So true.

The Mac is made to NOT be expandable. The fact is, that the average consumer doesn't want to upgrade their PC. In fact, I know very few "average consumer" types who get their PC upgraded to keep it up to date - most just buy a new one every 2-5 years.

↓↑report

Don't forget, one of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple, something that is generally considered to have saved the company, was to slash inventory and massively simplify the product lines.

We all know that the vast majority of computers, both home and corporate, are likely to see no post-purchase customisation in their lifetime beyond the possible addition of memory.

(I once did IT support for a penny-pinching non-profit. They decided it would be cheaper to upgrade their slower machines. In the end, with all the hassle of taking peoples computers (i.e. work) away for days at a time, supplier problems, trying to get dodgy old components to work with dodgy new components and the inevitable critical hard drive failure, they may as well have just bought new ones)

A consumer tower makes no sense for Apple because... who are they selling it to? The "home tinkerer" market exists, certainly, but I can't imagine it's significant enough to justify an entire product line just for its benefit.

↓↑report

"The Mac is not made to be expandable..."

Umm. But. The Mac Pro. Is.

↓↑report

"massively simplify the product lines."

Mac Mini (2 models, named the same)
iMac (4 models, all named the same)
Mac Pro (1 model)

MacBook (3 models, all named the same)
MacBook Pro (3 models, all named the same)

If that's simple then my name's Martha Stewart.

↓↑report

Nice to meet you, Martha!

You obviously weren't around during the Performa days. :) The current lineup breaks down simply into consumer/pro portable/desktop.

iMac (consumer desktop)
MacBook (consumer portable)
Mac Pro (professional desktop)
MacBook Pro (professional portable)

and then there's the Mini which is a consumer desktop without the screen. Instead of having to know specs first, a potential user only has to determine if they're pro or consumer and whether they want a laptop or desktop. After that, you can then pay what you want to get a "better" of whatever you choose!

↓↑report

"You obviously weren't around during the Performa days. :)"

Ah ha, ha, ha, oh, that's so funny. My sides are aching. I've never heard anyone make fun of the Performas before.

And questioning my Mac knowledge! How original! I've been using Macs since long before the Performa darkened Cupertino's doorstep.

Yes, I remember the Performa Quagmire. I'm not saying the current lineup is as bad. But it could be CLEARER. At least each one had a distinguishing number.

↓↑report

So you're saying you remember the Performa Quagmire and you'd like to see it return (with meaningless "distinguishing" numbering).

iMac 2000, iMac 2400, iMac 2400e (or 2401), and iMac 2800
Mini 183 and Mini 200
MacBook 2000, MacBook 2200, MacBook 2200b (or 2201)
MBP 2200, MBP 2400, MBP 2417
and why not give a different number to each speed that you can order of the MacPro?
MacPro 2000, 2660, 3000, and 3008x!

And, of course, each time there's a minor refresh/speedbump, just add a few more numbers to the pile, we've got an infinite number of 'em! I wasn't questioning your Mac knowledge, I was questioning your marketing knowledge.

↓↑report

No, what I'm saying it Apple could make it easier to distinguish between an iMac made in 1999 and an iMac made in 2006 and an iMac made in 2004.

You've obviously never worked tech support, otherwise this would make some sense to you.

↓↑report

The simplification is for the the consumer, the one with the money. If you don't get them to buy a computer in the first place, then having to support them is going to be the least of their worries.

If they doneed support, they're going to go back to either Apple or someone who's Apple trained. If those support people don't know the difference between an iMac (266 MHz) and an iMac G5 (iSight) then they shouldn't be in support.

↓↑report

Simon,
There IS an easy way to tell the models apart. It doesn't make sense to load consumers up with that unnecessary information, though, just like it doesn't make sense to give the stock numbers for every possible configuration to each model.

You have your PowerBook 5,3 or your MacBook Pro 3,1 or your iMac 4,2 and so on. That tells you all you need to know.

Having 5 simple product lines is a pretty clear and delineated approach. There is value in simplicity. There is no value in meaningless strings of numbers--customers don't need version strings or product revision information unless there's a problem, and even then all they need is an easy way to get that information and a clear way to report. Apple's versioning approach gets that done.

↓↑report

I believe she meant 3G. That doesn't mean we can't all laugh at her until she changes it though...

↓↑report

If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't make that public.

↓↑report

Gee, Billy. I'm sorry you woke up on the wrong side of your bed this morning. It's called a rhetorical question.

↓↑report