That's not right... Mac mini's don't take FB-DIMMs, MacBook Pro's don't take FB-DIMMs... I'm pretty sure it's just Xeon class workstations like the Mac Pro and Dell Precision that require fully buffered RAM. You couldn't interchange the RAM from a Mac Pro with any other Mac... I'm confused.
You misunderstand--FB-DIMMs are adherent to a cross-company standard. Every system that uses FB-DIMMs uses standard FB-DIMMs. The Mac Pro does not require some special, overpriced, proprietary FB-DIMM. In other words, it's not just overpriced RAM, it's different RAM. Maybe you mean "standard" as in DDR2 non-ECC DIMMs? The RAM is not interchangeable with all other computers--but it is interchangeable with all other RAM of that specification.
If other companies like Dell and HP can sell their computers at prices that rival machines built from separate parts, then so can Apple.
Dell makes something less than $10 on each of their midrange systems. Apple would shut down after about two months of that. They
cannot operate on those margins, because their costs are higher and their volume is lower.
As said above, it takes FB-DIMMs. Which are more expensive.
They aren't. It takes the same FB-DIMMs that all other ECC chipsets use, which is sold at the exact same price. DDR2 RAM is more expensive than DDR RAM--should the MacBook use DDR to satisfy your whims?
And you're going to ignore the reasoned arguments to focus on those?
What reasoned argument? That they could sell it and make money? They could sell hamsters and make money. They could sell tablets and make money. They could sell paint and make money. There are several major counterarguments which you're ignoring in favor of triviality:
1. It would be utterly redundant. It's a second desktop and it's a second midrange product. This, in the context of Apple, which has just 5 Mac products and has zero products in a number of categories.
2. It would be antithetical to their drive to eliminate beige boxes in favor of compact, efficient, designs.
3. It would reverse the trend toward integration and end-to-end product harmony, stalling Apple's clear aim to make computers appliance-like and worry-free.
4. It would have no long-term prospects. Desktop computer sales are dropping rapidly, and sales of highly integrated and minimally expandable low-end boxes are rapidly dominating that shrinking market.
5. People upgrading machines are a small niche group of computer owners. Apple is a small niche in computers. In order to grow, Apple must draw from the general user base, not the DIY base which mostly rejects Apple outright because there are relatively few compatible components.
6. If they had any desire whatsoever to do something like this, they would have opted to make iMacs more upgrade-friendly already.
I can't run OS X on a Dell. I don't want to buy a Dell. I want to buy a Mac, but they don't sell what I want, so I don't buy. This is nothing like food. You can get the burger elsewhere. I can't get the OS X machine elsewhere. Your comparison isn't apt.
If you walk into a restaurant, you have to order off the menu. It really doesn't get more simple than that. Sometimes you have to make choices in life. It's hard, but it's the way it works. Is OS X more important or is hardware selection more important? I understand that you wish it didn't have to be a choice, and I respect that. That doesn't change anything.
They all run on the same road. You can buy a BMW or an Audi. You want Mac OS X, but have to buy a Mac. It would be nice if they offered it in a package most people buy elsewhere.
It seems to me that all computers run the same Internet. That's the only equivalent to roads. You want to talk engines? Well, they're not all the same and they don't all run on the same fuels. You want a diesel car? You have to buy diesel fuel. Already have lots of regular unleaded that you've previously purchased? Looks like something to consider.
Saying "tough cookies" drives people away from Apple to go for almost good enough Windows machines that are cheaper, and as an Apple fan you shouldn't want that.
I really don't care. Customers motivated by price tags are not ever going to develop brand loyalty--they'll always move on to whatever's cheapest. I'd prefer Apple didn't waste energy pandering to them for short term gains. Apple is the most profitable computer manufacturer on the planet and are growing at a steady and sustainable rate. They're not going to diversify solely because it'll bring in a few thousand more sales.
You're mistaken if you believe corporations really do operate that way. There's a concept in game theory called "satisficing." Corporations seek to maximize success and minimize effort. The net gains have to be massive to persuade a successful organization to change its methods; a desperate organization needs far less prompting.
It's that kind of elitist attitude that keeps us in the minority.
When did it become the objective to be in the majority? If Apple wanted to take over the computer industry, they have had more opportunities in the past 30 years than can be counted. It's pure fantasy to think that they were oblivious to all of them.
That's not what you've done. You've made it seem like there's something wrong with those of us who want one, calling us all whiners because of a few posts, and telling people to go buy a Dell if they want one.
Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the whining was objectionable, not that every poster was whining. I have also said countless times that there's nothing wrong with desiring such a product. It is simply unrealistic to anticipate one and inappropriate to demand one.
But yes, people absolutely should buy a Dell if it fits their needs best.
I just thought it would be nice, and don't understand why everyone else can do it, Apple even used to, but they don't now.
It's called progress and commoditization, and it's already been explained. Once upon a time, people repaired printers because they were major investments. Now it's usually cheaper to replace them for SOHO models. Upgrades used to be extremely popular because computers were expensive. Now you can buy an entire new Mac for what I paid for my first hard drive, even in spite of inflation and devaluation. People rarely work on their cars anymore, rarely repair any but the simplest problems with small appliances, and yes, very rarely do any more than add memory or replace hard drives. Video card upgrades are even going out the window with programmable GPUs and more power available standard than is needed. Even the cheapest video card is overkill for daily use. Computers last longer and cost less. I have computers that are 3 years old that still seem brand new.
You'll get five solid years out of an iMac. At $1500, that's $300/year. You could sink $300 in upgrades into it at the end and get another year out of it, or you could buy a new iMac, which will be better in every way (instead of just upgraded in a few ways) and probably even cheaper. Year over year, replacement even now is cheaper than upgrading and that will only become more true.
DIY is buying and building from scratch.
Nonsense. DIY is "do it yourself." You're overcomplicating--whether it be construction or upgrades, it's still DIY if you're holding a screwdriver and PCBs.
You tell me those won't sell.
No, I didn't. I said there's no compelling reason to offer them in light of all the reasons why it doesn't make sense. The upgrade market is abysmally small. People on the whole just don't upgrade their computers anymore. They replace them. Expandability is not a selling point for any major segment except gamers, who already have a dozen reasons not to buy a Mac.
There's nothing to add to these hypothetical machines that the iMac can't offer. The iMac could easily allow for CPU upgrades or for GPU upgrades without needing a separate product. The fact that Apple's decided against this approach and still has no problem selling them should be convincing enough on that front.
