VAW: Another Macworld Expo and still no mini tower

Feeling a little less than thrilled about Apple's announcements at Macworld Expo 2008? You are in good company. A few enhancements to the iPhone's operating system, wow... A cheaper Apple TV, which is still just as useless as the more expensive original, yippie... An ultra-thin, ultra-crippled, ultra-expensive sub-notebook, doh! To tell you the truth, I am not surprised Apple's stock quickly took a nosedive shortly after Macworld Expo. Apple's showing at Macworld Expo 2008 was anemic and uninspiring. I guess they can't all be winners. Apple still has not addressed a fundamental and serious weakness in its Mac product line. They have the notebooks covered. The high end is very well covered. The low end is embarrassingly low, but nonetheless, well covered. Apple has a great solution for the consumer market. The glaring hole in their line up of home computers is the middle. Apple has steadfastly refused to address its lack of an affordable, upgradeable desktop tower ever since Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997.

This topic inevitably comes up every year. Many around the Mac community openly and longingly express the desire to see Apple surprise and awe everyone with a sensible solution to this middle market dilemma. I currently use an iMac. I like the iMac. It is a great consumer all-in-one. However, I would like the ability to easily upgrade my video card or perhaps even upgrade the CPU. I would also like the ability to store the computer under my desk and have nothing but a nice, large Apple monitor on my desktop. I can't accomplish this with the iMac. Furthermore, I can't afford the only real alternative to the iMac, the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro is big, shinny, powerful and very, very expensive. The Mac Pro starts out at $2,299 (1 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon) without a monitor. Apple's smallest monitor, the Apple Cinema Display 20-inch flat panel, will cost you an additional $599. Add the three-year AppleCare Protection Plan (APP) for $249, and your low end Mac Pro system will cost you a remarkable $3,147 before taxes. Compare that price with the $2,468 price of the most powerful iMac, the 24-inch, 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme with APP ($169). That is nearly a thousand dollars less and the 20-inch iMacs are even cheaper, ranging in price from $1,199 to $1,499 before APP.

It is obvious that Apple is not interested in selling the Mac Pro to most home users. It is a professional solution. As much as I would like to get a Mac Pro, I just can't resist the sensibility of the iMac package every two or three years when I catch new computer fever. The only other solution Apple offers for those not wanting a laptop or an all-in-one is the Mac mini.

The Mac mini is basically a previous generation headless iMac. You can't do much to upgrade it. Standard memory is a pathetic 1 GB on both currently available models. The price is $599 for a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo and $799 for a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo. The Mac mini is an interesting concept, but it is just too weak and a little too pricey for what amounts to an older, discontinued headless iMac. You don't even get a keyboard or mouse. Apple's nonsensical Mac mini slogan "BYODKM" (bring your own display, keyboard, and mouse) is cute, but in a device ranging in price from $599 to $799, I consider it a slap in the face. BYODKM is actually used by Apple as a selling point. Ridiculous. A Mac mini is suited for 13-year-old girl scouts or 60-year-old grandmothers. Computer users who use their computers for more than Internet chat rooms or checking email would rather have an iMac.

The Mac mini, Apple's most affordable Mac ever, is definitely not on my list of possible solutions for someone who wants a mid range Mac that is not an all-in-one. With student loans, mortgage payments, car payments, and girlfriends all tugging for my barely adequate paycheck, I just can't afford more than $2,500 for a Macintosh system. This is my conundrum. It is Apple's conundrum too. Apple wants consumers like me to gravitate towards the iMac. Steve Jobs is an "all-in-one, computer as appliance" sort of guy. If you want configurability and power, you'll have to take out a second mortgage and buy a Mac Pro. Otherwise, you are stuck with a previous generation refurbished Mac tower. I like the new computer smell, so I will always buy new over refurbished. The Mac mini is a joke and should be discontinued. Thus I am stuck with the iMac.

Performa 6400 (Apple, Inc.)

For much of the 1990s, Apple attempted to accommodate consumers like me with a dizzying array of form factors. They offered a myriad of packages that covered just about every desire one could have for a computer of the day. All this accommodation led to terrible inventory control and confusion among consumers. Which Mac should I buy? A Performa 6400 series, a PowerMac 7600 or 8500 series? Heck, maybe I need a Performa 5400 series. Any serious Mac users could tell you the difference in all these choices, but many consumers back then were left shaking their heads and muttering, "ah...what?"

When Mr. Jobs triumphantly returned to Apple in 1997, the first thing he did was trim out all this fat from all Apple's product lines. Soon, Apple's only real desktop consumer solution was the iMac. Product lines became simple and short. Inventory control and along with it, the ability to guard against stockpiling unsold obsolete computers improved dramatically. This tight inventory control allowed Apple to quickly transition to newer models. When Steve Jobs moved Apple to begin introducing his new line of next generation computers in the late 1990s, the iMacs, iBooks, and PowerMac G3s, Apple's newly acquired tight inventory control gave them the ability to respond quickly to changing market demands because they didn't have to worry about first selling off large quantities of last year's computers. That is the fundamental problem with longer product lines. They are much harder to manage. Apple was able to shake up the computer world back then and has continued to do so because its short product lines make it very limber.

Macintosh G4 Cube (Apple, Inc.)

Inventory control is one of Apple's primary concerns about introducing a new Macintosh form factor. They don't want to muddle the product lines. They want home users to buy the iMac and those on public assistance to buy the Mac mini. The last time they tried to introduce a model that set squarely between the iMac and their professional towers (no pun intended) it ended in disaster. The 2000 Macintosh G4 Cube turned out to be one of Steve Jobs' greatest albatrosses. The Cube was a "Job-so-fied" mini tower, if you can even call it a mini tower. It was barely upgradeable because of its diminutive size and way too expensive for its capabilities.

What I am proposing is not something radical like the G4 Cube. Apple could offer a mini tower with the same processor options as the iMacs. I have no problems with the iMac's capabilities. I am just tired of the all-in-one form factor. The mini tower would have at least one, maybe two, expansion slots and two drive bays, one for the hard drive and one for the optical drive. I don't need three open expansion slots and four drive bays like those found in the expansive Mac Pro. The mini tower would also have all the same ports as the iMac. With a little Jonathan Ive magic thrown in for good measure, the mini tower would be easy to open, intelligently designed, and probably made of some kind of brushed aluminum. Apple should price it between the iMac and Mac Pro starting at $1,299 and finishing off at around $2,000 for the highest trim level. Add to that a 20-inch Apple Cinema Display, and I now have that Mac system of my dreams for around $2,500.

Apple, Inc.
Jonathan Ive

Of course, this will probably never happen. Apple just isn't interested in cannibalizing iMac sales because this is in the end what we are talking about here. I can't afford a Mac Pro, thus I must buy an iMac. Apple has its short product lines and the world continues to spin on its axis. With so much disappointment recently over what Apple is doing these days and so little excitement left over from the release of the iPhone, it would have been nice to retire my iMac for a new Macintosh mini tower this year. Maybe next year...

Comments page 1 of 1:

Click here to add a comment

Dale :

Posted 235 days ago

Here, here. But I still think $1200 - $2000 is still too high to pay for a mini tower, when for $800 - $900 I can build a standard ATX PC mid-tower with AMD Phenom X4 (that's quad-core) processor, 4 GB RAM (upgradeable to 16GB), two hard drives, two optical drives (one being a Blu-Ray reader), and including a 1080p native HDMI 22" monitor, etc. And these aren't cheap parts - I'm talking major brand motherboard, like Gigabyte or Asus, Crucial memory, nVIDIA 512MB 128-bit video card, good Antec case with 430W power supply, Western Digital hard drives, Sony and Pioneer optical drives, you name it - quality stuff. I so want a Mac because it's the best operating system, but they really need to offer the kind of hardware I described above, at the price point I mentioned. THEN could you imagine? They could clean Microsoft's clock. They could have turned Microsoft to dust a looong time ago if they would have done this.
I would just go out and buy the components I mentioned, and build my own machine, except I'm stuck with either Windows or Linux. Windows is crap, as we all know (I'm on XP, I've heard the nightmares about Vista, and if Windows 7 is still the codebase of Vista, I don't have confidence in it) - and I've tried Ubuntu Linux, which took me some time to figure out but it has really helped Linux come a long way in simplicity. But there are still a lot of rough edges to be worked out and one is still expected to use code to do certain things. I downloaded a custom theme and it gave me an error I don't know how to fix. Thus, I want Mac OS X. But I want my less expensive, more powerful hardware, darnit! And I want my quad-core system around $800! See the dilemma? So between all 3 major platforms, Windows, Mac, and Linux, we're all still in relative computing hell.

cruiser :

Posted 715 days ago

John hits the nail on the head. I'd be standing in line to buy a mid-range Mac. As far as taking away from sales of the iMac - A SALE IS A SALE! It's money in the bank for Apple. Who in the Apple decision-making process doesn't understand this?

Kevin :

Posted 729 days ago

I agree with the article. Apple doesn't give us much of a choice in the mid-range. It's either an all-in-one or nothing. The Mac Pro is way to expensive for most people. I would almost recommend buying a PC if you are looking for something expandable and reasonably priced.

Kris Hookerman :

Posted 735 days ago

Applelinks, no need to get rude. All opinions are respected, but I just don�t think Jason really understood what the article is trying to say. I just read it again, and I cannot find anywhere where John Ward states that any of the older Mac models he mentioned were �best sellers�. I don�t know what gave Jason that incorrect impression. In fact, John states �longer product lines [are] much harder to manage.� In other words, John said that Apple�s wide range of products back in the 1990s �led to terrible inventory control and confusion among consumers.� He wants Apple to introduce a new mini tower even though �inventory control is one of Apple's primary concerns.� I think Jason is probably a Mac zealot that doesn�t like anyone talking badly about Apple. Apple�s recent horrible moves, the new Apple TV and the awful MacBook Air, are proof positive that even Apple can screw up.

Applelinksman :

Posted 735 days ago

Wow, Jason, you are a successful billion-dollar-plus CEO. Impressive. Wait a minute! Please don�t tell me that you require the author of this article to be a billion-dollar-plus successful CEO in order to write about a billion-dollar-plus company, yet you are not and you can. Impeccable logic there, sparkie. You must be the pride of your community college.

Jason :

Posted 736 days ago

Of course since you've been so successful running a billion dollar plus a year company.....
Other than the current dip in the the stock price you've provided no proof that they *need* another tower. A simple Google lookup shows the models you mentioned weren't the best sellers.
Please try again with some facts and not just the dribble that's on your mind.

<1>