Hole in Mac lineup?

[chickenninja]

if you monitor is a CRT then i would advise getting an imac since the screen is allot softer on the eyes, you can use the keyboard you have and even the monitor with ANY mac you get, worst case scenario you get an imac and you have 2 screens i think getting a MacBookPro is a good idea but since you already have an air i think that getting the imac would be the best way to go, remember that you cant upgrade your graphics in most macs so you should buy the model with the better graphics card and resell your mac when you want to upgrade further, or get a macpro and upgrade as much as you want.

 

[Digital Skunk]

For those that don't know, and if it hasn't been said:

1). This topic has been beaten to death and most people have failed to realize that it won't happen.

2). I was there once but realized soon that Apple is just a different company. I am still waiting for a REAL professional MacBook Pro.

3). Firewire 3200 will be far superior to eSATA in the fact that it will still use FW800 cables (backward compatibility) and it is bus powered, unlike eSATA.

4). The only thing the OP can do now is find a refurb/used MacPro/Quad Core PowerMac to connect to his screen, use the MacBook Pro as his main machine which will cost him the same $2000 anyway, or suck it up and get the iMac and hook his current monitor as a second display.

Either way he is going to pay about $2000 for his Apple system, and that's not too far from the Quad Core Mac Pro, so just grab a higher end machine that will last you over 5 years and be happy.

 

[Pope Jawn Pawl]

I'm currently a PC user and fit into the "willing to switch" market, so for what it's worth, here's my wish list for an apple midtower:

E8x00 starting, single socket
4GB in 2 DIMM slots, user replaceable
Video: not too picky here since I'm not a gamer, but needs HDMI for future, and dual monitors out of the box
Expansion slots: 1 PCIe x16, 2 PCI
Needs eSATA support, FW800, a smattering of USB front & back
2 3.5" HD bays
onboard wireless (including n of course)
500w power supply, give or take 100w
superdrive standard, blu ray optional

Let me know what you think...

 

[TechHistorian]

What? Since when has Apple EVER released two new computers in the same event? Not any time I can remember and I've been following them for a very long time.

Waaaaaay back in the '90s. The LC, IIsi, and Classic were all released on October 15, 1990.

The three original PowerBooks (100, 140, and 170) were also released at the same time one year later.

And those are just the instances I can think of off the top of my head ...

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm currently a PC user and fit into the "willing to switch" market, so for what it's worth, here's my wish list for an apple midtower:

E8x00 starting, single socket
4GB in 2 DIMM slots, user replaceable
Video: not too picky here since I'm not a gamer, but needs HDMI for future, and dual monitors out of the box
Expansion slots: 1 PCIe x16, 2 PCI
Needs eSATA support, FW800, a smattering of USB front & back
2 3.5" HD bays
onboard wireless (including n of course)
500w power supply, give or take 100w
superdrive standard, blu ray optional

Let me know what you think...

This is simply the iMac with a few accessories. I can understand that most people want a tower, but what some are asking for is already served by the iMac and the surprisingly advanced 3rd party hardware such as HDDs, hubs, external/internal burners, etc that has stepped up since the beginning of the millennium.

 

[Pope Jawn Pawl]

Uh....no...?
Kindly point out the eSATA port, 2 hard drive slots, E8x00 proc, and HDMI port on the imac.

 

[t0mat0]

No worries CalBoy - always brings a smile to my face to see some Bill Watterson.

Pope - No idea. I haven't time for the whole thread, so here's a possible answer to the original threadstarter's (TS) post:
TS: She who must be obeyed (i.e. Significant Other, SO) needs to get in on deciding. Otherwise you carry the can if there are problems down the line, and don't get the full credit when it works out well.
TS - You sound like you need a new machine, and are trying to game it so you get this through SO getting her machine. You give her your mac Mini, you get a box. You think another Mac mini for you won't be powerful enough,
want a MBP but in a Desktop format. Wait for next Tuesday.

It's a bit of a conundrum the lineup... Apple is stuck in part by its duty to not merge the Apple TV with the Mac mini (it wouldn't make happy company karma). It can let users or companies (slingboxen) do that.

But seen from another perspective, we're prejudging the situation - who are we to say "there are holes that need to be fixed"?

Need, Want, Would like, Be good if they were, non plussed in that order. You corner your market. You don't corner every market.

Same with Apple "Need" to bring out a replacement of a previous lineup to not create another "hole".

 

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Might I ask what the need for two hard drive bays is all about? You can put a 1TB hd in the iMac, which is way more than any computer needs right now besides servers (which a mid-tower isn't). If you need more than that, get an external. Apple doesn't have to make a whole new model with two hd's just because some of you want it.

 

[Clive At Five]

I don't care to continue this discussion [about gaming] because I feel I've laid out the logical reasons why Apple hasn't engaged in this market fairly well.

Q'whaaaaaaaaat??! No no no no no. You laid out what you thought was a logical argument and I laid out what I think are logical counter-arguments.

Prove to me your conviction in your opinions by telling me exactly why my arguments are wrong.

-Clive

 

[TechHistorian]

Q'whaaaaaaaaat??! No no no no no. You laid out what you thought was a logical argument and I laid out what I think are logical counter-arguments.

Prove to me your conviction in your opinions by telling me exactly why my arguments are wrong.

-Clive

Not CalBoy, but here's why Apple won't pursue the gaming market:

Jobs has never been interested in it. In the early years of the Mac, he actively thwarted any attempts to position the Mac as a gaming machine (and given that it was the only consumer GUI at the time, it would have been a killer gaming machine in that era).

The current Mac line-up reflects Jobs' original vision of the Mac -- an AIO with little internal upgradeability (all upgrades done externally via ports). As long as he's in charge, I doubt very much thing will change -- especially as long as Apple's market share increases and its profitability remains high.

 

[Clive At Five]

N...here's why Apple won't pursue the gaming market: Jobs has never been interested in it.

SOooOOOoOooOOOooOoOO?!!??!?!

EVERYone resorts to this argument when they can't argue against the facts.

Jobs' dislike of gaming is NOT a justification for why Apple shouldn't enter the gaming market.

If I am the CEO of an auto company but hated sedans, would it make ANY sense at all to omit the car from the lineup, even though it happens to be one of the most popular types of car out there?

No.

Neither does omitting computers that are capable of gaming, especially when 67% of heads-of-household play video games. Yes, I've quoted that statistic before but it's a significant number. Gaming is not a niche.

Steve Jobs' stubborn attitude against gaming will ultimately prevent the Mac from reaching it's maximum potential. PC Gaming is just too popular to be ignored.

-Clive

 

[Digital Skunk]

Uh....no...?
Kindly point out the eSATA port, 2 hard drive slots, E8x00 proc, and HDMI port on the imac.

Let me see.....

is already served by the iMac and the surprisingly advanced 3rd party hardware such as HDDs, hubs, external/internal burners, etc that has stepped up since the beginning of the millennium.

And the only benefits of eSATA are future HDDs because the current stuff can't send data to the port that fast.

Everything else you have sans the processor can be served by various cables and external HDDs.

Besides... if it meant that much to you there'd be a Mac Pro near you. I was in the the SAME BOAT needing a MINI TOWER from Apple but IT WON'T COME WE HAVE BEEN BEGGING THEM FOR ALMOST A DECADE! So I gave up and went for the machine that would last me a lot longer than the iMac for my needs.

Steve Jobs' stubborn attitude against gaming will ultimately prevent the Mac from reaching it's maximum potential. PC Gaming is just too popular to be ignored.

-Clive

Amen!

 

[CalBoy]

Prove to me your conviction in your opinions by telling me exactly why my arguments are wrong.

Here's my argument as brief as I can make it:

Fact: Apple, like any company, can't chase very market at every moment in time.
Fact: Apple has chosen not to go after the gaming market at the moment.
Fact: Apple continues to see explosive sales growth.
Fact: Apple's competitors are attempting to emulate it in order to grab back some lost market share
Fact: Apple expects to earn high (~30%) margins on its hardware in order to maintain the profits its shareholders demand

Conclusion: Apple has chosen not to pursue gaming because it perceives a lack of profitability there. Note that this does not mean that the market is hollow or that the market isn't worthy, it merely means that Apple doesn't want to compete there. Why? Because Apple doesn't forecast as much profitability per unit sold.

Now, there's also another angle to this:

Fact: Gaming machines require a moderate (I'm using this term quite liberally) amount of flexibility and upgradability.
Fact: Apple prides itself on tightly integrated hardware and software.
Fact: Apple focuses on making hardware as "complete" as possible (ie, customers shouldn't be able to upgrade their hardware in Apple's world)
Fact: Apple achieves this "completeness" by making upgrades very difficult for most models (with the exclusion of the Mac Pro).
Fact: A gaming tower (or a tower that might be able to handle gaming) would require Apple to forgo its previous marketing strategy.

Conclusion: Apple doesn't want to go into the gaming market because it would move away from its current marketing strategy.

If you have a problem with this, please use the other one. I feel they both explain, from a business perspective, why Apple hasn't entered the gaming market at this time.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to keep doing this. Researching injustices and legal remedies is on my plate at the moment (ironically enough) so if you disagree with this assessment (or the other one) that's fine. I just can't keep this up (I'm out of time! ).

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Might I ask what the need for two hard drive bays is all about? You can put a
1TB hd in the iMac, which is way more than any computer needs right now ...

Makes no difference how big the ONE internal drive is; anyone with half a wit
recognizes the need for backup -- on a second spindle. That's the fatal flaw in
Steve's fantasyland photos of an AIO with no wiring clutter.

The inconvenient fact is: AIO designs increase the wiring clutter, because the
wires (external hard drive(s), audio I/O, video to a TV, input from an external
USB TV tuner, etc., etc.) must all enter/exit through the back of the "monitor."
There's no way to hide it under the desk -- the cable mess all ends up on the
desktop.

I count NINE jacks on the back of my iMac -- and most of 'em are occupied.

LK

 

[inkswamp]

Fact: Apple, like any company, can't chase very market at every moment in time.

Nobody says Apple must pursue every market at every moment in time. What we're saying is that Apple should be going after the obvious ones that they haven't been able to target in the past. Games and mid- to low-range Macs are the two most obvious ones. There is lots of unexplored territory for Apple to try out and they've never been in a better position to do so.

Fact: Apple has chosen not to go after the gaming market at the moment.

Bollocks! They are simply unable to get their head around the market. If reports from EA, Valve and id are to be believed, Apple is really good at giving games lip-service and acting interested but they never get their act together to go after it in a meaningful way. Being incompetent in or willfully oblivious to some aspect of computing is not the same as making a reasonable choice about it.

Fact: Apple continues to see explosive sales growth.

One man's explosive is another man's incremental. Mac sales are definitely on an upward slope, but characterizing that increase as explosive is an exaggeration.

Fact: Apple's competitors are attempting to emulate it in order to grab back some lost market share

Are you saying Dell and HP have discontinued their low- and mid-range towers? Surely, you understand how much you are contorting the facts to shoehorn it all into your statement.

Fact: Apple expects to earn high (~30%) margins on its hardware in order to maintain the profits its shareholders demand

Why hello there, left field. Thanks for that factoid.

Conclusion: Apple has chosen not to pursue gaming because it perceives a lack of profitability there.

Cause and effect. There cannot be profit there if Apple doesn't pursue it. By that logic, Apple should never have gotten into selling music and movies.

Fact: Gaming machines require a moderate (I'm using this term quite liberally) amount of flexibility and upgradability.

OK.

Fact: Apple prides itself on tightly integrated hardware and software.
Fact: Apple focuses on making hardware as "complete" as possible (ie, customers shouldn't be able to upgrade their hardware in Apple's world)

Cause and effect again. That's only because, thus far, Apple has constrained itself to this one approach. And why does this approach preclude offering other configurations for those Mac users who don't need their hand held quite so tightly?

Fact: Apple achieves this "completeness" by making upgrades very difficult for most models (with the exclusion of the Mac Pro).

No, the difficulty in upgrading is the result of this approach, not the other way around. And again, why does this preclude other offerings?

Fact: A gaming tower (or a tower that might be able to handle gaming) would require Apple to forgo its previous marketing strategy.

At one time in the past, Apple's marketing strategies included sticking with the PowerPC's superior architecture, limiting eMac sales to educators and refusing to offer iPods to Windows users. Things change. Sometimes Apple is off-base. Why is this hard to accept?

Conclusion: Apple doesn't want to go into the gaming market because it would move away from its current marketing strategy.

I'm not convinced.

 

[CalBoy]

I'm not convinced.

Let's leave it at that shall we?

 

[inkswamp]

Let's leave it at that shall we?

No, let's take it outside.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

And the only benefits of eSATA are future HDDs because the current stuff
can't send data to the port that fast.

Uh, check out the latest 2nd-generation perpendicular recording HDDs,
(e.g., Seagate's 7200.11 family). At 105 MB/s sustained R/W, cheap
commodity drives are now faster than FW800 -- and the technology is
capable of twice that speed. HDD throughput jumped by 30% since the
previous generation, and the next year or two will see another 30%.
Samsung's 1TB SpinPoint-F1 is spec'd 175 MB/s, sustained. (I don't
know how real that is, but it's at least in the 120 MB/s ballpark.)

Firewire 3200 will be far superior to eSATA in the fact that it will still use FW800 cables

Of course FW3200 is "better" than eSATA -- because vaporware is always
vastly superior to current technology (especially when you have neither).
Please post a link to an actual FW3200 drive, or a Mac with a FW3200 port.

Betcha I can find an eSATA cable at the local RadioShack or BestBuy -- but
I wouldn't hold out much hope of finding a 9-pin firewire cable.

and it is bus powered, unlike eSATA

That's funny, FW400 and FW800 are already "capable" of supplying up to 45 watts
(at unspecified voltages), but I've never seen a bus-powered 3.5" firewire HDD.
Anyhow, the "capability" is useless to a designer -- because it's totally optional.
Apple could supply 45 watts, but they actually supply only 7-8 watts per port.

Good luck running a fast 3.5" HDD on 8 watts!

Anyhow, an external HDD deserves a dedicated point-to-point interface where it
doesn't have to "play nice" or compete for bandwidth with a gaggle of unknown,
unpredictable, BrandX audio/video devices.

LK

 

[CalBoy]

No, let's take it outside.

No, let's not; it's pouring here.

 

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Makes no difference how big the ONE internal drive is; anyone with half a wit
recognizes the need for backup -- on a second spindle. That's the fatal flaw in
Steve's fantasyland photos of an AIO with no wiring clutter.

The inconvenient fact is: AIO designs increase the wiring clutter, because the
wires (external hard drive(s), audio I/O, video to a TV, input from an external
USB TV tuner, etc., etc.) must all enter/exit through the back of the "monitor."
There's no way to hide it under the desk -- the cable mess all ends up on the
desktop.

I count NINE jacks on the back of my iMac -- and most of 'em are occupied.

LK

Most of that didn't pertain to my question. Your actual answer was for backup--for which we have external drives. Which I believe led you to the rest of your post, to which I say I and most people would agree that having the convenience of the computer being in the monitor and freeing up space outweighs the convenience of having completely hidden cables. I remember my old PCs and how annoying it was to have to get down on my knees and move it out of the shelf in the desk and try to turn it around while all the cables are tugging and making it all the more difficult to accomplish plugging or unplugging anything.

That's all beside the point. I noticed everyone that complained about not having a midtower stated that they require two hard drives in it. That is not necessary for most users that aren't needing a server. Even hardcore video editors won't need more than one 1TB drive, and if they do they can buy an external, but most of the time they own a Mac Pro.

The point I'm trying to make is that you complainers are asking for something ridiculous and are pretending that the lack of what you want in a computer is what's making the vast majority of computer users not buy macs. I agree that there should be a cheaper lower-end Mac Pro (you can get it down to $2000 if you downgrade the processor) and maybe a higher end Mac mini (but its size won't allow for what you people seem to "need"), but for 99.9% of users one of the three desktop computers they already sell is perfect for their needs.

My only complaint about how Apple manages their desktops is that they only update them once or one-point-five times a year, so after just a few months they seem way out of date compared to the PCs out there. It's probably because of cost-effectiveness that they don't continually add more hardware upgrade options for the different desktops as the better hardware comes along. They have to wait until supplies are low and enough hardware advances are made before completely changing the default hardware and upgrade options on their macs. When Apple changes the default graphics card in an iMac and then allows for different and better graphics card options built to order in the store, the mac community buzzes and collectively cries "thank god, finally!" When Dell does it, it's silent and frequent.

 

[TechHistorian]

SOooOOOoOooOOOooOoOO?!!??!?!

EVERYone resorts to this argument when they can't argue against the facts.

Jobs' dislike of gaming is NOT a justification for why Apple shouldn't enter the gaming market.

If I am the CEO of an auto company but hated sedans, would it make ANY sense at all to omit the car from the lineup, even though it happens to be one of the most popular types of car out there?

No.

Neither does omitting computers that are capable of gaming, especially when 67% of heads-of-household play video games. Yes, I've quoted that statistic before but it's a significant number. Gaming is not a niche.

Steve Jobs' stubborn attitude against gaming will ultimately prevent the Mac from reaching it's maximum potential. PC Gaming is just too popular to be ignored.

-Clive

Reread my post. I'm not "justifying" Apple's decision. I'm explaining it. As I pointed out, Jobs already gave away a huge advantage in this 24 years ago. The Mac would have blown away the competition had he gotten behind games originally. Graphic adventures with a point and click interface like Transylvania were lightyears ahead of the competition back in '84. But that horse is long out of the barn.

Yes, Apple won't achieve its "maximum potential" in sales by ignoring the games market. So what? Big deal. They're the only computer manufacturer from 30 years ago still making PCs. Their market share is increasing, as is their stock price. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Jobs has no incentive to change.

Put another way: it'd be nice if gravity didn't keep me down. I could achieve my "maximum potential" and jump far higher than I can now. I might even make it to the NBA. But I'm not going to moan and whine that reality keeps me form doing so. Apple's doing fine as is. Jobs doesn't want to pursue the gaming market. That's life.

And given that there isn't all that much Mac gaming software out there to begin with, why would Apple want to go after the mythical Mac gaming market anyway? They're not in the business of competing with Windows machines to run Windows software (note emphasis).

Note: I'm a head of household. I game. But I'm not about to install Windows just to game. Do I wish there were more Mac games out there? Sure. But if Apple were to introduce a gaming machine right now, the buyers of that machine would be booting Windows, not OS X. And that wouldn't necessarily increase the # of Mac games, would it?

 

[Clive At Five]

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to keep doing this. Researching injustices and legal remedies is on my plate at the moment (ironically enough) so if you disagree with this assessment (or the other one) that's fine. I just can't keep this up (I'm out of time! ).

Then this reply will be for others who may care to carry on your torch. As a recently graduated Math / Physics double-major + Stats minor I know what it's like to be busy in college.

Here's my argument as brief as I can make it:

Fact: Apple, like any company, can't chase very market at every moment in time.
Fact: Apple has chosen not to go after the gaming market at the moment.
Fact: Apple continues to see explosive sales growth.
Fact: Apple's competitors are attempting to emulate it in order to grab back some lost market share
Fact: Apple expects to earn high (~30%) margins on its hardware in order to maintain the profits its shareholders demand

[so forth...]

You've done a brilliant job of explaining why Apple will not produce system for gaming using their current strategy. What I've been trying to explain this whole time, however, is why that strategy is WRONG.

Fact: the PC gaming market is large.
Fact: it would take very little effort on Apple's part to "embrace" gaming. Even such a small step such as giving the iMac better GPUs would please a lot of people... OR giving the Mini even a small dedicated GPU.

And by the way, profit greed on the part of Apple or its shareholders doesn't justify stiffling the Mac either. Apple's first duty *should* be to make a great product, not please shareholders.

Fact: Gaming machines require a moderate (I'm using this term quite liberally) amount of flexibility and upgradability.
Fact: Apple prides itself on tightly integrated hardware and software.
Fact: Apple focuses on making hardware as "complete" as possible (ie, customers shouldn't be able to upgrade their hardware in Apple's world)
Fact: Apple achieves this "completeness" by making upgrades very difficult for most models (with the exclusion of the Mac Pro).
Fact: A gaming tower (or a tower that might be able to handle gaming) would require Apple to forgo its previous marketing strategy.

Conclusion: Apple doesn't want to go into the gaming market because it would move away from its current marketing strategy.

Apple doesn't need to change its entire strategy. Consider the MacPro. It's a customizable computer, no? It's marketed at creative professionals. Then why couldn't Apple offer a desktop that's marketed at gaming "professionals?" They could make the minimal improvements listed above to the iMac and MacMini in order to maintain their "ease-of-use" principle on their lower-performance PCs. That would make a LOT of people happy, would plug a huge gap in Apple's product lineup, and would make only a very small dent in profitability.

A little effort on Apple's part would go a very long way.

-Clive

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Your actual answer was for backup--for which we have external drives.

Only "we" who are stuck with a not-quite-all-in-one need external drives.

My home PC and several work PCs (and numerous long-forgotten PCs now in
some landfill) don't/didn't need external drives -- because they all have/had
at least two accessible internal drive bays. As I said before, a not-quite-AIO
only adds to the clutter.

BTW, if AIO is such a great idea, why are they so vanishlingly rare in the PC
mainstream? Are Dell and HP stupid? What happened to the "invisible hand"
of the free marketplace?

...just curious,

LK

 

[akm3]

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

That sounds kind of like Wendy's grinding up the unsold hamburger and calling it 'chili'.

-Allen

 

[akm3]

Fact: the PC gaming market is large.
Fact: it would take very little effort on Apple's part to "embrace" gaming. Even such a small step such as giving the iMac better GPUs would please a lot of people... OR giving the Mini even a small dedicated GPU.

While I want an xMac as much as any DIY PC builder type who has switched, the PC Gaming market is large but fading. The console games are decimating the PC as a gaming platform, leaving a smaller pie for Apple play in. Apple likes to target growing markets, not shrinking ones.