True, but doesn't change Apple's ethos necessarily.
What was the real angle of the G4 cube anyhow? I should go back and watch the announce video but I think it's biggest issue is that it *wasn't* positioned as the xMac. It was pricier and worse than a PowerMac G4 (which were the cheapest pro Macs ever) for comparatively little in space saving compared to the difference between a oMac and Mac mini.
The Cube was intended as a bridge between the iMac and the Power Mac for professional users, but it marketed badly and the price meant it was really poorly positioned as that.
I was working for a Mac magazine as a rather young hack when the Cube launched a little while later, at a European Mac Expo, had interview time with three Apple executives (which was a very different experience to the one I had with the head Microsofts Business Unit but thats another story) and was able to discuss a little about the Cube, specifically how well it was doing. The quote that always sticks in my mind was that its resonating really well with prosumers.
A major problem was one that you mentioned the price. Although the base model was had a faster processor than the base Power Mac, it was also more expensive as you say and very importantly there was the question of the monitor. I felt that the vast majority of people would want a stylish display for such a stylish computer the beige CRTs that were so prevalent, wouldnt cut it. When the Cube launched a new CRT also came out (and maybe the LCD ones had a refresh) and when that was added on, the whole cost was about double what an iMac cost. At that price point, its going to be tricky getting someone to upgrade from an iMac either its too expensive or theyll be asking why not get a Power Mac instead. FWIW, going from various feedback and discussions with colleagues, I got the impression that a price a little under the price of a top iMac would have been the spot.
As to being worse than a Power Mac, Im not so sure. This is anecdotal, but I heard a lot about high end Power Mac professional users opting to use them I really dont think power was the issue here. My gut feeling is that the Cube attracted too many Power Mac users and not enough people switching to Apple or upgrading from iMacs.
Marketing was an issue, I dont think it got across who it was aimed at. I strongly believe that Apple was using a similar approach to the iMac e.g. magazine ad where the hardware just looks great and people just went Wow! I want one! That said, one thing Apple did go on about (this was in the ads and sure Jobs mentioned it in his presentation) was how quiet it was and this was something that I heard a lot of people enthusing about. I remember having lunch with a few people from a software house and the boss of them had a Cube at work and he absolutely loved it thought it was a brilliant piece of engineering and he couldnt get over how quiet it was.
Personally thought, I think the money factor was the most important. Apple did lower the price a fair bit (and I think there might have been two cuts) but thanks to negative publicity (most importantly about the machines overheating and the cases cracking) it was too late. If the final price had been the initial one, Im pretty sure the Cube would have lasted.
Looked at those Brix models, since if I ever wanted to get into PC gaming I couldn't justify the space of a tower. But jeez why are the "gaming" versions instantly uglier, with a splash of garish paint across the bow of the thing? PC design has not advanced in 10 years when it comes to marketing towards gaming enthusiasts.
I dont think thats something that gamers are concerned about certainly not an issue that gets raised much on the gaming forums I frequent. Something that has been thrown at Mac users for years is they pay over the odds for prettiness over power and personally, I think an element of that creeps in making a point about specs, not looks.
That said, I do feel that there is a better choice of the kind of cases these days, then there used to be.
