Will Apple ever make this machine?

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

what's the point. you're already past the $1500 mark at 2k, whats 499 more to get a Mac Pro that kills those specs?

Apple needs a headless 1k computer, not a headless 2k computer, imho. anything else has a screen parked in it or a crappy on board graphics chip.

Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.

I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.

The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.

For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!

First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

I doubt it. I've been waiting years to see a true desktop Mac and Apple has not come through. Unfortunately Apple just doesn't just want your money anymore, they want you to think as they do. In their mind your either a high priced professional who needs a quad or 8-core workstation or a very low end consumer who needs an all in one. They're incapable of seeing anything in the middle.

Given that Apple has probably deliberately misinterpreted requests for headless desktop Macs by introducing the Cube and Mini, I don't see it happening. They've barely tolerated the $1499 single processor G5 model when it existed.

I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.

The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.

For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!

Well, i think people that bought a mini just to "try one" without actually needing it probably have the cash to upgrade to mac pro...

The people that bought it because they need it would probably have initially bought an iMac or MacPro if they needed the extra power.

Since the average person is changing computers maybe every 3.5-4 years, I don't think there are too many freaking out over not being able to use their 4 year old monitor, at least not enough to make it of interest to Apple.

It is irritating, though, that the only option for non-laptop processors is Mac Pro. It's lame to have the lower performance of a laptop chip in the iMac desktops, especially considering they're pretty huge anyways... I mean an extra half inch thickness to get rid of the heat wouldn't be such a huge deal if it meant much better performance...

Don't think of it as a new machine, a mid-range tower, or headless iMac.

Think of it as a Mac Pro.

1xKentsfield instead of 2xWoodcrest.

Starting at $1799 (rather than the current $2299 for a Mac Pro).

The Mac Pro line would range from Kentsfield to Woodcrest to Clovertown...

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already? ;)

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.

Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.

Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market. :grumble:

Or the Macbook/ PC desktop market.

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

The Power Mac G5 was introduced in June of 2003. The cheapest model cost $1999. The second revision came in November, where the low end Power Mac G5 stayed exactly the same but got a $200 price cut to $1799. Other than that, there hasn't been a Power Mac since then that has had a price less than $1999.

The low end Mac Pro right now is $2200, and even though the $1799 G5 tower was only around for a few months at that price and every other low end Power Mac G5 was $1999, I'll say the difference is $400. Where does the other $300 come from?

Also, I fail to see how a computer can be fine one day and then 'obsolete' the next. Are we really supposed to believe that a dual processor, dual core Xeon is 'obsolete' because a newer, faster Mac Pro is introduced? There's no question in my mind that these 'obsolete' Mac Pros would smoke the Conore/Kentsfield towers being proposed here and I wouldn't be surprised to see the discounted towers selling for $1799 after newer Mac Pros were introduced.

I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

Edit:
I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.

Again, look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac.

How much of a hardship would it really be for Apple to just start offering this sort of thing at $1600-1800 as a BTO option for the Mac Pro? The case can obviously accomodate the hardware, the MOBOs are cheaper than their Woodcrest/Clovertown compatible counterparts..etc etc etc

They wouldn't even have to advertise it or hype it up very much, but it would most definitely shut everyone up and sell a lot of machines in a single swoop. Well, so I think. They could even go back to the Fast, Faster, Fastest selling scheme that they used to use.

What am I even saying this for? It will never happen. I think the real solution is for everyone to just suck it up and save... :\ :\ :\ :grumble:

First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

price way to high try $999 - $1500

business want system that are easy to open the mini is not that kind of system.

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already? ;)

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Your argument is well founded but based on price.

You are totally correct, at those price points, who wants to spend that kind of cash for a headless mid-range mac.

But you fail to discuss demand. There is certainly deman for the product. The problem has always been price point.

I'm typing this right now on my old cube. years ago when the industry was srong and I was makng fists full of dollars, I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, and ...... welll like I said, price was no object, I bougt what I needed regardelss of price and it was the Cube.

Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.

So we really need to speak from the DEMAND side. Trick is, Steve need to stop trying to gouge the crap out of everyone and price it properly. Something like $1,499. WHO CAN ARGUE THAT PRICE.

Lastly, he needs to create a new column in his strategy. Instead of Consumer and Pro, he needs Consumer, Prosumer, Professional.

Consumer (White) - MacBook, iMac 17 and 20, Mac Mini

Prosumer (Black) - MacBook, iMac 24, Mac (Headless cube, no pci, and 4 cores = Just power)

Professional (Aluminum) - MacBook Pro, Mac 24 Pro (4 core imac in aluminum), Mac Pro

Ok, maybe i'm going a bit overboard, but ou get my idea. The leap to the Mac Pro is too steep.

-Alex

You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?

It's probably a laptop.

another price cut from intel

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7006

desktop CPU prices sweet, sweet ...

only heat and noise were perfect we shall see them in iMac, thats not gonna happen next couple years.

with these CPUs, Mac Mini can be priced lower

Don't make it expandable.
Make it upgradeable.

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

So now, the people who want more expandability will be forced to buy the Mac Pro.

I believe the xMac we are talking about here falls into a prosumer line. It's offers the buyer more than a lowend computer but it is not the powerhouse of the Mac Pro. I agree that apple needs this type of computer in their lineup and here is why:

The 4 main issues I see problems with in apples current lineup are graphics card, expandability, footprint, and displays. Consumers see no need for a dedicated graphics card and therefore the macmini does not have one, and the imac and mac pro do. So if you want the graphics power like a prosumer would want, a mac mini is out of the question. But the imac is stuck when it comes to expandability and display...you cannot upgrade easily or have multiple internal hard drives, and although the imac has a Great footprint, many users already own displays (maybe even multiple displays). So the imac does not offer what the prosumer really wants in an xMac either. The only other option we have is the Mac Pro. The consensus seems to be that the Mac Pro is way too expensive for many prosumers and it does have quite a large footprint. And from what I have read in these threads, there is obviously a demand for something less.

I think apple could easily offer a "mini mac pro" or a "displayless imac" priced between $999 and $1999. If you look at the imac line, you pay for a laptop chip and a display...take away the display and add faster processers in and you can keep the same price points. Now all they have to do is design a form factor that allows for a few hard drive bays, pci cards, etc while keeping it relatively small.

Essentially what you have is a faster imac without the displays and in a different form factor. The only line it would really cut into in sales is the imacs, but it could be dubbed the iMacs twin or cousin or something. What do you think?

I believe the xMac we are talking about here falls into a prosumer line. It's offers the buyer more than a lowend computer but it is not the powerhouse of the Mac Pro. I agree that apple needs this type of computer in their lineup and here is why:

Excellent analysis of the problem, and your solution matches one I posted on page one of this thread, even the price range. So then, what can I say but "Right on."

:D

1) Mini Tower: Fewer drives, about three slot plus graphics slot, two optical drives, and a pretty high performance CPU. If Apple offered this from $999 to $1999, it would please a large group of Mac complainers, and give potential switcher something that is familiar to them.

2) Big Mini - Small Desktop: Large enough to hold full size desktop HDD and optical drives, plus enough space and cooling to have a high performance CPU option. Such a model could sell for a little less than the current Mini on the low end, and sell for more on the high end. It might make a good, general purpose office computer too.

:D

I like your ideas on what Apple could provide, and I think that each one of these are feasible. Personally, I would prefer a mix between the two. I think Apple can make a Mini Tower that is pretty small for a desktop, but can still be easily accesible for upgrades and high performance!

Great ideas though...now let's see it happen Steve.

I think they should get rid of the iMac.

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

I think the Mac Mini is the kind of computer a family needs.

The iMac, although pricey, is exactly the kind of computer a family needs.

Agreed, unless the family already has a nice LCD monitor, as many of us do. I have a 22 inch, wide screen ViewSonic on my music workstation. There is no way would I get an iMac for it, though I suspect I'll want an Intel Mac there one of these days. When that day comes, current Mac Pros will be selling much cheaper on eBay. Sorry Apple; you don't have what I want.

:no:

One question on my mind is where is the average consumer going to put all that iTunes movie and tv show content?

Right now it doesnt seem to be that big of a deal, but with the apple TV and a shift from owning a DVD to owning the file...we are going to need either larger hard drives in smaller sizes or the ability to hold multiple hard drives without cluttering the desk with externals!

I, for one, have an iTunes music library of 48 GB, movie library of 71 GB, and TV Shows comprise 40GB. I have a PowerMac G4 quicksilver with 2 hard drive bays. I just ordered a 750 GB hard drive to accomodate for my growing music and movie collection and I think this powermac is a great computer!! Now, if apple could add some newer technology in a computer like the Powermac G4's (while changing the form factor to something slightly smaller) they would hit a great market.

I know I am a pretty heavy prosumer, but is that not what this future generation becoming. I skimmed an article in PC Mag about how the next generation are almost as computer savy as the people that make the computers...loose quote because i couldnt remember exactly!

And that just asks the questions about storage...what about graphics, cpu, and display?

I, for one, have an iTunes music library of 48 GB, movie library of 71 GB, and TV Shows comprise 40GB. . . .

I know I am a pretty heavy prosumer, but is that not what this future generation becoming. I skimmed an article in PC Mag about how the next generation are almost as computer savy as the people that make the computers...

The word "prosumer" is one of my pet peeves, since everyone I've ever encountered who throws it around is anything but a pro. First off, everyone is a consumer: you, your grandma, google corporate. . . all consumers. Pros are people who use their computers to produce professional work for professional endeavors. Usually this means money. There are undoubtedly pros that operate fine on mac minis: I think mac minis are fine computers for many software authors. If you think that whatever it is you do requires a lot of computational power, screen resolution, or expansion, you might call yourself a power user.

Why the distinction? A power user today is not necessarily a power user tomorrow, but a pro today is a pro tomorrow. For example, if you have been in to video for the past 10 or even 20 years, you used to be a major power user. It used to take a custom Avid workstation to do anything meaningful, in pseudo real time, with a video project. Now, a bottom of the line mac with iMovie does a damn respectable job at it. Having 48G of music files and 71G of videos hardly makes you a power user, either. My old iMac G5 has a 500G disk.

As PCs (as in "personal computers") become so fast, there will inevitably become fewer and fewer power users. I do some pretty heavy shit -- mathematical simulations, 3D CAD, electronic circuit board design -- and I'm not even sure I'm power user anymore. A pro, yes, but probably not a power user.

Despite the fact that this "next generation" has been pervaded by tech products and information readiness to the point where anything other than "instant" is not acceptable, they are not necessarily power users. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they are bigger basic-consumer than ever. Apple, google, etc come out with new toys and they eat this shit up. If anything, the future is right on Steve's old roadmap: the PC is becoming more and more of a digital hub for consumer gadgets than it is a tool for heavy computation.

It's possible to upgrade the Mac Mini, but it is not the kind of thing the average person would be willing to tackle. Reasons for a new model:

1) Price. Using standard HDD and optical drive will lower cost of components.

2) More space for cooling to accommodate faster CPUs and GPUs.

3) Business is interested in a easily repairable computer.

4) Consumers want lower prices or better performance.

5) Increase sales and boost price of AAPL stock.

:D

6) Desktop ram, cpus, and video cards cost less them laptop ones.

If you think that whatever it is you do requires a lot of computational power, screen resolution, or expansion, you might call yourself a power user.

Well said, a power user is a much better distinction. But the fact of the matter remains is when a consumer of any kind buys a mac mini and it does not provide what he needs and he is not a professional so he doesnt need a Mac Pro...there needs to be a middle line for such "power user."

iMacs do not cut it with lack of expandability and built in display...read previous post.

The vibe I'm getting here is that 17 year old nerds seem to believe that buying iMacs will make them pariah among the League of Nerds, or that they don't have much cashflow and want to hook up to shitty hand-me-down monitors, presumably saving money from not having to pay for the iMac's display. Just mow lawns for a few more weeks, get the damn iMac, and quit moaning. The League of Nerds will not knock you down a rank for buying an iMac. I can promise this since I myself am I high-ranking nerd.

But really...whether it is a 17 year old that doesnt want the imac monitor or the 50 year old that has 2 23inchers, there is still a demand.

Apple clearly uses the marketing goal of product focus, in which they innovate and don't necessarily follow the wants or desires of a consumer. In this way, they can innovate rather than get stuck on pleasing people. However, what the focus of this thread seems to be is that Apple could easily do it and many people would buy it! You might not buy it, but there is a demand nonetheless.

The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

End of what story? That's a horribly biased example. The Cube doesn't compare because it was a UP that was only $200 cheaper than a DP PowerMac. It was good for the uppity style-concious (which makes me wonder why Apple didn't sell more) space concious, but pretty much no one else.

The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

I'd say that's patently false because most of the rest of the consumer universe doesn't even bother with any Mac at all. That $300 is half the average sell price of a computer.

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

Affordable for who? We're not all sitting on BMW budgets here. To get 2.33ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a 7600GT you have to work over $2500 and agree to buy a 24" display if you really want one or not. For $1400 Velocity Micro, a high end boutique maker with similar quality to Apple, will give you a 2.4ghz Core 2, 2GB of high end corsair RAM, a 320GB hard drive, the brand new 8600GT, both a 20x DVD-burner and 16x DVD-ROM, and a ton of room for expansion. You're free to buy the display and webcam you want. If it wasn't for Apple locking Mac OS X to its own hardware this wouldn't be a hard choice at all. Look, I'm willing to pay a premium for Apple and the OS, but I'm not stupid. I'm not going to pay a premium for hardware that doesn't do the job. Apple has the perfect case for the job, why waste it on only the super rich.

If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for.

I simply don't believe you are that naive. I don't know why Apple has not released a prosumer mini tower yet, but I can't accept the insufficient demand argument, nor the "Apple can't compete with a mini tower" notion.

To me, you seem to be needlessly defensive about the iMac, as though many of us here would like to abolish it. Not so, except maybe for one or two. The furthest I'd go is to say that Apple would be better off with a mini tower than an iMac, but there is no reason Apple can't offer both. There are many iMac fans in the Apple camp, and there should be an iMac for as long as demand for it continues.

A mini tower, however, can be configured in many more ways than the iMac, and it is possible to get all the performance and features of any iMac with a mini tower, with display purchased separately. In addition, a mini tower would be far more attractive to potential switchers, as a form they are very familiar with. The only unique advantage of the iMac is small footprint, which I think explains the iMac following.

So, if I were CEO and had to choose between the two models, iMac or mini tower, there is no doubt which one I'd pick. To repeat however, there is no reason Apple cannot offer both.

:D

Oh, I'm getting it. Apple isn't interested in this niche market you speak of. The amount of people that actually fit into your target demographic and would consider buying a mac, I'm afraid, is ludicrously small. Apple has so far cultivated a highly coveted position in the computer market by delivering a consistent user experiences: a brand. The cost of building, marketing, and maintaining a low-end tower in their product lineup does not seem to be financially intelligent.

Moreover, what advantage do you get from upgrading the components in a computer that is already far more powerful than you know what to do with?

My message since the first post I made in this ridiculous, circle-jerk of a thread is that "prosumers" are idiots who measure themselves by their tools and not their work. I rip on consumer audiophiles, too, and for the same reasons. The iMac happens to exist currently, which makes it a baseline with which to compare. Based on the testamonials everyone seems to provide (or lack thereof), I am certain the iMac is enough computer for the audience begging for a low-end tower. When I was 17 I also liked playing around with computer hardware. Then I got over it. If playing around with computer hardware is truly what you want to do, your best bet is to get a cheap PC and boot Linux. Again, the computer hardware enthusiast market is exceedingly small. You may be lead to believe otherwise from hanging around on web forums that are respositories for these folks, but the market here is indeed a small one.

To reiterate on final time, it's not that Apple can't compete in the low-end tower market. It's that the rewards are too small to warrant the development and operations burden of introducing and maintaining another product line. Please, please study your history. It's not just the cube.

Well considering Macs run Windows now, they are viable alternative for games. And don't tell me to buy a Windows box just to play games, because it's not really ethical.

Not for being snobs. . . for being idiots. I never claimed that I wasn't arrogant, either.

To Logan: if you want to play the latest FPS games on Apple hardware, then you'll want nothing short of the latest Mac Pro. Most games, however, will run fine on an iMac. Really, you guys have to realize that the market for the computer you want is small unless the price is very low, in which case there's not a lot of incentive for Apple to get into that market.

Since you had to ask, I do this because we have so many damn threads about low-end mac towers, and aside from the naive thread starter, it's always the same group of people in the echo chamber. Since you're new here I can't blame you for being suspicious.

The other aspect is that I'm exclaiming my near-certainty that Apple will not product this machine anytime soon, so moaning about is going to do you no good. If you want to actually prove me wrong, however, I'll give you the chance to tell me what you want to do with a low-end tower that you can't do with an iMac. Saying "I want to swap components" isn't going to cut it. Swaping components for the sake of swapping components is a niche activity and an idiotic one at that. I'm happy to trust the "honor system" here. By lying about this you're not really changing anything except the perception of this thread, which ultimately doesn't mean that much to me.

My personal advice to you is one word: eBay. About every 18-24 months sell the old iMac on eBay and buy a new one. It's surprisingly economical.

Call the wambulance.

This is a new incarnation of a very old thread. The cube didn't sell well, and the current iMacs are quite affordable and quite usable to produce high-end work. end of story.

So you say. History seems to indicate otherwise. If Apple felt it would boost their overall position in the market I'm sure they'd release the computer you're looking for. News flash: they haven't.

The reason why I know the target demographic here is 17 year olds is because no one but 17 year olds moan eternally about saving $300, maybe $400 on a computer (even though they're not really saving any money at all since the iMac gives you a display for the extra cash). The rest of the consumer universe gets together the extra $300 and buys the iMac during the same time that the 17 year olds are moaning about it.

er, ummm, 17 year olds?

I'm not 17, will be 56 shortly, and $300 to $400 savings is important.

I have an iMac iSight 20" with a G5, and I still feel frustrated that I can't upgrade to 802.11n so I can use Apple's new AppleTV, without having to buy an Airport extreme. A slot would come in handy.

I will be upset when USB 3, a new Bluetooth standard, a new harddrive bus like SATA becomes common. Any arguments for an AIO other than it saves space is a total rationalization. Both the Mac mini and iMac are designed for niche markets, albeit well designed.

Neither of them offer the ease of use nor the flexibility of a standard tower or shuttle.

Yea, it's only about, what... 20%? 30%? 40% of the PC market that Apple doesn't have? 95% of PCs sold are Windows, Apple wants a slice of that yet does not offer a consumer tower. Sure, the consumer tower has no market. :lol:

Realistically, we're talking about a very small chunk. Not everyone who buys a low-end tower PC is interested in altering its components. I'd say that less than 2% of the PC market buys low-end towers with plans to modify them. Office buildings full of boilerplate PCs account for massive amounts of the overal market. The enthusiast market is quite small.

rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.

...
rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.
Right now, none, my iMac isn't that old.
Later, if I wish to join the rest of the world when 802.11n becomes common, one of those would be nice. So I wouldn't have to create more clutter with an Airport Extreme priced at close to $200.

In the next year or so when SATA becomes the standard and I'm still rendering/editing off my current internal drive with Final Cut Express, maybe I'd like to buy an inexpensive card to add an SATA drive to improve my speed.

Who knows? Technology changes a lot more rapidly than I and many other people are willing to spend ON A NEW COMPUTER to keep up when a relatively inexpensive PCI card will do.

Use your common sense. It is a relatively easy concept that on the other side has become a common practice, which is obviously proved by the shear extrodinarily numbers of PCI cards available for a huge variety of purposes. Google a couple of sites, here's just one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=usb+2+PCI+&x=0&y=0

there 6 pages of USB 2 PCI cards(some oddball stuff thrown in, but mostly PCI cards) and 106 options. SOMEONE IS BUYING THIS STUFF IN MASS QUANTITIES.

To Splinemodel:

I don't think the market most of us are suggesting with a low-end tower is necessarily for enthusiasts that want to experiment and swap out things to feel like they built their computer. Rather, I believe the low-end tower fills the market that needs or DESIRES expandability. The Mac Pro is the ONLY computer apple offers that provide expandability without the loss of desk space from external HDs, airport express, usb splitters, etc.

What I tried to explain earlier is that the consumers are starting to understand technology a lot better. We are seeing HD in peoples living rooms, ipods all over the place, and ALL sorts of add-ons for computers (they wouldnt keep being built if people werent buying them). It is just a rising trend that more and more people know more about technology. Because of that...this would be a good market for those who understand technology.

On the other hand, it does not mean this computer is only for people who know what they are doing either. Believe it or not, there are consumers that want a mac, are attracted to the mac mini, yet are not convinced to buy because they want something more. The whole BYOKDM (bring your own keyboard, display, and mouse) with the mac mini wouldnt be much of a marketing ploy if apple didn't realize people already have this stuff and don't need them (plus it saves cost). But take it to the next level, and there are still people that have a display and don't want to get rid of it yet or don't need to if it will save them some extra cash while getting them better components. I believe people would easily make this trade, I would!

We live in a consumer world where people want more cheaper, and that is what we are talking about here. It isn't about what we NEED. Maybe for some but not most of us. It's about what we demand from apple to make our lives easier...and it could logically happen if enough show they want that. I think many have already stated that on the PC side that is a huge market, why would it be any different for apple?

It's been interesting lurking on this thread...

I believe irahodges has the right of it regarding what many folks would like to see out of Mac.

Lemme 'splain...

Personally, I'm a PC user who is desperately trying to get into a Mac but I really don't like my VERY LIMITED options. Being a card carrying, Rat Bastard Capitalist I'm not really into a company telling me what my options are. That is the very reason why I'm leaving PC's and Microsoft; They are trying to make consumers buy Vista. Not me.

I then come over to look at the Mac side of the world and all looks really nice. Very inviting...

Right up until I see that in order to get into a Mac I must either:

a) Buy an iMac with very limited options and no real future expansion.

b) Spend about 25-30% more to get a stripped Mac Pro.

When I look at the financial metrics of switching to Mac they really aren't there. If Apple had something like a mid Mac Pro that could compete w/ the PC contemporaries like the configurable Dell XPS line that would seal the deal right there. I would pay a bit more for a comparably equipped Mac, but as of right now that is just not an option.

Why Apple doesn't try for an obviously large market (it is where most PC manufacturers make their money) is beyond me.

I would love to know why.

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

If Apple had something like a mid Mac Pro that could compete w/ the PC contemporaries like the configurable Dell XPS line that would seal the deal right there. I would pay a bit more for a comparably equipped Mac, but as of right now that is just not an option.

Why Apple doesn't try for an obviously large market (it is where most PC manufacturers make their money) is beyond me.

I would love to know why.

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

Would you pay $1300 for a $1000 machine? Do you think that Apple would sell a lot more thousand dollar machines for $1300 than they do iMacs? Because that doesn't sound too competitive and reviews would trash Mac towers I would think. AIOs have the advantage that they aren't towers and its not an "apples to apples" comparison (no pun intended).

Apple has the best ASPs and margins in the business with a positive growth rate, good branding and mindshare. They make as much as larger companies but with lower infrastructure needs for inventory and support.

An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).

Name a premium brand tower maker. Not Sony. All their VAIO towers are gone. Nothing left but an AIO and a "Digital Living System"...a Core 2 Duo TiVO on steroids that is typically attached to a 200 DVD jukebox. Not IBM. Not Toshiba. Not Fujitsu. Heck, even Alienware is now Dell. There are a few boutique game tower makers like Voodoo but not a premium brand like has existed in the past with VAIO. Apple is a premium brand and has expended a good amount of effort to build that branding.

Why SHOULD Apple enter a mature highly competitive commodity market with entrenched combatants who's business models are built around high volume, low ASPs and thin margins? Especially with a product that would be judged much like the VAIO towers of the past...pretty case and accessories but overpriced and underpowered.

Compare that to what reviewers say of the Mac Pro...surprisingly competitive with Dell's offerings, expensive but good value, great workstation, editor's choice, yadda yadda yadda. Now with 8 cores.

Better to invest in product lines like Apple TV and iPhone where real market share gains and dominance can be achieved. Besides, Apple is sufficiently not a PC maker anymore that they dropped computer from the name. That should have clued folks in that a commodity PC market wasn't anywhere in Apple's future plans.

Vinea

Realistically, we're talking about a very small chunk. Not everyone who buys a low-end tower PC is interested in altering its components. I'd say that less than 2% of the PC market buys low-end towers with plans to modify them. Office buildings full of boilerplate PCs account for massive amounts of the overal market. The enthusiast market is quite small.

rickag: And which PCI cards do you need?

Anyway, I proposed a challenge to come up with real reasons why you need a low-end tower. So far, no real answers.

I wasn't referring to low-end towers. Someone who wants a low-end tower will most likely be interested in the Mac mini. What is missing is a mid-range tower between the iMac and the Mac Pros. I'm a long time Mac user and have no interest in AIOs or closed boxes like the Mac mini. I want to have the option to upgrade as new technologies are introduced. With the iMac and the Mac mini you are locked in. We aren't talking about enthusiast here, we are talking about those of us that do not want a closed box. There's a huge consumer market here that Apple is missing.

Would you pay $1300 for a $1000 machine? For the same machine no, would you?

That was not at all of what I was speaking...

Do you think that Apple would sell a lot more thousand dollar machines for $1300 than they do iMacs?

Um, no, but using those figures as the basis for a discussion is not realistic.

While I'll not speak of "ASPs" (I have no idea what that is) "margins" , "mindshare" or other industry-specific language what I will say is that the relative benefits for Apple to expand into a Mid market seem to be plentiful.

No not in the terms of a Dell or an HP, but in the terms that Apple likes, smaller areas of untapped growth.

Why make an iPod? The answer now is self evident. But rewind to pre-2001 and I'll bet you didn't see everyone walking around with a CD player. Why?

And what of the iPhone? Steve Jobs very strategy for getting into the overly saturated mobile phone arena is to get only 1% of the 20 million phones in use. (Taken from a recent Newsweek article with Steve Jobs)

That is a HUGE amount of cash coming to Apple if his goals are realistic, and clearly they are.

I think all of those folks, myself included, who are wanting another option are not wanting Apple to change itself or its business model. Much to the contrary, I like what Apple offers and I have a need/want in my computing life for something they do not yet make, but could.



Apple has the best ASPs and margins in the business with a positive growth rate, good branding and mindshare. They make as much as larger companies but with lower infrastructure needs for inventory and support.

They have snakes? :^)

An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).

Then by using that model, the current MacPro platform would be a just dandy jumping off point for a smaller midsize type computer. They already make an 8 core, 16g of RAM beast. Why not allow that to be paired down for those of us who have no desire for a beast that big yet want to be able to add components as we see fit?

Why SHOULD Apple enter a mature highly competitive commodity market with entrenched combatants who's business models are built around high volume, low ASPs and thin margins?

Yes, I think they would be better served entering the very minimally competitive world of Broadcast Newsroom intergration.:lol:

Having re-read what I wrote I can see how one could read that I was advocating for Apple to go tete-a-tete with the Dell's of the world. No. I believe that Apple is missing a larger market for cross over defectors who don't want to buy an all-in-one and aren't even going near the MacPro.

Better to invest in product lines like Apple TV and iPhone where real market share gains and dominance can be achieved.

Dominance in the mobile phone market? Is that what one would really consider a more viable and "open" avenue for dominance? Hmmm... that is a tough sell.

Besides, Apple is sufficiently not a PC maker anymore that they dropped computer from the name. That should have clued folks in that a commodity PC market wasn't anywhere in Apple's future plans.


Really. That's not at all what I got from it. But what do I know...

Thanks!

FOXPhotog

I think that there is a market for a smaller non-AOI in the mac pantheon.
It should be a single chip model
2 non externally accessible drive bays
2 externally accessible drive bays (dvd, BD, tape drive)
4 Memory slots (1GB Ram Standard)
2 PCI slots (one for the video card and one extra)
Assorted ports (USB, FireWire a & b, Sata, Digital Sound, Hdmi, Ethernet)

Selling price $1300-1400 Base with 20" monitor $1900-2000.

This price range and capability put it above the iMac (the combo cost the same or a little more than a 24" iMac) keeping Apples margins, Lowering price to consumers who want more versatility, and hopefully not cannibalizing iMac sales.

One of those PCI slots would have to be PCIx16 for a video card.

They could both be PCIx or what ever version of the Spec is current or needed. The ports should be of the latest spec but somewhat backward compatible.

...
An Apple tower would cost more to make (lower volumes than Dell or HP, higher component costs because Apple is a "premium" brand and must have better fit and finish), have higher margins than its competitors (35% average Apple vs 18% average Dell) and would have to sell more units than iMacs (which has a higher ASP) to maintain total revenue stream and doesn't contribute to Apple's total notebook component buys (like the current iMacs do).
...Vinea
Regarding your post concerning costs, the Mac Pro actually costs less than an equivalently configured Dell, splain that, since their components obviously don't effect Apple's overall component laptop costs.

I've have yet to find a single customer that went into a store and thought gee, I guess I'll buy an Apple computer because their margins are 35% and Dell's is only 18%.

Apple's just released quarterly results prove one thing.

Apple's growth in computer sales is overwhelmingly a result of laptop sales. "Why?" you ask. Because they are configured with what the consumer expects in a laptop. People are in fact switching to Mac OS X.

Apple's desktop sales are stagnant again. Apple is not gaining market share with desktops. Why? IMHO it is obvious. Apple doesn't offer anything, and I mean anything, that the consumer considers of value in their current line up.

I like the iMac, I have an iMac, but even I value Mac OS X over the iMac. I settled because I like OS X. Switchers aren't so inclined.8-)

edit: To add emphasis, Apple's growth rate was 30%, let that sink in a minute. It blows away other manufacturer's results. Then, when it becomes apparent the the growth is exclusively in laptops, I mean wow, really wow. No one on any board has come up with anything remotely logical to explain this other than consumers are not buying AIO and Mac minis because they are considered odd.