Hole in Mac lineup?

[TheMadBrewer]

Are you sure a Mac mini isn't good enough?

I have a Mini -- and the graphics processor is just not good enough. Personally, I don't care about expandability -- a "super" Mini (a slightly larger box is OK) with the GM X3100 GPA (or better), a bigger disk and maybe up to 4GB of memory would be perfect. Could get by with the same size box and the current disks if I had to.

If you look at the specs of a "high end" Mini and a low end Mac Pro don't you see some discontinuities? "Get an iMac" you say -- but I don't want an iMac.

 

[takeabyteoutta]

The base model 20" iMac is perfect for you needs and your price point. Get the mini-dvi to VGA convertor and enjoy the extra screen space that comes with dual-monitors. If you don't want/need the space, sell your monitor.

You could watch two movies at once... she gets her chick flick and you get your action. Obviously there'd be an issue with the sound, but I do belive there are ways to have one movie coming out the speakers and the other to headphones.

 

[CalBoy]

IIf there was a $1,000-$1,500 desktop option that would allow affordable migration from the PC world I think it would be a huge hit.

You mean like an iMac?

As mentioned above -- MBP specs in a desktop ... should yeild about $500-$800 in savings.

Again, do you mean an iMac?

Or, do you already have a display?
If so, what not get a macbook/pro/mini?
What exactly do you need to do that requires exactly the iMac's power without its display (or the mbp's portability)?

Why does that matter? A sale is a sale and it would also lead to more switchers i.e. new sales

If only marketing worked that way.
Apple, like any company, needs to optimize sales. That means that there will be a handful of disappointed customers and more satisfied ones (those who are happy to buy either a mini, an iMac, or a Mac Pro because those machines are right for them).

If you look at it from a marketing perspective, the desktop lineup is very complete.

mini- If you have an extra display and don't need much power, the mini is a great low-cost alternative.

iMac- If you need a good all-around desktop that is quite capable for most tasks, this is your computer.

[Mythical Mac Tower]- If you need a good all-around desktop that is quite capable for most tasks, but object to having a built-in display.

Mac Pro- For the professional that needs the horsepower and knows exactly why s/he wants a Mac Pro (let's face it; those who need a Mac Pro don't ask if they should substitute it for a mini).

In that desktop spread, only a handful of people would be disappointed by the lack of the Tower. Most average consumers these days either 1) purchase notebooks, or 2) get new displays with their computers. The iMac is a perfect deal for them.

That's just FUD. Does the phrase unsupported hardware not mean anything? Besides, plenty of people are already complaining that the current lineup doesn't use this or that card

It might be FUD, but it is part of Apple's marketing strategy. Nothing is 3rd party (even though it's all assembled in China anyway). Apple literally designs every part of your computer (unlike other PCs which are created by a dozen different companies and then are stamped with a "Dell" or "HP" logo).

 

[Santabean2000]

agreed

They don't need a new model. They need to update the mini and add a "high-end" one.

Well said.

Expandability is over-rated. Just give something that's a little more gutsy, esp in the graphics dept - that would meet most needs. Any more headless juice should be sought in the MP line up. External HD space is so cheap these days, and accessible, (see TimeCap).

MacMini - 2.2/2.4GHz, 128/256MB GPU, 2-4GB RAM, 160/200GB HDD

 

[Clive At Five]

Anyone who suggests that either an iMac or a MacPro is a sufficient alternative to "xMac" hopefuls obviously knows nothing about the differences between laptop, desktop and server-grade processors.

Those who say the iMac is good enough for most users, you are right. The iMac is perfect for the average user. Well, in 2002, at age 18, I thought that was me. I received an 800MHz G4 iMac as a graduation present and I was THRILLED. This computer would be everything I needed and more. GeForce 2 GPU, Superdrive, a HUGE 60GB HDD; this thing was perfect. Unfortunately, I quickly found that my little gem couldn't even play Unreal Tournament 2003. That's right. 2003. On a computer from 2002. I had 8 frames per second on the lowest settings. "Okay," I told myself, "it's excusable. Macs have never been good gaming machines." So I let it slide.

It happened to be, however, that I started getting into the film-making scene. I had consumer-grade iMovie, so no problem, right? Wrong. iMovie 5 struggled to add rendered text and transitions over movie tiles, and basically comes to a halt at any project over 20 minutes. Along with making movies, I started writing scores using Logic Audio (5), Finale, and Garage Band. GarageBand could barely stay afloat with more than a couple tracks.

Now it's 2008. I'm working on a stage performance with a group of hobbyists, like myself, trying to use GarageBand to help record our audio tracks. I'll be damned if I can record anything without getting stopped by the iMac, begging me for more performance. Sorry, buddy. I've locked EVERY track except the one we're recording on. I'll quit Safari, iTunes and AIM... maybe that'll help. Sometimes it does.

Fact is, I've been let down by my iMac, which is really a shame because it is such a neat computer. Doing average tasks, it is simply great. It does everything else I want it to... but since I do use iMovie and GarageBand and Logic and Photoshop and play the occasional game, I am a "prosumer." Sure, you'll say "Of course the iMac is slow, it's 6 years old." But I've been having performance problems since 1-year old.

I know I can't speak for today's iMacs since I've only played at the Apple Store, but I can speak from experience, that my needs are greater than the average user. I am fairly certain that I will outgrow a new iMac as quickly as I did my G4.

Meanwhile, I've been building and maintaining a PC to address my gaming needs (which are few... I classify myself as a "moderate-core" gamer). I know what desktop-class processors can do, and I know that they FAR outperform today's laptop-grade processors (which the iMac uses). The MacPro, on the other hand, uses server-grade processors. To date, I have not needed any more than desktop-class performance out of my PC, no matter how strenuously I use it. So to address the suggestions I will get about choosing a MacPro, I will only say this: I don't need 8 cores of server-class processing power. I don't need up to 32GB of FB-DRAM. I don't even need more than 2GB of FB-DRAM. I don't need 4 HDD bays, I don't need PCIe slots coming out the wahzoo.

I just need a desktop-class CPU, 1 or 2 optical bays, 2 HDD bays, 2 PCIe slots, and 4 RAM slots... I don't even need DDR3. I need a desktop-class computer that will run OS X, GarageBand, iMovie and Logic (and StarCraft II this fall). I don't need an anorexic form-factor. I don't need Xeons. I don't want a built-in display if it means I can't customize the other parts of my computer.

I realize that I may be part of a smaller clan of "advanced users" but there are more and more people who are actually learning how to use computers to do complex things. I am part of a generation of users who grew up with computers. The legions of "idiot users" will die start to fade out and we'll begin to see (especially as my generation starts dominating the work-force [and subsequently starts buying their own computers]) a greater need for computers that are elegant AND powerful. In the past, Apple has delivered to this happy medium but have chosen to STOP doing so with the advent of the MacPro... EVEN THOUGH this is where mainstream computing lies in the future.

The Cube was an awesome idea (and damn gorgeous) but it was WAY too expensive. If Apple could replicate this sort of an idea with desktop components and replace/upgradeability, I would be very happy, as would a whole slew (it seems) of advanced (but not pro) users out there.

We may be a smaller segment of the population right now, but we are certainly more numerous than the MacPro-using niche, so why not embrace it? To address the profitability concerns, for the record, I'll say that I'm willing to pay much more than the cost of a Windows bargain box if it means having expandability... and it sounds like many others are too.

Apple has the opportunity to reinvent the consumer desktop tower with an "xMac." There's no need for it to be an ugly "beige box" like other PCs out there. Just a Mac that embraces the idea that some people know their elbows from their asses when it comes to computing and want a Mac that can do what they want... not more, and not less.

Why is this so much to ask?

-Clive

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Anyway, my main desktop machine (P4) is also long in the tooth. Also, She Who Must Be Obeyed needs a new computer (She has a PIII still running Win98 -- won't upgrade) and my Mac Mini would be perfect for her -- allowing me to buy and new box (and get brownie points with Her )

I should also add I am very happy with my Princeton 24" monitor and my buckling spring keyboard and don't want to change.

Why not give your wife the mini and the Princeton 24" and get yourself an iMac 24"? You could keep the keyboard you like so much and give her the new Al one.

 

[grobelaar]

I'm in a similar quandry and have to say I probably agree with the sentiments of some sort of iMac Pro - whether the 30" monitor would drive the price too high I don't know.

Here's my problem I do a mixture of graphic design and game development. Ergo the switch to intel is a boon for me. Run Windows for game dev and Mac OS X for 'absolutely everything' else.

My problem is that the Mac Pro is a little OTT, but the Imac is particularly lacking in the GPU department. Admittedly a non-upgradeable GPU isn't ideal full stop - but funds etc are limited - and the problem would be mitigated slightly by having an option to at least put a highly advanced GPU in the iMac at the point of ordering. The ATI wasn't exactly great when it was announced many months ago and in the world of GPUs it certainly isn't getting any better.

In my opinion the top end iMac should at least have some GPU upgrade BTO options. Of course then you're back to the problem of Apple's rip-off upgrade prices.

 

[dbam987]

Mac Nano???

I don't understand why Apple did not just update the Mac Mini's to use the Intel X3100 & Santa Rosa chipsets when they did it to the MacBook's? I would be perfectly happy with that. Having an embedded NVidia 8600 in the higher-end would be nice too, like how they did it in the MacBook Pro.

This throws into question the end-of-the line of the Mac Mini.

Maybe they will introduce a variant of the Mini, called one of the following:

• Mac Nano (<-- preferred)
• Mac Lite

 

[Clive At Five]

I don't understand why Apple did not just update the Mac Mini's to use the Intel X3100 & Santa Rosa chipsets when they did it to the MacBook's? I would be perfectly happy with that. Having an embedded NVidia 8600 in the higher-end would be nice too, like how they did it in the MacBook Pro.

This throws into question the end-of-the line of the Mac Mini.

Maybe they will introduce a variant of the Mini, called one of the following:

• Mac Nano (<-- preferred)
• Mac Lite

They didn't update to SR because Apple uses the Mini to clear its remaining stock of MacBook hardware. Sad that they smite it so. It could be such a kick-ass computer.

And let's hope to Trogdor that they don't release a MacNano. Who on Earth is complaining that the Mini is too big and that it needs to be shrunk? If anything, people are begging for it to be bigger so it can use dedicated graphics.

Thin is in, yeah, yeah, I get it, but the Mini is anorexic. Please, Apple, put a little weight on her! I think most of us prefer a "girl" with a little more meat than one who's only skin and bones.

-Clive

 

[inkswamp]

I think you can see where I am going -- A Mac Pro is way overkill for what I need (and way more money than I can spend, having just bought an MBA). Yet the new Minis don't have enough oomph in the graphics, memory, etc. I really don't want an iMac since I have nice monitor and I still have some older PCs that I fire up every couple months to find things I didn't bother moving over. What I really need is a MBP but in a desktop inclosure

You're not alone in the wish for a mid-range headless Mac but on a site like MacRumors, you're going to be treated like a heretic for bringing it up. There are people on this site who will argue to their dying breath that a lack of choice from Apple is somehow benefiting you.

Aside from the excellent example you gave (of already owning a monitor) there are many of us who despise the new iMac monitor and all its glorious glare and reflection and would love to have a Mac with a different monitor. But that's not happening unless you cough up another $1000-1500 for a Mac Pro or drastically lower your expectations to the Mac Mini.

And to those of you arguing that expandability is overrated, please immediately stop using your USB and Firewire ports and remove any additional RAM and wireless cards you may have installed in your machine. After all, attaching those things to your computer expands its capabilities and is therefore not necessary. Right?

 

[inkswamp]

Horse has flies on it and has been dead for a looong time.

Low end = Mini
normal = iMac entry
then you have the high end iMac...
headless 4 core iMac? = Mac Pro 4 core

Apple does not see a hole - the hole is for us who want a $1500 non-all in one computer that has upgradeable graphics and desktop parts (processor, HD, memory). Apple does not have a $$ space in the lineup to drop something in without cannibalizing iMac sales - which they do not want to do - and it may also confuse the new switchers. If you want a headless 4 core mac the 4 core mac Pro is it.

People made this same argument against the possibility of a Mac Mini, the high-end iMac with a large screen and most recently, against the MacBook Air. The idea that Apple will forego a successful product because it might cannibalize other products is not supported by any of Apple's actions to date.

Here's the deal. As Apple becomes more popular, they are going to have more people to cater to and therefore more "holes" in their line-up. Some of you seem to be implying that Apple isn't up to this task. If so, expect Apple's growth to slow and stop soon.

And the idea that PC users, coming from a world with a plethora of all types of computer hardware in every imagineable configuration, are going to be somehow confused or overwhelmed by Apple's relatively paltry offerings is ludicrious. Seriously, go look at Dell or HP's site and then come back and look at Apple's. Apple could double the offerings in their current line-up and still be simplistic looking by comparison to the typical PC maker.

 

[ziwi]

People made this same argument against the possibility of a Mac Mini, the high-end iMac with a large screen and most recently, against the MacBook Air. The idea that Apple will forego a successful product because it might cannibalize other products is not supported by any of Apple's actions to date.

Here's the deal. As Apple becomes more popular, they are going to have more people to cater to and therefore more "holes" in their line-up. Some of you seem to be implying that Apple isn't up to this task. If so, expect Apple's growth to slow and stop soon.

And the idea that PC users, coming from a world with a plethora of all types of computer hardware in every imagineable configuration, are going to be somehow confused or overwhelmed by Apple's relatively paltry offerings is ludicrious. Seriously, go look at Dell or HP's site and then come back and look at Apple's. Apple could double the offerings in their current line-up and still be simplistic looking by comparison to the typical PC maker.

I basically gave up on it because when I saw the new Mac Pro price points in January I thought to myself - this is the price hole Apple needs to get the desktop variant in there - perfect opportunity at MacWorld...nothing. If you were not going to do it then - then when? - it is not going to happen -that is the only reason you can even get a single chip 4 core Mac Pro.

Apple does not use desktop chips - it is a shame really - there are many nice ones out there - perhaps they just don't want to update the lines that frequently - no one can explain it - but it hasn't happened and I doubt it ever will. I would love a $1500 entry price point in an expandable machine that is not an all in one - they had it before and the prices have crept up continuously - it has not happened and won't - I thought it would be in the cards with the intel move...nothing - give up the dream, wish whatever you want to call it. APPLE does not use desktop chips and no one can explain why...

 

[Clive At Five]

I would love a $1500 entry price point in an expandable machine that is not an all in one - they had it before and the prices have crept up continuously - it has not happened and won't - I thought it would be in the cards with the intel move...nothing - give up the dream, wish whatever you want to call it. APPLE does not use desktop chips and no one can explain why...

What are you talking about? Apple had $1500 G3s, G4s and G5s! They KILLED $1500 desktops with the Intel move.

I can see why they opted for the Xeon as the replacement for the G5, which at the time was performing above the Xeon. But why they opted for mobile CPUs for the rest of the lineup, I will never understand. They were able to cram G4s and G5s into the iMac... why not put a single Xeon in there? At the very MINIMUM, they should've used a desktop CPU. Now they're using more expensive CPUs with worse performance. What sense does that make? Again, Apple needs to reinvest in design so that they can either use desktop CPUs in desktops or make us a freaking xMac already.

And, damn, I feel bad for the MacMini... getting the MacBook's table scraps. What a fate.

-Clive

 

[gotzero]

What are you talking about? Apple had $1500 G3s, G4s and G5s! They KILLED $1500 desktops with the Intel move.

Now they're using more expensive CPUs with worse performance. What sense does that make? Again, Apple needs to reinvest in design so that they can either use desktop CPUs in desktops or make us a freaking xMac already.

And, damn, I feel bad for the MacMini... getting the MacBook's table scraps. What a fate.

-Clive

$1500 entry needs to come around again. Agreed.

The laptop parts make it thin. The imac thickness seems to be a selling point. I would be much more seriously interested in them if they actually outperformed my laptop...

The mini has a place, but it would be awesome to have a desktop processor and a couple of HDD bays in something with the mini's size and looks but 4x the height. I would be all over more than one of these.

I can easily afford a pro, but I do not *need* all of that power, and I do not want to run something sucking so much power 24/7. For my requirements, the underpowered mini was a better choice than the overpowered pro.

 

[PNW]

You mean like an iMac?

Again, do you mean an iMac?

Or, do you already have a display?
If so, what not get a macbook/pro/mini?
What exactly do you need to do that requires exactly the iMac's power without its display (or the mbp's portability)?

Digital darkroom work, which just won't work with a glossy screen. Yes I can (and may wind up) using my second monitor for final color adjustment but that still strikes me as a kludge and a significant shortcoming in the iMac. I don't need / want to pay for portability and the MP is way too much computer and way out my price range anyway.

It might be FUD, but it is part of Apple's marketing strategy. Nothing is 3rd party (even though it's all assembled in China anyway). Apple literally designs every part of your computer (unlike other PCs which are created by a dozen different companies and then are stamped with a "Dell" or "HP" logo).

The last I looked Nvidia and ATI were not part of Apple?

Anyone who suggests that either an iMac or a MacPro is a sufficient alternative to "xMac" hopefuls obviously knows nothing about the differences between laptop, desktop and server-grade processors.

...

Why is this so much to ask?

-Clive

Best post on this topic I've ever seen! Really well put!

Well said.

Expandability is over-rated. Just give something that's a little more gutsy, esp in the graphics dept - that would meet most needs. Any more headless juice should be sought in the MP line up. External HD space is so cheap these days, and accessible, (see TimeCap).

MacMini - 2.2/2.4GHz, 128/256MB GPU, 2-4GB RAM, 160/200GB HDD

I don't think expandability (or more so ugradadeability and serviceability) are over rated, however I'd be really happy with those options on something as locked up as the mini.


This is definitely a hole and at some point it will start costing Apple market share. It also fuels the 'Macs are nice but more expensive' line of thinking. Apple is really fortunate that Vista is such a POS, otherwise they'd see fewer people settling for their hardware just to get OS X.

 

[CalBoy]

way out my price range anyway.

I think this is the real reason people are wanting a Mac Tower. The current lineup is a decent spread, but not everyone has the money to pay for a Mac Pro.

To which I answer, Apple can't make everyone happy. In order to keep units moving (and let's face it; Apple is moving far more units today than it was when there was a G4 tower), some aspects of the market need to be left behind. Everyone can't be pleased (as in both you and Apple). When it comes to which units will be the most successful sellers, Apple has determined that the iMac and Mac Pro are the right distance apart in features and pricing.

The last I looked Nvidia and ATI were not part of Apple?

I wrote "designed" in my post.
In either case, Apple still makes a concerted effort to ensure that it has designed its software to work closely with whatever hardware it has chosen to produce.

HP or Dell really doesn't have a choice in that regard; it's whatever Microsoft and various other 3rd party hardware dealers decide to give them at a low price.

This is definitely a hole and at some point it will start costing Apple market share.

I doubt it. Most of Apple's sales are in notebooks (have been for a few years now) and the "switcher" market is really defined by macbooks and iMacs.

Besides, if what you assert is true, we would have seen a decline in Mac sales by this point (it's been a while since there was a $1500 tower).

The opposite has been observed in real life figures (Mac sales continue to grow very quickly and healthily quarter over quarter, year over year) so I think we can safely assume that Apple's marketing and sales teams know what they're doing.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

But why they opted for mobile CPUs for the rest of the lineup, I will never understand.

No mystery. There's no way to cool a desktop CPU (and its power supply) in
an iMac package. As long as the fetishes for 'slim' and 'AIO' trump all technical
considerations, you'll never see a desktop CPU or a high-power graphics card.

...one more example of form before function,

LK

 

[inkswamp]

No mystery. There's no way to cool a desktop CPU (and its power supply) in
an iMac package. As long as the fetishes for 'slim' and 'AIO' trump all technical
considerations, you'll never see a desktop CPU or a high-power graphics card.

Right. The real mystery is why they won't just offer a consumer-level Mac that isn't an iMac. They wouldn't have to force a desktop class chip into an iMac if they offered a headless, mid-range tower, maybe something like the Mac Mini but taller. Something in the $1000-1500 price range and it would, I'm betting, not eat in to the Mac Pro sales nor would it damage the iMac sales too badly. Hell, even if it did diminish some iMac sales, I know PC users who want this very thing before they consider a Mac.

 

[PNW]

I think this is the real reason people are wanting a Mac Tower. The current lineup is a decent spread, but not everyone has the money to pay for a Mac Pro.

If you mean that we can go to newegg and build our own tower that will out spec an iMac for around $1200, so we balk at having to spend twice that on something with way more power than we'll ever need, then yes.

If you're implying that we actually want a MP but don't want to pay for one, then no.

Besides, if what you assert is true, we would have seen a decline in Mac sales by this point (it's been a while since there was a $1500 tower).

The opposite has been observed in real life figures (Mac sales continue to grow very quickly and healthily quarter over quarter, year over year) so I think we can safely assume that Apple's marketing and sales teams know what they're doing.

No I'm asserting that Apple's growth will plateau out as it runs out of Windows users who want (or are willing to settle for) laptops and all-in-ones. If it wants to keep growing it will have to meet the needs of other users. Specifically gamers, power users, and businesses with IT staffs.

 

[CalBoy]

No I'm asserting that Apple's growth will plateau out as it runs out of Windows users who want (or are willing to settle for) laptops and all-in-ones.

Considering the fact that other PC makers are copying Apple's iMac design (anyone seen the Sony and Dell iMac copycats?), I don't think this is a concern. In the future, the consumer market (everyday users who don't do anything important with their computers) will likely be only notebook users (with a few desktops like iMacs or minis for families with children and schools) as they are able to offer portability and size advantages over desktops without much more cost.

Thus, Apple's current lineup will be able to more than ably attract new switchers even as it stands right now.

If it wants to keep growing it will have to meet the needs of other users. Specifically gamers,

Why should Apple go after gamers? The niche market that continues to drift towards consoles and is more often dependent on Windows?
Yeah, there's a good marketing strategy.

power users,

Because the Mac Pro and the Macbook Pro don't cut it?
Or are you referring to "power users" that can't spend the money on a Mac Pro and don't want the built-in display of an iMac and don't want to hook up a Macbook Pro to an external?

and businesses with IT staffs.

This is the one market that Apple has a legitimate shot at taking, and one that would explode Apple's sales. Why Apple hasn't decided to go after this market isn't known to me, but I'm sure there is a legitimate reason for it (perhaps it's planned for the future), but I can guess that Apple wouldn't make as much money out of this market. I doubt many businesses would accept Apple's product margins (very few do, which is why you won't see Sony's or IBMs in most offices; it's mostly Dell or HP) or premium for quality.

Bottom line: I can appreciate why a few individuals (like yourself) would want a Mac Tower priced at $1500, but please don't assert that it's a market necessity. Apple is very careful about which products it releases and if there was a tower before and there isn't one now, that should tell you how strong sales were for that $1500 tower.

 

[PNW]

Because the Mac Pro and the Macbook Pro don't cut it?
Or are you referring to "power users" that can't spend the money on a Mac Pro and don't want the built-in display of an iMac and don't want to hook up a Macbook Pro to an external?

Because the MP is too much computer for too much money and the MBP is too much money for a computer that would cost half as much as a desktop. There's no sense paying for portability if you're not going to use it.

I'm referring to people who know the ins and outs of their boxes. Who might actually prefer to replace a busted video card or dead HD themselves, rather than make an appointment down at the "genius" bar. Never-mind having to ship their box off and wait for Apple to fix it. Who would rather get the monitor(s) that work for them rather than what Apple dictates.

Bottom line: I can appreciate why a few individuals (like yourself) would want a Mac Tower priced at $1500, but please don't assert that it's a market necessity. Apple is very careful about which products it releases and if there was a tower before and there isn't one now, that should tell you how strong sales were for that $1500 tower.

Right I forgot the Great Jobs does no wrong

 

[inkswamp]

Because the Mac Pro and the Macbook Pro don't cut it?
Or are you referring to "power users" that can't spend the money on a Mac Pro and don't want the built-in display of an iMac and don't want to hook up a Macbook Pro to an external?

What part of "power user" don't you get? We're not talking professional users who need a borderline server-class machine in a box. (It's a Mac Pro, right? Meaning for professional users.) We're talking about home users who want something a little beefier and a little more customizable than the iMac. That group of people exist and they exist in very large numbers. They are not a niche group and they are not looking to spend +$2400 plus the cost of a display.

I am one of those people and most people I know are in that same group. I don't think you fully appreciate how many potential switchers from that group look at Apple's line-up and say, "Yeah, OS X is great, but the iMac... meh. Oh well, maybe someday Apple will offer a really compelling home computer. Until then, back to my PC."

 

[CalBoy]

Who might actually prefer to replace a busted video card or dead HD themselves, rather than make an appointment down at the "genius" bar. Never-mind having to ship their box off and wait for Apple to fix it. Who would rather get the monitor(s) that work for them rather than what Apple dictates.

That would be nice, but it would be counter to Apple's philosophy of "we do it all for you." If you think about it, Apple makes as many parts as possible impossible to replace without special equipment (even the HD on a mbp is hard to replace without the right tools).

I think you're asking for something that runs against Apple's core philosophy (which is also helping drive sales at the moment).

Right I forgot the Great Jobs does no wrong

Certainly not, but if we look at things only from a consumer standpoint, we can ask for whatever we want (as we should).

If we're wondering why a particular product doesn't exist, we need to consider the business aspect of it (which in this case goes against the consumer's wishes).

If you think I'm a blind fanboy, I invite you to read my past posts. You'll find plenty in which I chastise Apple for its skimpyness and ridiculous ideals.

 

[inkswamp]

Certainly not, but if we look at things only from a consumer standpoint, we can ask for whatever we want (as we should).

If we're wondering why a particular product doesn't exist, we need to consider the business aspect of it (which in this case goes against the consumer's wishes).

The flaw in this line of reasoning is that consumers who want a low- or mid-range tower Mac are some kind of niche market when the reality is that this comprises the majority of the individual computer buyers out there. I suspect that when a lot of switchers or Mac users buy an iMac or a Mac Mini, they view it as an acceptable compromise for getting OS X. Imagine if Appe coupled OS X with a machine that consumers actually wanted.

Think of this way: how many people do you know who are picking up iMacs or Mac Minis to run Linux or Windows exclusively? Virtually none. And why? Because the hardware alone is not compelling enough to sell itself. And that's a damn shame because Apple could fix that very easily.

 

[PNW]

That would be nice, but it would be counter to Apple's philosophy of "we do it all for you." If you think about it, Apple makes as many parts as possible impossible to replace without special equipment (even the HD on a mbp is hard to replace without the right tools).

I think you're asking for something that runs against Apple's core philosophy (which is also helping drive sales at the moment).

Why does "we do it all for you" (which I agree is a selling point for many) have to translate into "you can't do it your self"?

I don't know about the MBP but when I decided to buy and fix up an old clamshell for the kids our local hardware store had the torx head I needed. Getting into the mini to bump the RAM wasn't too bad either. From what I hear aside from RAM the new iMac's locked up tighter than Fort Knox.