Are we any closer to a mini tower?

[LagunaSol]

the reality of the matter is, you won't come across any virii on windows if you take care of a couple of basic principles

You forgot some important ones. Don't open any attachments people email you. Don't download songs or videos (or anything else) from file sharing sites. Beware suspicious clickable links on web pages. Beware hard drives, flash drives, etc. with pre-loaded software. Don't trust anyone, anytime, for any reason.

Live in fear.

Yep, I think that sums it up.

 

[jmpage2]

the reality of the matter is, you won't come across any virii on windows if you take care of a couple of basic principles; don't use IE, don't use outlook, do windows updates and you're already 99% safe. I don't need a virus scanner on my windows pc at all. Never have, never will.

That's simply not true.

You can get hacked with a Windows box by just sitting on the Internet, behind a firewall, and not having the latest security updates.

Or, you can simply visit a website and get owned by an active-x exploit.

Windows is anything but secure. The fact that MS has to pester you to get AV software and spyware/malware scanners installed as soon as the OS is loaded should be clue enough.

 

[-hh]

I've tried (and failed) to find definate retail prices for previous macs to show that apple always had an entry level system, be it a mini-tower or desktop for about that price but all the sites that are supposed to have that kind of information just have pages and pages of specs or they list the retail price of the entire range as $2,400 with nothing to differentiate between one model and the other.

I wish there was a way of simply obtaining this information for the Power Mac range from G3 to G5 and the Xeon systems after that:-

Retail prices on release date

Geekbench Score

I've looked on the Apple site, everymac, lowendmac, google, all over the place and it's just pages of specs and no definite prices.

I've used lowendmac in the past to do this, and since the objective here is to find the 'starting at' (minimum buy-in) base price, the prices that they have listed are IMO generally sufficient.

If you search my posts, you should be able to find it, but I've restated some of it here.

It would soon show, at least in US$ that the price of macs has being ramping up slowly over the years and apple have gradually killed the entry level desktop market all together with the introduction of a slightly higher end iMac with a dated, 2 core laptop CPU.

Not in my assessment.

First off, the prices you're talking about generally went "High-High-Low-High". It hasn't been a ramp-up unless you ignore roughly half of the Mac's lifespan, and start counting only quite recent stuff.

Second, $2000 in 1993 isn't still worth $2000 today. Regardless of what we want to debate regarding inflation -vs- technology (hence, Geekbench), the simple bottom line is that our baseline wages & salaries have gone up, so the cost of a $2000 PC today is a smaller slice of our income than the "same" $2000 was 5-10-15 years ago.

For example, as per this online tool baed on the Consumer Price Index:

What cost $2000 in 1993 would cost $2944.06 in 2008.

And what would cost $2000 in 2008 would have cost $1369.22 back in 1993.

Thus, if we plug in to today a value of $2500 as a ballpark for a basic Mac Pro, what we find is the following comparisons:

1993 Equivalent: $1711.52
1998 Equivalent: $1942.00
2003 Equivalent: $2179.86

And if we go look for historical Mac baseline hardware for those years, we find:

1993:
Centris 610 introduced 1993.02.10 at $2,520;

That $2520 today would be $3709.52
Conclusion: 1993 was ~48% more expensive than today.

1998:
Beige G3/233 introduced 1997.11.15 at $1,999;

That $1999 today would be $2629.10
Conclusion: 1998 was slightly ~5% more expensive than today.

2003:
PowerMac G5/1.6GHz (IMO a poor machine): $1,999;
reduced on 11/03 to $1,799;
The (IMO better) 1.8 GHz sold for $2,399;

That $1999 today would be $2335.33, and
the price-reduced $1799 would be $2101.68 today.

FYI, the better 1.8GHz $2399 would today be $2802.63

And FYI, yes I am aware of the 1.8 GHz single 256/80 introduced 2004.10.19 at $1,499 (discontinued 2005.06.20). The problem was that it was a sour lemon 'Road Apple' that was actually slower than the older 2003 1.6GHz because its FSB was lobotimized to 1/3rd speed (600MHz), whereas the other PM G5's had used 1/2 speed (1.6GHz used 800MHz and the older 1.8GHz was 900MHz). Nevertheless, if you really wanted this $1499 Road Apple reject today, it would still cost you $1695.26 ... which is more than a 24" iMac.

Conclusion: 2003 was ~15% less expensive to ~10% more expensive than today, depending on if you avoided lemons.
EDIT: and 2004 had a really cheap lemon if you really were desperate.


FWIW, I picked 1993-1998-2003 as simply being convenient 5 year increments from the most recent date available in the CPI tool (2008). For those that are interested, this exercise can be done at a higher resolution on a year-by-year basis, similarly using whatever can be found for MSRPs of various Mac models from sources such as LEM.

For example, to step back just a little bit further to what can be said was Apple's first "entry" tower, that would be the IIcx.

The IIcx listed for $5369 back in 1989, which is the modern equivalent of spending $9208.59 for a home computer. And to put things into further perspective, the IIcx was $2,400 cheaper than the IIx back in 1989, which in today's dollars is a $4,116.34 price difference between models.


-hh

 

[LagunaSol]

Excellent analysis, hh. People have grown accustomed to judging everything based on the bottom-feeder baseline that Dell (thanks Dell!) has established, i.e. $499 for a desktop computer. Or a laptop.

A buddy of mine once paid over $6k for a PowerBook (after a hefty RAM upgrade). I was floored. I couldn't fathom paying that much for a computer, then or now. Note: equivalent PC laptops at the time were also in the $5k+ range.

Now everyone thinks that anything over $1,000 for a computer is a ripoff.

It's a lot like Apple's App Store. With the flood of $.99 apps, all you get is griping when apps are sold for more than $5. It's absurd. I've bought some $20 iPhone apps and they are worth every penny (a bargain, in fact). But I suspect quality apps like that struggle to sell because of the perception that everything should be priced at 99 cents. The pricing bar has been lowered to an unrealistic level.

That said, I do remember the days of the $1,299 Power Mac. It doesn't seem all that long ago. I agree with many of the posters that Apple has a void in its product line, which is the sub-$1,500 tower.

Me, I just ordered a loaded 24" iMac. Yes, I paid $2k for it. Yes, I could have built an ugly FrankenPC for less and spent my days trying to get OS X to run on it without complications. Yes, my time is more valuable to me than that.

My $2k iMac will be worth every penny, and will provide me with years of excellent computing. I would love to see a return of the sub-$1,500 Power Mac though.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Excellent analysis, hh. People have grown accustomed to judging everything based on the bottom-feeder baseline that Dell (thanks Dell!) has established, i.e. $499 for a desktop computer. Or a laptop.

The last time I was helping my mom set up her fugly Dell, I renamed the computer "Medusa", after the monster in Greek mythology who was so ugly that anyone who looked at her turned to stone. You should see the monitor's hideous LCD panel...it has a yellow-green cast to it no matter how hard one tries color profile adjustments.

A buddy of mine once paid over $6k for a PowerBook (after a hefty RAM upgrade). I was floored. I couldn't fathom paying that much for a computer, then or now. Note: equivalent PC laptops at the time were also in the $5k+ range.

Six thousand bucks?! Jesus H. Christ! Did he have it gold-plated or something? Pimped out with a Samsung 256 GB solid state drive perhaps...

 

[LagunaSol]

Did he have it gold-plated or something?

The guy had more money than brains, that's for sure. He maxed out the RAM, which was some laughable amount by today's standards, of course, but that RAM upgrade cost a pretty penny. I think the RAM upgrade alone was close to $2k.

The tragedy of it all is he used the computer almost exclusively for AOL.

That said, at the time it was not unusual for people to drop obscene amounts of cash on laptops. Because that's what laptops were selling for at the time, PC or Mac.

 

[dryjoy]

I use Pro Tools LE + various plug-in effects and software synths. The more cores, the more power, eliminating the need to sub-mix as often, if at all. My system was pinned with only 1 CPU, I have a lot more breathing room with the dual upgrade I just added.

I have 3 hard drives in my system. I need a minimum of 2 drives, 1 for the OS and 1 to record to. I have a 3rd for backup.

I would love a mid-range tower. There's plenty of people with hobbies that need power, or mid sized businesses who'd need more than the iMac but less than a £2K tower system.

Apple could still sell a 4 core Harpertown Mac Pro for £1,299 using the 8 slot motherboard and a 2.4Ghz CPU, then move all the Nehalm Mac Pros up to 12 slots for interleaving (including the 4 core model) to differentiate them from the entry level and at least appear to justify the additional cost.

A system such as that would suit a lot of people and isn't un-realistic spec wise, or more to the point, cost wise given how long Apple have being using basically the same case and motherboard design with only changes in CPU and bus speed etc...

I'm a musician too, my requirements from my machine are very similar to yours, and I would also LOVE this mid-range tower, just like you.

But I'm also an example of why I don't think we will see such a product. After umm-ing and ah-ing, wondering whether to get an iMac of some flavour or other, and playing with the idea of an e-fix build, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just going to have to pony up for a Nehalem quad.

It costs more money than I would really like to spend, and if there was a mid-range tower I'd have bought it already. But there isn't, and when push comes to shove, if I want the tower format and quad-core system, then I'll find the extra money. And Apple get more money.

EDIT: I should have added, that I am going to have to compromise on the display. Although I would love to have that great iMac display, I'm going to get a Pro and I'm going to have to go cheap and cheerful on the monitor. Because the sounds I can make with the computer are much more important to me than the quality of the image on the screen, this is a sacrifice I am prepared to make. The machine will only be used for music.

But if there were a mid-range tower, I might be spending the extra money on an ACD instead.
So, perhaps I've invalidated my original point. If there were a mid-range tower, I might be buying that AND an ACD, and Apple would STILL be getting roughly the same amount of money from me.

 

[-hh]

Excellent analysis, hh. People have grown accustomed to judging everything based on the bottom-feeder baseline that Dell (thanks Dell!) has established, i.e. $499 for a desktop computer. Or a laptop.

Its also very common to forget the time-value of money...

A buddy of mine once paid over $6k for a PowerBook (after a hefty RAM upgrade). I was floored...

I listed that Mac IIcx for a reason. At the time, that purchase was roughly equal to 6 months worth of home mortgage payments.

That said, I do remember the days of the $1,299 Power Mac. It doesn't seem all that long ago.

I recall some of them too...such as the Power Mac G4/1.25 GHz, which was $1299 in June 2003 - - but historically, we need to keep in mind what was happening:

First, this G4 PM was announced on the same day that Apple announced the G5 PM (for Fall delivery). As such, it was an End-Of-Life product announcement from the start, which would mean lower prices.

Second, it was also the very same day that Intel unveiled the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4. With Apple only having the G4 CPU to sell...at almost 1/3rd the clockspeed, it was quite evident to everyone that Apple had fallen very far behind in horsepower.

Thus, Apple effectively had little choice but to try to compensate for a lack of power to prevent sales from tanking even worse by slashing prices.

I agree with many of the posters that Apple has a void in its product line, which is the sub-$1,500 tower.

Agree that there's a void, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is in Apple's financial best interest to try to plug it, because yet another potential consideration with consumer-based DIY expandability is that it means longer lifespans in general, which means a slowing of hardware sales for Apple.

Recall the PPC 7300-9600 product lines where the 601 - 603 - 604 PPC CPUs were on daughter cards and as a result, it was easy for Joe Homebody to swap CPUs around and perform incremental upgrades. An entire 3rd party market sprung up to sell to consumers this alternative of upgrading instead of buying a new machine...and ultimately, who's to say how much this loss of business ended up hindering Apple...and maybe even hurting ourselves in the longer run? Its not easy to prognosticate.


-hh

 

[barkmonster]

I'm a musician too, my requirements from my machine are very similar to yours, and I would also LOVE this mid-range tower, just like you.

But I'm also an example of why I don't think we will see such a product. After umm-ing and ah-ing, wondering whether to get an iMac of some flavour or other, and playing with the idea of an e-fix build, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just going to have to pony up for a Nehalem quad.

It costs more money than I would really like to spend, and if there was a mid-range tower I'd have bought it already. But there isn't, and when push comes to shove, if I want the tower format and quad-core system, then I'll find the extra money. And Apple get more money.

EDIT: I should have added, that I am going to have to compromise on the display. Although I would love to have that great iMac display, I'm going to get a Pro and I'm going to have to go cheap and cheerful on the monitor. Because the sounds I can make with the computer are much more important to me than the quality of the image on the screen, this is a sacrifice I am prepared to make. The machine will only be used for music.

But if there were a mid-range tower, I might be spending the extra money on an ACD instead.
So, perhaps I've invalidated my original point. If there were a mid-range tower, I might be buying that AND an ACD, and Apple would STILL be getting roughly the same amount of money from me.

I have the same attitude to the displays myself. It's a means to an end. I'd rather sink the cost of Apple displays into 2 displays and a nice new controller keyboard (mine has a broken pan control).

A pair of 23" Samsung LCDs with a 1920 x 1080 resolution would be £309.98 in total and the Axiom Pro 49 controller Keyboard comes in at £317.99. It has full automation of Pro Tools' transport, mixer and even plug-ins. Has semi-weighted keys, drum pads... I HAVE to have one!

All I need is Mac Pro I can afford and the time to save for it.

I've seen used first generation dual 3Ghz Mac Pros for £1,100 - £1,200 on eBay. They're slightly faster than the 4 core 2.8 system apple dropped in January and can take 32Gb of RAM that's available in pairs of 4Gb DIMMs for £178.24. It would mean I could put together a fully loaded system for the cost of the current 2.66Ghz system and the Geekbench results would be something like this:-

8144 Geekbench: - 2009 2.66Ghz Mac Pro = £1,899 new

Or, if you want cheap RAM expansion involving ALL available RAM slots that can make it up to 32Gb for less than £600 with a little shopping around...

5508 Geekbench: - Dual 3.0GHz Mac Pro (2 x 2 cores) = £1,200 used
5438 Geekbench: - 2008 2.8Ghz Mac Pro (1 x 4 core) = £1,459 new (including airport)

Attached is my setup at present, the Axiom 49 Pro and the Samsung 23" LCD I plan on getting...

 

[LagunaSol]

Agree that there's a void, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is in Apple's financial best interest to try to plug it, because yet another potential consideration with consumer-based DIY expandability is that it means longer lifespans in general, which means a slowing of hardware sales for Apple.

True, but my bet says the number of potential buyers you attract (the ones that refuse to buy an iMac but won't pay a premium for a Mac Pro) offsets the potential loss in sales.

Obviously, Apple's bet is not the same as mine.

Though Apple's towers were never quite as "upgradeable" as one would have hoped. You can't just throw in an off-the-shelf latest-model Radeon card picked up at a bargain price via some website deal. You have to buy the Mac-specific card. Usually at full retail price. Which is usually double or triple the price of the PC equivalent. I never understood why this was. We're finally running on the same architecture as the PC world, yet we still need "special" hardware for our Macs. Why?

I remember flashing a PC 3dfx card and installing it in my Mac to run Unreal (that game changed me forever). Those were the days...

 

[Clive At Five]

Yes, I could have built an ugly FrankenPC for less and spent my days trying to get OS X to run on it without complications. Yes, my time is more valuable to me than that.

I'll admit, my first Hackintosh ("xHack," I call it) took me a while to figure out. Since Insanelymac has become the central hub of hackintoshes, however, it hasn't taken more than a few hours of research to find out the best hardware to buy and install method.

Really, it's all about the hardware. With an Intel-brand board, sometimes it's as easy as using a boot disk and swapping it with a legit Retail OS X DVD. That's what I did with my most recent hack. The bootloader took 5 mins to download and burn to CD, and Leopard took the expected amount of time to install, and then I updated a couple kexts, which took me another 10 minutes, tops. The whole process took less than an hour, and the thing works flawlessly, with native Software Updates.

Really, the only negative is the ugly case, which sits under my desk anyway.

-Clive

 

[LagunaSol]

The whole process took less than an hour, and the thing works flawlessly, with native Software Updates.

Until one of those native software updates "breaks" something. That's the fear that makes me steer clear (hey, I'm a poet and don't know it!).

When I look at a list of "compatible" video processors on a hackintosh site and see "ATI Radeon 4850: TBA" I know I'm in for more pain than I want (or need).

 

[-hh]

True, but my bet says the number of potential buyers you attract (the ones that refuse to buy an iMac but won't pay a premium for a Mac Pro) offsets the potential loss in sales.

Obviously, Apple's bet is not the same as mine.

Its hard to say just how much cannibalization there would be, but its obvious from posts in MR that it wouldn't be zero. The bigger problem IMO is that the primary audience for the proverbial 'xMac' is the Hacintosh-types, who won't be satisfied with any hardware specifications that Apple could realistically put together, since they'll invariably say that they can put together some variant that is (a) "Better" (however that's defined) and (b) "Cheaper" (since it will often include free labor donations for assembly and not include a simple turnkey warranty).

Plus, Apple is in a far better place to judge the risks, since they have all of the sales numbers to be able to crank through various scenarios.

Though Apple's towers were never quite as "upgradeable" as one would have hoped. You can't just throw in an off-the-shelf latest-model Radeon card picked up at a bargain price via some website deal. You have to buy the Mac-specific card. Usually at full retail price. Which is usually double or triple the price of the PC equivalent. I never understood why this was. We're finally running on the same architecture as the PC world, yet we still need "special" hardware for our Macs. Why?

Because of API implementations, and that the hardware vendor doesn't want to write & sell a single "Universal" product: they can either (a) save money by utterly ignoring the Mac market segment, or they can (b) make money by supporting the Mac market segment by extracting a much higher retail price because of very limited competition.

I remember flashing a PC 3dfx card and installing it in my Mac to run Unreal (that game changed me forever). Those were the days...

Sorry; I was still distracted by the less reflexes-driven Warcraft I & II, although I still do pine occasionally when I fondly recall Brøderbund's original version of Lode Runner.

Overall, entertainment has strong YMMV overtones.

Personally, I still prefer to 'slow down' with the even more traditional 'Paper & Dice', as it is a form of storytelling that can be completely freeform, and the visuals are left up to the imagination, where they rapidly get embellished by the interplay to 'better than new'. This past year's tournament had a sequence where I had a Player go from greedy glee to uncertainty, to fear and then total abject panic in the realtime space of only ~30 seconds, which then mercurially spread amongst the entire group into a chaotic uproar. It is wonderfully entertaining to watch for that first flash of recognition and then the ripple of horror that they've gotten in waaaay over their heads...its amazing how often 'Forbidden Fruit' traps flies


-hh

 

[barkmonster]

I've used lowendmac in the past to do this, and since the objective here is to find the 'starting at' (minimum buy-in) base price, the prices that they have listed are IMO generally sufficient.

If you search my posts, you should be able to find it, but I've restated some of it here.

Not in my assessment.

First off, the prices you're talking about generally went "High-High-Low-High". It hasn't been a ramp-up unless you ignore roughly half of the Mac's lifespan, and start counting only quite recent stuff.

Second, $2000 in 1993 isn't still worth $2000 today. Regardless of what we want to debate regarding inflation -vs- technology (hence, Geekbench), the simple bottom line is that our baseline wages & salaries have gone up, so the cost of a $2000 PC today is a smaller slice of our income than the "same" $2000 was 5-10-15 years ago.

For example, as per this online tool baed on the Consumer Price Index:

What cost $2000 in 1993 would cost $2944.06 in 2008.

And what would cost $2000 in 2008 would have cost $1369.22 back in 1993.

Thus, if we plug in to today a value of $2500 as a ballpark for a basic Mac Pro, what we find is the following comparisons:

1993 Equivalent: $1711.52
1998 Equivalent: $1942.00
2003 Equivalent: $2179.86

And if we go look for historical Mac baseline hardware for those years, we find:

1993:
Centris 610 introduced 1993.02.10 at $2,520;

That $2520 today would be $3709.52
Conclusion: 1993 was ~48% more expensive than today.

1998:
Beige G3/233 introduced 1997.11.15 at $1,999;

That $1999 today would be $2629.10
Conclusion: 1998 was slightly ~5% more expensive than today.

2003:
PowerMac G5/1.6GHz (IMO a poor machine): $1,999;
reduced on 11/03 to $1,799;
The (IMO better) 1.8 GHz sold for $2,399;

That $1999 today would be $2335.33, and
the price-reduced $1799 would be $2101.68 today.

FYI, the better 1.8GHz $2399 would today be $2802.63

And FYI, yes I am aware of the 1.8 GHz single 256/80 introduced 2004.10.19 at $1,499 (discontinued 2005.06.20). The problem was that it was a sour lemon 'Road Apple' that was actually slower than the older 2003 1.6GHz because its FSB was lobotimized to 1/3rd speed (600MHz), whereas the other PM G5's had used 1/2 speed (1.6GHz used 800MHz and the older 1.8GHz was 900MHz). Nevertheless, if you really wanted this $1499 Road Apple reject today, it would still cost you $1695.26 ... which is more than a 24" iMac.

Conclusion: 2003 was ~15% less expensive to ~10% more expensive than today, depending on if you avoided lemons.
EDIT: and 2004 had a really cheap lemon if you really were desperate.


FWIW, I picked 1993-1998-2003 as simply being convenient 5 year increments from the most recent date available in the CPI tool (2008). For those that are interested, this exercise can be done at a higher resolution on a year-by-year basis, similarly using whatever can be found for MSRPs of various Mac models from sources such as LEM.

For example, to step back just a little bit further to what can be said was Apple's first "entry" tower, that would be the IIcx.

The IIcx listed for $5369 back in 1989, which is the modern equivalent of spending $9208.59 for a home computer. And to put things into further perspective, the IIcx was $2,400 cheaper than the IIx back in 1989, which in today's dollars is a $4,116.34 price difference between models.


-hh

I just realised you totally missed my point.

There's nothing to distinguish an Apple Mac from a PC apart from the case design and OS these days so prices are comparable with other brands like Dell, Acer etc...

All those "equivalent to today" prices are meaningless now the PowerPC is dead and buried and there's no longer a mini-tower based on lower-tech but the technology is there to make it.

Why not use an existing intel motherboard design, pair it with a 4 core desktop CPU such as the Core 2 Quad or Core i7 and fit it in the existing Mac Pro case?

They used to offer low end G4 systems with 1 CPU lacking the L3 cache of the higher models and coming with less standard RAM and a low-end GPU.

They carried on the tradition with single CPU G5s being at the lower end, to further distinguish the lower end of the range from the higher but there was always a price point that wasn't WAY off so people with a lower budget can still have an expandable system.

Then the intel Macs came out, prices suddenly went nuts and apple positioned the Mac Mini as the "entry level desktop". It's a laptop for your desk with no screen, nothing more.

 

[nickane]

Hi, my name is Nick. I've been an xMac devotee for more than 3 years now and I just thought I'd stick my oar in. I post on these forums often and where the mini tower is concerned generally get a more unfriendly response than most of your posts and whilst I admit that Apple does not appear to NEED to fill the gap (especially with the market moving towards laptops), my experiences with my own friends tells me differently.

I work in the film industry as a Shake operator, and since very few ppl in my job make more than £40k, most of us buy Mac Pros and MBPs begrudgingly. Its a lot to ask a junior artist to spend when they're probably making less than half that whilst having to save up to pay their tax themselves cos they're likely to be freelance. Understand that MPs are provided for us at work and we only use our home computers for learning software, editing showreels every 6 months etc. Most of my friends from uni made some short films, edited them on macs etc. No, they're not rendering lossless 2K footage, so a MP would still be overkill but a 24-inch iMac still is not ideal. Most of my friends from school have become musicians. They all use Logic since the windows days. One finally just got an advance with which to buy his first mac (he was previously making do with Logic 5). They don't need a huge amount of power for what they do, but they need lots of RAM and preferably screen real estate.

If money was no object, all these ppl would buy mac pros or 24-inch imacs but all of them would be happier with a mini tower.

Needless to say, my friends are all semi-professional creatives (or professionals who would prefer semi-pro equipment at home), but I haven't mentioned the myriad home cinema enthusiasts and hardcore gamers I know that occupy far more populated demographics. All of these people are buying macs that are not right for their needs (often underspecc'd as they cannot afford MP overkill) and doing so less often as a result (even an underspecc'd computer can last a semi-pro user for many years, if that user expected it to underperform from the outset). They are making do because Apple will not offer them a system where they can buy themselves a 30-inch ACD and swap out a midrange tower when necessary. I'm not even asking for a replaceable GFX card. Just an iMac split in two. As an iMac owner of 4 years, I assure you that the novelty of an AIO wears off once you realize that only half of your computer is still of any use to you.

@ -hh, I think its a bit unfair to dismiss out of hand the fact that computers have gotten cheaper over the years, the way you did. Adjusting for inflation where computers are concerned just to make recent price hikes seem fair is a bit of ridiculous premise. You should also know that since Barkmonster is discussing prices in £s, the cost of all mac desktops rose steeply on balance with the dollar at the last revision. If you compare UK desktops:laptops vs US desktops:laptops, the prices are all completely skewhiff because the laptops haven't compensated for recent shifts in currency yet (Apple tends not to adjust prices mid-revision). I'm pretty sure that even the 4-core Mac Pro costs more than the baseline 8-core did during the last revision, maybe even an equivalent clock 8-core. This may subside if the pound ever regains strength, but in the meantime, desktops seem way overpriced in this country and I won't be buying 1 any time soon. Unless of course, they bring out a mini tower...

But the fact remains, they don't NEED to per se. Its just that a lot of us would be a lot happier if they did. it is really hard to know how many switchers apple would garner from such a product, altho I would suspect it would achieve more than the mini.

 

[crackbookpro]

It would cut into the sales of top end imacs and mac pros if apple made one. Apple is a bunch of control freaks as well. A consumerish mac that you can easily swap out the hard drive or graphics card? Easily put in a new processor? Oh the horror, the anathema!

I agree with Clyde, they are too smart in what they will market, and even smarter when it comes to how they will market. A 'consumerish mac' is what we all want, but can never get...and I believe never will get from Apple.

CrackBookPro

 

[-hh]

I just realised you totally missed my point.

There's nothing to distinguish an Apple Mac from a PC apart from the case design and OS these days so prices are comparable with other brands like Dell, Acer etc...

All those "equivalent to today" prices are meaningless now the PowerPC is dead and buried and there's no longer a mini-tower based on lower-tech but the technology is there to make it.

Question: from the user's perspective, why does he need care what manufacturer's name is printed on the components inside?

Answer: He doesn't. In the big picture, a computer is functionally a "black box" where we don't have to care about the minutia of what is happening inside: so long as it does adequately what we want, it doesn't matter if its driven by a PPC CPU, an Intel CPU or a dozen gerbils hopped up on Jolt Cola. Thus, there's only two primary variables that the consumer needs to care about:

1) Cost;
2) Productivity.

While "cost" is straightforward, total productivity is the more complex aggregate sum of many moving pieces, which includes not only the raw speed of the hardware, but also how efficiently that power is harnessed by the OS (think OS efficiency) and the End User (think UI efficiency) to accomplish the desired set of tasks.

Thus, it is possible for a set of technically "slow" hardware to actually outperform a "fast" set, because how well its power is utilized is also an integral factor.

They used to offer low end G4 systems with 1 CPU lacking the L3 cache of the higher models and coming with less standard RAM and a low-end GPU.

They carried on the tradition with single CPU G5s being at the lower end, to further distinguish the lower end of the range from the higher but there was always a price point that wasn't WAY off so people with a lower budget can still have an expandable system.

Then the intel Macs came out, prices suddenly went nuts and apple positioned the Mac Mini as the "entry level desktop". It's a laptop for your desk with no screen, nothing more.

All true, but this is only looking at ~5 years out of the past 25 years.

My point is that it hasn't been merely the "Low - High" as illustrated above, but it has actually been "High - Low - High".


YMMV, but I'm of the opinion that the "Low" price period was (so far) just a transient event. What this means to me is that if we ever want to see another "Low" period again, we should try to understand why it started ... and also, why it ended.

Afterall, do any of us really think that the prior "Low" period happned because Apple decided just just cut prices for the heck of it? So before we complain about the lack of the mini-tower, we should try to understand the Pros- and Cons- of it from Apple's perspective. Afterall, if it really would be all so wonderful for both Apple and their customers, do you really think that they would have simply left easy money laying on the table unclaimed?


{EDIT: quote sequence changed}

Why not use an existing intel motherboard design, pair it with a 4 core desktop CPU such as the Core 2 Quad or Core i7 and fit it in the existing Mac Pro case?

I don't know for sure why Apple doesn't do this, but I can certainly make an educated guess. The biggest concern I have is that desktops are 30% of Apple's total sales and that slice of the pie is shrinking. Trying to "grow" in a contracting market is a dangerous strategy, particularly when there's already signs of within-brand sales canabalization which are likely to be magnified.

@ -hh, I think its a bit unfair to dismiss out of hand the fact that computers have gotten cheaper over the years, the way you did. Adjusting for inflation where computers are concerned just to make recent price hikes seem fair is a bit of ridiculous premise.

I'm not trying to be dismissive: I've merely provided additional information on the historical Apple price trends, which means that readers now have a greater perspective with which to formulate their opinions.

Specifically, my point was to look at longer time intervals than just the past ~5 years. Why? Because Macs haven't always been cheap and just suddenly became expensive. For example, back in 1990, a basic Mac IIcx cost me US$5000...

And since currency values aren't constant across time, we do undoubtedly need to do something to attempt to normalize the cost factor across time. So if you don't like the CPI (as I used), then what specific benchmark tool do you suggest using instead?

For example, that IIcx cost me the equivalent of roughly six (6) home mortgage payments.

You should also know that since Barkmonster is discussing prices in £s, the cost of all mac desktops rose steeply on balance with the dollar at the last revision.

I wasn't overtly aware of that as a factor in this general topic. I do recall hearing that the UK got slammed in Apple's most recent pricing, but I haven't had the need to find out if it was {better/worse} than the very roughly 25% decline that the Pound had vs. the Dollar and Euro.

I'm pretty sure that even the 4-core Mac Pro costs more than the baseline 8-core did during the last revision, maybe even an equivalent clock 8-core. This may subside if the pound ever regains strength, but in the meantime, desktops seem way overpriced in this country and I won't be buying 1 any time soon. Unless of course, they bring out a mini tower...

Currency markets are a headache for businesses to try to manage/minimize that risk factor, and higher volatility from the credit crisis matters means higher risks and thus, less favorable exchange rates. In the near term, it may be financially viable to take a short vacation to the USA, buy the hardware here and take it home, particularly if it qualifies for a VAT exemption (or reduction).

But the fact remains, they don't NEED to per se. Its just that a lot of us would be a lot happier if they did. it is really hard to know how many switchers apple would garner from such a product, altho I would suspect it would achieve more than the mini.

I'd not mind having one either However, on the question of switchers, my thoughts are that when we get to this upper segment of the hobbiest market, I'm of the personal opinion that because we're more likely looking at the demographics of a PC "Hot Rodder" (and Hackintosh builder), the problem is that its impossible for Apple to make a large percentage of them happy. For example, if you build around the i7, then there will be a contingent that will complain that they should have instead built around the i5, or some AMD chip, etc. And if there's 4 RAM slots, the complaint would be that there sould have been 6...and if there was 6, then some will complain that there was room for 8, and if there was 8, then it will be pointed out that that's one short of 9, etc, etc. There simply is no winning hardware combination... and heaven forbid that it cost more than $100 than a bag of parts that one can DIY build yourself from NewEgg. Some customers you're better off without.



-hh

 

[eelpout]

To paraphrase, "It's the monitor, stupid."

I don't get this. Too many people here have drunk Steve's Kool-Aid. Apple tested the idea years ago of an all-in-one as a replacement for a midrange mini-tower. No one was clamoring for it (though there was a market), now people have accepted it as the norm. It is not. There is no reason to not sell a monitor-less mid-performance box other than to force people to upgrade to the Mac Pro. It's strictly marketing. What if Dell or HP did the same thing and had this huge hole in the line? They'd get hammered.

If they sold one 2.66 Ghz dual core box, with an available PCI slot for changing out graphics cards at around $1100-1200, they'd sell a ton of them.

I WANT MY CHOICE OF NON-GLASSY MONITOR ON A MIDRANGE MAC, DAMMIT! Sorry, all better now...

 

[Gasu E.]

That may be true, but desktop computers are hardly Apple's highest margin products. iPhones, laptops, software are all higher margin products. I would guess that iPods are, too.

So, Apple's desktop models are likely to have less than the corporation's average margins.

I just thought that the "insane" comment should be put in context. For a more appropriate use of the term "insane profit margins", Microsoft has gross margins over 80% and net profit margins more than double those of Apple.

MS' business is 99% software, with a virtual monopoly on a large part of their business (Windows + Office). You can't compare that to a competitive company selling mostly hardware. Apple's net profit margin is 23% more than their peers.

 

[steve2112]

To paraphrase, "It's the monitor, stupid."

I don't get this. Too many people here have drunk Steve's Kool-Aid. Apple tested the idea years ago of an all-in-one as a replacement for a midrange mini-tower. No one was clamoring for it (though there was a market), now people have accepted it as the norm. It is not. There is no reason to not sell a monitor-less mid-performance box other than to force people to upgrade to the Mac Pro. It's strictly marketing. What if Dell or HP did the same thing and had this huge hole in the line? They'd get hammered.

If they sold one 2.66 Ghz dual core box, with an available PCI slot for changing out graphics cards at around $1100-1200, they'd sell a ton of them.

I WANT MY CHOICE OF NON-GLASSY MONITOR ON A MIDRANGE MAC, DAMMIT! Sorry, all better now...

Yep, this mostly what I'm seeking. I don't really care too much about upgradeability, but I do want to choose my own monitor. I also don't need yet another mouse and keyboard cluttering up my house.

 

[jmpage2]

While, admittedly, the glossy display on most of the Mac lineup (and all of the iMac line) are a subject of taste, they still have a phenomenal looking panel.

Someone who posted above said that he'd much rather get a pair of 23" Samsung displays for what the display on the iMac works out to be. I had a friend who was spouting the same thing, until we literally put my 23" Samsung display hooked up to his new Mac Mini up against the 24" iMac display with the same photo showing on both and his jaw hit the floor. His next question was how expensive would the 24" ACD be for him to get.

Additionally, people can say all they want to that a Mac is the same as a desktop PC, but the fact is that it is not. It is an all in one with an aluminum chassis, and this commands a premium.

Similar all in one PCs sell from the PC big boys (Dell, Sony, HP) for only slightly less than the iMac and still don't look nearly as good or work as well (it's the Operating System stupid).

I agree that it would behoove Apple to release a mini tower, and I think that it's a now or never thing for them, with them openly expressing interest in releasing more affordable versions of their products during the economic down turn.

At the end of the day though, people will pay a premium not only for OS X, but also for the whole Apple 'experience' of getting US based call support, applications included on the Mac that would cost $150-$200 on the PC, no mountain of pre-installed crapware, etc. People conveniently overlook these things when making their 'point' about how overpriced an iMac or Macbook are.

It is true that it is possible to build or buy a better 'bang for the buck' Hackintosh for less money than a real Mac. The problem is it's still not a Mac. You aren't getting the bundled applications, the whisper quiet machine that has a tiny foot print and uses very little power, etc. That's the kind of thing that the Frankenmac crowd just don't understand. Many of us who do have the skill to build our own computer still appreciate the design elegance of the Mac and are willing to pay extra for it.

 

[BaldiMac]

MS' business is 99% software, with a virtual monopoly on a large part of their business (Windows + Office). You can't compare that to a competitive company selling mostly hardware.

I didn't mean to compare them. I just think Microsoft is a better example of "insane profit margins" than Apple.

Apple's net profit margin is 23% more than their peers.

No. It is 23% more than the industry (Personal Computer Systems) average. And only recently (since the release of the iPhone).

Over the last 5 years, Apple's net profit margin is only 11% more than the industry average. And they have more high margin products (software, iPhone) that the rest of the industry does not.

I am just saying that Apple's profit margins on desktops are likely within 10% of the rest of the industry. Hardly insane.

 

[eelpout]

It's kinda funny if you compare the top end iMac to the lower priced Mac Pro. You actually get less memory, less hard disk space, a lower performing graphics card (though it may be a wash because it's not mobile quality and has 256MB more RAM) and you'll need to spend at least $500-550 to get an equivalent 24" IPS monitor.

Out of the box, one actually gets less of a Mac, except for the CPU of course, a few more ports, faster SuperDrive and the "possibility" of expansion. Yet, you pay a lot more for it. It's marketing genius!

 

[jmpage2]

It's kinda funny if you compare the top end iMac to the lower priced Mac Pro. You actually get less memory, less hard disk space, a lower performing graphics card (though it may be a wash because it's not mobile quality and has 256MB more RAM) and you'll need to spend at least $500-550 to get an equivalent 24" IPS monitor.

Out of the box, one actually gets less of a Mac, except for the CPU of course, a few more ports, faster SuperDrive and the "possibility" of expansion. Yet, you pay a lot more for it. It's marketing genius!

I specc'd out an entry level i7 quad core Mac Pro (one CPU) with 3GB of RAM, 4870 Radeon graphics and 24" ACD and it came in at around $3600, and that's after my 8% discount on Apple Pro gear.

I decided that I'd rather spend $1870 on the 2.93ghz iMac with Radeon 4850. It's faster at single threaded tasks than the Mac Pro, has a very fast graphics card and the best part is I can sell it in a year for a $400 loss and roll the funds into the next iMac which will probably be a total revamp.

 

[Roy]

..........................
1993:
Centris 610 introduced 1993.02.10 at $2,520;

That $2520 today would be $3709.52
Conclusion: 1993 was ~48% more expensive than today.
...............................

Exactly what I bought in 1993. And I had to swallow really hard when I wrote the check for that one. Purchasing my new Mac Pro was no sweat. And there is really no comparison between the machines. The Mac Pro was way more of a computer than I needed, but I "wanted" it and I didn't want a mini or an iMac, even if either one of them fitted my "needs". I'm with my purchase and the price I paid for it. Now if Apple wants to send me a "rebate" check, I will gladly cash it.