By Seb Janacek, 7 January 2005 09:55
COMMENT On dark and windy nights PC support technicians tell their children terrifying tales of a mythical desktop that threatens to eradicate support staff altogether.
"Where its monitor should be, there's nothing. It doesn't need much maintenance, it doesn't need to have its printer drivers installed three times and, what's more, it doesn't need its antivirus software updated everyday. In fact, it doesn't need you... at all."
(Cue lightning flash and Danny Elfman music.)
Meanwhile, with the San Francisco Macworld Expo just days away, speculation on Mac rumour sites is reaching a frenzied crescendo with talk of the existence of the very same creature.
The mythical machine, which is both the subject of multi-threaded debates and PC support ghost stories, is a monitor-less, entry-level Apple computer known as the Headless Mac.
The Headless Mac has been a mainstay of Apple discussion on the internet for the last two years, with a broad range of theories circulating on its configuration, pricing and form factor.
No one's ever seen one of these machines, of course. Like all good scary movies films you don't get to see the beastie until late into the movie.
However, according to reports last week by rumour site Think Secret, the machine is about to emerge from the wings during Steve Jobs' traditional keynote speech on 11 January.
The rumour site alleges the Headless Mac is essentially a "bare bones", entry-level computer with the ageing G4 processor, a paltry amount of RAM, a smallish hard drive and no monitor. The result is that the low cost and ability to use an existing monitor will attract potential Apple customers previously put off by the company's high prices.
This time the myth has received some support from analysts who believe that market conditions are ripe for Apple to unveil such a strategy.
Gene Munster, a senior research analyst at investment firm Piper Jaffrey, recently told silicon.com sister site CNET News.com that he believes the strategy makes sense and it's all thanks to the iPod phenomenon. Apple's brand awareness is high and its stock price is soaring thanks to the sales of the music player.
A report by Munster in November 2004 revealed that a small but significant number of iPod users claim they have already or are intending to ditch their PC for a Mac.
The argument goes that this is Apple's opportunity to let traditional PC users experience the much-lauded usability of the OS X operating system versus Windows. The fact that it coincides with a time when Microsoft software is being battered by malware and the relentless pace of security update cycles is a further motivating factor.
Traditionally, many arguments in favour of the Headless Mac speculated on its introduction as an entry-level PC replacement for the corporate space rather than a consumer-driven machine.
Apple is clearly striving to make inroads into the corporate market and its main barrier to success is in hardware rather than software.
The current range has nothing for the business desktop user. While Apple's workhorse G5 PowerMac range is a solid performer in the company's strong graphics and video publishing markets, the machines are over-engineered and over-priced for everyday office use.
An entry-level Mac that uses PC-standard components and allows users to keep existing monitors would be more than adequate for the humdrum office use - so long as there's a suitably humdrum price tag to match it. The attraction of having far fewer security and maintenance concerns is another tempting factor.
The presence of such a machine in the product line will inevitably mean the company risks losing out on sales of its higher end, profitable computers - effectively taking a potentially serious hit on its traditional sales base.
After all, Apple is one of the few computer makers to be making a profit on its machines - and the margins on the Headless Mac will be minimal if non-existent.
However, the most intriguing argument behind the introduction of the Headless Mac is as a highly ambitious loss-leader.
In the same way that the success of the iTunes Music Store is not music sales (of which Apple makes little or no money) but in the resultant sales of iPods, so the Headless Mac could prove a longer-term loss-leader aimed at growing market share at the cost of short-term sales.
With the profile of Apple on a high it's an opportunity for the company to tempt potential customers with a bargain-basement, no-frills option in the hope they'll switch to one of the more traditional and more profitable product lines later and be hooked for life.
But therein lies one of the biggest doubts about the viability of such a machine. Apple is a company that prides itself on the design of its premium product ranges and the bitterest pill to swallow for Steve Jobs may be having to renege on his axiom of not compromising.
At a time when the company has a genuine opportunity of attracting significant numbers of users to its existing Mac range, does the company really want to make concessions with its design aesthetic?
The PT Barnum-esque Apple CEO will definitely have something up his sleeve for his inevitable "just one more thing..." routine on Tuesday. Cautious punters may wish to wager money on a flash-based iPod, a re-vamp of the ageing eMac or - as predicted in late 2004 by investment house Merrill Lynch - a mega-storage home entertainment device. They all present lower-risk strategies for Apple than the Headless Mac.
The latest twist in the tale came earlier this week as Apple's fearsome legal department swooped on the founder of the Think Secret website like oh-so-many brushed-metal Valkyries.
In a civil lawsuit filed in California, Apple accused Think Secret's founder of posting stories containing Apple trade secrets. Specific mention of these "trade secrets" suggest that elements of the various reports are pretty close to home, including one which alludes to the 'iWorks' office productivity suite.
Most intriguing of all was a reference to the report about a "G4-based iMac without display". Apple claims the rumour site "disclosed numerous confidential details regarding the technical capabilities of Apple's unreleased computer product as well as Apple's confidential marketing plans".
Whether Apple is taking action over something due to be unveiled next week, next month, or later this year, or whether it's just happy to drive up a little publicity ahead of next week's show isn't certain.
What is certain is that, come next Tuesday, the legend of the Headless Mac rumours is unlikely to be banished - even if it does turn out to be a ghost of a machine.



Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Has everyone forgotten the Performa? It took years for Apple to live down the image that created. Craptacular.
2. anonymous
have you seen the beauty of the finish on the new flat-panel iMacs? the laquer on top of (very solid looking) pristine white plastic? it's beautiful!
I see an iMac mini, with a cube form factor (they've already done the engineering), using the same plastic/laquer finish. no way are Jobs/Ive EVER going to release a pizza box. this thing would sell to home and corporate markets alike, by the truckload.
3. Alan Quartermaine-Eleven
Apple is by this point so famous for shooting itself in the foot that for them to do so now is hardly surprising. Coming out with an affordable machine that runs OS X & has the ability to run with PC-compatible peripherals is almost genius. Almost because they seem afraid to step out of the shadows of the user-friendly forest.
By user-friendly I don't mean the nature of the easy-to-use and wonderful-to-operate system, I mean the legions of fanatical devotees that has sustained that maverick since its inception. By immediately crying foul when a "leak" occurs to announce the arrival of neat & nifty technology, they are defecating in the place where their food is grown. Not smart.
Time will tell whether Jobs & Disciples are being smart and scotching information leaks that might inhibit sales, or that they are following the primrose path of legendary paranoia that has characterized Apple's company policy since the Sencond Coming.
Who knows? If this turns out to be true, maybe I'll own a Mac again. Then again, maybe not.
4. IVIIVI4ck3y27
Do you remember the Mac LC which was one of Apple's most successful computer lines in history prior to the flavored iMacs?
The Performa & Quadra/Centris (later just Quadra) were part of a computer lineup when Apple was in shambles; with no leadership, no focus, and no drive. Even much of their Quadra and early Powermac line was just a bunch of adequate bland beige boxes with decent upgradability, it wasn't 'til Amelio (K2 towers and the desktops; desktops started at 7200/7500... towers 8600/9600; all became the beige G3 form factor before dying) really that some of that changed.
The entire philosophy wasn't a bad one, but Apple's product at the time, especially at the low-end, was less than desirable compared to prior efforts.
Flash-forward to today. This is definitely not Michael Spindler's or John Sculley's Apple computer, and while some could argue a case for Amelio's importance (much as I would agree), this is definitely the Apple that came out of the house in Cali that is renowned for "The Steve's" rise to prominence in the computing world. Jobs' fingerprints are all over everything Apple does.
While Apple did have an unsuccessful blip with the Cube, despite being a media darling and a marvel of engineering (no market, over-engineered, over-priced, no long-term value compared to other Mac offerings at similar pricepoints), everything else has been some semblance of a success, if not a watershed moment (iPod).
So Apple likes to take chances, take gambles, take risks. They do so in ways noone in the industry is brave enough to do, because there's nowhere near as much to lose as some people think because of Apple's staunchly loyal base.
5. Simon
Unfortunately, in the real world, the competition for the business desktop is with the likes of Dell. When you are talking of dozens, or hundreds of machines, the difference in cost between the G5 (which for most business users is way too big and noisy) and a 'boring black' dell box means that it's almost impossible to even discuss the options with the bean counters.
Last year we had a big upgrade of desktops, and that saw the last of the Macs go from everywhere but under my desk (they didn't even dare suggest otherwise) and the design dept. I just could NOT make a reasoned business case for not going PC - iMac vs PC, iMac is nearly double the cost, both run Microsoft Office, end of discussion. Beancounters just don't have boxes to cost up 'ease of use', user friendlyness, and things like that.
Yes, if they come up with a smallish desktop box, with few (if any) expansion slots etc then people will start wailing about lack of expandability - but I can tell you that 90%+ of business desktops never get anything added to them (except perhaps more RAM) during their life - so why pay for extra drive bays, multiple PCI slots etc that aren't going to be used ? Heck, we've got USB and Firewire that deals with 99% of expansion requirements. Not to mention the desk (or rather floor) space taken by something like the G5.
6. anonymous
Sorry I'm lost here. Apple are going to bring out a beige box without a monitor. So what?
Looks like that lawsuit was worth the money then, if only for the free publicity.
7. Geoff Norman
The statement "The current range has nothing for the business desktop user. While Apple's workhorse G5 PowerMac range is a solid performer in the company's strong graphics and video publishing markets, the machines are over-engineered and over-priced for everyday office use." shows woeful ignorance of the relative costs of ownership between Macs and Wintel boxes. Spec-for-spec a Mac is little if any more expensive to buy than a PC from a viable supplier, and is frequenly less to buy. Cost of ownership over two or three years ses the Mac offering substabtial savings.
8. John Stormes
It's about time, there are a lot of Mac users out there (me included) who are hanging on to their MacOS 9 machines because of the cost of a new Mac. The rumoured spec may not be cutting edge but it is good enough for most users - certainly good enough for 90% of business users.
9. Richard
Maybe Jobs is finally giving people what they want - even if people are wrong!
I mean what's wrong with the eMac?
While the TCO of a G5 can never compare to a Dell box (...Geoff!!!), a 1.25 GHz G4 eMac can be had for £550 including 17" monitor and a CDRW-DVD combo drive.
Don't tell me it isn't upgradeable - nobody EVER upgrades 90% of business desktops. Ever!
This baby fulfills 100% of the requirements for 99% of business users. The OS is stable; installation, setup and maintainence are a breeze and its TCO compares favourably with any enterprise desktop box. Yet it hardly has any installed user base in business. Why would the headless Mac change that?
Remember Alan Sugar putting a cooling fan in his early Amstrad PCs because people feared they would overheat? He knew no fan was needed but if the lack of a fan stopped people buying his product, then a useless cosmetic cooling fan was wht they got. And it sold PCs.
Maybe with the headless Mac, Jobs is finally giving people what they want - even if he knows the people are wrong!
10. Paul
Could this simply be the second generation xbox?
ok, wasn't a 100% serious comment... BUT, the xbox2 is going to be powerPC based with ATI graphics. That sounds a bit like some iMacs.
11. anonymous
Ok if I was an IT services manager why would I consider buying micro Macs, even if they were the same price as a Dell? If you have an installed base of Windows machines then why start muddying the waters by trying to support two different systems? As for junking all the windows machines and going for Macs that’s way to bold a move to make.
Also how does any of this fit in with Citrix / thin client architecture – can Mac’s run that and then compete with the cut-down machines (read incredibly cheap) this system needs on the desk top.
12. anonymous
Ok if I was an IT services manager why would I consider buying micro Macs, even if they were the same price as a Dell? If you have an installed base of Windows machines then why start muddying the waters by trying to support two different systems? As for junking all the windows machines and going for Macs that’s way to bold a move to make.
Also how does any of this fit in with Citrix / thin client architecture – can Mac’s run that and then compete with the cut-down machines (read incredibly cheap) this system needs on the desk top.