Somewhat cynically, I think that Apple wants to be out of the tower business because you can't obsolete a tower every 9 months and get people to buy a new one. Towers have user-upgradable parts, can be serviced by laymen (and thus don't have the upsell opportunity when you have to bring it in to fix an issue), and are generally resilient against not being the latest-and-greatest.
In a Macbook Pro, by comparison, you are charged $200 for an extra 8GB of RAM and $500 for an extra 384 GB of SSD, not because the components or labor are worth that, but because you'll pay whatever they want you to, because you can't upgrade it later.
For better or worse, Apple is in the appliance business now. Buy your appliance, use it for a few months, then Craigslist it and buy the new one when it comes out. It's obscenely profitable and they have their consumer base trained to do it on command. Giving people something that they could keep current for a slim fraction of the cost of a new device is not in their interests.
All the things you mention that make towers great for advanced users also make them a hassle for normal users. When someone's sealed box has a defect, if you know what you put in the box, your troubleshooting and repair scenarios are vastly reduced compared to letting the consumer into the box. To a normal consumer, knowing that they could have upgraded their tower doesn't just give them more upgrade anxiety, it also convinces them that they're being ripped off while the smartass kid down the street is not. The sealed box is the ultimate equalizer.
I think all your points hold, I'm just saying there are a few somewhat less cynical explanations that may also apply.
I think you're absolutely right, but I think that's just another point in the "Apple as an appliance vendor" category. Sealed boxes are easier to service, easier to replace, and easier to get past consumer hesitation with. I think it's a rock solid business strategy (and Apple's financials would seem to agree), but I think it makes for an absolutely abysmal computer company.
I don't think that Apple wants to be a computer company anymore. A tower wouldn't fit into who Apple is today.
Agreed, and I think that's the point. Apple has shied away from being a computer company for many years now. To wit: it officially changed its name from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple, Inc." in 2007, almost concurrently with the release of the iPhone.
I think this has less to do with a cynical desire not to have to service computers, and more to do with a forward-looking belief that the future of consumer devices has less and less to do with computers (at least as we currently use the term).
I mean, it's not totally inconceivable that Apple will have stopped making any computers, per se, within the next 10 years -- or, at least, that the consumer-facing distinction between "computer" and "device" will have blurred to the point of obsolescence.
In a Macbook Pro, by comparison, you are charged $200 for an extra 8GB of RAM and $500 for an extra 384 GB of SSD, not because the components or labor are worth that, but because you'll pay whatever they want you to, because you can't upgrade it later.
For better or worse, Apple is in the appliance business now. Buy your appliance, use it for a few months, then Craigslist it and buy the new one when it comes out. It's obscenely profitable and they have their consumer base trained to do it on command. Giving people something that they could keep current for a slim fraction of the cost of a new device is not in their interests.