[anselm]

I`m hoping for a mini-tower Mac with Core Duo but I`m afraid it`s very unlikely.

I`m pretty sure this is the product that many potential switchers would want who won`t consider iMacs or Mac minis.
Frankly I find it incomprehensible that this customer interest is ignored. But I doubt it fits into the vision that Apple`s CEO has.

So quite a few people seem to be buying 1000€ standard PCs and run patched versions of Mac OS on it. That money could have been spent in an Apple Store if Apple was more open about people who *think different* on what kind of products people want and how they want to use them.
It would be a very easy thing to license a motherboard and just do it, if they wanted to offer that product - and I think it could become the most successfull Mac ever. We may never know.

With the limited gfx-performance of the Mac mini and it`s other shortcomings I wouldn`t be happy with this computer although I admit I considered buying one.
I wouldn`t be surprised if even the Mac mini was discontinued leaving zero products that I would ever buy.
I have 1000,- bucks for a Mac waiting to be spent, but I don`t want any of their current products (I would take a Mac Pro but their price point is out of reach). So it`s going to be "No Sale!" for Apple, again.

[MacosNerd]

This dead horse has been beaten quite a bit.

My take on it is this:
the iMacs are quite powerful computers, their achilles heal is the GPU but other then that they're quite fast.
The MacPro is a beast, no two ways around that, its an awesome machine for a price.

If apple decided to put a computer inbetween those two models, they will have cannibalized sales from their iMac line and their MacPro line without generating a lot of new sales. that means they would be spending more money in maintaining another computer line without seeing a large increase in sales, i.e., higher costs, same sales.

So quite a few people seem to be buying 1000€ standard PCs and run patched versions of Mac OS on it.

I don't know how to quantify a "quite a few people" but I suspect that many of them would still buy a PC and hack OSX to run on them as opposed to buying a mac.

Personally I'm happy they don't license their OS or even their motherboards. That would water down the brand. You want a mac, you need to buy a mac, not some cheap knock off clone. btw that was tried years beforehand with a disastrous outcome. The clones took the sales of Macs away from apple without increasing the overall market share.

[anselm]

I wouldn`t buy a computer with built in display and I share this opinion with lots of other people.
The Mac Pro has a good power/cost-ratio. But I don`t need the power and I can`t afford it.

The "cannibalizing iMac/Mac Pro sales"-issue:
Well, I assume that the overall number of units sold would increase.
Here`s why: The people who plan to buy an iMac or Mac Pro will still buy a Mac even if is this (non-existing) Core Duo tower Mac. So no decrease in overall sales here.
Some people could upgrade their existing Mac earlier than planned -> more sales.
People who can`t find their place in the current product line (even if it`s for a stubborn idea that a computer *has to be* a seperate tower and display) would now have an option they could embrace. -> more sales
That alone is a good reason to do it.
If some people would buy a Core Duo tower Mac *instead* of an iMac/Mac Pro, then what that basically means is that they prefer this product over the existing products.
So if this Core Duo tower (which I bet will not incarnate) is the better product for customers then this is yet another a reason to produce it.

The risk is zero. Even if you look particularly on the possibility of fewer Mac Pro sales in favour of a Core Duo tower, because there`s a significantly higher volume number to expect on one handside and the fact that the more costly products of any companies product line don`t have to be the most lucrative.. That`s my stand point.

And I want to make clear that I didn`t write about Apple letting other companies produce Mac clones again.
II tried to express that Apple can just license a motherboard for an Apple branded Core-Duo-tower-Mac so they don`t have cost for developing a board themselves.

[ibook_steve]

Yes, and the Cube did *so* well. Not.

Steve

[Simon]

anselm, what you're forgetting is that a the $1000 desktop market offers only very low margins. If Apple launches a HEM they will cannibalize iMac and MP sales. Both of those lines drive good margins. Apple would have two options:
- price the HEM high in order to make similar margins as on the iMac and MP -> at ~$2k it will sell like crap compared to the similar Dell for $1k
- price the HEM closer to the $1k Dell to be competitive -> due to the amount of cannibalized high margin sales they would have to sell this box in huge numbers

I agree with you that a competitively priced HEM would drive additional sales. But I do believe that it by far wouldn't drive enough sales (think 5-7 sold HEMs for every lost iMac or MP sale!) to make up fo the lost margins. So although personally I'd love to see Apple do a HEM (one Yorkfield, two regular HDD bays, 2 PCIe slots), in a business sense I think Apple is dong the right thing by remaining out of the generic $1k desktop market.

[anselm]

ibook_steve :
The Cube was compromised in functionality like the Mac mini (The Cube had a few more options) so it can`t really serve as indicator for how a Mac tower in the 1000$ range would do.


Simon:
I think that a happy medium between margin and competitiveness is not so tricky. I don`t even see that the iMac is particularly uncompetitive regarding the price.
If you compare it to the cost of a PC + display then the iMac does pretty well.
So Apple can apparently sell those for a competitive price and still have a good margin.
Why shouldn`t that work with a tower?
Additionally I suppose most professionals would still buy the Mac Pro because for 250% the price you`ll get maybe >400% the CPU power. And if you`re producing and editing visual and audible media all day, then you`re really *using* all CPU performance there is.


After all it`s highly speculative of course how such a model would sell and what effect it would have on existing products.
*I* think it would do more good than harm. You have a different opinion - maybe you`re more pragmatic and I`m on the wishfull-thinking-side of the spectrum. Or maybe my theory would be confirmed.
I would really love to actually see what would happen.

I guess the only thing to be added to the discussion might be actual facts, right?

[anselm]

...or maybe not

Simon:
I noticed that I just took it for a fact that Mac Pro and iMacs are -like you wrote- higher margin products.
Do you know that or is that an assumption?
I learned from BBC that *in general* Apple has better profit margins on computers than PC manufacturers. But I never read anything about the specific margins of indiviual models..

In general the state of the art / high-end CPUs which Apple uses in the Mac Pro always come at an additional disproportionate price. That would indicate that the *relative* margin for Mac Pros is probably not that high.

[Simon]

iSuppli has done breakdowns of the components in Macs. Of course their sums don't include R&D, documentation, shipping, and marketing, but they include the largest chunk (CPU, chipset, and other components). On the iMac that gave a margin of 33% and on the MP IIRC the margin was on the order of 35%. As I already mentioned those 'margins' are not the real earnings Apple makes when they sell such a system. Nevertheless you see immediately that this is far away from the single digit margins you have in the generic desktop PC market.

[P]

Mac Pros and the MBPs are high margin - we know this from Apple's conference calls. The iMac varies, but the margins are not so high right now.

Apple doesn't make a tower like you want for several reasons. First, they make computers for a specific, defined market, and there isn't a (big enough) market for such a tower that isn't already covered by the iMac. They have made various attempts - the Cube and several cheaper low-end Powermacs - but none of them have sold, which vindicates the idea that the market isn't big enough. Second, there is a bit of philosophy involved here - the first Book of Mac (design reqs for the first Mac) made the argument that a consumer computer shouldn't have anything installed inside the box. Raskin and Jobs didn't agree on much, but they agreed on that (Jobs was even opposed to RAM upgrades back then, so the ability to upgrade RAM yourself was snuck in). Third, there isn't much of a market for third-party internal products at this point, and Apple doesn't seem to want to build one. Right now Apple makes almost all drivers installed on OS X and can take a bigger responsibility for the OS staying in one piece than say MS can. Letting people upgrade their own computers will lead to more third-party drivers and more stability issues.

None of these preclude a greater amount of BTO options, however, and personally I hope that Apple will move towards that for both iMacs, MBPs and even MBs.

[ibook_steve]

Originally Posted by anselm 

ibook_steve :
The Cube was compromised in functionality like the Mac mini (The Cube had a few more options) so it can`t really serve as indicator for how a Mac tower in the 1000$ range would do.

I have to disagree on this. Yes, the mini is compromised because it uses laptop components. Why do you say the cube was compromised in functionality and how was it not what you are looking for?

Steve

[anselm]

ibook_steve:

I retrenched my estimation (of the Cube being limited) because it offered a choice on GFX card (not every card fitted in the small case but at least there was some choice) and an inexpensive 3.5" harddrive.

It lacked the possibility for a larger GFX card to fit, space for a 2nd 3.5" HD and being mounted upright was suboptimal for the optical drive`s function.
Wasn`t it also limited in RAM expansion?
It didn`t have PCI expansion slots.

Last but not least I want to place any computer *under* my desk because I don`t have space *on* the desk.



I personally would prefer a Cube with current ingredients over a Mac mini but I couldn`t put the money on the counter without the feeling that "I don`t really want this thing".

That said, I have to add that from a design standpoint I find the Cube the best Mac ever.

[anselm]

I got the fundamental work ethic that whatever is best for my clients/customers, also is best for me.
After all they are paying to get a job done and I find it`s my duty to deliver the work that suits their expectations in the best possible way.
I want to make the client happy.

I`m by the way convinced that this attitude is not only very attentive but also pays out financially.


I understand the essence of Mac OS to be similarly inspired:
To make all functionality available as quickly and as intuitively as possible in order to enable the user to get her/his work or art done without any obstructions by an incomprehensible user interface (= organisation of functionality) or avoidable steps of procedure.

Short: It`s a Pro-User approach if you will.
(Microsoft are focused on profit not user interest.)

I find this is not the case in terms of their product range.
The product that I would like to pay good money for is not very exceptional.
I would instead argue that it is the single most decisive product to convince willing switchers.
Because being either for pigheaded traditional ideas of a PC as a tower (=cool) and an all in one computer not being a proper machine (=for girlies) or for the wish to use 2 harddrives and a GFX card of own choosing (maybe for games), it doesn`t matter why:
From all what I know about it, it`s a fact that most consumers want and buy tower PCs.

And I am convinced that the lack of a product that addresses this demand is one of the reasons that Apple doesn`t sell even more. The trend for portables is great for Apple but despite the pleasant increase in marketshare they could probably do better.

I think the product would be important for Apple.
I think it would make Mac buyers more happy and generate a significant increase in sales and revenue.

The cost factor of development is no longer such a problem since the move to Intel CPUs and chipsets.
So giving it a shot would be possible.

I understand your position of iMac sales being cannibalized and margins dropping but I disagree with your assessment and I find it defensive, maybe even fearful.




I presume that Apple won`t bring a Core Duo tower for 2 reasons:

1.
I agree with the idea that Apple *thinks* the consumer market is covered with existing products, which I suggest is a capital mistake.

The least that Apple should do is to try to find out exactly what potential such a machine would have. Maybe they have been researching that aleady. I don`t know. Guessing may not be good enough.
You should know what your customers want. In some cases Apple has responded to demand but I wish they would be more pro-active.


2.
As I see it, Apple likes to do things differetly and they may find a tower Mac isn`t original enough for their standards.
OK, then the Mac Pro must go. It`s a boring boxed computer and should be discontinued ... no?
Of course not. You don`t have to reinvent the wheel all the time.
They got a tower for the high-end. Another tower to close the gap in their product line wouldn`t hurt.



This is all a subjective opinion and I respect that many Mac users think that it`s *not* a good idea for Apple.
I know more "PC guys" than Mac users and what I wrote here is really what I find to be the common perception in the PC camp.

Of course there are Windows advocates that *like* Windows and think that Bill Gates has invented the Mouse and the Internet, but that`s not really the kind of people I know.

I`m only writing about people who may already have iPods and could be future switchers. People with a positive view on Apple.
One classic reason is the one-button mouse, which is no longer.
The other is the lack of an affordable tower.







post scriptum:

The motivation for this thread was not to establish my opinion. It`s OK if you don`t agree.
The motivation probably was to alleviate my dissatisfaction by making a statement.
I wouldn`t mind if -as a side-effect- someone with influence at Apple would read it and be convinced but the likeliness is probably low.
(How many people have influence at Apple? )
Dissatisfaction because I don`t want to spend money on something I don`t want to own (any existing "consumer"-Mac) to get something I want (Mac OS).
While the computer that I want would require a manageable amount of effort to become reality, would be in the interest of the manufacturer (= my persuasion) but isn`t available for political reasons (product policy).


Here is a picture of an Apple executive (name undisclosed) after the launch of a pro-sumer tower Mac:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/galle...c9a001378e.jpg