Apple’s new Mac Pro offers “an incredible level of power in the default configuration. What was considered the ultimate high end only a generation ago is now standard across the line. Apple’s decision to offer 8 core as standard on its pro machines was certainly an interesting move,” Thomas Fitzgerald blogs.
Fitzgerald writes, “The decision to go all 8 core across the line (apart from a build to order option to ”downgrade’ to a quad core”) leaves a significant gap between Apple’s consumer and semipro iMacs. Previously there was a pretty consistent ramp up in terms of power across Apple’s product line, starting with the mac mini all the way up to the top end mac pro, but now there is a huge performance jump from the top end iMac to the entry level Mac Pro. The reason I think this is significant, is because it now leaves room in Apple’s line up for the much sought after mythical mid range tower.”
“A smaller, Mac Pro like enclosure with a core 2 duo chip, or even a dual core xeon, would slot in nicely between the high end iMac and the entry level Mac Pro, and I think this may well just happen, perhaps not at next weeks Expo, but maybe at some stage this year,” Fitzgerald writes.
Full article here.
Apple will never sell a cheap box for the desktop.
If Apple came out with a mid range desktop box it would be more expensive than the low end iMac. It’s market would be very limited.
You want a cheap, upgradable box, put up with Windows or learn Linux.
Except that the price of this tower needs to be LESS than an iMac, so that when you buy the additional monitor you end up priced between the iMac and Mac Pro..
A small, expandable tower that had the same chips as an iMac but without the screen should be less expensive. Then, offer a dual chip, core duo that is slightly more expensive than an iMac.. So you can have up to four cores, which is still only half of a regular Mac Pro.
Steve: ‘Today we introduce a new member to our Mac family. We will just call it “Mac”. ‘
Would be nice….
> The obvoius name for such a mac would be ” Mac “, wouldn´t it ?
@ Dev Singh
Not really. “Mac” is the obvious name for the iMac, except that iMac was an established name from the PowerPC days. The original “Macintosh” was also an all-in-one design. Besides, having two models called “Mac” and “iMac” would be confusing (too similar).
… also, Apple (and everyone else) uses “Mac” is as the generic term for a computer that runs Mac OS X, as in “Hello, I’m a Mac and I’m a PC.” Therefore, Apple will not use “Mac” as the name for a single model.
Here’s what I would like to see. The four quadrant breakdown has worked well in the past (consumer/pro; portable/desktop). However, with Apple’s resurgence, I think they need to add one more grouping. Apple can slot a new prosumer column in between consumer and professional. Here are how the products would breakout…
Consumer/Portable – a new ultra-portable touch screen called the iBook
Prosumer/Portable – the current MacBook (with a power bump)
Professional/Portable – the MacBook Pro
Consumer/Desktop – the iMac and Mac mini
Prosumer/Desktop – a new mid-size tower simply called Mac
Professional/Desktop – the Mac Pro
With these designations the “i” products would be targeted towards consumers and the higher end products would be regular and Pro versions. Also Apple would standardize on two sets of Human Interface Guidelines (HIG). The underlying OS would be the same, but the user experience would be very different. Mac OS X Touch would merge with Front Row (information consumption) for a living room/touchscreen experience and regular Mac OS X would continue to be the computer interface (information creation). Most of the products would be able to show both interfaces, but consumer electronic devices (like the iPhone or iPod Touch) would only be able to use the touch interface. The new iBook would be a regular form factor laptop with a touch screen that can turn around and lay flat. Once again, people shouldn’t expect to do video editing or very high-powered creation on the iBook. It would primarily be for consuming audio, video, web, etc… (when in the flat position showing the touch interface) but it could be used for email, word processing, and other low power activities also (when in standard laptop position showing the computer interface). Anyway, that’s what I would like to see.
A product of this kind is *essential* for Apple for more widespread adoption in business and elsewhere.
Some kind of serviceable mini-tower in between the (non-support-friendly) iMac or the (even-less-support-friendly) mini and the outlandish MacPro would be perfect.
Do you really think IT people want to deal with all-in-one computers or little baby computers you need a freaking putty knife to get into??
Think again.
I have imagined something like a bigger Apple aluminum cube.
The only Intel processor Apple is not using is the real desktop Core 2 line. The iMacs are using the Centrino (dual-core) Santa Rosa line that is intended for portable computers. This leaves room for speculation.
And I think It doesn’t hurt Apple sales in general to create the “middle Mac”. There is a lot of people asking for it so it makes sense to create a product line. But instead it could hurt a little the lower part of the Mac Pro line and the top of the iMac line.
In most cases there is people asking for a powerful enough processor and a powerful graphic card but at the same time they don’t need all the cost of a full expansion options. And indeed they will appreciate a great design from Apple.
I’m not sure I see this “hole.”
iMacs range from $1199 to $2299. Macintosh Pros range from $2299 to $20,000.
Where is this hole?
The reason this “rumor” keeps coming up is because there’s a real need for such a beast. I’ve been calling for it for at least two years now.
As it happens, I’m looking to replace my PowerMac dual-G4 867, currently feeding a 17″ wide format LCD/TV. The Mini II doesn’t meet my needs, the Pro is expensive overkill and even bigger than my PM, and I already have a perfectly fine monitor. So you’ll understand why I want such a box. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
The assumption with a mini-Mac Pro is that people want a machine which gives them more choices/flexibility at purchase time, and is more expandable down the track. At least that’s why I’d want one.
Well,… let’s see… the way things are right now with the current Mac Pro’s, while you’re able to select from a vast range of CPU and video card options (3-4 each, I was being sarcastic by saying vast) you’re unlikely to be able to upgrade anything besides memory and disk in the future.
<rant>
Existing Mac Pro owners are left out in the cold with the latest round of updates wrt video cards/cpu… while you can expand your memory, hard drive and optical drive, same as with most every other Mac model, you can’t as yet, (officially) upgrade the CPUs. And now it seems even the video card isn’t upgradable either! This is absurd. One spends $3-$4K on a computer which has it’s processing power level fixed in time???
This is the sort of tactic which has PC nuts firing back… Mac’s aren’t expandable. They’re right.
The story (which seems conveniently absent from MDNs links thus far) is the older models apparently can’t accept the newer video cards due to a firmware issue (it’s not b/c the newer machines use the PCI Express 2.0 technology – that’s backwards compatible.) So even if you wanted a newer model video card, you’re S.O.L. You can’t get one. If you wanted a 2nd card even, you’re forced to buy an older, out of date model such as the X1900XT and pay a whopping $400 for the privilege.
I love Apple but this is totally bogus. Expecting customers to simply buy a newer, faster machine in order to get faster video (and CPU). It’s not even acceptable at the iMac level, yet at the pro level, this is atrocious behavior.
</rant>
Seriously, I’m secretly hoping that the Mac Pro engineers are already working on said firmware updates (having been busy getting these newer models out the door), so that existing owners aren’t left with a sour taste and a largely non-upgradable lump because marketing says so, not engineering.
Um, guys, your iMacs are not the solution for most people.
The hole some of you are missing is that people have multiple monitors already from their old PC’s and old Macs, and they don’t want to get a box with yet another monitor to further junk up the planet.
So, the huge gap exists between the mini and the $3000 aluminum beast mac pro.
WTF is apple thinking?
MDN MW = “thinking” as in, WTF is apple thinking. Wow, that’s a coincidence.
MacPro mini? I don’t THINK so!
a) the MacPro IS the top-of-the-line in the big case
b) this wouldn’t share much (the OS!) with the MacPro
We have the Mac mini and the MacPro, why not a Mac midi? Isn’t that what we are talking about here? A Mac in a midi-tower configuration? I doubt a Core2Duo would suffice for this, and a quad-core Xeon might be a bit pricey … dual Core2Duos? A single optical slot, maybe an open HD bay, and four memory slots. Oh … and a Graphics Card!
Price? Starting under the top price for an iMac, going up to maybe $2,500 or so?
Dave
@DLmeyer
Sounds good except I don’t think it should start under the price of an iMac… something like $1800-2500 or $1500-2200 seems more reasonable, otherwise it would be covering an absolutely huge range, meaning it would be confusing and have to offer tons of BTO options… seems very un-Apple.
I think the market for the “missing Mac” is something like Hi-end consumer desktop.
The Top iMac is extremely consumer oriented and could not satisfy a real hi-end desktop consumer market, because it lacks the hi-end graphic card, and is not really upgradeable. And as pointed somewhere in this page the 24′ monitor is overkill for the processor life, even the 20′.
The entry (one quad-core) Mac Pro is a Xeon platform, with a cost to hi for consumers as you need also to add a more expensive memory, is to big and heavy and it offers expansion options not required by consumers
So, it makes sense for Apple to design a new great compact desktop mac. Not as compact and small as the Mini, not All-in-One and not a mini tower.
So I predict a new Mac near a cube shape. Not as limited and small as the original and it should be an aluminum design!.
Apple NEEDS a machine between the iMac and the Mac Pro. The price and capability gap between the two is a market that should not be ignored.
I wrote about what a great value the new 4-core Mac Pro is, and that even in its lowest configuration it now handily beats the highest iMac available.
This brought me to the following:
“Bridging the iMac and Pro gap. — Veering off topic, this is where I’d write about Apple bridging the iMac/Pro lines with some kind of mini-tower. Wouldn’t have to be a traditional “tower”, just a headless Mac with expandability. But I’ve been wanting them to do this since 1999 so I won’t hold my breath…”
The Updated Mac Pro: Great Value With Four Cores!
C’mon, Apple wouldn’t ever do that.
Big towers (or even small ones) are getting obsolete, the desktop computer must be something that adjusts to people’s wishes.
People want something compact.
People want something beautiful.
People want to get rid of the mess of cables.
People want something easy to get to the I/O
People want speed.
People want a huge screen built in to the computer
And:
People don’t need more than one optical drive
People don’t need more than 4gb of RAM.
People don’t need a processor faster than a Core 2 Duo at 2.4ghz.
People don’t need a videocard better than an ATI HD at 256mb.
Conclusion: Apple already offers the best computer for consumer buyers, the iMac.
The Mac Pro has the power the Pro buyers need to do intensive media editing and offers the upgradeability they need.
There’s no room missing. You kow what this machine would be like? It would be like those G4 Cubes, oh yeah, that was a brillant idea (Google if you will).
Intel Mac Cube. You heard it here first.
Hole or no hole people have been buying mini’s because the Mac Pro is more machine than they can justify and they don’t want an iMac or portable… I see it daily. (actually more often than that)
Won’t happen. If a Pro needs a great computer they will buy a full size Mac Pro and load it up however they like. If they don’t then the iMac is the right choice. There’s no benefit to trying to fill the space between. Conversely, it would simply undercut Mac Pro sales.
For a new mid-range Mac, I’d like to see either a new Mac cube or an xServe-like enclosure that can fit on top of audio/video components.
OH GOD PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!
vinicius,
“People don’t need more than one optical drive
People don’t need more than 4gb of RAM.
People don’t need a processor faster than a Core 2 Duo at 2.4ghz.
People don’t need a videocard better than an ATI HD at 256mb.”
Thanks for telling us what we don’t need. That sure simplifies things for us. Could you use your infinite wisdom to help us in other matters? How about religion and politics, oh wise one.
How about these? Not too out there….
MacBook Pro Hybrid – OSX & Apps residing in Flash, HDD handles all other storage
Airport Express N – Everyone seems to have forgotten this airport is still stuck in b/g