[l008com]

Overall I'm very happy about Apple's current lineup. There are two main things that I don't like. One is gloss. Every model should at least have a matte option, if not be matte by default and have a gloss option. But the other thing, and the point of this thread, is the steep cost of expansion. Want a Mac with an expansion port? $2500 minimum. If you want to add a lot of storage, you really want a sata card. USB sucks, and FireWire is SO expensive. Firewire 800 enclosures and bridge boards are both so expensive. Compare to a two port esata ExpressCard with Port-Multiplier capability. You could hook up 10 SATA hard drives to that one little card. I love firewire, but ^THAT is a WAY better solution. But you're only getting a card like that if you buy a $2500+ 17" Macbook Pro or Mac Pro. The Mac mini server is a neat little server... but it only fits environments where you're dealing with small amounts of data. Like a small office that is mostly sharing word/excel docs and jpgs. So yeah if you wanted a 10 TB server for a small office that does a lot of video, you'd have to either buy a mac pro, and hook up a few drive stacks to a pci card. But it makes no sense to spend so much. And it doesn't take four 2.66 GHz processors to run a file server. Or you could buy a mini, it has the right amount of CPU power, uses the right amount of electricity (very little), but you'd have to daisy chain a bunch of firewire enclosures or bridge boards together. And you'd still be limited to a total of 100MB/sec through fw800.

So there are two quick solutions to this.
A good solution would be an express card slot (or two) on the mac mini. Or at least on A model of mac mini.

A better solution is that Apple needs to widen their product line. I get apple's whole "the common computer user has no need for a tower" thing. iMacs ARE perfect for lots of people. But not everyone. If you're closing in on 10% market share, you have a huge customer base. You need more options to fit more niches. A core-based mini tower. With a clever name. Think the guts of a 27" iMac, minus the screen, but plus some hard drive bays, and a discrete graphics card, plus one or two available slots. Or, since Apple likes to be Apple, something like a discrete pci graphics card, then a handfull of expresscard slots - to keep things both compact, and odd and unique

Think of a Mac Pro's innards. If you repalced the two optical bays with a slimline laptop optical, you'd save a lot of space. If you used 4 laptop ram slots (like the imacs) instead of 8 huge ram slots, you'd save another ton of space. use core2duos, i5s and i7s, and you could shrink the heatsinks alot. remove a pci slot, remove some fans since you're smaller and making less heat. This "retro" mac could easily be made half the volume of a Mac pro.




...




Here let me save some of you some typing:
"Apple would never make a mac like that because it would cannibalize their other lines"
That argument makes no sense at all. Every line cannibalizes other lines. I bet they'd sell a lot more MBP 13"s if there was no MB. I bet they'd sell a lot more Mac Pros if there was no iMac. I bet they'd sell a lore more Mac mini Server's if there was no Xserve.

Bring back the desktop tower! The expensive workstation tower isn't enough.

[Big Mac]

I think most of us have given up on the xMac dream. The iMac was meant to be a budget computer. It was never supposed to be the sole midrange desktop. But that's what we got. Oh well. The strange thing is, one would think Apple could get better margins from a midrange tower than the iMac because the LCD wouldn't be part of the price. One can dream, but I doubt it's ever going to happen.

The option that we geeks now have is Hackintosh. That's the alternative.

[l008com]

I hope that you're wrong about it never happening. Apple's ever increasing market share will require more models to accommodate more users. Also, the Mac mini server. It's a cute idea, but realistically it sucks. But because it's the least worst small server option, it's popular. I think it wouldn't be out of the question for apple to transform the mac mini server into a separate entity. My home server is a highly modified mac mini and it's a mess. Almost every server I know of that is a Mac mini or a Mac Pro, would be much better suited being something in between. They could even give it 2 pci cards, and integrated graphics, to try to keep it away from home use.

[sek929]

I would buy nothing but xMacs if they existed, even if the price was slightly steeper than the iMac. I'm very happy with my iMac but the expandability of my old PMG4 kept it useful for many years. When the iMac starts to get long-in-the-tooth there isn't much I can do seeing as I've already maxxed the RAM.

[Big Mac]

Oh, and in addition to what I previously wrote, I imagine that Apple could not only get better margins on an xMac and sell more of them than iMacs, but I also think they could drive a lot of external Apple LCD sales with them.

Really, I think the lack of the xMac option says a lot about the iMac. I think it shows that Apple has to prop the iMac up by forcing it on those who want a midrange desktop. If the xMac were around I assume iMac sales would plummet.

[l008com]

I'll use your xMac name... I don't think apple would sell more xMacs, than iMac. I think they'd sell a lot more iMacs. But what's right for most people isn't right for everyone. Just like sek929 said. I'm thinking about going from old Mac Pro to iMac. But once it gets old, I have to get a whole new system, because an iMac is a whole system. My current monitors are years old, it would be silly to trade them in every time i need a new processor. Most pc tower customers buy a tower and never make a single modification to it. But some do.

PLUS not to mention, the biggest motivator for me to stick with a tower is that I hate HATE glossy displays.

Another route for Apple would be this - this is probably the easiest and cheapest way to go, but also the least likely i'd say. Apple could just make a super low end mac pro. Charge $1000 or so for it. Use the same case, same power supply etc, but a different logic board that was core based. It wouldn't be elegant because there would be lots of unused space on a setup like that. But it would be an easy and cheap way to get the product out. And it should potentially decrease the cost of the mac pro case and power supply since you'd probably start selling twice as many.

[macaddict0001]

How much does that case cost to make though? Can't be cheap.

[l008com]

I'm sure it's a lot, but you wouldn't have to build any R&D costs into the case portion of the mac. Plus the cost goes down as the units go up. Ives wouldn't be allowed to even KNOW about this mac until it was released :-D

[angelmb]

Last time Apple had a desktop pro Mac, Mac OS 8 was all the rage, which is very telling; and I would swear the Power Mac G3 desktop model always played second fiddle to the Power Mac G3 tower.

A full-sized tower like the Mac Pro ultimately caters to a specific type of pro user that will begin to fill up expansion slots right out of the box for adding special devices (e.g., engineers, scientists, et cetera) or people in fields where the nature of their work eats up several gigabytes of hard drive space very quickly (e.g., pro audio and video production).

So, even when most Pro users do not fall into such category and don't get the aforementioned xMac, people keep asking for a consumer desktop Mac. How can they allow this to keep on happening?

[Big Mac]

angel, just so you know, when we talk about a midrange desktop we're including towers.

[l008com]

That 2nd to last post confused the hell out of me. But it was only a rough draft so...

[Simon]

Originally Posted by l008com 

I hope that you're wrong about it never happening.

I hope so too. But the thing is he's right. It will probably never happen...

...at least not as long as Steve's liver's working.

This whole issue reeks of personal preference. Steve simply doesn't like the idea. He never did. Recall Woz' work on expansion and Steve's attempts at thwarting that back in the day. Maybe once he goes into retirement Apple will reconsider profit and put feelings aside.

[hh.blitz]

While I am all for a midrange desktop tower, there is a chance it could cannibalize the iMac or worse yet Mac Pro sales (although it seems that Apple are neglecting their prosumers recently).

The general consensus here is that it should have approximately the same insides as the iMac, only expandable. This probably means more hard drive bays and maybe more RAM slots. So basically an iMac minus the screen. Apple sells their 24" and 30" screens at $900 and $1800 respectively (the 30" seems grossly overpriced in comparison). The BTO iMac, 2.8Ghz Ci7 sells at $2200. Lets say the cost of the screen is $500 (more than halving its retail price, seems reasonable) we would be at $1700 for an equivalently equipped computer [ 2.8GHz Ci7 Quad, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD, Radeon 4850 @ 512MB … you could get a similarly equipped PC for much less, but thats not the point of this post].

$ 1700 would be the top of the line model most likely, if the iMac is our reference. Then I wouldn't see a Ci5 or generally slower model to be all too unlikely, so that would probably give you an entry-level xMac at $1300-1500 (depending how much "worse" the processor and GPU are). That's dirt cheap. Sure add an Apple display and it costs more than the iMac, but connect it to smaller/cheaper display and it's hunky-dory.

This creature would have the same power as an iMac, and yet have a price disturbingly close to a Mini. This computer probably wont interfere with the Mac Mini and iMac users who want them for their aesthetics and the practicality of all-in-one. But it could "take" consumers from those who are unsatisfied with the expansible options of the iMac. I am guessing many of these consumers either settle with less or save up and get a Pro. The $1700 xMac listed above is actually better than the entry-level Mac Pro sold for $2500, and maybe better than some BTO options too. But the Mac Pro is in dire need of and update, so I'm guessing the entry-level model should be equal if not better than top of the line iMac (or imaginary xMac). No doubt the xMac would "take" customers from the Mac Pro. But for what? When a consumer chooses an xMac over an iMac, Apple potentially lose profit on the cost of the screen (they might buy from other brands, quite likely). When the consumer chooses an xMac over a Mac Pro, Apple loses a ton of profit. Maybe raise the price of the xMac? Suddenly it becomes useless, since the better and "sexier" Mac Pro is $200-ish away. Lower its specs? Suddenly the less expansible iMac offers so much more.

Unless the xMac allows Apple to sell more computer overall, i.e. get more switchers or just make the average Mac-user have more computers at home, the xMac will only redistribute the Macs across the users. Sure, the buyers will be happier (but it's only human to complain anyway); is this worth the lost profit? The person who wants an xMac today would probably just settle for the iMac or save up anyway. I do not think the xMac would actually increase the number of Macs sold, not enough to be more profitable than the current line-up.

Sorry if the OP didn't want this kind of post. And I might be way off with some of my calculations. Nonetheless, these are my two cents.

[Big Mac]

Good analysis, hh, but I think it's off because you're assuming Apple would use iMac parts in an xMac. Apple could instead use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop parts like the rest of the industry uses. And I think the xMac line would be very popular if positioned properly (i.e. priced aggressively). It would eliminate much of the incentive for people to build Hackintosh boxes, for one.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Good analysis, hh, but I think it's off because you're assuming Apple would use iMac parts in an xMac. Apple could instead use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop parts like the rest of the industry uses.

Please find me a cheaper, faster, hotter part than the Core i7-860 in Apple's iMac right now. Really. Faster, hotter you can do (980X), cheaper you can do (Core i5 and i3) but not both. You can argue that the i7-930 is a better pick for memory bandwidth reasons, but it costs the same as the 860, has a lower turbo, slower uncore and slower cache.

The only remaining area is the GPU, where you can find faster and hotter and POSSIBLY cheaper (we don't know, because prices on the GPUs Apple buys aren't public), but the chips in the iMac right now aren't bad. They're one generation behind because it hasn't been refreshed in a while, but the only handicap against the GPUs in the iMac right now is the clockspeed. If you're running in Bootcamp anyway, just overclock them.

[P]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Last time Apple had a desktop pro Mac, Mac OS 8 was all the rage, which is very telling; and I would swear the Power Mac G3 desktop model always played second fiddle to the Power Mac G3 tower.

That model also cost $2400. I don't think most xMac supporters want the xMac to cost $2400.

[Simon]

There is no doubt that not having to cram all the components into the iMac's anorexic case would significantly reduce manufacturing costs. There's no way to spin that one in the iMac's favor. There just isn't.

Apple could keep Lynnfield or go Bloomfield. Then add real graphics on a real PCIe card. Then add an extra slot and two or three disk bays. A better desktop in every way compared to the iMac. At a lower cost to Apple too. They could sell it for as much as the iMac and make more profit or sell it for less and win more market share. But... The iMac forces people to throw it out and get a new one every other year. This wouldn't.

[hh.blitz]

The current iMac Ci5 and Ci7 are the first ones since the Intel-switch to feature true desktop CPU, if I'm not mistaken.
So I think the insides of this hypothetical xMac (why have we decided to call it this?) would be quite similar. Had the iMac still been stuck with laptop CPU then it would've been a completely different story. The C2D iMacs still run laptop CPU though, but I don't see tower-seekers getting a C2D processor now that Ci5 and i7's are so affordable.

I have no knowledge about the inside of computers in general and not what the market offerings are right now for the various parts, but I do reckon the xMac would still be very similar to the iMac at least in terms of speed and power. In hindsight, in accordance with Big Mac, I guess that there are probably chips as fast but warmer, and thus cheaper. But I doubt this hypothetical xMac would be too generic, like mainstream PC's or Hackintosh's. In any case, lets assume they do use cheaper and hotter CPU and GPU. It would cost even less. It still makes Apple not gain profit on the iMac and Mac Pro. Or they could price it similarly to the iMac (see my price calculation some posts above), so they can have larger profit margins on the xMac itself; this would cancel out the "lost" profit on possible cannibalism.

[Big Mac]

I agree with a lot of this post, hh. As for why we call it the xMac, this topic isn't new. Not long after the demise of a midrange non-AIO desktop, people have been clamoring for one; early in the process someone came up with the xMac title, and the name stuck.

[P]

Originally Posted by hh.blitz 

The current iMac Ci5 and Ci7 are the first ones since the Intel-switch to feature true desktop CPU, if I'm not mistaken.
So I think the insides of this hypothetical xMac (why have we decided to call it this?) would be quite similar. Had the iMac still been stuck with laptop CPU then it would've been a completely different story. The C2D iMacs still run laptop CPU though, but I don't see tower-seekers getting a C2D processor now that Ci5 and i7's are so affordable.

Actually they don't, they all run desktop CPUs now. There isn't a 3.33 GHz mobile Core 2 Duo, and anyway teardowns have confirmed that it is a socketed desktop CPU.

And yes, the current batch of iMacs are the first since the switch to include desktop CPUs.

Originally Posted by Simon

There is no doubt that not having to cram all the components into the iMac's anorexic case would significantly reduce manufacturing costs. There's no way to spin that one in the iMac's favor. There just isn't.

So there shouldn't be a problem to find examples of cheaper, faster, hotter components, then? Excluding the GPU, I just can't find any.

[l008com]

In this thread, the only name suggested was xMac. Had I thought of it first, I could have came up with something like nMac or oMac. Ooooh or Nano Mac. Mac Nano?

The current gen iMac had desktop processors, but the rest of it's "guts" are laptop style. Laptop optical, ram, the low end GPUs. I would see this mac priced at about $1000 for it's low end. And like the Mac Pro, everything would be BTO.

As usual, the "it would cannibalize other models" argument is back. This argument makes no sense to me, I don't buy it AT ALL. You're not cannibalizing sales by having more options. By that logic, iMac should be the ONLY Mac Apple sells. Because all the rest take away from it's numbers. Sure there would be some people who would otherwise buy an iMac or mac pro or even mac minis, that would buy an xMac. That's not cannibalization, thats just people buying the WRONG Mac for their needs, because they don't have any better options (until xMac). There is a big difference between flooding the market, and simply making more options for your customers. The line between flooding and options, is not 4 models of desktop, I assure you. I don't know where this "cannibalize" nonsense started from, but here's a guess: Apple maybe said it once to explain away something they didn't want to make anyway. And it stuck as their full-time, no-new-models excuse.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

So there shouldn't be a problem to find examples of cheaper, faster, hotter components, then? Excluding the GPU, I just can't find any.

Obviously you're not trying.

RAM
Optical
GPU
Everything related to thermal design (fans, ducts, case, PS, etc.)
And of course the CPU+chipset for as long as we can remember with the current generation being the exception

Let's cut the crap. The anorexic form factor is the most expensive way to build a desktop computer. Changing over to a more generous design with relaxed thermal specs will only reduce manufacturing cost.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by l008com 

As usual, the "it would cannibalize other models" argument is back. This argument makes no sense to me, I don't buy it AT ALL.

Would you rather have the "niche" argument and be reminded that if Apple isn't doing it it must not be worth it in the first place? Wanna bet that one's up next?

[macaddict0001]

The part I don't understand is we already have the xMac. The base Mac Pro is essentially what most of the people here are asking for, only they want to pay half the cost.

[l008com]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

The part I don't understand is we already have the xMac. The base Mac Pro is essentially what most of the people here are asking for, only they want to pay half the cost.

I completely disagree. The base mac pro is a workstation/server class machine. Xenon processors, error correcting, fully buffered RAM, multiple processor slots. The works. What we're asking for is a tower based on apple's mid-range. A tower with core2duo, or now corei5/i7 processors. A tower that takes regular old RAM, not error correcting, not fully buffered. Doesn't have to be desktop though. Laptop ram is pretty cheap these days since they make more laptops than desktops. As long as it has at least 4 slots.
But back on topic, the $2500 mac pro is not at all what we're asking for. We're asking for a high end imac in a more traditional case. There is a huge gap in apple's product lineup, and the imaginary NanoMac would fill it.

[sek929]

Back when the intro PowerMac was 1700 dollars was perfect. I don't need 8-cores, but I might need expansion, guess I'm SOL.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

The part I don't understand is we already have the xMac. The base Mac Pro is essentially what most of the people here are asking for, only they want to pay half the cost.

No offense, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Let's see, the low-end Mac Pro has:
- Gainestown Xeon instead of cheaper Bloomfield or Lynnfield
- FB DIMMs with ECC support instead of cheaper regular DDR
- Expensive daughterboard design instead of simple single-socket MB
- An expensive >1kW PS instead of something more moderate
- 4 PCIe slots instead of one or two
- 6 disk bays with a fancy sled system to facilitate frequent exchange stead of something more basic and inexpensive
- A fancy expensive case
Grand total: north of $2499

Compared to that expensive beast the 27" iMac starts at $1699. And that's the price including a 27" IPS panel!

Now look at those figures and then ask yourself why can't Apple make a less expensive headless desktop and still earn enough money with it.

[hh.blitz]

Originally Posted by l008com 

In this thread, the only name suggested was xMac. Had I thought of it first, I could have came up with something like nMac or oMac. Ooooh or Nano Mac. Mac Nano?

The current gen iMac had desktop processors, but the rest of it's "guts" are laptop style. Laptop optical, ram, the low end GPUs. I would see this mac priced at about $1000 for it's low end. And like the Mac Pro, everything would be BTO.

As usual, the "it would cannibalize other models" argument is back. This argument makes no sense to me, I don't buy it AT ALL. You're not cannibalizing sales by having more options. By that logic, iMac should be the ONLY Mac Apple sells. Because all the rest take away from it's numbers. Sure there would be some people who would otherwise buy an iMac or mac pro or even mac minis, that would buy an xMac. That's not cannibalization, thats just people buying the WRONG Mac for their needs, because they don't have any better options (until xMac). There is a big difference between flooding the market, and simply making more options for your customers. The line between flooding and options, is not 4 models of desktop, I assure you. I don't know where this "cannibalize" nonsense started from, but here's a guess: Apple maybe said it once to explain away something they didn't want to make anyway. And it stuck as their full-time, no-new-models excuse.

Common, it must at least make some sense.

Lets imagine Apple sells 100 desktop computers a year. For simplicities sake lets say each model sells equally, so:
33.3 Mac Minis, 33.3 iMacs, 33.3 Mac Pro's.
Now, the xMac comes in. My theory is that it will take users from the iMac and Mac Pro shares. So: (Ignore the fact that some 0.1 Macs are missing )
- 33.3 Mac Minis
- 22.2 iMacs
- 22.2 xMacs
- 22.2 Mac Pros

Happier customers, getting what they want, yes. However, for Apple this means that it is losing profit on every xMac convert/buyer (assuming it costs about $1500 or less). For the xMac to prove profitable, it would need to augment the total number of Macs sold. So if say 150 desktop Macs are sold, suddenly it doesn't matter if a few iMac and Mac Pro buyers go the xMac way. It all boils down to whether or not the xMac would generate more overall Mac sales. In my view, it wont; even if it does sell well, it will just be people who today "settle" with the iMac on save up for the Pro.



---
Apple logic would suggest it be simply called "Mac". Think MacBook Pro vs MacBook. But that's just stupid. I Nano Mac is also quite wrong, since Nano = Mini. A Nano unit has a factor of 10^-9 (ten to the power of negative one); Mini isn't used as a unit but since the iPod Mini became a Nano, we can reach the conclusion that Nano is smaller than Mini. Sorry for being so fastidious.

Really, I am of the opinion that pre/suffixes denoting something "small" should just be avoided for the xMac. After all, the all-in-one form factor is of the Mac Mini and iMac. This creature is different. If anything, Mac Pro Mini… a "PROfessional" Mac Mini or a "MINIature" Mac Pro? Lol. Anyway, I would really be curious to see the naming of this product. More than anything, though, I'd like to see the product itself be released.

Sadly though, I have given up on this dream. If I'm not mistaken there were some heavier rumors regarding a new Mac in the build-up to the 2009 January Event. It never happened. And now there's the iPad. Captain Steve said it himself, Apple is a Mobile Device company. If any Macs will be added to the line-up, they will probably be laptops or something like that. Desktop Macs are at the bottom of the Apple priority list, especially the Mini and the Pro. The flagship model is the iMac, so it still gets some due attention.

[Simon]

Apple can adjust margins on the xMac to make up for any 'migration'.

With an xMac they will on the whole sell more Macs to more people. Regardless of the margin that means more market share and more total revenue.

The reason they're not doing it isn't business or money. It's about Steve not liking the concept.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

No offense, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Let's see, the low-end Mac Pro has:
- Gainestown Xeon instead of cheaper Bloomfield or Lynnfield

No, the low-end Mac Pro uses Bloomfield (Xeon 3500 series). It supports ECC, but is otherwise a regular Bloomfield. The high-end model uses Gainestown (Xeon 5500).

Originally Posted by Simon 

- FB DIMMs with ECC support instead of cheaper regular DDR

Again no. They're regular DDR3 DIMMs, although with ECC support. There isn't even FB-DIMM versions of DDR3. It should even accept non-ECC DIMMs if you wish to save on the upgrade, although I haven't tried it myself.

The rest are correct, but minor in terms of cost. The only real problem with the low-end MP from an xMac perspective is the price.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Obviously you're not trying.

RAM

What, SO-DIMMs instead of the fullsize model? That's your big cost increase?

Originally Posted by Simon 

Optical

Newegg has the price difference around $25 even if I compare to the cheapest fullheight drive. No big deal.

Originally Posted by Simon 

GPU

I said the GPU already. We don't exactly know what those chips cost, and anyway the current models aren't gimped compared to the desktop equivalents (they're underclocked, but don't miss any of the hardware).

Originally Posted by Simon 

Everything related to thermal design (fans, ducts, case, PS, etc.)

There are three fans, two of them with heatpipes, and no air ducts that I can see. Not excessive, by any means. The PSU might be more expensive than an ATX model, but it serves as the PSU for the display as well. I doubt that it costs more than two PSUs.

Originally Posted by Simon 

And of course the CPU+chipset for as long as we can remember with the current generation being the exception

So be happy with the change then. You can't argue that an xMac tomorrow is needed because yesterday's iMacs were weaker.

And "as long as we can remember" is an exaggeration - I still use that old G5 on occasion. I prefer to think of it as a gap when Intel's CPUs didn't have good enough idle power characteristics to fit, and that we have now passed that gap. We'll see who's right on that one, I guess.

Originally Posted by sek929

Back when the intro PowerMac was 1700 dollars was perfect. I don't need 8-cores, but I might need expansion, guess I'm SOL.

Such a machine is easy enough to make, but it's been tried several times and keeps getting killed.

[Simon]

That's right. The last MP dropped FB. Had forgotten about that.

The rest of the post and the point of course still stand. The MP is very expensive to manufacture. There's a reason it starts at $2500. It's a no brainer that an xMac can be produced for less. If it's sold at the iMac's price points it will generate more revenue than the iMac while drawing more people to OS X than the MP ever could.

[P]

I need to get something clear here: Do you think that $2500 is a fair price for what you get in the low-end MP?

[macaddict0001]

No, not really but that's what it is.

[l008com]

Here's how bad I want a NanoMac. I built one. In Photoshop anyway. First a Mac Pro, then a NanoMac of the exact same scale. Much smaller. This mac would be about the same width as a Mac Pro, but 25% less depth and maybe 33-40% less height. I labeled the NanoMac with detailed explanation below it.

Remember, the forum is shrinking both images the same percentage. The NanoMac is MUCH smaller. In addition, I think the mac pro style handle/feet would also have to go, making it even smaller than pictured.




1-4) Standard 3.5" HD Bays, same as the Mac Pro
5) Slim optical super drive. Straight from the Mac mini
6) Small space for bluetooth and wifi antennas, plus any other misc items
7) Power supply
8) Three full size PCI slots, one double width for high end graphics card upgrades
9) 6 DDR3 SO-DIMM slots (doubled up slots like PowerBooks used to have. On top of the RAM, a large fan unit that directs lots of air straight back through the processor heat sink, and also up through ducts into the PCI card bay. The case might benefit from another inch of depth to make large air deflectors to direct air from the fan box up to the cards.
10) Quad-Core i7 Processor. Extra large heatsink to run nice and cool with less air flow, and cooling for the future, if the hexacore processor runs hotter. Or if they go back to PPC ;-)
11) Standard array of Mac ports, including dual gigabit ethernet ports.

[l008com]

*angryface* I would never buy this Mac, you can see the photoshop seams all over it!!!!!!

[hh.blitz]

l008com, I have some thoughts regarding your design. Not the actual aesthetics, but the actual interiors.

4 hard drive bays seem somewhat unrealistic. I wouldn't be surprised to just see two, if Apple released such a product. Whats the industry standard? And I am not thinking of "pro" computers in the PC market, since those should be compared to the Mac Pro. The same applies for the other things that are identical to the Pro: 3 PCI-slots and 6 RAM-slots. The only compromise I see is in the speed of the different components.. the xMac has a more consumer interior. And also there is only one superdrive.

Yes the xMac's main selling point would be its expansibility, but still, not THAT much. More (much more) than the iMac and Mini, but not to the same extent as the Mac Pro. Nor could it ever fully "replace" a Hackintosh.

As for actually fitting the same stuff, albeit probably cooler, into a chassis 50-55% smaller I do not know. Definitely not my area of expertise. But since the pieces are similar to those in the iMac (apart from the larger space required for 3x more RAM-slots and the PCI-stuff, which are actually far larger) it seems plausible.

[P]

This particular Mac is smaller than the current MP, but where is the cost saving? Only thing I can see is if the CPU/RAM is on the main motherboard instead of on a separate drawer daughterboard.

Don't get me wrong here: I think you can sell this Mac at a much lower price than the MP, but I think you can sell the MP at a much lower price than it is currently selling for.

Also, more for curiosity's sake than to make any particular point: What will you use the slots for, other than a GPU? Just nice-to-have or do you have a specific purpose?

[Big Mac]

eSATA, extra USB or Firewire. . . I need slots because I rely on eSATA, and Apple hasn't made it a built-in feature yet.

[mfbernstein]

I think the cost savings of a mid-range xMac should be pretty obvious. For $1000 you can build yourself a very respectable i7 desktop, that is nearly as expandable as a Mac Pro. Even if Apple adds a 50% markup to that, you've still got machine that's $1000 less than the cheapest Mac Pro. And you can bet that Apple won't pay the same prices for components that you and I would at Newegg...

I suspect a big part of the reason why Apple doesn't make the machine is simply it's not a market they care about. The money-is-no-object pros will get the Mac Pro. The upscale consumers will get the i7 iMac. The enthusiasts are the ones left out in the cold, and Apple has never been very interested in that market. It may even explain why they haven't been particularly energetic going after the hackintosh crew.

[Big Mac]

I think you're largely right, mfb. And I think another reason why we don't see the xMac line is that SJ likes protecting the iMac. For every other PC manufacturer AIO desktops are on the sidelines. With Apple the iMac is pushed to the mainstream. It's really unfortunate.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

I suspect a big part of the reason why Apple doesn't make the machine is simply it's not a market they care about. The money-is-no-object pros will get the Mac Pro. The upscale consumers will get the i7 iMac. The enthusiasts are the ones left out in the cold, and Apple has never been very interested in that market. It may even explain why they haven't been particularly energetic going after the hackintosh crew.

It's a dying market.

"Enthusiast" is another word for "hobbyist". The computer market is splitting, quite clearly, into two markets: appliances and tools.

Thaat was what Apple had always envisioned, and it's become reality. The tinkerers are dying out.

[P]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

I think the cost savings of a mid-range xMac should be pretty obvious.

Well, if they are, list them. Not as a price list of what you could build a Hackintosh for, as a saving compared to the current low-end MP. Everything Simon has come up with are a smaller PSU and cheaper cooling system, which doesn't add up to much.

The last gen MP had parts that were significantly more expensive than a plain ol' desktop. The current one doesn't, Apple simply chanrges what the market will bear.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Well, if they are, list them.

They have already been, P. Several times actually. You just chose to ignore them or claim they're false. That's fine, you believe what you want. Just like all the others here will believe what thy want. Consensus has been reached here anyway. I'm tired of arguing this issue with you because it never goes anywhere. You love your iMac and that's fine. Others don't and that's fine too.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Would you rather have the "niche" argument and be reminded that if Apple isn't doing it it must not be worth it in the first place? Wanna bet that one's up next?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's a dying market.
...
The tinkerers are dying out.

Damn, I sure won that bet fast.

Some discussions here are just sooo predictable.

[Simon]

So let's try something else.

The 27" iMac costs $1699. Now remove that fancy 27" IPS screen and sell it for $1699. Does Apple make more or less profit?

Take those 27" iMac components out of their fancy and expensive shell and instead throw them into a $65 ATX case (as an example, keep your shirt on). Sell it for $1699. Does Apple make more or less profit?

Now take those iMac components and exchange them with faster yet cheaper desktop parts where possible? Does Apple make more or less profit? Do buyers get better performing parts?

Is this $1699 xMac cheaper than the $2499 low-end Mac Pro?

Would this $1699 xMac attract new people to Apple or drive them to Dell?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Damn, I sure won that bet fast.

Some discussions here are just sooo predictable.

Some things remain true even if you don't want to hear them.

I confess to not having read the thread.

[mfbernstein]

Originally Posted by P 

Well, if they are, list them. Not as a price list of what you could build a Hackintosh for, as a saving compared to the current low-end MP. Everything Simon has come up with are a smaller PSU and cheaper cooling system, which doesn't add up to much.

The last gen MP had parts that were significantly more expensive than a plain ol' desktop. The current one doesn't, Apple simply chanrges what the market will bear.

And as your own signature says, it's overpriced for the enthusiast market. The reason why you don't save a whole lot component-wise vs. a low-end Mac Pro is that the machine's price bares only the vaguest relationship to the cost of its components. The higher-end Mac Pros do not have this problem.

Back to the xMac though, as Simon says, they could easily substitute a few components (Case, MB, PSU) on the current iMac design and make a machine that was just as profitable.

At any rate, I've already put my money where my mouth is...

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Some things remain true even if you don't want to hear them.

Oh yes, Messiah, bearer of the one and only truth, educate the ignorant masses.

[Spheric Harlot]

^ no less predictable.

You do need to work out the difference between trend analysis and clairvoyance.

They're not the same thing.

(watching numbers decline and predicting that entering that market would be a stupid move isn't quite magic, especially not when the whole thing is just the usual monthly forum rehash)

[Simon]

Trend analysis, eh?

Keep it up man, I'm having a blast.