Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why is there a Mac truck sized hole in the Apple desktop product line?

The iMac 2.8 Extreme almost seems "Prosumer". It tests out faster than the very low-end 2.0 Mac Pro's, and isn't all that far behind the 2.66 in some tasks.

I think Apple needs to make a "Graphic Designer" tower that is geared toward print/web design, but not for video/3D. But it's probably not financially smart in the long run.

We use Mini's at my firm because we mostly design for the web, but we still do some print and large PSDs really drag on the Mini. We don't go for the iMac's because we all have external monitors.

So what I'm really saying is a mini-tower with the iMac specs (sans LCD) would be nice.
 
slu said:
So your anecdotal evidence is proof? And the fact that Macs are the most popular PC in this this demographic means what? Have you seen the statistics on what is the most popular PC among incoming college freshmen?
Click to expand...
Actually, a windows pc is still the most popular. Even the most generous estimates have macs at under 50%. (with some anomalies at particular universities bumping up to 51%'sh).

My anecdotal evidence is just that. I think the proof can be found in the two OEM's that dominate the market: Dell and HP. Apple comes in a distant 3rd with 1/4 of the sales of these two market leaders. I believe it was 2006 when laptop sales just eeked by desktop sales in percent of total with something around 51 or 52% of total sales. Even if we are conservative, that means 40% of the market are for desktop pc's....and it is in this market where apple's gapping hole lies.

Listen, I am not saying it wouldn't be a nice choice to have, but every reason the people here give for Apple producing one is flawed. Just because you want it or because you know some people who say they would buy one does not mean it makes sense for Apple to make it. That logic is seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

I personally like the workstation series and would try to purchase one even if a desktop were offered...though yes, depending on finances I may crank it down a notch.

I think the citations above indicate that the "desktop gap" is not idle speculation. No we haven't done in depth market research. However there's no reason to think that HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. hasn't and it's clear what product line they've honed in on. Apple is the odd man out. Probably because Apple is driven by one man's "vision" more so then raw market research.

This is at the same time a good thing (some really amazing products) and a bad thing (lack of options in otherwise prevalent markets).
 
Blue Velvet said:
Or what?
Click to expand...
I had a friend in college who ate nothing but junk food. It was such nutrition-free garbage that I don't know how he was still standing. My education was in biochemistry, so I knew how nutrition affects mental ability. I asked him one day to imagine how much better he could do if he ate well. To that he replied. "I'm Student Body President. I'm getting straight As, and I'm going to medical school." Yes he was excellent, but he still was not performing his best.
 
I can see where the OP is coming from. I have an iMac G5, but it is starting to show it's age a bit. I am a straight up consumer, I don't use my Mac to make money. It still runs great, but there will eventually be a time when I will want a better processor or a better GPU and that is not an option. Because of Apples computer lineup, I am forced to buy a completely new computer even though everything else my iMac (screen, hard drive, speakers, etc.) all work great and fill my needs. Like most, I don't want to spend several grand to get the very best to last the longest each time I am ready, and I don't need to, it would be overkill.

I don't know what the ideal solution is; adding another computer to the line up; opening the iMac line to allow upgradeable parts, something else, who knows. I just know that someone like me, who doesn't need the most power but likes to keep a computer longer than a couple years and with the option to upgrade as I go, doesn't really have a good option with the current Apple line up. I don't like having to go all in the first time I buy, I would rather gradually upgrade my computer over time, and keep components that don't need to be replaced.
 
kudukudu said:
Putting aside the mac mini which is too limited for most users ...
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this is a false statement. I would believe that most computers sold are in the range of $400 to $999. The mini is right there in terms of computing power in that price range.

I would think that the mini is perfectly suited for most users.

Of course, the type of users that frequent these forums are probably not like most users and therefore want more power.

Personally, I'd love to have a Mac that is as powerful as an iMac, but be in a minitower or pizzabox case. Replaceable components would be great as well.

However, I won't hold my breath because I know that the market for this computer is pretty small.

ft
 
i fall into the group of customers that wants something a little more powerful than a mini, but the MacPro is just too much.


I'm not looking for a MacPro quad core setup ... i'd happily have the power of an iMac but with a couple of full size HDD bays and perhaps a couple of card slots ... or even just a dedicated graphics card ( as opposed to an integrated one )

why not just buy an iMac?

Well, i've already got a true 8-bit 24" monitor on my desk which outperforms the iMac's screens. Why should i need to buy another, lesser screen ??? I dont want 2 screens on my desk. ...

It is a gaping hole to me ... i do think there is a market for this type of machine which Apple could help leverage by showing the power of Leopard on it.

Vista, to me, I'm not a fan of it and Leopard is really screaming out to me as the option to go for in terms of my photography and other interests ... but nothing fits the bill in the hardware aspect ... and i bet i'm not the only one.

I really do think that Apple are missing out. I wouldn't mind if the price was slightly higher than the equivalent PC based unit ... i'd still pay a premium to make the switch.
 
I think the point that is being missed is that market size is only one factor in whether a company enters (or exits) a market space. The bigger concern is profit margin. Companies like Dell and HP make extremely small margins on consumer mid-towers like these, and have to make up for it in higher margin areas (servers, high-end specialized systems, etc.) Apple already gets solid margins on their existing product lines, so why would they want to start competing with Dell and HP on machines that generate very little profit?
 
betelgeuse1 said:
I think the point that is being missed is that market size is only one factor in whether a company enters (or exits) a market space. The bigger concern is profit margin. Companies like Dell and HP make extremely small margins on consumer mid-towers like these, and have to make up for it in higher margin areas (servers, high-end specialized systems, etc.) Apple already gets solid margins on their existing product lines, so why would they want to start competing with Dell and HP on machines that generate very little profit?
Click to expand...

To generate market share so that companies would find the Mac a more desirable platform to develop for. That in turn would enable Apple to sell more machines.
 
jwt said:
I had a friend in college who ate nothing but junk food.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that fascinating analogy... however, it has no bearing on the successful manufacturing and marketing of a personal computer for the masses.

This is what many people on this forum don't understand. Most people don't want to open their Mac; the only way you'll get your headless low-cost Mac is if the iMac goes.

*typing on a headless Mac... a 2.33 MBP with external keyboard, mouse and monitor* ;)
 
No

jwt said:
To generate market share so that companies would find the Mac a more desirable platform to develop for. That in turn would enable Apple to sell more machines.
Click to expand...

No, that's not it either. It's more complicated than that.

Most people don't buy Macs because they offer a wide variety of software choices, they buy Macs cause they work. What good is having 50 versions of financial software if only a few are decent?
 
appleretailguy said:
What good is having 50 versions of financial software if only a few are decent?
Click to expand...

I can never tell when you are being sarcastic. The answer to your question is that there wouldn't be 50 versions if any one of them met everyones requirements. If someone weren't buying version 50 they wouldn't keep selling it.

Having no choices is only good if you are lazy, ignorant, or happen to like what you are stuck with. Everyone else is screwed.

The general population is becoming more sophisticated with computers and lack of choices becomes a dead end road as that happens more and more.

Arguing for a lack of choices is a pretty interesting angle. It makes no sense, but it's interesting.

It's not as though having another Apple offering is going to hurt you in some way. The mac is mainstream enough now that it's time for Apple to flesh out it's product line. That's a good thing. It shows that more varied people are looking to make the switch.
 
Arguing for a lack of choices is a pretty interesting angle. It makes no sense, but it's interesting.
Click to expand...

The *only* argument in favor of lack of choice is the one given for limited hardware selection. E.g. many of windows problems aren't windows problems at all, but buggy driver problems.

By focusing on a limited set of hardware, apple is able to spend more time on each piece ensuring seemless operation.

Fair enough, I don't think this explains "gaps" though. For example, if Apple offered a top of the line ATI card but not an NVIDIA. I may disagree with their choice, but it would be understandable. However, not offering any high end consumer card would not fall under this philosophy as it is not a limited choice, but a complete lack of choice.

This is the negative of having a gap in desktop consumer offerings. I'm not sure what Apple's profit margins are...but I am suspect that they are significantly more then dell/hp/etc.

Let's take the iMac for example. Laptop parts are more expensive then desktop components and provide less performance. It stands to reason that Apple could offer equally to more powerful "iMacs" if they used desktop components.

I'm not saying eliminate the iMac line. But a desktop line should only provide a higher profit margin at the same price points then their immobile laptops. Take away the monitor and you have a cheaper to produce machine at a significant enough price drop (due to no monitor cost).

No one knows the real numbers. But I find it much more likely that there's a snobbish "image issue" with not offering a consumer desktop then any lack of financial viability of the product based upon the simple observations above.
 
yes, but

saltyzoo said:
Having no choices is only good if you are lazy, ignorant, or happen to like what you are stuck with. Everyone else is screwed.

The general population is becoming more sophisticated with computers and lack of choices becomes a dead end road as that happens more and more.

Arguing for a lack of choices is a pretty interesting angle. It makes no sense, but it's interesting.

It's not as though having another Apple offering is going to hurt you in some way. The mac is mainstream enough now that it's time for Apple to flesh out it's product line. That's a good thing. It shows that more varied people are looking to make the switch.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in part.

I do think that more choices makes things better and prompts companies to make better products.

HOWEVER, some companies (like Apple) innovate anyway. It wouldn't matter if the Mac marketshare was 5% or 50%, they are still trying to make the best possible product out there.

You either compete on choice (quantity) or quality. Dell competes on quantity, Apple competes on quality.

While they make the same type of products, they have vastly different approaches, similar to luxury car manufacturers and regular ones (like hondas, fords, etc.). No one is clamoring for rolls royce to make low cost cars.
 
kkat69 said:
Haha I was looking to make sure someone didn't post an "Or what" response to this. Seriously, "bla bla bla better start listening.... <insert>or I'll just sit here and complain more</insert>"
Click to expand...

Apple's gains in market share are definitely impressive. However, don't confuse Apple hype with Apple fact. The facts are that even after such impressive gains, Apple is a far distant third from the top two...both of which are Windows vendors. So in the osx v. windows wars, which determines developer and hardware vendor attention, Apple is a bit player. The biggest of the bit players, but rather small regardless. (don't forget a lot of their earnings come from gadgets)

So, the response to an "or what" would be. . "or they're consumer computer market share will plateau far below what it could".

And don't we all want to see our preferred product do as well as it can? They better they fair, the better it will benefit the company, share holders, and users in the end.
 
krunk said:
Apple's gains in market share are definitely impressive. However, don't confuse Apple hype with Apple fact. The facts are that even after such impressive gains, Apple is a far distant third from the top two...both of which are Windows vendors. So in the osx v. windows wars, which determines developer and hardware vendor attention, Apple is a bit player. The biggest of the bit players, but rather small regardless. (don't forget a lot of their earnings come from gadgets)

So, the response to an "or what" would be. . "or they're consumer computer market share will plateau far below what it could".

And don't we all want to see our preferred product do as well as it can? They better they fair, the better it will benefit the company, share holders, and users in the end.
Click to expand...

Apple went from circling the drain and having 3rd party developers jumping ship to increasing profits, increasing market share and successfully launching a B&M retail presence at a time when other computer makers were bleeding money, getting out of the PC business all together, and/or shuttering their retail stores. Even if Apple is doing something that makes me go "hmmm" I give them the benefit of the doubt because they've earned it.


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
Apple went from circling the drain and having 3rd party developers jumping ship to increasing profits, increasing market share and successfully launching a B&M retail presence at a time when other computer makers were bleeding money, getting out of the PC business all together, and/or shuttering their retail stores. Even if Apple is doing something that makes me go "hmmm" I give them the benefit of the doubt because they've earned it.


Lethal
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but times, they are a changin'. There is a hole. It's my contention that now is the time for Apple to fill it, or they are making a mistake.
 
I'm afraid this hole is here to stay. I would love a mid-range desktop, but I fear that Apple will concentrate more on its portable line-up in the future; after all Apple sold twice as much laptops then desktops last quarter. So the chances of a new Macbook form (like the rumoured ultraportable) is much higher then the release of this eagerly desired Mac Pro Mini.
 
Whoshnot said:
I'm afraid this hole is here to stay. I would love a mid-range desktop, but I fear that Apple will concentrate more on its portable line-up in the future; after all Apple sold twice as much laptops then desktops last quarter. So the chances of a new Macbook form (like the rumoured ultraportable) is much higher then the release of this eagerly desired Mac Pro Mini.
Click to expand...

Well, when you consider that Apple actually doesn't sell any desktops at all. Just laptops, laptops with full monitors bundled, and workstations......

hmm, I wonder if this has any connection to why they sell so many more laptops then pseudo desktops.
 
Mid.

Tower.

!

This discussion has been going on for years. I suspect Jobs is afraid to ship a basic headless machine with no gimmicks (all in one, "mini" etc) because without a gimmick there's nothing to use as an excuse not to compare price and features to similar PC's.

It's about time, guys. Make a budget desktop machine with a little expandability already.
 
It´s funny. I had this discussion on a German mac-forum half a year ago and the mac-fans there didn´t get it either. :rolleyes:

I´ll try to spell it out:
I do - not - want a computer with an integrated monitor. Ever. I use my 24" Dell-monitor for other things too like watching HD DVDs, connecting my HD-camcorder and playing Xbox 360. If I bought an iMac, which has no HD-videoinputs, I would have to keep my current monitor for that, so I would be paying for a monitor I do not need.

The Mac Pro is an awesome machinge but seriously, I could configure an awesome quadcore-PC with lots of RAM and HDD-space at Dell for 1.000 $ less! I don´t need Xeons. Sure, it might speed up video rendering-time by a few minutes but do I want to spend 1.000 $ more so rendering takes a little less time at every video-project I finish? It´s not like I´m rendering 24/7. I´m not PIXAR ;).

Somebody said that all the whiners are too cheap to pay a little extra for a Mac Pro. What´s wrong with that? What´s wrong with not wanting to pay for something, I´m not asking for?

I´m caught exactly in the middleground, just because the iMac has no HD-input options. So I´d rather pay 2.500$ for a (new) base mac pro than 2.300$ for a top iMac configuration. I don´t want to pay for a monitor, I don´t need.

I have been waiting to switch for a year now! But I guess Apple´s strategy worked, since I have no choice but to buy a Mac Pro.

Isn´t that what Steve Jobs said a few years ago at one of his presentations? That Apple believes in choice? Well at least in the hardware-sector, that could not be further from the truth. And I want to see anyone argue against that!
 
The midtower is a significant market. Go to a PC forum (1, 2) and look at what people are using. They don't use servers that have expensive ram, 2-4 more cores than they need, and poor vid options; and they aren't using laptop components in their desktops.

I could afford to spend more than 3k on a MacPro, but why would I waste money on a system that exceeds or fails to meet my needs? The Mini is too underpowered to be an attractive option to PC-switchers with existing monitors and peripherals. A ProMini or midtower would be much better for them, as well as existing Mac users who don't want a video/3D rendering box or severely limited iMac.
 
A suggestion and a solution

It seems to me that the future of the PC world(particularly for Apple) is in laptops, so my guess is that is where Apple is putting most of its energy. Why have a giant appliance that is almost furniture when you could have more or less the same thing and be able to slip it in to your backpack? I can take my MacBook on vacation with me and have all of my TV/Movies/Music/Pictures/etc with me where ever I go. I am guessing that Apple sees desktops as a dying breed(with iPhone/Touch and laptops being the future), and that the only useful niches for desktops are office drone/home email & web machines or hardcore graphic design computers.

What I think the real issue here is people want a gaming machine that isn't really expensive. But the gaming market these days seems like it is destined to be console based, and Macs have never had a strong gaming lineup.

And for those of you who really want a midrange PC tower version of the Mac, it IS currently available. I am typing this on it in fact - my $700 Hackintosh. It's about +15 months old at this point, but has a 2.67 GHz Pentium D and a 500G SATA drive. I also have a 300G Windows drive on it. OS X10.4.8 works more or less flawlessly (it's noticeably faster than my Macbook) and it wasn't that hard to build & tweak. I even bought a new iMac keyboard for it!
 
Blue Velvet said:
Or what?
Click to expand...
Look into the financial results a bit closer. Desktop segment grew by only 4% and that including minis, iMacs and MacPros. It's been stagnating like that for years, either growing or shrinking by a couple percent. Meanwhile laptops keep forging ahead, 30%+ growth quarter by quarter by years now (*56%* in this quarter compared to the one last year). I think there's a reason for that and the thread starter hit it on the head - truck sized hole in desktop lineup.

Apple just doesn't get it. This topic has been beaten to death and talking more about this won't change a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back