Will they ever release a medium spec machine?

[RacerX]

I often see people give that example to explain why Apple won't or shouldn't offer a mid-range headless system... No one will confuse a mid-range system with a high priced PowerMac or an iMac.

Well, the low end PowerMac is the mid-range headless system. Apple has been offering a three teered PowerMac range since the introduction of the Blue & White G3 and has rarely strayed from that.

With each new rev of the PowerMacs the former top of the line about matches the second teer system of the current releases. Apple has been doing this for years now to ease "buyers regret"... and this even happen with the PowerMac G5s. The 1.8 GHz single processor G5 benchmarked at about the same speed as the dual 1.42 GHz G4 which was the previous top of the line. The single 1.8 G5 was replaced about three months later with a dual 1.8 G5.

As for Apple's original product plan, it consisted of a professional desktop (Power Macintosh G3), a consumer desktop (iMac), a professional laptop (PowerBook G3) and a consumer laptop (iBook). They continued to sell some PowerBook 1400s and released 12" PowerBook G3 Series while waiting on the iBook, and they continued to sell the 9600 and 8600 to customers that needed more expansion (or faster floating point processing) than the G3s could provide. Still, the template for their computer line up generally works.

Apple did break up the desktop systems with the eMac, iMac and PowerMac lines and we'll shortly have the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pro lines. Are you suggesting that they should add in more products?

Lets look at the Macintosh class of 1996-7:

Power Macintosh 4400
Power Macintosh 5400
Power Macintosh 5500
Power Macintosh 6300
Power Macintosh 6400
Power Macintosh 6500
Power Macintosh 7200
Power Macintosh 7300
Power Macintosh 7600
Power Macintosh 8500
Power Macintosh 8600
Power Macintosh 9500
Power Macintosh 9600
Macintosh Performa 5200
Macintosh Performa 5400
Macintosh Performa 6200
Macintosh Performa 6300
Macintosh Performa 6400​

And those are just the main series, with each of those you have a ton of variations:

Power Macintosh 4400

Power Macintosh 4400/160
Power Macintosh 4400/200
Power Macintosh 4400/200 PC​

Power Macintosh 5400

Power Macintosh 5400/120
Power Macintosh 5400/180
Power Macintosh 5400/200​

Power Macintosh 5500

Power Macintosh 5500/225
Power Macintosh 5500/250​

Power Macintosh 6300

Power Macintosh 6300/120
Power Macintosh 6300/160​

Power Macintosh 6400

Power Macintosh 6400/200​

Power Macintosh 6500

Power Macintosh 6500/200
Power Macintosh 6500/225
Power Macintosh 6500/250
Power Macintosh 6500/275
Power Macintosh 6500/300​

Power Macintosh 7200

Power Macintosh 7200/120
Power Macintosh 7200/120 PC​

Power Macintosh 7300

Power Macintosh 7300/166
Power Macintosh 7300/180
Power Macintosh 7300/180 PC
Power Macintosh 7300/200​

Power Macintosh 7600

Power Macintosh 7600/120
Power Macintosh 7600/132
Power Macintosh 7600/200​

Power Macintosh 8500

Power Macintosh 8500/150
Power Macintosh 8500/180​

Power Macintosh 8600

Power Macintosh 8600/200
Power Macintosh 8600/250
Power Macintosh 8600/300​

Power Macintosh 9500

Power Macintosh 9500/150
Power Macintosh 9500/180MP
Power Macintosh 9500/200​

Power Macintosh 9600

Power Macintosh 9600/200
Power Macintosh 9600/200MP
Power Macintosh 9600/233
Power Macintosh 9600/300
Power Macintosh 9600/350​

Macintosh Performa 5200

Macintosh Performa 5260CD
Macintosh Performa 5260/120​

Macintosh Performa 5400

Macintosh Performa 5400CD
Macintosh Performa 5400/160
Macintosh Performa 5400/180​

Macintosh Performa 6200

Macintosh Performa 6260CD
Macintosh Performa 6290CD​

Macintosh Performa 6300

Macintosh Performa 6310CD
Macintosh Performa 6320CD
Macintosh Performa 6360​

Macintosh Performa 6400

Macintosh Performa 6400/180
Macintosh Performa 6400/200​

And as someone who services these systems (yes, I still provide tech support for all these) it is dizzying.

Now imagine what someone who is new to computers is going to think when presented with all of this. What is the difference between the Macintosh Performa 6400 and the Power Macintosh 6400? Is the Power Macintosh 6500/300 as fast as the Power Macintosh 9600/300? How were these poor people supposed to know any of that?

What Apple did was that they looked at their clients. The vast majority of low to mid range users will never replace their monitors, or add cards, or do any of the things that techies do with their systems.

So, as a techie (and basically, if you are reading this, you're a techie) Apple figures you'll get far more use out of a system than an average consumer. You pay more because you'll most likely be paying less often.

Apple would be out of business if everyone was like me. My two newest systems are from 2000. My two primary systems are from 1998. I haven't bought new hardware from Apple since October of 2000. Why? Because I can get my hardware to do what I need because it is expandable.

I mean think about it... if someone like me bought a PowerMac G5 today (even the low end model), odds are that I would be able to nurse that system until around 2012. So yeah, if I'm buying a new system from Apple, they had better make some money on me now because it'll be a while before I come back for a new system.

Basically, if you can expand a system like the low end PowerMac, then even if you are paying more up front, your still paying less in the long run than someone who bought a Mac mini.

 

[G5power]

RacerX - I think that we are agreeing on more then we might be disagreeing.

Your long list of models is exactly the past history that I agree Apple wants to avoid. That kind of line up is totally confusing for consumers. I worked for a company in the mid 90's that sold drives and accessories and it was terrible dealing with the different models.

However adding a single model that fits between the mini and the new Pro (PowerMac) line is not fragmenting things to the point of confusion. For people that don't want an integrated system like the iMac, you would have 3 distinct choices: good (min) - better (potential midrange) - best (Power Mac).

The mini is a nifty little system but is fairly compromized by it's form factor and price point, while the high end Power Mac systems are kind of on the other extreme. Hopefully Apple will be kind enough to offer a mid-range system and take my money.

Cheers

 

[it5five]

Seriously people, the low end Mac Pro is the mid-range system you all are asking for. It isn't that much more than the high-end imac. Yes, if you add in a display it's more, but assuming you already have a display (most people already do) it isn't that much more.

 

[Foggy]

RacerX - I think that we are agreeing on more then we might be disagreeing.

Your long list of models is exactly the past history that I agree Apple wants to avoid. That kind of line up is totally confusing for consumers. I worked for a company in the mid 90's that sold drives and accessories and it was terrible dealing with the different models.

However adding a single model that fits between the mini and the new Pro (PowerMac) line is not fragmenting things to the point of confusion. For people that don't want an integrated system like the iMac, you would have 3 distinct choices: good (min) - better (potential midrange) - best (Power Mac).

The mini is a nifty little system but is fairly compromized by it's form factor and price point, while the high end Power Mac systems are kind of on the other extreme. Hopefully Apple will be kind enough to offer a mid-range system and take my money.

Cheers

Thats exactly what I am after. Dont need dual core, but want a bit more flexibilty that the mini but dont want a built in monitor. I have £1k's worth of LCD screens on my desk so would rather not buy a mac with one built in. If they released a mac around the £900 mark, with specs similar (maybe slightly better) than the imac, without the screen but with options to whack in a better (dual head) graphics card I think it would sell pretty well.

As it happens I have decided I will prob try and fob my Vaio off to a colleague and replace it with a macbook pro and keep my linux desktop machine.

Interesting to see peoples responses to the question though!

 

[JFreak]

Radding a single model that fits between the mini and the new Pro line is not fragmenting things to the point of confusion. For people that don't want an integrated system like the iMac, you would have 3 distinct choices: good - better (potential midrange) - best.

What would be the differentiating factor between the good and the best? As I see it, the monitorless Apple lineup is currently like this:

1) the mac mini. not upgradeable. not a performance monster. cheap.
2) the powermac. upgrade everything. have all the power you need. pay for it.

What would be the X machine between 1 and 2?

It cannot be a single-core machine because mini has dual-core, so the power is not a likely candidate. There's hardly any difference. What would be the upgrade and internal expansion options -- user-changeable video card with everything else built-in and not upgradeable? How attractive would that be priced between $799 and $1999, say, $1399 price point? That would be like iMac without a display but at the same price than the iMac with a display. That would be crazy. Or would you buy the X machine that would essentially be the same thing as the mini mac only that it would have bigger enclosure to fit a normal PCIE video card?

No, those are not feasible options. Apple has decided to sell two monitorless systems, one that can and another that cannot be upgraded. Or, another point of view: one that has basic stuff inside and another that has the latest and greatest. The middle ground machine X would fail because it would not excel in either price or performance.

 

[JFreak]

Dont need dual core, but want a bit more flexibilty than the mini but dont want a built in monitor.

What it is exactly that you want by saying "a bit more" flexibility? Basically you're asking Apple to sell Powermacs for half the price with the expansion slots disabled. Why would they do that?

Maybe they need to introduce "the Business Mac" for people like you who want to get the Powermac but don't want to pay more than iMac's price. I don't even want to imagine what parts of the Powermac would Apple have to cripple, because simply dropping the PCIE slots will not bring the price down enough.

You people should ask yourselves whether you want to buy cheap computers or powerful computers. There's no middle ground (except 2nd hand market).

 

[Foggy]

What it is exactly that you want by saying "a bit more" flexibility? Basically you're asking Apple to sell Powermacs for half the price with the expansion slots disabled. Why would they do that?

Maybe they need to introduce "the Business Mac" for people like you who want to get the Powermac but don't want to pay more than iMac's price. I don't even want to imagine what parts of the Powermac would Apple have to cripple, because simply dropping the PCIE slots will not bring the price down enough.

You people should ask yourselves whether you want to buy cheap computers or powerful computers. There's no middle ground (except 2nd hand market).

I really dont get how this is so hard to understand - why should there not be a middle ground?

Are you really telling me that they couldnt possibly release a machine between mac minis and the powermac? A mac mini with a slightly bigger case and some pci slots? Effectively all I want is the ability to whack in a dual head graphics card and use the monitors I currently have. For me for a desktop PC around £800-1000 is what I consider a reasonable budget. If they took the 1.83ghz imac, ditched the monitor, put in a pci express dual head graphics card then that would pretty much be me sorted.

I realise this may be far too radical an idea, so for that I apologise - I did not mean to offend!

 

[generik]

Seriously people, the low end Mac Pro is the mid-range system you all are asking for. It isn't that much more than the high-end imac. Yes, if you add in a display it's more, but assuming you already have a display (most people already do) it isn't that much more.

Trouble is the low end Mac Pro probably will be somewhat underwhelming for its cost if the G5s were to form any basis for what is to come.. I for one would foresee the low end Mac workstation to be probably a single processor dual core Conroe with 1gb of ram, and some half decent card.

To put it into perspective, expandability is good, yes. However Apple is charging you for the priviledge of doing that at a huge premium. Nevermind the fact that for the rest of the line they are also overcharging you and denying you this expandability altogether!

Sure, capitalism is all about charging the market for as much as it can bear, but hey, while greed may have kept Apple alive all these years, greed probably has kept them as small as.. 3% of the market all these years too. The average consumer is not as stupid as you'd like them to be, we Apple users just happen to be the bottom 3% of the class.

 

[generik]

What it is exactly that you want by saying "a bit more" flexibility? Basically you're asking Apple to sell Powermacs for half the price with the expansion slots disabled. Why would they do that?

Maybe they need to introduce "the Business Mac" for people like you who want to get the Powermac but don't want to pay more than iMac's price. I don't even want to imagine what parts of the Powermac would Apple have to cripple, because simply dropping the PCIE slots will not bring the price down enough.

You people should ask yourselves whether you want to buy cheap computers or powerful computers. There's no middle ground (except 2nd hand market).

Eh, why do they have to disable PCIe slots?

Is a PCIe slot so expensive? Even in a $1300 iMac it is nothing, I can get quite a few PCIe slots even in a PC mainboard that has the same exact chipset and same exact onboard graphics controller as the Mac Mini and iMac, and guess how much costs me? A$40 retail.

Go wild. You can burn the rest of the A$2000 off the price of an iMac putting together one hell of a killer machine with that A$40 mainboard. Oh, and perhaps get a 20" screen rather than the puny 17" LCD that they give you for $2000.

God, you can even buy a 17" LCD for less than $200 retail nowadays if you know where to look, and considering:

1) Remember the Powerbook G4 HD? That liney LCD panel? Once and for all it proves that Apple is 0% about quality and 100% about margins

2) What bit of overpriced and overly restrictive do you not understand?

 

[it5five]

You're all asking for low end MacPro features and specs but you want to pay 600 dollars less. This isn't as much an issue of a mid-range computer (which they already have), but this is an issue of people not wanting to pay a lot for an Apple computer.

 

[Timepass]

From what I seeing what they are requesting is a iMac with out a monitor and has some room to add upgrades to it.

Like a 2nd internal hard drive. and a few PCI slots and a PCI express graphic card slot. We are not asking for a 600 buck computer.

A computer with out a monitor to fill in the gap bettween the mac mini and the Pro mac.

Right now apple has a huge gapping hole in there product line and it only growing wider every year.

It is so much to ask for 1000-1500 tower that has no monitor and can have upgrades added to it.

 

[stonyc]

The average entry level home user won't want or need to expand/upgrade the iMac, so it's a great machine for lots of people.

I dont agree, the cool thing about the older powermacs is that they can be expanded and upgraded to be usefull long after their supposed demise, the newer ones are as well but they cost a arm and a leg, and what happens when 802.11n finally gets released, what will all those non-expandable imac owners do? Im not talking 6 pci express slots, but what about a express card slot maybe? I admit I come from a era where I can do anything with the ISA slot, but upgradable HDD and memory isnt really much IMO.

That doesn't sound like the average "entry-level home user"... if you know what RAM, HDD, 802.11b/g/n are, then you're already way more informed than that average home user is.

In terms of a mid-range machine, Apple, it seems to me, already has a wide range of products that should meet the needs of most everyone... from the complete newbie to the power user. If you're looking for something more substantial than the Mini... look at the education iMac they just released, for example.

 

[Foggy]

From what I seeing what they are requesting is a iMac with out a monitor and has some room to add upgrades to it.

Like a 2nd internal hard drive. and a few PCI slots and a PCI express graphic card slot. We are not asking for a 600 buck computer.

A computer with out a monitor to fill in the gap bettween the mac mini and the Pro mac.

Right now apple has a huge gapping hole in there product line and it only growing wider every year.

It is so much to ask for 1000-1500 tower that has no monitor and can have upgrades added to it.

My god - someone has actually understood what I was trying to get across

Despite what some people are arguing, apple do have a pretty big gap in their product market - for people not wanting an All In One the jump between a Mac Mini and a G5 is pretty big and is the sole reason I havent bought a Mac since my old G3. I dont want another All-In-One.

 

[it5five]

Okay, an imac with no moniter.

1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0

But what you want is space for a second HD, and some PCI slots.

Sounds like the low end MacPro to me. Although the MacPro will have a slightly faster processor, what you want is basically the low end MacPro.

 

[kevin.rivers]

If you don't want an all-in-one. Then you buy a Mac mini, or you buy a PowerMac.

Get over it. There is no hole. Maybe for those looking for cheap computers, but who cares about them?

If you want a tiny mac with reasonable power maybe as a computer for your kid a media center or whatever. You buy the Mac Mini. You BYOKMM. Done.

If you want a little more power, with a small footprint. You go with an iMac.

Those two computer are for consumers. Sure you could buy a Dell, and upgrade it all you want. How many people buying home computers do that? Not many. And considering Apple sells computers that are pretty decked out. There won't be a need for years to come. In addition, you get awesome software which surely costs money to produce.

Now, if you are a professional you want the power and expandibility. So you pay for it. Simple enough. If you are on a budget, Apple has you covered with 3 different models to choose from.

I understand what you want. But there is no need for it, and would only add confusion. Why should I get this tower Mac when I could the iMac for about the same price?

Apple would have to market it as an upgradable computer. In which case, most would say "I am not going to upgrade" so I should just get the iMac.

Basically the idea would tank. Kind of like the Cube.

So when is Apple going to release a medium spec machine? They are already there. There are plenty of options to satisfy everyone.

The real question seems to be "When will Apple release a computer in between the Mini and PowerMac that will satisfy my home user upgrading needs?".

Never.

 

[Foggy]

Okay, an imac with no moniter.

1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0

But what you want is space for a second HD, and some PCI slots.

Sounds like the low end MacPro to me. Although the MacPro will have a slightly faster processor, what you want is basically the low end MacPro.

Imac (With monitor) = £879
Cheapest PowerMac G5 (Without monitor) = £1399

So what you are saying is that effectively Apple remove the monitor and charge £500 (over 50% more) for the privilege and this shouldnt be seen as a problem?

 

[QCassidy352]

Despite what some people are arguing, apple do have a pretty big gap in their product market

They have a gap in their lineup, yes: the $1000-$1500 headless desktop. But I think that it's a gap that will not be filled because I don't see that mac appealing to a huge number of people. What is the target market here? Not professionals, because they will still want true professional computers. Not students, because they mostly want laptops or space-saving all-in-one systems like the imac. Not your 50-60ish mom and dad, because they have no desire to pay more for features and upgradability that they will never use.

So the target market would be... highly advanced but non-pro users who want to pay a moderate amount for this tower and then buy third party upgrades for the next five years? Do you see how that's not exactly either a large or profitable group to target?

It is so much to ask for 1000-1500 tower that has no monitor and can have upgrades added to it.

Even assuming that it was in apple's interest to make such a system (and as I said above, I don't think it is), how is that going to work? What, exactly, are you willing to have stripped out of the powermac to get the price that low? Please be specific, and keep in mind that as this price is significantly lower than the low end powermac, it's going to need to be at a significant disadvantage to the powermac.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

An Imac would almost certainly do the job except I dont want the built in monitor - I currently use 2 dell 20" LCD's and would hate to go back to a single screen.

As others have said, you can use one of the Dell LCDs on the iMac w/ no problem.

The mac mini also looks fine for what I want but once again is limited to a single screen output (although I would at least be using one of my ones).

Have you looked into something like Matrox's DualHead2Go?

 

[topgunn]

Recent history has shown that Apple is willing to fill the $1,499 price point with a low end Power Mac. This machine featured a single 1.8GHz G5 while the rest of the lineup were dual processors including 2.5, 2.0, and 1.8GHz. It also had 4 memory slots compared to 8 and a FSB that was 1/3 processor speed instead of 1/2.

Hopefully, Apple will do something similar to this when the Mac Pros are released.

 

[Foggy]

Even assuming that it was in apple's interest to make such a system (and as I said above, I don't think it is), how is that going to work? What, exactly, are you willing to have stripped out of the powermac to get the price that low? Please be specific, and keep in mind that as this price is significantly lower than the low end powermac, it's going to need to be at a significant disadvantage to the powermac.

Not asking them to strip features from a power mac - am asking them to remove the monitor from an iMac. Honestly (and not trying to be rude) - I really dont understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp and I cant believe I am the only person in the world to want this (although I am starting to think maybe I am).

As others have said, you can use one of the Dell LCDs on the iMac w/ no problem.

I probably could, but even just from an aesthetic point of view I would rather have my 2 2001FP's rather than 1 white imac and one dell monitor. The other factor is I already have and have paid for the 2nd monitor.

Have you looked into something like Matrox's DualHead2Go

No, I hadnt seen those - if that could give me 3200x1200 resolution I would actually be half tempted.

At present the whole of this thing is kind of irrelevant anyway as I am now (in some bizarre desire to get back to Macs and to get OSX) looking at getting my Dad to buy my laptop and getting a macbook pro and will keep my linux desktop machine and my 2 (hopefully to be 3 when I can afford a 24" widescreen to sit in the middle) LCD's

 

[QCassidy352]

Not asking them to strip features from a power mac - am asking them to remove the monitor from an iMac. Honestly (and not trying to be rude) - I really dont understand why this is such a difficult thing to grasp and I cant believe I am the only person in the world to want this (although I am starting to think maybe I am).

It's difficult to grasp because you're being inconsistent.

From what I seeing what they are requesting is a iMac with out a monitor and has some room to add upgrades to it.

Like a 2nd internal hard drive. and a few PCI slots and a PCI express graphic card slot.

My god - someone has actually understood what I was trying to get across

So that's why I thought you were talking about a scaled-down powermac.

But if you mean a true headless imac, we're not talking about an upgradable video card, room for a second hard drive, or a few PCI slots. We're talking about a new, high-end mini. After all, what is the imac except a mini with a slightly faster processor, dedicated graphics, and a monitor attached? Behead an imac, and you've basically got a mini with the CPU and GPU bumped.

 

[celebrian23]

Stacey says some day in the distant future,, but now now.

 

[Foggy]

The problem with the inconsistencies come from trying to relate what I want to the current Apple line up precisely because of the fact they dont do what I want.

It may well be a scaled down power mac I am asking for - well it must be I guess. What I am saying is that if I have a budget of under £1000 for a desktop and I dont want a mac mini or an all in one then there is no viable option for me in the Apple range. Timepass got the jist - take an imac, ditch the monitor and instead allow me some form of flexibility and expandability instead for the same cost.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The problem with the inconsistencies come from trying to relate what I want to the current Apple line up precisely because of the fact they dont do what I want.

It may well be a scaled down power mac I am asking for - well it must be I guess. What I am saying is that if I have a budget of under £1000 for a desktop and I dont want a mac mini or an all in one then there is no viable option for me in the Apple range. Timepass got the jist - take an imac, ditch the monitor and instead allow me some form of flexibility and expandability instead for the same cost.

I think a medium spec, upgradeable Mac is kinda missing the point of Apple computers. It ain't Apple's bag. Jobs and Co. make two kinds of computers: simple, elegant, fully functional consumer machines and simple, elegant, bare bones machines built for professional applications.

Thought it wasn't always so easy, the ability to upgrade hard disk space and memory has always been there. These upgrades are a given, like tires, you can always get better tires or put better fuel in your tank. It's the nature of the beast.

The professional machines are expandable for the simple reason of specificity. Instead of selling an Audio Mac, a Scientific Mac, a Film Mac, they sell you a bare bones pro machine and let you go from there. It isn't expandable to be upgradeable. It's expandable to fit your professional needs.

A Mac isn't a "PC" and I think your head is stuck in the that world. I was in the same place for a long time before I bought my G5. I kept thinking they were overpriced and left too few options. What I wanted was something below the low rung G5. Now that I have my G5 I couldn't be happier.

One could argue that there is a hole in Apple's line up and they'd win, but I don't think it's one that Apple wants to fill. Maybe it's that bite out of the apple?

 

[combatcolin]

BIG EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN THE MINI AND THE POWERMAC

Looking back now i quite regret buying my iMac, sure it was very powerful at the time and had everything built in but the sheer lack of expansion really annoyed me after a year.

Wish i had bought the G3 PowerMac that was released soon afterwoods.

Anyway, if you already have a monitor and want a "normal" computer there is a massive gap in Apples line up.

I want more than the Mini but can't afford the Powermac/Intel Tower, and to be honest i would rather spend my money on a new-ish mid level AMD chip and board.

What other company would miss the chance to release a product to people really want to buy?

BMW for instance, now their cars are fantastic, (drivers are arrogant wankers however) but there was nothing cheaper then the 3 seris, so they created the 1 seris.