[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker No, nor did I make such a ridiculous claim.

Then is their <$3000 computer business profitable...as profitable as, say, the business of selling Mac minis and iMacs? Or do you think people who buy Dells upgrade all the time and cost Dell additional profits that way?

[chucker]

You know what, never mind. It seems to be the hip thing to do to confuse one's personal preferences and desires with what Apple "ought to be doing". I realize it's common to believe that Steve Jobs's egotism is so massive that he would rather avoid a huge influx of new customers than risk having a product he doesn't want to have. However, even if true, that's hardly a useful basis of argument.

I'm an Apple stockholder. If an expendable midrange headless Mac can be made profitable and successful, it is in my very best interest for Apple to do this. More customers, more revenues, more profits.

I'm also an Apple customer. If an expendable midrange headless Mac can also be made compelling and affordable, it is also in my very best interest for Apple to do this. More choices.

Do you seriously think that I am on some insane vendetta against a hypothetical product that I myself would be rather interested to buy?

No. I have merely done years of observing the market, and I have seen absolutely no indication that this pipe dream can be made a reality. Instead, looking at how the competition has been failing, it is less and less likely. These kinds of computers get bought, yes, but only when they're severely underpriced.

Apple has carefully picked a small number of particular market segments that they believe they can excel in, and they do. Every single Macintosh product in the current line-up is a powerful, fairly priced option. All with their downsides, but also all with their benefits.

[Eugene]

All parts bought from NewEgg...
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Socket AM2 - $210
RAM: Wintec 1GB DDR2-800 RAM - $100
OS: Microsoft Windows XP Professional OEM - $140
HDD: Western Digital Caviar SE 250GB SATA HDD - $70
Optical: NEC 7170A 18x DVD-RW (12x DVD-RAM) - $30
Case: Antec NSK 4400 case w/380W PSU - $70
Motherboard: MSI K9N Neo-F Socket AM2 nForce 550 Motherboard - $73
Video: eVGA nVidia GeForce 7300GT 256 MB - $70
Audio: Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio - $0
Keyboard: Logitech Black Internet 350 USB Keyboard - $8
Mouse: Logitech Black Optical 3-Button Wheel USB Mouse - $10
Modem: US Robotics 56K Modem - $10
Monitor: None - $0
Speakers: None - $0

Total: $791


Dell Dimension E521
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
RAM: 1GB DDR2-533
OS: Microsoft Windows XP Professional OEM
HDD: 250 GB SATA
Optical: 16x DVD-RW
Motherboard: nForce 430 based
Video: ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB
Audio: Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Keyboard: Dell USB Keyboard
Mouse: Dell Optical USB Mouse
Modem: 56K PCI Data Fax Modem (was free with or without)
Monitor: None
Speakers: None

Total: $888


Other than the RAM, the components in the DIY box are from highly-recognizable and reputable manufacturers. There aren't any poor reviews on the RAM either. The RAM is faster, the motherboard is based on a better chipset, the optical drive is faster, the case isn't a cheap beige box, the video card is better... This is a cheaper, better machine despite having to pay full retail price for every component.

I'm pretty sure Dell still makes an acceptable profit on a <$900 machine like the one configured.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Eugene I'm pretty sure Dell still makes an acceptable profit on a <$900 machine like the one configured.

Really? When did R&D, sales, support, etc. become free?

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by chucker No. I have merely done years of observing the market, and I have seen absolutely no indication that this pipe dream can be made a reality.

That clinches it...headless $1,199 Mac on Tuesday!

[chucker]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That clinches it...headless $1,199 Mac on Tuesday!

I can't wait.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker You know what, never mind. It seems to be the hip thing to do to confuse one's personal preferences and desires with what Apple "ought to be doing". I realize it's common to believe that Steve Jobs's egotism is so massive that he would rather avoid a huge influx of new customers than risk having a product he doesn't want to have. However, even if true, that's hardly a useful basis of argument.

And your argument is based on spreading FUD.

Do you seriously think that I am on some insane vendetta against a hypothetical product that I myself would be rather interested to buy?

No, I think you can't stand to be on the wrong side of the discussion. You will say whatever, no matter how far-fetched, to maintain your position.

No. I have merely done years of observing the market, and I have seen absolutely no indication that this pipe dream can be made a reality. Instead, looking at how the competition has been failing, it is less and less likely. These kinds of computers get bought, yes, but only when they're severely underpriced.

And I just built a low-end Dell equivalent for signicantly less, from retail parts. You can't say the competition has been failing when two companies enjoy ~20% marketshare, and we're not talking enterprise.

Apple has carefully picked a small number of particular market segments that they believe they can excel in, and they do. Every single Macintosh product in the current line-up is a powerful, fairly priced option. All with their downsides, but also all with their benefits.

Nobody said Apples were overpriced. The point is low-end machines like the Mac mini and iMac aren't any better for Apple's bottom line than Low-end Dimensions are for Dell, yet you are are so vehemently against the idea of a midrange Mac tower because you think it won't be profitable.

That vacant $800-$2200 price range was a big deal before and it's an even bigger deal now that Apple is selling more computers than ever.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Eugene You can't say the competition has been failing when two companies enjoy ~20% marketshare, and we're not talking enterprise.

No, that market share isn't in enterprise. It's in low-cost, low-margin products.

Next?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker Really? When did R&D, sales, support, etc. become free?

R&D for what is essentially a white-box Dell? Sales, are you kidding? Support? As you're buying retail components, you're also paying for phone support and warranties from the different manufacturers. Do you think a consolidated support-service/warranty is more or less expensive for the consumer than paying for each separately?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker No, that market share isn't in enterprise. It's in profitable low-cost, low-margin products. Next?

Fixt. Next?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That clinches it...headless $1,199 Mac on Tuesday!

I think it's inevitable that we'll see miniaturized Mac Pro because of the newfound scalability in the CPU industry. As the high-end moves into multicore and beyond, the chasm between the Mac Pro and iMac will get even more ridiculous. What happens when the choice is between 3 GHz quad-core or 2.4 GHz 8-core machines and dual-core AIOs that are essentially based on mobile technology? Seriously, what the #$%^?

[psmith2.0]

Exactly. That aspect alone will (or should) drive this.

There will indeed be an enormous gap between the iMac as we know it and what the towers will soon be sporting.

I totally agree.

There would have to be something in that $999-1,999 range, sans built-in display (the iMac), to bridge that unholy gap from the mini to the maxi!

Even if these "headless mid-range" boxes were only as powerful/fast as the iMacs, yet offered a few drive bays, strong graphics, maybe a card slot and sufficient USB and FireWire ports, that's still going to satisfy a ton of people. Especially if they can get something like that for $1,299 or thereabouts (and I can't imagine why they couldn't...take the iMac's guts, chuck the display, allow space for a couple of add-on hard drives and a card slot, wrap it in white or aluminum - or both, like the Mac mini - and call it a day).

I like the idea of a Mac mini enlarged 150-200% and turned up on its side and more tower-like...aluminum and white, still some nice rounded edges, Apple logo on both sides in the white fields, a band of aluminum going around the entire thing, vertical slot-loading optical drive, USB/FireWire/headphone port on front for easy camera, iPod, flash drive, etc. connection (in addition to extra USB/FireWire on back, of course), etc.

[psmith2.0]

Quick and dirty (dimensions and scale aren't precise), but you get the idea...



That's not too offensive to anyone's senses, is it? Basically a mini, enlarged and oriented vertically like a tower. Still has nice aluminum and white and would look nice paired with Apple displays, iPods, etc. (I've always liked how the mini sports both of Apple's main design motifs: silver metal and white plastic...a nice "bridge" between the iStuff and aluminum pro gear).

Maybe 10-12" tall/wide? Whatever it takes to make room for a couple of extra 3.5" hard drives, etc. I'm not up on all those specifics...even if it was 14" or so, that's still much smaller, thinner and lighter than a G5 or Mac Pro tower ever thought about being.

And instead of accessing it all through the back, where the ports are (or pulling the guts out as an entire unit, like you did with the G4 Cube), the white panel on one side comes off, or opens up like a latch (like the G5 or G4 towers, respectively), exposing the insides and allowing access to RAM, drive bays, etc.

No putty knife required!

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by Eugene I think it's inevitable that we'll see miniaturized Mac Pro because of the newfound scalability in the CPU industry. As the high-end moves into multicore and beyond, the chasm between the Mac Pro and iMac will get even more ridiculous. What happens when the choice is between 3 GHz quad-core or 2.4 GHz 8-core machines and dual-core AIOs that are essentially based on mobile technology? Seriously, what the #$%^?

Exactly!
(Hello, Chucker...)
The midrange is not only a question of price, or size, or even of expandability, it is also a question of performance.
I agree there's (almost) nothing in PC market that compares to the iMac and the Mac mini, but there are lots of equivalents in terms of performance, and at a better (lower) price. Soon, when the Core 2 Duo and Quad will be mainstream in desktop PCs, Apple would have nothing to compete with.
At most, Santa Rosa will bring a very small speedbump to 2.4GHz and a better FSB to 800MHz and at the same time Conroe/Kensfield will offer faster (close to 3GHz), better FSB (1066MHz and later 1333) and up to quad cores. And lower prices clock-to-clock.
Desktop parts are cheaper, CPUs, RAM, HDs, ODs...
So if Apple can make a $999 iMac including a 17" LCD display and make it profitable, how can it be crazy to make a $999 desktop Mac using a 2.13GHz Conroe (price list $224, compared to the 1.83GHz Merom at $241)?

Entry level (Mac mini): dual-core, ‹ 2.0GHz, 667/800FSB, $499-999
All-in-One (iMac): dual-core, ›= 2.0GHz, 800FSB (Spring 2007), $999-1999
Mid-range (xMac): dual to quad cores, › 2.0GHz, 1066FSB, $999-1999
Hi-end (Mac Pro): quad to octo cores, › 2.0GHz, 1333FSB, $1999 and up

wow, pscates, I'd just saw your mock-up as I was doing a "preview": NICE!
I like the idea as long as I can change the video card and at least add another (even if it's a small: 7") PCIe card.
If you double each side of the Mac mini you'll get a 13"x13"x4" enclosure that could contain all the parts we've been talking about.

[Fahrenheit]

Pscates is back baby!

[psmith2.0]

That's the first thing I've doodled, mockup-wise, in about a year. Haha...literally, about eight minutes (that 3D stuff in Illustrator CS2 is so fun and easy to use). It's great for doing simple little sketches and ideas quickly...it's just an extruded rounded-courner square and two other drawings (side panel and front ports/slot) I mapped to the surface.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 That's the first thing I've doodled, mockup-wise, in about a year. Haha...literally, about eight minutes (that 3D stuff in Illustrator CS2 is so fun and easy to use). It's great for doing simple little sketches and ideas quickly...it's just an extruded rounded-courner square and two other drawings (side panel and front ports/slot) I mapped to the surface.

We all missed it!

[psmith2.0]

There could be vent holes at the top, if needed. Again, I'm not an engineer type...

I've got my ruler at my desk and I've got a 12x12 and 14x14 square and it's not too horrific in size (especially when you compare it to a G5/Mac Pro tower).

Makes you wonder how small of an area they can work with, when you stop and consider that the display (especially on the 20" and 24" models) is what's determining the overall size/design. If you throw that out and just deal strictly with the iMac Core Duo's "guts", I wonder how small and compact they could make it all work. Obviously not as tiny and compact as the mini (because we're asking for a drive bay or two and maybe a card slot?), but I would imagine it would be significantly smaller than the full towers (and even smaller than a G4 tower as well)?

I sometimes wish I knew more about all that sort of stuff, just so I could make mockups that make sense in the real world, and take those sorts of things (heat issues, cooling, component placement, space needed for this or that, etc.) into account.

As it is, I just draw...but never quite know if any of it is feasible or practical. But I have to believe a 12-14" "mini-tower" type of thing is possible, especially if this Intel stuff is running a bit cooler and/or more efficiently than the G4 and G5 stuff (and I assume it is?)

[zippy]

Originally Posted by chucker No. I have merely done years of observing the market, and I have seen absolutely no indication that this pipe dream can be made a reality. Instead, looking at how the competition has been failing, it is less and less likely. These kinds of computers get bought, yes, but only when they're severely underpriced.

First of all, Dell has been making tons of money in this segment for a long time. I would venture to guess that the bulk of their business-client sales are somewhere in the neighboorhood of $1200-1500 machines.

But more importantly, is that with Dell, HP, Sony, and all the other PC manufacturers, they are competing directly against each other. Apple, on the other hand, has absolutely no competition in the $1,000-$2,000 OS X computer department. That, IMO, is a huge variable.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by zippy Apple, on the other hand, has absolutely no competition in the $1,000-$2,000 OS X computer department. That, IMO, is a huge variable.

Meep! The operating system does not make for a market segment.

[zippy]

I beg to differ. The operating system IS a market segment.

[travisc77]

I have a little different take on this subject.

It seems to me that, at least for now, that the iMac has reached a mature well designed AIO and may not need a redesign for a while. It also seems to me that the mini has a more niche (switcher?) market. If we assume Apple needs to innovate and keep things fresh; therefore something has to give in the next 1-2 years. I don’t think we’ll see significant remodel of the iMac, but I could see something affecting the sub $1000 sector. A couple options I could see that allows Apple to innovate/expand their products.

- Discontinue the mini and replace with the headless Mac (say $499-$999), this is less likely.
- Move the mini to only a $499 version, then add a headless at say $799 & $999, this may be possible

In both of these cases you wouldn’t have to redesign the iMac, just keep upgrading processor, video, HDD, etc. But this would breathe life into the sub-$1000 base, even though with options these units could be well above that price. Just my 2 cents, but this could add a little pizzazz to the lineup and keep the cheap mini for reluctant switchers and at the same time deliver a product that fills a hole in their user base.

By the way, it’s always seemed to me that Apple went about switching PC users the wrong way. The vast majority of long time PC users have never used an AIO, only desktop or tower. If the only options from Apple are AOI, mini, and MacPro ($$$), then stand to reason that they may be turning off some users. Maybe something that looks like a tower, similar price and runs Windows and OSX could lead to more switchers…. Just a thought we'll see on Tuesday.

Travis

[Doxxic]

Here's another possible reason why Apple hasn't yet released a headless midrange Mac, even if it were profitable and even if there were a lot of demand.

As opposed to HP and Dell, Apple has the freedom to not cater to this midrange market segment, because they're the only brand offering Mac OS X, and Mac OS X is the primary reason for customers to buy a Mac.
If the headless midrange option isn't there, nearly all Mac customers go to the mini or the iMac, and not to a Windows machine.

For HP, Dell and Sony and the likes, it's a different story. Their customers have decided they want a Windows machine, but not what brand it's going to be.
So if HP does not offer a midrange headless machine with a lot of bang for the buck and Dell does, the customer will go to Dell, and HP will have no profit at all.

This would mean that as long as the mini and iMac generate more profit than headless midrange Mac would, the situation would probably stay like it is.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Doxxic As opposed to HP and Dell, Apple has the freedom to not cater to this midrange market segment, because they're the only brand offering Mac OS X, and Mac OS X is the primary reason for customers to buy a Mac. If the headless midrange option isn't there, nearly all Mac customers go to the mini or the iMac, and not to a Windows machine.

Not giving customers what they want is no way to retain them. It's no way to attract new customers either. Sure, there are lots of people who will settle and buy what they don't really want, but some will buy nothing.

I have a feeling this is finally going to be the year for a new mid-range headless Mac. Lots of people thought Apple would never offer a sub $500 Mac and they did so with the mini two years ago. It's about time for a new Mac. Except for the redesigned MacBook, Apple hasn't come out with a new computer for a long time.

[rasmits]

I think Apple just has a love affair with AIOs. From the original Mac all the way up to the iMac/eMac.

I bet if Steve weren't in charge, there'd be a MHM (midrange headless mac).

[Koodari]

Yes, some like me will simply stick with their old Mac as long as Apple doesn't offer a Mac that has tangible advantage over the old warhorse. The thing I'm personally looking for is good graphics power in a headless desktop, for gaming (Supreme Commander, etc). If Apple can't manage, I'll pull the trigger soonish on a non-Mac PC. All that money could be going to Apple if they had a suitable offering. This way is worse for me, too. My resources will be divided into furthering either work or entertainment instead of both at the same time like it would be with a Mac and Boot Camp. The iBook could really use an upgrade and I'd be far more generous investing in the desktop if it doubled as work machine.

I think this even qualifies as being "Mac faithful" since the choice I'm facing is between Mac, or Mac and non-Mac. Having no Mac at all is not an option.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by Koodari Yes, some like me will simply stick with their old Mac as long as Apple doesn't offer a Mac that has tangible advantage over the old warhorse. The thing I'm personally looking for is good graphics power in a headless desktop, for gaming (Supreme Commander, etc). If Apple can't manage, I'll pull the trigger soonish on a non-Mac PC. All that money could be going to Apple if they had a suitable offering. This way is worse for me, too. My resources will be divided into furthering either work or entertainment instead of both at the same time like it would be with a Mac and Boot Camp. The iBook could really use an upgrade and I'd be far more generous investing in the desktop if it doubled as work machine. I think this even qualifies as being "Mac faithful" since the choice I'm facing is between Mac, or Mac and non-Mac. Having no Mac at all is not an option.

There's only three hundred bucks between a 24" iMac (which seems to have the specs you guys are after, just with a monitor) and the Mac Pro (which has the extensibility in abundance). For the convenience of not dividing your resources and being able to do everything on one (future-proof) machine, I think £300 is reasonable.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by spikeh There's only three hundred bucks between a 24" iMac (which seems to have the specs you guys are after, just with a monitor) and the Mac Pro (which has the extensibility in abundance).

The "specs" need I remind you, are the ability to swap GPUs, add a second hard drive, use the display you already have or get a new one and add a PCI card if you're so inclined. The iMac has none of these.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by iDaver The "specs" need I remind you, are the ability to swap GPUs, add a second hard drive, use the display you already have or get a new one and add a PCI card if you're so inclined. The iMac has none of these.

Those are the extensibility options. Midrange has been used over and over again throughout this discussion (hey it's in the title too). The iMac seems fairly, um, midrange

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by spikeh Those are the extensibility options. Midrange has been used over and over again throughout this discussion...

So has "headless."

It's not a discussion about Apple not offering a mid-range computer. It's about their not offering one we want. Lots and lots and lots and lots of people already have displays they want to continue using and or want to be able to upgrade their display without upgrading a computer. It's like the difference between a boom box and a component stereo system.