%, making it the new benchmark for high performance transcoding.
H.264 support
The Avivo Video Converter also supports the H.264 video format; a next-generation video compression technology that is becoming the leading global standard for mobile devices, broadcast devices, satellite technologies, and beyond. H.264 is the most efficient codec at compressing video, yielding both the highest quality and smallest file size for interoperable consumer and professional products ranging from mobile phones to HDTV."
I went to an Apple store a few hours after the announcement and was surprised to see no new iMacs, no iWork '08, and not much but iLife '08.
I travelled to a second Apple store, which is only about 20 minutes away (what were Apple thinking?), and bought iWork '08. It seems a solid upgrade and Numbers will be more than just a competent spreadsheet once they get some real feedback, as with Keynote and Pages. It works now but I'm not very trusting until the patches come about 5 weeks from now.
Still, you can do most anything that you need to do without AppleWorks.
I managed to crash Pages by creating a Office 2007 document with NeoOffice and trying to open it with Pages. I wonder if I could crash Office 2007 with it.
The iMac is an interesting change. I don't hate it but I don't really like it, either. Hiding the chin by adding the black just reminds me of a cheap mobile phone or some other cheap electronics. The single white was elegant. However, the hardware is sound, if not enthusiastic. Is the Core 2 Duo Extreme with the ATI HD 2600 Pro a good gamer? That's what I'd hope but I'm not convinced.
I travelled to a second Apple store, which is only about 20 minutes away (what were Apple thinking?), and bought iWork '08. It seems a solid upgrade and Numbers will be more than just a competent spreadsheet once they get some real feedback, as with Keynote and Pages. It works now but I'm not very trusting until the patches come about 5 weeks from now.
Still, you can do most anything that you need to do without AppleWorks.
I managed to crash Pages by creating a Office 2007 document with NeoOffice and trying to open it with Pages. I wonder if I could crash Office 2007 with it.
The iMac is an interesting change. I don't hate it but I don't really like it, either. Hiding the chin by adding the black just reminds me of a cheap mobile phone or some other cheap electronics. The single white was elegant. However, the hardware is sound, if not enthusiastic. Is the Core 2 Duo Extreme with the ATI HD 2600 Pro a good gamer? That's what I'd hope but I'm not convinced.
Sorry, I am indeed educated and my proposition for the Mac Pro was very realistic. And it isn't $4000. It is $2500. I don't care about blu-ray. I don't care about airport either. So it seems you did nothing but pull crap out of your ass to make a point, which you didn't do very well.
Trends? What trends? And it was far from a "whine." It was simply me saying what I would like an update. And informing people (because they don't know a damn thing about the Mac Pro for whatever reason) that an update is possible and should have happened.
Saying you are going to school for a PhD makes me no difference. You could be a bum on the street with a laptop, who cares. Credibility means nothing over the internet. I am surprised you haven't learned that.
EDIT: Also, since when does an open forum offer the luxury of discussing with one person? If you want to have a chat with someone give them a call or PM them. Don't complain about me responding to an open post. Second, I just noticed the huge "ROFLZ," PhD huh? You have to be kidding me.
if blu-ray "won the war" with hd-dvd then the price of blu-ray would drop and they would be as cheap as dvds so i wouldnt care.
Minitower with 1 PCI-E slot, upgradable GPU, 4GB RAM max, 2 3.5 drive bays, 1 5.25 drive bay, firewire 800, desktop Intel x64 chipset (not xeon).
Did I expect to see it? Not really, but I was hoping for movement in the Mini or iMac line that would have gotten closer to that. For example, make a high-end mini with the iMac components (which would give me most of my list above, minus the PCI and bays). Yes there would be heat from the GPU, but that could be solved. That would be a compromise I'd be happy with. I don't like forcing a monitor upgrade with a computer upgrade.
As you say, it's not as big a market, less likely Apple will cater to it. My personal opinion is that market is larger than people think, and would lead to more Windows switchers, but that is strictly my opinion and have no facts to back it up (other than anecdotal evidence gathered as an IT Professional).
They could save money on development by offering a single CPU Mac Pro or re-use the Mac Pro case and use the Core 2 Duo desktop chipset with less expensive memory. But as you say, Apple obviously doesn't see enough of a market market there to justify dev. Or they are worried about canabalizing iMac sales.
No, and I understand your point, but I don't think your analogy applies cleanly. My personal reason for buying Apple/Mac has NEVER been their "industrial design" or "status" or brand or to "say I own a Mac" (as a matter of fact most of my IT colleagues mock me for owning one). It has always been because I thought their OS was supperior and they used quality electronics. My computers have always been tools, not pieces of furniture or status symbols. If it's a quality OS with quality internals, I could care less if it sat in a flat grey or beige box under my desk. I care much more about the design and quality of the OS than the box it's in.
Yes, I remember my dad paying $8000 for a IIcx for me for college (money he'd saved up for my for college, and I ended up not needing because of scholarships/grants).
Yes, I believe they could. Do I think they have wronged me? No, they can do whatever they want. It just dissapoints me. I'm not whining either, just saying I wish Apple made the machine I want to buy. If they don't, they don't, and I spend my money somewhere else or make a compromise. That's life. I agree with you this is a business model that obviously works for them. It's just my personal belief that they could expand market share by making the machine I want. And that would make me happy for two reasons: I'd get the machine I want, and it would put more pressure on the Wintel crowd - and competition is good for consumers and innovation. But as I said, it's just my opinion and not share by everyone (including Apple
You are correct, I don't NEED an Apple. However, I do NEED a computer (to stay in my current line of work and earn money anyway) - so in that respect a computer is not a luxury. I would prefer to own an Apple if could. As I said, I believe Apple could build a less expensive (not cheap, to make a distinction) machine that would still have the Apple quality.
It just seems to me that my current options are: Build or buy my own quality hardware for a reasonable price (yes, you can do that, Apple uses quality parts but does not have a monopoly on quality - especially now that they are purchasing industry standard parts to build their computers) and put a crap OS on it. Or I can pay for a bunch of industrial design and/or compactness I don't care about (lots of room under my desk in my home office) or pay for way more power than I need to get the quality OS I want.
Again, not whining about it, just stating my opinion/thoughts. At the end of the day I'll just decide which compromise is best for me and make my purchase.