“For years, geeks have wanted Apple to make an ‘xMac’: an expandable desktop tower like the Mac Pro, but much cheaper, generally achieved in theory by using consumer-class CPUs and motherboards instead of Intel’s expensive, server-grade Xeon line,” Marco Arment blogs for Marco.org. “Apple’s refusal to release such a product is almost single-handedly responsible for the Hackintosh community.”
“Apple has shown that they don’t want to address this market, presumably because the margins are thin. And the demand probably isn’t as strong as geeks like to think: most businesses buy Windows PCs for their employees, and most consumers buy laptops for themselves,” Arment writes. “The relatively small group of people who still want desktop Macs seems to be served adequately by the iMac and Mac Mini.”
Arment writes, “The Mac Pro is all but forgotten now, but Dan Frakes restarted the discussion of the xMac this week, arguing for the next Mac Pro to be a consumer minitower: ‘Put all this together—Apple’s relentless efforts over the past few years to make everything smaller, cooler, and less power-hungry; the fact that you don’t need massive components to get good performance; and an apparent trend towards conceding the highest-end market—and it seems like a Mac minitower is a logical next step for the Mac Pro line.’ I don’t think it’ll happen like this.”
Much more in the full article here.
Related articles:
A new Mac Pro or just a bunch of peripherals? – February 11, 2013
Apple confirms launch of new Mac Pro in spring 2013 – February 6, 2013
Apple to discontinue Mac Pro in Europe March 1st, sources say – January 31, 2013
Rush Limbaugh: Okay, Apple, where’s my Mac Pro with Thunderbolt? – June 12, 2012
Apple reportedly confirms NYT report: New designs for iMac, Mac Pro in the works, due in 2013 – June 12, 2012
Simply YES.
too little too late – i built my own – for half the price
http://www.tonymacx86.com/home.php
So far the arguments against Apple building a mid-size tower are entirely based on assumptions that Apple wouldn’t make enough money.
Is that the Apple we used to know and love? I thought the company was devoted to giving users the best computing experience? Other companies can do it profitably, there is no reason Apple couldn’t make money with one more desktop line priced (without monitor) about the same as the current iMac but with specs that compete favorably against the Dell XPS 8500.
… and it’s about time the Mac Pro got Thunderbolt and broke the 4GHz ceiling.
The sooner Apple rolls out new products – and advertises & prices those products with a much more aggressive market-share stance, then the sooner the company will get past it’s current malaise.
It has been too long that Apple hasn’t designed and built a mid-range semi-pro tower for design processionals need a powerful and expandable tower, but do not need a tower style Mac Pro with every high end component.
I do not think the iMac is the best or reliable Mac for professionals on a budget. And with very little expandablity, the iMac has a shorter, useful working life cycle for professional use. I was able to use my older PowerPC Mac for a much longer period because it offered expandablity and upgrades to prolong its useful, working life and operation.
If a had the choice of a more affordable, expandable Mac desktop tower over an iMac, I would’ve bought that Mac desktop tower instead. Instead, I couldn’t afford the costs of what I needed in a MacPro and was basically relegated to purchasing an iMac with specs that were a close to what I needed to get my design work done and done as quick as possible. The iMac does do job, but is not a substitute for an expandable, but affordable Mac Tower.
One thing an Xmac would offer that the Mac Mini and the iMac don’t is serviceability. I’ve got an iMac from 2008, and I dread the day I might have to replace the hard drive or experience a display failure. During my time doing desktop support it was easy to swap out a disk or optical drive or a display. Most Mac offerings have to go back to Apple, and out of warranty work isn’t cheap.
Would someone please explain how something that is more or less the height of a human baby can be considered a “tower?” Oh, sure, it’s because it stands upright in a vertical position rather than flat, huh. But it’s truly a stretch to refer to something that hardly towers over my wastebasket as a “tower.” Calling an upright computer a tower or mini-tower diminishes the grace, beauty, and total awesomeness of such edifices as the Eiffel Tower, the Tower of Pisa, the CN Tower in Toronto, and even Coit Tower in San Francisco. Sheesh. Geeks and their language. 🙂