Priced out of an Apple desktop

In spite of having worked at Apple for many years, I actually ended up buying a lot of Apple hardware while I was there and even after I left.  I always considered myself an Apple desktop user.  It was a reasonable proposition most of the time.  It certainly was not because Apple gave employees terrific discounts. 

Apple pricing was aimed at creative professionals.  In August 1999 when Apple introduced the first G4 "Supercomputers," you could buy a low end desktop for $1599.

In August of 2003 when the first G5s shipped, you could buy one for $1,999.  When Apple shipped its first Intel desktop, the pricing for the low end system had moved up to $2,499.  With the latest announcements, they have actually held the line on pricing.

I fully realize that Apple is shipping dual processor machines with multiple cores and tremendous capabilities.  I will even grant that these systems are probably reasonable buys compared to similarly configured systems from other manufacturers.

What I am curious about is there anything left for me but an iMac?  My last dual G5 cost $1,795 in December 2004.  I don't particularly want an iMac, and I certainly do not want a Mac Mini.

I don't mind paying a decent price for a great machine, I am just not sure Apple has a machine at my price point.   I guess I want more performance and flexibility than an iMac, but I do not think that I can justify the price of the new Mac Pro systems.

There seems to be a pretty big gap between the 2.16GHz or 2.33GHz  Intel Core 2 Duo iMacs and the new Mac Pros. 

Comments

[Richard Neal]

The 2.0 GHz Mac Pro goes down to around $2100, if I recall. That doesn't seem too bad, at least compared to the 2.6, and not too much more than an iMac.

[John Smith]

The "base" price for the Mac Pro is arguably $2200. The $2499 price is for a unit with 2.66 GHz processors... if you want to save $299 you can go with the 2.0 GHz processors (4 of them!). Of course you'll need to add RAM, but other than that it would be a pretty good machine.

Myself, I'm ordering an 8 core. But then again, I've always purchased computers like Tim "the toolman" Taylor purchased power tools.

[Tate Roam]

I feel the same way about Jaguar's cars. They're just too damn expensive.

I don't particulary want a Lexus, and I certainly don't want a Honda.

OH wait. I think I'm being ridiculous.

[Gerry Kent]

Actually you can configure the MacPro with two 2.0 Xeon processors for $2200. Not too shabby.

[John Labovitz]

Why do you think you need a desktop? You mention "performance and flexibility."

As a former owner of G3/G4/G5 desktop machines, I had difficulty breaking out of that pattern. But I've really found the iMac form factor to be quite wonderful. (For the record, I use my iMac for professional software development, typographic design, media viewing, and the usual web/email/etc.) The iMac dissolves the object-as-computer paradigm, and leaves you with only the essentials: screen, keyboard, mouse. What more do you need, really?

Actually, the above is a bit of a lie: I actually use my MacBook Pro (15") most of the time. I step upstairs to use the iMac when I feel I need to "work." However, that's more about ergonomics than performance.

[jerryjones]

I am confused by your article. You can go to the Apple Store and buy the machine below right now for $2200.00. Yet you claim that the cheapest mac desktop, i assume you mean a Macpro it is $2499.

Can you explain the discrepancy of your pricing structure?

Specifications

Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
1GB (2 x 512MB)
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English

[cfd]

I wish they would offer a desktop priced between 999$ and 1999$, half the size of the Mac Pro (which is too big for my desktop anyway!), with full choice of video cards and one PCI slot.

[ocracokewaves]

Bingo-

That would be exactly what I need also. Though it does look like I could wait and probably get a deal on one of these 2ghz machines.

My confusion on the price is that I didn't notice you could downgrade the processor.

Actually I do have trouble finding exactly what I want in a car.

I looked at a Lexus LS330 or something like that the last time we car shopped for my wife but we ended up buying a Toyota Avalon which had some other features we liked more and was considerably less expensive even though almost all the mechanical parts are the same.

The Lexus warranty is better I believe. Perhaps Apple could lower their warranty terms and reduce prices. Oh that won't work, because Apple's warranty is already pretty basic.

My wife has an iMac and I have a MacBook also to go along with my Acura MDX and Nisan Titan truck.

[John Muir]

Ah, the tale of the small tower Mac … along with the Mac Tablet (a personal favourite of mine though it'd need to be bigger than an iPhone) it's one of the most ancient Apple longings.

Don't count on it!

It's interesting that Apple don't have a single Conroe system in their lineup. It's all laptop Meroms (even in the iMac) and then straight off up to the awesome Woodcrest / Clovertown Xeon Mac Pros. I can understand why the Merom really appeals to Apple's industrial design team: it's fast and cool and cost efficient, but then again the Conroe is Intel's general purpose flagship and fits the needs you and others have outlined.

The midrange Mac right now would be a single Conroe based small tower, with a handful of good speed PCI express slots with Power Mac G4 style ease of access via a well designed case. Priced and performing between the top iMac and bottom Mac Pro, it would have a clear market of its own and be widely welcomed by many of us.

But I just don't see it right now. At least, until we get a load of the new iMacs which with luck will be a whole new design as well as Santa Rosa platform. After that a whole new model — like the Mini before it — is a possibility if not a probability. It all depends on the sages at the top!

[Janet Tokerud]

I think a mini-tower would be great. Lots of us can't justify a MacPro. I have a 2ghz G5 tower now. I have owned it for over 2 years. It works fine. Has 2.5 gigs of RAM. But I would probably throw it over to get an Intel based desktop Mac mini-tower. The problem is that I have extra flat screen cinema displays around and do not want one built-in. I like having a second hard drive in the box which the iMac does not allow. Sizewise, there is an awfully large gap between a Mac mini and a MacPro. I got my G5 tower for about $2k. I can't justify buying a MacPro for $2200 that has the same processor speed, 2ghz, as I already have. There is a gap for a person who likes the traditional computer form factor and isn't crazy about the iMac.

[Viswakarma]

Read up on Total Cost of Ownership! You will then change you mind! I have 450 MHz Power Mac G4 Cube circa 2000 that still works great. All I did was to boost the memory to 1.25 GB and update the hard drive to 120 GB.

[William Lescallette]

Watch the refurbs for the Dual core 2 GHz Xeons - I think they show up for about $1900.

[ocracokewaves]

When I worked at Apple, the company used to specify refurbished equipment as first choice for employee systems.

Our experience with them was that they were possessed and usually machines that no one could adequately fix. We had one Wind Tunnel machine where I believe we replaced everything but the case and still it challenged us.

This could be no longer the case since I haven't worked with one since July 2004.

[william]

Seems to me some of you guys are not quite getting the point. Not everybody wants to pay >$2k for a 4 or 8-core Xeon machine. I'd be really happy with a Core 2 Duo that was substantially like a Mini but at least took a couple of standard 3.5" hard drives, and ideally had a PCIE slot or two. I would love a desktop to work with home video, my home movies and converting videotape to DVD, etc. Laptop hard drives won't cut it. An iMac with its one hard drive, not so good either. I'm not asking for much.

[Neurotic Nomad]

Will it be The Cube?

http://neuroticnomad.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/wwdc07-early-prediction-the-return-of-the-cube/

[Tom]

You are 100% correct.

For those of you touting the 2.0 GHz Quad-Core, stop. In a test against the 2.33 24" iMac it lost all but two tests. Bottom line is that for most software clock speed is the driver, not how many cores.

I do not understand why Apple can't put a 2.33 (or higher) GHz Core 2 Duo in the Pro case and sell it for $1,599. Heck, they can even "cripple" the case so it could not use two chips for all I care.

It is sad that when Jobs rightly decided to expand the familiar product quadrant by adding the Cube, that it's failure in the market place scared him away from offering anything else in its place. The machine had a bad reputation (cracked cases) and a price that could not be reasonably reduced due to the Cube's specialized components. THAT is why it "failed", not because Apple doesn't need a machine in that category.

[Ken]

I think Apple will use one of those quad-core processors to create a four-core "middle" desktop Mac. I think it will be a cube. Steve Jobs loves the cube shape too much to give up on it.

[John Muir]

Tom: you're mostly right. The low end Mac Pro is not an ideal solution (plus its % price discount is much lower than its % performance drop compared to the excellent 2.6GHz Pro) and to pretend it is rings of apologism. You're also spot on with the downfall of the G4 Cube seeming to have something to do with this absence. The only point we differ on is the clockspeed shootout, which misses a lot of the Woodcrest over Merom advantage, not to mention RAM speed and easy to RAID hard drives.

As for refurbs, I can't recommend them enough for the price conscious. My Intel Mac is a little Mini which I snagged with upped RAM and hard drive for less than the price of the base model. (UK pricing as that's where I am.) No problems so far after several months as my hard working digital hub. Great little quiet machine, when it fits your needs.

I think this is the way Apple forces people to buy iMacs (some of whom should be buying iMacs, but not all).

I definitely think we need a mid-sized tower, only room enough for one processor (but multi-core), two drives (not four), etc.

I think Apple determines what products they are going to sell by slots in the price ranges, not the other way aound ;-)

Cheers,
Ashley.