[Macworld]

Post your comments for Interest in Psystar shows market for gaming Mac here

[flybynight]

A cheap gaming box will do no good without Apple drivers for the high end video cards.

[DisabledTrucker]

Yeah, you and me both will fantasize over it... Until Steve finally fills the bill...

[Peter Cohen]

Exactly my point. That's one of the technical/cultural issues I alluded to at the end.

This would require a 180 degree turnaround in Apple's thinking, which I just don't see happening. It would require Apple to stop being the gatekeeper for graphics drivers and to turn that over to vendors, which is how it works in the Windows marketplace.

[montgomery_burns]

And Mac users are still waiting for SLI or Crossfire support.

[montgomery_burns]

Where are all the people who like to say "Who needs a minitower, just buy an iMac"?

[mdawson]

The iMac is definitely not the ideal platform for high-end gamers. But still, any time the discussion of the missing Mac comes up they do seem to come out of the woodwork.

[mdawson]

Peter Cohen said:

This would require a 180 degree turnaround in Apple's thinking, which I just don't see happening. It would require Apple to stop being the gatekeeper for graphics drivers and to turn that over to vendors, which is how it works in the Windows marketplace.

All this time I have been getting on the graphics card vendors about not making their cards cross-platform and you never chimed in and brought this point up? Tsk, tsk, Peter.

But, if this is the case, then Apple is partly to blame for the lack of graphics cards available for Macs. While I no means have any interest in gaming, let alone Apple specifically selling gaming rigs—I personally believe that gaming consoles for that bill quite nicely—Apple does need to seriously reconsider the way it handles the pro market. One of the things that those people that (actually) need and expandable system want is the ability to update their GPU over the life of their computer, but as of now the market for after market Mac-compatible graphics cards is less than slim pickings.

For whatever reason Apple seems to want to refuse to recognize that 1) not all pro users need a full-sized tower (and a non-expandable iMac is not going to suit their needs either) and 2) that they actually need after market cards that they can add to their (expandable) Mac. http://forums.macworld.com/message/630623/images/emoticons/wink.gif

[smax013]

[quote name='mdawson']The iMac is definitely not the ideal platform for high-end gamers. But still, any time the discussion of the missing Mac comes up they do seem to come out of the woodwork.
[/quote]

Personally, I don't want a mid-level tower for gaming...if I want to do gaming, I will build a Windoze PeeCee or get a gaming console...I want it for my regular Mac desktop. The Mac Mini is too limiting for me and I don't want an All-in-One (especially one with a glossy screen) for a desktop. That leaves a Mac Pro...and I am not willing to dump over $2000 for a Mac desktop when it is WAY overkill for what I need. So, I live with a Windoze desktop (that I built myself).

[jabbe]

how come whenever gaming on a mac comes up, people always say "just buy a console for that". console gaming and pc gaming are two totally different beasts.

[psalm162]

I realize that the focus of this article was on hobbyist gamers, but...
1. I understand that the underground hobbyists in the late 70s-early 80s were the ones who initially swarmed to the Apple I and II.
2. Since then Apple has largely turned its back to the hobbyist/DIY crowd and the formerly starched-collar PC world was the one that opened itself up to them.
The DIY market may be small, but why should Apple ignore it? Some solutions:
1. Apple could sell a TPM as a PCI card or custom USB stick or something.
2. Apple could sell a version of OS X that could be installed on non-Apple hardware and charge a premium for it.
3. Apple could unlock standard OS X for hobbyists who are also coders in exchange for a certain amount of their coding or something, barter-style.
4. Something like the iPhone, Apple could demand a share of the sale of Maclones (my term) from small manufacturers.
5. Apple could sell, license, or approve (for a fee) motherboards or chipsets, something like the CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) effort that was killed off in the 90s.
I understand Apple wants to protect their hardware turf. But I think it could open itself up to hobbyists who want to tinker or small shops who know a niche market and want to build (hardware) for it.
Another advantage for Apple opening up the hardware side of things would be to break down a common IT complaint, that of locking themselves in to only one hardware vendor. (I realize that addressing the enterprise moves away from basement hobbyist idea, but...)
Anyway, my 2¢.

[smax013]

[quote name='psalm162']
I realize that the focus of this article was on hobbyist gamers, but...
1. I understand that the underground hobbyists in the late 70s-early 80s were the ones who initially swarmed to the Apple I and II.
2. Since then Apple has largely turned its back to the hobbyist/DIY crowd and the formerly starched-collar PC world was the one that opened itself up to them.

The DIY market may be small, but why should Apple ignore it? Some solutions:
1. Apple could sell a TPM as a PCI card or custom USB stick or something.
2. Apple could sell a version of OS X that could be installed on non-Apple hardware and charge a premium for it.
3. Apple could unlock standard OS X for hobbyists who are also coders in exchange for a certain amount of their coding or something, barter-style.
4. Something like the iPhone, Apple could demand a share of the sale of Maclones (my term) from small manufacturers.
5. Apple could sell, license, or approve (for a fee) motherboards or chipsets, something like the CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) effort that was killed off in the 90s.

I understand Apple wants to protect their hardware turf. But I think it could open itself up to hobbyists who want to tinker or small shops who know a niche market and want to build (hardware) for it.

Another advantage for Apple opening up the hardware side of things would be to break down a common IT complaint, that of locking themselves in to only one hardware vendor. (I realize that addressing the enterprise moves away from basement hobbyist idea, but...)

Anyway, my 2¢.
[/quote]

All those are nice...but keep in mind that every "good" idea that might have merit usually also have costs and support issues that Apple would have to deal with. It is very easy for those of us on the outside to believe we see the positive aspects, but we usually cannot see too well what the downsides/costs are. And while it might be nice to believe that Apple exists just to please us customers, the reality is that they exist to make money. If don't believe there is enough return on investment of any of those ideas, they just are not gonna do them.

[psalm162]

Re: Apple's return-on-investment (ROI) because of, e.g., support costs: If Apple relaxed its EULA for hobbyists such that it read something like, not, "Do not install on non-Apple-branded hardware" but rather, "IF you install on non-Apple hardware, you're on your own for support." Hobbyists (or at least their consciences) would be happy and Apple could actually make more than from just the sale of OS X; as has been reported in the Frankenmac column by Rob Griffiths, updating OS X on non-Apple hardware would likely break the installation, requiring enterprising 3rd-party folks to work out a patch - hey, isn't that kind of open-source coding exactly the kind of atmosphere that fosters innovation that Apple itself could benefit from? (Think Konqueror>Safari but not as grandiose.) I'm suggesting de-coupling OS X from Apple service obligations to enable hobbyists to do what they want to do - figure things out for themselves. How does this hurt Apple?

[n8mac]

While I also yearn for a mini tower Mac, us 'tinkers' are not completely shut out. Just buy used Mac towers. After all great new computers make great used computers. Sure they won't be as fast as the new stuff, but they are highly customizable and rock solid. Just wait until they hit your price point and buy.

That's what I do. And yes I am a gamer. I currently have two Macs networked and as soon as I get some extra $$ I will buy a third Mac now that I have another friend into it (who actually prefers the one-button Apple pro mouse WOOT!) The alternative would be to go my friends house who has two PC's running Windows. Even though he owns similar games as I do we hardly ever play there because his computers are always having problems. Total nightmare, but they got their cheap of the shelf hardware, right?!

You may not get the latest games this way, but to me it doesn't matter. The quality of the games doesn't diminish over time. In fact they get better with updates and expansions. It's actually cheaper to buy the 'gold' version that's already patched than separate new purchases that may be full of bugs.

Of course this does not diminish the fact that Apple needs to sell a mini-tower. Actually it proves it, because Apple is not directly getting my $$ for my purchases. I even buy my OS's used.

As for my vote on Apple hardware or other hardware: I will never buy non-apple computers even if they go generic, because I've seen what cheaper than Apple hardware can do for the user experience. The problem is that most of the people who buy computers for their home doesn't know this, and Microsoft preys on this. I will give Microsoft props for one thing though: They know the value of the gaming market.