digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Open Letter To Steve Jobs: Please Build The Missing Mac

sendmike2space.com — I have owned many Macs over the years including: LC, LC III, PowerMac 6100, 7200, iBook G3 15", PowerBook G4 12" (the best laptop form factor ever, btw) and Mac Mini G4, so let me share with you what I think is missing from Apple's basically awesome Mac product line.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Motobike_man, on 10/12/2007, -15/+200I agree! I know 5 people who would buy a Mac tomorrow if they released a Mac Minitower.
    • tracydanger, on 10/12/2007, -15/+52I would not personally want one myself (I'm happy with the iMac), but as an Apple shareholder, with my humble knowledge of business, I think this is a possibly untapped market. It's not hard to see a lot of people in the categories he mentioned wanting something like this. It is hard to believe that Apple would agree. I imagine they would say - "We've got the mac mini," but this guy already made some counter arguments against that attitude. Given Steve's philosophy when he first came back - cutting all kinds of projects - I bet he/they are real careful about adding new products.
    • euphemizeme, on 10/12/2007, -133/+9I disagree... there are already iMacs and higher-end machines (more expensive, yes -- but people who need dual-monitor setups generally are willing to invest in a more expensive machine). Apple needs to get an iBook replacement released ASAP.
    • gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -11/+84All they need to do is get a Mac Mini, make it tall enough to add a PCI-E slot and bam....

      and @ euphemizeme...that would be the MacBook
    • monospaced, on 10/12/2007, -10/+70Absolutely. For some reason, Apple has left a massive gap between the iMacs and the Mac Pros. I, for one, would be the target customer for a machine like this, and I half expected to see it released at the MacWorld Expo instead of the iPhone. Stupid iPhone.
    • euphemizeme, on 10/12/2007, -69/+1The MacBook is too big.

      How many people *need* a dual-monitor setup, who also only need
    • Blu3b3rryYumYum, on 10/12/2007, -52/+12Will an open letter to Gates make the front page too? Thats what i thought...
    • ij00mini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25With LED backlighting on the way, a MacTablet might not be too far off. The battery life saved by the LED could be put to good use on a touchscreen.

      That a good enough iBook replacement?
    • hotsoda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+137"I agree! I know 5 people who would buy a Mac tomorrow if they released a Mac Minitower."

      Amen. Myself included.

      And you know what, just call it a "Mac". Fits perfectly.
    • Optic7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34I agree as well, but I would also add a full-size 3.5" hard drive to the features request list, so you could (soon) have a 1 TB internal hard drive if you wanted to.

      Basically, this would be a Mac Business desktop. Think of the market potential not only with regular people but with large businesses. I would buy one.
    • tazx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42AppleTV (Hacked) - Mac Mini -- iMac line ---- [Missing Mac] ---- Mac Pro line

      Definitely room for something in there, price-wise, and performance-wise. I have an Intel iMac I'm very happy with; but would love the versatility of a simple tower machine with a couple HD bays, upgradable video card, and external display, without the premium price of the Mac Pro line.
    • deuceswilde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29When I was looking for a desktop I sorely wanted something exactly like this. I ended up settling on a 20" iMac which for the time being is great. But let's face it, I don't have the money or the desire to buy a new computer every few years just because one major part is outdated (graphics card). The way it is now I'm essentially getting rid of a whole machine full of good components and relegating it to side duty, or I'm forced to deal with an inadequate machine for longer than should be necessary.
    • KielKilla, on 10/12/2007, -40/+2I do agree with Apple needing to make a cheaper Mac so office building can buy them but just two problems.
      1) Mac's don't have office friendly software
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -34/+10" I want to see Mac market share expand! Apple needs something that can compete with Dell, HP and Lenovo. This computer does not take a genius to design but it will sell like crazy! It can be priced at around $100 to $200 more than a same spec. Windows box due to the value of OS X (esp. 10.5)."

      Completely invalidates himself in a single paragraph.

      You don't win computer market share by costing a two hundred more than the competition. Period.
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33@betterth:
      Sure you can, General Motors has long advertised low prices and big rebates and now they've slipped to #2 behind a company that just builds more bulletproof transportation.

      The thing is that Diggers don't seem to realize that the reason Apple doesn't have a product like this is because there is no mainstream appeal in it. Normal, non-technical people don't want to upgrade their video card. This wish is mostly propagated by tech professionals on a budget, and Apple has no interest in them.
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I am a current Mac user, but i'm in a situation where I really don't have much of a clear upgrade path, and the described low end tower would be perfect.

      I have a 30" display and a PowerBook G4 that's getting too slow for me. The only Macs that can run my display are the PowerBook, the MacBook Pro and the Mac Pro. But I don't want or need another laptop.  And I can't afford the Mac Pro.

      So I don't really have any option other than to hold onto my current Mac for longer than I wanted to.
    • Bikechess, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I don't understand the request for adding a second monitor. The current iMac's have the ability to connect a second montitor that runs in parallel with the main one. It looks quite nice too.

      Of course, there other things you could stick in your expansion ports, but the dual monitor capabilitiy seems to be what most people are focusing on.

      In the end, of course, Steve will never release something ugly. And its hard to make an expandable tower attractive.
    • darthsuo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@psyael
      Well, I don't see Nvidia or ATI doing so badly, and their higher-end cards sell *only* to the "tech professionals on a budget". However, I think the point is moot; the whole point of the Mac experience is that it's so top down. If users aren't locked into Apple's small choice of upgrade hardware, there'll be oodles of compatibility problems and bugs. The reason Macs are perceived to "just work" is because OS X is designed for a very limited hardware set, and as soon as you let people run with what they want, the number of configs balloons into the trillions.
    • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Oblig Ars xMac thread:

      http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/208009973831

    • schnoggi, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1I want a really sturdy laptop that I can drop and sit on
      correction, need very much
      these skinny things are of so little use to me
    • aule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@Psyael
      "This wish is mostly propagated by tech professionals on a budget, and Apple has no interest in them."

      You've brought up an interesting point here. In my opinion, Apple should be all over this market, why? All of the students using macs in universities today (in my opinion, the fastest growing area of new Mac enthusiasts) are going to be the "tech professionals on a budget" in the next 4 years, trying to battle student debts. A product like this coming out in the next year or so and be would fit right in.
    • nickway, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2It would be really sweet.
      Here is a custom made mac mini tower.
      Its a couple years old now, and I think about it often.

      http://www.applefritter.com/node/2232
    • bennomatic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I understand the desire for a minitower, with room for more and bigger hard drives, but if you want a two-monitor system for under $1200, an entry-level macbook will do the trick. Built in monitor + external fits at least what this article is talking about.

      The problem with upgrading existing boxen is that it has become less and less of a good deal. I spent all sorts of money upgrading the hard drives, processors, video card and RAM on my G4 tower, and it became a huge, hot, noisy power-suck, and G5s got to be fast and cheap enough that if I had saved my money and waited a few months, I could have gotten the latest thing with a lot less effort.

      Of course, I'm typing this on a MacBook, and since I've gone portable, I haven't looked back. The only reason I haven't gotten rid of my old desktop is that I don't know who'd be interested in it.
    • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I'd get one for a server with some expandability vs. buying an old G4 powermac

      However Apple likes their small form factors and lets face it, the average tower from Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc looks like crap and I wouldn't have it on my desk. I'm guessing Ives could chance all that. But it seems either the Apple product is one that is small and sits out of the way, or its like the MacPro and is the centerpiece of your room

      The article came off as crying to me though which turned me off from it. I really don't understand his issue. He wants a Mac with the power of an iMac and everything an iMac has, but with no monitor, because he wants two? Can't he just plug in a second monitor to an iMac, and BAM! A dual monitor setup with iMac power and specs that takes up less space, has less cords, and he can purchase it today. I don't see the issue here
    • ejtttje, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12FYI: iMacs easily do dual-heading... there's a DVI port in the back, just need a $20 adapter!

      I think the upgradability argument is overblown... RAM is really easy to upgrade, and you can do most stuff with USB and firewire addons. That's kind of the point actually -- there's not much need to open the case for adding components. And if you eventually want to upgrade something like a graphics card, it's of limited utility without upgrading the whole machine anyway.

      I think the idea with the iMac is that it's well balanced, and when you're ready for a new machine, you sell off the whole functioning unit as-is, and get another well-balanced machine. For instance, you have the 19" monitors now, but by the time you get another machine, it'll be coming with 22" LCDs and super-high DPI... (or whatever the latest thing is)

      It's a difference of buying a whole new system all at once and then saving your money for a while and not buying anything, vs. constantly buying a stream of individual components (always having to take things apart, fixing driver issues, having one component or another bottlenecked, etc.)

      If you're used to the latter strategy you think that's the way it's done and expect to keep doing it, but it's really not necessarily the best way to go about doing things.
    • bombadier337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I would buy one of these in a heartbeat. I have a 21 inch widescreen monitor, and I'd love to have a Mac and my Ubuntu box on a KVM. The Mac Pro is too expensive, and Mac mini is too underpowered.
    • ejtttje, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Oh, I'll also add that that a year-or-two-old aftermarket mac pro is essentially the midrange tower you're asking for. I know, not as sexy as a new machine, but this is perhaps why Macs tend to hold their resale value fairly well.
    • DeusAbNoct, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1Sorry to say, but to those of us who can actually code, Macs are merely an eyesore. Not only is the ever-changing architecture of the OS annoying, but nobody buys them unless they don't know what they're doing anyway.

      Something I thought I'd share with you all.

      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

      May you all be blessed by the almighty PC Gods (once you renounce your heresy, that is)
    • e_mnc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Personally I think the Mac mini with a an express card slot would do fine and suit the form factor. Dual monitors is fine with 3rd party products. http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/products/dh2go/home.php

    • utp216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would buy one tomorrow to if it was released! Would be very nice to get "into" a Mac and not have to pay $2000 for something decent.
    • Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8ejtttje brand new Macs today come with underpowered video cards. People already own perfectly good monitors that they don't want to replace. People don't want to have to pay for a new screen every time they buy a computer.

      The Mac Mini is not powerful enough, nor upgradeable enough. The Mac Pro is just too expensive because of it's Xeon processors. Basically, Apple needs a tower that does not use processors made for servers.
    • woojoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11THey need to bring The Cube back.
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2aule:
      The reason they won't build for technical people on a budget is because there's less money in it. They'd rather you buy the low end model and keep buying new ones as they become obsolete, or if you're really that in love with fast technology buy the high-end model and keep trading it for the next one that comes along.

      The secret those pro tower Macs have a long lifespan. You could buy one new and use it for 8 years and still be supported by Apple's latest software, 10 years if you didn't mind things going a bit slow. You could also buy a used one if you don't have a problem buying a computer someone has already touched.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is what I've been saying for who knows how long and is a reason so many of us aren't going to Mac route.
    • tf5bassist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So.... you mean... a form-factor like the oldschool Performa-style Power Macs? the ones that there were beige-box clones made of? Like that?

      As long as they looked as cool as any other mac, it'd sell.
    • sandbird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Could Apple sell a ton of these? Absolutely. So why don't they?

      Because 1) They don't need to and 2) It doesn't fit in with their current business model.

      Apple in the Steve Jobs era has been very careful about where it carves its niches at. Right now you have the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Pro for desktop users. A Mac minitower would swipe marketshare from all three of these. Most of all it would steal marketshare from the Mac Pro, which is a high-markup item. If someone needs a 512MB graphics card and they're working on a Mac, Apple is going to want the $2500 tower sale, not the $800 minitower sale. It's simply business. If there ever comes a time when Apple's profitability will hinge on putting something like this out, then they'll do it. Considering how their stock has done, they've been making the right decisions for a while anyway. Macs may hold only around 5% of the market, but when you're making billions on top of billions, maybe being a niche player ain't so bad.
    • JimmyG10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If anyone knows the history of Steve Jobs and Apple Inc. then they already have the answer to why this product hasn't been released or even researched with a mindset to develop. Apple creates innovative, dependable, all inclusive products. This product is not innovative. I believe the thought process behind an easily expandable tower is that it isn't dependable because Apple can't control all the aspects behind having a spot for add on hardware. Apple is, at its core, a hardware company, so that is pretty much out. All inclusive... I believe Jobs would say, "]Why would they need to expand? If they want to faster, stronger, etc. they can purchase the Mac Pro."
    • lynx77, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Who wants another overpriced underpowered Mac in the market?

      Apple idiots should stick to their ipods and iphones paying triple everyone else does for less of a product.

      The more i hear about Apple the more i cant see how they sell any products just because they put it in a white box? You guys must be really ***** stupid..
    • calebhawk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@lynx:
      my macbook is black not white... i have about 7 pc's and 2 macs (ibook g4 and macbook) i dont think i've touched any of my pcs in about 6 months... maybe if you'd try something before saying its ***** you'd have a different opinion, until then...

      shut up
    • Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Open letters are nice, but an online petition will probably get more results. Anyone game for starting one?
    • coit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Terrible letter.

      The guy complains about the lack of graphic horsepower in his Mac Mini, then he indicates his solution is to access it using a PC running linux over VNC?

      I think there are much more compelling cases here just in the comments. Try again Mike.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@Psyael

      No offense but you're a total idiot. You cannot make a comparison between cars and computers. Totally different. The thing is, you can buy a Dell with a Core2, 2GB memory, an nvidia 7800 and 500gb of hddspace, or you could buy your theoretical Mac with the exact same specs, a "trendier" case and OSX for 100-200 more?

      Guess where consumers will go. It won't be to Mac. Prices win in the computer field. Believe me, I worked for a local computer repair shop for over a year, and we had tons of models about 50-100$ cheaper than a Dell box of similar spec, and they would buy from us for that reason alone. We had used computers, ***** old computers for 100-200$, and they would buy them up without a second thought.

      You forgot that the vast majority of our population doesn't drive Lexus's and buy Mac's. They don't have the extra 200$ for a "better OS" (debatable, as far as I'm concerned).

      I urge you to remember the NATIONAL US average wage as of 2005 is 36,952.94/year! ( http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html ) This is what, roughly 17.70$/hr for 40/hr weeks and 52wks/yr. Not everyone is like the Digg community, because I know a fair portion (if not the majority) of us make more, if not significantly more than 17/hr. We can afford 100$ extra on the exact same computer save an operating system that's supposedly better. We can shell that out, because to us, 100$ is what, 2 hours of work? 3 hours of work?

      But to the average buyer, 100$ represents a lot of money. Paying for school lunches for a kid for a month or two, saving for their kids college, trying to get out of the debt they're inevitably in, paying monthly on cars that are probably too expensive.

      So sure, you may feel like Apple can charge 100-200 more all day long, but the fact is, they already do that in a lot of cases. The only time they don't is what, laptops in the over 1200$ range? You can still get a Dell laptop for $500. Come on Apple, where are you when the students need you?

      If Apple wants market share they'll undercut or match their competition. Welcome to reality.
    • blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Psyael said, "The thing is that Diggers don't seem to realize that the reason Apple doesn't have a product like this is because there is no mainstream appeal in it. Normal, non-technical people don't want to upgrade their video card. This wish is mostly propagated by tech professionals on a budget, and Apple has no interest in them."

      You might be right. I just bought a Mac Mini to add to my collection of computer hardware. I'm a tech professional an a budget, and have spent plenty of money on computer hardware over the years. I want more power and versatility than the Mini can really provide, although not much more.

      I would have be an ideal candidate for an iMac, except for a couple of small things. One: I have quite a few monitors and LCD displays sitting around the house, having outlived the computers they were attached to. Why would I buy a computer with a monitor built in? Two: I, like the poster, prefer to use a multi-monitor setup. I had two going on my Windows box, two on my Ubuntu box, and was hoping to put three on my next game machine. I can't do that with anything but the highest end Macs. I will never need that much power for a play machine.

      Mac Pros are really set up for high-end graphics work, or other serious business use. What I want is a midrange box with a couple of PCI-E slots so I can put twin graphics cards (supporting four monitors) and a couple of big hard drives in it. $1200 for the box would be just about my upper end, since I'm planning on spending $600 on video cards, and another $600 on hard drive space. With the starting price of the Mac Pro, my budget is already blown before I can buy any add-ons.

      Are they worth the price? It depends on your planned use. Business use? Heavy server usage? Graphics or Music Professional use? Probably so. Web surfing? Home Media Server? Gaming? No. All you need is an adequate compute base, and a kicking video card. Look at the XBox 360 and the PS3 for God's sake.
    • SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hear, Hear

      I'd be significantly better off if I hadn't had to buy a Mac Pro to get this kinda machine... and love the Mac Pro as I do it still hurts...
    • SVPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Damn - timed out on me..

      Apple need something in this bracket so they can take on Dell's smaller Dimension and Optiplex desktops - if they release da $600-800 machine in the mini-tower class it'd go down a storm with businesses who needed workstations that are not required to have the earth-shattering power of a Mac Pro but come with a separate display and serviceable components (hard drives, optical drives etc) to allow much cheaper fail-replace strategy than an iMac.
    • DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ deuceswilde

      I was in the same exact spot this past year. I wanted to upgrade my G5 Tower to the non-existent Core2Duo tower. I wanted an entry level tower vs. the 20" iMac I eventually purchased because:

      1. I already own dual 19" LCD monitors
      2. I want to be able to upgrade my graphics card
      3. I want multiple internal drive bays

      All that said, I'm fairly happy with the iMac. It's a beautiful machine and with 3gb of RAM it's got good performance. No doubt I'll have this for the next 3 years so hopefully by then Apple will have released something that fits my needs a little bit better.
    • jcostom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gxcdesign - "All they need to do is get a Mac Mini, make it tall enough to add a PCI-E slot and bam...."

      ...and you've got the new Cube?
    • jammerml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would...I've been looking for one too....but nothing quite fits my needs, either lower end, or higher end than what I need.
    • longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3www.osx86project.org/

      I have a $400 Intel Mac meeting these specs that just happens to have a Dell logo on it.
    • jim1977, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gxcdesign

      not much of a point here, but why couldn't they make something like a mac mini and put the card in sideways? it'd be similar to an ordinary mini, maybe just an inch or so taller

      imho apple don't make another product between the pro and the mini because the imac is the all in one solution for homes, and obviously some users (they had a lot of people start using mac os x after the ipod took off) just want either a basic computer at a competitive price, or a professional workstation with the best performance. hence the simple range

      oh, and if usb graphics have been around since 2004, why doesn't somebody make something for mac?

      http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20040607023341.html
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have been saying this ever since 2005! Products that Apple should make include:
      iMac Pro, 30" Aluminum (prosumer)
      Mac Pro mini (business value)
      xServe mini (living room)

      Check out concepts at flickr page (not blogspam - no ads):
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/rstrb8r/sets/72157594152270838/
    • T-Bird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know I'd definitely buy one!
    • Hoodooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been hoping for this for years...please, please, please Steve, if you're reading this; make this dream come true!
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Precisely! I'm eyeballing a 24" iMac as my next upgrade someday over the rainbow if that mid-range tower doesn't magically appear. I'd love a Mac Pro, but it's expensive overkill for me. Quad core is nice, but I really don't need it, nor do I need FB-DIMMs. I'd just like a nice, dual-core Conroe box with some expandability options for a good deal less. That would really, really float my boat and I'd grab one in a heartbeat. As it stands now, the 24" iMac with an Nvidia 7600 is the best option.
    • mfrager, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I really do not understand why Apple hasn't shipped a simple Mac like this already. It's like they don't want lots of market share or something. Or maybe they're so distracted by fancy products that they forgot about simple ones.

      Now that the Mac is Intel it is really the time to make another simple, cheap box Mac that works great and sells like crazy! The key is some simple expandability: upgradeable video card, processor, ram and maybe an extra internal disk bay would pretty much do it (and a extra PCI-Express 1x or two would be nice)
    • tracydanger, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Here's the closest you're gonna get right now from apple:

      http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nplm=FA765LL/A

      Finding some old mac pro (or maybe G5 powermac?) that's a few years old is as close to those specs and that price range I can think of, but there's so many unknown factors getting it used (like off of ebay or something).
    • monospaced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I waited for something like a Mini Tower (standard computer, in my opinion) for so long, and finally did break down and get the 24" iMac. I'm a graphic designer, so the screen size and quality paired with the processing power is great, but in a year or so I'd like to upgrade, and I can't. With a Mini Tower, I'd be able to replace the screen if it malfunctioned, or was inadequate; I'd be able to add internal cards and hard drives.

      On the other hand, the iMac is great because it includes a massive Apple LCD (worth half the machine in value) and can be resold (traded-in) in a couple years with a minimal loss. Oh well.
    • Dotcommer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1god DAMN dude. I mean ok, I'm a mac fan.. but jesus christ this guy sounds like he's sucking off Jobs as we speak.
  • SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+17No digg.

    I haven't buried it, either, but frankly, I just don't care at this point. In case you haven't noticed, Apple has a very narrow, well-defined set of products and things they expect you to do with your Mac. These things work very, very well, until you run into their limits. Then, it becomes even more difficult to hack in the functionality you want than it would be on Windows.

    And here, you're talking about hardware. Consider: Linux people do not have this problem. I can buy any machine I want (including a Mac), confident that I can get a somewhat-familiar version of Linux to run on it. Even Windows people are significantly better off -- most of the desktop/laptop hardware out there is "PC-compatible", meaning it will be made to run Windows. If Apple doesn't sell what I want, maybe Dell will. If they don't, maybe HP will, or Gateway -- or I can build my own off Newegg parts. But OS X people are constrained to exactly one hardware manufacturer.

    So if I was going to ask Apple to create something for me, I wouldn't ask for a new hardware product line. I'd ask to be able to buy an x86 or x86_64 version of OS X which can run on non-Apple hardware. I don't even ask for much in the way of software/driver support -- hell, even a license to do the work myself would be sufficient.

    But since that's not likely to happen, just give me custom-built or a Dell with Ubuntu on it. If I miss anything from OS X, I'll add it myself -- but with Beryl and Beagle these days, I'm not missing much.
    • mfrager, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28Okay, if you read my letter you would see that I do use Linux (OpenSUSE to be exact).

      But I realize that Mac OS X is better.

      For example: Beagle does not really compare to Spotlight and Beryl is nothing compared to Core Animation (upcoming in 10.5).

      Also, there no Photoshop or other Adobe suite products that run on Linux.
    • SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9I did read your letter, so I figured there was something. I'd sign your letter if it's something I would buy, but it isn't.

      But now I'm curious. In what ways does Beagle not compare to Spotlight? Or Beryl with Core Animation -- how about we compare existing products; it certainly looks better than 10.4, I think, and has one or two very nice features. Even kwin (the KDE window manager) is catching up.

      Not to mention: Real virtual desktops (again, "upcoming" in 10.5), faster (ability to unredirect certain windows helps here), and real package management.

      I won't bring up Photoshop vs The Gimp, as that's been done to death. However, I believe there are a few Adobe products which run really well under Wine, and at least one or two (Flash, Acrobat) which are even native now.
    • tracydanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The points you make aren't bad, but to me the main question is this: Would the market for something like this be large enough to merit making this product? Maybe you say, "No." I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that, in fact, there is a large market for it. The other question is if Apple feels like they would be happy with it and feel that it was quality, and not a compromise in any way.
    • KielKilla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0The thing about this is that I doubt Steve Jobs would want a x86 Mac for multiple reason that everyone probably already knows.
    • Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6you started your comment by saying ¨I don´t care anymore¨ yet you have one of the longest comments in this thread. what gives?
    • CapnCornflake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Sanity is right.

      I was a Mac advocate in the PowerPC days, but this is just rediculous. Nowadays, you are expected to buy PC hardware that you can't upgrade much of, only for hundreds of dollars more than an equivilent PC. Just for the Mac operating system.

      If Apple wanted to really increase their market share, a standalone copy of OSX would be the way to go. To hell with begging Apple to create a 'new product line' or some crap. I want to be able to build my own computer, and install OSX on it. I've grown extremely tired of Apple's proprietary hardware with parts you can't upgrade.

      In fact, thanks to the OSx86 project, I already can. And so can (and do!) thousands of others.

      Though, as kielkilla said, Stevey wouldn't want that for the obvious reason: They lose being able to control their customers like sheep.
    • DeusAbNoct, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@capricornflake

      "they just want to control their customers like sheep"

      Precisely why i will never buy one of those DRM-infected MPAA/RIAA lapdog-cooperating pieces of *****.

      Bam.
    • mscman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You can get ANY hardware to work on ANY Linux box? I'm impressed. Before you start bashing me, I'm a Linux user myself and work on high-scale Linux clusters. That being said, there is hardware that just plain DOES NOT WORK in Linux. I've fielded many questions about simple webcam issues, graphics cards, wireless cards, the list never ends.

      Yet when I purchased my MacBook and hit the power button, it started up. No error messages. No X server to reconfigure. No wireless card to d/l drivers for. Furthermore, I've yet to find a peripheral that doesn't work with it.

      So before you say you can use any hardware, maybe we should look at how limiting hardware helps performance.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 by kielkilla 11 hours ago
      - 3 diggs
      The thing about this is that I doubt Steve Jobs would want a x86 Mac for multiple reason that everyone probably already knows
      -----------------------------------------------------------

      Um... all Macs are x86 now. Try to keep up.
  • transversed, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10Dual monitors on the imac can be done. he doesn't have a point.
    • mfrager, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28The problem with using dual monitors with the iMac is that they will not match.
    • monospaced, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6they will match if you use a calibration tool, and that goes with matching ANY two screens, regardless of their make.
    • phill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't understand. My iMac has a DVI port on the back to put another monitor on it for dual head. What's his problem?

      But... I can't wait till they build a Tablet Mac with docking station and dual monitor support like the Photoshop rendering I've seen floating around. I would drop $2k on it with a 20" monitor.
  • autoxtl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15In the mid-1990s I used to work for a company that used Apple's tower computers. Then, they started only making mini-towers, which nearly killed us until the "add-a-slot" companies came along to make the machines expandable. Now, they're making very small and very large machines, with nothing in the middle. I'd go for just this kind of lightly customizable Mac, especially one where I could put in a couple of display cards of my own choosing (like one ATI and one NVIDIA ;-) and still have it be quasi-portable -- unlike the Mac Pro. OK Apple, make one and I'll sign up to buy it.
    • benosmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No offense to everyone here, but this conversation should not be about what you "want." Product offerings are about sales. If there was more customized iMacish priced mac, it seems certain that at least some cannibalization of the Mac Pro line sales would occur. MacPros have higher margins then the Mac Mini and the iMac, so not only would they lose the higher price point, the company wide margins would fall as well.

      I love macs, that's all I use, but please everyone remember Apple is a company. They aren't going to make something because people want it, they are going to make something that increases their overall profitability.
  • gene1102, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5I wanna Mac that is the size of my thumb drive...PLEEEEASE!!!!
  • snowbooch, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5mac tablet, who cares if it's useful, it will sell

    if you want mac on a cheap minitower use a cracked copy of osx
  • KevinO, on 10/12/2007, -35/+11ehh, feel like this needs to be linked http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
  • derekknight, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33Open letters are a vain attempt for attention.
    • tazx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I like how tazx kind of just proved his point. ;P
    • SirBotchness, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Yea cause an open letter from jeff the blogger is on the same level as an open letter from Steve Jobs. Good job proving that point. Did you even read this letter? It sounds like a hyperactive pubecent teenager wrote it. If you read Steve's letters they're quite the contrast.
  • basye, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Bring back the Cube!!!!!!!
    Best machine I ever had, still going strong since 2001 (with a few upgrades, of course). That machine is a piece of art.
    And the Mini pales in comparison to it--the Cube fits the bill for the "in-between" Mac, IMO.
    • myfanwy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3oh yeah, how many pci-e slots has that got then?
    • rufusg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The cube was Apple's last shot at a mid-tower.
      Apple spends a lot of money on things (software) other than the hardware, and need to keep their margins high. So the only way they'll do it is release an expensive kick-ass machine like the cube. Maybe Steve'll try again – you know he wants to – but I think the cube's failure has iced it.

      People are too cheap and it's a shame, I love and still use my (basically stock) cube.
    • locodude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I second that! The Cube is by far the sexiest computer ever built!
  • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4This product exists, it's called a used tower Mac.

    Macs have a much longer lifespan that most computers. There's still models from the fruity-colored plastic era that can run Tiger, and many more that can with third-party hacks. The hardware takes a long time to become obsolete, so buying a computer that someone else has previously used isn't a big deal and can save you money.
    • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11People don't want used G4 machines from 2003. They want a new Core 2 Duo machine where they can easily upgrade the hard drives, video card, sound card, etc. as they wish.
  • bantam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9We really do need this.
  • JasonCox, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8Dear Steve Jobs,

    Just cut your loses. Drop the Mac and concentrate the i+Product lineup.

    Thanks,
    -The rest of the world that doesnt use Macs


    Digg me down, Macboys!
    • Blu3b3rryYumYum, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5dugg up by me
    • blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For all those who don't use/like Apple or the Mac, why even read this article? Why comment? It's just stupid. It's like me commenting on a particular opera. I'd be better just avoiding the subject completely.

      I'm not a Mac-only Fanboy, since I use Windows XP for my laptop and a game machine, and Ubuntu Linux on another machine (my wife uses Fedora Core.) Being a Unix system admin, I prefer to use Unix on my personal desktop box, which is why I bought a Mac Mini. Not a lot of power, but it's just a desktop machine, after all, and it does run Unix. My point is that there are some folks who do really like the Mac environment, and are not stupid or sheep.

      Apple, much like a high-end car company, focuses on fit and finish for their products, with an "it just works" mentality. There is a market for that, just like there is a huge aftermarket for, say, Harley Davidson motorcycles. You don't see folks "customizing" their BMW's all that much, but Harleys are very quickly modified to fit the rider's personal likes. Both owners are generally happy with what they have.

      Learn to live and let live. If someone wants to write about what they want out of a Mac, just ignore it if you don't agree, hmmm?
  • amjustice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Amen, I would buy one of these as well. I have maintained ever since the Mac Pro came out that they needed a model in this space!
  • Sk8SkaNJ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24"It can be priced at around $100 to $200 more than a same spec. Windows box due to the value of OS X (esp. 10.5). "

    Right, its the OS that makes it cost more...
    • rufusg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"Right, its the OS that makes it cost more..."

      I don't know why it wouldn't...
    • Gofel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7No, it's the OS that makes it worthwhile spending 200 smackeroos more on the machine.
    • egghat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Look at PCs. Compare a normal Dell Minitower with a small Mac Mini sized PC. Which one is cheaper? The small version. Despite having no PCI slots, etc. pp.

      So a Minitower Mac (why not call it a Mac?) may even be cheaper AND more expandable than current Macs. Cause it can use a normal 3.5" harddrive (which is cheaper, faster and bigger!), normal RAM (which is cheaper as well, well not much) and it can use a normal, desktop Core2 CPU (and not the mobile version, which is more expensive (around 50%) as well).

      And well, if a minitower doesn't fit Apple's aesthetical ideals, I wouldn't argue with a comeback of a cube ...
  • ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I totally, 100% agree. If it had the expandability of the Mac Pro, but was as affordable as a Mini, I would definitely consider buying one. I need a new tower for gaming, but will in no way shell out for a Pro which will come with stuff I just don't need.

    Dugg for being an amazing idea (which unfortunately, won't be listened to - is that really how Apple works?).
  • scott983, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44Dear Apple, I would really appreciate it if you cannibalize your existing machine sales not to mention your margins and profits and compete with Dell. Thanks a bunch!

    /sarcasm

    Apple makes money selling 1 consumer PCs, 2 High end PCs for graphics pros. Selling a cheap PC that can be upgraded (with other peoples hardware) gets them nothing except lost sales of Mac Pros.

    Not gonna happen.

    • xaxxon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I dugg your comment, but I disagree with you. At least to some extent.

      There is a market for the midrange Mac that is untapped. I won't spend the money on a mac pro, but I would buy a Mac minitower. Whether the untapped audience for this machine would make up for cannibalized mac pro sales, I don't know. Also, how many people might get this instead of a less expensive mac mini - thereby increasing $ / sale.

      I dunno.
    • phantom_mullet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I disagree. Like many others, the Mac Pro is out of my price range, but the Mac Mini isn't upgradeable enough for me. I would definitely be interested in a Mac minitower, and Apple would have a new customer if they released such a product.
    • blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While there is an untapped market for a Mac Mini-tower, I do believe that some people who would currently buy a Mac Pro would definately slip down to a Mini-tower, of the option was available. Not all would, but a significant portion, I'll bet.

      Not saying it's not a good idea, but just that there is a point to be made, there. Personally, I bet that the increased sales from the Mini-Tower would more than make up for the loss of Mac Pro sales, but I don't have any hard data to back that up. It's just a gut feeling.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the best idea would be to pull out the 20 lines of PCI-E off the next model of mac mini as an edge card connector. Then a third party could make a "cube" attachment to hold the slots. The next mac mini should have dual dvi [+hdcp, or even mini-dvi + HDMI], 3.5" drive and express card..that would make most people set and line mini up with 90% of cheap notebooks which is what it is. Adding a [hidden] expansion connector for actual PCI-E slots would fix the rest of us up. In quantity, it would add almost zero dollars to the BOM but add much more value. Let somebody else make the enclosures and deal with incompatibilities... now it's making a sagging product more desirable but actual pros won't buy a "hacked" system so no eating mac pro sales!
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There would be some "slip down" of people who needed something that only the Mac Pro could offer (say an upgradable GPU) but didn't need the rest (4/8 cores, expensive server memory, dual optical drives, 4 or 5 HDD bays, etc), but I think there would be more upsells from mini buyers and new sales of people who would have almost bought an iMac, but it wasn't quite right for them, so they bought a Dell.

      Really, what we are asking for is they take the guts of the iMac and put it into a regular case (after adding a PCIx slot to the GPU). Of course, since are redesigning the board anyway, use the desktop version of the CPUs and memory which are cheaper at similar speeds. So, the 17" iMac is ~$1000, with it's more expensive laptop CPU, GPU, and RAM (and it has been for months and months - so they could be using new, faster components and get the same margins as they started with). So, drop the LCD (save $50 or whatever that costs in parts), use a desktop C2D (save another $20), stick a standard PCIx GPU in there rather than a mobility chip (another $10), use regular RAM rather than SODIMMs (another $10) and sell it for the same $1000. Profits of an iMac plus $90 or so (a 9%+ bump in margins is nothing to scoff at) PLUS some extra profits on selling upgraded GPUs - a market they make almost no money in now - and probably increase sales of the ACD monitors a few percent which are huge profit items. It's a win-win.

      I'm a G4 mini owner and waiting for either the next mini or maybe a new product line at MacWorld (not likely, but who knows). My biggest gripes about the mini are the craptastic drive speeds (really drags your system down, and the speed of the optical drives is wretched) and cost per gig of storage space due to laptop parts. The other grip is of course the GPU. I bought a 360, so that eliminates about 75% of what I want of a faster graphics system. I'm building an old PowerMac G4 case into a container to house an Intel mini and a full sized 400-500gb SATA HDD and 5.25" DVD-RW (along with a 1tb RAID connected via FW all internally). Assuming the next mini uses the x3000 GPU, I'll have solved all my mini related problems (big, fast drives, and the x3000 will be enough for better media acceleration and Motion related tasks). Trouble is that it's a huge PITA and it shouldn't be. Ok, I'm done babbling.
  • Ray_Justice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14We have to remember that Macs don't have the same "enormous driver support" as Windows. So even if they made a regular "Mac" tower it wouldn't necessarily support any video card or other PCI card that you could stick into it.
    • gregv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but it probably would supply pretty much any internal hard disk (though probably only just IDE or just SATA) you would put into it. Then I could reduce the tentacles of usb and firewire cables coming out the back of my iMac to support external disks.

      Sometimes you just want to be able to upgrade just a couple of things; memory, disk, wireless network card and maybe the video. It's easy to upgrade the memory in this iMac I have, but I wish I could replace the disk!
    • kenvibe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But think of all the companies that will develop drivers when/if this hits the market. If this "untapped" market exploded, ATI and Nvidia would be inclined to create the drivers for the mac.
    • gregv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Doh!

      "Yeah, but it probably would supply pretty much any...."

      I meant to say "support" there.

      I wish digg allowed me to edit things like this rather than having to do a follow-up post....
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Tat's what you get for buying hardware from a company that makes it impossible for anyone else to compete with them by constructing artificial barriers to competition. You're stuck with whatever they feel like selling you.
  • varmit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bring back the CUBE! Small, expandable in that the video card could be changed. It was just a head of its time when it was originally released and a little too expensive. Take the mac mini, give it a couple of slots for cards, put it in a Cube, sell for about 900 to 1,200 and they will sell like hotcakes.
  • crazylax42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2to me, it seems half the allure of Apple is the way it sets itself apart from others. Nothing it comes out with is anything like what it competes against (at first anyway) and coming out with a tower pc or simple mac would be like Jobs climbing down off his pedestal and joining the fray of other pc makers. I think that, atleast from a marketing standpoint, this would be a big no-no, atleast not in such a common form factor.
  • mrCdawg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0did Kevin Rose submit this one?
  • OmniMe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Dear Steve Jobs

    Where is this 15" iBook G3 that this guys speaks of?

    Yours Sincerely
    omnime
  • Xenu3000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I agree with this letter.
    The Mac Pro is too fancy (expensive) and the Mini is not expandable enough. I don't want the built in monitor of the iMac. Something basic that can fit 2 regular size Hard Drives and has a PCI Express x 16 would be perfect and should cost about half of what a Mac Pro goes for. Until then Its Ubuntu on a homebrew (Ubuntu is quickly becoming good enough that I may eventually forget about OS X).
    • blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just recently added a Mac Mini to my stable, replacing my Ubuntu machine. Both machines do most of the things I want to do, with a couple of odd exceptions. I use TrueCrypt to transport encrypted data on external hard drives, and there is no TrueCrypt Mac client.

      I use Open Office on my Windows and Ubuntu machines, and NeoOffice on my Mac. It's okay, but is not perfectly compatible, or as fast and up-to-date as the OpenOffice programs. Media works generally the same on the Mac and Ubuntu boxes, after I loaded the appropriate drivers. They were just about equally as easy to load on both systems, with the exception of H.264, which had to be compiled into the kernal on the Ubuntu box.

      In the end, I like the OS X environment for web surfing and such, but I find myself going to the Terminal
  • austinshea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'd love a core cube
  • sdlvx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Mac doesn't have to worry about "expandability", because most of the mac users (at least he ones I know), hardly even know what a video card is.

    Apple isn't about making good computers anymore, it's about being "hip and trendy". They just want to seem "kewl" with all the "tweens"
  • soliari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0A mid-range mac is a great idea and there's been a clamoring in the community for a while now. The biggest reason for a mid-range mac is a performance increase from the mini and iMac. Both are designed with laptop CPU's and HDD's. Going to a real desktop CPU,SATA HDD, and FSB would be huge. And, the wallet would be spared on purchase.

    I don't necessarily believe that Apple must compete with Dell and HP in price range ... just give the community a mid-range Macintosh for those of us that want a step up from the glorified laptop line.
    • raisputin3, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Apple already kicks Dell/HP's ass on price when you configure the systems similarly.
    • celerate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@raisputin3

      How many people need bluetooth or integrated 802.11 on a desktop system? And how hard is it to cheaply add to a PC afterwards because of the unrestricted ability to add, remove and reconfigure hardware. Besides if you take those two optional components out I've found other brands to be cheaper, and if you take into account your freedom to upgrade those other computers that makes them even more valuable from a hardware perspective. I might get buried for this, but I'll dare to compare Apple's current hardware design to DRM, Apple designs their computer hardware so you can't use their products to their full potential.
    • Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How many people have wired networks in their homes? Not many, lots of people need a wireless card built in. Bluetooth doesn't cost much either, and having it built in prevents me from having to waste space.
    • Ndric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Apple already kicks Dell/HP's ass on price when you configure the systems similarly."

      There's more than two PC companies if your dumb ass didn't know that.

      Oh, and did you know? Outside the OS X world, people can build their own computers? Hey, maybe in the next millenia, Jobs may be able to allow that once he's had enough with the profit you're giving him.
  • aston127, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27you know what i miss?

    The Handle.

    Its so you can attach a rope and use it as a BOAT ANCHOR!
  • davetoast14, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The iMac can do multiple monitors. It has a mini-DVI port on the back.
    • capecodcarl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The trouble is that people are including the iMac in this discussion when it has no place it in. The reason there is a gap is because in the *headless* Mac line you have: Mac Mini - [Missing Mac Tower] - Mac Pro. In the laptop line you've got: MacBook - 15" MacBook Pro - 17" MacBook Pro. In the bundled desktop line you have: 17" iMac - 20" iMac - 24" iMac. All of these options range from relatively affordable on the low end to expensive as hell on the high end, yet the headless Mac line is missing its mid-range affordable item. I do NOT want a Mac bundled with a display.

      The iMac line shouldn't even exist IMHO, just lower the prices on your overpriced Apple LCD displays or offer a huge discount to bundle them with a headless Mac, but quit screwing consumers by forcing them to buy an integrated system that you know they'll just end up having to throw away entirely when they're obsolete.
  • Meheren, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3AMEN!!!! I have wondered what happened to the "Macintosh" It simply doesn't exist anymore... they have Mac books, Mac pros, Mac minis, but no Macs!
    • celerate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The original Macintosh had the monitor integrated, so some might consider the iMac its modern day successor.
  • crazylax42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0missed the edit..
    It'd be like Ferrari coming out with a $20k sporty sedan--bad for image in the long run, but it'd make good money at first and make people happy. They should definitely come out with an expandable Mac, but it'd be a big undertaking to make a unique form factor for it (and therefore worthy of the Apple name), and they've got plenty on their plate right now. Hopefully in the future, but I think it's gonna take a good bit of effort on Apple's part
  • videolab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I have wished for this ever since I switched a few years ago. And by the way ALL the mac users I know are much more computer savy than the windows counterparts in my circle of friends. I think that this is probably the case with most. I may be wrong but I don't think I am.
  • rness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Mr. Jobs, you listening?
  • merripen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Remember though that Apple has been actively moving away from the once-perceived confusion of multiple models. The consolidation down to "home" and "pro" models was really the start of their modern success, and I doubt they want to take any steps back towards their 1980s-style lineup.
    • soliari, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I was under the delusion that the move from OS 9 to the completely redesigned OS X saved Apple's Mac line.
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@soliari:
      No, no. Back in the 90s Apple had Quadra, Performa, Centris, and PowerMac lines with LC and Classic appearing from time to time. It was chaos. The worst thing was that some machines were intentionally gimped to run slower than they ought to so a Performa didn't keep pace with a architecturally similar (and far more expensive) Centris.
    • soliari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Psyael

      Sure, there were quite a few lines to choose from ... but there are *other* brands with just as many and more options per model. I still contend the major success for Apple was the new paradigm for their OS namely make it UNIX based and all the goodness that come with it while keeping it elegant and easy to understand/use.
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It had nothing to do with the number of options per model, and more to do with the sheer number of models VS the number of customers.

      You didn't need five product lines (especially ones that would compete against each other like Centris and Quadra) when you have as tiny a market share as beige-era Apple did.
  • fLUx1337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have a feeling they will do this...

    MacBook Pro = MacBook
    Mac Pro = ?? (Mac?)

    If they do, I'll proberly buy one!! If its nice and powerful, but not "quad-core" [over]-powerful, I can use it both for Windows work, and OSX play!! :D

    Because all the Macs (except the Mac Pro) cant have upgraded graphics cards, for Windows gaming.....and who would spend £1000s on a MacPro, just because they like windows gaming? Would sure make ALOT of my friends switch... ;)


    • short_man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Correction - Oct-Core?
    • EXIDY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK ... how about Mac SemiPro ??!!!

      Whatever, I would even vote for bring back the Mac Cube ... or a half height Mac Pro. Actually the current Dell Optiplex desktop form factor would do.

      For a large segment of the population the MacPro is "overkill"!!!
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I have urged apple to do this as well several months ago, either this or create an external video card box that can attach to the mini, so maybe a $150 box that I can plug into the mini and i can install any videocard i want into the external box..
  • pruckelshaus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Attitudes like scott983's are really a mystery to me. He appears to be a Mac user, yet doesn't want the one thing that would increase Apple's market share, thereby bringing more software development and support to the platform. For me, I'm a Windows user, but I see the PC as a tool and the OS really doesn't matter so long as I can do what needs to be done. I'm also a hardware freak, and Apple hardware, especially the new desktops, are AMAZING. However, I can't justify spending twice what I would spend on a similarly specced PC...so if Apple did come out with a minitower that followed the Mac Pro's design lead, perhaps based upon an Intel 965 chipset and a regular Core2 Duo with a single CPU socket with a x16, x4, and a couple of PCI slots, at $1,000 to $1,200, that would be enough to get me to switch. So, yeah, Apple, I dare you...I double dog dare you.
  • RidgeWalker76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is a good idea, for Apple and consumers at large. As much as I like Apple, Steve Jobs could do better by being a tad less idealistic, and slightly more consumer friendly.
  • TDR25, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I strangely see this thing costing $5,000. That's what Apple does, they overprice products that can be found at a cheaper price and are actually better products in general. Now I'm not comparing OSX to Windows, because that needs no comparison, but when you compare an Ipod, ITV, Macs, and their other things that Apple makes, you could find better products at a much better price.
  • J0hnGalt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Jobs will never do it because he wants Macs to remain an elitist, luxury brand. Same reason Starbucks will never introduce cheap coffee...
    PS: I would love to use a Mac, but I am too much of a Windows power user to learn a new OS.
    Alt + Tab and Ctrl + Z are hardwired to my brain.
    PPS: If he had a brain he would realize lower margins + higher volume still equal mucho dinero!
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well, on a Mac you'd just use the Windows key instead of Ctrl or Z. But both keyboard shortcuts still exist and do the same thing.
    • jamesong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@j0hngalt

      I was the same way. Now I own a G4, and use Command-Tab and Command-Z
      They are the same commands as windows, just different emblems on the keys
    • regeya, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Fortunately, thanks to the miracle of backdating and the SEC, he won't be CEO forever, or even much longer.

      But seriously, I agree that this is an untapped market. While I understand that Jobs & Co. feel that they're primarily a hardware company and therefore need to constantly reinvent the wheel, it'd be nice if there were a standard-model desktop Macintosh in a tower form, with largely commodity parts, so that those of us who want Mac style and simplicity but live on a boxed-wine budget can experience the joys of Mac. It wouldn't even have to look bad; it could be in, say, a white G5-style (or rather Mac Pro-style) case. Or maybe more like the G3/G4 Sawtooth tower cases. Those were sweet, even if they were a bit lacking in case real estate (excepting of course space for many, many drives.)

      Steve, before you get removed from Apple, please make this happen. The college and newspaper markets will richly repay you. Signed, your friends in the real world, just outside the reality distortion field.

    • adc86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not to mention, if you drag something, and mid drag Command-Tab, you're still dragging the file, only you've pulled up whatever relevant application. Not to mention, you can Command-Tab and then use your mouse. Really beats the XP way of doing it (I don't recall how Vista handles it)

    • catxtwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Too much of a hardcore Windows user? Um, I used to be a software developer at Microsoft. Now I only have Macs in my home and use Parallels to do my Windows dev stuff (still have to pay the bills).

      Learning OS X will take you a week... longer if you are slow to unlearn bad habits...
    • timster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"PPS: If he had a brain he would realize lower margins + higher volume still equal mucho dinero! "

      This is only true in markets where price is elastic.

      I'm not sure about the elasticity of Macs. If the price of a Power Mac dropped 50%, would twice as many people buy Macs? I don't know...
  • raisputin3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The author here IMHO is completely off base. Once you spec out a DELL or HP or a BillyBob's PC Shop to be SIMILAR to a Mac, the cost will be the same or even MORE. I just configured a DELL to the same specs* as a Mac Pro and the DELL was $800 MORE than the Mac.... $2200 for a Mac of that Calibur is a MINIMAL expense for business.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're a bad shopper. I needed a desktop replacement laptop for work with a large display, decent graphics capability, and Windows (OS X would be nice, but I've got to have Windows for work). I purchased a laptop with a 17" display, dual core, 2GB of RAM, 200 GB (100x2) RAID 0 HD, GeForce 7600 w/ 256MB, ExpressCard slot, DVD/RW, 3 year warranty with accident protection, and Vista Premium for $1,013.

      What would I have to pay for a 17" MacBook, a Windows license, and a 3 yr. warranty?
    • bmobile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ethergnat: I'm pretty sure he said Mac Pro, not Macbook Pro. Price that versus one of those Dell lappys and you will see the Mac comes out cheaper. I don't know how they did it, but I'm happy.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 by ethergnat 10 hours ago
      "You're a bad shopper. I needed a desktop replacement laptop for work with a large display, decent graphics capability, and Windows (OS X would be nice, but I've got to have Windows for work). I purchased a laptop with a 17" display, dual core, 2GB of RAM, 200 GB (100x2) RAID 0 HD, GeForce 7600 w/ 256MB, ExpressCard slot, DVD/RW, 3 year warranty with accident protection, and Vista Premium for $1,013.

      What would I have to pay for a 17" MacBook, a Windows license, and a 3 yr. warranty?"

      -----------------------------------
      You're a bad reader. he said similarly equipped.

      Did yours come with 2+GHz C2Duo, FW800, backlit keyboard, 1 inch form factor, and a built in web cam? 802.11n, bluetooth, At under 7 pounds?

      I think not. You may not have needed or wanted those features, but was not the point.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1bmobile: "I'm pretty sure he said Mac Pro, not Macbook Pro."

      Actually he claimed any Mac. As for the Mac Pro example he gave he's on drugs: I just configured a Dell Precision workstation with the same processors, hard drive, RAM, optical drive, and a video card that retails for twice as much as the Mac's for $2,118. Please note that is without the benefit of one of Dell's 25% off or so coupons that the run regularly. Yes, Mac's are somewhat more competitive at the high end, but that's not what this article is about.


      boondoggle: "You're a bad reader. he said similarly equipped. Did yours come with 2+GHz C2Duo, FW800, backlit keyboard, 1 inch form factor, and a built in web cam? 802.11n, bluetooth, At under 7 pounds? I think not. You may not have needed or wanted those features, but was not the point."

      That wasn't the point? That was exactly the point of my post and the open letter. Due to lack of selection when you want a Mac you're often forced to buy more computer than what you needed just to meet your requirements. People needs frequently don't coincide with models that Apple happens to offer. Why are price comparisons only supposed to work one way (Mac -> PC). Why is asking me to exactly meet the configuration of a Mac any more appropriate than me asking you to exactly meet the configuration that I purchased?

      As for price comparisons of equally equipped machines search through my posts in the Apple section--you'll find several places I've met or beat Apple configurations at a 20-40% discount. Do I dislike Apple? Nope, I've got a Mac sitting right next to my PC both at home and at the office. Claiming they're not more expensive (barring the occasional limited circumstance) is just delusional though.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 by ethergnat on 5/04/07
      + 0 diggs

      "boondoggle: "You're a bad reader. he said similarly equipped. Did yours come with 2+GHz C2Duo, FW800, backlit keyboard, 1 inch form factor, and a built in web cam? 802.11n, bluetooth, At under 7 pounds? I think not. You may not have needed or wanted those features, but was not the point."

      That wasn't the point? That was exactly the point of my post and the open letter. Due to lack of selection when you want a Mac you're often forced to buy more computer than what you needed just to meet your requirements. People needs frequently don't coincide with models that Apple happens to offer. Why are price comparisons only supposed to work one way (Mac -> PC). Why is asking me to exactly meet the configuration of a Mac any more appropriate than me asking you to exactly meet the configuration that I purchased? "

      "As for price comparisons of equally equipped machines search through my posts in the Apple section--you'll find several places I've met or beat Apple configurations at a 20-40% discount. Do I dislike Apple? Nope, I've got a Mac sitting right next to my PC both at home and at the office. Claiming they're not more expensive (barring the occasional limited circumstance) is just delusional though."
      -------------------------------------------------------------

      If you had said "I can buy a Dell (or whatever) that meets my requirements for less than an Apple" or "I don't need all of the features of the Apple and therefore found a less expensive PC that met my needs" you would not be hearing from me.

      Do you really not see the difference? You were implying STRONGLY, that you can buy a similarly equipped PC for a lot less than an Apple. This is simply not the case. the only thing similar in both cases, was YOUR REQUIREMENT.

      If you're got previous posts indicating otherwise, you can post the links yourself. I'm not doing your legwork.

      Just make sure they truly are similar. In ALL FEATURES and ABILITIES, OUT OF THE BOX.

      And as far as I'm concerned this intermediate Mac is a good idea, I'd buy one.



  • mdavis, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6"Open Letters" are an epidemic on the web. A desperate cry for attention.
    • RidgeWalker76, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Don't be a dick.
    • RidgeWalker76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Dig me down all you like. What he is saying is that voicing an opinion is attention whoring, and shouldn't be done. That runs contrary to everyone being able to voice an opinion, without prejudice. It's not right to condemn this blogger without even discussing the validity of what was said. I happen to think that this guy makes a valid point, and that he does not deserve to be called an attention whore because of it.
    • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2he could have said it in a well articulated essay or argument, rather than a poorly executed letter... just my opinion.
    • RidgeWalker76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4 Raian

      "he could have said it in a well articulated essay or argument, rather than a poorly executed letter... just my opinion."

      Constructive criticism is better than nothing.
  • BlueFiberOp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This is exactly my complaint. I have a custom PC and a 24 inch LCD. The Mac Mini is too underpowered and the Mac Pro is overkill. I want a decent Mac to replace my PC desktop.
  • kerplunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I completely agree. This could also be used for gamers.
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8*cough* hacked up osx86 running on *insert hardware here* should be just what he is looking for.
    • short_man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maybe he wants leopard when it's out...
  • sebasporto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Spot on. Exactly what I would buy. A mac mini with a decent video card. Or a iMac without the monitor.
  • jefferson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Ya and that site looks like it was made on a mac

    get it cause it sucks and mac sucks

    if this comment gets buried all mac owners are Bush supporters!
  • usbcd36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem with filling in a gap like this is that it would severely cut into Mac Pro sales. The advantage of the gap is that people who need more power than an iMac or Mac Mini MUST go with a Mac Pro if they require a desktop.

    I also wish that Apple would release a minitower with limited expandability (say…in edition to video card, possibly a single slot and an easily-replaceable hard drive).

    Of course, that would require them to create drivers for more video cards (because Mac video cards are nearly impossible to find), which would cost a bunch to produce, and they probably wouldn't make it all back selling them…
    • Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is that Apple is trying to make people switch from Windows. Customers will just stick with Dell if Apple doesn't offer a regular computer.

      Apple doesn't have to do anything with video cards. It's up to companies like nVidia and ATI to release video cards. They have offered video cards for Powermacs for years, this would just be a continuation of this. Any video card for Mac Pros would also work in this regular Mac.
  • jgbiggs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3You are all missing one key element to the success of Apple. If they become "too" successful and everybody has one, then they cannot be "cool." Part of the allure of a Mac is that its users are not the usual best buy/circuit city consumers but are people who relish the fact that they are special and above all the riff raff that use PCs.

    If they release a Mac that is a direct competitor to a $1,000 dell / hp / gateway then they will fall victim to their own success.

    Once they loose that marketing angle, they will be doomed and all that zeal that mac users have will blow away like a fart in the wind.
    • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So you're telling me that Apple's marketing spin is that they're a barely profitable niche product? How does that make sense at all?

      Apple's fans may be snobs, but that's not how they try and sell themselves. They spent 20 years promoting themselves as the it-just-works computer for "riff raff" who didn't want to have to go learn what an IRQ and a dip switch was just to write a letter to grandma.
  • cakeeating, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Don't you worry, everybody. Steve Jobs reads Digg.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.