An idea for a mid-range tower.

[shikimo]

I have a cube and I love it to bits. I still use it as my primary mac desktop admittedly because it's so damn pretty sitting on my desk but it still does the job.

The thing is that apple will never compete in a market where it'll get it's arse spanked and the pro/consumer tower is one where it just will, 99% of pc's are of this forum factor and most of them are unebievably cheaply made and shoddy. Apple just can't compete with this and I don't honestly think they should no matter how much I or any of you would like a "cube II".

Your logic is certainly sound, and you will probably be proven correct...but you know as well as I do that there are always surprises, good and bad, with Apple product releases. That was my only real point...and of course to possibly revive your long-ignored desire to own a small horse .

 

[whooleytoo]

I'm just "complaining" that in order to have a somewhat decent gfx card I have to either buy one 2,66 ghz dual core chip or a 24" monitor I do not need.

What's the point in buying a MacPro if one of the 2 dual core processors is just sitting around doing nothing all the time? What's the point in buying a 24" monitor just to fill up desk space in the office?

Don't get me wrong, I like apples computers and os very much, would never buy a windows machine and would love to have an intel mac now that Adobe CS3 is out. But imo apple does not offer a machine that suits my needs perfectly. So I'll try to wait as long as possible to see what happens, since I refuse to pay 1000 bucks for stuff I do not need. Maybe in the US "pros" have money to throw out of the window, here in Austria they don't.

I'd agree very much. To me, Apple's problem isn't pricing so much as choice. They need to make a profit on the pro machines, but also need to sell a lot of Macs. And they need to be careful that people don't buy the low-cost, low-margin Macs and use them instead of pro Macs. Hence, they've had to design ("limit"?) their ranges to differentiate them as much as possible.

Obviously, this is a key reason why gaming on the Mac has always struggled.

For me, I'd just need:
- upgradable CPU.
- upgradable GPU (with a choice of cards to buy!)
- a reasonable max RAM capacity.

and have no need for:
- a massive screen.
- a massive hard disk.
- loads of drive bays.
- DVD burners.
- lots of expansion slots.

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

 

[RRK]

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

I think Jobs' goal with Apple has always been to change the world and he is willing to force us to like what he thinks we should. He would like to force one button mice on us, he forced us to give up floppy drives, he wants to force us to use an all in one design and he wants to force big/hd monitors. I don't know iSights, Blueray, Multi-touch...

I love it all but I will still purchase my mice from Logitech, thank you.

 

[Apple Architect]

Agreed

...have no need for:
- a massive screen.
- a massive hard disk.
- loads of drive bays.
- DVD burners.
- lots of expansion slots.

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

I would agree with this. Think about it as a Mini on steroids rather than a cut down pro.

One card slot
One drive bay
One graphics card
One optical drive
....and a striking industrial design.

Drag people up from the mini rather than down from the pro. That said, I guess the impact on the margins they make on the AIO could be extreme. No margin on the screens.

 

[trevorlsciact]

I think the product line is just the way they want it right now there is no room for an addition except maybe an ultra-portable. But for the desktops its complete, you have the mini, covering the people who want a "cheap" Mac; then the iMac takes over for the majority, with a nice bell curve leading to the 24" prosumer targeted iMac; then the professionals use the Mac Pros. There is no gap in the coverage, it may not be exactly what YOU are looking for, but is what most people, and Apple, are looking for.

 

[iDave]

...but is what most people, and Apple, are looking for.

I disagree. "Most people" who buy desktop computers are buying WinPCs that are affordable expandable towers with separate monitors; not all-in-one Macs, or any Macs for that matter. There's plenty of "room" for Apple to go after those people.

 

[miloblithe]

I think that Apple will only build a mid-priced monitorless computer when they start selling monitors at competitive prices. Otherwise, they have little incentive to do so because basically it allows people to buy a cheaper iMac and but their monitor from another company. Why would Apple be interested in that arrangement?

Step one: cheaper monitors.

 

[trevorlsciact]

I disagree. "Most people" who buy desktop computers are buying WinPCs that are affordable expandable towers with separate monitors; not all-in-one Macs, or any Macs for that matter. There's plenty of "room" for Apple to go after those people.

I think Apple's Philosophy behind their lineup is that as long as we have the left to right covered we don't need to cover the up and down. They have all the price ranges that they want, and are reluctant to expand to offer different options at each price point.

 

[shikimo]

I think that Apple will only build a mid-priced monitorless computer when they start selling monitors at competitive prices. Otherwise, they have little incentive to do so because basically it allows people to buy a cheaper iMac and but their monitor from another company. Why would Apple be interested in that arrangement?

Step one: cheaper monitors.

Than what of the wildly successful, if badly in need of an update, Mini? Before Mini I would've agreed with you, but it's been a few years since Apple has seemed intent on making everyone except professionals buy an all-in-one. I agree that Apple could kick some serious butt with some affordable monitors, but I don't see it as a reason to stay out of additional headless hardware.

I think Apple's Philosophy behind their lineup is that as long as we have the left to right covered we don't need to cover the up and down. They have all the price ranges that they want, and are reluctant to expand to offer different options at each price point.

Nah, I'm with iDave here: the rhetoric of being the BMW of computers (i.e. "less than 5% of the market but doing fine, thank you") is good marketing and not a complete lie, but Apple is in business to increase market share just like everybody else. I think the real question is whether they think a midrange tower is going to lure people away from cognate Windows machines, as opposed to being a matter of sticking to the niche markets where they already do well. So far, the Cube misadventure is our only evidence that anyone at Apple thought this would work (see rest of this increasingly long thread for more discussion of that), but who knows what's going on over there in Cali these days. Besides, in the computer industry price ranges shift so rapidly it's obligatory to revisit pricing strategies in all sectors regularly, so that's no reason to bag out on a midrange headless gig; it could always be worked in above the Minis, below the Pros and outside the iMac.

I tend to agree with the people who say that too many lower-end pro users would buy it and tune it like a '72 Nova instead of buying a MacPro, a task for which the Mini is altogether too small and weak...but again, who knows.

 

[zero2dash]

I want a tower (mid or full) because I don't want to be tethered to a monitor. Yes of course you can add a 2nd monitor to an iMac but what do you do then if you want to use the 2nd as the primary and not use the built in at all? Put the 2nd in front of the iMac? That's an awful lot of desk space going to waste.

I like iMacs, they're great computers. I was going for a 24" but I think I've settled on the 2.66 Mac Pro. I'm wishy-washy as to whether or not I need all that power, but I do know that I'd love to have it (+ 2 SuperDrives) for ripping/encoding and burning dvds, so...I'll pay the extra to get it.

I do wish there were more choices, but I don't think we'll see it anytime soon. Seems like Apple believes that most users can either use a Mini or iMac and those who need lots of power will get the most out of the Mac Pro. The problem is, they're forgetting the people who want the expandability, not necessarily the power of a Mac Pro.

As for the question on upgrading a current system -
granted, the extent of my upgrading has been HD, but nevertheless...I went from -2- 80gig ATA Samsungs to those + a 320gig SATA Seagate in my XP PC. I refuse to put money elsewhere into the computer because I will be buying a Mac Pro in the next year. I don't PC game much at all so there's no reason to upgrade from my Radeon 9500, besides my mobo does not have PCI-e and AGP video cards are dinosaurs at this point in time. My 500w PSU is adequate (always has been), my 8x LiteOn dvd burner is adequate enough...1gig of ram is adequate enough (I'd like to have at least 2gigs but again, I'm not sinking money into this computer any more unless it's something that can go into a Mac Pro like the 320gig SATA Seagate I bought recently).

 

[RRK]

The problem is, they're forgetting the people who want the expandability, not necessarily the power of a Mac Pro.

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell. I think with all of the technologies advancing so quickly it isn't so simple as upgrading the graphics card and hard drive. By the time you upgrade one everything else is outdated as well. Those who do upgrades are mostly pro's and "elite gamers". Of which they don't really care about the small yet vocal gaming group.

 

[zero2dash]

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell. I think with all of the technologies advancing so quickly it isn't so simple as upgrading the graphics card and hard drive. By the time you upgrade one everything else is outdated as well. Those who do upgrades are mostly pro's and "elite gamers". Of which they don't really care about the small yet vocal gaming group.

Yeah, I agree...I don't think people 'upgrade' as much these days as they used to. At least I sure don't. My first several computers...added cd burners (several), ram upgrades, graphics cards, new hard drives, added PCI cards. Nowadays it's like you buy what you'll need and roll with it.

I think most Mac owners don't upgrade much anyway, at least not out of the realm of what's available. Memory and hard drive, that's about it...and I'm sure Apple sees this and says "we'll put that expandability into all our systems and it will suffice" and it typically does.

I dunno. The more I think about it, the less I'm upset about paying the extra money for a Mac Pro. Will I ever use all that cpu usage with CS2/CS3? Highly unlikely (minus those rare times when I use a Photoshop filter or import a high res graphic). But when I do work with video, it will be a godsend. And not only that...the computer itself is more future proof. When I built my P4, I wanted to build something that would last a long time and it has. If it weren't for Vista being crap (IMO) and wanting a Mac at home again, I think my P4 would be the last computer I own. Then again, I say that now...

 

[iDave]

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell.

There's an idea! I'll get a cheap disposable Dell instead of a Mac.

 

[RRK]

There's an idea! I'll get a cheap disposable Dell instead of a Mac.

If you would like to be a member of the majority.

 

[Dustman]

For me, personally, i dont really care about cpu as much as i care about gpu and ram, so i'd want:

-2.0ghz Intel Celeron (no need for other cores, and really, i dont do anything processor intensive)

-Intergrated Graphics (whatever the santa rosa's supposed to be using) or low(ish)-end 128mb graphics card.

-1 gb of ram standard (max 4 gb)

-250 gb hard disk

and a few pci slots to add soundcards, usb cards, video cards and so on.. and make it the size of maybe 2 or 3 minis stacked ontop of eachother. If they kept the price the same as the mini with the same specs, id buy it in a heart beat just for upgradability.

Someone please agree with me hahaha

 

[LoganT]

For me, personally, i dont really care about cpu as much as i care about gpu and ram, so i'd want:

-2.0ghz Intel Celeron (no need for other cores, and really, i dont do anything processor intensive)

-Intergrated Graphics (whatever the santa rosa's supposed to be using) or low(ish)-end 128mb graphics card.

-1 gb of ram standard (max 4 gb)

-250 gb hard disk

and a few pci slots to add soundcards, usb cards, video cards and so on.. and make it the size of maybe 2 or 3 minis stacked ontop of eachother. If they kept the price the same as the mini with the same specs, id buy it in a heart beat just for upgradability.

Someone please agree with me hahaha

Apple is not going to sell a computer with an Intel Celeron chip.

 

[Cormier6083]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

Think Different
​

 

[sikkinixx]

I would love Mac OS to work on any old PC, but since that isn't going to happen I guess I will buy a Mac again

My boss just bought a 20" iMac after years of buying PC's for home and for our office and he told me the best part was the limited selection. He LIKED only having to choose 1) Screen Size 2) Ram 3) Processor 4) HDD. Compare that to the avalanche of options Dell gives you and I can see his point, what Apple has now is simple and unconfusing (well Mac Pro has a lot of options I suppose but thats for Pro users so..). Sure it won't please everyone but it won't overwhelm people either.

Personally, I just want Apple to release a 12" or smaller laptop. I don't care if it is slow with only a Core Duo I just want small. A headless iMac would be groovy as well because I would rather spend $350 on a 20" Ultrasharp and be able to use it for a desktop, laptop and other stuff than be tied to the 20" iMac monitor ah well...

 

[72930]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

Yes two desktops: the mac mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro...

With a text/spreadsheet app on the iPhone, it could become an ultraportable...

 

[Cormier6083]

Yes two desktops: the mac mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro...

Oy.... never mind. Machalla!

 

[LoganT]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

Think Different
​

You mean 4 laptops and 1 server.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

You mean 4 laptops and 1 server.

No. Just because a machine uses some laptop components does not make it a laptop and the last time I checked, the Mac Pro was a workstation. Now what with the rumours that the mini will be discontinued floating around, the chances of a mid-ranged tower are becoming a big bigger, i.e. from no chance to slim chance. A mid-ranged tower would shoot Apple in the foot and I sincerely hope they don't create one.

 

[LoganT]

No. Just because a machine uses some laptop components does not make it a laptop and the last time I checked, the Mac Pro was a workstation. Now what with the rumours that the mini will be discontinued floating around, the chances of a mid-ranged tower are becoming a big bigger, i.e. from no chance to slim chance. A mid-ranged tower would shoot Apple in the foot and I sincerely hope they don't create one.

I know. But it's like laptop power in a desktop form. The desktop should be more powerful then the laptop. And how would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I know. But it's like laptop power in a desktop form. The desktop should be more powerful then the laptop. And how would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

If they used desktop components in the iMacs then they couldn't get them *that* much faster, they'd run hotter and they'd have to spend lots of R&D $$$s on designing a third hardware platform so its not worth it.

Why would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple. An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple). A mid-ranged tower would have to be very competetively priced with the competition out there. IMacs and Minis don't have this problem as much since the competition is slim, a mid-ranged tower would complete with all the Dells, HPs out there, i.e. nearly every other PC. What with all the R&D necessary to build such a new machine with a new platform, it just wouldn't worth the money to Apple.

Now what I *would* like to see, although still very unlikely, is a Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module. Unfortunately, I don't think this would fit inside the current case of the Mini and I doubt Apple would want to release a slightly taller mini. They could maybe do something like they did with the MacBook over the iBook though, make it flatter but wider. A Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module would be enough for those with the inclination to be able to upgrade everything they want while still remaining a clearly different piece of kit to what the competition has to offer.
The big problem is that a mid-sized tower is *asking to be upgraded* which Apple don't want. Something like an MXM capable Mini *could* be upgraded but its a bit of a hassle and most people wouldn't bother.

 

[iDave]

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple. An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple).

Are you a stockholder or just an Apple employee?

This thread is about hopes for a reasonably priced mid-range tower which would be great for Mac fans who hate all-in-ones and pro towers they can't afford. Apple is doing very well; better I think than any time in their history. Do they need to continue to be greedy or should they give the people what they want and increase the user base in the process? More Mac users means more available software, less expensive hardware and a healthier Apple. All good, in my opinion.