[boggit100]

Remember the last Apple keynote / SteveSpeech? It was that Fun New Products event if I remember right... except, erm... none of them were fun.

I reckon problems with production / media partner deals stopped Apple launching something big there. Maybe it'll spill over to WWDC. After all, the Hi-Fi didn't warrant that big an event, did it? And leather cases?! Seriously?!

Still, neither a Media Centre or iPhone are particularly "fun" are they?!........

[bonzoa]

a 'gamer's dream' mac is certainly fun. i bet that's coming...

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by bonzoa a 'gamer's dream' mac is certainly fun. i bet that's coming...

that shoddy macosrumors.com has been talking about that for a while but i really don't think it's coming because there simply are not enough games to warrant such a product. a "gamer's dream" mac would mean apple having to incite people to boot into windows. while they do allow it, it's counter productive towards OS X...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by boggit100 After all, the Hi-Fi didn't warrant that big an event, did it? And leather cases?! Seriously?!

I think you're reading into it way too much. Sometimes Apple's PR department has a little fun without anticipating the idiotic asinine hyped-up response from the Mac community.

Just be glad they didn't say "Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond."

As I've said so many times before, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Robo]

I like the iPod Hi-Fi...

I'll never be able to afford one, but I've used one, and was impressed.

But you're right, the leather cases are kinda stupid. iPod socks FTW.

But I think Mac mini + Hi-Fi + other stuff was worthy of a "special event." Pretty much anything iPod-related is, nowadays. It's not like we were supposed to read into it. I remember the invite looked especially low-key (or low-budget), and people were saying that Apple was trying to "fake people out" and they would really launch the true iPod video/iPhone/MacBook/whatever there. Ugh.

[datapusher]

i liked the rumors of an ical update.

[teme]

Originally Posted by initialsBB that shoddy macosrumors.com has been talking about that for a while but i really don't think it's coming because there simply are not enough games to warrant such a product. a "gamer's dream" mac would mean apple having to incite people to boot into windows. while they do allow it, it's counter productive towards OS X...

Seriously, Apple needs to release this if they want to get new switchers and get more market share. Currenly Apple doesn't offer anything for people who are looking for a desktop tower PC replacement. If you think that people will boot into Windows, which one is better for Apple: 1) People booting Macs into Windows or 2) people buying PCs? I really much would like to buy a desktop Mac, so I could use OSX in everyday use and play games on Windows. I bet there are lots of people like me.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by teme Seriously, Apple needs to release this if they want to get new switchers and get more market share.

Considering that 50% of people who buy Macs are switchers, they have to be doing something right.

[digitalprimate]

Originally Posted by teme Seriously, Apple needs to release this if they want to get new switchers and get more market share. Currenly Apple doesn't offer anything for people who are looking for a desktop tower PC replacement. If you think that people will boot into Windows, which one is better for Apple: 1) People booting Macs into Windows or 2) people buying PCs? I really much would like to buy a desktop Mac, so I could use OSX in everyday use and play games on Windows. I bet there are lots of people like me.

What people need to realize is that a lot of PC users don't want to switch. It's because they think they will be having to start actually BUY the software instead of acquiring it through a nephew/friend/neighbour/co-worker... I hear it all the time. And they always know someone who's "really good with computers" who can help them out in case something goes wrong. They're afraid that no-one can come to the rescue when they own a mac.

[JayReding]

Originally Posted by teme Seriously, Apple needs to release this if they want to get new switchers and get more market share. Currenly Apple doesn't offer anything for people who are looking for a desktop tower PC replacement. If you think that people will boot into Windows, which one is better for Apple: 1) People booting Macs into Windows or 2) people buying PCs? I really much would like to buy a desktop Mac, so I could use OSX in everyday use and play games on Windows. I bet there are lots of people like me.

No, there really aren't.

First of all, PC game sales dropped 14% last year. Look at your average Best Buy: how much retail space is dedicated to PC games versus console games? It makes no sense for Apple to seriously court the PC gamer market. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen that way. You can play games on your Mac, but Apple isn't a company that is serious about gaming. It never has been, and it never will be.

How many people seriously want a headless midrange Mac desktop, but won't go for the Mac mini or the iMac? Unless it is a significant market segment, it just isn't worth Apple's time and attention. With PC gaming being a diminishing market, it just doesn't make sense for Apple to try to compete in that arena.

[MacGregor]

Seems like the Mac Pro will be able to run games as fast as any pc with Bootcamp and I don't see that as such a big problem .... Windows users have to reboot all of the time.

[Eugene]

Seems like there's a lot of room for a "Mac Standard" between the iMac and Mac Pro. Single CPU, 3 PCI Express slots (1 occupied by a graphics card), reduced # of drive-bays, micro-tower enclosure.

[Sargasm]

Originally Posted by MacGregor Seems like the Mac Pro will be able to run games as fast as any pc with Bootcamp and I don't see that as such a big problem .... Windows users have to reboot all of the time.

Ohh burn.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by JayReding How many people seriously want a headless midrange Mac desktop, but won't go for the Mac mini or the iMac? Unless it is a significant market segment, it just isn't worth Apple's time and attention.

If Apple wants to get all those home studio owners that need reasonable power, some expandability (HDs and PCI) to run Logic (Express or Pro), Reason, Live, ProTools LE or TDM, Digital Performer, even Cubase or Traktion, but couldn't afford a Power Mac or now a Mac Pro with 2GB of RAM, they should do it: a Conroe-based headless Mac, 2 HDs, 2 or 3 PCI slots. Let me explain:
- you cannot do serious audio work with one drive,
- 2 ATA or SATA internal drives are better than 1 internal and 1 firewire (even FW800),
- RAM is really important and 2GB is/was really common and more than 2GB is better, so cheaper RAM than FB-DIMMs would be appreciated,
- PCI(e) slots part 1, a nice dual display card is usually enough for two 17 to 20" LCDs, but the more desktop surface you have, the better, with the current price of 17/19/20" LCD displays and the price of entry level GPUs, one could easily/cheaply build a four display setup with lots of desktop area,
- PCI(e) slots part 2, sound cards: some amazing sound cards come in PCI/PCIe format, they are usual better than the Firewire equivalent, more stable, more powerful, just like the latest Apogee offers, but MOTU also has good PCI hardware, I'll just say there's also Digidesign ProTools HD cards...
- PCI(e) slots part 3, DSP cards: yet again really nice and powerfull cards from Universal Audio (UAD), TC Electronics (PowerCore), those can give your audio App lots of processing power without consuming your CPU ressources. There are some Firewire version, but usually there are less powerfull and more expensive, if you already have a firewire audio interface, plus a couple of firewire drives, plus a firewire DSP, it's soon going to lower the computer performances.

All Pro Audio/Recording Studios companies are not rich enough that they can spend $3K or $4K on each computer for a single room, usually you have the master room with the best computer (let's say a PowerMac G5), and the other rooms (studio B, C, D...) with lesser powerfull computer (let's say PowerMac G4s, some have Dell or other PCs now because they are powerful enough and cost less than the cheaper PowerMac). Currently, home studios and alternate rooms are mostly using PCs or old PowerMacs, I believe Apple still has a big chunck of the Audio business but I think it's shrinking. If there was a mid-range headless Mac that could be put in the machine room of Pro Studios or in a closet of a home studio, that could accept a couple of fast drives and the usual PCI cards (video, sound card, DSP card) in the $1000-1500 range, a lot of people would be happy to stay with Apple or to switch to Apple or to switch back to Apple. The iMac just doesn't cut it for this kind of work.

[digitalprimate]

Reading all of the complaints/arguments for a headless Mac Amateur, basically people want a Mac Pro for the price of a Mac Mini, which they can max out to something inbetween.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by digitalprimate Reading all of the complaints/arguments for a headless Mac Amateur, basically people want a Mac Pro for the price of a Mac Mini, which they can max out to something inbetween.

Seeing as you pay more for smaller parts (especially the big 2.5" HD), it's not as unreasonable as it sounds. Apple could make a killer headless desktop at $999 and still have a decent margin.

[JCG]

Originally Posted by digitalprimate Reading all of the complaints/arguments for a headless Mac Amateur, basically people want a Mac Pro for the price of a Mac Mini, which they can max out to something inbetween.

There is a lot of room for a computer with Intels current chip line between the Mini and the Mac Pro and the iMac doesn't fill the void completely, it is not too much for consumers to expect for Apple to fill that void in their product line-up. I'm not seeing everyone expecting the entry level dual Woodcrest Mac Pro to ship for $1299, but a single processor Woodcrest for $1999 would work for a lot of people and a Conroe at $1499 would be be great for others. A lot of the complaints about the current line center around Apple not offering an expandable computer other than the entry MacPro at $2499. There are a lot of people that don't want to spend that much for a computer that still want one that they can add cards to so that it fills their computing needs better than an iMac can.

[beardedmacuser]

Originally Posted by digitalprimate Reading all of the complaints/arguments for a headless Mac Amateur, basically people want a Mac Pro for the price of a Mac Mini, which they can max out to something inbetween.

A slightly chunkier Mini containing a 3.5 inch hard drive would do me really really fine! But it's not going to happen... Onboard graphics would be fine for everything I'd use it for (iLife, Final Cut, Mail, Photoshop, etc etc).

[halfassed]

Originally Posted by MacGregor Seems like the Mac Pro will be able to run games as fast as any pc with Bootcamp and I don't see that as such a big problem .... Windows users have to reboot all of the time.

Ya if you want to pay double the cost of a pc, with none of the upgradeability. Plus it comes standard with a 7300 that is the biggest pos ever. Even apple doesnt say it is the fastest, all they say is fastest mac. My windows never crashes only if you are a retard and go on every porn website and have now anti-virus or spyware removal.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by halfassed Ya if you want to pay double the cost of a pc,

How so? Show me a similarly spec'ed system for half the price of the stock Mac Pro.

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by halfassed Ya if you want to pay double the cost of a pc, with none of the upgradeability.

Care to support those statements with any facts? As I see it, you're dead wrong about both.

Double the cost? I just configured a similar Dell Precision for...$3300. IE: PCs are more expensive. Yep, you read that right.

No upgradeability? Aside from the OS, it's a PC.... There are 4 drive bays. There are 2 Optical bays. Yes, your choice of video cards is limited somewhat, but you can still upgrade when you need to. It uses the same processor as the Dells. What is it you want to upgrade that you can't?

Oh, and the Dell comes with a nVidia Quadro NVS 285 as standard. Which may also come under "POS" in your vocabulary.


Or is it that you haven't paid any attention at all, but are regurgitating out-of-date criticisms? Hmmm....

[JCG]

Originally Posted by Bryson Care to support those statements with any facts? As I see it, you're dead wrong about both. Double the cost? I just configured a similar Dell Precision for...$3300. IE: PCs are more expensive. Yep, you read that right..

I believe that he is refering to the iMac and Min, not the MacPro

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by JCG I believe that he is refering to the iMac and Min, not the MacPro

I don't think so. First, halfassed was responding to and quoting a post that said:

Seems like the Mac Pro will be able to run games as fast as any pc with Bootcamp and I don't see that as such a big problem .... Windows users have to reboot all of the time.

(emphasis added)

Second, he said:

Plus it comes standard with a 7300 that is the biggest pos ever.

The 7300 is only on the Mac Pro, not the iMac or the Mini.

[Kickaha]

Well at least he's living up to his name... *shrug*

There are always going to be people working with information that is years out of date, but so critical to their sense of self-worth that they just can't let go of it. You're never going to convince them, no matter how many facts you show them.

[digitalprimate]

Originally Posted by JCG There is a lot of room for a computer with Intels current chip line between the Mini and the Mac Pro and the iMac doesn't fill the void completely,...

Fine. But I think the argument of "if Apple wants more PC-users to switch they need to have the void-filler" is a false one. First of all, lay-people generally don't change stuff in their PC. They buy add-ons, yes. But changing a videocard or adding ram, that's not what they do. That's what PC-hobbyists (such as myself) like to do. The concept of the all-in-one iMac -uniform as it may be- is for the first group, who don't want to spend time tinkering around and just want it to work.
Furthermore, I'm thinking that (at the moment) Apple is very reluctant to have a mod-able mid-model in their line-up. It's basically opening the door for more frustrations from conflicts and unpredictable configurations, angry calls to Applecare, rogue posts on forums like this one claiming that "Apple computers suck - they don't work and they want me to pay applecare (which I didn't buy because I wanted to max my mod-able Mac with third party ram) to help me out".
The Mac Pro is targeted at professionals, who earn money working at that computer, so it has to be highly customisable.

[JCG]

Originally Posted by digitalprimate Fine. But I think the argument of "if Apple wants more PC-users to switch they need to have the void-filler" is a false one. First of all, lay-people generally don't change stuff in their PC. They buy add-ons, yes. But changing a videocard or adding ram, that's not what they do. That's what PC-hobbyists (such as myself) like to do. The concept of the all-in-one iMac -uniform as it may be- is for the first group, who don't want to spend time tinkering around and just want it to work. Furthermore, I'm thinking that (at the moment) Apple is very reluctant to have a mod-able mid-model in their line-up. It's basically opening the door for more frustrations from conflicts and unpredictable configurations, angry calls to Applecare, rogue posts on forums like this one claiming that "Apple computers suck - they don't work and they want me to pay applecare (which I didn't buy because I wanted to max my mod-able Mac with third party ram) to help me out". The Mac Pro is targeted at professionals, who earn money working at that computer, so it has to be highly customisable.

The Mac Pro is also a lot more expensive than a the same "Basic" model was a few years ago. There is a Pro sector (as well as hobiest/ProSumer) that is not being addressed with the current system offerings. 4 years ago the entry price to the PowerMac was $1699, now it is $800 more than that. There is still a need for a $1299-$2000 Pro Mac that is not limited to a "stock" display as the iMac is. This is not really "filling a void" so much as it re-introducing a model that has traditionally been there but is no longer there because the target market for the MacPro has shifted.

I agree that the average user does not upgrade, and doesn't care about the ability. But that does not include all of the consumers. There are even those who have "settled" with what Apple is giving them because the don't want to switch but can't afford what they want, as well as those who would not consider switching because Apple does not offer a simple, affordable "Tower", and it doesn't matter if they have ever put in a single expansion or not.

Then there is the "Salesman" factor. When the average consumer goes in to replace a computer they don't intend to get a monitor, they go in because their computer is getting slow and BestBuy or CompUSA has a $399 computer on sale. Then they are talked into a system by the salesman that costs them $1000, with a new monitor and printer. These "Geek" salesmen talk up the expansion as a feature, and it doesn't matter if the consumer will use it or not, they THINK that they are getting a better value because of it, and that perception enter into buying decisions.

Well, my comments are a bit fragmented, so please excuse that. Bottom line is that the consumer market has all kinds of needs that can be addressed with additional Mac models. Some of these limitations in their current offerings are probably hurting their current sales, as I think that the entry price of the Mac Pro will. They are also limiting their appeal to the "Switchers" on the consumer level. Apple could do more to address these markets, and probably should if they want to continue to enjoy the market share growth that they have in the past year.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by JCG 4 years ago the entry price to the PowerMac was $1699, now it is $800 more than that.

Not exactly true. If you buy the 2.0 GHz model, the Mac Pro is $2199, not $2499.

[zippy]

Perception continues to "be" reality. When the average computer user thinks of a computer, what do they picture? Something that looks like your average Dell: tower, monitor, keyboard and mouse. If those people happen to check out what Apple has to offer what do they see? They see a Mac Pro tower that loosely resembles the image they have in their head, and then they see a price tag that starts at $2499

Is that as low as it goes? they ask. Because you can buy a Dell for $399. (POS, I know, but we're talking about the uninformed masses here so stick with me).

Yes, that's as low as it goes, but it's an extremely powerful machine. If that's too much for you, they do have these other models. First, is the iMac. It's a beautiful, highly capable machine.

But I already have a monitor.
-or-
But if the monitor goes, out, you have to buy a whole new computer, or spend tons of money and time to get it fixed.
-or-
But what if I want to upgrade parts?

Also, it's still only $1299, and you can get a Dell for $399.

OK. Well they also have the Mac mini. This is a nice little computer and it starts at $599.

Hmmm. Well that's a bit better on the price, but it's so small, it doesn't look like a real computer.

Oh, I assure you this is every bit a real, powerful computer.

Hmmm. Maybe. But what if I want to upgrade parts? Hmmm. I'm just not sure. I'll have to think about it.

/walks over by the HPs, or sees a Dell brochure/

Ahhh, comfort. That's what I'm used to.


Sure, some will be won over by the Mac OS if given enough time to play with it, and more importantly, some proper introductions and demonstrations (otherwise, to the average non techie, it's something different, and therefore uncomfortable).

A few others will be won over by design factor of the iMac or the Mini - especially if the salesperson gets them to understand that upgradeability is extremely overrated for the typical computer user (but then how many sales people do you know that take that approach?).

But most people, IMO, will immediately be uncomfortable with the fact that everything in their price range is too different from what they perceive is a normal computer, and the only "normal computer" that Apple has to offer is at a minimum, $2499. The iMac and the mini are just not "real" computers in many peoples minds, and unfortunately, that perception becomes the reality.

If Apple were to create a more standard tower model, maybe just a little smaller than the average Dell or HP tower, and price it starting below $799 at least, but upgradeable into the $1000s for those who are interested, I believe it would quicly become their best seller. You might disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.

[halfassed]

My point had nothing to do with the raw power of the machine. But to even compare that system to a pc for gaming is just ignorant. Yes as far a graphic design goes that system is king, how ever a 4 core cpu lowers the overall fps of your game. Even dual core is not the best. No games support it, yet. A single core system with higher clcokspeeds will get the same performance at a lower cost.

By the way build a similar xps700 or alienware area-51 7500 and it will still come out about $300 cheaper. Build it yourself $500-1000 cheaper.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by zippy They see a Mac Pro tower that loosely resembles the image they have in their head, and then they see a price tag that starts at $2499

snip...

But most people, IMO, will immediately be uncomfortable with the fact that everything in their price range is too different from what they perceive is a normal computer, and the only "normal computer" that Apple has to offer is at a minimum, $2499.

$2199. $2499 is the price with 2.66 GHz. If you BTO and downgrade to the 2.0 GHz version, the price is $2199.