A fine idea tamvly. Let us know what he says.
It's called "tongue in cheek." I am perfectly happy waiting.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro 2011 "Sandy Bridge E" everything we know
- Thread starter Amethyst
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's called "tongue in cheek." I am perfectly happy waiting.
We all know this. Some people rather spend that extra $$ on the brand itself though. Not everyone likes to mess around with hackintosh comps.
Especiallly if one's in need of proper sound output for example. Or has that already been fixed?
I understand that Mac Pro is Apple's top of the line but they should seriously think about regular people that just want a desktop.
I don't want an iMac. I want a Mac Pro. Mainly for the esthetics, build-quality and ease of upgrading. But I have seriously NOT ANY need for all that processor-power that comes with the Xeons. I don't need a work-station or a server. I just want a regular desktop Mac.
When and if Apple makes an overhaul of their Mac Pro line, I sure hope they will include the possibility to get a i7 2600(/k) model which would be perfectly enough for me -- aswell as probably lots of other people who don't need all that horsepower from Xeon.
Another thing they should fix is spacing issues for the graphics cards. Make it so that we can get regular graphics cards and not those weird versions that fits in the current Mac Pro's.
Like I said, I understand Mac Pro is their top of the line "beasts" but I think they would make a hell of a lot more profit if they offered the Mac Pro's with i7 2600 and enabled regular graphics cards for say.. even 1600$~ would be a fair price(even if it's overpriced compared to a PC with the same specs).
Just my 2 cents about the Mac Pro's. I love them -- but they should offer less workstation -versions and more regular consumer -versions. People will still buy iMacs if they don't want that clunky tower.
I don't want an iMac. I want a Mac Pro. Mainly for the esthetics, build-quality and ease of upgrading. But I have seriously NOT ANY need for all that processor-power that comes with the Xeons. I don't need a work-station or a server. I just want a regular desktop Mac.
When and if Apple makes an overhaul of their Mac Pro line, I sure hope they will include the possibility to get a i7 2600(/k) model which would be perfectly enough for me -- aswell as probably lots of other people who don't need all that horsepower from Xeon.
Another thing they should fix is spacing issues for the graphics cards. Make it so that we can get regular graphics cards and not those weird versions that fits in the current Mac Pro's.
Like I said, I understand Mac Pro is their top of the line "beasts" but I think they would make a hell of a lot more profit if they offered the Mac Pro's with i7 2600 and enabled regular graphics cards for say.. even 1600$~ would be a fair price(even if it's overpriced compared to a PC with the same specs).
Just my 2 cents about the Mac Pro's. I love them -- but they should offer less workstation -versions and more regular consumer -versions. People will still buy iMacs if they don't want that clunky tower.
If they were cannibalizing it with a non Xeon, they would of launched it already. They're waiting.
So true. Apple would crush the pc market with a sandy bridge (i7 990) with apples own tweaking utility to OC it within specs as you can do now with UEFI boards, and updated gpu's. Slim down the tower for 2 or 3 hard drives and 32GB max memory. Would be a smoking hot mac pro that apple wouldnt be able to make enough of them.
This overstates the point. They are as serious about gaming software as they are about any other software category. In other words, they are now perhaps less hostile toward gaming.
However, in now way is Apple betting the farm on huge growth in gaming on Mac OS X. It would be a foolish move. The higher end, "spec chasing", gamer market is a looser market for large scale vendors. Voodoo and Alienware haven't saved HP or Dell.
As long as the mini/iMac/MBP offerings are average to a bit above average GPUs Apple will be a viable and growing market for games. That is all that matters. They don't have to be the best, bleeding edge platform; just have to be in the game.
They are certainly cashing in on the growth in gaming/entertainment on the iOS devices, but that is 100% counterpoint to the arguments being made here as to why Apple "needs" a cheaper mini-tower. All the iOS devices are sealed and even less expandable than an iMac or Mac Mini. And yet, that is the high growth gaming market between iOS + Mac OS X .
Most widely selling console box... Wii with the "worst", but good enough, graphics of the top three.
Why would Apple extensively cannibalize their own products? So they can shrink their profit margins down to as low as generic clone Windows PC vendors? To raise the level of product confusion among their customers?
Gamer market is about cheapest for best bang. And it is all about parts only. Not complete systems. If you buy Alienware or similar you get laughed at. No self respecting gamer buys that crap. We build our own from parts as cheap and powerful as possible. Not even remotely the same market. Apple does not want that market. They don't care. They have said for the past 10 years that "gaming" is coming back to the Mac. Well they have done absolutely little. Only because Valve is such Apple fans do we even have that stuff going on. And our OpenGL implementation sucks. Twice as slow on Cinebench OpenGL vs. Windows. They most likely will not sell a tower with a consumer chip in it as stated by so many others. It is not in their best interest. If you want all that, build a hackintosh. You'll get it all. Cheaply.
In terms of profitability Apple is crushing the PC market with the exact line up they have now.
this
is a proposal for Apple go wallow down in the low product differentiated, commodity PC offerings that are out there now. Just about any local screwdriver system builder chopshop can make you one of the above.
If Apple were out to maximize unit sells they would allow for clone vendors to fill in every single small niche. They don't. Largely because that is not the objective.
There is a wide spread mistaken premise on these boards that Apple is some "niche market" vendor. They aren't. They are large scale vendor in a highly fragmented market. Apple is a Top 6 vendor in the PC market in most worldwide markets in terms of units. Apple doesn't do short, small runs on boxes. They will dump any box in that category.
Which means they are not an Apple's targeted customer. Apple primarily sells systems. Not barebones boxes that users configure with highly random series of parts. Apple isn't necessarily anti-hacker, they just don't sell boxes catered to that group. They aren't going to sell a box that is maximized for tinkering.
Those folks are like prime cut steak eaters going to a 100% vegetarian restaurant and moaning about how come there is no aged, prime cut beef cut on the menu. They are shopping at the wrong place.
And frankly that is not the bulk of games market. It is a subset of the games market that segments likes to wrap themselves in the blanket of the overall games market so that will try to get more vendors to cater to them. Most PC customers just want a tool they can use to get things done. That's it. It isn't about buying parts, haggling over prices, and tweaking things.
The average PC customers aren't primarily interested in games. They will play, but are not tweaking boxes just for that specific use.
Last edited:
That's probably true, that Apple would crush Dell and others if they did build a traditional PC and threw an i7 990 or 2600 into them, but its not clear Apple would actually make more money doing that than they do already.
For example, where would that leave the iMac? I think what they would have to do is that the iMac would have to top out at a quad core i5 to keep a price point under about $1500-1700. Then they would have put the i7 tower in the 1700-2500+ price range. Then there would the question of the display. The iMac comes with that nice big 27" screen, their tower probably wouldn't, so that would complicate a lot of people purchasing choices (i5 + 27" display, or i7 and no display with only a hundred dollars or so of a price gap?).
Then, this would squeeze the single processor Mac Pros. I guess they could only offer one SP version with the hottest of the hot Xeon, like the E5-2667 or maybe the 2643. But its unclear to me how many people would really opt for those processors in place of an i7 2600K in a desktop PC Mac. So would Apple then just completely eliminate SP Mac Pros? I think this would be quite likely. But then it would be difficult for Apple to have offerings in the $2500 to $3500 price range, expect maybe the fully upgraded i7-2600K. Though honestly, how many buyers in these price ranges actually have Apple do all the upgrade? $1550 for 32GB of RAM on the Mac Pro? $300 to add a second 2TB drive? The gamer/enthusiast crowd isn't going to fall for that. However, the average consumer that likes these big pretty screens might do so, at least much more often.
Anyway, making this high end i7 desktop PC would likely crush Dell/HP and the like in this specific market, but it would mean Apple products would then be competing with each other. It might be nice for us consumers, but I don't think it would really help Apple make money. It would just displace buyers from high end iMacs or low end Mac Pros. I'm not sure it would actually attract customers they wouldn't already get.
Let's revisit the old 'xMac' idea for a moment...
Let's posit for a moment: would the xMac ... no, let's call it the Next Apple Cube ... be a desktop that we might be interested in?
Yes, this is looking at that rumor of a 'new form factor' is floating around again. And of course, we'll try to shoehorn apply it to the Mac Pro.
For example, if there is this new form factor, what is logical to be in/out of the new box? IMO, stuff can be pulled out because of Thunderbolt.
Consider it to be basically a headless iMac that has better access to internal 3.5" HDDs (maybe room for two of them) and 4 RAM slots. Hopefully, no integrated GPU but probably with only one PCI slot. The idea basically being that expansion would occur via its Thunderbolt port. Naturally, it would also pair nicely with the new Apple TB 27" display.
The big question is the box's CPU and if would come in two flavors: Single CPU and Dual CPU.
But consider Cook and production streamlining: maybe not two different CPU configurations afterall ?
Consider the possiblity of but one CPU per box but with an architecture that allows the boxes to get networked into a cluster through use of TB and some other Apple technologies. For such an approach, the first CPU-centric question would be if approach could be done well with the current (Single CPU) i7, or if such a clustering angle requires nothing less than a multi-CPU-aware Xeon CPU, for which we would again thus have to be in this "Still Waiting for the New Xeon" mode?
Next,
Or perhaps they're waiting for some other in-short-supply component...too.
I see Thunderbolt cables still have a long leadtime in the Apple Store, which infers some ramping-up issues, as well as a possibility of constrained supplies. Plus, the last I checked, Intel has still not released their Developer's Pkg for TB (was due to ship back in June 2011), which also infers some teething problems even though Apple is shipping TB controller chips in their portables & iMacs.
-hh
Let's posit for a moment: would the xMac ... no, let's call it the Next Apple Cube ... be a desktop that we might be interested in?
Yes, this is looking at that rumor of a 'new form factor' is floating around again. And of course, we'll try to shoehorn apply it to the Mac Pro.
For example, if there is this new form factor, what is logical to be in/out of the new box? IMO, stuff can be pulled out because of Thunderbolt.
Consider it to be basically a headless iMac that has better access to internal 3.5" HDDs (maybe room for two of them) and 4 RAM slots. Hopefully, no integrated GPU but probably with only one PCI slot. The idea basically being that expansion would occur via its Thunderbolt port. Naturally, it would also pair nicely with the new Apple TB 27" display.
The big question is the box's CPU and if would come in two flavors: Single CPU and Dual CPU.
But consider Cook and production streamlining: maybe not two different CPU configurations afterall ?
Consider the possiblity of but one CPU per box but with an architecture that allows the boxes to get networked into a cluster through use of TB and some other Apple technologies. For such an approach, the first CPU-centric question would be if approach could be done well with the current (Single CPU) i7, or if such a clustering angle requires nothing less than a multi-CPU-aware Xeon CPU, for which we would again thus have to be in this "Still Waiting for the New Xeon" mode?
Next,
Or perhaps they're waiting for some other in-short-supply component...too.
I see Thunderbolt cables still have a long leadtime in the Apple Store, which infers some ramping-up issues, as well as a possibility of constrained supplies. Plus, the last I checked, Intel has still not released their Developer's Pkg for TB (was due to ship back in June 2011), which also infers some teething problems even though Apple is shipping TB controller chips in their portables & iMacs.
-hh
Xgrid exists already (though it might be fairly limited). You don't need DP or MP Xeons in clusters, those are only for one-box solutions (and the connection between the CPUs is much faster than any external interface). However, the usability of clusters might be fairly limited and require the software to support it.
In response to the discussion that started after I posted my previous message I'd like to address that I'm not interested in serious gaming. I do play games occassionally and I would like to continue doing so but I do not require any serious gaming-gear and that is NOT what I meant by consumer -versions of the Mac Pro.
If we take a step back and look at the current lineup of products Apple are offering for desktop models(so we can scratch all MacBook models such as Air and Pro), we have the Mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro.
The advantage of the Mini is that it's small. It is great performance for a regular consumer in a small box. But it is fairly limited in harddrive space aswell as difficult to upgrade. It is simply not "big enough"(oh the irony..) for people like me who WANT a tower.
The advantage of the iMac is obviously that it's built into a monitor so we get the computer aswell as the monitor for the price of the iMac. This model also has good performance for a regular consumer in a neat package with the monitor included. Unfortunately, this model is also fairly limited in harddrive space and it's difficult to upgrade. Add to that the fact that if something in your iMac breaks and you need to send it in for repair, you need to send your entire monitor. Now, I am not an Apple fan-boy but I definitely think that they are built out of good quality so the iMac is FANTASTIC. It's just clumsy since it's built into the monitor(which is also the reason why it's so fantastic). I realize that Mac Pro is even clumsier but at least there you actually have lots of space in it(internally I mean) so it's easier to work with.
The advantage of the Mac Pro is that it's built like a beast. It's easy to upgrade with the extendable trays, easy to add memory, exchange memory, upgrade the CPU's, easier to clean and maintain a nice computer. It also has lots of space for harddrives so you're unlikely to run out of harddrive-space.
So, for people like me who wants the same performance or slightly better than the top of the line Mini/iMac, the upgrade-ability and ease of use of the Mac Pro and the awesome OS X operating system with the great build-quality the Apple comes with, what would I buy?
I'm asking you why you say that Apple would never release a more mainstream Mac Pro? It would seem that a Mac Pro with i7 2600k would be great! Imagine all the design-students or computer-students who need a nice stationary computer with great performance but also wants the ability to expand it as they go(remember that students are poor). They don't need all the power from the current Mac Pro and the current iMac's sadly does not allow for great expandability. And the Mini's are the same as the iMac's except no monitor so it'll be more expensive than the iMac.
I feel like there are a lot of people who actually wants a medium to lower-upper-class performance TOWER and sadly, they are forced to switch to PC because Apple does not have such a solution yet. Hopefully they will address this in the next Mac Pro overhaul. A Mac Pro with i7 2600k for 1500$~ + 27 inch LED for a total of 1600$~ would be great and it would still be a machine worthy of the name Mac Pro.
People who want Mini boxes gets the Mac Mini. People who want built-in monitor gets the iMac. Those will still have uses and will still be bought.
If we take a step back and look at the current lineup of products Apple are offering for desktop models(so we can scratch all MacBook models such as Air and Pro), we have the Mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro.
The advantage of the Mini is that it's small. It is great performance for a regular consumer in a small box. But it is fairly limited in harddrive space aswell as difficult to upgrade. It is simply not "big enough"(oh the irony..) for people like me who WANT a tower.
The advantage of the iMac is obviously that it's built into a monitor so we get the computer aswell as the monitor for the price of the iMac. This model also has good performance for a regular consumer in a neat package with the monitor included. Unfortunately, this model is also fairly limited in harddrive space and it's difficult to upgrade. Add to that the fact that if something in your iMac breaks and you need to send it in for repair, you need to send your entire monitor. Now, I am not an Apple fan-boy but I definitely think that they are built out of good quality so the iMac is FANTASTIC. It's just clumsy since it's built into the monitor(which is also the reason why it's so fantastic). I realize that Mac Pro is even clumsier but at least there you actually have lots of space in it(internally I mean) so it's easier to work with.
The advantage of the Mac Pro is that it's built like a beast. It's easy to upgrade with the extendable trays, easy to add memory, exchange memory, upgrade the CPU's, easier to clean and maintain a nice computer. It also has lots of space for harddrives so you're unlikely to run out of harddrive-space.
So, for people like me who wants the same performance or slightly better than the top of the line Mini/iMac, the upgrade-ability and ease of use of the Mac Pro and the awesome OS X operating system with the great build-quality the Apple comes with, what would I buy?
I'm asking you why you say that Apple would never release a more mainstream Mac Pro? It would seem that a Mac Pro with i7 2600k would be great! Imagine all the design-students or computer-students who need a nice stationary computer with great performance but also wants the ability to expand it as they go(remember that students are poor
). They don't need all the power from the current Mac Pro and the current iMac's sadly does not allow for great expandability. And the Mini's are the same as the iMac's except no monitor so it'll be more expensive than the iMac.I feel like there are a lot of people who actually wants a medium to lower-upper-class performance TOWER and sadly, they are forced to switch to PC because Apple does not have such a solution yet. Hopefully they will address this in the next Mac Pro overhaul. A Mac Pro with i7 2600k for 1500$~ + 27 inch LED for a total of 1600$~ would be great and it would still be a machine worthy of the name Mac Pro.
People who want Mini boxes gets the Mac Mini. People who want built-in monitor gets the iMac. Those will still have uses and will still be bought.
If Apple wants to stun the world.....
If Apple wants to stun the world they need to make a Mac Pro with plug and play upgradeability.
Seriously we don't need to keep buying the same aluminum case year after year.
Just make it so I can pull out the motherboard and plug in a new on in minutes. Replace fans in seconds, cd drives, speakers, etc.etc.
The case will last 20 years and we know it, but pile needs to leap ahead of the competition and make it on site rebuildable.
Actually they could end up making more profit.
If Apple wants to stun the world they need to make a Mac Pro with plug and play upgradeability.
Seriously we don't need to keep buying the same aluminum case year after year.
Just make it so I can pull out the motherboard and plug in a new on in minutes. Replace fans in seconds, cd drives, speakers, etc.etc.
The case will last 20 years and we know it, but pile needs to leap ahead of the competition and make it on site rebuildable.
Actually they could end up making more profit.
this build-your-own or "plug and play" upgrade reminds me of my pc. If people want this they generally tend to lean towards the hackintosh rigs. doubt apple has any intension to make such comp...
Then, who in there right mind would then buy the iMac i5 that is $1700-$2000, or the i7 which is $2200? You'd axe out your own machine, and not only one of them, but the entire 27" line. That's just not an efficient way to run a business. If this was the way they wanted to go, I suspect the dual core i5 would have been standard on all iMacs and the upgrade would have been to the quad core i5. Then the prices could be at least $200-300 less on all of them.
While, consumers love options, a business does not necessarily make much money providing consumers a ton of options. That is supposed to be where competition between businesses with different business models come in. And it hard to argue with Apple's success. You know what they say, if it aint broke...
Exactly. It's called market segmentation and one of its goals is to maximize profit. You don't want one product line canabalizing another.
I would gladly pay $1500 for a mid range Mac that didn't have a built in screen. I would gladly pay the premium of not having to accept the built in screen. I would happily let Apple save the money they would have spent purchasing a screen I don't want but still pay their cost of it in order to have a mid range Mac that doesn't have a built in screen. Yes. That is how badly I want Apple to make a Mac that meets my needs.
Some of us will never buy an all in one. But there are many who feel that a built in screen is a positive. I don't think offering people like me a product is going to take away sales of the iMac.
I would bet allot of money that if apple would allow OSX to be installed on any PC you want, that apple would loose a ton of money on computer sales. Many would build there own, as I do now. Not a hackintoch either. I have owned a 24 inch iMac from 2006. It was nice but expandability sucked. Never upgraded to the newer models because of screen issues, which still exist today. Would rather pick my own display. A single CPU mini Mac pro would sell well if built right. Apple could still build the bigger dual processor Mac pro for those who need it. And yes, it would cut in to the iMac sales. It would show folks don't want an all in one set up. But until this would be built, the hackintoch community will continue to grow.
But is it a positive that is worth an addition ~$300 for a lesser capable machine?
Heck, I wouldn't buy an iMac. Why do I want what amounts to a stationary laptop? I'd much rather have a MBP and spend $200-300 dollars on a nice monitor for home use. And I too would probably buy this i7 Mac Cube, or what ever, if/when I want a desktop. And if by that time Mac doesn't have this machine, I'd probably try to actually build a fairly low end i3/5 budget desktop and attempt a hackintosh. Then if that failed I'd just run Ubuntu. But really, how many people would do that? I just don't see how you can avoid eating into your iMac or lower end SP Mac Pro sales.
Now, Apple could make room for such a machine, but not in its current product product line. If they wanted to go this route I think what they would need to do is cap the iMac at what ever Ivy bridge processor is equivalent to the lower-medium speed quad i5 in their next refresh. This refresh is probably going to come pretty close to the release of the next Mac Pro. So, if you did want to add an i7 2600(k) Mac Pro, you could do it then and minimize the overlap in your products. However, I think at that point you'd need a case redesign for this SP i7 Mac Pro. There is a ton of room in these cases and it would seem wasted on SP that can only use 32 GB of RAM. Also you'd be trying to sell this i7 machine to the less than professional users, so an elegant, sexy redesign for the casual users. This would mean a whole new product really. Then you have to ask, "is it worth it?" I kinda doubt it. But its not my money being invested.
People who want the all-in-one computer, i.e. the computer built into the screen like the iMac is, they will buy the iMac. The Mac Pro will still be a tower-model, thus people who don't want that clunky tower will have to get either the Mini or the iMac.
The sales-argument for the iMac will still be that it's neat, compact and easy to use. This is great for my mom and for my grandpa. Even my younger brother who's 17 who isn't really into computer-building, he just wants a computer that runs well and is good. iMac is perfect for them.
For me, the iMac is just not enough. It has too little harddrive-space. It's scary to open it up to modify something. Same goes for the Mini.
And while I agree that Apple has had huge success, you are forgetting to take into account the countless of people who have LEFT the Mac-community in favor of the PC-community just because they did not have the option they wanted.
I realize that Apple is a bit more exclusive than PC. But Apple is actually losing money by not providing this option. You say that it's stupid to "compete" with your own products but it won't even be the same. Your argument is invalid.
I am a perfect example of this since I actually left Mac in favor for PC. I have a Macbook Pro but I wanted myself a stationary computer aswell so I bought myself a tower PC because neither the Mini nor the iMac fits my needs. I'm a computer geek. I want to get inside the computer and be able to upgrade parts in the future. Mac Pro provides that ability but the processors in them are just too much. Xeon's are server-processors. Not computer-processors.
So instead of me paying Apple 1700$~ for my new computer, I payed them 0$ and bought myself a PC for 1700$~. Is that a good business model in your eyes for Apple to use?
A Mac Pro in the lower-upper-class(i7 2600k) would not canibalize their other products. The Mac Mini will still be small, elegant and compact for those that want that. The iMac will still include the monitor in the price aswell as getting rid of any clunky box or tower. This Mac Pro will have slightly better performance but will look entirely different.
Otherwise you could say that they should remove the Mac Mini since a Mac Mini + monitor will become the same performance as the iMac(except slightly more expensive), why on EARTH would you want them interfering with each other? Why not just offer iMac since it's the ultimate win with its included monitor and get rid of the Mini? Seriously.. your logic is.. weird.
It wouldn't cut into iMac's sales for all of the reasons I posted above.
And yes, until then the Hackintosh community WILL grow. Aswell as just regular PC users will grow from the people migrating from Mac to PC.
----------
Maybe I exaggerated when coming up with a price, I had actually not looked that carefully of the pricing of iMac. It was more expensive than I thought(referring to their top of the line at 2199$).
And to be fair, I actually calculated it wrong. I said that this "new" Mac Pro would be priced at 1500$. With the monitor which is priced at $999 it would be 2500$~, not 1600$~. That will still be more than the iMac but at the same time it will be slightly better so I think it's justified. Then also an extra added premium for the upgradability. 2500$ is quite fair for a Mac Pro with included screen.
And just to point out, you just said that you would actually try to go the hackintosh route. Another customer lost for Apple then! Do you see my point? They are losing out on money simply because they're not offering a tower-based model for regular consumers and not ONLY for server and workstation -consumers.
EDIT: And case space is JUST what we need for graphics cards.
Well it is and it isn't but we're moving into a different discussion. The question they will be faced with is "do I want the iMac 27" with an i5 for ~$2000 or do I want a display-less 'Mac Cube' with a desktop i7 and room for extra hard drives, etc, for ~$1700?" We're going to get lost in all this Grandma (and seriously, who's grandma uses a $2000 computer?), Mom, 17-year old stuff.
I'm sure Apple has gone through quite a lot of trouble to do their market research. Neither of us have appropriate information to determine just how many people have left Apple because of decisions they have made verses those that have come to Apple because of those choices. In a case like this, I'm perfectly happy deferring to their rather insane profits. There is simply no way for you or I to know how much money they are leaving on the table by not offering a more standard tower PC. But their profits suggest they are making some pretty damn good choices.
Also, the argument is not that they are the "same", the argument is that they are similar enough that they would compete with each other. This is especially true because you're bounded on 3 sides. You have the Mac Pro occupying professional user segment, thus anyone that is really going to need all the capabilities of an i7 2600(k) is going to be faced with the choice of SP Xeon for even better performance. Then, you have consumers who aren't going to be running extremely intensive programs, just want to have a home server, etc, faced with the choice of just getting the Mac Mini and save a few bucks. Then you have users that might run some moderately intensive jobs, but nothing too demanding, and like the big glossy screens that will be faced with the choice of an iMac. Its just getting crowded. You're trying to occupy a very small niche market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro in display-less options.
And what percent of the market do you actually think are computer geeks?
You're being very self-centric here. You have to understand there are lot more people than you. Apple, despite all its cash, only has a limited amount things it can invest in, and needs to make choices in which market strategies will return the greatest profits. They have chosen to occupy certain parts of computing market, and have been exceedingly profitable in doing so. If they stretch their target markets beyond what they are now, they may lower profit margins. Its unreasonable for you to expect Apple to fill in every part of the market. These are the kinds of things Dell tries to do, with its seemingly 100's of computing options, and how's that gone?
I've seen you say this twice, but I haven't seen any hint from you that you understand the opportunity cost and potential for Apple to spend more money offering a wider variety of computers, while on aggregate, competing with themselves and not attracting enough new customers to the Mac line up to pay these additional costs.
I was using $1500 with no monitor, so we were roughly on the same page.
I'd be interested to see just what percent of the market they are missing without this option. I suspect its pretty small. Also, you should notice from my post that I already bought a MBP. I can use that machine for quite a few very demanding tasks for my work (bioinformatics) and play (iMovie, photoshop and the like). The things I can't do on that machine, I basically need a Mac Pro or a cluster for. This middle ground i7 2600(k) is just not that practical for me.
And this is how market segmentation works. You offer X product to cover window A-L, then you offer Y product to cover a window P-Z. Sure you could build a third system that covers window H-T and close that gap, but if you're products X and Y are good enough to not lose a lot of potential buyers on the tails, which Apple's are, you're probably not making much money on getting to those buyers M, N and O that you're missing.
The difference between you and me is that I realize my wants in a desktop (of a simple dual core i3, is actually the opposite end of the spectrum from yours) are fairly unique and not necessarily very profitable. I don't need a power horse desktop. With my i7 MBP I have filled maybe 80% of my home computing needs. So, I'm not willing to spend Apple money on a computer to fill the remaining 20%. I don't expect Apple to offer me a $300-400 computing option. There just is not a lot of profit margin there. Plus, I'd build a better computer than apple could offer me for that price. Its completely unreasonable for me to expect Apple to compete with the home build, budget hackintosh or Ubuntu machine.