Re: Working Over the weekend...

[Greg Burke] "Do you really think there will be another Tower they make?"

I do not think it will be a tower. I've posted in detail what I guess in various threads.
2 PCIe slots (one for included GPU possibly both 16x. No additional slots
One SSD boot and one HD. No internal HD expansion.
3 or 4 TB ports
rack mountable shape.
i7 6 core, Xenon 8, 12, 16 core (or some variations of that)
no optical drive.
2 USB2 ports
1 Firewire 800 port.
2 Ethernet ports
I don't know if it'll be an exact match but I expect it'll be some variation.

The form factor may allow it to lie flat or on its side or rack mounted.

Interesting I've overheard others I have not spoken to describing that systems that sound somewhat similar to what I expect.

My guess such system would start at a price a little lower than a top iMac and end a little lower then the current top tower price. I think Apple's goal will be to do some form of commoditized machine and that one might be motivated it update it more frequently than the 3 to 5 year range some are keeping MacPros in service as a prime machine.

In short, I think Apple's goal will be to make a less expensive, more frequently turned over, power box. Obviously some will be unhappy but the lower point price point of entry will make it attract to cost conscious power users resulting in greater sales and a shorter usable life span. I think what they've learned from iPhone and iPad is not so much that they're a consumer company but that they make more money with a lower entry point and users who update every year or two. This can even increase market share as older machines stay in service by those with even lower budgets.

Think about how Apple has handled their product line in which batteries are no longer user serviceable. It may allow for very powerful BTO options but may well be very "locked down" at that point except for RAM, external expansion and one of the two PCIe slots.

Again what I think is happening at Apple is not so much a move to a consumer company but a commodification company. That might be equally undesirable to some though. I think their goal will bring that commodification to the "Pro" market. It won't be lacking power in most respects. It will have limited internal expansion once you buy it though.

To put it another way, the box will cost less to buy but you might end up spending more by having to replace it every two years instead of four years.

I actually look at my own buying patterns as an example.
I bought iPhone 3GS in 2009, 4 in 2010 and 4S recently. Each year I sold my previous phone covering most if not all the cost of the new phone.
My CPU purchase patterns are different. I bought PowerMac tower in 2005, Mac Pro in 2008 and haven't replaced it MacBookPro with Express port in 2008 and haven't replaced it. MacMini in 2008 and another in 2010. When FCPX came out I simply upgraded my GPU of my MacPro 2008.

Very different buying patterns. Apple would probably like me to buy CPUs like I upgrade my iPhone.
I know folks who are stretching out the live of 2006 and 2007 MacPros. When you consider the dollars spend on Apple CPUs there's many reasons such as that, that the MacPros are not profitable. A lower price point locked down system benefits Apple with more frequent upgrades and yet the older systems manage to stay in circulation.

In order for this to work something must drive CPU turnover upgrades and I think that's what Apple hopes to get out of FCPX. Of course that only happens if FCPX is good enough to motivate the purchases of new MBPs and whatever replaces the MacPro. A tower with lots of internal upgrades is not to their benefit.

I think the design will change a 3 to 5 year purchase cycle for some into a 2 year purchase cycle.
So what will make you purchase a new system in 2 years? Optical Thunderbolt as you need to move 4K files around maybe? I'm not sure but I can't help but think this is their direction.