An idea for a mid-range tower.

[Fahrwahr]

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
​

Err, what beginning are you talking about? Apple didn't start making laptops until what, the early nineties? The Macintosh Portable (ONE laptop) was the beginning, but it was kind of a flop. The PowerBook 100, 140, and 170 (is that one laptop or three?) were the first in Apple's "modern" portable strategy.

If you're talking about desktop and portable LINES, you may be right: consumer and professional lines of desktop and laptop form factors. Unfortunately, we're seeing a contraction of options within these lines. If the rumor holds true, the next revision of the iMac will move the baseline to 20" -- that may be too large to be practical for some users. The Power Mac towers used to sell for as low as $1499, but the Pro raises the minimum by a grand. The MacBook (13") replaces the iBook line that in recent years had two sizes (12" and 14"), and the MacBook Pro (15" and 17") dropped the PowerBook's smallest size (12").

Is this a good thing? I guess it depends on whether Apple feels it's better to simplify the product line at the expense of customers who want more options. It may help them in terms of retail placement, but at what cost in terms of retail sales? Right now it probably means that some of the Apple faithful will choose to get by on what hardware they have now, when they might have made the jump to new hardware had there been a compelling option. (The Mac mini threads are full of people who were waiting for the mini to at least make it to C2D.)

Don't count Apple out of testing an expansion to the product line (iPod, iPhone anyone?). Just because one foray proves unsuccessful doesn't mean Apple won't try another. (Would we have seen a mini after the failure of the Cube if Apple weren't willing to try again?)

 

[LoganT]

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.

But people are already buying Mac Minis and buying the displays elsewhere.

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).

When you upgrade things like ram, or graphics card in the Mac Pro you are probably buying them from other companies. Less money for Apple.

A mid-ranged tower would have to be very competetively priced with the competition out there.

Not necessarily.

IMacs and Minis don't have this problem as much since the competition is slim,

True.

a mid-ranged tower would complete with all the Dells, HPs out there, i.e. nearly every other PC.

Well the Mac Mini competes with the lowend PC's, and the Mac Pro competes with the very high-end PC's. I don't see how they couldn't compete with the in-between.

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.

I think it would. Every forum and site I've been on with this subject has about 90% of the people agreeing.

Now what I *would* like to see, although still very unlikely, is a Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module.

They should of had this from the start. But I do agree.

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

Ala Apple TV.

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.

To be honest, if Apple did that I would probably be happy with just that.

The big problem is that a mid-sized tower is *asking to be upgraded* which Apple don't want.

The thing is though, there really isn't that much hardware made for the Mac. I mean you can't just throw any old Windows graphics card in there.

Something like an MXM capable Mini *could* be upgraded but its a bit of a hassle and most people wouldn't bother.

I think what needs to happen is, get NVidia to start selling MXM cards retail.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

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.

But most people don't want/care for an upgradeable system so the only people for whom a Mid-range Tower would be for would be for the very small minority of people like yourselves. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, it just would make bad business sense. One of the biggest selling points for Apple is the simplicity of their line up like other people have mentioned.

I honestly think the best thing we could hope for would be something like the mini but with an MXM graphics card. Basically the guts of an iMac 24" just with a notebook hard drive and a slower (but socketed) CPU. A machine like that would allow 3rd party graphics cards to come out down the line, could take better processors, faster hard drives, more RAM etc etc. The only thing it wouldn't have that some people want is a PCI-X slot although to be honest, we're getting to the age where internal cards other than hard drive controllers are few and far between. Everything's USB these days.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Mac Minis are designed for switchers who already have a display etc. Most people looking at buying a Mac Mini + a display, keyboard, mouse etc from someone else will see that getting an iMac would be a better deal and is simpler. Mac Pros have a much higher profit margin than any of the other products and besides which. A Mac Pro customer is expected by Apple to keep their machine for a long time. An iMac or Mac Mini customer is expected to replace their machine on a much more regular basis which counteracts the smaller profit margin these machines have.
Although yes, most people that reply to these kinds of threads are really for an upgradeable mini tower, most people who think its a lost cause or a silly idea don't bother posting in these threads. Quite a few threads like these pop up every now and again and I hardly ever bother posting in them because they go around in circles and we all firmly believe its not going to happen.

While no MXM cards are widely available in the retail outlets right now, its still a fledgling standard. Hopefully as it gains more support and use we'll start to see some cards available, particularly via part orders from the likes of Dell, which could then be flashed for Mac use if a similar chipset is used in a Mac.

 

[iDave]

But most people don't want/care for an upgradeable system...

I don't know why you say that. Nearly every WinPC computer sold that's not a portable is more upgradeable than any iMac or Mac mini. WinPCs command more than 90% of the market, so that's a heckuva lot of upgradeable systems being purchased.

Admittedly, not everyone who can upgrade a WinPC does upgrade, but the options are there. Why shouldn't those same options be available on the Mac side to those who want them, without having to spend $2500 for a pro system?

 

[LoganT]

It's not that people want all the features of the Mac Pro for cheap. Right now I can afford a Mac Pro, but I don't buy it because I can't justify spending that much money when I probably won't use the full power of it.

 

[Cormier6083]

Err, what beginning are you talking about? Apple didn't start making laptops until what, the early nineties? The Macintosh Portable (ONE laptop) was the beginning, but it was kind of a flop. The PowerBook 100, 140, and 170 (is that one laptop or three?) were the first in Apple's "modern" portable strategy.

If you're talking about desktop and portable LINES, you may be right: consumer and professional lines of desktop and laptop form factors. Unfortunately, we're seeing a contraction of options within these lines. If the rumor holds true, the next revision of the iMac will move the baseline to 20" -- that may be too large to be practical for some users. The Power Mac towers used to sell for as low as $1499, but the Pro raises the minimum by a grand. The MacBook (13") replaces the iBook line that in recent years had two sizes (12" and 14"), and the MacBook Pro (15" and 17") dropped the PowerBook's smallest size (12").

Is this a good thing? I guess it depends on whether Apple feels it's better to simplify the product line at the expense of customers who want more options. It may help them in terms of retail placement, but at what cost in terms of retail sales? Right now it probably means that some of the Apple faithful will choose to get by on what hardware they have now, when they might have made the jump to new hardware had there been a compelling option. (The Mac mini threads are full of people who were waiting for the mini to at least make it to C2D.)

Don't count Apple out of testing an expansion to the product line (iPod, iPhone anyone?). Just because one foray proves unsuccessful doesn't mean Apple won't try another. (Would we have seen a mini after the failure of the Cube if Apple weren't willing to try again?)

Well in Stevey J's beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that any computer product outside of the four square (Macbook, iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) is going to hurt the square.
Ex: Sub-Notebook: MacBook

Apple will experiment but it will not last.

 

[Fahrwahr]

Well in Stevey J's beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that any computer product outside of the four square (Macbook, iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) is going to hurt the square.
Ex: Sub-Notebook: MacBook

Apple will experiment but it will not last.

What would you call the original iMac? It was pretty daring -- no floppy, none of the legacy ports from the Mac line (ADB, SCSI, Mac serial), and not in a "serious" computer color. It marked a significant departure from the model-crazy years of the Performa and pre-G3 Power Mac lines. It stuck.

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now. But who knows what form factors and technologies will come about in the future? We may not be too far from the day when we see a Mac Pod -- a pocketable computer that connects to whatever display you have on hand. Apple might have some quality issues that lead the buying public to distrust the lineup, requiring a major revamp to get the consumer to forget the past mistakes. Tablet technology could mature. Another company could come up with a form factor that sweeps the tech world off its feet. The list goes on and on.

Daring to "think outside the square" is only bad if it's done in such a way to hurt the company, and I think Steve is smart enough not to let that happen. Yes, the "square" may lose sales, but if the company as a whole gains, what's the problem?

 

[Cormier6083]

What would you call the original iMac? It was pretty daring -- no floppy, none of the legacy ports from the Mac line (ADB, SCSI, Mac serial), and not in a "serious" computer color. It marked a significant departure from the model-crazy years of the Performa and pre-G3 Power Mac lines. It stuck.

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now. But who knows what form factors and technologies will come about in the future? We may not be too far from the day when we see a Mac Pod -- a pocketable computer that connects to whatever display you have on hand. Apple might have some quality issues that lead the buying public to distrust the lineup, requiring a major revamp to get the consumer to forget the past mistakes. Tablet technology could mature. Another company could come up with a form factor that sweeps the tech world off its feet. The list goes on and on.

Daring to "think outside the square" is only bad if it's done in such a way to hurt the company, and I think Steve is smart enough not to let that happen. Yes, the "square" may lose sales, but if the company as a whole gains, what's the problem?

The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.
I would now like to spank Quotey Deluxe

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.

 

[LoganT]

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now.

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.

 

[Cormier6083]

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.

Not entierly true. This is why Apple may be taking away the Mac Mini, because people don't want that "Mac". :[]

God knows I don't want that crapola. It's underpowered and it's a trap.

 

[iDave]

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.

I agree, and people also continue to buy used Macs because they don't have the choice they want in a new one. Why else do used Macs keep their value for so long? It's obvious to me that people want something they're not getting from Apple (or that they can't afford) so rather than buy new, they buy used. That isn't exactly good for Apple, is it?

The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.

I just don't understand that point at all. Does the massive market for iPod accessories hurt Apple? So what if you can upgrade your Mac with third party products. Is that worse than buying a used Mac to get what you want?

 

[Cormier6083]

I just don't understand that point at all. Does the massive market for iPod accessories hurt Apple? So what if you can upgrade your Mac with third party products. Is that worse than buying a used Mac to get what you want?

Ask the person who initial stated that. Thats what I think.

More accessible= more third party hard drives, ram, etc.

 

[iDave]

More accessible= more third party hard drives, ram, etc.

Cool, and Macs will become more popular because people can do what they want with them!

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Not entierly true. This is why Apple may be taking away the Mac Mini, because people don't want that "Mac". :[]

God knows I don't want that crapola. It's underpowered and it's a trap.

The Mac Mini's not *that* bad a seller. The 1.66Ghz Model is the 22nd most sold Computer or Computer Add On on Amazon. Its selling better than the 17" iMac (although yes, I realise that's on the hit list too for being cut).

It does need an update though. If they put Santa Rosa in it with the X 3000 and a C2D 1.83 and 2.0 then it would be a massive seller again.

 

[Fahrwahr]

The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.
I would now like to spank Quotey Deluxe

I'm not going to touch that phrasing…

Anyway, when a current Mac user wants to upgrade the hard disk or memory, do they always go to Apple? The memory and hard disk on at least some of the consumer models (the MacBook in particular) are known to be user-replacable, so Apple already sells machines that are upgradable with parts you can obtain from someone else.

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology. A video card slot would be nice, but it's not a dealbreaker (for me anyway). The point is to have a machine that's not as powerful or expandable as the Mac Pro but is reasonably powerful and expandable (full-size / desktop components) for its mid-end price.

The one question I have about what you quoted from Spanky's post: is there any way to know how much of a margin Apple gets off the display component of an iMac? For all we know it might be more of a headache to include the display simply because if it breaks down under warranty, it's on Apple's dime. Remember that Apple doesn't MAKE the LCD screens -- you can find several online discussions over whether the quality of the screen from one supplier exceeds that of another -- so Apple's having to pay the going rate. Elegant? Yes. Profitable? Hard to know.

 

[Cormier6083]

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology.

Thats my point. Then it's not a full featured machine. People want a desktop that acts like a desktop, not a notebook without a screen. And if Apple give that to them, Mac Pro sales hurt, iMac sales hurt etc and then it wouldn't be a "mini" tower... it would be too expensive. It would be easier to buy an iMac or a Mac Pro if you want another monitor. So I take it back... it would only hurt itself... Actually, I think my mind just explod. I need rest.

What do I know, I've never even used a Mac!

What I think Apple needs to do is to keep it under par with the rest of the Macs but not so underpowered and over priced.
The Mini-Tower idea would hurt the Mac line but if you make it unaccesible yet appealing, it would do great. This also fits in with the sub-notebook.

The Apple Rectangle is now complete.

​

Think Expensive​

 

[Cormier6083]

It does need an update though. If they put Santa Rosa in it with the X 3000 and a C2D 1.83 and 2.0 then it would be a massive seller again.

I agree. The thing is that the Mini has to stay underpowered and unacessible for the Macintosh ecosystem to function properly.

Think Confusing​

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'm not going to touch that phrasing…

Anyway, when a current Mac user wants to upgrade the hard disk or memory, do they always go to Apple? The memory and hard disk on at least some of the consumer models (the MacBook in particular) are known to be user-replacable, so Apple already sells machines that are upgradable with parts you can obtain from someone else.

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology. A video card slot would be nice, but it's not a dealbreaker (for me anyway). The point is to have a machine that's not as powerful or expandable as the Mac Pro but is reasonably powerful and expandable (full-size / desktop components) for its mid-end price.

The one question I have about what you quoted from Spanky's post: is there any way to know how much of a margin Apple gets off the display component of an iMac? For all we know it might be more of a headache to include the display simply because if it breaks down under warranty, it's on Apple's dime. Remember that Apple doesn't MAKE the LCD screens -- you can find several online discussions over whether the quality of the screen from one supplier exceeds that of another -- so Apple's having to pay the going rate. Elegant? Yes. Profitable? Hard to know.

You've hit the nail on the head with your second paragraph. Expandability is fine as long as there's one thing that holds it back. Now people moan about Bus speed but at the end of the day, that's not the biggest hold back these days. The best things to hold back are graphics cards and processors. You can upgrade a Mac Mini all you want but at some point that graphics chip just isn't going to cut it in plain old OS X anymore. Same goes for processors. A mid-ranged tower would have a much longer lifespan if everything was upgradeable. If everything wasn't upgrdaeable, it wouldn't be a true mid-ranged tower anymore.

The Mac Pros are different because they're for professionals who aren't the ones usually inclined to bother upgrading the processor of a machine anyway. Their more powerful so as to have a longer life and at that point its not worth the 'professional''s time to bother upgrading. Incidentally, while Apple have made upgrading the memory, hard drives and graphics cards as simple as pi in the Mac Pro, getting to the processors, while doable, is a mission and a half.

 

[cube]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

 

[Cormier6083]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

Merci Beaucoup


This makes me realize how devoted we are to Apple....

Just stop all the thinking...​

 

[LoganT]

Like I said in my original post:

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800 (FW400 probably)
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)-Soder it.
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

 

[cube]

No.

- At least 2 PCIe slots. One x16, the other at least x4 for Ultra320 SCSI.
- No aberrations like CPU soldering
- FW800, eSATA
- 4 DDR2 RAM slots, 8GB.
- Socket 775, Kentsfield compatible. Phenom better
- Desktop optical drive.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Like I said in my original post:

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800 (FW400 probably)
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)-Soder it.
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

They're more likely to solder the graphics chips than they are the CPUs. Most people would be more interested in upgradeable CPUs anyway (i.e. most consumers, not you or me). I honestly think something like a mini with an MXM is the most we could possibly hope for from Apple.

No.

- At least 2 PCIe slots. One x16, the other at least x4 for Ultra320 SCSI.
- No aberrations like CPU soldering
- FW800, eSATA
- 4 DDR2 RAM slots, 8GB.
- Socket 775, Kentsfield compatible. Phenom better
- Desktop optical drive.

Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.

Edit: Logan, you're original post said "But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much. They basically want the same expandability as a Mac Pro but cheaper. No my idea is: Don't make it expandable. Make it upgradeable.". Anything with PCIe slots is expandable and asking for FW800 and PCI slots is asking too much imo.

 

[cube]

Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.

It just has to have the additional slot for putting anything I want. In this case, for basic mandatory, not pro stuff (tape backup). Ultra320 is overkill for now, and you could do with some slower SCSI, but the only other option is x1, and which chipset has 17 PCIe lanes? They have at least 20.

No problem with FW800, it's not like it would be expensive.

The chipset probably has more than 2 SATA ports, like 4 at least. Why waste them and not provide two external ports (just the connector and cable change for eSATA)?

You can get a cheap eSATA bracket for the Mac Pro to route internal ports.