the performance is similar to the imac in no regard whatsoever. It has a faster processor, more ram, a good videocard, and desktop components. Believe it or not, these faster desktop components are cheaper than the laptop counterparts in the imac. The tradeoff vs the imac is that your not getting a monitor. Instead, you can pick your own monitor. No forced glossy anyone? Get whatever monitor you want. 17" or 30" your choice. The inbetween obviously does exist. I just said it. This would benchmark much faster than an imac, but would fall short of a mac pro.
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.
The Mac Paradox
- Thread starter Freyqq
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the performance is similar to the imac in no regard whatsoever. It has a faster processor, more ram, a good videocard, and desktop components. Believe it or not, these faster desktop components are cheaper than the laptop counterparts in the imac. The tradeoff vs the imac is that your not getting a monitor. Instead, you can pick your own monitor. No forced glossy anyone? Get whatever monitor you want. 17" or 30" your choice. The inbetween obviously does exist. I just said it. This would benchmark much faster than an imac, but would fall short of a mac pro.
Please do tell me what exactly would be a purpose of the computer you are proposing?
The iMac's are perfect for what most people need in a personal computer, they can surf the web, do multimedia stuff, and of course play some videogames.
The Mac Pro on the other hand is a perfect workstation and super fast. Just what someone who needs a professional computer wants and requires.
I dont see a point in introducing some sort of intermediary computer between the iMac and the Mac Pro just for the marginal speed increase and the option to choose your own screen. That is just silly, and any company who would even consider doing that, well, i wouldnt buy its stock...
The speed increase is MAJOR and HUGE...probably approaching 3x the framerates in games (yeah i know no one here cares about games but games are a good way to show system speed), much much faster rendering times with double the ram of a standard imac and a much faster processor..i could go on and on. This would top an imac in every way speedwise pretty handily. You would be lucky if the imac released a year from now could beat this proposed computer in any one sector of performance.
The option to chose your own screen should not be taken lightly. If you were a graphics professional who relied on screen accuracy and wanted something better than a glossy imac screen, or wanted a 30" screen, but did not want a mac pro....you would love this.
IMHO this is the ONLY valid reason for wanting the midrange desktop.
The G4 Mac mini is more computer than most folks ever need or actually use.
Apple certainly caters to a segment of the market who want their computers to be less obtrusive than your average PC. Quieter, smaller, less power hungry but still powerful enough. All these things have value, which is often forgotten by the folks who seem to want a mid range headless Mac. Heck, I'd buy one, but I woudn't want it to sound like a wind tunnel and look like a brick, like the machines most people build from newegg parts.
All I want is an iMac sans screen, maybe in a pizza box format so I can use a different screen.
B
You are missing my point here, for all the uses that an computer like the iMac might be employed, it is perfect. Browsing, watching pictures, watching movies, listening to music, do some light image editing work or light movie editing, all of these things run perfectly fine on a iMac.
For all users who need more there is always the option of the Mac Pro, which, IMHO suits the needs of any professional better than any midlevel tower. I dont believe that any serious professional in any field would take a 30'' screen and pair it with a subpar computer (subpar when compared to the MP).
Somehow im getting the impression that this midlevel tower would be almost perfect for a medium to heavy gamer, which is, as others have stated, not only a niche market, but also totally pointless on any OS but windows, as games come out for it in greater number than for any other operating system.
What im trying to say that to an ordinary consumer there will be no significant difference in performance, as the iMac already does all they want fast enough for them and the professionals will not care for a step between an iMac and a Mac Pro because they are going for pure power and strength, which is a hallmark of the MP line. Your tower would be a product bought by few.
I think some of you are forgetting the times when Apple tried to build a box for every possible need. These are usually thought of as "the bad old days."
Remember that the BBC story probably counted business desktops as well. From a consumer perspective, desktops are dead. Most people who walk into a computer store go in wanting a notebook. Granted there are a few gamers and nerds who want their own desktop tower so they can fix it up how they want to, but this is a niche market. By and large, consumers want notebooks. The BBC article clearly stated that in 2005, the year as a whole, notebooks outsold desktops. I doubt that's changed over the course of the last two years. The article's mention of "dominant form of computing" is vague and doesn't mean that desktop sales will be less than half by that point. Since desktops tend to outlast notebooks, notebooks will have higher sales in order to replace those that have gone bad. That's why desktop sales can be less than 50%, but usage can be above 50%.
With that said, you have to look at it from a company's point of view. If you know that desktops are on the decline, why would you spend your resources on that weakening market? It would wiser to put your R&D into make more notebooks, which is clearly what the consumer wants.
computing power is always a good thing. If you don't need it now, you'll need it later. It makes your computer last longer. Today you might not need that 8600GTS, but what if you got a blue ray drive in the future? That would drive blue ray/hddvd.
Your arguement that the average user needs nothing over a G4 is shortsighted. If the average user really only needed a G4, then go buy a G4. If average users only need a G4, why doesn't apple release a cheap G4 imac that costs a few hundred?
Ok..so lets say the "average" user buys an imac for their uses. Fine. What about the above average user? What if i want something just a little bit better because I don't just read email on my computer? Is it so wrong not to make a computer designed for that market? Is it that outrageous?
Believe it or not, OSX itself is a niche market. The mac pro is a niche market..only high end professionals that want 2 processors go for it. All in ones? Definitely a niche market. Mac mini? Niche market...subpc. A flexable tower is probably the LEAST niche of a market of the desktop line.
No. It's. Not.
If it means more power consumption, larger size, more noise. I'll take a solution that is powerful enough but no more.
B
so if someone offered you a mac pro you would turn it down for a imac? fine your call but i doubt the general public would agree.
Market?
There's a bit of irony here. Chastising another poster for his arrogance in talking about marketing when you don't seem to understand marketing in your post.
I'm not in marketing, I'm an IT guy but it seems to me that the "market" is not the product. The iMac [AIO] is the product. The manufacturer develops the product to satisfy the "market". The product is not the market.
In fact, if you look up Market in the dictionary you'll find that a market is the sum of people who looking to purchase a product (or a place with shops )
When you say, "what % of the market are AIO computers".. I know what you're saying but I think you want to ask; what % of shipping desktops are AIO? There could be a large demand in the market for good AIO Windows PCs that simply isn't met by the vendors. When Apple went to Intel I had questions about buying an iMac to run Windows on full-time because there is simply nothing like the iMac available in the PC market [nothing as good].
Now, aside from that bit marketing info.. I figure I should address your contention that the iMac and Mini address a niche market.
I believe you could make this argument with the mini since the niche is primarially Windows switchers who already have USB devices and monitors. I also know more than a few purchasers of Minis who just wanted a small, quiet, stand alone computers. I happen to know of a whole department of Theoretical Physicists that run G4 Minis (currently migrating to faster Macs). Apple targeted a niche, but it was one that Apple believed was essential to their long term business plan.. Windows users interested in trying a Mac.
The iMac is absolutely NOT a niche product. It is Apple's desktop computer. In Apple's mind, it's the default option for consumer desktops. The Mini is the niche product of a sort, the Mac Pro is a Pro not a Consumer grade machine [Mac Pro is a "workstation" not a "desktop".. Multi-socket, ECC, lots of DIMMs, optional OGL cards...]
Now, the iMac isn't the desktop that YOU want but it is the standard desktop computer for consumers. It isn't a niche product because it targets nearly every consumer user interested in a Macintosh that is tethered to the wall.
You've missed the point by a wide mark here.
The real question here is not whether the iMac is a niche product.
The real question is; Is Apple targeting their consumers properly with the iMac?
In my opinion, no, if only for the following reasons:
- Most consumer desktop purchasers are Windows users. Apple wants these customers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers therefore are used to Tower computers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers [from my exp] believe they need the expandability/upgradability of a tower. I've seen way too many people who bought Dell's thinking they could upgrade any given component in the future just because it was in a mid-tower case. Ironically, most PC purchasers never upgrade other than adding memory or repairing a part like a fan or PS. Gamers are the exception.
IMHO..
Gaming on the mac is a chicken/egg problem. No consumer grade gaming machines mean no market for Video Cards and other gaming paraphernalia. (Yes, IMacs can play many games fine.. not what I consider a gaming machine though).
A general lack of interest in the gaming hardware community is another indication to software vendors that there is no Mac gaming market. Conversely, no great interest by software vendors demonstrates to hardware vendors that there is no Mac gaming market, and of course there is the lack of upgradeable consumer Macs for cards. Imagine how the Physics chips would go over in Macintoshes if the vendor simply wrote drivers to intercept calls to the Accellerate Framework. Plug one in and EVERYTHING that uses Accellerate would speed up, not just games that are custom compiled to support the Physics card. Unfortuntately we don't see Aegea rushing with Mac support when the gaming market is small and running iMacs. :-(
Someone has to make a move to break the stalemate.
The software vendors (2 of them) made a tolken effort at WWDC. Apple can step up with a Mini-Tower. IMHO, it is a completely reasonable and obvious move. It targets the major market, Consumers.. particularly Windows switchers. It targets Mac users who won't buy a full on Pro because of price but who want a better machine (Graphic Designers and gamers come to mind). It even targets those Mac users who hate the iMac because they believe their data is tied to the life of an LCD monitor.
I think Apple should offer a mini-Tower. I'm thinking 2/3 or 1/2 Cheeze grater without the handles. 1 optical drive, 4 DDR2 slots, One Core2 Dual or Core2 Quad, 1 PCI-E 16x, 2 PCI-E 4x, onboard audio and GigE and integrated Intel video would be nice for those that don't need a nice video card. 2 PCI-E 16x would be nice but Intel chipsets only support ATI crossfire and this would require a monster PowerSupply.
Here's the marketing genius. Apple offeres the Cheeze Grater in Anodized Silver, Black, ipod colors, and Freaking Chrome. Offer free engraving like on the iPod, but bigger (any Apple font).
Or, I could be wrong.
There's a bit of irony here. Chastising another poster for his arrogance in talking about marketing when you don't seem to understand marketing in your post.
I'm not in marketing, I'm an IT guy but it seems to me that the "market" is not the product. The iMac [AIO] is the product. The manufacturer develops the product to satisfy the "market". The product is not the market.
In fact, if you look up Market in the dictionary you'll find that a market is the sum of people who looking to purchase a product (or a place with shops
)When you say, "what % of the market are AIO computers".. I know what you're saying but I think you want to ask; what % of shipping desktops are AIO? There could be a large demand in the market for good AIO Windows PCs that simply isn't met by the vendors. When Apple went to Intel I had questions about buying an iMac to run Windows on full-time because there is simply nothing like the iMac available in the PC market [nothing as good].
Now, aside from that bit marketing info.. I figure I should address your contention that the iMac and Mini address a niche market.
I believe you could make this argument with the mini since the niche is primarially Windows switchers who already have USB devices and monitors. I also know more than a few purchasers of Minis who just wanted a small, quiet, stand alone computers. I happen to know of a whole department of Theoretical Physicists that run G4 Minis (currently migrating to faster Macs). Apple targeted a niche, but it was one that Apple believed was essential to their long term business plan.. Windows users interested in trying a Mac.
The iMac is absolutely NOT a niche product. It is Apple's desktop computer. In Apple's mind, it's the default option for consumer desktops. The Mini is the niche product of a sort, the Mac Pro is a Pro not a Consumer grade machine [Mac Pro is a "workstation" not a "desktop".. Multi-socket, ECC, lots of DIMMs, optional OGL cards...]
Now, the iMac isn't the desktop that YOU want but it is the standard desktop computer for consumers. It isn't a niche product because it targets nearly every consumer user interested in a Macintosh that is tethered to the wall.
You've missed the point
The real question here is not whether the iMac is a niche product.
The real question is; Is Apple targeting their consumers properly with the iMac?
In my opinion, no, if only for the following reasons:
- Most consumer desktop purchasers are Windows users. Apple wants these customers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers therefore are used to Tower computers.
- Most consumer desktop purchasers [from my exp] believe they need the expandability/upgradability of a tower. I've seen way too many people who bought Dell's thinking they could upgrade any given component in the future just because it was in a mid-tower case. Ironically, most PC purchasers never upgrade other than adding memory or repairing a part like a fan or PS. Gamers are the exception.
IMHO..
Gaming on the mac is a chicken/egg problem. No consumer grade gaming machines mean no market for Video Cards and other gaming paraphernalia. (Yes, IMacs can play many games fine.. not what I consider a gaming machine though).
A general lack of interest in the gaming hardware community is another indication to software vendors that there is no Mac gaming market. Conversely, no great interest by software vendors demonstrates to hardware vendors that there is no Mac gaming market, and of course there is the lack of upgradeable consumer Macs for cards. Imagine how the Physics chips would go over in Macintoshes if the vendor simply wrote drivers to intercept calls to the Accellerate Framework. Plug one in and EVERYTHING that uses Accellerate would speed up, not just games that are custom compiled to support the Physics card. Unfortuntately we don't see Aegea rushing with Mac support when the gaming market is small and running iMacs. :-(
Someone has to make a move to break the stalemate.
The software vendors (2 of them) made a tolken effort at WWDC. Apple can step up with a Mini-Tower. IMHO, it is a completely reasonable and obvious move. It targets the major market, Consumers.. particularly Windows switchers. It targets Mac users who won't buy a full on Pro because of price but who want a better machine (Graphic Designers and gamers come to mind). It even targets those Mac users who hate the iMac because they believe their data is tied to the life of an LCD monitor.
I think Apple should offer a mini-Tower. I'm thinking 2/3 or 1/2 Cheeze grater without the handles. 1 optical drive, 4 DDR2 slots, One Core2 Dual or Core2 Quad, 1 PCI-E 16x, 2 PCI-E 4x, onboard audio and GigE and integrated Intel video would be nice for those that don't need a nice video card. 2 PCI-E 16x would be nice but Intel chipsets only support ATI crossfire and this would require a monster PowerSupply.
Here's the marketing genius.
Apple offeres the Cheeze Grater in Anodized Silver, Black, ipod colors, and Freaking Chrome. Offer free engraving like on the iPod, but bigger (any Apple font).Or, I could be wrong.
Wrong, have you even visited dell's site and tried to build an XPS? Current gen MBP's are on the santa rosa platform while the XPS's are still using the 667mhz FSB from what I can tell.
I don't think you represent the general public either.
It depends for what purpose. I certainly don't want a Mac Pro in my living room, but the iMac fits in quite nicely, and performs very well for the tasks asked of it. Thank you.
B
its not like i'm saying apple should end the imac line..i'm saying other viable options..like possibly a midrange tower...should definitely be present
I'm a serious Desktop user who's dissapointed with Apple's desktop offerings as well, but I don't think they're going to jump into the whole idea of this midrange tower at this point in the game. People: the kind who don't really think too hard about computers, ARE going to gravitate towards laptops.
Me? I like things that run cool, and have separate screens. I like a LOT of fans: I don't care if it sounds like a space shuttle, Florida is hot enough and my computer should be blowing air conditioning on me. The iMacs and laptops really agitate me for this reason, they don't just cram expensive components into small spaces to generate heat, they also place a value on acoustics that I can't identify with.
I like things to be as modular as possible: not because I'm going to upgrade it, but because I want to be able to repair or replace failing parts easily. The iMac's screen integration is totally unacceptable to me, at least there's a WAY to take the screens off most laptops, my understanding is that iMacs are totally unserviceable by users. Dead pixels should not send me to a store to have my computer operated on, I should order a new screen and hook it up, and be done.
Personally, I'm just switching because I'd like a commercially supported, professionally developed UNIX system, with polish: I KNOW I'm not going to be happy with Apple from a hardware standpoint, since I'm literally on the opposite side of the fence.
I think Apple has come as far as it has because it doesn't try to make everyone totally happy, it just makes one thing that everyone will love(it's software) and sits back knowing that anyone who REALLY wants that will put up with not being marketed to directly.
Me? I like things that run cool, and have separate screens. I like a LOT of fans: I don't care if it sounds like a space shuttle, Florida is hot enough and my computer should be blowing air conditioning on me. The iMacs and laptops really agitate me for this reason, they don't just cram expensive components into small spaces to generate heat, they also place a value on acoustics that I can't identify with.
I like things to be as modular as possible: not because I'm going to upgrade it, but because I want to be able to repair or replace failing parts easily. The iMac's screen integration is totally unacceptable to me, at least there's a WAY to take the screens off most laptops, my understanding is that iMacs are totally unserviceable by users. Dead pixels should not send me to a store to have my computer operated on, I should order a new screen and hook it up, and be done.
Personally, I'm just switching because I'd like a commercially supported, professionally developed UNIX system, with polish: I KNOW I'm not going to be happy with Apple from a hardware standpoint, since I'm literally on the opposite side of the fence.
I think Apple has come as far as it has because it doesn't try to make everyone totally happy, it just makes one thing that everyone will love(it's software) and sits back knowing that anyone who REALLY wants that will put up with not being marketed to directly.
Most important rule I learned in marketing ... is there a gap in the market and is there a market in the gap?
I don't think Apple wants to be all things to everyone anymore, they tried that when Jobs left and almost died. Look up Michael Porter's articles on generic strategies and competing on cost (eg. Dell)
Best post I've read in this thread is how people who post in MR assume they're representative of the market ... I doubt that's the case.
Other than the Apple fanboys (who usually started out as students on limited budgets and always talk about their EDU discounts on MR) the rest of us switched to Apple for the simplicity of the AIO. We realize that it's not easily upgradeable if at all. We don't need towers so we can replace components as we realize the lifespan of a box is short and we'd rather just buy a new one in a few years.
Have you noticed how the entry level MB and iMac are so competitively priced now? That's the lure to get us ex-PC guys to switch, hopefully fall in love with Mac OS and then keep upgrading within the Apple line.
Another reason for desktop PC's declining market share is that dual core is out now and narrows the gap between desktop and laptop performance. The rest of us email checking, non-gaming, MS Office non-artist corporate types who do a little family video/photo don't need supercomputers. Funny how Apple's iLife and iWork suite perfectly suits me.
Perfectly happy with my non-upgradeable iMac, and the MBP/MB for the wife and kids.
Hmm, I wonder if I'm Apple's target market
I don't think Apple wants to be all things to everyone anymore, they tried that when Jobs left and almost died. Look up Michael Porter's articles on generic strategies and competing on cost (eg. Dell)
Best post I've read in this thread is how people who post in MR assume they're representative of the market ... I doubt that's the case.
Other than the Apple fanboys (who usually started out as students on limited budgets and always talk about their EDU discounts on MR) the rest of us switched to Apple for the simplicity of the AIO. We realize that it's not easily upgradeable if at all. We don't need towers so we can replace components as we realize the lifespan of a box is short and we'd rather just buy a new one in a few years.
Have you noticed how the entry level MB and iMac are so competitively priced now? That's the lure to get us ex-PC guys to switch, hopefully fall in love with Mac OS and then keep upgrading within the Apple line.
Another reason for desktop PC's declining market share is that dual core is out now and narrows the gap between desktop and laptop performance. The rest of us email checking, non-gaming, MS Office non-artist corporate types who do a little family video/photo don't need supercomputers. Funny how Apple's iLife and iWork suite perfectly suits me.
Perfectly happy with my non-upgradeable iMac, and the MBP/MB for the wife and kids.
Hmm, I wonder if I'm Apple's target market
Viable to whom? Anything is viable for a consumer, as long as it's the right price and does what the consumer wants it to do. For a company however, it's a very different set of standards which define the word "viable."
Since we've hashed out this topic several times, I'll leave you with this: if Apple could make a tower with the specs you seek, and keep it profitable, don't you think it would have occured to them to enter that market? Obviously someone's looked at it and thought about all of the relevant factors. For Apple, it just isn't a good business decision. I know you want a Mac Tower, but it's not going to happen. It's a part of life. I'm sure there are people out there who would like Mercedes to build a fuel efficient, stylish, and feature rich car for under 20k, but let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. Mercedes has clearly decided what its market is, and is doing fine in that market, just like Apple is. If you want a low price tower, choose one of the fifty PC companies which build them. If you want OS X, choose one of the three desktops Apple offers, and make the best of it. That's my best suggestion.
PS: I've been meaning to mention this, but I've been forgetting. Your thread is inappropriately named. A paradox is a statement which contradicts or seems to contradict itself or other truths. You never presented an assertion about Apple or Macs which contradicted itself or a generally accepted view of Apple. Perhaps a better title would have been "The Mac Hole" or something. At least I wouldn't have been able to argue with that.
Unfortunately, I doubt Apple would ever produce a mid-range tower while they have the iMac. The iMac is Apple's mid-range tower, there is no gap in the line-up to fill with a tower.
I've never seen the point in the 'all-in-one' form factor. I'd prefer to have a slim lcd monitor with out a 'chin', as the iMac has, and a tower on the floor, where all the noises it makes will be less audible because it isn't right in front of my face. The only cables you don't have to plug in is the lcd cable and the speakers. When you do plug stuff into the iMac, it becomes very cluttered, because everything has to be right there on your desktop. My neighbor has 2 external HDDs, a printer, memory card reader, USB hub, iPod, and a few other things connected to their iMac and it is very messy. If they had a tower then all these cables could be behind their desk rather then on it.
The bottom line is that Apple's desktops are too expensive for most consumers, and many of those that can afford them instead choose to buy a PC because they can get better hardware for the same price.
Apple works under the guise of a niche market. Every one of their desktop lines offers something that the average desktop does not. The mac mini is really small. The imac is an AIO..which is rare. The mac pro has 2 processors and 4 hd slots. There is no "normal" non-niche desktop machine available. Why is it that apple makes niche products instead of mainstream products? Fear of the competition. They can't compete with desktop tower PC machines, so they spice up their line with creative designs. While formwise they look great.....functionwise they are lacking compared to their PC counterparts.
If apple licensed osx...which they would never do b\c they lose to much money...who here would build their own mac or buy a competing company's product with osx installed? Is having a faster computer for half the price worth a slight aesthetic loss?
My point was never..is it economical for apple to make a midrange tower. It doesn't matter. There is no way anyone here even knows if it is economical. You don't know the margins or have access the apple's financial information. My point is..do the consumers want to accept a midrange tower for an adequate price?
I'll agree with you that Apple desktops languish a bit behind PC makers.
However, you last point about econimics is way off. I posted above that the risk for more options doesn't lie with the consumer, it lies with the business. There are always going to be a few people, like you, who will want a Mac tower. However, if we were to compare that number to the total number of people who really don't care about a tower, it will be dwarfed. Now, you're quite right in saying that I don't know this for sure; I don't have access to information like that, and I'm not privy to any insider information. However, given what we know about the desktop market and its near future and the fact that Apple has ignored this market for some time gives us some good clues. Remember, Apple is very aware of its size and its potential. It took a lot of research and forsight for Apple to launch a product in a very competitive field. I'm refering to the iPhone of course. Don't assume that Apple hasn't thought of this tower. That company has a lot of well educated, intelligent, and hard working people at its disposal, and their information eventually led them to believe that the tower market wasn't one worth entering into. I know you want to believe that this is a demand-side question, but I'm telling you it's not. This is very much a supply-side question. Can Apple afford to enter the tower market: probably not.
So, I'll provide a summary:
A small percentage of the population wants towers of the kind you describe.
A smaller precentage of that population wants towers of the kind you describe with OS X.
Thus, the OS X tower market can be described to be a "niche" at best.
Apple, a company which has to be selective in its product variety in order to maintain good margins, chooses not to develop a tower of the kind you describe.
This final point isn't based on cold hard facts, but based on Apple's actions over the past couple of years, and the fact that we know Jobs and Co. are no fools. They know what they're doing, and they're doing it quite well.
Fear of the competition? ROFL. Apple is eating the competition's lunch in the markets they choose to go after.
It's still hard to find a PC laptop that is truly competitive with the MacBook from another vendor. So much so that people do buy them even if they are not planning to run OS X on them. No one else makes an AIO solution like the iMac.
The fact that many of us on MR (myself included) would buy a mid range headless Mac doesn't mean that this would be something Apple would ultimately consider a profitable business case.
Every time I go to the mall with the Apple store I see folks leaving the store with a new iMac or MacBook/MBP I think to myself that Apple are marketing geniuses. With their tiny well marked boxes they get plenty of free advertising as people walk around through the mall.
The store is constantly packed with people looking at Macs, many of which are first time computer buyers.
You're coming at this all wrong, by assuming that what you want is what Apple needs to fill some perceived gap in their product line.
The Wii s a "lousy" game system. It basically uses the same hardware as a GameCube. It doesn't support HD, it doesn't even play standard DVDs. OK, so they added Bluetooth and WiFi and a very nifty controller. Yet, is the best selling system of the current generation of game systems, having just surpassed the 360 in total number of units sold. Nintendo is eating Sony and Microsoft's lunch. Almost a year after it's release it's still hard to find a system in some places. [Even the flagship Nintendo store in NYC had limited supplies (1 per customer) last month.]
Why?
Because it's fun! The fact that the system is smaller and cheaper than the other current generation systems doesn't hurt either. With it Nintendo has managed to get a whole bunch of people who would never buy a PS2, PS3 or 360 to buy a game system.
B
yeah... no. A good way to measure a card maybe. My Macpro runs games like ass compared to many PCs twice as slow. Again- gamers... who cares?
If you were a graphics professional and you wanted something better than an iMac, you would want.... a Macpro.
If a lot of people would buy the computer..it would be profitable if apple simply adjusts its margins on the product. I never said it had to compete pricewise with PC vendors..i'm just saying it needs to be there.
yeah... no. A good way to measure a card maybe. My Macpro runs games like ass compared to many PCs twice as slow. Again- gamers... who cares?
If you were a graphics professional and you wanted something better than an iMac, you would want.... a Macpro.
do you know what games do? Games render frames. If you did any 3d work on that mac pro of yours that is faster than every pc as you say...you might actually need a good card. Believe it or not..some people do 3d work and need a nice graphics card. Just because you don't doesn't mean the capability should not be there.
do graphics professionals really need a mac pro? Do you need a 3k computer to do photoshop? It is easy to dismiss the concept by saying that a professional should get a pro computer..but honestly who are you to say that every graphics professional needs to put down 3k in order to work professionally? Prior to the release of the new imac with glossy screen...PLENTY of people did their photoshop work on imacs. Now that the glossy screen is present..many are forced to upgrade to a mac pro and pay twice as much for a computer that has not been upgraded by apple in a year despite not needing that kind of power.