Does Apple leave potential costomers behind?

[CalBoy]

Yea there is no "Desktop" as in components and upgradibility mac in the middle they should bring back powermac name and put it there or come up with a repleacement for the name pro in mac pro and put it at about 1500 stock with 1 or 2 xeons if they can fit it... one memory board two pci express slots 2-3 hdd cages in a midtower case

I'm sure that there are people who would like this, but I don't think that this is Apple's target demographic. Apple wants to show the average person how easy and simple it is to use a Mac. To do that, they have to make entry-level machines and even mid-level machines somewhat rigid. The average consumer doesn't want to go upgrading things; the average consumer just wants something that will work "right out of the box." I think a cheap upgradeable desktop would nullify this strategy.

 

[skwij]

Most people who buy a computer don't know how to even take the sides off the tower, let alone what they're looking at inside. Upgrade RAM? Egad, how the heck do you do that????

Harddrive?? What's that? RAM...huh?

That said, yes, there's a gap in the Apple lineup as to TOWER machines that a savvy user can customise. Although, that opens the door to conflicts, which is what plagues the Windoze world.

I do agree that the base Mac Pro should be at a better price point. For those that are looking at an upgradeable system without a tonne of peripheral drives (HDD), and accessible RAM upgrades, and GPU tweaks, the base Mac Pro is a little overpriced, compared to a "build your own" system.

Not everyone is wanting a laptop. Not everyone can justify the price of the MBP, either. Not everyone is happy with the iMac, as upgrading can be daunting, unless going with externals. Then again, messing about with RAM in the iMac is akin to taking a lappie apart, which MOST people don't even want to know about.

So, the average consumer won't even know the difference, let alone give a rats a$$. The computer-savvy coming from the PC world will be like "wtf" is up with this? Expensive, and not even the latest??????

Just my $0.02

 

[CalBoy]

The computer-savvy coming from the PC world will be like "wtf" is up with this? Expensive, and not even the latest??????

Exactly, the computer-savvy. Apple isn't looking to attract computer-savvy customers in the $0-2000 range. They figure anyone in this range is just looking for a simple computing solution, so for those who are committed to taking their computers apart, you have to settle for a high-end machine that "is not even the latest." Some might find this to be a "hole" in Apple's line, but is it a hole if Apple isn't looking to attract these customers? Remember, one company can't be everything to everyone.

 

[Fahrwahr]

Component Failure

I may be one of a few who think this way, but one of my primary reasons for desiring an iMac sans monitor is the ability to reuse / mix and match computer components. Sure, the all-in-one design provides clean lines and portability, but what happens when some part inside the computer dies? Yes, there's a possibility of it being under warranty for one to three years, but after that, how much would I have to shell out to replace a part on an otherwise-working computer? I would be unlikely to buy another television set with an integrated VCR or DVD player -- you get a tape or disc stuck in one, you pay the price -- so unless I'm dealing with a laptop, I don't want another all-in-one computer.

My main criteria for this computer are a separate monitor and easy access to memory and media (hard disk, optical). I don't necessarily need access to the CPU or graphics card -- if one of those goes out or gets obsolete, chances are I probably need a new computer anyway -- but these other parts should be easily replacable. If the screen goes bad, no big deal -- easy replacement. The hard disk and optical drive should be full-sized and connected to industry-standard connectors as well -- no specialty optical drives that will be hard to find down the road (a la the tray-loading iMac).

The Mac mini would fit these criteria IF getting to these basic parts was a bit easier. Truth be told, I'm a bit concerned that the components are packed into that thing too tightly for the machine to last due to heat buildup. Additionally, the Mac mini's specs are bottom of the barrel and rarely get a boost. On the other extreme, the Mac Pro is overkill and overpriced -- I don't need THAT much futureproofing.

Maybe the disincentives for such an addition to the lineup are too high. Maybe such a machine would fly in the face of "Look! Macs are simple -- it's all in one box!" (but then again, doesn't a Mac mini?). Maybe many of us who have been Mac aficionados remember the dark times of the Performa 630, 631, 635, 636, 638, and variants with "CD" added to the end -- we certainly don't want to go back to that confusion. Still, if Apple is truly serious about capitalizing on the "halo effect" of the iPod, it needs to have a reasonably-priced, reasonably-powerful, reasonably-accessible machine that will give computer buyers peace of mind for the future.

Err... did I just slip into life insurance salesman mode?

 

[volvoben]

I don't particularly want to go off on another headless mac tangent, but here's the bottom line as best I can distinguish it:

it won't happen.

The reasons are many, but simply put, it's not worth Apple's effort. It'd compete with the imac and the mac pro, most of apple's customers will never upgrade anything on their computer, laptops are more important these days (they need to churn out santa rosa MBPs, a subcompact and a 15" MB before too long), and Apple knows the iphone could keep them in the black for a long time coming (face it, computers didn't save apple, battery powered hard drives with screens did).

The best we can hope for is a cheaper incarnation of the Mac Pro. With the 2.0ghz version they've made it almost attainable for some folks, and if they could put in a conroe board and chip we could have a $1500 'pro' mac desktop again (won't happen either). Perhaps the next updates for the mac pro will keep the 2.66ghz 4 core version but at a lower price point to reflect intel's pricing drop (assuming intel will also drop prices in whatever deal apple gets), maybe $2k with a 7600/7800?

 

[skwij]

Exactly, the computer-savvy. Apple isn't looking to attract computer-savvy customers in the $0-2000 range. They figure anyone in this range is just looking for a simple computing solution, so for those who are committed to taking their computers apart, you have to settle for a high-end machine that "is not even the latest." Some might find this to be a "hole" in Apple's line, but is it a hole if Apple isn't looking to attract these customers? Remember, one company can't be everything to everyone.

When Dell's are available, with decent specs, for under 1K, it's really hard to convince a PC user that a Mac is the way to go. Then try and convince someone who can tweak their own hardware!
The OS is what convinces people who see my MB. They're like "wow, there are windows!"
Yeah, OK, sure.

It's OS/X's efficiency that tips the balance, IMO. Sure the stock machines aren't the "latest and greatest" but with Tiger, you don't NEED the latest and greatest to even run the OS (think Vista----ACK!)

Most users are perfectly happy muddling thru. For those that want something a little "more", and have a "little" know-how, the current Apple lineup could be considered lacking in the "wanna-be" geek category.

 

[Turkish]

When Dell's are available, with decent specs, for under 1K, it's really hard to convince a PC user that a Mac is the way to go

No it isn't. You build two side by side and show them what you have to add to a Dell to get what the Mac has built in.

 

[richard4339]

And quit the Cingular bashing. I've been a member for 5 years with hardly a problem.

Some cities are better than others. Orlando, for example, has excellent service from Cingular and Sprint; Verizon is complete and total crap there. There were tons of times I was there that Sprint/Cingular customers would be talking away happily on their cell phones, and I'd have no service. Unfortunately, I've never been in another city where this is the case. Time and time again, I've had great service with Verizon and not with Cingular.

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

This is pretty much the problem I've always had with Cingular phones. If the call doesn't go through in the first place, no one really cares if the calls are dropped... At least with Verizon if my call is dropped, my phone disconnects and tells me I've lost the call. Cingular's commercials where the line goes dead is only accurate because that IS what repeatedly happened to me on Cingular when I actually was able to get through. Verizon has suited me well since my switch.

 

[LoganT]

I don't understand why people say a Mid-Ranged mac is a bad idea. They say it would take off sales of the iMac?

Who cares? The Mac Mini is taking off sales of the iMac, the iMac is taking off sales of the Mac Pro. Should Apple just have the Mac Pro?

 

[Shayne]

I didn't mean to come off as a troll (as one person suggested), I'm merely frustrated that I want to give Apple my $3000 but they don't have a product thats worth the $3000 TO ME. For what I want in a workstation/gaming platform Apple does not offer. While I did say that the Mac Pro was expensive, I was saying this for my budget as well as the hardware in it compared to what I need (duel Xeons vs C2D).

When people say their is no hole in the line up and then start suggesting prices that go from "$1999 24" iMac" to "$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro" they tend to leave out the fact that the 24" iMac comes with a 24" monitor while the Mac Pro does not (so add on whatever Apple is charging for 24" displays).

Its not so much that their is a hole in the line up is that their is a lack of choice within the line up. Apple really does make toasters. DON'T GET ME WRONG! this isn't always a bad thing. Stability of the OS and reliability of the platform hinges on the low choices. They probably spend countless man hours making sure that the items they choose create no conflicts in the limited combinations they offer.

Having read over most of this thread (and skimming through the iPhone stuff) and taking a lot of your opinions and criticisms seriously I think waiting till WWDC to see what is in the new OSX is probably better then settling on a machine. The reason I want an Apple is for the operating system; isn't that why we all do? If new computers do not come out that meet my needs for "the everything and the kitchen sink" perhaps I just have to be more focused and buy a "work"station and use my own capital on a gaming platform.

A few asked me what kind of job I have that my company is dropping down the cash for a personal machine for work and for gaming. I normally work from home for a safety auditing and training company. I make their products and services available online (online training, testing, certification) and on their PDAs (accident reporting forms, pictures, etc synced to a remote database server). I used to work as a contractor, but benefits and a steady income are hard to pass up.

 

[steelfist]

a main concern is Apple's habit of very slow and minor updates that makes them fall farther and farther behind and making their computers more pricier compared to the competition. for a lot of people, they like to look at numbers and features, and compare the price.

the next is expandability. a lot of people, including me would really appreciate the ability to upgrade and replace nearlly any part of their computers, from graphics cards to DVD burners. as a high school student, my parents would find it ridiculous to buy a mac pro, but on the other hand, my imac does not have the ability to be continuously updated at a low price.

these two really compliment each other you know . i'm sorry, but i'm still upset about the macbook updates , so i'm a bit ranting now.

 

[dejo]

for a lot of people, they like to look at numbers and features, and compare the price.

But many of these people, spec-whores as some may call them, can tend to forget to consider the hard-to-quantify, qualitative factors that are involved. If one is so mired down in the numbers, they can forget to look up and "smell the roses", as it were.

 

[CalBoy]

But many of these people, spec-whores as some may call them, can tend to forget to consider the hard-to-quantify, qualitative factors that are involved. If one is so mired down in the numbers, they can forget to look up and "smell the roses", as it were.

So true. PC laptops are ugly, for the most part anyway. Those that are made to look good are usually quite pricey. I like to add a certain amount of "worth" to a laptop based on well good it looks and how its exterior is organized. the macbooks and macbook pros win major points in this category, they are some of the best looking laptops around, if not the best. I think this is important, because while you want the computer to do what you need it to do, it is also important for you to be comfortable with it. Part of comfort is the way it looks on the outside, and how well it works on the inside.

 

[steelfist]

A good point, even i argue about it. still, it did lose a lot of potential buyers, and gained a lot of flaming against mac users in my school.

i have this friend who used to consider buying an ibook, until he realiized that it only has one button, so he bought an ibm. not a strong reason, but still, another customer lost.

 

[CalBoy]

A good point, even i argue about it. still, it did lose a lot of potential buyers, and gained a lot of flaming against mac users in my school.

I think that happens at a lot of places, and the best way is to educate. I always engage people who disagree with me, and even if I can't convince them, I make sure that they aren't ignorant.

i have this friend who used to consider buying an ibook, until he realiized that it only has one button, so he bought an ibm. not a strong reason, but still, another customer lost.

I can understand some of that at. Remember before it was difficult for you to "right-click?" If he was looking at an iBook before the software was available, it's a big deal breaker. At least it's no longer a problem.

 

[krunk]

$999 17" iMac Basic
$1199 17" iMac "Better"
$1499 20" iMac
$1999 24" iMac
$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro
$2499 2.66 GHz Mac Pro
$3298 3.0 GHz Mac Pro

What hole?

This is the most annoying whining that comes out of this board.

Just because you (I don't mean you specifically) can't afford something doesn't mean there is a hole in the lineup.

Price isn't the issue for me. For me it's spending a the money on a solution that is geared toward a work station environment when what I want is a blazing fast desktop.

For example,

-) the xeon is the same or slightly slower in the vast majority of desktop applications

-) Xeon based systems must use FBDIMMS, creating a high latency memory bottleneck in memory intensive applications

-) ECC ram also adds a layer of latency unneccessary in many workstation or desktop applications

Most of these performance drawbacks are the cost of providing highly reliable and error resistant processing. Though beneficial in some areas, it is completely unnecessary in the vast majority.

And yes, we can throw the gaming problem out there. Intel macs brought the capability of running windows, and windows apps & games, to mac. You discount the gaming community, but the pc gaming community is largely made up of two very, very important demographics.

a) adolescent males
b) college students

The number one reason given by these demographics for not giving a mac a shot is the inability to play games at an acceptable level.

If you doubt the potential of this market, look at the laptop sales. Most people who buy laptops are not concerned with gaming (they buy desktops for that). With apple weighing in at about 10% of the laptop market anyone whose walked a college campus recently could tell you without a doubt where that boost came from. Why aren't they buying desktops too?

The "geek gamer" adolescent or college student is who everyone asks for opinions on what to buy. . mom's, dad's, future employers. Ignoring them is a fairly significant oversight.


Here are the facts, not opinions or speculations:

-) the Mac Pro line is not optimal in any shape or form for the "best performance desktop machine" category. Not even close.

-) The mac pro is ideal for a very, very narrow sub section of the workstation market.

-) The rest of the workstation market could be equally, or better served by a performance desktop

Now somewhat anecdotal observations. I work at a uni under tech support facilities. I also live in LA. As such, I'm in touch with the two highest purchasing demographics apple has, hollywood/artsie types and the college scene:

-) Most of the people who buy mac workstations don't use them under a capacity of a workstation, but a desktop.

-) FAR more people buy an x1900 card "so they can game too" rather then the 1500 dollar quadro.

-) The current, and long standing, number one reason for not switching to not switching to mac is.....

a) Why spend all that money on a slow ass machine compared to it's pc counterparts? (this is where most mac-o-philes get confused, what the "pc guy" is comparing is the core 2 duo solution compared to a ton of xeon and bottlenecked ram that ends up being slower then a system for 1/2 the cost....in other words, wrong tool for the job)

b) Some geek guy told me they cost too much for what I want to do. (what the mac-o-phile is missing here is that that guy that gave the advise was probably some geeky, young, gamer dude that they trusted as computer savvy and though thte imac or mac mini or what have you is probably fine for what they do that's not what this gamer guy compared when he went to buy......he compared the mac pro to a dell core 2 duo in speed and cost)


Wow, long post.

Here's the short version:

What the Mac line is missing is: A real performance desktop solution.

 

[Evergreen]

Look at Apple's profits. They don't want or need the customers they are losing.

I'd buy a PC in a heartbeat if I thought I could run OS X on it reliably. The high cost of Mac hardware has always irritated me, but not as much as Windows.

 

[krunk]

Look at Apple's profits. They don't want or need the customers they are losing.

Yeah, their profits are ok. However, one could use a similar line of reasoning and say:

"Look at apple's market share. It's obvious their line of computers has a HUGE hole in it. With a mere 16% of the market, it would appear that Apple''s solutions aren't the right fit for 84% of computer users."

Besides, Apple is a business. It's not a church or a cult (though some act that way). To say that a business doesn't want or need. . . more business, especially when there is so very, very much more of the market untapped, is just plain silly.

 

[wyatt23]

wow. i think the OP certainly obtained the result he wanted... i don't think he wanted a mac as much as he wanted a flame war. what a troll. of course he made sure to mention video cards, upgradablilty, and price.

troll, troll, troll. everyone just stop entertaining these arguments.

try to stop judging everything for what you want it to be. from apple's point of view having a middle of the road desktop could be a hole in their profits...

who knows? certainly not me. but most likely not anyone here either. unless of course there are some apple accountants on the forums .

So let's just admit that this was an attempt to start a discussion that has absolutely no end, because we aren't making the decisions... apple is.


[HOWEVER]

in the event i'm wrong about the OP...

I'd say go with the iMac 24" C2D. horsepower and fairly decent graphics. I'm sure you can game pretty well on it [while at work of course], resource heavy programs comparable to an intro macpro. plus the dell lcd will be sexy as all hell.


[oh, boy. preparing for the fallout a logical post can bring]

 

[krunk]

I'd say go with the iMac 24" C2D. horsepower and fairly decent graphics. I'm sure you can game pretty well on it [while at work of course], resource heavy programs comparable to an intro macpro. plus the dell lcd will be sexy as all hell.

[oh, boy. preparing for the fallout a logical post can bring]

Personally if gaming is remotely important to you, I'd go with the mac pro due to upgradeabiltiy. It won't be the best gaming machine, but you'll be able to upgrade to newer cards as they come out. And by the video card selection alone, it'll be better then the iMac.

 

[wyatt23]

Personally if gaming is remotely important to you, I'd go with the mac pro due to upgradeabiltiy. It won't be the best gaming machine, but you'll be able to upgrade to newer cards as they come out. And by the video card selection alone, it'll be better then the iMac.

fair enough. then the OP should spec down the mac pro @ $2200, with the dual 2.0 xeons. then he can upgrade to his hearts content. perhaps

 

[WillJS]

Eh, sorry, they suck. At least here in Minneapolis. The call quality and missed calls in comparing Cingular to Verizon is like comparing a Pony Express Rider to UPS. Had to leave Cingular, couldn't stand it anymore. Verizon, on the other hand, has been notably superior in nearly every category I can think of, here in MN anyway.

In my experience, the Cingular bashing is well-deserved.

Same situation here in TN.

It was rather stupid of Verizon imo though. I mean.. we'll see after their knockoff goes on sale.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Yikes, let me summarize this thread, as it is just a repeat of the normal arguement.

Thread Starts: Apple sucks/greedy/rediculous/whatever since they take forever to update hardware.

Apple Fanboys: Apple does no wrong. YOU SUCK. You just don't understand how much you're getting for your dollar. This isn't their business model. Go back to windoze, we don't need you in our "pretty white colored world."

Apple Enthusiasts/Realists: You're right OP. It is ridiculous. I love apple, but they are crazy with what they are doing and harken back to their arrogance of the late 1980s that ultimately proved to kill Apple (in relation to the Microsoft Apple war) in the 1990s.

Apple Fanboys: Why don't you go back to Windoze as you clearly don't understand how great is Mac.

Summary:
Lol, nice to see so many people excited about a company's products, to fight and defend etc. This loyalty really doesn't happen anymore. Apple must be doing something right

 

[skubish]

I didn't mean to come off as a troll (as one person suggested), I'm merely frustrated that I want to give Apple my $3000 but they don't have a product thats worth the $3000 TO ME. For what I want in a workstation/gaming platform Apple does not offer. While I did say that the Mac Pro was expensive, I was saying this for my budget as well as the hardware in it compared to what I need (duel Xeons vs C2D).

When people say their is no hole in the line up and then start suggesting prices that go from "$1999 24" iMac" to "$2200 2.0 GHz Mac Pro" they tend to leave out the fact that the 24" iMac comes with a 24" monitor while the Mac Pro does not (so add on whatever Apple is charging for 24" displays).

Its not so much that their is a hole in the line up is that their is a lack of choice within the line up. Apple really does make toasters. DON'T GET ME WRONG! this isn't always a bad thing. Stability of the OS and reliability of the platform hinges on the low choices. They probably spend countless man hours making sure that the items they choose create no conflicts in the limited combinations they offer.

Having read over most of this thread (and skimming through the iPhone stuff) and taking a lot of your opinions and criticisms seriously I think waiting till WWDC to see what is in the new OSX is probably better then settling on a machine. The reason I want an Apple is for the operating system; isn't that why we all do? If new computers do not come out that meet my needs for "the everything and the kitchen sink" perhaps I just have to be more focused and buy a "work"station and use my own capital on a gaming platform.

A few asked me what kind of job I have that my company is dropping down the cash for a personal machine for work and for gaming. I normally work from home for a safety auditing and training company. I make their products and services available online (online training, testing, certification) and on their PDAs (accident reporting forms, pictures, etc synced to a remote database server). I used to work as a contractor, but benefits and a steady income are hard to pass up.

If you can't understand why Apple products are worth the price, then you don't need to buy one. $3000 is worth it to me for a Mac Pro. Remember Steve Jobs has shown that a comparable Dell with Xenon processors in more expensive.

They only thing to complain about is the video card. You only need that to play games. MACS ARE NOT FOR PLAYING GAMES. DON'T BUY ONE TO PLAY GAMES!

I am sorry but these trash threads show up once per week. Apple's lineup is fine and doesn't need to change.

 

[WannaGoMac]

If you can't understand why Apple products are worth the price, then you don't need to buy one. $3000 is worth it to me for a Mac Pro. Remember Steve Jobs has shown that a comparable Dell with Xenon processors in more expensive.

They only thing to complain about is the video card. You only need that to play games. MACS ARE NOT FOR PLAYING GAMES. DON'T BUY ONE TO PLAY GAMES!

I am sorry but these trash threads show up once per week. Apple's lineup is fine and doesn't need to change.

Thanks for illustrating the Mac Fanboy so well! lol :d