[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

If this were real, I'd own it.

I don't want a camera in my monitor though.

you're a mod now? congrats

[synthfiend]

I guess I'm wondering how drivers are handled.
If I go out and buy an HP tomorrow, like my inlaws did, even if I do install OSX on a second drive, will OSX see both optical drives, plus the built-in 1394, av in and out and a HDMI port? If, so, how? Does OSX have the capability to see all hardware and have generic drivers to talk to it? Because HP certainly won't provide drivers for their computer for an OSX platform, would they?

Just wondering...

[el chupacabra]

for what it's worth the computer seems to still be for sale on the site.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Paranoid?

Sometimes. Also I don't like the angle that's offered when the camera is square in the middle. I look like a murderer on ichat. I currently have a firewire cam sitting on two CD spindles slightly to the right of my monitor, makes me look more distinguished.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n 

you're a mod now? congrats

thanks yo

[Person Man]

I do think that the hardware checks Apple employs will be made much tighter in the future.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Software piracy is healthy competition? In what economic system does that make sense?

It's not piracy, it's reverse-engineering and a violation of the EULA of OS X. Whether all provisions of EULAs are actually valid and enforceable is an open question.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by synthfiend 

I guess I'm wondering how drivers are handled.
If I go out and buy an HP tomorrow, like my inlaws did, even if I do install OSX on a second drive, will OSX see both optical drives, plus the built-in 1394, av in and out and a HDMI port? If, so, how? Does OSX have the capability to see all hardware and have generic drivers to talk to it? Because HP certainly won't provide drivers for their computer for an OSX platform, would they?

Just wondering...

There's a specific hardware that OSX will run on- either fully with few or no problems, or half-assed with a lot of board components not working because the chipsets are wrong.

Basically, it means doing similar to what Apple itself does- hand pick hardware that's already OSX compatible, and build it yourself.

But trying to get OSX to run, is not something to be rationally attempted on a prebuilt PC-maker's pile of generic parts. It's almost guaranteed not to work- the HP would likely not use a compatible motherboard. The chipset and onboard controllers likely won't have drivers for OSX. Of course HP wouldn't supply them even if by sheer, unlikely coincidence it was a compatible board/chipset type- you'd just have to know what actual hardware was in the case.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

You sure want a lot without spending a lot.

Just being able to open the case is a lot? Better tell that to Dell, which sells a desktop for $350 that includes two PCI slots, one PCI-e slot, one PCI-e 16x slot for the graphics card, three 3.5" drive bays, and 4 DIMM slots. All people are asking from Apple is one free PCI-e slot and maybe a free 3.5" drive bay, for crying out loud!

Expandability is not a high-end feature in the computer market, except in Apple-Land - it's just a desktop feature. Most PC users would laugh at you for expecting them to pay $2700 just for some basic expandability, and it's probably harming Apple's ability to switch over desktop users.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Just being able to open the case is a lot? Better tell that to Dell, which sells a desktop for $350 that includes two PCI slots, one PCI-e slot, one PCI-e 16x slot for the graphics card, three 3.5" drive bays, and 4 DIMM slots. All people are asking from Apple is one free PCI-e slot and maybe a free 3.5" drive bay, for crying out loud!

My mini opens just fine and I rather have it the way it is than some big ugly tower.

If I wanted what you describe I would Dell but I want a bit more class so I got the Mini.

[Luca Rescigno]

Apple doesn't even need to change the guts of the mini that much. Even the lowest end CPU in the mini, the 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo, is fine for almost anything you could ever want to do.

All they have to do is stick it in a mini tower, give it space for two 3.5" hard drives, and add a couple of PCIe slots. Just that would make the mini worth it (though at that point I guess it wouldn't be so "mini" anymore).

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

All they have to do is stick it in a mini tower, give it space for two 3.5" hard drives, and add a couple of PCIe slots. Just that would make the mini worth it (though at that point I guess it wouldn't be so "mini" anymore).

[Luca Rescigno]

Who cares? It's sitting on or under your desk anyway, not moving. Plus, there are smaller (and prettier) desktop cases out there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Nobody says the iMac or Mac Pro is a bad idea just because it's taller than a Mini (and actually, I think that case is bigger than strictly necessary for what's being requested).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't keep any tower anywhere near sight of my desk anyway.

The mini could be maybe about an inch higher and accommodate a PCIe video card on a riser. Maybe the MiniPlus.

Trying to argue that it's not possible or practical is fruitless. But arguing that it wouldn't destroy Apple's insanely profitable pricing model -and therefore would likely ever happen- is equally fruitless.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Who cares? It's sitting on or under your desk anyway, not moving. Plus, there are smaller (and prettier) desktop cases out there.

Not in my case it is not. My mini is sitting by my TV as it acts as a media server and web server. If it was a big tower I would never have got it.

The size of it sells trust me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't keep any tower anywhere near sight of my desk anyway.

The mini could be maybe about an inch higher and accommodate a PCIe video card on a riser. Maybe the MiniPlus.

Trying to argue that it's not possible or practical is fruitless. But arguing that it wouldn't destroy Apple's insanely profitable pricing model -and therefore would likely ever happen- is equally fruitless.

To be quite honest, I think Apple could charge $1000 for the thing (thus making a way better profit margin than the Mac mini) and still appeal to most of the people clamoring for a consumer-level tower. So yeah, I think it wouldn't destroy Apple's insanely profitable pricing model.

[Luca Rescigno]

They could also sell both, so if you want the teeny one, you can, and if not, you can go for a higher end but less compact one.

[Eriamjh]

Open Mac (or whatever they're calling it): $399 + $129 for OSX + $79 for iLife + $50 firewire = $657
macmini = $599

Not cheaper than a mini, although it might have other features the mini doesn't have. One features is that you likely have to jump through hoops whenever Leopard is updated.

Don't all Intel Macs have a DRM (can't think of the real name) chip inside that Apple is currently NOT using? All Apple has to do is throw the switch and bye-bye Open-whatever PCs.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

To be quite honest, I think Apple could charge $1000 for the thing (thus making a way better profit margin than the Mac mini) and still appeal to most of the people clamoring for a consumer-level tower. So yeah, I think it wouldn't destroy Apple's insanely profitable pricing model.

I agree with you on a practical level for the consumer. But I think Apple's way of looking at it is that it would cannibalize the exclusivity of the MacPro if you could get too close to some of the "high end" features, in an inexpensive Mac.

With Apple, expansion that's standard on PCs (open slots, PCIe/multiple graphic cards, multiple hard/optical drive bays, etc. etc. are touted as "exclusive" features that you have to buy a MacPro to get.

Once people could get even a few of the same features in a $1000 machine, it could easily make them wonder just why the hell pay $3000 for just a few more features, and overkill processor they may not need anyway. If you want any of the features of the MacPro, you have to buy the whole shebang.

Apple is definitely a company that subscribes to the "we charge more, because our product is exclusive, partially due to our pricing structure" business model, and it's hard to fault them for it. It works.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Open Mac (or whatever they're calling it): $399 + $129 for OSX + $79 for iLife + $50 firewire = $657
macmini = $599

Not cheaper than a mini, although it might have other features the mini doesn't have. One features is that you likely have to jump through hoops whenever Leopard is updated.

You're looking at it the wrong way. If you want to configure the Open Mac to be equivalent to a Mac mini, then you had better configure the Mac mini to be equivalent to the Open Mac too.

So. Open Mac w/ OS X, iLife, and Firewire = $657.

The $599 Mac mini (which includes OS X, iLife, and Firewire) only has a 1.87 GHz processor, a Combo drive, 1 GB of RAM, and an 80 GB hard drive. The Open Mac has a 2.2 GHz processor, a DVD burner, 2 GB of RAM, and a 250 GB hard drive. Let's configure the mini to be as close as possible to the Open Mac.

Upgrading to the $799 mini gets you a 2.0 GHz processor (close enough), a DVD burner, and a 120 GB hard drive. You can further upgrade the hard drive from 120 GB to 160 GB, but not to 250 GB, for $50. In order to get 2 GB of RAM you have to pay Apple $100.

So in the end, you're actually looking at $657 for the Open Mac vs. $949 for the mini. The mini still has wireless networking and Bluetooth, which the Open Mac doesn't have, but that doesn't cost much to add on your own. The Open Mac still ends up costing much less.

On the other hand, the Open Mac has another advantage in that you don't have to buy iLife and Firewire ports with it if you don't need them. I haven't used iLife or Firewire in years. I don't edit videos and I manage my pictures manually. None of my devices have Firewire (well, I have an external HD case but it has USB 2 as well). So if I so choose, I can just save that money.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

LOL. I sure am excited about this upgradable video card in my Mac Pro.

Good thing I went with an iMac for home. Geez.

OMFG....as if on cue:

MacNN | GeForce 8800GT for older Mac Pros released

Thanks Apple!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

The irony of that is that the tower actually takes up less desk space, because it's probably sitting on the floor somewhere, out of the way, while the Mini is definitely going to be on your desk, taking up space.

Once people could get even a few of the same features in a $1000 machine, it could easily make them wonder just why the hell pay $3000 for just a few more features, and overkill processor they may not need anyway.

Whereas the current situation makes those same people wonder just why the hell pay $3000 for those features, when they could get the same features in a Dell for $2650 less. Sure, OS X is better than Windows, but is it $2650 better?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The irony of that is that the tower actually takes up less desk space, because it's probably sitting on the floor somewhere, out of the way, while the Mini is definitely going to be on your desk, taking up space.

I think that could be stretched a bit farther.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Whereas the current situation makes those same people wonder just why the hell pay $3000 for those features, when they could get the same features in a Dell for $2650 less. Sure, OS X is better than Windows, but is it $2650 better?

For me, no Final Cut Pro running on the Dell, so nope, not the same features. Still, you're right, you don't need a $3000 machine to run even Final Cut Pro.

Meanwhile... why on earth is a $180-$200 GT8800 being sold for $280? The magic fairy dust striking again? What exactly is a graphic card 'kit' anyway? Is there some other specially anointed part of this 'kit' making up the $80-$100 premium needed to make a PCIe card work in a MacPro?

[iMOTOR]

Then stop bitching and buy the Dell already.

[rozwado1]

Originally Posted by Tomchu 

It's velcro'ed underneath my desk, and serves as a media box for my girlfriend and I.

Notice how he nonchalantly throws 'my girlfriend' out there to gain dominance over the other nerds. Well played mon frere, well played.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

For me, no Final Cut Pro running on the Dell, so nope, not the same features.

Okay, that's you. I'm speaking in the general case here. Most people here have already drunk the Apple Kool-Aid™ - I'm thinking about the guys Apple is trying to switch. The guys who will look at the Mac and go "Hmm, OS X and Final Cut Pro are better than Windows and Adobe Premiere... but are they $2650 better?"

No need to make it personal.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Then stop bitching and buy the Dell already.

See above (I recently bought a MBP, so I'm not in this market, FWIW).

[- - e r i k - -]

Yes they are $2650 better. Happy now?

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The guys who will look at the Mac and go "Hmm, OS X and Final Cut Pro are better than Windows and Adobe Premiere... but are they $2650 better?"

They're the same people who might look at a BMW 750i and a Hyundai Azera and wonder "Hmm, the BMW is better… but is it $48,000 better?"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Okay, that's you. I'm speaking in the general case here. Most people here have already drunk the Apple Kool-Aid™ - I'm thinking about the guys Apple is trying to switch. The guys who will look at the Mac and go "Hmm, OS X and Final Cut Pro are better than Windows and Adobe Premiere... but are they $2650 better?"

No need to make it personal.

I get what you're saying, but Apple has clearly set up a business model that doesn't cater to the 'mid-range' and the type of person who'd debate the merits of Final Cut on a MacPro vs. a Dell running Premiere. They've probably calculated the numbers for themselves, and figured (correctly or not) that they'd make less money catering to this crowd, while essentially cannibalizing their high-end niche market that doesn't even bat an eyelash at a $3,000 machine to run an app like Final Cut.

I fully admit, I'd love to have my cake and eat it too- a mid-range tower system from Apple, also capable of doing what a full on MacPro can do. I know it's easily possible. (Especially having done it myself quite easily anyway). But I see the business folly of that from Apple's perspective. They don't feel there really are enough people wanting the mid-range, vs. pros forced to buy the high end MacPro. (And apparently being willing to be overcharged an amazing percentage for every add-on.)

Conversely, the type of "switcher" they cater to, is someone who doesn't need more of a computer than an iMac, Mini, or Powerbook.

[Luca Rescigno]

I actually sold my PowerBook and put together a self-built Windows PC a couple months ago because Apple has no good hardware offerings for me. I'm quite happy with it and I don't miss OS X as much as I thought I would. Mainly, OS X is the only thing I miss about having a Mac—I'm glad to be rid of the underpowered, overpriced hardware and lack of upgradability that Macs possess.

OS X is nice, but it's still only one part of the computer. I'm quite into games, so game performance is important to me. The cheapest Mac that's any good for gaming is the $1500 iMac, and that's twice as much as I paid for my (faster) PC (including 20" monitor). So I can live without OS X if it saves me $700.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

They're the same people who might look at a BMW 750i and a Hyundai Azera and wonder "Hmm, the BMW is better… but is it $48,000 better?"

Hasn't anyone ever told you that car analogies are terrible? We're talking about an entire platform here, a platform that needs market share, developers to write for the platform, etc. in order to be viable. BMW vs. Hyundai would be more like, I dunno, Lenovo vs. eMachines - they do the same thing, but one is more high-end than another. When you have Apple vs. whatever PC maker, it's not just competing products, it's competing ecosystems.

And then there's the fact that the BMW (I assume) actually has luxury features in the hardware that the Hyundai doesn't. Apple, however, uses pretty much the same exact stuff in their hardware as the PC makers these days - there's not really much difference at all there. And the features you can only find on the Mac Pro in Apple-land are not luxury features - they're standard features on every other desktop on the market. It's as if the BMW didn't come with openable windows, or a radio / CD player, or a heater/air conditioner, and when someone asked "Why?!!", the BMW user would go, "Boy, you sure ask for a lot!"

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I get what you're saying, but Apple has clearly set up a business model that doesn't cater to the 'mid-range' and the type of person who'd debate the merits of Final Cut on a MacPro vs. a Dell running Premiere. They've probably calculated the numbers for themselves, and figured (correctly or not) that they'd make less money catering to this crowd, while essentially cannibalizing their high-end niche market that doesn't even bat an eyelash at a $3,000 machine to run an app like Final Cut.

I fully admit, I'd love to have my cake and eat it too- a mid-range tower system from Apple, also capable of doing what a full on MacPro can do. I know it's easily possible. (Especially having done it myself quite easily anyway). But I see the business folly of that from Apple's perspective. They don't feel there really are enough people wanting the mid-range, vs. pros forced to buy the high end MacPro. (And apparently being willing to be overcharged an amazing percentage for every add-on.)

Conversely, the type of "switcher" they cater to, is someone who doesn't need more of a computer than an iMac, Mini, or Powerbook.

Good points, except that the FCP thing is only one example. There are a lot of other people that also might need an expandable computer... such as those home users that Apple caters to, if they ever want to play games at all (or if they have kids who do).

Last but not least, if someone doesn't need expansion, then I don't understand why they would want to go with a desktop computer instead of a laptop, especially considering that most of Apple's "desktops" are really just non-portable laptops made from laptop parts. The advantage of a desktop is expansion. The advantage of a laptop is portability. The advantage of a Mini or an iMac is......

[Simon]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Not in my case it is not. My mini is sitting by my TV as it acts as a media server and web server. If it was a big tower I would never have got it.

The size of it sells trust me.

I use a mini in the same way so I certainly understand that its size sells.

But what you fail to see is that its size also fails to sell to others. The mini is underpowered and lacks expansion. It's a pain to open and of course voids the warranty. If you still chose to go that road you can of course swap the CPU but then the mini is no longer cheap. And you'll still be stuck with the GMA 950 and the mobile chipset. And of course you still have a single slow notebook HDD and no PCI slots.

There are certainly many users who'd like a single CPU dual-core Mac with a PCIe slot for a graphics card and one (or two) 3.5" bays plus an optical drive. That would fit into either a really compact tower (think Quadra 700 style case) or a compact desktop (smaller than the PM 7600 case). In addition this kind of hardware is cheap to buy (because it's what the largest part of the PC market is about) and Apple could still make decent profits by marking it up.

I have absolutely no doubt this would attract a lot of sales and also new Mac buyers. That said, there are still good business reasons for Apple not to do this. It would eat into the high-margin iMac and MP sales. It would make their product matrix more complex and require them to use (that includes implement, test, and support) new Intel chipsets (regular desktop chipsets like Bearlake). And it surely wouldn't be beneficial in comparisons with cheap PC makers like Dell (Apple's system would offer basically the same hardware and form factor for at least twice the price).

So to make it short: It is complete baloney that such a system wouldn't be attractive to many buyers. On the other hand that does not ensure it would also be a wise business decision on behalf of Apple.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The advantage of a Mini or an iMac is......

Size and design.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Last but not least, if someone doesn't need expansion, then I don't understand why they would want to go with a desktop computer instead of a laptop, especially considering that most of Apple's "desktops" are really just non-portable laptops made from laptop parts.

One word: cost.

The advantage of a desktop is expansion.

Actually, it's mainly cost and performance.

The advantage of a Mini or an iMac is......

As erik mentioned above: design and size.

Also, AIO systems like the iMac are still very adequate for many users.

I don't understand why time and time again people try to make this a 'one or the other' type of issue. It is not. There are good reasons behind different designs. The mini is a good design. The iMac is a good design. But there are other more appropriate designs for some users. Steve has made this a 'one or the other' issue. Saying he's wrong, but then basically doing the same thing is silly. What we need is more choice, not just somebody else's.

[iMOTOR]

Maybe I'm being dense, but it seems like Apple isn't necessarily overcharging compared to the others.

[voodoo]

Apple's business model revolves around the users buying a new machine every 12-24 months and in that world expandability is not important. You just buy a new machine when you need more power.

The Mac mini is a complete flop though. It seems to be some sort of a stationary Macbook. Granted the Macbook sucks rocks as a computer (even as a doorstop) but its saving feature is mobility.

The Mac mini? All the flaws of an ultra-low budget mobile machine without the mobility? Well done Apple. I predict we have seen the last revision of the Mac mini as we know it. Either it will be re-invented somehow or quietly discontinued.

So when you want expandability, you're asking for a machine that lasts more than 36 months. That's going to cost you.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

Maybe I'm being dense, but it seems like Apple isn't necessarily overcharging compared to the others.

For the MP this has always been the case. If you are looking for a quality workstation the MP is an excellent deal.

But what is also true is that for many users seeking an expandable midrange desktop that MP is a total overkill. The PC market offers something in that space and incidentally those systems are also very cheap. Apple doesn't offer anything there. And hence the large interest in a HEM for $1000.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The Mac mini is a complete flop though. It seems to be some sort of a stationary Macbook. Granted the Macbook sucks rocks as a computer (even as a doorstop) but its saving feature is mobility.

The Mac mini? All the flaws of an ultra-low budget mobile machine without the mobility? Well done Apple. I predict we have seen the last revision of the Mac mini as we know it. Either it will be re-invented somehow or quietly discontinued.

Actually, it was *extremely* successful when it came out as a basic switcher machine for people who wanted to try an alternative for their desktop to work with pre-existing hardware.

That HAS tapered off somewhat - I believe this has to do with the facts that

a) Macs are widespread enough now that people don't necessarily need to "test the waters" with a minimal investment - they've seen their friends' machines and heard testimonials from there, and

b) being able to just install Windows on a Mac means there's practically no risk in buying one, because even worst-case, it's still just another (prettier) Windows computer, and

c) Mac minis have got slightly more expensive, while iMacs are looking better and better deals, and

d) increasing numbers of customers are opting for laptops anyway.

For a while, we also sold a bunch of these boxes to people looking for a small, quiet, and pretty media server to hook up to their living-room TV/stereo. These people are increasingly opting for 24-inch iMacs, though.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Good points, except that the FCP thing is only one example. There are a lot of other people that also might need an expandable computer... such as those home users that Apple caters to, if they ever want to play games at all (or if they have kids who do).

If there's a living, breathing "killer app" in the computer world today, it's got to be embodied in Final Cut Pro. It's worth it to buy a Mac at virtually any price if you make a living using FCP, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, etc. and Apple is well aware of this. They'd be fools, business wise, to toss away their "killer app" advantage by trying to lure a few midrange 'switchers', vs. exploit the professional user base.

The advantage of a laptop is portability. The advantage of a Mini or an iMac is......

Well, since it hasn't been mentioned with the other reasons: price.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

One word: cost.

A desktop made from actual desktop parts would cost less, since notebook parts are more expensive.

Actually, it's mainly cost and performance.

Cost: The MacBook starts cheaper than the iMac. The mini looks cheaper at first, but you have to buy a monitor, which makes the difference between the mini and the MacBook negligible. And of course, if you order an Apple monitor with your mini, the mini suddenly becomes more expensive than the MacBook.

Performance: You got me on the iMac's GPU (although it still isn't that great). In most other respects, the MacBook's performance should be no worse than that of the iMac, which is using an older version of the same laptop chip. And of course, the MacBook blows the doors off the mini in pretty much every way.

If the mini is such a great machine for the masses, then why do pundits keep predicting its death all the time?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

A desktop made from actual desktop parts would cost less, since notebook parts are more expensive.

Yes but the point is Apple uses the Mini to lure in PC switchers. If the Mac was a big tall ugly box it will give them even less of a reason to switch.

Switchers want to feel like they are paying more for a Mac for a reason and that reason is one of the smallest and coolest looking computers you can buy for a pretty good price.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Cost: The MacBook starts cheaper than the iMac. The mini looks cheaper at first, but you have to buy a monitor, which makes the difference between the mini and the MacBook negligible. And of course, if you order an Apple monitor with your mini, the mini suddenly becomes more expensive than the MacBook.

The mini is for people who already HAVE a monitor.

FWIW: In my experience, people who're lured into the store by the mini and don't have a monitor don't generally gravitate towards the MacBook - they've already decided on a desktop. They usually either walk out with an iMac, or they come back a couple days later and THEN walk out with an iMac.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Performance: You got me on the iMac's GPU (although it still isn't that great). In most other respects, the MacBook's performance should be no worse than that of the iMac, which is using an older version of the same laptop chip. And of course, the MacBook blows the doors off the mini in pretty much every way.

If the mini is such a great machine for the masses, then why do pundits keep predicting its death all the time?

Are you talking about the pundits who've been telling us that Apple's going bankrupt for the past 25 years?

Who knows.

[Lateralus]

Woz on Psystar OpenPro: "I like the price, so I may get one"

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Yes but the point is Apple uses the Mini to lure in PC switchers. If the Mac was a big tall ugly box it will give them even less of a reason to switch.

So don't make it a tall ugly box. Make a box that's not that big, but bigger than the mini. Did you really think the Cube was tall and ugly? That was probably the best-looking desktop Apple's ever made.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Are you talking about the pundits who've been telling us that Apple's going bankrupt for the past 25 years?

Only if the Mac rumor sites have an interest in Apple going out of business.

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Woz on Psystar OpenPro: "I like the price, so I may get one"

Oh wow.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

So don't make it a tall ugly box. Make a box that's not that big, but bigger than the mini. Did you really think the Cube was tall and ugly? That was probably the best-looking desktop Apple's ever made.

I had a cube and I love the size but it still wasn't that much more upgradable than the mini even though it was much larger.

Trust me nothing would make me happier if Apple came out with a new screaming mini-tower but I don't think it should replace the mini as I want this tower to have some mean guts to it. Pretty much a Mac Pro without all the PCI, optical and hard drive slots.

Then again in Apples eyes laptops are taking over and the all in one iMac's are some really powerful computers priced well and selling like hotcakes so mini tower might only end up being a really small market to cater to.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I had a cube and I love the size but it still wasn't that much more upgradable than the mini even though it was much larger.

That's because a whole bunch of space had to be used up for the chimney for the convection cooling system since the Cube had to be fanless. Use a normal cooling system and you could have something with expansion that's not much larger than the Cube. Look at the Shuttle PC, for example - a lot of those aren't that much larger than the Cube was at all. The Cube was 9.8 inches by 7.7 inches by 7.7 inches, and this Shuttle PC is 11.81" by 7.87" by 7.28", and it includes a PCIe slot for graphics, an extra PCI slot on top of that, and two drive bays.

Then again in Apples eyes laptops are taking over and the all in one iMac's are some really powerful computers priced well and selling like hotcakes so mini tower might only end up being a really small market to cater to.

I think the fact that minitowers are probably about 95% of the desktop PC market would contradict that.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think the fact that minitowers are probably about 95% of the desktop PC market would contradict that.

You better email steve then and tell him that as Apple doesn't seem to have a clue I guess.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think the fact that minitowers are probably about 95% of the desktop PC market would contradict that.

Mostly for cost reasons, though, not because people actually need the upgradeability (many of them *think* they do, but AFAIK, the vast majority never actually DO upgrade beyond RAM).

Plus, I thought the market for those desktops was actually shrinking due to increased laptop sales to all those folks who realize that they could care less about hardware upgrades? Why should Apple invest in a shrinking market that they already encroach upon with the mini at one and the iMac at the other end?

Don't get me wrong: I see exactly why you'd want one - it's the same type of product grid omission as a non-pro MacBook with an ExpressCard slot or a 15-inch screen.

Too many options are a problem, though, as they muddy the waters.