It seems like most comments are US-centric. The average income in the US is higher than in most, if not all, other countries and to me it also seems like Appleʼs pricing is US-centric. I do not know how seriously they regard the global market or if they just cater to the absolute top level of this, to the few who can afford computers which are even more expensive outside the US, due to local taxes etc. Maybe they are content with the situation as it is, but then they cannot expect to increase the global market share by much, compared to the success in the US. That it still increases, speaks much for the high quality of their products.

The iMac and the Mini are the products many of us who actually live by our Macs outside the US, often see as the top models we can afford. As these are not very expandable, one has to buy a new machine to replace the old with certain intervals.

I had a dual 450 ghz G4 and expanded it as much as I could, with more RAM, a better graphics card and a PCI-card to get more ports etc., but in the end it was too slow, of course. I gave it to my ex and her son and it is still in daily use, though.

Anyway, a mid-range tower would be gefündenes freßen as they say in German:)
As for this tower mentioned here, it would be a nice alternative even if it would cost the equivalent of 700 dollars or more, because you can actually expand it.
There are those here who can afford a Pro tower as well, but I would think the number who can, are fewer than in the US.

I donʼt know what strategy Apple has in store for a situation if the global market share should reach the same level as in the US or even higher. Would there not come a point when it would be difficult to maintain the high standard, keeping control over the software as well as the hardware, and they would be forced to change the strategy in some way or another?

Just my two øres worth - and that isnʼt much!

Where in any of my posts do I state or insinuate that people buy laptops because they are all-in-ones? What I did state is that most people—the non-techie masses—have little to no issue with a system being an all-in-one as the sales of laptops and ten-year success of the iMac would indicate. Yes, many people buy laptops for mobility, but many more buy laptops because they are compact, non-intrusive systems and can be easily tucked away when not in use. Desktops
generally take over the space they occupy and cannot be easily set aside when space is needed for something else.

The decision to purchase a laptop has as much to do with overall convenience and compactness as it does with portability these days, particularly as many laptops are just as powerful as most desktops sans workstation-class pro systems. I know a number of people that own laptops that (almost) never leave their home, but chose that form factor because it allows them to have a computer without the need for a dedicated space. The Mac mini comes closest to that in terms of a true desktop and was initially designed for that purpose as well as being a Switcher testbed.

Simply put, for many people today, the fact that a desktop is an all-in-one design is not an issue. The average computer user can have their needs served by an iMac for many years because the average user is not a technophile that obsesses over hardware upgrades. The people that do take issue with all-in-one systems are those that would be limited by such a computer and IT types that are always worried about maintenance logistics. Corporate IT actually has less credibility with the anti-AIO argument as laptops, which are again all-in-ones, have become the primary work computers for an ever increasing number of corporate types over the past 5+ years. So in the business world, repairing/replacing an all-in-one desktop is no more or less a hassle than dealing with the increasing number of laptops in corporate use.

As to fewer wires, I never made that argument as I find it to carry little weight, as an all-in-one desktop only eliminates the need for a display cable and a second power cord. Please do keep other people’s point of argument separate from mine. Lastly, please reply to the poster with whom you are in discussion and not the story post.

---

“Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This is wrong tool.” 2.3GHz Power Mac G5/4GB/500GB HDD/OS X 10.4.11/30-inch ACD, 60GB iPod (Color)

Mid-Range Mac Tower (MIDRAMT): Yes Apple will offer this when "Hell Freezes Over". Like the Eagles reunion and subsequent live album "Hell Freezes Over" it may be a long time coming -- it took the Eagles 14 years and people have been asking for the Apple mid-range tower on this forum for at least 5 years, so maybe you only have 9 more years to wait if the Eagles timeframe hold up. Or one could just buy the machine today to get their work done in the present, be it Apple, Windows or Linux, and as Larry the Cable Guy says "Git 'Er Done".

"We cannot use the current iMacs because of the glossy screens (no discussions needed - they will not be approved)"

Yes it is unfortunate that Apple has gone along with the rest of the inane PC industry and offers GLOSSY screens only on certain Macintosh models. Personally I abhor the glossy screens (just my preference) and that is why Ihave a new MacBook Pro with the matte finish screen.

BTW I love the multitouch trackpadon the new MacBook Pro, especially two finger scrolling which make vertical and horizontal scrolling an absolute delight, pure genius on the trackpad features.

That's actually quite amusing... if you read this page: http://www.psystar.com/openmac_osx86_compatible.html

... and then this page:

http://www.psystar.com/can_i_run_updates_on_my_openmac.html

...you'll quickly realize what they're really doing here. They're not even pretending to sell legitimately licensed computers which run the standard retail installation of Leopard -- in fact, they're actually freely admitting that their computers are "hackintosh" systems! In the second page noted above, it specifically states that some of Apple's updates are "non-safe" for installing on Psystar's Mac-clone -- and the reason is that some of Apple's updates will verify whether or not you're installing the software on legitimate Apple hardware, and disable the operating system if you're using a hackintosh.

I wouldn't buy one of those buggers for anything... but it is VERY interesting to see this company poking their finger in Apple's eye, and I'm looking forward to reading what happens next.

---

24" iMac: 2.33GHz Core2 Duo/2GB RAM/500GB HD/GeForce 7600 w/256MB VRAM | PPCMac: 1GHz G4 DP/768MB RAM/250GB HD | PC: AMD 3200/1GB RAM/250GB HD

I had a Mac clone (Power Computing) back in the day and would certainly consider it again if there were really viable options. This isn't one of them. Really, this is very much a "non story". Unless Apple chooses to or is legally forced to support clones, it's not going to happen. Even if someone was able to get their hardware to work properly with the current Mac OS (which is a big if and has yet to be verified), Apple has the ability to shut the door with the next point release. Apple also has the ability to modify future Apple hardware to make it more difficult to copy. In short, an investment in an unsupported clone would be a waste of money, no matter how cheap it is.

Remember PowerComputing? They were better than Apple's hardware so they pulled their license because they were outselling Apple's overpriced junk.