The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
If there is one constant refrain among the Mac elite it is that there exists a hole in the Mac line. Where, these people wonder, is the upgradable Mac? The Mac Pro is too much for the average guy, the Mac mini isn't enough and there is nothing in the middle. What these people would like to see is a mid level Mac. Two cores, a dedicated (and swappable) video card, and room for another hard drive. The cost isn't generally specified except to say that it should be less than the Mac Pro and iMac but more than the Mac mini.
Before getting into the nuts and bolts (or chips and cards) of such an offering it is important to realize that when people say there is a "glaring hole" in the Mac lineup what they are really saying is that Apple has missed a legitimate marketing chance without a good reason. They probably imagine that executive meetings go something like this:
Steve: Everything is great. Macs are growing, the iPhone is strong, that AppleTV thing is getting better and the iPod is paying off like a busted slot machine in Vegas!
JoeUser: I know how we could sell more Macs.
Steve: More Macs?
JoeUser: Well, here’s my idea: People won't spend $2800 on a Mac Pro but if we offered a computer that they could upgrade for $1500 they'd buy that.
Steve: Wait a second. Are you telling me that people actually factor price into the buying decision? Are you seriously saying that not everyone is a millionaire?
JoeUser: Yeah. It turns out, and I've looked into this Steve, that some people don't actually make more they can spend.
Steve: Well I'll be damned. Who knew? I get by on a dollar a year and all… Still, selling more Macs is a lot of trouble. That is one more model for the stores to carry and Jonny Ives is pretty busy. Plus we'd need a name. The Mac almost Maxi? It doesn't work. Thanks for the input JoeUser, it was interesting but we'll pass. By the way you're fired and anyone who brings up the cost thing gain can get the hell out of the room too.
Apple is, of course, aware of the "glaring hole" in the product lineup and the company doesn't see it as a problem.
Finding the Holes
The idea there is a void in Apple products line up is obvious, every other company has a cheapish expandable tower configuration therefore Apple should have a cheapish expandable tower configuration. Apple is more interested in price points and avoiding consumer confusion than having a me too product so taking a look at the current Apple line up will be revealing:
Mac mini: $599,
Mac Mini: $799
MacBook $1,099
iMac: $1,199
MacBook $1,299
MacBook, iMac: $1,499
MacBook Air, iMac: $1,799
MacBook Pro: $1,999
iMac: $2,249
MacPro: $2,299
With Apple pricing listed it is time to look for unserviced price points because price points are more important to most consumers (yes, you techies are an exception) than models. So where are the gaps in the price structure? There most obvious spot for the longed for Mac is between the mini and the MacBook, a $300 range where Apple could conceivably stick a new model.
Can $999 meet the Demands of Users?
Users generally ask for a PCI slot, two hard drive bays and a replaceable video card when whining, err, opining for the missing link of Macs. The idea being that they'll be able to upgrade the video card as time goes by thus keeping their Mac current. Those are the specs to hit and the processor should be something current, something iMacish. Say a 2.0 GHz core Duo. Put all that together for $999 and Apple will have a brand new winner bunch of inventory to store. While users say they want it, and demand the mythical machine when faced with the option of buying a machine that is basically a screenless iMac with a replaceable video card or buying an iMac for two hundred dollars more they'll opt for the iMac every time.
Those who don't go for the iMac are left in a puzzling predicament when it comes time to upgrade the video card. Two years from now iMacs will be cheaper but the video card they want will cost them $250. So they'll be faced with a new dilemna: Drop $250 into the Mac min maxi with an already out of date processor (these are techie folks who need power after all) or drop a grand on a computer with more cores, more memory and a screen. That is a big case of buyers remorse waiting to happen.
What Happened the Last Time Apple Caved?
The immediate objection will be, of course, "No people really want a computer they can get inside and fiddle with." Well, perhaps. Before allowing that what people are really after is a cheaper upgradeable Mac consider the case of the last time Apple caved in to user demands in the Mac arena. What people said they wanted, what they constantly pined for was a really cheap Mac. A complete solution that would get Macs on everyone's desk. Apple listened and introduced the Mac mini. As soon as the mini was revealed everyone went from "We want a cheap Mac" to "That isn't what I meant."
Why didn't the Mac mini fly off the shelves? The Mac mini was considered by many to be underpowered . (It wasn't and isn't. When Steve jobs said the mini was enough computer for 90% of the people he lied, the number is closer 99%). The teeth gnashing and the complaints about the mini had less to do with the computers power than the perception of the Mac users. People buy Macs because they want that feeling of superiority, buying the cheapest Mac available, even though it will do everything you want, leaves you with the feeling that every time the machine bogs down that you bought a substandard machine. Surely Tower owners zip along at and amazing clip right? Not quite. If you use a Mac mini along side a Mac Pro you'll note the Mac Pro is faster but if you're honest with yourself you'll also note (unless you're into heavy video production or the like) that it worth the price premium.
There is also a good chance that Apple has already experimented with a cheapish expandable tower. Consider the single 1.8 GHz G5 PowerMac. Introduced in 2004 this machine retailed for $1499. If you bought one you got the chance to replace the video card, PCI slots and plenty of room for extra drives. The computer was more than adequate for the time and still useful even today. Word has it that The Big Book of Apple Hacks was written almost exclusively on 1.8 GHz G5! If there was really market for a mid powered, expandable Mac the 1.8 G5 should have been flying off the shelves but the reality is that that particular G5 proved to be about as popular as chewing on little balls of tin foil when you have lots of fillings in your mouth.
What Folks Really Want
The argument about the lack of a cheapish expandable server, that so called glaring whole in the Mac lineup, is fallacious an example of self fulfilling prophecy. People want a more powerful Mac for their hard earned money so they look at the Apple line up and say "Crikey, they should have something more powerful. I know a mid range tower!" The situation is like an archaeologist hunting for Atlantis, after a few years of reading side scanning sonar everything starts to look like the lost continent. So once you accept the current price structure of Macs every hole looks like the ideal place for the fabled mid priced tower, even when there is no gap at all.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I currently use three (yes, three) Mac minis for fun along with the two G5 dual/quad revs for my work stuff. Although, the cheese-graters are speed demons when it comes to graphic rendering and MPEG video encoding/decoding, the minis can hold their own comes web surfing time, light apps, and serving videos to the HDTVs via DVI, of course.
Still, I have to agree with SJ’s 90% projections then. The Mac mini does suffice much of the Mac’s entry-level audience. Just load it up with as much as you can afford since the damn things are a b1#ch to open, let alone upgrade later.
OK, I have converted one of the minis into a Leopard Server with an external 1TB Firewire800 drive for the encoded HD movies. Although, again, it is adequate and sufficient in that role, I would not mind upgrading that baby if Apple comes out with a mini-server. Think of it like a double or triple stacked minis. This would be directed to home-based semi-pros (all techies consider themselves one anyways), the small business shops, and even the corporate desktops soon to be targeted this year.
I think this is the “glaring hole” that CS is trying to hide with his articulated but flawed article premise. Apple has but filled the consumer, semi-pro, to pro hardware offerings but where are the home pro and semi-pro machines (SOHO)? Where are the small biz and corporate desktop machines? Mac minis? iMacs? iDon’t think so.
Yet, Apple is selling those things like crazy. Color me befuddled.
Unlike an affordable tower, the Macbook Air is inexplicable. And yet it’s selling. I think most of these “here’s why Apple would never do this” arguments are a waste of time. They’re almost always wrong. “Here’s why Macs will never run Windows.” “Here’s why iPods will never play video.”
So far Apple’s forays into expandable towers has been met with a less than enthusiastic response.
You mean the Mac Pro or Macs from eight years ago? I think the first would be outright wrong and the latter irrelevant. Whatever reason they have for not entering that market, it’s probably not based on information from nearly a decade ago. It would be some current reasoning, although any specific points are mostly speculation.
Off topic, but you posted an interesting price list.
I have put the prices in US dollars at current exchange rates excluding VATax next to them from my local Apple online store.
Mac mini: $599, $796
Mac Mini: $799 $1035
MacBook $1,099 $1327
iMac: $1,199 $1593
MacBook $1,299 $1593
MacBook, iMac: $1,499 $1830 / $1925
MacBook Air, iMac: $1,799 $2257 / $2882
MacBook Pro: $1,999 $2389
iMac: $2,249 $2881
MacPro: $2,299 $3320
And does anyone doubt that Apple could have a market share similar to the US’s 6% in Europe if they were not so greedy even without the missing tower.
I think you are wrong too. The G4 Cube was the closest thing apple made in the past decade to what people really want but the went crazy with the price, charging more for it than the tower and dramatically more for it than the iMac/eMac you could buy as an alternative with a display.
They don’t make this box because of fear it will eat away at iMac sales. To break it down, you can buy an iMac for $1200 with a very nice 20” display. Remove that one component and you could sell the same box for $900 and people would not have to re-purchase their displays with every computer (my 20” apple display still looks great).
Better yet, they could drop the price to closer to $800 by making the PCI video card optional and putting intel video on board.
The other option is to make an iMac with a door for the video card and doors for up to three drives (optical or hard drives). With 20” the minimum size for displays, there is a lot of extra room for video cards and drives. I’d even recommend they add an express slot for unexpected other upgrades.
Lack of expansion is not a plus. It is something we deal with as mac users because we love the products.
“OK, I have converted one of the minis into a Leopard Server with an external 1TB Firewire800 drive for the encoded HD movies.”
Wow, I’m impressed! A Mac mini only supports FireWire 400!
For the few who still harp on the cost of a Mac, give it up. It’s been proven over and over that Macs and COMPARABLY specced PCs are roughly the same price. Steve Jobs has been widely quoted as saying that Apple cannot and WILL not build junk.
An iMac will a slew of little doors for swapping components couldn’t be had at the same price points. Apple maximizes profits by melding a laptop motherboard (FIXED components) with a monitor.
As far as I’m concerned, adding RAM and swapping the hard drive isn’t “expandability”. At this point, I “expand” by buying a new MacBook Pro (and craigslisting the “old” one) every other generation. One year I bought 3 successive releases of Titanium PowerBooks JUST to get faster video and more VRAM! That’s pretty dumb in hindsight, but there’s no other real alternative if you don’t want a hulking MacPro.
My home office is 58 square feet, including furniture (w/under desk storage), built-in shelves, a big CRT monitor (it’s days are numbered) and an 11 x 17 LaserJet. A MacPro is TOO BIG!
My main concern is being able to get decent video performance. A MUCH smaller form-factor, pro-level machine wold work. 1 slot for the video card and one PCI slot would be enough or me. One extra internal drive bay would be adequate, although the price of external RIAD drives is pretty good these days.
The Mac Cube is looking pretty good these days…
A Mac mini only supports FireWire 400!-jeff
You’re absolutely correct, jeffharris. Brownie points to you!
Based on your Mac lifestyle you’ve tirelessly iterated above, you are part of Apple’s core constituency but not the majority, unfortunately. It is both sad & happy news that our Mac core segment no longer constitute the majority. Hence, Apple must now become more flexible in its product offerings than the stiff “If you want more than an iMac, get yourself a Mac Pro” arguments from people like you. I admit, I have been on that train also and I was wrong. Perceptions can change when you see the big picture.
As we have concluded, A MUCH smaller form-factor, pro-level machine wold work and that exactly what I was trying to illuminate ^^ there. Not about the mini incapable of connecting to a LaCie BD Extreme 1TB.
Like I said, and I must repeat, the minis can serve the vast majority of Mac newbies from the PC/Linux worlds with existing displays and USB keyboards/mice - at a very compelling price point. If you want a Mac experience for less $$ then a Hackintosh might be for you. Check out Psystar’s OpenMac or OpenPC, whatever. You can even cobble up your own configuration. Apple has thus far been quiet here and there about hacking OSX into generic Intel boxes because these same geniuses are really contributors to OSS that Apple relies on to harden Darwin (the Unix layer) and the middleware - Apache, MySQL, SMB, CUPS, etc.
I have also come into the same conclusion that this fabled Mac box will cost in the $799-$999 price range. It will be headless - duh! Expandable PCIe GPU, RAM, HD, and <longingly> perhaps a daughterboard-based CPU slot. Man, how I would kill to have those features again. All those the size of 2-3 stacked minis.
Wake me up when that Mac box is reality.
The Psystar Hackintosh is looking more like a scam by the day.
Yeah, the mini is an excellent and capable machine. It’s a perfect media server. Too bad it lacks FireWire 800. I’d get a mini and a Blu-ray player for my HDTV before an TV, that’s for sure.
$799 for a bottom end Half-Mac Pro wouldn’t cut it since that’s the same price for a top of the line mini. Slots and expansion capabilities add to motherboard and case complexity and a higher price than a 2 RAM slot laptop motherboard. We would want FireWire 800, at least 4 RAM slots, 1 video and 1 free PCI slot and maybe an extra drive bay or two. An eSATA port would be icing on the cake. That’s a LOT more machine than a mini! Apple DOES add niceties.
A bottom end MacPro is $2300. $1500 would be more in line with Apple’s pricing structure for our mythical Mac and place it about half-way between the mini and MacPro.
The Mac myth would cut into iMac AND MacPro sales, but would probably sell more than enough to make up the difference!
That’s Apple TV.
I tried Shift-Option-K, but the gall durned server doesn’t accept extended characters? Sheesh!
Yes, the Psystar Hackintosh is perhaps a scam but http://www.osx86project.org/ exists for every techies to try for themselves.
$799 for a bottom end Half-Mac Pro wouldn’t cut it since that’s the same price for a top of the line mini.
That’s what I call 20/140 shortsightedness. The Mac minis can accomodate by moving lower down the chain to the $499-$599 configurations.
As for the TV’s future, I still prefer if the low-end mini absorbs most of the functionalities to complete it with a digital TV tuner + DVR - a la El Gato’s EyeTV solutions. Apple can maintain the TV without the DVR/tuner option for those not needing those.
The fabled expandable Mac Cube can now occupy the $799-$999 desktop configurations for the home techies, semi-pros, and SOHO professionals.
I doubt Apple will ever adopt eSATA since they are heavily FW400/800/USB2 proponent. Do we really need another high-speed external bus topology? FW S3200 and USB3 is just around the corner, anyways.
Good points about eSATA & FireWire. I want faster FireWire, too!
Building Apple TV functionality into an Mac mini A/V would be a stroke of genius!
I really don’t see Apple dropping the mini’s price any lower. Remember when the new Aluminum iMacs came out, everyone was disappointed that Apple didn’t keep the 17” iMac in the lineup as an $799 emac-like entry-level machine.
Besides, we’re talking about a TRUE mid-range, user upgradable machine, not a beefed up mini. In this case, function and flexibility are more important than low price.
This is really ‘much to do about nothing.’ I am sure that Apple has done extensive market research and discovered that their customers don’t want a consumer computer that they can change the video card. I would bet that 98% of people use their Macs to surf the web, send/receive e-mail, and use the iLife suite for their digital lifestyle. Some of them may load up Office. My three year old G5 iMac., with one gig of RAM, does everything I need and will probably work for the next several years with the standard video card. The high end gamers, and those who love to tear into their machines instead of using them will buy a PC instead of a Mac. I am sure that the several thousand or so Mac users who agree with with Chris are not a large enough market for Apple or anyone else to go after.
I am sure that Apple has done extensive market research..-flyboy
Thus, lo and behold, we have the Macbook Air. A nice machine to flaunt around the office but that’s all it is - form over everything functional for me and I am not even mentioning what my wife would say about our savings account if I brought one home.
Flyboy, I do agree with you that Apple does not move without extensive demographic research, et al. Where does the MB Air fit in to the Mac puzzle? A souped-up plain MB can do everything with more oomph, anyway.
As for the Mac Cube’s size and components. If Apple chooses a fanless, convection-cooled casings like the minis or the ol’ G4 Cube, then “notebook” components are a requirement. There is no way desktop components with higher TDP vectors will be subjected to tight enclosures without some noisy fans or perhaps, some patented liquid cooling. A friend of mine just demonstrated a “heat pipe” by virtue of piezo-electric and old school thermodynamic engineering. All with just an application of a DC current. It works - I volunteered my index finger to measure the temp. It was cold on one side of the sink.
I really don’t see Apple dropping the mini’s price any lower.-jeffharris
Oh? Anything is possible. Remember, Apple has upwards to 30% margin on everything it sells. If it is willing to drop that to 20% and component BOMs are reduced and simplified, we are not talking miracles here, Jeff.
As for the TV functionalities integrated into the Mac mini, it is a stroke of genius. I have been clamoring for one since TV take 1 came out but I guess SJ is not so bright, after all.
When Apple finally introduces the Mac mini+TV combo I bet SJ would no longer call this business a “hobby”. It will be very profitable. I even consider this configuration a growth engine for Apple since it will bring in a lot more PC converts - if the price is right, of course!
Why didn’t the $1400 G5 tower sell? It wasn’t in a big enough market. That market has now changed with Apple using Intel. Anyone can now buy an Apple and run Windows on it and thus the games. But, these are people that are used to buying machines and upgrading them. They don’t wait for a new computer to come out before they upgrade, they wait for the latest and greatest processors and graphics cards to come out then buy them. As an example of how long a michine can last, many years ago I had an Amiga 1200 that I bought around ‘91. As Commodore had gone broke I couldn’t upgrade the machine so I just kept upgrading the parts. I added a faster cpu, a combo 68060/PPC 603e with 10 meg of fastRAM on board (huge), A Blizzard graphics card, I bought a mini tower and added a cd drive and a 10gig SCSI drive and of course gained a beefier power supply. It worked well for me until around 2000 until I was forced to move (due to compatibility issues) to a PC. The Amiga was still faster, except for processor intensive tasks, than the PIII PC, even though it base technology was 10 years old. On a side note I sold it 18 months ago for $150, not bad for a 15 year old machine. 9 years plus out of a machine, not bad.
So what has this got to do with anything. Well first, the market for the headless Mac has increased a 100 fold. But, when people buy a configurable tower how long do they keep it as compared to and iMac. Remember, Apple wants to sell machines to people and probably every 3-4 years, not 5-6-7. And, as was mentioned earlier, the sales will bite into Apple’s stunningly visual iMac range. Apple needs to be seen, not kept under a desk. Mind you, if they priced the cinema displays a bit more competitively they could have the best of both worlds. At this stage though, the iMac has too much of a WOW factor for Apple to risk it as they finds their feet in a new ocean sized market.
Also, for those that say Apple do heaps of market research, here’s a direct quote from Steve Jobs:
“We do no market research. We don’t hire consultants. The only consultants I’ve ever hired in my 10 years is one firm to analyze Gateway’s retail strategy so I would not make some of the same mistakes they made [when launching Apple’s retail stores]. But we never hire consultants, per se. We just want to make great products.”
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0803/gallery.jobsqna.fortune/index.html
mikepass, no business in their right minds walk the ropes blindfolded, OK? SJ can say whatever he wants on TV for marketing glitz but no doubt, Apple does extensive researches to position its next strategies. Sometimes, do not believe what you hear from SJ. He has lied many times in the past only to swallow his own words. “We do no market research” right! The MB Air and the TV Take 2 sure needs more market research.
I do like your Amiga 1200 story though. I was an A500 owner, and C128 and C64 before that. I also owned various Atari machines - 800XL and 520ST. Good bunch of machines then. I wished their company’s management were more forthright. Oh well, la vie est pleine de surprises.
As for the G5 @ $1499 never finding its footing when Chris S.’ article said it should have been the sweet spot of the Mac universe, you are perhaps correct. The machine was not enticing to the PC crowd since it was not Intel. For a little more $$, Mac semi-pros and pros went for the dual (like me), and the quad version later. The single CPU was then discontinued by rapid technology obsolescense - single Dual cores became affordable for more performance with the PPC 970MP.
A better question to ask would be: Why didn’t Apple keep the single core G5 tower (or a reduced-size) and priced it lower down the ladder? With this config, Apple could have conceivably coupled a Intel dual cores later on.
The most plausible answer is Apple never really had this strategy in mind just yet. There were no serious forays into the small biz, home SOHOs, or corporate desktops. All Apple had at the time were us whiny Mac fanatics that can never be satisfied with what Apple dishes out. No matter how cool and elegant Apple offers we end up wanting more of that mythical box - the box that fills that “glaring hole”.
I do not take the “iMac is sacred” defense any more than the “iMac is a one-size-fits-all” argument. The iMac, however cool it may be, is strictly a home-based desktop configuration. Home SOHO folks might like the iMac, surely. But, ultimately, the iMac is intended and excellent for youngsters and the teen crowd who never care how fast their GPUs are or how many cores their CPUs maybe. Sesame Street and Facebook apps are not that CPU/GPU intensive, mind you. The iMac does not fit the bill for a home-based semi-pro tower. There needs to be something else here.
Seriously, though, Apple needs to come forward and address the home semi-pros and SOHOs pros first. This can be addressed with the dual-to-triple stacked mini config I have mentioned above. No, don’t misquote me. I am not saying stack two or three Mac mini components and be done with it. No, I mean a decent configuration the size of 2-3 stacked minis with upgradeable GPU card, HD or two, RAM capability to 4-8 GB, and a replaceable CPU daughterboard for future-proofing your investment.
Then price that sensibly and watch out, Apple! You may just surprise yourselves with your geniuses even when you “do no market research” as SJ happily claims now and then.