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

[jasonvp]

I hope they change their strategy regularly and appropriately.

But who's to say what's "appropriate" for their strategy? Relatively speaking, Apple is a teeny company, competing against some monstrous companies when it comes to PCs. And, right now, from a business perspective, they're focusing their limited resources where the most payoff comes: iPhones, iPods, and other iGadgets.

Like it or not, that's where Apple's bread and butter is NOW. Do they have the resources to focus on: iGadgets, Mac Minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, OS X, all of their applications, AS WELL AS another Mac model? My guess is, they don't. My guess is they've decided to focus their resources on the iGadgets because that's where they're making the most money.

From a business perspective, they're totally doing the right thing. Even if that means it upsets some folks who are waiting for A)the next big Mac Pro, or B)a new Mac computer that doesn't even exist yet. In the end, they'll make way more money by selling iGadgets than they will medium-to-heavy duty Macs.

It's sad to say, but that's the way things look right now.

jas

 

[LaDirection]

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.

1/4... How old are you? If they got 1/100th it would be an accomplishment!

 

[saltyzoo]

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?

There is no need for insults. My reading comprehension is just fine.

For example phrases like "over the coming months and years." not to mention everything else you've said (that I've read very carefully) indicates you feel there is no need to change.

What event exactly would need to occur to allow you to accept someone posting the opinion that it's time to change their strategy? Will it be "wrong" today, but "ok" tomorrow if Apple holds a press conference and says they are releasing a product in this "hole"?

Man, I'm still adjusting to the vitriol of the "Apple can do no wrong" crowd. It's one of the things that kept me away for so long in the first place. I love the machines, but rose-colored glasses don't look good on me.

My opinion, and my posting of such isn't going to hurt you - or Apple. Take a breath.

 

[jwt]

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.

I think it's funny that you and other participants in this thread give Apple so much credit for their market research and business abilities when history shows their business model for most of their existence has been a failure, which is what relegated them to the 5% market share territory. Their products have for the most part been appealing and ahead of their time, but their business strategy has for the most part sucked. Their business model today is unchanged. They are simply applying it to the consumer electronics space with absolutely brilliant products like iPod and iPhone, and in this space that business model seems to be quite successful. That success and the mind share generated from that success has spilled over into their PC business. Now I personally believe each of the PCs in their line-up is the best in its class, but they still aren't competing in every class, and that's what those in support of this thread are hoping they do.

 

[saltyzoo]

I think it's funny that you and other participants in this thread give Apple so much credit for their market research and business abilities when history shows their business model for most of their existence has been a failure, which is what relegated them to the 5% market share territory. Their products have for the most part been appealing and ahead of their time, but their business strategy has for the most part sucked. Their business model today is unchanged. They are simply applying it to the consumer electronics space with absolutely brilliant products like iPod and iPhone, and in this space that business model seems to be quite successful. That success and the mind share generated from that success has spilled over into their PC business. Now I personally believe each of the PCs in their line-up is the best in its class, but they still aren't competing in every class, and that's what those in support of this thread are hoping they do.

I agree to a point. I do think Apple has improved in this area recently by going to a unix based OS and switching to Intel. All stepping stones to allowing them to market better in my view. . .

 

[Blue Velvet]

I think it's funny that you and other participants in this thread give Apple so much credit for their market research and business abilities when history shows their business model for most of their existence has been a failure, which is what relegated them to the 5% market share territory.

Poor decisions taken almost twenty years ago take a long time to turn around especially with the ingrained beliefs that many of the computer-buying public have about Apple.

My comment about their market research and business acumen is a reflection of the company as it is right now... Market-share is not an indication of success; I don't see BMW being written off as a failure.

 

[saltyzoo]

My comment about their market research and business acumen is a reflection of the company as it is right now... Market-share is not an indication of success; I don't see BMW being written off as a failure.

I don't see BMW's CEO holding press conferences to tout their Q2 0.2% increase in market share either. It would seem by his words at any rate that Mr. Jobs is interested in market share.

 

[jwt]

a) 500GB is 5x more than 99% of computer users will ever need...

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

A couple comments on these two points.

What is excessive today may be necessary tomorrow.

Technology is outdated all the time. I had a Powerbook G3 when OS X came out. It had ADB ports instead of the now ubiquitous USB. I wanted OS X because I couldn't deal with the instability of Classic anymore. I was finishing school, and couldn't deal with missing another deadline because of a crash the morning a project was due. Unfortunately OS X didn't support ADB, so I needed to buy a new machine: Cost $2000. The new machine was a Quicksilver G4. When I bought it there was no USB 2. USB 1 had been around on Macs I think for about a year. Now with an iPod, a 15 GB library, and my 10 MegaPixel camera, it takes an incomprehensible amount of time to transfer these files on USB 1. I bought a USB 2 card for $17--problem solved. $17 vs. $2000 for essentially the need for a different interface--which do you think benefits the consumer? All-in-one or expandability?

With the HD video revolution coming, I'd like to know I can expand rather than replace in order to accommodate my coming needs.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think it's funny that you and other participants in this thread give Apple so much credit for their market research and business abilities when history shows their business model for most of their existence has been a failure, which is what relegated them to the 5% market share territory.

I think it's funny that not only is it consistently Apple vs Ever Other PC Maker in terms of market share (as opposed to listing the market share of Apple, Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP, etc.,) but profitability also gets thrown out the window as a measure of success as well. Besides Dell, Apple has been the only computer company to consistently turn a profit (anyone compared Apple and Dell stock prices recent?). Compaq used to be a major player. IBM used to be a major player. Gateway used to have B&M stores in major markets. Market share don't mean squat if it's costing you boatloads of money to get it. Apple went that route in the clone era and it started to kill the company.



Lethal

 

[jdsony]

While there are a few problems with the Mini to say that there isn't enough expandability is a little silly. Have people not heard of USB? You can easily add 1TB or more with a external drive bay or NAS. The issue for hard-drives inside your PC is a non-issue these days. There are also a load of other USB peripherals such as video capture devices, audio cards, midi and such. Most of these cost very little more than their internal cousins. I see the only real issue with the Mini is possibly the lack of video card options. An External SATA port could be useful for some as well. Can people really not make a Mini work for them? What types of devices are you trying to add?

What would be the ideal addition to the MAC lineup? Something like the CUBE again? Have a graphics card and an extra slot for something? Are towers really actually 'NEEDED' anymore or are they just 'WANTED'?

I haven't made my switch to Apple yet but it will be happening soon. I'm getting rid of my PC Laptop and Desktop and just switching to a Macbook. I will probably still keep a PC in my basement just in case I want it for something but I'm trying to unclutter my life. I like PC gaming a lot but I don't have all that much time for it and I have an Xbox 360 which means I don't 'NEED' both.

 

[milo]

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

While apple wouldn't sell as many if they didn't match the PC's price, they could still offer such a machine with their typical margin and sell a decent number. Corporate machines aren't the only market for this.

If people are buying a particular configuration, that demonstrates demand for it. The margin on it is a red herring.

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.

Or maybe those on apple's side simply have no idea what the mass of the computer buying population wants. From this and many other threads, none of the cogent and well rehearsed arguments have really given any evidence that consumers really want iMacs or minis, or other gimmicky computers more than a basic, affordable computer.

Appe has made mistakes before, and they've claimed that they'd never do certain things. And then they've turned around and done those things. I guess I'd buy the "apple will never make a midtower" argument more if it wasn't the exact same thing as the "apple will never make a headless consumer mac" argument...which ended up getting proven wrong by the mini.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Or maybe those on apple's side simply have no idea what the mass of the computer buying population wants.

I have a pretty clear idea — having helped a lot of people with their Mac-buying as well as purchases for work — and it isn't a box they want to open to upgrade or mod; most of them wouldn't know the first place to start or even care. We're talking about friends and families... not geeks.

 

[saltyzoo]

I have a pretty clear idea — having helped a lot of people with their Mac-buying as well as purchases for work — and it isn't a box they want to open to upgrade or mod; most of them wouldn't know the first place to start or even care. We're talking about friends and families... not geeks.

There are a whole lot of people out there that already have nice LCD monitors they shelled out $500 or more for. There are also a whole lot of people that see the wisdom in not throwing out the monitor with the bath water when they want a better computer (or vice-versa and ditching a perfectly good monitor because the motherboard is fried).

Do you consider buying a better monitor an upgrade only geeks can handle? OMG, there's a plug to plug in, call the geek squad!!!!!

 

[milo]

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.

Where did you ever get the idea that THAT is the model people want apple to build??

Like it or not, that's where Apple's bread and butter is NOW. Do they have the resources to focus on: iGadgets, Mac Minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, OS X, all of their applications, AS WELL AS another Mac model? My guess is, they don't. My guess is they've decided to focus their resources on the iGadgets because that's where they're making the most money.

You really think they're focusing any resources on minis? The consumer tower crowd aren't asking for anything particularly special or hard to develop. Just take an existing model and add/subtract a couple things. You really think throwing the mini guts into a bigger case and substituting desktop components would really drain the iGadget teams?

While there are a few problems with the Mini to say that there isn't enough expandability is a little silly.

Only 2 gigs of ram max? Ships with an 80 or 120 gig hard drive, only available up to 160? No DVD burner on the $599 model? No high speed wireless like every other model apple offers? That's all pretty pathetic, and adding external boxes to a mini kind of defeats the whole purpose, not to mention that external drives are more expensive than internal ones. You can get a mini up to better specs, but it's way more expensive, and the mini should just offer more of those in the first place.

What would be the ideal addition to the MAC lineup? Something like the CUBE again? Have a graphics card and an extra slot for something? Are towers really actually 'NEEDED' anymore or are they just 'WANTED'?

What's wrong with wanting a configuration? People constantly buy things like computers based on what they want. Does apple NEED to sell more machines and make more money...or do they just WANT to?

 

[Blue Velvet]

Do you consider buying a better monitor an upgrade only geeks can handle? OMG, there's a plug to plug in, call the geek squad!!!!!

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people find that intimidating enough. The assumption that everyone is familiar with what they're doing with a computer just shows your blindness.

No, I buy what Macs are there for the work I need to do now, instead of whining about what Macs aren't available on some forum... I had an OK monitor, a tower was too large for the small space, leaves me with the MBP really, to do the work I do. And sure, I can't upgrade the hard drive that easily without pulling the thing apart, but it can be done or I can use externals... I've been through enough desktop machines and Apple realise it's a stagnant market.

The day you see a midrange tower from Apple is the day after the iMac is gone. Simple as that... and until then, you've got some options and compromises you have to make if you want to use a Mac, same as in most things in life.

If all these things are more important to you than the OS, then get a Windows box.

 

[saltyzoo]

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people find that intimidating enough. The assumption that everyone is familiar with what they're doing with a computer just shows your blindness.

The assumption that there aren't a lot of people out there that DO know how to hook up a monitor shows your blindness. I'd be willing to bet 50% of the people that buy an iMac are capable of hooking up a monitor. I'd be willing to bet even more that that percentage is going up every day. Long term banking on a naive customer is not going to work. It will work fine in the short run, but at some point it won't.

No, I buy what Macs are there for the work I need to do now, instead of whining about what Macs aren't available on some forum...

Seriously, do you know how belligerent you sound? We're expressing our opinions on what we'd like to see. Why do you take such offense to it? It doesn't bother me that you don't agree. But it does bother me that you insult me and belittle me because I don't agree with you. It doesn't help your argument any either.

The day you see a midrange tower from Apple is the day after the iMac is gone. Simple as that... and until then, you've got some options and compromises you have to make if you want to use a Mac, same as in most things in life.

It must be nice to be omniscient.

If all these things are more important to you than the OS, then get a Windows box.

Comments like that make it difficult for me to give your marketing "proclamations" a whole lot of weight.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Always so much hyperbole when this subject comes up. Either Apple could make billions of dollars and dominate the market, or there is almost no market for such a product...why can't it just be somewhere in between?

Just because Apple has not introduced such a product does not mean that there is necessarily no market, or that Apple will never release such a product, or that Apple's choices are always 100% correct.

As Apple grows its Mac market share, it will naturally fill out its product line as each niche/product category grows in potential. But...

I think Apple's basic product philosophy has just as much to do with this 'product hole' as market potential. Apple's consumer products are always as simple as possible, even at the expense of expandability if necessary. This is why iPods and iPhones don't have expansion slots for memory cards, and why consumer Macs aren't expandable. To me this is not something that can be argued as 'right' or 'wrong', but is simply one of their guiding principles. To deviate too far from it would make them a different company. In some cases I agree with their decisions, and in some cases I disagree. But I do have to hand it to them- they are consistent (if at times seemingly stubbornly so.)

Personally I'd love the Mac Mini, if it wasn't hobbled by poor RAM expansion, 2.5" drive, nop PCI, and non-upgradable graphics. I'm not asking for anything more than just making it somewhat bigger (mini-PC size), and a couple of slots. Going with 3.5" drive would actually save money (assuming same capacity HD.) But for the reasons above, I'm not sure something like that will ever see the light of day.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Why do you take such offense to it? It doesn't bother me that you don't agree. But it does bother me that you insult me and belittle me because I don't agree with you.

I'm not taking offence at anything, nor am I personally belittling you... the Mac "mini-tower" debate, such as it is, has been going on for years now with no sign of it ever happening. In many ways, I'd be happy to see you get one, it would please a lot people, and I probably would buy one too if it was small and quiet enough...

But I also know that the chances of it happening are remote, so I get the best Mac I can afford that does the job for what I need it for, instead of wishing for something that's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The Cube was the last Mac that could have fitted into this bracket and that was a commercial failure, probably due to its price.

The thing about a mini-tower and the existing line-up is that there's no place for it without cannabalising sales from another line, so why should Apple do it while they have the iMac? Which is a pretty distinctive and almost unique kind of machine anyway in its design and is good enough for the majority of people out there.

If anyone is convinced that they can see a market for this product that wouldn't hurt the sale of iMacs, then go ahead and contribute some ideas of what you mean... size, specs, price etc.

You can guarantee that Apple have looked into the idea, probably made mockups, costed out manufacturing plans, done their market research etc. and found it wanting for one reason or another.

 

[saltyzoo]

I'm not taking offence at anything, nor am I personally belittling you...

I think you should go back and re-read some of your posts.

If anyone is convinced that they can see a market for this product that wouldn't hurt the sale of iMacs, then go ahead and contribute some ideas of what you mean... size, specs, price etc.

Do you believe that taking the guts out of an iMac putting it in a box without a monitor and selling it would:
a) hurt iMac sales?
b) be significantly less profitable than selling an iMac?

 

[milo]

The thing about a mini-tower and the existing line-up is that there's no place for it without cannabalising sales from another line, so why should Apple do it while they have the iMac?

Because cannibalizing a few sales doesn't hurt them as long as they set a similar profit margin on the new model, and as long as there are new sales brought by the new model. The shuffle cannibalizes the nano cannibalizes the touch cannibalizes the iPhone. So what? Apple makes money on all those models, and the variety means more sales overall. Do you really think the secret to more sales is FEWER options to buy?

The whole "apple has gone this long without doing it" argument would be more credible if it hadn't been made so many times before, about headless macs, about phones, about mp3 players...and then proven wrong by those products. The fact that they haven't done it only means one thing. That so far they haven't done it. Yet.


And I have to agree that the cheap shots are pretty tacky, especially coming from a mod.

 

[jayb2000]

"Press Any key" Where's the any key!?

Ok, Homer is a good example. Far too many people on here are talking about needing a system to match their $500 monitor, or to add a hard drive.

Most people I know, over the age of 30, barely know how to turn a computer on, never mind swap drives/RAM/etc.

A friend of mine runs a business doing IT consulting for homes and businesses.
The home calls he get are consistently stuff about reinstalling Windows or the system crashed and they have no backups.

I don't know overall numbers and won't make them up, but I would bet that a large majority of PC users don't care about upgrading video cards or adding drives.

I agree that I would like such a computer from Apple, a mini-pro that I could have two hard drives in (for mirroring), a fast GPU (handle games and home video editing) etc.

But I also think that if Apple thought they could expand market share & make good profit they would make one. Maybe they think that is happening now that they are up to 8% or so. We will see what MWSF will hold.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The whole "apple has gone this long without doing it" argument would be more credible if it hadn't been made so many times before, about headless macs, about phones, about mp3 players...and then proven wrong by those products. The fact that they haven't done it only means one thing. That so far they haven't done it. Yet.

Actually that is an example that kind of proves the point. If Apple sees a potential market for itself it will go there, not matter what the company line has been in the past. If Apple thinks its a good idea Apple will do it. That's pretty much what BV, myself, and some others have been saying. Currently Apple doesn't think it's a good idea. That could change on any given Tuesday though. And if it does they'll be people b*tching that introducing a "mini-tower" is the dumbest thing Apple has ever done and I'll drop into those threads and say the same thing I am here. Given Apple's track record I'm inclined to believe that they know WTF they are doing.


Lethal

 

[Schroedinger]

I have a basic question about an underlying assumption here: Namely that Apple should provide a product lineup that covers every type of consumer? Somebody brought up Peterbilt earlier. They build big giant trucks. People that buy their trucks probably like them and buy more. However, since I don't need a big giant truck I go to the Honda dealership and buy a Civic.

Those saying there is a hole in the product line might as well beg for a Peterbilt minivan. All the arguments hold true. I'm sure they could increase total market share of vehicles sold if they sold minivans and sedans. Hell, why not motorcycles and scooters too? I'm sure there are Peterbilt enthusiasts who would purchase one. Hell, maybe they would pull minivan sales from dodge, ford, and honda.

Life is all about about making value decisions. You have to decide how much you want to run OS X on an Apple box (and i'm ignoring hacks and osX86 cuz that's just buggy and unreliable). If you don't feel it is worth it to give up your old monitor to get a new OS X machine, then don't buy one, and please stop complaining.

This is basic childishness. If you look in my sig you'll see I have an Thinkpad X40. I wanted an ultraportable laptop, a product that Apple didn't offer. So I bought one from somebody else. I didn't come to this forum and cry about the lack of an ultraportable Mac. I bought the product I needed. Is it perfect? No, I wish it ran OS X, but in an imperfect world, it properly balances my needs with what I was willing to pay.

If you want a mid size tower computer, then go buy one from Dell or HP. If you keep complaining that Apple is foolish to not offer one, I'll be back to complain about the lack of a BMW one-half series with a hybrid engine that gets 100 mpg and costs under 20K. Stupid BMW. They have no idea what a mistake they are making.

 

[saltyzoo]

I have a basic question about an underlying assumption here: Namely that Apple should provide a product lineup that covers every type of consumer? Somebody brought up Peterbilt earlier. They build big giant trucks. People that buy their trucks probably like them and buy more. However, since I don't need a big giant truck I go to the Honda dealership and buy a Civic.

Those saying there is a hole in the product line might as well beg for a Peterbilt minivan. All the arguments hold true. I'm sure they could increase total market share of vehicles sold if they sold minivans and sedans. Hell, why not motorcycles and scooters too? I'm sure there are Peterbilt enthusiasts who would purchase one. Hell, maybe they would pull minivan sales from dodge, ford, and honda.

That argument might be a good one if Apple didn't frequesntly state that they want to increase their market share.

Life is all about about making value decisions. You have to decide how much you want to run OS X on an Apple box (and i'm ignoring hacks and osX86 cuz that's just buggy and unreliable). If you don't feel it is worth it to give up your old monitor to get a new OS X machine, then don't buy one, and please stop complaining.

Who's complaining? Why does it bother you that we post that we'd like to see Apple do something and we think they'd be a better company if they did?

This is basic childishness. If you look in my sig you'll see I have an Thinkpad X40. I wanted an ultraportable laptop, a product that Apple didn't offer. So I bought one from somebody else. I didn't come to this forum and cry about the lack of an ultraportable Mac. I bought the product I needed. Is it perfect? No, I wish it ran OS X, but in an imperfect world, it properly balances my needs with what I was willing to pay.

I agree. It is very childish to get so upset that some people would like Apple to flesh out it's product line. I'll bet Peterbilt enthusiasts don't get mad when one of their own says they wish they could buy a Peterbilt minivan.

If you want a mid size tower computer, then go buy one from Dell or HP. If you keep complaining that Apple is foolish to not offer one, I'll be back to complain about the lack of a BMW one-half series with a hybrid engine that gets 100 mpg and costs under 20K. Stupid BMW. They have no idea what a mistake they are making.

And I can tell you I disagree that BMW should do that and offer my arguments for why I believe that. See how that works? I don't have to tell you you're not allowed to say it. I don't have to insult you. I can just disagree and if I think you're foolish enough to warrant it, I can even ignore your thread.

 

[imacdaddy]

13,217 threads on this already.

I think that number is a good indicator that there is a demand for a true desktop performance mac running Intel desktop CPU.

I've put off upgrading my iMac G5 to the latest iMac offered and waiting to see how the next Mac Pros will fair. Too me, the Mac Pro is wasted space for my needs in terms of "utilisation" of components and quite costly! I don't need 4 drive bays, or eight FB-DIMM slots on two memory riser cards...1 riser cards with 4 FB-DIMM slots for 8GB is fine. I don't need a second open optical drive bay for optional second SuperDrive. Basically, I need only HALF the components of a Mac Pro which makes sense to come in at HALF the size. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the latest iMacs but to me, I find the configuration a little too limiting and lacking the speeds of a desktop I need. For some reason, I feel like I'm being forced to buy a Mac Pro for my upgrade purchase because of this. There's no way I'm going back to Windows PC platform. So what am I left with???

Also, if Apple want to be more "Green" and environmentally friendly with their products, it makes more sense to have more "headless" macs in their product line. I agree with the OP regarding monitors/LCD screen. Each time iMacs get revised or upgraded, the entire unit needs to be replaced. Lets say if the iMac was indeed headless for example, and I bought mine back in '05 with an 23" ACD, I would have just replaced it with the recent iMac upgrade but able to keep my existing 23" ACD.