Microsoft Releases Second 'Laptop Hunters' Commercial

[pr5owner]

so I bought a PC once. was given by work money to go and pick whatever I liked. unfortunately a mac was out of the question due to budget restraints.
So I picked a PC (compaq laptop) that was about $600 and had more than enough memory, screen, camera etc than I would need it for (internet, email, word, powerpoint, itunes)

When I opened the box and turned it on it took 30mins to boot up.
Then the computer ran SO SLOW it also took 30mins to try and install iTunes.
The stupid computer came with basic Windows Vista preloaded (had a sticker, built for Vista) and I found out that you could NOT downgrade it to XP (unless you paid a stupid fee to do so) and there weren't drivers for the computer on XP.
The computer that was 'built for Vista' had not enough ram to actually run vista. In the end I had to go out and pay MORE money that i didn't want to spend to buy ram to make the thing actually function.

I'm a MAC because I like my computer to just work!

sorry but your own ignorance does not make the computer a bad machine.
i bet that laptop would scream if you installed vista properly

vlite your vista copy and have only the drivers integrated as you need (microsoft doesnt care where you get a copy of vista from, its only the key that matters and thats on the bottom of your laptop)
DBAN your HDD and partition 50GB for vista and the rest for your files (you partition 50GB so defragmentingprograms can move commonly used files to the begining of the drive and rarely used files near the end of the 50GB partition to make your laptop even faster)
install vista and tweak the services to your specific laptop (if you dont need superfetch, turn it off, dont need indexing becuase you know where all your files are? turn it off, dont need wireless zero because your card comes with its own interface? turn it off)

configuring windows is the same as a wireless router out of the box, wireless with no password is turned on by default, why? becuase default settings is designed to work with everything at he cost of optimization

windows wasnt made for noobs, neither was gentoo or any other distro of linux except for maybe ubuntu
you do the above and your laptop will run faster than any osx laptop.

 

[hiimamac]

Well, the ads are what they are.....ads. With the exception of some flaws in the production they are just what they are...ads and I have no issue with Microsoft creating these ads although they are certainly not answers to Apple's Vista ads because MS is not even defending Vista or pointing out good things about Windows.

I'm getting quite puzzled by the posts of certain people on this forum. These certain people have been on MR for at least 2 years, have a MBP, iPhone, iPod Touch and such in their sig but makes statements saying, "I'm glad Microsoft is bashing Apple and killing the Mac community". Why are these certain people Apple's customers then? Who's side are they on??

Easy. Today user is a tech user that might buy apple now or abproduction studio user that bought AMD and built Higa sampling PC rigs to go with pro tools. Gone are the users clueless about FSB, Ram timings, class for RAM, over clocking. In fact working at a genius bar, they don't do much except rundiagnodtic CD, most tech users know more than the so called geniuses and know the true vaule or lacktherof, that tofays under powered mac has compared to latest pcs.

 

[polaris20]

sorry but your own ignorance does not make the computer a bad machine.
i bet that laptop would scream if you installed vista properly

vlite your vista copy and have only the drivers integrated as you need (microsoft doesnt care where you get a copy of vista from, its only the key that matters and thats on the bottom of your laptop)
DBAN your HDD and partition 50GB for vista and the rest for your files (you partition 50GB so defragmentingprograms can move commonly used files to the begining of the drive and rarely used files near the end of the 50GB partition to make your laptop even faster)
install vista and tweak the services to your specific laptop (if you dont need superfetch, turn it off, dont need indexing becuase you know where all your files are? turn it off, dont need wireless zero because your card comes with its own interface? turn it off)

configuring windows is the same as a wireless router out of the box, wireless with no password is turned on by default, why? becuase default settings is designed to work with everything at he cost of optimization

windows wasnt made for noobs, neither was gentoo or any other distro of linux except for maybe ubuntu
you do the above and your laptop will run faster than any osx laptop.

Get real. The average user that this ad is aimed at isn't going to DBAN their hard drive or use vLite to optimize their system, nor is it even necessary.

And please don't compare Vista (or any version of Windows, for that matter) to Gentoo. Ridiculous comparison.

And the performance differences between Windows and OS X just aren't huge anymore, and vLite/DBAN sure as hell won't make that big of a difference either.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see your vLite/DBAN'd install of Vista on a Mac dual booting with OS X, with benchmarks, please.

 

[AidenShaw]

130 million units per year...and growing

 PC Shipments By Region And Form Factor (in Millions), 2008-2013                                               
 Region           Form Factor                2008     2009*    2010*    2011*    2012*    2013*  
 USA              Desktop PC & x86 Server    34.2     29.0     26.0     24.5     23.5     23.0   
                  Portable PC                34.1     33.3     35.5     40.5     44.3     47.6   
                  Total PC                   68.3     62.3     61.5     65.1     67.9     70.6   
                                                                                                 
 International    Desktop PC & x86 Server    118.5    104.4    105.3    110.1    115.1    119.4  
                  Portable PC                108.3    115.3    134.1    165.1    196.8    229.4  
                  Total PC                   226.8    219.7    239.5    275.2    311.9    348.8  
                                                                                                 
 Worldwide        Desktop PC & x86 Server    152.8    133.4    131.3    134.6    138.7    142.4  
                  Portable PC                142.4    148.6    169.6    205.6    241.1    277.0  
                  Total PC                   295.2    282.0    300.9    340.3    379.8    419.4  
 * Forecast data                                                                                               
 
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, March 2009                                                       


 PC Shipment Growth By Region And Form Factor, 2008-2013                                                         
 Region           Form Factor                2008     2009*     2010*     2011*    2012*    2013*  
 USA              Desktop PC & x86 Server    -7.5%    -15.3%    -10.3%    -5.6%    -4.0%    -2.4%  
                  Portable PC                13.6%    -2.4%     6.6%      14.2%    9.3%     7.4%   
                  Total PC                   2.0%     -8.9%     -1.3%     5.8%     4.3%     4.0%   
                                                                                                   
 International    Desktop PC & x86 Server    -4.5%    -11.9%    0.9%      4.5%     4.6%     3.7%   
                  Portable PC                39.0%    6.5%      16.3%     23.1%    19.2%    16.6%  
                  Total PC                   12.3%    -3.2%     9.0%      14.9%    13.3%    11.8%  
                                                                                                   
 Worldwide        Desktop PC & x86 Server    -5.2%    -12.7%    -1.5%     2.5%     3.0%     2.7%   
                  Portable PC                31.9%    4.3%      14.2%     21.2%    17.2%    14.9%  
                  Total PC                   9.7%     -4.5%     6.7%      13.1%    11.6%    10.4%  
 * Forecast data                                                                                                 
 
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, March 2009                                                         


Taxonomy Note: PCs include Desktop, Notebook, Ultra Portable, and x86 Server and
do not include handhelds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS158269+05-Mar-2009+BW20090305

This report also provides comparison of worldwide motherboard and desktop PC market volume. This research finds that the worldwide PC market volume, though projected to inch down in 2009, is forecasted to see continuous growth during the period 2010 - 2013. Meanwhile, the worldwide desktop PC market volume, though expected to take a plunge in 2009, is projected to see slight growth during the period 2010 - 2013. LGA775 is expected to remain the most common CPU connector type,

http://www.the-infoshop.com/study/iii84121-world-dtp.html

It looks like there might still be life in desktops.... Laptop sales are growing faster, but desktops are projected to grow, not decline.


SO, WHERE'S THE QUAD-CORE MINI-TOWER, TIM !?!?!?

 

[polaris20]

 PC Shipments By Region And Form Factor (in Millions), 2008-2013                                               
 Region           Form Factor                2008     2009*    2010*    2011*    2012*    2013*  
 USA              Desktop PC & x86 Server    34.2     29.0     26.0     24.5     23.5     23.0   
                  Portable PC                34.1     33.3     35.5     40.5     44.3     47.6   
                  Total PC                   68.3     62.3     61.5     65.1     67.9     70.6   
                                                                                                 
 International    Desktop PC & x86 Server    118.5    104.4    105.3    110.1    115.1    119.4  
                  Portable PC                108.3    115.3    134.1    165.1    196.8    229.4  
                  Total PC                   226.8    219.7    239.5    275.2    311.9    348.8  
                                                                                                 
 Worldwide        Desktop PC & x86 Server    152.8    133.4    131.3    134.6    138.7    142.4  
                  Portable PC                142.4    148.6    169.6    205.6    241.1    277.0  
                  Total PC                   295.2    282.0    300.9    340.3    379.8    419.4  
 * Forecast data                                                                                               
 
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, March 2009                                                       


 PC Shipment Growth By Region And Form Factor, 2008-2013                                                         
 Region           Form Factor                2008     2009*     2010*     2011*    2012*    2013*  
 USA              Desktop PC & x86 Server    -7.5%    -15.3%    -10.3%    -5.6%    -4.0%    -2.4%  
                  Portable PC                13.6%    -2.4%     6.6%      14.2%    9.3%     7.4%   
                  Total PC                   2.0%     -8.9%     -1.3%     5.8%     4.3%     4.0%   
                                                                                                   
 International    Desktop PC & x86 Server    -4.5%    -11.9%    0.9%      4.5%     4.6%     3.7%   
                  Portable PC                39.0%    6.5%      16.3%     23.1%    19.2%    16.6%  
                  Total PC                   12.3%    -3.2%     9.0%      14.9%    13.3%    11.8%  
                                                                                                   
 Worldwide        Desktop PC & x86 Server    -5.2%    -12.7%    -1.5%     2.5%     3.0%     2.7%   
                  Portable PC                31.9%    4.3%      14.2%     21.2%    17.2%    14.9%  
                  Total PC                   9.7%     -4.5%     6.7%      13.1%    11.6%    10.4%  
 * Forecast data                                                                                                 
 
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, March 2009                                                         


Taxonomy Note: PCs include Desktop, Notebook, Ultra Portable, and x86 Server and
do not include handhelds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS158269+05-Mar-2009+BW20090305

It looks like there might still be life in desktops.... Laptop sales are growing faster, but desktops are projected to grow, not decline.


SO, WHERE'S THE QUAD-CORE MINI-TOWER, TIM !?!?!?

Good find, and I agree.

 

[tubbymac]

Every year some numbskull proclaims that desktops are dead or will die soon and that consoles will kill off PC sales, yada yada. Yet every year this never happens.

Having said that though, it's worth noting that Steve Jobs has repeatedly stated that there are some markets and some customers Apple chooses NOT TO SERVE. I think both the netbook and the consumer midtower desktop are two examples of EXACTLY these markets. It's not that Apple doesn't know that there are sales to be had in those markets, but that they don't want to serve those markets.

Why? I just don't think there's enough margins and enough of an edge in those markets for Apple. In the sub $500 netbook market, I just don't see people willing to shell out for an Apple netbook when that entire market is largely a race to the bottom to see who can get out the cheapest garbage.

In the $1000 desktop market, again I don't see how Apple could even compete there. Like has been pointed out, people buying cheap desktops usually just want to hide it under a desk anyway. In that market the design really doesn't matter at all. Also in that market the typical user is probably either going to be using it for work or for gaming, and in that case they will probably have a mouse. Windows or Linux are fine if you're using a mouse. The advantage of Apple's multitouch would be completely lost on this market, as would be their design. The people who want it for work would get the cheapest specs possible. The people who want it for gaming would get the best graphics card that would fit in their budget. Both of these segments are better served by PCs than Apple.

So other than a few desktops to some fans of Apple, I think Apple is smart to avoid the cheapo netbook market and the consumer midtower segments.

 

[AidenShaw]

In the $1000 desktop market, again I don't see how Apple could even compete there.

Apple would compete by selling a $1000 desktop for $1500, of course.

Picture a mini-tower that perfectly complements the 24" display.

 

[pr5owner]

Get real. The average user that this ad is aimed at isn't going to DBAN their hard drive or use vLite to optimize their system, nor is it even necessary.

And please don't compare Vista (or any version of Windows, for that matter) to Gentoo. Ridiculous comparison.

And the performance differences between Windows and OS X just aren't huge anymore, and vLite/DBAN sure as hell won't make that big of a difference either.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd love to see your vLite/DBAN'd install of Vista on a Mac dual booting with OS X, with benchmarks, please.

yeah the Average user does not know how to use a computer... its that simple its not the computers fault that the user doesnt know how to troubleshoot, reinstall software, etc. any FUD about windows or linux or any OS being hard to use or slow is not the OS's or the writers fault.

windows mobile = not for noobs
XP = not for noobs
Vista = not for noobs
gentoo = not for noobs
ubuntu = easier to use as you can get away without opening the terminal
osx = noobs can use it. (iphone's striped down osx included)

i wasnt comparing vista to gentoo directly,

also vliteing your vista install can make your vista run on 256MB comfortably, you want to tell me thats not faster than a default OSX install?

same with nliting a windows install, XP on startup will use 63MB of ram compared to the 200+ a nomal windows install takes.

which is faster copying 63MB from HDD or 200+MB from hdd?

benchmarks only tell you the perfomance of your HW, however booting
windows is something that will improve in performance after n/vliting

after optimizations and nlite this thing boots from power off to inside windows in around 30 seconds, once you see the background working cursor dissapear thats then the HDD stops working (yes i know the monitor is crap, that workbench display was recently replaced by a 19" LCD)

 

[tubbymac]

Apple would compete by selling a $1000 desktop for $1500, of course.

Picture a mini-tower that perfectly complements the 24" display.

For $1500 they could sell to a small market of people interested in Apple OSX, but pretty much nobody else. It'd be rare that Apple could get any "switchers" from Windows to OSX in this market. How many of the PC market would even consider this? Close to zero. For $500 they could grab a cheapo desktop and stick Microsoft Office on it for work. Or, for close to $1000 they can make a decent gaming machine with the latest graphics cards. And since it's gaming, and Windows dominates gaming on desktops, why would they even consider OSX?

Now compare this to the iMac market. Some people are tired of cables running everywhere on their desktop and are impressed by an all in one solution that cleans up the mess. In this market Apple's clean design can stand out and dominate the competition. They are much more likely to grab switchers and people who aren't initially interested in OSX in the first place.

 

[pr5owner]

Apple would compete by selling a $1000 desktop for $1500, of course.

Picture a mini-tower that perfectly complements the 24" display.

they cannot compete against themselves, theres a 24" iMac that already costs $1500.

however even if they did make a mini tower i doubt it would still compete you can get the following for $800

AMD Phenom II Quad core 2.6GHz
4GB of DDR2-1066MHz ram (OCZ Reaper)
640GB Seagate HDD 16MB cache
Asus Mobo
ATi 4870 1GB Video card
Bluray drive (combo DVDRW burner)


for $200 diff you can get

8GB of 1066Ram
dual 640GB of raid 0 or smaller 160GBs in raid 5

dont tell me the DDR2 vs DDR3 crap, the Phenom II has an integrated memory controller running at the same speed the CPU is, the ram in this machine will outperform the DDR3 found in the imac.

 

[AidenShaw]

So What !!

they cannot compete against themselves, theres a 24" iMac that already costs $1500.

If they make the same profit on each, then what's the problem?

If they sell a $1500 mini-tower and a $900 display, then they're making more money.

Any switchers from Windows that they get would just be more profit and more market share.

 

[polaris20]

yeah the Average user does not know how to use a computer... its that simple its not the computers fault that the user doesnt know how to troubleshoot, reinstall software, etc. any FUD about windows or linux or any OS being hard to use or slow is not the OS's or the writers fault.

windows mobile = not for noobs
XP = not for noobs
Vista = not for noobs
gentoo = not for noobs
ubuntu = easier to use as you can get away without opening the terminal
osx = noobs can use it. (iphone's striped down osx included)

Wow, really? All those millions upon millions of Windows users need to be computer experts?

also vliteing your vista install can make your vista run on 256MB comfortably, you want to tell me thats not faster than a default OSX install?

same with nliting a windows install, XP on startup will use 63MB of ram compared to the 200+ a nomal windows install takes.

which is faster copying 63MB from HDD or 200+MB from hdd?

benchmarks only tell you the perfomance of your HW, however booting
windows is something that will improve in performance after n/vliting

Really? Benchmarking only tells you the performance of the HW? Wow, all those variances I see from Linux to OS X to Windows 7 to XP to Vista must be my imagination then.

after optimizations and nlite this thing boots from power off to inside windows in around 30 seconds, once you see the background working cursor dissapear thats then the HDD stops working (yes i know the monitor is crap, that workbench display was recently replaced by a 19" LCD)

Well, yeah, cuz boot up time is the ultimate in performance indicators for an OS, right?

 

[Anuba]

Why? I just don't think there's enough margins and enough of an edge in those markets for Apple. In the sub $500 netbook market, I just don't see people willing to shell out for an Apple netbook when that entire market is largely a race to the bottom to see who can get out the cheapest garbage.

That's probably true, but not everything in business has to be about maximizing profits. We have a saying in Sweden -- I'm not familiar with the English equivalent -- "what you lose on the swings, you gain on the carousels", meaning that you sometimes have to put up with break-even or even a slight loss on some products/services in order to lure people into the fold, but once they're inside they're gonna spend truckloads of cash on other things so you win in the end. Apple should be no strangers to this since they spend a lot of money on advertising. Nobody ever made a profit on buying ad time in itself, the idea is that you will sell more products by advertising.

There may be little profit in consumer minitowers, but there is absolutely zero profit in not selling them at all. Isn't it better to bite the bullet, so that you at least you get them hooked on OSX? The problem is, as long as the user base remains small, third parties will remain skeptical about porting their software to (or adapting their hardware for) OS X. And the primary victims of this catch-22 are the existing Mac users. All they get out of it is a vague feeling of exclusivity, but they're also shut out from a whole world of cool software, accessories and peripherals. Isn't it kind of an embarrassment for Apple that they have to resort to supporting Windows in order to allow their users to play games?

We've already established that the [insert exclusive sports/luxury car brand here] analogy doesn't hold up since Apple does have entry-level stuff like the Mac Mini. The problem is the gaping hole in the middle, not that they don't offer the equivalent of supermini cars. But there's another problem with the analogy: Bugatti, Lamborghini and Bentley may only cater to niche markets like Apple does, but that doesn't mean they're stupid enough to say no to everyone else's money. That's why they're all part of the VW Group, with VW, Skoda and Seat covering the bottom and middle, Audi covering the upper middle, and Bugatti/Bentley/Lamborghini handling the filthy rich customers. If Apple has this huge problem with consumer machines tarnishing the brand or not being as profitable as they would like, fine, then start up a "Crapple" subsidiary and let people run OSX on those machines.

 

[tubbymac]

If they make the same profit on each, then what's the problem?

The problem isn't in how much profit they could make per sale. They could keep that high by charging high prices. The problem is in the quantity of sales. I just don't see them selling many $1500 midtowers. There's just not enough people who are both invested enough in OSX and who want a midtower to support that market. Now contrast that with the cheapo hackintosh market. That market is much larger, and the one that companies like Psystar wanted to get a piece of, but Apple doesn't want any part of the cheapo midtower market.

Remember that every extra model that Apple adds to their lineup means one more machine they have to train their genuises on fixing and that they have to train their Applecare staff to handle and be knowledgable about. All those support costs need to be justified by a large quantity of sales. That just isn't going to happen in the $1500 midtower market, I'm afraid.

There may be little profit in consumer minitowers, but there is absolutely zero profit in not selling them at all. Isn't it better to bite the bullet, so that you at least you get them hooked on OSX?

Well since we've pretty much exhausted the car analogies, let me try a fashion analogy. Let's take a look at dress shirts compared to work gloves. Let's look at a high fashion, design invested company like Armani. Can they sell an expensive dress shirt? Sure, boatloads of them. Could they sell an expensive work glove? Only to fans of Armani. That market is much better served by your cheapo no name brands from Walmart.

In the same way, can Apple sell high end desktops? Sure, boatloads of them. Could they sell a consumer minitower? Sure, but only to fans of Apple. No typical corporate consumer or heavy gamer would buy that machine when a cheaper PC machine would serve them better. Now if they were a lighter gamer, or less of a stereotypical corporate type, well they probably would be in the market for a notebook or an all-in-one machine instead.

 

[LagunaSol]

I just don't see them selling many $1500 midtowers. There's just not enough people who are both invested enough in OSX and who want a midtower to support that market.

Hmm, I disagree with that point. It seems plenty of people have been screaming for a mid-priced tower for a long time. I know I have been. I'd love a $1,500 tower coupled with a 24" display. But instead I have only one choice - an iMac. A Mac Pro and a 24" studio display would run another $1,000+ over what I'm getting my loaded iMac for. And that's too bad, because I'd love the expandability of a tower. So I ordered the iMac - but I wish I could have ordered an Apple tower and display in the same price range. I considered building my own Hackintosh or buying a loaded Dell XPS 435 ($1,500) and trying to run OS X on it, but frankly I don't have the time or patience for such pain and hassle.

 

[polaris20]

I think even if they tacked on $300 above an equivalent Windows PC to maintain their profit margin Apple would sell a lot of desktops, and I also think they'd penetrate the enterprise a heckuva lot more.

As it stands now, for us they're great for workstations, laptops, and specialized applications (mini), but for a run of the mill, standard desktop, they don't fit. iMacs won't work; when the display dies, I've got to send in the whole computer instead of just swapping the display? No. Won't cut it.

Another thing is that I could get a $1300-$1500 Mac, and a $200 LCD that would suit most users' needs. I wouldn't even need an Apple display. Perhaps that's what they're afraid of.

 

[Anuba]

Now compare this to the iMac market. Some people are tired of cables running everywhere on their desktop and are impressed by an all in one solution that cleans up the mess.

The cable problem that Steve so triumphantly identified when he argued for the iMac concept may have been an issue 10 years ago when mice and keyboards were wired, computers were beige and CRT monitors were big, heavy and ugly. But today when a desk usually sports a wireless keyboard, a wireless mouse, a nice flatscreen and a couple of tastefully designed speakers it's really not a problem. In fact, my iMac desk has the worst cable mess of them all because Apple still insists on making all cables white. I have a wired Apple keyboard and a wired Mighty Mouse (because Apple doesn't know what "rechargeable Li-Ion battery" means, despite using them in all their portable products), along with a Universal Dock, plus external speakers and their cable because the internal speakers have as much bass as a castrato singer.

Compare that to my notebook desk -- spot any cables there? Nope, because they all run through a cable tunnel on the back of the Dell D/View dock. The MBP 17" I plan to buy at some point will look nowhere near this clean, it's gonna have a whole bunch of cables sticking out from the left side. So Apple shouldn't really brag so much about the Mac being some sort of portal into a cable free universe.

 

[LagunaSol]

when the display dies, I've got to send in the whole computer instead of just swapping the display? No. Won't cut it.

I agree with the point that Apple needs a mid-priced tower, but I never understand this argument against the iMac about the "display dying." Are people experiencing chronic LCD failures and I've just never heard about it? And why don't people express this concern about LCD failure when they're talking about laptops?

I've never had a display die on any of my iMacs or laptops. And by the time your typical LCD would normally "expire," your other hardware (be it an AIO or a tower) is hopelessly outdated anyway. Even with a build-it-yourself unit, which people like to tout as eternally upgradeable, eventually all you end up with that's reusable is the case and power supply. Everything else (mobo, processors, RAM, video processors) become obsolete quickly. And swapping one typically involves swapping one (or more) of the others. I've learned from experience that towers are not as endlessly upgradable as Apple detractors like you to believe.

Seems to me the LCD is the least of your component worries.

 

[jmpage2]

Apple would compete by selling a $1000 desktop for $1500, of course.

Picture a mini-tower that perfectly complements the 24" display.

This hits it on the head. The strong sales of iPhone and MBP have proven that people will pay the Apple Tax to get what they want and have it loaded with OSX.

An Apple Mini or Mid Tower that was all jazzed up and sold for $1500 would position it above the iMac and below the Mac Mini.

One of the top reasons I hear from my PC loving friends for not switching to Mac is because they are not as upgradable as PCs.

A smart mid-tower type of Mac machine with the regular Apple spit and polish would sell very well I think, even if it only offered the ability to change out the memory, hard drive and, most importantly video.

It would also provide a market for all the lost sales Apple experiences because people want the computing power of an iMac but want to select a different, non-glossy display.

 

[polaris20]

I agree with the point that Apple needs a mid-priced tower, but I never understand this argument against the iMac about the "display dying." Are people experiencing chronic LCD failures and I've just never heard about it? And why don't people express this concern about LCD failure when they're talking about laptops?

I've never had a display die on any of my iMacs or laptops. And by the time your typical LCD would normally "expire," your other hardware (be it an AIO or a tower) is hopelessly outdated anyway. Even with a build-it-yourself unit, which people like to tout as eternally upgradeable, eventually all you end up with that's reusable is the case and power supply. Everything else (mobo, processors, RAM, video processors) become obsolete quickly. And swapping one typically involves swapping one (or more) of the others. I've learned from experience that towers are not as endlessly upgradable as Apple detractors like you to believe.

Seems to me the LCD is the least of your component worries.

I disagree. Working in a corporate environment with several hundred machines, statistically someone's LCD is going to fail. I've seen it several times. No manufacturer is 100% perfect. I can't have a user with downtime because their screen failed.

In other cases (such as a swap I'm doing today) the LCD is fine, but the computer needs replacement. The life cycles don't always coincide.

The mini is a disappointment, because while it's a cool niche product (we've got a couple in use) it's just not a suitable desktop machine. We might as well give the user a laptop.

 

[Anuba]

In the same way, can Apple sell high end desktops? Sure, boatloads of them. Could they sell a consumer minitower? Sure, but only to fans of Apple. No typical corporate consumer or heavy gamer would buy that machine when a cheaper PC machine would serve them better. Now if they were a lighter gamer, or less of a stereotypical corporate type, well they probably would be in the market for a notebook or an all-in-one machine instead.

Had it been a G5, sure. But an Intel-based consumer desktop that runs Windows, designed to be compact (but without being wimpy or non-expandable like the Mini) so that you can use it as a media hub and hook it up to your TV rig and home cinema system, is a different beast altogether. It just needs to be more stylish than your average PC. Somewhere down the line these users may discover the wonders of OSX (if they have the switcher gene, that is), or find that FrontRow is a heckuvalot easier to use than Media Center.

I agree with the point that Apple needs a mid-priced tower, but I never understand this argument against the iMac about the "display dying." Are people experiencing chronic LCD failures and I've just never heard about it? And why don't people express this concern about LCD failure when they're talking about laptops?

Yeah, but still... people who buy desktops generally keep them around for a while, throw in some more RAM, maybe upgrade the processor, upgrade the video card, toss in some digital TV tuner card, an advanced sound card, switch to a bigger monitor, etc. The, um, modularity of the system is half the sales pitch. With an iMac everything's locked together and viciously non-expandable, and if one part fails the whole machine is gone and has to be dragged to a repair shop.

 

[tubbymac]

Hmm, I disagree with that point. It seems plenty of people have been screaming for a mid-priced tower for a long time. I know I have been. I'd love a $1,500 tower coupled with a 24" display. But instead I have only one choice - an iMac.

You've indirectly answered yourself here. You want a $1500 tower but settled and bought the iMac anyway because Apple OSX is what you want above all. I want a 13" Macbook Pro but settled on the 13" Macbook. The 15" Pro isn't what I want, and neither is the 17" Pro. But we both ended up buying another Apple product anyway, albeit with some grumbling.

That's the key. There's very few that want a $1500 tower AND want OSX AND would settle for a PC. They're either gonna buy another type of Apple anyway, or they are gonna be such a small market that Apple doesn't really have to focus on them.

Another thing is that I could get a $1300-$1500 Mac, and a $200 LCD that would suit most users' needs. I wouldn't even need an Apple display. Perhaps that's what they're afraid of.

That's another key factor. When you're spending huge money on a Mac Pro, chances are you're not gonna cheap out on the monitor and will pick up an ACD or a 24 inch LED. But if you're gonna cheap out for a midtower, you're more likely to go the non Apple route with the monitor. With the iMac they've guaranteed you have to buy their monitor.

Compare that to my notebook desk -- spot any cables there? Nope, because they all run through a cable tunnel on the back of the Dell D/View dock. The MBP 17" I plan to buy at some point will look nowhere near this clean, it's gonna have a whole bunch of cables sticking out from the left side. So Apple shouldn't really brag so much about the Mac being some sort of portal into a cable free universe.

Yeah but you're not a typical average user. Your PC desktop setup is amazingly clean and free of cable clutter, just like mine. But we're both comfortable with computers, both aware of more than one operating system. Your average PC desktop user? It's spaghetti wires all over the place. Your average iMac user? Much less cable clutter.

 

[jmpage2]

The problem isn't in how much profit they could make per sale. They could keep that high by charging high prices. The problem is in the quantity of sales. I just don't see them selling many $1500 midtowers. There's just not enough people who are both invested enough in OSX and who want a midtower to support that market. Now contrast that with the cheapo hackintosh market. That market is much larger, and the one that companies like Psystar wanted to get a piece of, but Apple doesn't want any part of the cheapo midtower market.

The problem is actually that you are stating as fact that there is low demand for such a solution, when in fact we don't know that is the case.

I suspect that a $1500 Mac Mini tower would sell very very well.

 

[tubbymac]

The problem is actually that you are stating as fact that there is low demand for such a solution, when in fact we don't know that is the case.

I suspect that a $1500 Mac Mini tower would sell very very well.

Well it doesn't really matter what I think. Obviously we disagree on this. Ultimately what Apple thinks is what matters, and they have the final say. They ran the numbers; they looked at the projections; and they just don't want a part of that market.

I'm sure they could sell quite a lot of machines to 13 inch Macbook users who need firewire. I'm sure they could sell quite a lot of 14 inch and 16 inch machines.

But again, there are people Apple chooses not to serve. It's not that they couldn't make more money adding them to their customer base. It's not that they couldn't increase their market share. It's that they don't want to waste their time on those people. Yes, it's elitist. Yes, it's being picky. But Apple isn't interested in becoming the Walmart of computers. That's Microsoft's market. Apple wants to be the high end fashion designer. They want to be the Gucci of computers. That's the market they are focused on.

 

[LagunaSol]

I suspect that a $1500 Mac Mini tower would sell very very well.

I agree. I don't recall Apple having problems selling towers back in the day of the $1,500 Power Mac. I owned many of them myself.

I think this is probably a Steve Jobs thing. Which is why I'm not too worried if over time he takes a less hands-on role with the company - perhaps we'd see the rebirth of the mid-priced tower.

I agree with Apple's (i.e. Steve Jobs') "keep it simple" product lineup (back to automobile analogies - compare Honda's simple product line vs. say, GM (I wonder how that worked out)) - but there is definitely a huge hole in their offerings without a sub-$2k tower. This is a point of stubbornness that is just absurd.