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

[fernmeister]

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.

I agree. "Gaming machine" and "not expensive" are not words we would normally expect to hear from Apple. Their concession to gaming is probably already in place - you can now play on MacIntel machines.

Would Apple really make a bigger move into gaming unless they could dominate the market?

 

[netdog]

When Apple had a tiny market share, it was prohibitively expensive for them to create too many lines. They had to stay lean and mean.

Now that they are gaining shares and just sold 2.2 million Macs in the most recent quarter, I expect that they will come out with a mid-level headless Mac. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see one introduced at MacWorld.

I just hope it has dual-link DVI.

 

[Blue Velvet]

I think there's a reason for that and the thread starter hit it on the head - truck sized hole in desktop lineup.

No, the reason for it is that people want laptops... as so many people have pointed out, if there was a sizable demand and a buck to be made, then Apple would be in there. The only people that want these mythical machines are the kinds of people that hang around here... meanwhile, the rest of the world just doesn't care.

 

[Umbongo]

When Apple had a tiny market share, it was prohibitively expensive for them to create too many lines. They had to stay lean and mean.

Now that they are gaining shares and just sold 2.2 million Macs in the most recent quarter, I expect that they will come out with a mid-level headless Mac. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see one introduced at MacWorld.

I just hope it has dual-link DVI.

I wouldn't be suprised either.

I don't see them offering dual core Xeons anymore and I don't think Apple probably want to be pushing 8 cores on everyone when people can see that 4 cores is currently more than enough for them and can be had much cheaper at the expense of losing OSX and larger memory capacity.

I'd expect to see prices similar to the iMac but with quad core processors of varying speeds.

I don't think it'll do wonders for desktop sales either, more needed to keep sales buoyant.

 

[toru173]

I think the real reason we're not going to get a mid range headless Mac is His Holiness Jobbsie himself.

He's never liked user expandibility, and the 'Pro' line is probably his grudging acceptance of the high end professional market. I believe the Cube may have been an attempt to rebuild his NeXT days, and when he saw how much the market complained about the stunted expandibility he went back to his older
ideals.

Notice how everything in the Mac Pro is SPECIFICALLY workstation class, including the high end graphics cards. The memory is designed for server or workstation usage - not consumer usage, and definately not low-latency gaming. The ability to only plug in one graphics card (at full speed), and no SLI or Crossfire which are both consumer technologies. If a Pro really needs these features, they're pony up the 50k needed to get a DEDICATED SLI renderer (google the nvidia Tesla project, ultra cool)

I also believe he really doesn't like the Mini. Sure, it's small and cute, but everyone keeps telling him to make it more expandable, or they complain it's not powerful enough.

The iMac is Steve's baby, and always will be. Apple will always be about the iMac, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

[Umbongo]

Notice how everything in the Mac Pro is SPECIFICALLY workstation class, including the high end graphics cards. The memory is designed for server or workstation usage - not consumer usage, and definately not low-latency gaming. The ability to only plug in one graphics card (at full speed), and no SLI or Crossfire which are both consumer technologies. If a Pro really needs these features, they're pony up the 50k needed to get a DEDICATED SLI renderer (google the nvidia Tesla project, ultra cool)

To be fair I don't think everything is workstation class (and only one of the GPUs is anyway) to seperate it from consumer systems so much as those were the hardware limitations at the time of the MP's introduction. They had to go quadcore because anything else would have been outpaced by the quad G5, and would have been a step backwards. At that time the only option was dual socket dualcore, and thus only FB-DIMMs and no multi-GPU performance.

 

[ksz]

When Apple had a tiny market share, it was prohibitively expensive for them to create too many lines. They had to stay lean and mean.

Now that they are gaining shares and just sold 2.2 million Macs in the most recent quarter, I expect that they will come out with a mid-level headless Mac. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see one introduced at MacWorld.

I just hope it has dual-link DVI.

I tend to agree.

When Apple was using PowerPCs, the choices were limited: G4 Desktop, G4 Mobile, and G5 Desktop.

When Apple switched to Intel, the processor choice widened. Intel's processor portfolio is more diverse and allows Apple to do the following:

1. Single Core 2 Duo or Low Voltage Core CPUs for Mac Mini at the low-end.
2. Single Core 2 Duo Mobile for MacBook and MacBook Pro.
3. Single Core 2 Duo Mobile or Core 2 Duo Desktop for iMac (although only the former is used today).
4. Single Core 2 Quad Desktop for Mid-Tower.
5. Dual Xeon Quad Core processors across the entire Mac Pro line.
6. Dual Xeon Quad Core processros across the entire Xserve line (rack mount).

One can argue that historically there was no mid-tower because there was no processor suitable for that segment that would still allow the high-end to remain clearly differentiated.

Today, a mid-tower line could be built with single-socket quad-core processors while the Mac Pro line remains at workstation class dual Xeons, but moves enitrely to 8 cores.

Whether Apple actually delivers a mid-tower remains to be seen, but it wasn't long ago when we thought Apple would never deliver a low-end headless Mac, but the Mac mini was announced to most everyone's surprise!

 

[Jade Cambell]

The iMac can do anything that normal people need to do. In fact, it does everything the Mac Pro does, just a tad slower. So, if you claim that you need something better than the iMac, but claim that the Mac Pro is too much for you, basically what you're asking for is a stripped down Mac Pro because you want the expandability but don't have the cash for the real thing.

 

[Eidorian]

The iMac can do anything that normal people need to do. In fact, it does everything the Mac Pro does, just a tad slower. So, if you claim that you need something better than the iMac, but claim that the Mac Pro is too much for you, basically what you're asking for is a stripped down Mac Pro because you want the expandability but don't have the cash for the real thing.

$500 buys me expandability from PC makers or if I build it myself.

 

[saltyzoo]

The iMac can do anything that normal people need to do. In fact, it does everything the Mac Pro does, just a tad slower. So, if you claim that you need something better than the iMac, but claim that the Mac Pro is too much for you, basically what you're asking for is a stripped down Mac Pro because you want the expandability but don't have the cash for the real thing.

No, more accurately, we're asking for an iMac without the integrated monitor.

 

[ksz]

The iMac can do anything that normal people need to do. In fact, it does everything the Mac Pro does, just a tad slower. So, if you claim that you need something better than the iMac, but claim that the Mac Pro is too much for you, basically what you're asking for is a stripped down Mac Pro because you want the expandability but don't have the cash for the real thing.

That's true to a large extent, but it can also be said that most people only need 1 core. For the longest time they used (and many still do) a single CPU core and did not complain.

The industry, however, is moving ahead. Soon we will have 8 cores in a single chip package; i.e., octo-core processors. The low-end will probably move to a minimum of 4 cores, while the high end moves to dual 8-cores (or 16 cores).

Are consumers' needs keeping abreast of the increases in CPU power? Probably not, but the industry is driving the consumers forward. Would you buy a single-core iMac today? It's perfectly good and capable, but the industry has largely succeeded in creating the impression that what you really need or want is a dual core processor.

 

[Rowlander]

No, more accurately, we're asking for an iMac without the integrated monitor.

Exactly. And while they are at it, they could use desktop- instead of laptop-cpus.

 

[milo]

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?

Because a desktop version can be done for far less cost. And some of us would like to be able to add a second internal drive instead of a pricier and bulkier external.

I have to agree that if apple keeps blatantly ignoring this part of the market, buying cheap PC hardware and hacking OSX onto it is getting more and more tempting. I'd love to buy a mac that meets my needs but they simply don't sell one.

No, the reason for it is that people want laptops... as so many people have pointed out, if there was a sizable demand and a buck to be made, then Apple would be in there. The only people that want these mythical machines are the kinds of people that hang around here... meanwhile, the rest of the world just doesn't care.

Seriously, that's what you think? If "the rest of the world" isn't interested in this sort of model, then why are those models such big sellers on the PC side? The fact that the PC versions of these machines are selling well is proof that there IS demand and there is a buck to be made. This model isn't "mythical" at all...it's only mythical on the mac side.

The iMac can do anything that normal people need to do. In fact, it does everything the Mac Pro does, just a tad slower. So, if you claim that you need something better than the iMac, but claim that the Mac Pro is too much for you, basically what you're asking for is a stripped down Mac Pro because you want the expandability but don't have the cash for the real thing.

A stripped down mac pro would do the trick. As would an imac minus the monitor or a mini plus some expandablitiy. What's wrong with that? It's a valid need. My issue isn't that the iMac doesn't do enough, it's that it only ships with a monitor that I don't want. And "normal people" should still backup their files, something an iMac can't do without external hardware.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Seriously, that's what you think? If "the rest of the world" isn't interested in this sort of model, then why are those models such big sellers on the PC side? The fact that the PC versions of these machines are selling well is proof that there IS demand and there is a buck to be made. This model isn't "mythical" at all...it's only mythical on the mac side.

Most of them will be corporate machines where margins are razor-thin; an area Apple doesn't care about.

 

[saltyzoo]

Most of them will be corporate machines where margins are razor-thin; an area Apple doesn't care about.

So basically what you are saying is that Apple is only going to cater to people willing to pay them a lot more than what they are selling is worth. They aren't going to try to expand market share. They aren't ever going to make any product that they can't sell for a huge profit.

I hope you are wrong.

 

[krunk]

Most of them will be corporate machines where margins are razor-thin; an area Apple doesn't care about.

Could you please provide links breaking down percentage of consumer desktop sales by corporate v. private? Considering desktop sales comprise of almost 50% of the market, even if a good amount of those are corporate we could be talking about a very large market indeed.

It's already been shown that people are often willing to pay more for an osx capable machine with decent design. Thus, in the consumer market apple's products don't have to be priced on quite so thin a margins.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Could you please provide links breaking down percentage of consumer desktop sales by corporate v. private?

Why? Do your own research. I've got other things to worry about on the boards today.

It's obvious that Apple is mostly interested in the consumer space... from my many years of experience of helping other Mac users, by far the majority of them are not interested in upgrading their machines at all. It's only people like you and I that are, and we are in the minority.

Apple are one of the smartest companies around; if they saw profit in this space, they'd go for it. You don't think they've researched and costed this out carefully already? Essentially, what you guys are saying, is that you know more about running Apple than the CEO and board do.

Give it up already. If you want an iMac without a monitor, get a MBP and hook external peripherals up to it like I have.

 

[Eidorian]

Give it up already. If you want an iMac without a monitor, get a MBP and hook external peripherals up to it like I have.

Now if you could only get a MacBook Pro without a monitor.

Ebay perhaps?

 

[El Cid]

Bingo!

Most of them will be corporate machines where margins are razor-thin; an area Apple doesn't care about.

QFT. This is exactly the concept. Apple not even Dell can compete in the market that is serviced either by upgradable basic machines or by enthusiasts who buy a case and upgrade everything insisde it. Apple for a very long time has been an all in one experience.

 

[saltyzoo]

Apple are one of the smartest companies around; if they saw profit in this space, they'd go for it. You don't think they've researched and costed this out carefully already? Essentially, what you guys are saying, is that you know more about running Apple than the CEO and board do.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying I know more about it than you do. Just kidding.

I'm not criticizing Apple for what they've done so far, I'm saying it's time to change. There are plenty of companies out there that make great decisions and then don't bend to the flow of the market and fizzle out as fast as they grew, or never achieve their full potential. Apple, in fact, is already one of them in a past life.

Give it up already. If you want an iMac without a monitor, get a MBP and hook external peripherals up to it like I have.

So I should pay for a battery, a thin case, thin peripherals and a premium for all the above so they'll be light just so I don't have to buy a computer with a monitor attached? Oh wait, I still have to pay for the monitor too.... That's not a solution.

 

[krunk]

Why? Do your own research. I've got other things to worry about on the boards today.

It's obvious that Apple is mostly interested in the consumer space... from my many years of experience of helping other Mac users, by far the majority of them are not interested in upgrading their machines at all. It's only people like you and I that are, and we are in the minority.

Apple are one of the smartest companies around; if they saw profit in this space, they'd go for it. You don't think they've researched and costed this out carefully already? Essentially, what you guys are saying, is that you know more about running Apple than the CEO and board do.

Give it up already. If you want an iMac without a monitor, get a MBP and hook external peripherals up to it like I have.

The only point I'm making is stating "there's no market for desktops cause the margins are too thin and it's all corporate anyway" is in no way a statement of fact any more then me saying "the desktop market is massive and all profits are consumer". . . since neither of us has done the research it's a moot point. However, it would seem that there is *some kind of bank* to be made since all the major players attribute almost 1/2 of their sales to desktop machines.

As far as "me knowing more the Apple's CEO", I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm stating the fact that there's a gap in the product line and that it would be nice if they filled it. It would make me happy and warm and fuzzy inside, along with many others.

I'm not sure why such a statement inspires the ire of some apple users. I find it odd really.

This kind of reminds me of the "Apple should go intel" threads that used to happen. "Hey tard, you think you know better then apple!? We'll never go intel! PPC 4tw!".

I don't mean this with any animosity. Just that people are conjecturing, hoping, analyzing, and discussing a direction they'd like to see their favorite product take. . . . kinda what the forums are for. Only time will tell if the almighty CEO's and board agree (like they did with the intel switchers proponents) or not.

*edit* Ah here we go: consumer desktop sales comprise of 46% of the total consumer PC sales market: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=506003
Ok, I'm a bit gray on whether "consumer desktop sales" reports include or exclude business sales. Let's assume they include them and the vast majority, 30%, is business leaving 16% up for grabs in the consumer market. In Q1 Apple had 5% market share. If Apple ventured into this market and was able to capture only 1/4 of the sales over time that would result in a near 100% increase in total market share. Seems pretty significant. Yeah, we made a couple of assumptions there...but the point is apple is a tee tiny company compared to the big boys with some good momentum going. It wouldn't take much to increase significantly.

 

[Blue Velvet]

I'm not sure why such a statement inspires the ire of some apple users. I find it odd really.

Because threads like this are posted every week, and yet all the cogent and well-rehearsed arguments against the idea are ignored because people confuse their needs with Apple's or the mass of the computer-buyng population.

From Apple's point of view, and their corporate strategy, there is no current hole in their lineup... except in areas like the iPhone and other gadgets, more of which we'll see over the coming months and years.

 

[saltyzoo]

From Apple's point of view, and their corporate strategy, there is no current hole in their lineup... except in areas like the iPhone and other gadgets, more of which we'll see over the coming months and years.

Wow. That's a pretty big statement to make so forcefully. They'll NEVER, EVER change that strategy 'eh?

I really really hope you're wrong. I hope they change their strategy regularly and appropriately.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Wow. That's a pretty big statement to make so forcefully. They'll NEVER, EVER change that strategy 'eh?

Pity that your reading comprehension seems to be below par. Did I say anything about never? I said:

From Apple's point of view, and their corporate strategy, there is no current hole in their lineup...

Clear?

 

[LaDirection]

a) 500GB is 5x more than 99% of computer users will ever need b) nobody but a professional needs a $2,000 30" monitor c) there are no games on the Mac platform to warrant such a purchase.

Furthermore, if there was money to be made with such a system, Apple would be selling it. Nobody needs a tower. If you're a pro, get a Mac Pro. If your a gamer/modder/hacker, get a PC. Macs are not attractive to them anyways, and THEY are the market you think that tower would get.

The overwhelming majority of computer users (i.e. casual users) will much more benefit from an all-in=one system.

Don't forget, the original iMac is still the best selling desktop PC of all time.