[P]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

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.

That is exactly my point. Apple is making a machine very close to the mythical xMac, but is overcharging for it.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

They have already been, P. Several times actually. You just chose to ignore them or claim they're false.

The top two arguments in your list are not correct, and the rest don't add up to much. This is really what it all boils down to: You think that there is a potential xMac with almost MP performance that costs significantly less than the current one to build, because it has been nerfed somehow to preserve MP margins. I don't.

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

I don't particularly love iMacs. My current one is awesome so far, but both the previous ones had their flaws. I bought desktops before that option went away, and if the cost for buying an iMac and buying an xMac with an equivalent display were the same, I'd probably opt for the xMac for the simple reason that the one upgrade that makes sense to me in the next few years - an SSD, once the price/performance gets a little better and TRIM support gets added to OS X - would be easier to make. I'd likely make use of the ability to upgrade the GPU somewhere down the line, but Macs are unfortunately not for gaming.

I appreciate that there are people who need expandability more than I do. They are forced to the MP, and with the previous models being comparatively weak, the market for used machines is not the best. It is for this reason that I was so annoyed that the low-end MP got so absurdly expensive in the last update.

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?

Very nice, except that

* all of this has been tried a couple of times, and the model in question was quickly killed each time
* that xMac wouldn't cost much less to make, certainly not $800 less to make, than the low-end MP, yet with a Lynnfield or Bloomfield in it (you picked the Core 2 model) it would be very close in performance.

And anyway the only component that you can upgrade in this way is the GPU.

As for whether it attracts people to the Mac...sure. So does a cutting all prices in half. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to do it.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

You think that there is a potential xMac with almost MP performance that costs significantly less than the current one to build, because it has been nerfed somehow to preserve MP margins.

Not just me. Everyone in here so far but you and another usual suspect.

* all of this has been tried a couple of times

Nope, it actually hasn't. The comparisons with older Power Macs are flawed because with the PowerPC price performance ratios were quite significantly different than in today's Intel world. Never before has Apple tried selling an expandable Intel desktop Mac that matches a typical PC desktop in CPU/chipset and performance. Never.

and the model in question was quickly killed each time

Reality check. The desktop Power Mac 7100-7600 series was around for four years. It was very popular compared to the consumer lines below and the tower lines above.

that xMac wouldn't cost much less to make, certainly not $800 less to make, than the low-end MP, yet with a Lynnfield or Bloomfield in it (you picked the Core 2 model) it would be very close in performance.

Nice strawman. But let's stick to the actual questions. Every single one of those questions has a clear answer. No if's, no but's. Like I said above, you're bringing nothing new to the table which is why arguing this with you is really quite pointless.

As for whether it attracts people to the Mac...sure. So does a cutting all prices in half. Doesn't mean that it makes sense to do it.

Nice strawman again. Back in the real world we note that an xMac would make more profit and attract more people to the platform. It's really a no-brainer unless like Steve you have some sort of issue with expansion.

I assume I'm not the only one around here getting tired of the Apple-can-do-no-wrong club.

[l008com]

Originally Posted by 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?

Hmmm this thread got away from me. So point out some cost savings...
Well for one, the NanoMac has one processor, not two. That processor is a corei5/i5, not a xenon. It doesn't have two RAM daughtercards, that saves money. It has a few fewer fans, that saves some cash. It's power supply put out a lot less power, that should save some cash. The logic board would be an apple version of a generic pc tower, should be cheaper for the things it lacks listed above. The case would be much cheaper because it would use much less aluminum, and it would be a simpler, more basic design. "but wait, the tower in your NanoMac looks just as complicated as the MP!" Yes because it's photoshop.

The arguments I'm hearing really don't make sense. It won't be cheap because the MP's profit margins are so high. Well so what, the iMac's profit margins are relatively low. Apple could charge $6000 for this NanoMac or they could charge $800. They WILL do whatever they want. But they COULD do a mac like this for $1500 or less, it would be a great machine for the company, attracting even more market share and yes, still making a lot of profit. They could even use it to step the Mac Pro back up to even more high end markets.

[l008com]

Also... this would be very un-Appley, but if they really wanted to go after the PC-Nerd crowd, they could make one of the BTO options for the NanoMac to be a cheaper, incomplete version. No RAM, 4 empty hard drive bays, no processor, and no video card. That would give a lot of PC folk a real big hard on. In practice, that only really problem with that setup is that PC folk would buy regular old video cards and they wouldn't work with their Mac. But also, a Mac like this would hopefully, finally put a little spark in the 3rd party Mac video card market. TONS of cards out there would work fine, all the companies have to do is flash their firmware, but they don't bother.

[mfbernstein]

Originally Posted by l008com 

Also... this would be very un-Appley, but if they really wanted to go after the PC-Nerd crowd, they could make one of the BTO options for the NanoMac to be a cheaper, incomplete version. No RAM, 4 empty hard drive bays, no processor, and no video card. That would give a lot of PC folk a real big hard on. In practice, that only really problem with that setup is that PC folk would buy regular old video cards and they wouldn't work with their Mac.

I think the hard-core BTO crowd is spoken for already. If you like building your own machine, the hackintosh option is and will always be dramatically cheaper than anything Apple would offer. Sure, with Apple you would get some sort of limited support, plus a nice case, but neither are something that BTOers will really miss.

And in reality, this is precisely not the customer-base they're interested-in. For anybody who wants an xMac today, you have 2 options: break out the credit card and pay what Apple is asking, or hit newegg and the forums, and build your own...

[l008com]

You say that like hackintosh is a real option. It's not. Apple does more and more every year to try to prevent it. Its (arguably) against the law to do it. And your system is completely unstable, any software update could kill it. That's not an option for anyone that actually needs to USE their computer.

[mfbernstein]

Originally Posted by l008com 

You say that like hackintosh is a real option. It's not. Apple does more and more every year to try to prevent it. Its (arguably) against the law to do it. And your system is completely unstable, any software update could kill it. That's not an option for anyone that actually needs to USE their computer.

You're welcome to your beliefs, but it's a bit condescending to say that a whole group of people out there don't "actually need to USE their computers."

[l008com]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point is that you can't build up a hackintosh and use it as your regular every day Mac, because the fact that it's a Hackintosh means it could stop working at any moment. It requires way too much attention just to keep it going stable, which is one of the big reasons people use Macs in the first place, the way they "just work"

[P]

Originally Posted by l008com 

Hmmm this thread got away from me. So point out some cost savings...
Well for one, the NanoMac has one processor, not two.

The comparison was to the base quadcore model, which has one CPU.

Originally Posted by l008com 

That processor is a corei5/i5, not a xenon.

The Xeons in the quad MP are comparatively low price. The base 2.66 model W3520 costs $284. The Core i5-750 costs $196 for a fairly significant nerf. The i7-860 costs the same $284. The Core i5-680 (brand new) costs $294. Other Core i5 are even weaker.

(Prices from Intel's official price list - Apple likely pays less, but the discounts are proportional. That the Quad uses Xeon 3500 series is specified on the Mac Pro tech spec page)

Originally Posted by l008com 

It doesn't have two RAM daughtercards, that saves money. It has a few fewer fans, that saves some cash. It's power supply put out a lot less power, that should save some cash. The logic board would be an apple version of a generic pc tower, should be cheaper for the things it lacks listed above. The case would be much cheaper because it would use much less aluminum, and it would be a simpler, more basic design. "but wait, the tower in your NanoMac looks just as complicated as the MP!" Yes because it's photoshop.

All of these are true, but it doesn't add up to anywhere near $800.

Originally Posted by l008com 

The arguments I'm hearing really don't make sense. It won't be cheap because the MP's profit margins are so high. Well so what, the iMac's profit margins are relatively low. Apple could charge $6000 for this NanoMac or they could charge $800. They WILL do whatever they want. But they COULD do a mac like this for $1500 or less, it would be a great machine for the company, attracting even more market share and yes, still making a lot of profit. They could even use it to step the Mac Pro back up to even more high end markets.

The point is cannibalization. The MP costs some undefined amount of money to produce, and then sells for $2500. If you make a machine that does most of what the MP does and sells it for $1700 or whatever the argument price is today, you need to cut costs compared to the MP by $800 or you will lose money on every one of these that cannibalizes off the low-end MP. Put another way - you might as well cut the price of the low-end MP by the same amount. That would also increase sales, at the cost of margins. Apple has so far been very resistant to buying market share, mainly because the last time they did that, it almost killed the company.

Simon's argument is basically that:

a) cutting two PCIe slots and a couple of HDs makes the machine both cheaper to produce and at the same time unattractive to many MP buyers
b) that whatever cannibalization that occurs is offset by flocks of PC converts that have been waiting for this xMac.

Point a is what I'm arguing against. It DID make some sense back when the MP used FB-DIMMs and dedicated server chips, but today it really is just a Core i7 tower, except with ECC RAM and an inflated pricetag. Removing two PCIe slots doesn't save any money. Those cute HD sleds certainly cost something, but it's no big money. There's nothing wrong with wanting something cheaper, but it's hardly some sort of inalienable right.

Point b is unknowable, and we've spent some time on these forums arguing it back and forth. I doubt we're getting any further this time - if anything, the new iMacs remove some of the advantages an xMac would have now that it has 4 RAM slots and a desktop CPU.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Not just me. Everyone in here so far but you and another usual suspect.

Ah, the silent majority argument. Awesome.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nope, it actually hasn't. The comparisons with older Power Macs are flawed because with the PowerPC price performance ratios were quite significantly different than in today's Intel world. Never before has Apple tried selling an expandable Intel desktop Mac that matches a typical PC desktop in CPU/chipset and performance. Never.

Reality check. The desktop Power Mac 7100-7600 series was around for four years. It was very popular compared to the consumer lines below and the tower lines above.

Wait, a 5 year old Mac is not a relevant example, but a 15 year old model qualifies? And yes, I know about the 7000 series. I own a 7200 somewhere, if it wasn't thrown out the last time I cleaned out the basement. I also know that back then, Apple was bleeding red ink and was very close to running out of money. I'd rather not go back to those days.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nice strawman. But let's stick to the actual questions. Every single one of those questions has a clear answer. No if's, no but's. Like I said above, you're bringing nothing new to the table which is why arguing this with you is really quite pointless.

There was more than one? If you're arguing that a cheaper minitower Mac would expand the market, then we have no argument there - I'm sure it will. I'm just saying that that gain in share will cost money.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nice strawman again. Back in the real world we note that an xMac would make more profit and attract more people to the platform. It's really a no-brainer unless like Steve you have some sort of issue with expansion.

I assume I'm not the only one around here getting tired of the Apple-can-do-no-wrong club.

Given your design of the xMac, I don't see why anyone would buy the low-end MP. You might as well kill it - in effect, using lower margins to buy share. This is strategy. I don't really have an opinion as to whether it is right or wrong - of course I'd like to pay as little as possible, but that's hardly a sentiment to formulate company strategy around. I completely understand why Apple does what it does - they're playing it safe, not risking the MP margins, because they don't think that there is anything to gain from introducing such a Mac. Meanwhile, they are addressing many of those concerns in the iMac: We now have desktop CPUs, an upper-midrange (at least) GPU and 4 RAM slots. There is an offical USB-Ethernet adapter if you'd like more than one Ethernet port. If the cries for eSATA grow loud enough, we might even get that.

[l008com]

Since you guys are kind of dragging away from the point of this thread anyway, let me throw this out there. Two expresscard slots on the 27" iMac. Not perfect since I still won't be able to recycle the computer every year or two without also recycling a new 27" monitor. But that would be interesting, and would take a bit out of the point of this thread, and the reason people who need towers really need them: expansion (slots). Add one expresscard slot to the mini and two to the 27" iMac. That could give your 27" iMac the potential for hooking up 20 sata/esata hard drives. Connect that to a corei7 and yikes that would be one beast of a video machine. Still though, it's just not quite right.

Whether it's a middle mac, or lower low end mac pros. In the end, the bottom line is the same. There is a huge GAP in the lineup that is most visible when it come to expansion slots. Since apple has yet to embrace eSata, but the rest of the world has, this is becoming more of an issue.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

I completely understand why Apple does what it does - they're playing it safe, not risking the MP margins, because they don't think that there is anything to gain from introducing such a Mac.

If you think it has to do with playing it safe you are quite obviously not 'completely understanding' what Apple's doing. Minimize the number of units sold and you can chose whatever margin you like, total revenue will be zero.

You're acting as if there were some smart grand plan behind all of this. But there is none. Apple isn't going this route because after extensive analysis they have come to the conclusion that this is what drives most profit. They're doing it because of Steve's personal preferences. He hates expansion. Hence no expandable midrange Mac.

I know rationalizing these things paints a more favorable picture of Apple. But Apple isn't getting a pass from me just because they're Apple. As a stockholder I want them to earn money. And I know that means selling as many units as they can at the highest margin they can achieve. Selling none at a high margin (MP) is just as silly as selling many at zero margin (Dell).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

If you're arguing that a cheaper minitower Mac would expand the market, then we have no argument there - I'm sure it will. I'm just saying that that gain in share will cost money.

Nonsense. By that logic Apple should can the iMac as it is talking MP market share away while driving lower margins.

Your argument is circular and contradictory at the same time.

On one hand the iMac supposedly can't be built for any less than what we have today. On the other hand the MP is supposedly cheap to build and there's supposedly no way it can be made any cheaper. At the same time the MP has this grossly inflated price because supposedly Apple will not sell it below a ~50% margin. However, the iMac is such an awesome deal because Apple is supposedly selling it at this incredibly (in relative terms of course) low margin.

So, if your argument were correct the whole difference would come down to name. If it's called MP sell it at a huge margin and try to drive people to Dell. If its name is iMac sell a lot of bang for back and try to attract people to the platform like there's no tomorrow. Using that logic the solution for the xMac would actually be quite simple: call it iMac. Done.

That's how much sense your entire argument makes.

[Simon]

A couple of evident truths:
- the low-end MP is way too expensive
- the low-end MP is not the cheapest way to make an expandable desktop Mac
- the iMac could be sold w/o its screen and in a 'regular' desktop case
- selling a $1699 iMac w/o its screen for $1699 makes Apple more money than selling it for $1699 with a screen

How somebody could go through this list and then claim the xMac can't be done is astounding to me.

[Big Mac]

l008com, I just want to point out that I think you're mischaracterizing the viability of the Hackintosh. Yes, you don't get anything like the Apple out of the box instant Mac experience, and yes tinkering of various sorts will be involved. But if you stick to components that are well supported, like many Gigabyte motherboards, the Hackintosh community has done a lot of work to make OS X install and run well on such machines and have even provided graphical installers for the necessary support files that Hackintosh systems require. If you want to get a taste of that experience, search for the Lifehacker Hackintosh series for a sense of where the community has been going, and then look up the kakewalk installer. With a proper initial setup you do get something that runs almost like the real thing and can even support Apple software updates without additional tinkering. And Apple has not gone after the community. The only that was done arguably against it was that Apple removed some kernel support for the Atom, perhaps because Apple wanted to discourage people from using OS X on netbooks like people were popularly doing, or perhaps just because Apple has no intention of using Atom processors right now. The beautiful thing is, though, because of OS X's Darwin core, the Hackintosh community quickly provided modified kernels to support the Atom processor, and the solution seems to have worked because people don't complain about the issue.

Now P, you made entertaining claim that Simon's proposed xMac couldn't be aggressively priced because doing so would mean it would cannibalize Mac Pro sales and cost Apple money. I say that's entertaining because we know for a fact that Mac Pros don't sell very well. It may be the least popular Mac line in sales receipts. Part of the reason why is the pricing has become increasingly unattractive, especially with the last refresh. The fact is, our xMac wouldn't even have to be that big of a success, only a mild one, for it to do better than the Mac Pro in nearly all respects. In other words, the Mac Pro hasn't set the bar that high for sales performance, so it only takes a moderately successful xMac to justify the cannibalization to the Mac Pro. (Simon properly pointed out that the 7100-7600 lines of Power Macs were successful midrange desktop Macs, although that's pre-Jobsian so the margin schemes were very different.) Now cannibalization of the iMac is a different issue, and I think that it's principally the iMac rather than the Mac Pro that Apple's protecting by not having a proper midrange desktop.

[P]

Originally Posted by l008com 

Since you guys are kind of dragging away from the point of this thread anyway, let me throw this out there. Two expresscard slots on the 27" iMac.

I've suggested this before - there is even an internal PCcard slot inside the 1st gen iMac G5. Question is what you'd put there, though. eSATA is the only thing that anyone has mentioned in this thread, and if that's the only thing, why not just add one port? Issue here is rather than Apple doesn't have eSATA support on any of its machines.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now P, you made entertaining claim that Simon's proposed xMac couldn't be aggressively priced because doing so would mean it would cannibalize Mac Pro sales and cost Apple money. I say that's entertaining because we know for a fact that Mac Pros don't sell very well.

Link? Not that I don't believe you per se, just that it would be interesting to see sales numbers by model. Apple usually doesn't release that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It may be the least popular Mac line in sales receipts. Part of the reason why is the pricing has become increasingly unattractive, especially with the last refresh. The fact is, our xMac wouldn't even have to be that big of a success, only a mild one, for it to do better than the Mac Pro in nearly all respects. In other words, the Mac Pro hasn't set the bar that high for sales performance, so it only takes a moderately successful xMac to justify the cannibalization to the Mac Pro.

Then just cut the price of the low-end MP, because noone will be buying it if there was an xMac with similar performance

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

(Simon properly pointed out that the 7100-7600 lines of Power Macs were successful midrange desktop Macs, although that's pre-Jobsian so the margin schemes were very different.)

Apple's general viability was very different. Chipsets back then also included fewer features, so more people needed at least one slot.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now cannibalization of the iMac is a different issue, and I think that it's principally the iMac rather than the Mac Pro that Apple's protecting by not having a proper midrange desktop.

Not really. Count up the cost of the parts - especially that big expensive display - and the margin of the iMac isn't great.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nonsense. By that logic Apple should can the iMac as it is talking MP market share away while driving lower margins.

Only if MP buyers are going to the iMac in droves. They might be, especially now that the MP is way overdue for an update, but that only means that they don't value expandability.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Your argument is circular and contradictory at the same time.

On one hand the iMac supposedly can't be built for any less than what we have today.

Given what limitations?

Originally Posted by Simon 

On the other hand the MP is supposedly cheap to build and there's supposedly no way it can be made any cheaper.

Not significantly so with the same performance, if we're talking about the low-end MP.

Originally Posted by Simon 

At the same time the MP has this grossly inflated price because supposedly Apple will not sell it below a ~50% margin. However, the iMac is such an awesome deal because Apple is supposedly selling it at this incredibly (in relative terms of course) low margin.

So, if your argument were correct the whole difference would come down to name. If it's called MP sell it at a huge margin and try to drive people to Dell. If its name is iMac sell a lot of bang for back and try to attract people to the platform like there's no tomorrow. Using that logic the solution for the xMac would actually be quite simple: call it iMac. Done.

That's how much sense your entire argument makes.

Market segmentation - it's almost never pretty. Apple has a number of pro users that are unlikely to ever change platforms, because they have a massive investment in software and training. Apple wants to milk these people for all they're worth, because it can. At the same time, it wants to have high-end consumer models that it can upsell to people just looking for a "plain" iMac. The issue now becomes crippling these in such a way that the pros don't buy them over the MP. Apple's choice here has been expandability. You may not agree with the choice, but that's what they've done. Now, you can argue that this kind of market segmentation is wrong and stupid and should be ended. It might be, and if you ever get to run Apple you're free to do so, but you cannot ignore that strategy. Introducing an xMac and keeping the MP at current price levels won't work, because you won't be able to cripple the xMac in such a way as to keep the MP buyers away. If you do this with open eyes, wanting to end that segmentation, then I don't have a problem with that. Maybe Apple now makes enough money out of its other business that it doesn't need to bleed its MP customers dry, and can take the chance to expand share instead of cashing in, but such a strategy has its risks. You portray it as a sure thing, and that's what I have a problem with.

You're arguing like it's 2006. The original MP was much more expensive to build than a plain desktop. The current one isn't particularly, it's a plain Bloomfield with ECC and crippled with only 4 RAM slots.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by P 

Link? Not that I don't believe you per se, just that it would be interesting to see sales numbers by model. Apple usually doesn't release that.

I don't have a link to hard numbers, but people have discussed it here. I remember distinctly that the Mac Pro's slice of the Mac pie is very small. Simon probably remembers the conversation because I think he was active in it.

Then just cut the price of the low-end MP, because noone will be buying it if there was an xMac with similar performance.

So few people are buying the low-end MP as it is. It's not a good deal. Cut out some of the excesses like people have suggested and you have a cheaper truly midrange desktop that can be sold for less without sacrificing too much in margins. If Apple did that, it could get rid of the loser quad core entry level Mac Pro. I think most in the know agree with your signature line. I can't imagine too many pros are buying the overpriced, RAM limited quads. If there were a true midrange desktop line, Apple wouldn't have to make the Mac Pro straddle the midrange fence, which it currently does very poorly. The iMac and the Mac Pro aren't designed to cover the midrange desktop territory, but that's what Apple forces on the market. The xMac would bring the product matrix back into balance from my point of view.

Apple's general viability was very different. Chipsets back then also included fewer features, so more people needed at least one slot.

I noted that Apple and the Mac were in a very different place back then, but we shouldn't forget that midrange desktops existed at one point. The Power Mac G3 continued to offer midrange desktop options, if you recall. As did the G4 - the low-end G4 was aggressively priced for the midrange market. At the point of the G5 we started to see the price departure upward and away from the midrange, and that just continued to escalate with the Mac Pro. Apple apparently thinks this setup works sufficiently well, but it really doesn't take a genius to see the gaping hole in Apple's lineup. We just disagree with you about it being financially viable to fill that hole.

Regarding your contention that people needed more cards back then because chipsets did less, I really disagree. Apple chipsets often had more features than PC chipsets back in the day. Macs always had built-in video back when PC boards did not, and the 76/86/9600 lines had built-in TV AV input/ouput along with many other ports. Beyond that, the fact is, I rely more on cards than I ever did back in the day. No cards in my Quadra 650. I only installed one expansion card in my 8600 toward the end of its run, and that video card was partially broken so I never relied on it. But I have a GPU card plus an eSATA card in my G5, and I'll need a computer with slots for eSATA because I rely on it (unless Apple provides it built-in, which it has thus far resisted). I need slots more than I did back then. Perhaps that's because my needs have changed as I've shifted into more professional roles, but expansion slots are more important to me today than they ever were in the past. Speaking of cards, my G5's Radeon 9800XT just went out on me - I'm typing on it right now with horrible pink lines and Matrix-y looking artifacts all over the screen, waiting for my new eBay Nvidia 6800 PC flashed card. But at least I have the option to replace it, which I wouldn't have with an iMac if its video circuitry went out.

Not really. Count up the cost of the parts - especially that big expensive display - and the margin of the iMac isn't great.

Exactly! The xMac we envision would have better margins than the iMac. And it would sell far better than the Mac Pro.

[mfbernstein]

Originally Posted by l008com 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point is that you can't build up a hackintosh and use it as your regular every day Mac, because the fact that it's a Hackintosh means it could stop working at any moment.

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's perfectly fine for you to say that _you_ can't build a hack and use it for every-day work. What I object to is your insistence that others can't. I personally know a number of people who do just that, and from forums and other places, it is clear that they are hardly alone.

Originally Posted by l008com 

It requires way too much attention just to keep it going stable, which is one of the big reasons people use Macs in the first place, the way they "just work"

With all due respect, keeping a computer stable is really not the task you make it out to be. Machines do not spontaneously stop working. If you install system updates without having live backups and doing research, then yes, you can get burned. Although I think that even on a real Mac, it is wise to do backups and read up.

At any rate, we are talking about the small subset of users who want more customizability, expandability, etc. and don't want to pay the Mac Pro premium, and I think that for this group. These are in general precisely the people who are willing to entertain a little headache to save money and gain flexibility and performance.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's perfectly fine for you to say that _you_ can't build a hack and use it for every-day work. What I object to is your insistence that others can't. I personally know a number of people who do just that, and from forums and other places, it is clear that they are hardly alone.

Generally, "work" implies that stuff needs to function to prevent deprivation of livelihood.

I find it difficult to imagine a work situation where unsupported/questionably legal installations that are likely to break at the next unmeditated update are a viable option.

If the machine is tangential to what you're actually living off, then the situation is different, of course. But if that's the case, it's hard to imagine why an iMac wouldn't suffice.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

At any rate, we are talking about the small subset of users who want more customizability, expandability, etc. and don't want to pay the Mac Pro premium, and I think that for this group. These are in general precisely the people who are willing to entertain a little headache to save money and gain flexibility and performance.

They are, however, as you say, a small (and growing smaller) subset of an already small market segment.

Hardly lucrative.

[Simon]

The MP is an extremely small segment of a small market. And it's highly lucrative. Or so you claimed.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They are, however, as you say, a small (and growing smaller) subset of an already small market segment.

Hardly lucrative.

How do you know it's an already small market segment, and how do you know it's hardly lucrative? If it's hardly lucrative, why does every other computer manufacturer have options in this segment?

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So few people are buying the low-end MP as it is. It's not a good deal. Cut out some of the excesses like people have suggested and you have a cheaper truly midrange desktop that can be sold for less without sacrificing too much in margins. If Apple did that, it could get rid of the loser quad core entry level Mac Pro. I think most in the know agree with your signature line. I can't imagine too many pros are buying the overpriced, RAM limited quads. If there were a true midrange desktop line, Apple wouldn't have to make the Mac Pro straddle the midrange fence, which it currently does very poorly. The iMac and the Mac Pro aren't designed to cover the midrange desktop territory, but that's what Apple forces on the market. The xMac would bring the product matrix back into balance from my point of view.

The point I've been trying to make allthroughout this thread is that the low-end MP really doesn't have much fat to trim - it is already a design very close to what the xMac would be. It is a Core i7-920 with generous - but not extreme - room for expansion. I have a homebuilt HTPC with midrange - at best - gear. It has 7 3.5" bays and 2 5.25" bays, along with I think 5 PCIe slots. That's nowhere near necessary for the usage, but since I wanted a box that could seat a full-sized GPU, all of them had that much space. If I were to build a Core i7 machine today, I'd probably end up with something very close to what the low-end MP is - except costing far less.

This is very different from the situation before the Nehalem launch, when the MP was much more expensive to build than a base desktop.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I noted that Apple and the Mac were in a very different place back then, but we shouldn't forget that midrange desktops existed at one point. The Power Mac G3 continued to offer midrange desktop options, if you recall.

It also started at $2400.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As did the G4 - the low-end G4 was aggressively priced for the midrange market. At the point of the G5 we started to see the price departure upward and away from the midrange, and that just continued to escalate with the Mac Pro.

This is the bit that I usually bring up, and that Simon has already preemptively responded to: Apple has several times had a ~$1500 Powermac, but has killed it every time - implying that it didn't sell. Last time was the single G5 Powermac with specs identical to the iMac G5 of the time.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple apparently thinks this setup works sufficiently well, but it really doesn't take a genius to see the gaping hole in Apple's lineup. We just disagree with you about it being financially viable to fill that hole.

Yes, but in my opinion, that hole has grown smaller over the last year. I keep hoping for a cheaper low-end MP - perhaps simply the current model kept around after the update to hexacores - as that would further reduce that hole at minimal expense for Apple.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Regarding your contention that people needed more cards back then because chipsets did less, I really disagree. Apple chipsets often had more features than PC chipsets back in the day. Macs always had built-in video back when PC boards did not, and the 76/86/9600 lines had built-in TV AV input/ouput along with many other ports. Beyond that, the fact is, I rely more on cards than I ever did back in the day. No cards in my Quadra 650. I only installed one expansion card in my 8600 toward the end of its run, and that video card was partially broken so I never relied on it. But I have a GPU card plus an eSATA card in my G5, and I'll need a computer with slots for eSATA because I rely on it (unless Apple provides it built-in, which it has thus far resisted). I need slots more than I did back then. Perhaps that's because my needs have changed as I've shifted into more professional roles, but expansion slots are more important to me today than they ever were in the past.

I think you are the exception if you use more cards today than you used to. As late as late nineties, home desktop PC boxen often came with all those slots full: Ethernet, modem, audio, GPU, wireless, game ports, AV capture, firewire... They're mostly gone now: The GPU is there, if there is firewire or some AV-capture stuff they're on a separate card, and...that's it, really. The rest is on the motherboard. Apple did lead in this, you have a point there.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Speaking cards, my G5's Radeon 9800XT just went out on me - I'm typing on it right now with horrible pink lines and Matrix-y looking artifacts all over the screen, waiting for my new eBay Nvidia 6800 PC flashed card. But at least I have the option to replace it, which I wouldn't have with an iMac if its video circuitry went out.

iMacs without integrated graphics have had their GPUs on MXM cards for a few years now. Not so useful for upgrading, but they work fine as a sparepart.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

It also started at $2400.

At that time that was barely more than better consumer Macs went for. Kind of like an xMac today for let's say $1699.

Apple has several times had a ~$1500 Powermac, but has killed it every time - implying that it didn't sell.

That's your guess. The low-end MP sells like junk and still they're selling it. Logic? Not so much. For the umpteenth time, they sell or don't sell towers based on preference as much as sales figures. If not even more so actually.

iMacs without integrated graphics have had their GPUs on MXM cards for a few years now. Not so useful for upgrading, but they work fine as a sparepart.

Not so useful? What are you smoking??? The iMac's MXM graphics proved to be zero upgradable. The entire iMac was and remains not at all upgradable. You buy it and toss it away after two years when you realize it's a dead end. Way to go green.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by P 

The point I've been trying to make allthroughout this thread is that the low-end MP really doesn't have much fat to trim - it is already a design very close to what the xMac would be. It is a Core i7-920 with generous - but not extreme - room for expansion. I have a homebuilt HTPC with midrange - at best - gear. It has 7 3.5" bays and 2 5.25" bays, along with I think 5 PCIe slots. That's nowhere near necessary for the usage, but since I wanted a box that could seat a full-sized GPU, all of them had that much space. If I were to build a Core i7 machine today, I'd probably end up with something very close to what the low-end MP is - except costing far less.

So then you agree that there's a gaping hole in the lineup, but you think that the thing to fill it is a cheaper Mac Pro quad. Okay, that's more reasonable than I thought your position was - that the lineup is fine as is.

It also started at $2400.

It started at $2,400, but the second configuration of the desktop model was cut to $1,599.

This is the bit that I usually bring up, and that Simon has already preemptively responded to: Apple has several times had a ~$1500 Powermac, but has killed it every time - implying that it didn't sell. Last time was the single G5 Powermac with specs identical to the iMac G5 of the time.

It isn't fair to say that the midrange Power Mac was killed every time. Every model eventually gets discontinued, but only in recent times did the midrange get killed without getting replaced. The MDDs were priced for the midrange. Granted, it was older technology because the G4 was long in the tooth, but Apple still sold them for a while. And a cheap config (I think, what, $1,300) that could boot into OS 9 was kept around even longer, for a while after the G5's debut.

Yes, but in my opinion, that hole has grown smaller over the last year. I keep hoping for a cheaper low-end MP - perhaps simply the current model kept around after the update to hexacores - as that would further reduce that hole at minimal expense for Apple.

Fair enough. I wish Apple would be a bit more reasonable in this regard. Maybe someone can get a message into SJ's inbox.

iMacs without integrated graphics have had their GPUs on MXM cards for a few years now. Not so useful for upgrading, but they work fine as a sparepart.

Thank you, I didn't know that information.

I'd have no real motivation to build myself a Hackintosh if there were a midrange headless desktop. That tells me that there's a real need not being addressed right now.

[hh.blitz]

The low-endMP is (was) superior to the high-end iMac. (The technology is >6 months older)... the point of the xMac isn't, from what I understand, a cheap Mac Pro. It is supposed to be a different computer, a mid-range tower, filling a gap in the Apple product line. While I think we would accept a cheapened entry-level MP, it's not the point. The xMac would have to be more like an iMac, just without the all-in-one factor and very limited expansion.

[reader50]

I cast my vote for an expandable midrange xMac. I've a need for multiple HD bays, and at least one expansion slot. Usually used for some interface that Apple doesn't supply. eSATA at present, extra PATA headers in the past.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So then you agree that there's a gaping hole in the lineup, but you think that the thing to fill it is a cheaper Mac Pro quad.

Exactly.

IMHO, the xMac discussion was borne back in the days of iMacs with laptop parts and MPs with FB-DIMMs and expensive 5000-series Xeons, and it needs to adapt to a world where both the iMac and the low-end MP uses standard desktop parts to a large extent.

Originally Posted by Simon

=P]iMacs without integrated graphics have had their GPUs on MXM cards for a few years now. Not so useful for upgrading, but they work fine as a sparepart.

Not so useful? What are you smoking??? The iMac's MXM graphics proved to be zero upgradable. The entire iMac was and remains not at all upgradable. You buy it and toss it away after two years when you realize it's a dead end. Way to go green.

If you check back to Big Mac's post, the context was not upgrading but repairs. He was complaining about having to replace the entire computer (or motherboard) if the GPU broke. That was the case with iMacs for a long time, but with recent models, the GPU is on a separate card and can be replaced if broken. With the latest model, you can replace CPU, GPU, RAM, HD, SD card reader and optical with off-the-shelf parts without soldering and without replacing the motherboard. That's better than any iMac, I think. In addition, the PSU, speakers and the fans can be replaced yourself, if you can source a replacement.

And yes, there are some gotchas in sourcing those off-the-shelf parts and yes a whitebox would be even easier, I'm not disputing that. I'm only pointing out that it has improved a bit from the iMacs all xMac debaters love to hate.

[Simon]

The xMac crowd doesn't hate the iMac at all. It's rather the Apple-can-do-no-wrong crowd that forces them into a corner when they try to explain why the iMac doesn't work for quite everybody. Gasp.

[sek929]

I own a friggin iMac and I'm a huge proponent of the xMac.

The iMacs power is all I require for my computing needs. However, I'm smart and nerdy enough to want to upgrade HDDs, optical drives, video cards, etc. I don't need to run the latest and greatest software as fast as possible, but I'd like a little flexibility.

[Simon]

Looks like you're a fairly typical xMac proponent.

So sek929, if Apple were to offer an iMac in a more upgradable case but without the 27" screen for the same $1699, would you buy it?