At the time, the company’s Mac product line was a sea of numbers and confusing contradictions, making it hard to differentiate what type of user each product was aimed at. To solve this problem, then-interim CEO Jobs described the process as going “back to business school 101”, resulting in a two-by-two grid to illustrate the four types of Mac products Apple would focus on going forward. There would be a desktop and notebook aimed at general consumers and education (one of Apple’s last remaining business verticals), and a desktop and notebook for professionals (essentially meaning creatives, the other market where Apple had retained some dominance). This product grid initially saw a line-up of the iMac and iBook for consumers and education, joined by the PowerMac and PowerBook at the high-end. In fact, the strategy worked so well that it remains largely the same to this day with a few modifications.ĭuring the Mac’s transition from the PowerPC to Intel’s x86 architecture in 2007, Apple took the opportunity to refresh the original naming scheme. In keeping with the now iconic iMac brand, all Macintosh computers would now feature Mac in the product name, and the word ‘power’ would be exorcised and replaced with the more ambiguous sounding ‘pro’. The iBook became the MacBook, whilst the PowerBook and PowerMac graduated to be known as the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro. And this ‘product grid’ strategy has arguably kept Apple focused for a quarter of a century, despite dropping the word ‘computer’ from its corporate identity and diversifying into mobile products like the iPhone and iPad. However, there’s always been a conundrum hanging over the Mac line-up that Apple have never quite been able to solve: is there an overlooked gap between the mac Mini (not forgetting the iMac) and the Mac Pro into which another desktop Mac could fit? Something allowing for a little more design thinking than a regular Mac Pro, but without sacrificing performance to reach a price tag for the rest of us.īack in 2000, Steve Jobs opened a new space in the product strategy to accommodate the PowerMac G4 Cube, a stunning, fan-less PowerMac G4 miniaturised into what Jobs referred to as an eight-inch cube (it was actually 7.7 inches, to be precise) suspended in a clear plastic acrylic stand. However, the Cube ended up being too limited for professionals who could have afforded the purchase, and too expensive for the user who would have been a perfect fit for the specifications. The Cube was discontinued after just one year, although some of that effort in miniaturisation would presumably benefit the Mac mini four years later, which was conceived more as a way of broadening the Mac’s audience rather than carving out a new product category.Īll of which leads us to the present day and a Special Event dubbed by Apple as “Peak Performance”. This alliteration illuded to the launch of what is unquestionably a new attempt to fill this perceived void between the iMac and Mac Pro: the Mac Studio. And this time, Apple might just have got it right by focusing on the room rather than the price. The notion of a ‘Mac mini Pro’ (for want of a name) has long been rumoured, and at first glance you’d be forgiven for thinking that’s what the Mac Studio is. With its taller, super-ellipsoidal carapace extruded from a single piece of aluminium, the Mac Studio doesn’t stray too far from Apple’s modern design vocabulary or, indeed, the Mac mini’s current form. The width and depth of both the Studio and mini’s enclosures measure the same 7.7-inches squared (197mm), while the Studio’s 3.7-inch (95mm) height towers over the mini’s diminutive 1.4-inch (36mm) elevation and would therefore fit comfortably within 3U of rack space. If you haven’t noticed something about the dimensions, I think it’s safe to say Jobs would probably have approved. With this extra height, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the Mac Studio weighs a little more than the Mac mini’s undemanding 2.6 pounds (1.2kg). Depending on how the device is configured, the Mac Studio weighs either 5.9 or 7.9 pounds (2.7 or 3.6kg).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |