[GWARREN]

There is another topic on this, but I thought it would be good to start a poll to gauge enthusiasim properly. (Sorry if I am stepping on anyone's toes).

So, if Apple were to release a computer with iMac-like specs in a slightly larger than Mac mini casing, would you buy it? (Let's assume it is $899 - $999 or so).

I'll cast the first vote - I'll definitely be looking to pick one up when Leopard is out and this new desktop is running Intel - my Mac mini is just a tad underpowered, but suits my means fairly well. If ALL of the iMac features were in a compact Mac mini style casing, this would be ideal, letting me keep my 20" display, and I could upgrade the computer fairly cheaply every couple of years.

[Unbeliever]

I'd buy it even if i had to sell my kidney >.<

[psmith2.0]

I wouldn't, personally (no need for it, and I'm a committed laptop monkey at this point). But I know about, oh, 472 people who WOULD. And I do think one should be available (because they'd sell like crazy, I have no doubt).

So, I guess put me down for a "yes" (with an *)

[The Grim]

I am waiting for the reborn of the cube. I will buy the headless iMac the minute it comes out. Waiting...wait...waiting...

[rickag]

I voted "Only if it had at least one upgrade slot" assuming of course if that is a graphics card slot. Should qualify this somewhat though. If the graphics were upgradable at the time of purchase, but were integrated, I would have to seriously consider this option. ( but I'd still feel like I was settling, however, less painfully so.

[psmith2.0]

As someone who doesn't follow the PC-side of the computer world, tell me something: do the main companies (Dell, Sony, HP, etc.) sell a wide-ranging set of products?

Do they have products in that sub-$1,000 category in "smaller than tower" designs, with upgradeable graphics, 7200rpm hard drives, etc.

How do their "under $1,000" offerings stack up to the Mac mini, in terms of features, power, upgradeability? I'm guessing quite a bit more? Or not?

We're not just whistling up a tree here, are we...expecting something from Apple that even the other guys (with way more market and customers) don't really do?

[Luca]

Dell has six base desktops, all of which you can customize to some extent.

Dimension 3000 - $399
Celeron 2.4
256 MB RAM (not customizable)
80 GB drive (not customizable)
CD-RW (not customizable)
17" CRT
Intel Extreme graphics

Dimension 3000 - $499
Pentium 4 2.8
256 MB RAM
80 GB drive
CD-RW
17" CRT
Intel Extreme 2 graphics

For the above two, I'm assuming you're able to add more RAM, but Dell doesn't let you BTO anything but the base amounts. You have to spend the extra $100 to get the $499 one in order to add more RAM, a larger hard drive, and a different optical drive (all at extra cost, too). Dell's a bitch.

Dimension E510 - $599
Pentium 4 3.0
256 MB RAM
80 GB SATA drive
Combo drive
17" CRT
Intel GMA 950 (Radeon X300SE and X600SE are available as BTO options)

XPS 400 - $899
Pentium 4 3.0 (dual core available for $100 extra)
512 MB RAM
80 GB SATA drive
DVD-ROM and CD-RW drives
19" LCD
Radeon X300SE (optional X600SE, GeForce 6800, GeForce 7800GTX)

XPS 200 - $1049
Small, thin form factor
Pentium 4 3.0 (dual core available for $100 extra)
512 MB RAM
80 GB SATA drive
Combo drive
19" LCD
Intel GMA 950 (optional X300SE)

XPS 600 - $1799
Pentium 4 3.0 (several dual core and other processors available for varying amounts)
1 GB RAM
160 GB SATA drive
DVD-ROM and CD-RW drives
19" LCD
GeForce 6800

After going through all these, I have to conclude that Dell is pretty cheap. They certainly have their priorities in a different order than Apple. Most of their machines come with measley 90 day warranties, and while you only have to spend a small amount (about $30) to upgrade to a 1 year warranty, it shows how cheap they are.

Dell's priority is clearly "low prices, forced customization." I would hate to use any of these systems in their base configurations. None of their desktops have DVD burners as standard equipment. The video card options on the ones that can take video cards are weak - the X300SE and X600SE are not only weak cards, but the versions Dell offers are designed to use your system RAM just like Intel Extreme graphics. They're a lot faster than that, but it's still a bad idea.

All of Dell's machines come with monitors. That's a point for them. They have a lot of customization options, but they make their prices seem artificially low by not including much of anything unless you spend a few hundred bucks on customization.

[Windowsrookie]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 As someone who doesn't follow the PC-side of the computer world, tell me something: do the main companies (Dell, Sony, HP, etc.) sell a wide-ranging set of products? Do they have products in that sub-$1,000 category in "smaller than tower" designs, with upgradeable graphics, 7200rpm hard drives, etc. How do their "under $1,000" offerings stack up to the Mac mini, in terms of features, power, upgradeability? I'm guessing quite a bit more? Or not? We're not just whistling up a tree here, are we...expecting something from Apple that even the other guys (with way more market and customers) don't really do?

um, dell sells $600-$800 pc's, compaq (owned by hp) offers (mini style) pc's too.

also apple had the g4 cub if you don't remember. That was a very nice "mini" computer that had upgradable slots, and graphics.

so yes i think this would sell, and that apple could do it AGAIN, I'm just not that interested in something like that.

I would take a powermac over that any day.



just my $.02

[Wraven]

Yeah - I'd still get a PowerMac as well.

[Luca]

I should point out that those are just the systems that come up when you click on "Home and Home Office." Dell also has several lines of workstations and servers, ranging from basic stuff that you'd buy for office workers to high-end workstations (including a quad-core).

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie um, dell sells $600-$800 pc's, compaq (owned by hp) offers (mini style) pc's too. also apple had the g4 cub if you don't remember. That was a very nice "mini" computer that had upgradable slots, and graphics.

um, I know that...I assumed they did, I just didn't know specifics and I know that there are people here - like Luca - who could lay it out nicely quicker than I could sift through these unfamiliar sites, with unfamiliar specs, etc. I figured there may even be some people here who own these, and could speak to their features, pricing and quality some.

And yes, I think I remember the "g4 cub". And it was a neat computer.

Not exactly sure what that has to do with today, nearly five years on and no longer being made...

Other than "the possibility exists", although part of me thinks the Mac mini is what it is, and will remain. And then you get an iMac or a G5 tower. Maybe that $600-1300 gap (depending on how you want to look at it...AIO or no) exists on purpose, and for a reason?

I don't know.

I don't factor in the iMac G5 in this scenario, only because I know it's not for everyone, and many want nothing to do with it, for whatever reason. So between $699 and a G4-based machine you can't upgrade at all to a $1999 huge G5 tower that is too expensive and complete overkill for the average joe...you've got a $1,300 chasm that the iMac doesn't bridge, at least not for everyone.

That's weird! I call that a "hole", by any definition.

[xyzzy]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 As someone who doesn't follow the PC-side of the computer world, tell me something: do the main companies (Dell, Sony, HP, etc.) sell a wide-ranging set of products? Do they have products in that sub-$1,000 category in "smaller than tower" designs, with upgradeable graphics, 7200rpm hard drives, etc. How do their "under $1,000" offerings stack up to the Mac mini, in terms of features, power, upgradeability? I'm guessing quite a bit more? Or not? We're not just whistling up a tree here, are we...expecting something from Apple that even the other guys (with way more market and customers) don't really do?

What is being asked of Apple to provide in the $1,000 range, the PC side is providing in the $400-$700 range. What the PC side does offer in the $1,000 range is more like what Apple provides in the $2,000-$2,500 range (i.e. - You can buy a complete AMD dual core CPU system with PCI Express video, 7200RPM drive, dual layer burner, firewire, etc. etc. etc. for $1,000).

It's not that people are asking them to provide the "impossible", it's more like asking them to provide the "not quite so rediculous" in terms of price/performance.

[psmith2.0]

True. That's probably a huge part of it, I'm sure.

So I take it that, on the PC side, something like the Mac mini would go for about, what, $85-90?

[Luca]

You know, I think you underestimate what Apple is offering and overestimate what the other companies are providing. As you can see from the specs I posted straight from Dell's website, Apple is providing twice as much RAM, twice the hard drive space, better warranties, DVD burners, and reasonably powerful graphics processors, all for a good price.

Just because Dells have open PCIe slots doesn't make them that much better. It doesn't change the fact that the base configurations for their lower-end systems all incorporate 256 MB of RAM, forcing you to upgrade it. That basically destroys their low-price illusion. And so what if they use 3 GHz Pentium 4s? The Pentium 4 is a very slow processor, clock for clock, and I'd like to think a 2.1 GHz G5 should be able to tear it apart.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 True. That's probably a huge part of it, I'm sure. So I take it that, on the PC side, something like the Mac mini would go for about, what, $85-90?

Don't give in, Paul. Look at the stuff I posted. Now, thing is, upgrading any of those systems to match the Mac mini's base configuration would not cost a whole lot and it would probably end up costing less than the Mac mini. But the Mac mini is a 6.5" square. Does Dell have one of those for sale? Can they make such a tiny, elegant computer?

From a design and software perspective, Apple is a clear winner. As I've shown, the prices are not as different as many PC users would like us to believe. I think for most people here, the small price difference is worth it.

[Banana]

Dell sent me brochures on their offerings and I read through it; I'd have to agree, yes Dell does have product for almost everyone's need. However, I have to point out, as Luca mentioned, they are not as customizable as they should be. Basically, you're forced to take say, 2 or 3 of their base, customize to your needs, and see which comes up with a good price. That's a lot of work, just to select a computer.

With Apple, the choice is relatively easy. You got your mini there, then there's iMac, and if you need the power, the PM, and if I'm not mistaken, all of Mac are relatively more customable than their Dell price point equilivalent.

[xyzzy]

Originally Posted by Banana Dell sent me brochures on their offerings and I read through it; I'd have to agree, yes Dell does have product for almost everyone's need. However, I have to point out, as Luca mentioned, they are not as customizable as they should be. Basically, you're forced to take say, 2 or 3 of their base, customize to your needs, and see which comes up with a good price. That's a lot of work, just to select a computer. With Apple, the choice is relatively easy. You got your mini there, then there's iMac, and if you need the power, the PM, and if I'm not mistaken, all of Mac are relatively more customable than their Dell price point equilivalent.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a very good arguement. You are basically saying that it's an advantage for Apple because they force you into relatively few options? I think what's at the core of this discussion is the fact that their "lumping" strategy leaves too much room between options. You can easily hit the Dell site (or others, though it seems this is going down an Apple vs Dell path), choose a base, add the memory or change hard drive, or video card, etc (just like you do on the Apple site), and still come out much cheaper than anything that would even come close to resembling the same power/performance in the Apple line.

I would also disagree that the G5 can hold it's own against the P4 line. Maybe P4s that were new a couple of years ago, but certainly not what is available today. In fact, isn't that part of what is leading Apple to the Intel chip?

What I DO think is getting overlooked is the value of the software/OS. The typical PC combo doesn't give you nearly the out of the box capabilities in terms of video editing, music, etc. that the Mac provides. While this is a hardware value discussion, it's hard to break off the software component when it's all a bundle deal on the Apple side. In other words, a $1,000 headless Mac with it's installed sofware would certainly provide a much better "out of the box" experience than any PC combo I've seen. In fact, that's what really drives me to have my multi OS setup at home.

I really like my Mini, but I want something faster. I don't quite need/want a Power Mac, and I despise the G5 iMac. I would love a small form factor, single G5, headless system like what is being proposed here.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Luca Don't give in, Paul. Look at the stuff I posted. Now, thing is, upgrading any of those systems to match the Mac mini's base configuration would not cost a whole lot and it would probably end up costing less than the Mac mini. But the Mac mini is a 6.5" square. Does Dell have one of those for sale? Can they make such a tiny, elegant computer? From a design and software perspective, Apple is a clear winner. As I've shown, the prices are not as different as many PC users would like us to believe. I think for most people here, the small price difference is worth it.

Oh, I totally agree (and, like xyzzy, I do think the software/OS part of it gets short-changed by many...particuarly those types who ONLY look at the hardware, and the specs and numbers pertaining to that).

I've said, many times, that I'd use a five-year-old Mac and OS X (even without the Quartz Extreme and Core Image eye candy!) over a brand new, tricked-out PC. It's the OS, for me. Always has been, always will be.

But it's certainly gonna be cool to know that - a year from now, maybe less - we no longer have to hinge our side as much on the "software and design" angle..

We can then start to add sheer performance and Spec Whore-approved numbers and buzzwords into the bragging equation...



"Fellas, we've got a third leg we can add to this table...so it now stands up! We've had 'em on OS and product design for YEARS. Now we get to duke it out in the performance arena some...grab your bats!"

Maybe that fourth leg is pricing, which might eventually come around. Heck, everything ELSE has (video iPod, multi-button mouse, headless mini, etc.), so there's all the reason in the world to be optimistic, and to be happy you're riding this particular train.

[Robo]

Dell is one extreme of having a convoluted line with far too many similair computers - as Luca described, you basically pick a few, BTO them as much as you can, and see what you can get. But I think Apple is on the other extreme - they have too few models. I wouldn't mind seeing Apple expand their lines. Does that mean I want to go back to the days of Centris/Quadra/Performa/Etc. with a bunch of similair computers? No. But I do think adding, say, a mid-range headless desktop wouldn't confuse people.

I'm a fan of AIOs, for their design qualities - but the iMac G5 is my least favorite iMac so far. I think I might consider a "headless iMac" over it, if I liked the design more (*cough* Cube *cough*).

But like Paul, even though I might not be in the market for a headless iMac (I'm a notebook fan, anyway...now if this was about a mid-range prosumer notebook...) doesn't mean that I can't see why Apple should make one. I think that they will, eventually.

I know it seems like we've been waiting forever for it, but remember, it was only earlier this year that they showed a renewed commitment to headless computers at all - with the Mac mini. Give it time.

[Matsu]

I wish now I could take my vote back and say yes, definitely, though what would really put it over the edge, and make even me just "shut up and buy it already" would be the inclusion of an internal slot. Perhaps even a notebook spec cardbus (or whatever it's replacement happens to be, so that I don't have to get left behind when new (popular) I/O standards emerge -- like the situation with my 12"PB and USB2.

That's it. Forcing me to buy a display I don't want isn't helping Apple's bottom line. I don't want a mini, and while I think the iMac is quite beautiful, I need to be able to buy my computer and display seperately as the display does double duty on a laptop and desktop. iMac doesn't let me do that.

I'm not getting rid of this nice 19" TFT any time soon. It serves my PC and my powerbook. The appropriate mac could come along and replace this PC right now. (well an Intel mac would be more appropriate -- as both systems could live on the same box) but Apple doesn't offer it. Ain't buying a Powermac no matter how many cores they stuff in there. Ain't buying a mini just for giggles (though I think they're cool) my next computer will run an update Aperture, and run it well, or I simply don't have any reason to change set-ups...

Give me the performance of an iMac, let me pick the display = sale. Likely lots of them, just like me.

[Luca]

Maybe the problem is that Apple is just clinging to the AIO concept too tightly. It made sense, years ago... but that concept is going out the door today.

I think what Dell has hit on recently is that if people want an AIO, they'll buy a laptop. Dell has some of the least expensive laptops you can buy. Their cheapest one is only $499! I'm not saying Apple should also make a $499 laptop, because it would suck, just like the Dell. But it proves that laptops can be made very cheaply. People think of splitting computers down the desktop/laptop divide, but I think AIO desktops belong on the laptop side of things.

I think Apple should expand the iBook line and encourage people to consider buying an iBook for their home instead of an iMac. They can change the iMac into a higher-end version of the mini... basically, a headless version of what it already is now. But it seems that a lot of computer companies are de-emphasizing their desktops and trying to get people to buy laptops instead.

Unfortunately, there isn't much room to expand the iBook line. I'd like to see the base model drop by $100-$200, and I'd also like to see a higher end model than the 14", as well as widescreens. But right now, with the PowerBooks stuck the way they are, those features seem to be the only things keeping the PowerBooks separate from the iBooks. Once the Intel switch happens, I think the iBooks should get a lot more things, like bigger, wide-aspect screens. There's nothing that really makes a wide-aspect screen tremendously more expensive than a normal one. At least, there's nothing keeping Dell from selling a $744 laptop with a 15.4" wide-aspect screen.

So what do you guys think of my idea? Expand the iBook to fill the iMac's current role? I think it has promise. Apple could certainly do it.

[psmith2.0]

I tell you, I can imagine something like what Matsu talks about (iMac power/features, minus the screen) at MWSF...for a couple of reasons:

- The hook of being able to stand up there and say something like "a year ago, we introduced the Mac mini. And it's been a phenomenal success for us. We learned a few things, and you guys gave us lots of feedback on where we should be heading. So today, we're proud to announce...". That's pure Steve.

- If Intel is ahead of schedule with this Yonah stuff, MAYBE the first Intel Mac out of the gate doesn't have to be a PowerBook, iBook or Mac mini...like we're all assuming. What if it was this new headless thing (of course, it'll be called "the best thing we've ever done" ). But it might be easier to do something like this than an established product line (PowerBook, Mac mini, etc.), right off the bat. For one, you don't have to fuss with battery life (and heating issues, as much) as you do on a laptop design.

1. Apple's shown they're willing to look outside the AIO iBox. Good. That's the first step, and they've made it.

2. They've proven they can cram respectable performance into something ridiculously small and cramped. So imagine what they can do with a more capable chip (Yonah) and perhaps a tad more room (for full-size hard drives, optical drives and graphics, room for ventilation as needed, modest reasonable expansion, etc.).

3. They HAVE to read their feedback and suggestion box. And, whether they'd ever cop to it or not, you know they keep an eye on sites like this and others. Some poor intern, no doubt. But still...they know what people are talking about, praising them on, dinging them for, desiring, etc.

4. They have some new (early) chips coming in that they might want to show off. And show it off in a product that probably isn't as demanding or such an engineering challenge as a laptop.

Maybe the original mini and it's bigger, stronger brother will both receive this, first out of the gate? And they don't have to be available that day, necessarily. But Steve can certainly announce them, show them off, get the press, stir us up real good, etc. and have them "shipping in late February..." or whatever the case may be.

They need to do something big at MWSF, IMO.

And here's the thing: hardware-wise, we know it isn't going to have anything to do with the Power Macs, PowerBooks, iMacs or iPods.

That leaves the iBook, Mac mini and...???

Wednesday showed us not to get too torqued up for anything good, iBook-wise, while the PowerBooks are still in a bit of limbo.

Maybe the Mac mini gets updated AND acquires a sibling...both Intel-based, one affordable (headless eMac), one a bit pricier (headless iMac G5).

Thoughts? Yes? No? Maybe? Why or why not? Does my reasoning about the thermal and battery concerns of laptops hold weight?

[Wrao]

I wouldn't, because I have an iMac g5. But I think if I didn't have the iMac g5, I probably would.

I'm of the mind that apple kind of needs to fill this niche if they seriously want to expand their market share.

I think the problem is that such a machine would cannibalize the iMac. So, for them to do it, they'd have to ensure that the machine was being sold at a very good profit margin(superior to the iMac if possible). Yes, many people would still opt for iMacs over whatever apple might fit in the $700-1000 price range. But by and large, I think anyone with any computer buying experience, and any geek, would opt for the cheaper system that they can buy whatever cheap monitor they want for(or better yet, use an old monitor that they have lying around)

I think the front row stuff was a good move to keep people interested in the iMac, as backwards as it may seem, I could see apple NOT giving front row to the mini or the headless iMac(were it to exist), in an effort to give more incentive for buying an iMac.

Apple isn't dell, they can't afford to invest a ton into a unique product niche and have it eat up their other product's sales, unless the new one has a greater profit margin.

With the mini, I think a $800 headless iMac would do wonders for market share grabbing, which is exactly what apple seems to be planting footing to achieve. So, I'm pretty sure we will see something like this happen in the future, but maybe the time isn't right just now.

[Robo]

I could see Apple selling a "headless" version of the current iMac for $999. You can get 17" widescreen LCDs for cheaper than $300, sure, but I could easily see Apple giving Front Row and the iSight to the iMac and their monitor line - but not to, say, the Mac mini or the "headless iMac." The "headless" version might be a bit slower, too (1.8/2.0 GHz?), like the Mac mini was to the eMac, just to give the iMac a bit of an edge.

But I agree with Luca - I don't think Apple should consider the iMac as part of their desktop line. I'm not necessarily saying they should consider it part of their notebook line, either - if the iMac is their only AIO, they should make it into their design flagship, a "halo" product of sorts, not "just" a desktop. They could also expand it into a third line, as well (I've always wanted to see an a-, o-, and uMac) but that seems rather unlikely.

[Matsu]

I think that there's a strong possibility for the first Intel product to appear as a our oft lamented "headless" machine.

iMac can continue to grow too. Though Apple appears to be doing whatever they can to hold prices at 1299 or above -- most recently adding video cameras and remotes and striking combo models fromthe lineup altogether. The 20" has very nearly cleared enough room for a 23" HD model?

Perhaps this is a trend for the future. While people sit around worried about making a set-top, they just go ahead and make the whole set.

Who knows where LCD prices will be in 4-5 years, but at the rate they're falling, don't be surprised to find sub $1500 30" displays, and lower resolution stuff at EVEN LOWER prices. I can already buy 32" LCD TV's at Costco for $1300 Can. Granted, these are limited to 1366x768, but that's just one generation out from a true 1920x1080 display. Pixel densities may not be 30" ACD level, but as we get into 30" and beyond you really do have to back up a bit to take it all in. Could be just the ticket for iMacs.

Maybe in the future you buy an assortment of headless machines (mini or iHeadless) for traditional desktop computing, or some for of flagship iMac TV in 23-42" sizes.

It only sounds crazy now...

[Anthem]

I voted "if it had an upgrade slot" but that's really only half the equation.

It would also need a 3.5" drive instead of a 2.5". Those two things, plus a Yonah chip, would really make that thing fly.

You'd sell a ton to geeks that said "well, if I don't like OSX, I can always install Windows." If OSX continues to improve and Vista continues to lag, they might never get around to that.

[iDaver]

I voted I definitely would but since I don't think Apple is going to offer one; not with PPC anyway, I caved and ordered a Power Mac today. I'll have to rearrange my tiny condo to fit it in.

[Koodari]

Yes I could definitely go with a headless iMac. I don't even need a PCI Express slot to do it (although it would be a plus), just a reasonably fast processor with non-gimped bus, reasonably fast graphics, a desktop hard drive, and quiet.

Apple is oversensitive about the size of a desktop computer. Desktops are not carried around. As long as it's not a tower, it does not restrict your view whether it's the size of a mini or a Cube or a Shuttle PC.

Both mini and PowerMac suffer from the size limitations for no good reason: mini should have desktop hard drive, Powermac should have more drive bays than two.

I'm not likely to do any computer/electronics purchases next year... after that, it'll be an interesting toss-up. PS3? A new Mac (dualboot)? A gaming PC?

Apple's problem in selling to me is that the majority of what I do does not take computing power, so any old Mac including my current one will do. Entertainment, games, watching HD video are not critical and I have no problem doing that on a Windows box if necessary. Dual booting would let me spend all on the Mac.

[Matsu]

Dual boot is a sneaky way to move units. It takes away the windows withdrawal symptoms. Just have to make sure that the OSX solutions are that much better that people don't go backinto windows. It won't do to have people making it standard practise to boot into the windows versions of Office/Adobe/Macromedia, even games libraries... It could have bad consequences for Apple software development...

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Matsu Dual boot is a sneaky way to move units. It takes away the windows withdrawal symptoms. Just have to make sure that the OSX solutions are that much better that people don't go backinto windows. It won't do to have people making it standard practise to boot into the windows versions of Office/Adobe/Macromedia, even games libraries... It could have bad consequences for Apple software development...

Right. But people are so lazy, they'll never change it to a dual-boot. I know a ton of people that refuse to reinstall windows. They have a machine that's just hosed by spyware etc, and all they need to do is reformat and reinstall. They won't do it; they'd rather buy a new computer.