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.
Why no headless iMac equivalent?
- Thread starter theSeb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because if they produced say a $1200 tower with better specs then the mini, but not as good as the mac pro it would take away the sales of the mac pro. I'm sure theres a lot of people similar to you that do not need the power of the mac pro, but need more than the mini and do not want the iMac, so they infact buy the mac pro, keeping its sales up.
Well, I think that sometimes the answer is in the question. If you want a Mac, but don't need much power, Apple would like you to buy a Mac mini. If you want something more than that with a beautiful display, Apple would like you to buy an iMac. If you would like lots of power or some configurability, Apple would like you to buy a Mac Pro. Apple doesn't offer another option because they are minimalists (that is, they feel like what you are asking for is already offered in the Mac Pro).
That will compromse their Mac Pro sales.
If you are a professional needing more power than an iMac currently you have to buy a Mac Pro another model would just reduce these sales.
Why not buy a refurb?
Refurbished Mac Pro 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Originally released early 2009
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (3 x 1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory
for £1900
What do you use your mac for?! Why is an iMac i7 2.93 16gb with 1 raid array over firewire 800 and 4 USB 2 ports, not enough for you?
I agree the screen situation is a pain but hey you get an amazing 27" display with it!
If you are a professional needing more power than an iMac currently you have to buy a Mac Pro another model would just reduce these sales.
Why not buy a refurb?
Refurbished Mac Pro 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Originally released early 2009
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (3 x 1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory
for £1900
What do you use your mac for?! Why is an iMac i7 2.93 16gb with 1 raid array over firewire 800 and 4 USB 2 ports, not enough for you?
I agree the screen situation is a pain but hey you get an amazing 27" display with it!
There are posts here going back to 2004 talking about headless iMacs, FWIW.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/77122/
he never said the iMac hardware wasn't enough for him, just that he doesn't need the screen.
Though the question is kind of silly... I can ask why doesn't Lamborghini or Ferrari make a car with out the body if all I want is the frame and engine?
The answer is simple, it is because they just don't want to
A refurb may be an option...
I use my mac to run my business, write code (both xcode and windows), rip movies, stream media and various other bits and bobs. I am not a patient person and don't have the time to wait for things to happen, but I don't believe that I need the power of a Mac Pro to compile. However, having said that, multiple VMs to test would benefit from powerful CPUs.
The iMac 2.93 would be perfect for my needs, if it didn't have a screen, but, as things currently stand, it's not an elegant solution. I don't want the iMac display because I already have a 24" monitor. Two of them on my desk will look weird. I am unfortunately OCD when it comes to these things and having a 24" and a 27" monitor just won't do.
Also I would prefer my storage to be inside the computer and not out. I already have a NAS box, I don't want another box cluttering up my home office. I want things to be neat and tidy - tower with plenty of internal storage that is always available for streaming and testing stuff and NAS for backups.
I'll probably shell out of the Mac Pro in the end because it makes sense for tax purposes, despite my ranting.
he never said the iMac hardware wasn't enough for him, just that he doesn't need the screen.
Though the question is kind of silly... I can ask why doesn't Lamborghini or Ferrari make a car with out the body if all I want is the frame and engine?
The answer is simple, it is because they just don't want to
Actually, I think the question is more like, why can't Porsche make a 4 door saloon that is as quick as a 911 turbo. And they did!
And that's exactly why Apple don't do a headless machine between the Mini and the Mac Pro: If they did, you would have bought that, but because they don't they know you (and people like you) will buy the Mac Pro, even if you don't feel you need all the power
Mac Pro is nothing else but a sub-1500$ PC with a fattier price tag. Equivalent workstation with Xeon CPU costs around 1300$ from Dell when I last checked. What you really want is a cheaper Mac Pro.
So why doesn't the iMac take sales away from the Pro. Here we are on the cusp of a refresh of the iMac which if the rumors of the Sandy Bridge and TB are true, will make the iMac a very powerful machine.
I think the issue is it would take sales away from the iMac. So price it accordingly. Make a box maybe the size of 3 Mini's stacked on top of each other with configurations similar to the iMac line. Then sell it for less than the iMac, but at a premium so there is more profit in it.
As environmentally conscience as Apple is, why do they want me to buy something I don't need (monitor) so that an old one will end up in a landfill somewhere?
You aready have a NAS and a 24" screen, you crave tidyness and you dont need the power of an Mac Pro.
Your options in my opinion:
Buy a Mac Pro (~£1900)
or
Sell your 24" (~£100)
Buy an iMac (~£1700)
Upgrade NAS (~upto £300)
they would cost the same.
The iMac would also add a wow factor to your office when meeting clients!
Your options in my opinion:
Buy a Mac Pro (~£1900)
or
Sell your 24" (~£100)
Buy an iMac (~£1700)
Upgrade NAS (~upto £300)
they would cost the same.
The iMac would also add a wow factor to your office when meeting clients!
The one computer Apple won't build is the only Mac I want to buy.
Arguments that a mid range Mac would kill iMac sales or kill Mac Pro sales aren't always valid.
The Mac Pro isn't just overkill for me in terms of capability it is also overkill in size. I don't want something that is bigger and heavier than the PowerMac G4 I have.
The iMac isn't for me. I do not want a built in screen nor do I want to buy plastic overlays to try to turn the glossy screen into a matte screen. I have a perfectly good monitor.
What I do find curious is the number of Mac users that have said, "I you want a mid sized computer running OSX build a Hackintosh."
I rather Apple build one.
Arguments that a mid range Mac would kill iMac sales or kill Mac Pro sales aren't always valid.
The Mac Pro isn't just overkill for me in terms of capability it is also overkill in size. I don't want something that is bigger and heavier than the PowerMac G4 I have.
The iMac isn't for me. I do not want a built in screen nor do I want to buy plastic overlays to try to turn the glossy screen into a matte screen. I have a perfectly good monitor.
What I do find curious is the number of Mac users that have said, "I you want a mid sized computer running OSX build a Hackintosh."
I rather Apple build one.
Let's create a petition!
Oh boy, here comes the fabled xMac again...the rumor that refuses to die...1996 Performas anyone?
Considering what a poor value the mini is when you pair it with an Apple display, a headless iMac with an Apple display would be a terrible value. The 21.5" and 27" iMac displays are very high quality IPS units (although not immune from QC issues).
Of course, if you have an existing display and you just want a more powerful mini, there certainly is a void between the Pro and mini. I'm just not sure if it would be a profitable venture for Apple.
Of course, if you have an existing display and you just want a more powerful mini, there certainly is a void between the Pro and mini. I'm just not sure if it would be a profitable venture for Apple.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I can't see why not. If it was £300 or £400 cheaper than the equivalent iMac, there would be plenty of profits for Apple to have.
dwarnecke11 said:
I can't see why not. If it was £300 or £400 cheaper than the equivalent iMac, there would be plenty of profits for Apple to have.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I am not so sure that a headless iMac would take away sales from the mac pro. It's also easier and cheaper to manufacture than an iMac. I reckon it would carve a niche for itself and enhance the model line-up. Cheaper pricing with equivalent desktop grade internals would encourage more sales. Some people that truly need the power of a mac pro would still buy it, but I think that new buyers would be interested in this as well. As things stand, mac pros account for very little of Apple's revenue.
From a profit point of view, whether you shift a couple of cheaper units versus one more expensive one, you're still making a profit.
Hellhammer, I recall a thread on here a year ago where various posters showed that the mac pro in dual CPU configruations is only slightly more expensive than the equivalent Dell workstations. The picture looked a bit worse when comparing the single CPU models. I don't recall seeing Dell workstations for that cheap. Has the situation changed?
I am not so sure that a headless iMac would take away sales from the mac pro. It's also easier and cheaper to manufacture than an iMac. I reckon it would carve a niche for itself and enhance the model line-up. Cheaper pricing with equivalent desktop grade internals would encourage more sales. Some people that truly need the power of a mac pro would still buy it, but I think that new buyers would be interested in this as well. As things stand, mac pros account for very little of Apple's revenue.
From a profit point of view, whether you shift a couple of cheaper units versus one more expensive one, you're still making a profit.
Hellhammer, I recall a thread on here a year ago where various posters showed that the mac pro in dual CPU configruations is only slightly more expensive than the equivalent Dell workstations. The picture looked a bit worse when comparing the single CPU models. I don't recall seeing Dell workstations for that cheap. Has the situation changed?
The situation was a lot better before Nehalem Mac Pros. Back then Mac Pro was a great deal. DP Mac Pro is still a good deal but last time I checked an equivalent SP Dell was less than 1500$.
Problem for Apple is the number of people sitting on the fence. How many are buying nothing from Apple because of this gap? How many are buying from Apple but aren't truly satisfied with their purchase? How many are buying the mini or an iMac that doesn't have any internal expansion and are detracting from Apple's carefully thought out designs by having to clutter up their desks with a bunch of external devices. We can't all afford Mac Pro's nor does everyone have the room for something that large.
I can't bring myself to accept the compromises I would have to make buying a mini or iMac. I can't afford a Mac Pro. I want a mid sized machine. I'm close to throwing in the towel after owning Macs for 18 years and going Windows. Kind of sucks to give up the OS you like because you can't get the computer size and features that work for you.
Apple has always seemed strangely obstinate on this. It would be a popular product and simply involves putting existing components into a different box, a stylish box for sure.
Perhaps a fear of unfavorable price/spec comparisons in this very competitive part of the the industry, maybe just a Jobs thing...
Perhaps a fear of unfavorable price/spec comparisons in this very competitive part of the the industry, maybe just a Jobs thing...
There's also the issue of support; if you could just open the box and replace the video cards as well as other stuff, then Apple would have to decide which video cards to support.