[MacConvert]

I was thinking about this today. All of the reading I've done on future Intel processors and in the WWDC prediction thread prompted me to think about what could happen near MWSF (the time frame that I am hoping to be able to afford a new Mac). This is mainly stuff that I’ve read from all of you typing. I’ve tried to research processors, but future processor information is patchy. We’ll probably never see most of this.

Desktops:
Mac mini (three models)
1.66GHz Merom (BYODKM) $499
512MB RAM
60GB hard drive
Superdrive

1.83GHz Merom (BYODKM) $599
512MB RAM
80GB hard drive
Superdrive

2.00GHz Merom (w/Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse) $799
1GB RAM
100GB hard drive
Superdrive

Mac (three models)
This is the headless wonder that so many of us want. Includes keyboard & mouse. All models have dedicated graphics, single optical bay (user replaceable), and room for two hard drives. Can handle up to 8GB RAM. 2 PCI slots. 1 used for video.
2.4 GHz Conroe ($999)
1GB RAM
250GB hard drive
Superdrive

2.67GHz Conroe ($1099)
1GB RAM
250GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

Kentsfield (??GHz) ($1299)
1GB RAM
500GB hard drive
DL Superdrive (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD burner/DVD burner/CD burner as a BTO)

Mac Pro (three models)
2.33 GHz Woodcrest ($1599)
1GB RAM
500GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

Cloverton (?? GHz) ($2499)
2GB RAM
500GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

Dual Cloverton (?? GHz) ($3299)
4GB RAM
750GB hard drive
Blu-Ray/HD-DVD burner/DVD burner/CD burner

All-In-Ones:
iMac (three models):
2.4GHz Conroe 17” (w/ integrated graphics) ($899)
512MB RAM
160GB hard drive
Superdrive

2.67GHz Conroe 20” ($1299)
1GB RAM
250GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

Black Kentsfield (?? GHz) 23” ($1999)
23” HD display
1GB RAM
500GB harddrive
DL Superdrive (BTO option: Blu-Ray/HD-DVD burner/DVD burner/CD burner)

Notebooks:
MacBook (three models)
13” Merom 2.0GHz ($1099)
512MB RAM
60GB hard drive
[Edit] Combo Drive [/Edit]

13” Merom 2.0GHz($1299)
512MB RAM
60GB hard drive
Superdrive

Black 13” Merom 2.16GHz w/ dedicated graphics ($1499)
1GB RAM
80GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

MacBook Pro (three models)
15” Merom 2.16GHz
1GB RAM
100GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

15” Merom 2.33GHz
1GB RAM
100 GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

17” Merom 2.33GHz
2GB RAM
120 GB hard drive
DL Superdrive

Displays:
Apple Cinema Display (two models)
20”
23”

Apple Cinema Pro Display (three models)
20”
23”
30”

Apple Media-Center:
I don’t really know what kind of specs or price points to put on these.
Conroe
Kenstfield


Out of this lineup, I’d have a hard time deciding what to buy. The 23” iMac vs. the Kentsfield Mac would be a tough choice to make. I’d take the black MacBook, and a Media Center.

[Robo]

That really is basically a dream lineup.

I want to know what the difference between your "Cinema Display" and your "Cinema Pro Display" is, since they share sizes.

[washington mac user]

2 Macbooks have same specs but different price?

Notebooks: MacBook (three models) 13” Merom 2.0GHz ($1099) 512MB RAM 60GB hard drive Superdrive 13” Merom 2.0GHz($1299) 512MB RAM 60GB hard drive Superdrive

One should have a 80 gig HD and 1 Gb ram. with integrated graphics, but the third one looks like something I would want.

[Robo]

Also, Apple has never used DL SuperDrives as a higher-end version of a SuperDrive. The SuperDrive is either DL, or it's not (if not, usually for space reasons).

And if Apple introduced a $999+ Conroe-based headless desktop, I don't think the Mac Pro would start at $1,599.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by washington mac user 2 Macbooks have same specs but different price?

The higher priced one must be black

[Anthem]

Yep, that would be nice. I'd buy a new Mini.

[Fahrenheit]

Thats too many in my opinion.

[chucker]

It would be nice if we could get off the pipe dreaming regarding a head-less mid-end Mac.

[Fahrenheit]

re: the headless mac- why not just have a v. high spec mac mini joining up to a low spec mac pro, and then an iMac that sits in between those specs just overlapping on either side. So you get a full headless line up without a random one in the middle which would be a really awkward sitter.

[chucker]

Because having a headless Mac with a price point close to that of the iMac would eat into iMac sales.

[Ghost2]

Originally Posted by chucker Because having a headless Mac with a price point close to that of the iMac would eat into iMac sales.

But a since a headless Mac would not include a display and was sold with similar processors at similar price points they could theoretically have higher profit margins for apple. It might even boost the sales of the cinema displays a little bit which would also mean a little more profit for apple. I think that a headless Mac is at least plausible, but what I don't think is plausible is apple releasing both a headless Mac and a larger HD iMac. I think ith will either be one or the other becuase of marketing. You can get a 17" or 20" iMac which are great deals, but to get full HD I have to buy a tower (mac mini, mac, or mac pro) and a display. I think this is apple's current marketing plan, and the reason that we have not seen an iMac HD.

[jdcfsu]

Can someone please tell me what a "headless" Mac is?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by jdcfsu Can someone please tell me what a "headless" Mac is?

Mac mini

Power Mac

Both of these are "headless" Macs because they do not have built-in displays.

[Banana]

It's either a mac that doesn't comes with a monitor included (e.g. a PowerMac or Mac Mini is headless whereas iMac is AIO or All in One) or a computer that headless horseman likes to use.

Take your pick.

[jdcfsu]

Haha. Thank you Brand and Banana. Been reading stuff here and couldn't figure that one out for the life of me. Sorry to hijack the thread a bit.

[MacConvert]

Originally Posted by Ghost2 You can get a 17" or 20" iMac which are great deals, but to get full HD I have to buy a tower (mac mini, mac, or mac pro) and a display. I think this is apple's current marketing plan, and the reason that we have not seen an iMac HD.

This makes sense. I even commented that I'd have a hard time deciding between the Mac and the HD iMac. That's a position that Apple wouldn't put people in. I agree that they'd either go with one or the other.

Roboman --
The difference in the displays is that the Cinema Pro is HD, and the Cinema is not. That was the only way I could think of differentiating between a pro, and a consumer display. I needed an excuse for Apple to sell a lower priced display while maintaining what professionals want.

[washington mac user]

there should be only two macbooks one white one black. They should move the black macbook right now up to a 13.3in Macbook Pro with like you said, a dedicated graphics card. Plus all new Macbook Pros will sport a new enclosure according to Thinksecret. Then it would be just like the good old days. 13.3inch powerbook(not 12), $1499, 15.4inch, 1999$, and a 17inch, $2499, all with more BTO options or they could raise the prices by 100$ each if they want. Oh yea and drop the other 15in. Whats the point of having 2 15in? So now you have 2 Macbooks priced at 1099 and 1299, with white cheaper and black higher end. And you have the old line up again that I just said. On apple's website it said the family is now complete so this could happen cause all I did was update the already completed Macbook and Macbook pros.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Ghost2 But a since a headless Mac would not include a display and was sold with similar processors at similar price points they could theoretically have higher profit margins for apple.

But since a headless Mac would make it easier for customers to replace and/or upgrade single components, of which Apple doesn't get a single cent, it would have lower overall revenues for Apple.

[Ghost2]

Originally Posted by chucker But since a headless Mac would make it easier for customers to replace and/or upgrade single components, of which Apple doesn't get a single cent, it would have lower overall revenues for Apple.

But doesn't that depend on how many people actually upgrade components in their headless mac rather than just buy a new one. What I'm trying to say is that the average person rarley upgrades components on their pc, and I don't think that the amount of up-graders will be large enough for apple to actually lose significant amounts of money. Actually on the off chance that apple was making a midrange tower we still wouldn't have any idea if apple was going increased expandability or not, but otherwise good point I didn't really think about that.

[MacGregor]

I don't think that line up is too big. It makes sense for a company that needs to break the 5% of market share barrier.

I would like to see Apple come up with a REAL eBook though. Do for eBooks what iPods did for mp3 players. The eBook could use the sensative screen tech that has been patented recently and would be different enough from the laptops and iPods to not cut into those sales. Time for an entirely new product line.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker Because having a headless Mac with a price point close to that of the iMac would eat into iMac sales.

I still don't get that argument. If a headless midrange Mac has equal profit margins to the iMac (and it easily could), why would Apple care about cannibalizing iMac sales if a "Mac" would help them gain new customers?

The Mac mini cannibalized eMac sales. Did Apple care?

As for the "too many models" argument, I don't think a three-tier + iMac product matrix is too complex. Right now, if you don't include the iMac (as you arguably shouldn't), there's a massive hole in Apple's desktop line. The days of the iMac being Apple's mass-market desktop are over, simply because while the iMac price has stayed constant, the average price of computers has not. I see the iMac more or less in its own line, filling its niche as Apple's flagship Mac for people who value simplicity (and for those interested in an Apple display, it's not a bad deal to boot). A three-tiered desktop line - Mac mini, "Mac," Mac Pro - would be about as simple as a desktop line can get without leaving any major holes. Three different desktops, at three different price points, in three different sizes, from small to large. What could be more Apple than that?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman The Mac mini cannibalized eMac sales. Did Apple care?

No, because the eMac was pretty much dead anyway. The Mac mini was and is quite distanced, price-point-wise, from the iMac. Apple seems to do this deliberately. They don't have any desktops or laptops eating into each other's price points.

[washington mac user]

Does anybody think we will have Kentsfield in anything? and does anybody think that they will drop the price of conroes when Kentsfield comes out?

[MacConvert]

Originally Posted by washington mac user Does anybody think we will have Kentsfield in anything? and does anybody think that they will drop the price of conroes when Kentsfield comes out?

Possibly both? Part of it depends on whether Kentsfield will replace Conroe, or be an addition to it. I agree with many arguments that I've heard on here before that Apple has to stay on top of new processors because of the commonality of processors across the spectrum since the Intel switch.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by MacConvert Possibly both? Part of it depends on whether Kentsfield will replace Conroe, or be an addition to it. I agree with many arguments that I've heard on here before that Apple has to stay on top of new processors because of the commonality of processors across the spectrum since the Intel switch.

aye aye.

[adamb]

I agree with Roboman on the canabalising sales argument. Surely its the bottom line that's important, and not the number of iMacs sold.

As for a high end Mac Mini, I dont think that would work well. Is there enough room to fit a decent GPU and HDD with comparible performance with 3.5" drives.

[digitalprimate]

Originally Posted by Roboman The Mac mini cannibalized eMac sales. Did Apple care?

No Applecare was there to comfort the orphaned eMacs...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker No, because the eMac was pretty much dead anyway. The Mac mini was and is quite distanced, price-point-wise, from the iMac. Apple seems to do this deliberately. They don't have any desktops or laptops eating into each other's price points.

But they do have desktops at the same prices as their notebooks. Why? Because they're targeted at different markets.

The argument is this: There is a market that isn't satisfied with the iMac - many people don't want an all-in-one. A $999 "headless" iMac would satisfy this market. The iMac would satisfy the people who want a simple, stylish, iPod-inspired computer.

Different markets.

Mac mini for $499. "Mac" for $999. Mac Pro for $1,999.

Then, in it's own little line, in it's own row on the Apple Store website, the iMac. $1,299.

You can't just label both the iMac and the mid-range headless Mac as "Desktops" and assume that they go after the same market. They wouldn't.

[Banana]

What about the hardware company angle?

Apple would make more money off iMac than a headless Mac, no? If they went and made a headless Mac, what is going to make them anything but a white Dell?

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Banana Apple would make more money off iMac than a headless Mac, no? If they went and made a headless Mac, what is going to make them anything but a white Dell?

I seriously doubt selling a headless mac is going to put Apple on the same level as the likes of Dell. Clearly the Cube was something above the rest and it didn't have a monitor?