I think a few people have hit on one or two things a piece that would determine this potential computer (now in it's 243rd imaginary configuration on these boards it seems)
I do doubt it would see the light of day anytime soon but if it did, here's my thoughts:
G5 Processor: As mentioned by a few already, it seems the G5 is in at least somewhat of a tight supply. Once IBM gets the numbers up to sustain Power Mac, iMac and (by this point I'm sure) PowerBook sales without a problem and has enough G5 processors to spare for another Apple product line, this could happen.
It would be a single processor system of course, similar in speed to the iMac at that time.
Internal Expansion: In all reality, none. One 3.5-inch SATA hard drive (which could be upgraded of course) and integrated graphics like the iMac. The video output would be DVI to include the ability to purchase an Apple display. In the box will be a DVI-VGA adapter for those that need them. I'm sure Bluetooth and Airport will still be optional to get more money out of the people that want them.
RAM/System Bus: Again, taking cues from the iMac, 2 slots for RAM and the same bus speed as an iMac at the same time would have at the same processor speed.
All in all, we get a box with the same upgradability as the G5 iMac. Sorry to disappoint Bon Bon and the others looking for upgradable graphics, but I don't see it. Most people that don't post here don't upgrade their video cards.
Price point about the same as the current eMac line, $799 - $999.
"Too high for what you get" is what you might think, but this gets a non AIO Mac into potential switchers hands for under $1,000. As was mentioned before, the eMac could drop below this price point with a lesser processor, etc to gain even more market share with an even lower priced system.
Edit: [signs iDave up for one of my mythological Macs]
I'm not among those who think such a machine should fall in the price range of cheap WinPCs. I think OS X, iLife, and quality is worth $1000.
I'm right there with you. I think a non-AIO (or at least one w/o a CRT display) under $1,000 is the sweet spot for Apple to gain market share. If the G5 iMac fell below $1,000, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sure, people would buy one instead of an iMac but the profit margins on a machine like I described should be comparable to it so that wouldn't hurt them. The non-expandability and lack of a dual-processor option would not detract from Power Mac sales which is where I'm sure Apple gets their highest profits.
I wouldn't expect something like this though until at least 6 months down the road so everyone can put their credit cards away for a bit
. . . The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
Regarding the niche status, Apple only makes an AIO for the consumer, school and general office markets. If you look at the X86 PC desktops being sold to these markets, there are very few AIO models. Sony may be the only company seriously making an X86 AIO right now. Most consumers and purchasing agents buy some form of headless computer.
I believe the new iMac will begin to make the AIO a little more popular, but most people will still prefer a headless model.
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
The Apple mouse is the best you can get. Simplicity itself. Elegant. A dream to use.
Why would anybody want a backward step to three button mouse?
Yeeeesh. There's a million buttons on the keyboard if needed...or maybe we should stick all those buttons on a mouse and let the multi-button mouse freaks have a wet-dream.
The Apple mouse is the best you can get. Simplicity itself. Elegant. A dream to use.
Why would anybody want a backward step to three button mouse?
Yeeeesh. There's a million buttons on the keyboard if needed...or maybe we should stick all those buttons on a mouse and let the multi-button mouse freaks have a wet-dream.
Mine has eight buttons plus a wheel. I used to use only two of the buttons on Windows (and the wheel, of course - I won't ever buy a non-wheel mouse), but after starting out with OS X, I have used the middle button for Xterm paste and three of the "extra" buttons for Expose, upping my button use from two to six of eight total buttons. This setup has been very good to me.
For the positive effects to the platform's UI design, it's enough that *some* people have single button mice. They could keep the single button as standard and put a multibutton mouse in as a BTO option.
It's actually a kind of a conflict that X11 is designed primarily for three button mice..
... Sorry to disappoint Bon Bon and the others looking for upgradable graphics, but I don't see it. Most people that don't post here don't upgrade their video cards.
Do you have any proof? I wonder how many people upgrade the graphics card at the time of purchase? How much is it to upgrade the graphics card on the current PowerMacs(still only $60)?
Do you have any proof? I wonder how many people upgrade the graphics card at the time of purchase? How much is it to upgrade the graphics card on the current PowerMacs(still only $60)?
I'm a gamer, have had four different PC's in my own use, built at least three, done a bit of hardware troubleshooting for myself and others.
I have never upgraded a graphics card. I have switched cards between machines while fixing computers, and I have bought used graphics cards for machines I was assembling - these are useful things. However, even though I could have many times, I have never upgraded a functional card to a more powerful one in the same machine. I have always chosen the card and processor so they fit each other from the start. Had I upgraded just one of the two, the speed gains would have been few, because in games, strong processors need strong cards and vice versa. If it's *work* then the processor is usually the only thing that matters.
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands. Of these, the adaptability is a bit overvalued, because a feature laden and balanced original design rarely needs to be adapted. Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
.....I have switched cards between machines while fixing computers, and I have bought used graphics cards for machines I was assembling - these are useful things....
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands......
Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
Based on this, I vote for Apple including an 8X AGP slot on all consumer machines sold.
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
Apple *already* contracts out production of their computers to China/Taiwan. How are they going to magically make a cheaper computer?
Apple's high prices are a combination of a concious decision to aim for more expensive parts of the market to maintain margins, lack of economies of scale seen in the x86 market and *some* more expensive components - notably the case and screen - not using an analogue display for example.
Yes, producing a simple box would reduce the cost of Apple's base computer, but Macs simply aren't going to be as cheap as generic PCs.
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands. Of these, the adaptability is a bit overvalued, because a feature laden and balanced original design rarely needs to be adapted. Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
I'm thinking that "modularity" has a couple of other benefits:
1. Consumer perception would be that buying an "expensive" Mac would not be so risky because most Mac buyers keep their boxes for longer than most PC buyers. Keeping an upgradeable box is less risky if modules could be made standard. Will LCD AIO's have a longer lifespan?
2. Laptops in the days of hotswapping gave buyers a sense of freedom and relatively inexpensive upgrade paths.
3. Switchers need an inexpensive way of trying out the Mac platform, that means sub $1000 systems. I'm fine with making the eMac this if it was marketed well enough.
4. Work with 3rd party vendors to create a "standard," like Apple did with FW and USB. The standard would give 3rd party businesses a pathway that they could count on to invest in providing solutions in the long-term. Also if the standard was one that unified options for all PPC devices, then market forces in the Linux/IBM community could give the standard added weight and give Apple another link to a suspicious IT community.
I understand that in many ways it is easy to overstate the benefits of upgrading computers in an age of "disposable" appliances (how many would buy upgrade modules for their stereos or TV's?!?!?!) - but it is an idea that could create its own buzz and demand.
Apple *already* contracts out production of their computers to China/Taiwan. How are they going to magically make a cheaper computer? . . .
By first designing a cheaper computer and getting into this market. If China builds such computers cheaper than anyone else, then give them the contract.
I was responding to doom and gloom about the low cost market. Quote, "The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. . . These guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market."
If China makes low cost computers for Apple and Dell, they will not be able to make their own model much cheaper. The only way China could flood the market at much lower prices is by taking a loss. Within China itself the local brands may have some advantages. I don't know.
If China makes low cost computers for Apple and Dell, they will not be able to make their own model much cheaper. The only way China could flood the market at much lower prices is by taking a loss. Within China itself the local brands may have some advantages. I don't know.
How much of the cost of an Apple or Dell is merely parts, assembly and shipping? I don't know myself, but I bet if China just decided to take a 10% profit margin and not spend alot on advertising, they would still underprice Apple and Dell.
Apple and Dell's success is partially dependent upon values of customer service and such, that give them an advantage, but I wonder ... do you ever think about customer service for your refridgerator or microwave or stereo? Will computers ever be THAT much of a mere commodity? If they do, that's when more than just manufacturing will go overseas.
Apple and Dell's success is partially dependent upon values of customer service and such, that give them an advantage, but I wonder ... do you ever think about customer service for your refridgerator or microwave or stereo? Will computers ever be THAT much of a mere commodity? If they do, that's when more than just manufacturing will go overseas.
Refrigerators, microwaves and stereos aren't nearly as finicky as computers are, so that analogy doesn't hold. Nevertheless, the stores that sell them do good business on service contracts, and since the problems that do arise tend to be mechanical and non-user-serviceable, that service has to be local. No US consumer's going to be removing a Viking gas range and shipping it to Bangalore themselves.
That said, tech service is already going overseas. All of Dell's consumer phone support is in India now. I know a number of current Dell users who are suddenly interested in other brands now. I know that Dell was forced to keep their small-business and enterprise support stateside by a firestorm of protest. Why? Because I don't need to interact with the people who build my computer, so it doesn't matter how good their English is or what time zone they're in. But if I've got a problem, and I need to talk to someone, suddenly all of that becomes much more important. The scripts they hand out are woefully inadequate for all but the most hare-brained problems ("is it plugged in?"), and so general English comprehension, along with the ability to speak comprehensible English, is a real issue.
(I'm taking a US-centric view for simplicity, but this is a general problem: I'm sure that customers in Delhi would not be thrilled to find themselves talking to some guy in Texas, either. The point is that there are real benefits to local support.)
Comments
I do doubt it would see the light of day anytime soon but if it did, here's my thoughts:
G5 Processor: As mentioned by a few already, it seems the G5 is in at least somewhat of a tight supply. Once IBM gets the numbers up to sustain Power Mac, iMac and (by this point I'm sure) PowerBook sales without a problem and has enough G5 processors to spare for another Apple product line, this could happen.
It would be a single processor system of course, similar in speed to the iMac at that time.
Internal Expansion: In all reality, none. One 3.5-inch SATA hard drive (which could be upgraded of course) and integrated graphics like the iMac. The video output would be DVI to include the ability to purchase an Apple display. In the box will be a DVI-VGA adapter for those that need them. I'm sure Bluetooth and Airport will still be optional to get more money out of the people that want them.
RAM/System Bus: Again, taking cues from the iMac, 2 slots for RAM and the same bus speed as an iMac at the same time would have at the same processor speed.
All in all, we get a box with the same upgradability as the G5 iMac. Sorry to disappoint Bon Bon and the others looking for upgradable graphics, but I don't see it. Most people that don't post here don't upgrade their video cards.
Price point about the same as the current eMac line, $799 - $999.
"Too high for what you get" is what you might think, but this gets a non AIO Mac into potential switchers hands for under $1,000. As was mentioned before, the eMac could drop below this price point with a lesser processor, etc to gain even more market share with an even lower priced system.
Edit: [signs iDave up for one of my mythological Macs]
Originally posted by tdszero
..."Too high for what you get" is what you might think, but this gets a non AIO Mac into potential switchers hands for under $1,000.
Not too high at all. You've described my perfect Mac. Sign me up!
I'm not among those who think such a machine should fall in the price range of cheap WinPCs. I think OS X, iLife, and quality is worth $1000.
Originally posted by iDave
I'm not among those who think such a machine should fall in the price range of cheap WinPCs. I think OS X, iLife, and quality is worth $1000.
I'm right there with you. I think a non-AIO (or at least one w/o a CRT display) under $1,000 is the sweet spot for Apple to gain market share. If the G5 iMac fell below $1,000, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sure, people would buy one instead of an iMac but the profit margins on a machine like I described should be comparable to it so that wouldn't hurt them. The non-expandability and lack of a dual-processor option would not detract from Power Mac sales which is where I'm sure Apple gets their highest profits.
I wouldn't expect something like this though until at least 6 months down the road so everyone can put their credit cards away for a bit
Originally posted by kenaustus
. . . The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. Dell has already announced that it will stop competing at the low end of the Chinese computer market because they cannot compete with local manufacturers on price. THese guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market.
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
Regarding the niche status, Apple only makes an AIO for the consumer, school and general office markets. If you look at the X86 PC desktops being sold to these markets, there are very few AIO models. Sony may be the only company seriously making an X86 AIO right now. Most consumers and purchasing agents buy some form of headless computer.
I believe the new iMac will begin to make the AIO a little more popular, but most people will still prefer a headless model.
Made by Apple.
(this will never happen)
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
Buy this guy a cigar.
Wisdom itself.
Lemon Bon Bon
i want a multi button scroll wheel mouse.
Ahhh, stop dreaming.
The Apple mouse is the best you can get. Simplicity itself. Elegant. A dream to use.
Why would anybody want a backward step to three button mouse?
Yeeeesh. There's a million buttons on the keyboard if needed...or maybe we should stick all those buttons on a mouse and let the multi-button mouse freaks have a wet-dream.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Ahhh, stop dreaming.
The Apple mouse is the best you can get. Simplicity itself. Elegant. A dream to use.
Why would anybody want a backward step to three button mouse?
Yeeeesh. There's a million buttons on the keyboard if needed...or maybe we should stick all those buttons on a mouse and let the multi-button mouse freaks have a wet-dream.
Mine has eight buttons plus a wheel. I used to use only two of the buttons on Windows (and the wheel, of course - I won't ever buy a non-wheel mouse), but after starting out with OS X, I have used the middle button for Xterm paste and three of the "extra" buttons for Expose, upping my button use from two to six of eight total buttons. This setup has been very good to me.
For the positive effects to the platform's UI design, it's enough that *some* people have single button mice. They could keep the single button as standard and put a multibutton mouse in as a BTO option.
It's actually a kind of a conflict that X11 is designed primarily for three button mice..
Originally posted by tdszero
... Sorry to disappoint Bon Bon and the others looking for upgradable graphics, but I don't see it. Most people that don't post here don't upgrade their video cards.
Do you have any proof? I wonder how many people upgrade the graphics card at the time of purchase? How much is it to upgrade the graphics card on the current PowerMacs(still only $60)?
Originally posted by rickag
Do you have any proof? I wonder how many people upgrade the graphics card at the time of purchase? How much is it to upgrade the graphics card on the current PowerMacs(still only $60)?
I'm a gamer, have had four different PC's in my own use, built at least three, done a bit of hardware troubleshooting for myself and others.
I have never upgraded a graphics card. I have switched cards between machines while fixing computers, and I have bought used graphics cards for machines I was assembling - these are useful things. However, even though I could have many times, I have never upgraded a functional card to a more powerful one in the same machine. I have always chosen the card and processor so they fit each other from the start. Had I upgraded just one of the two, the speed gains would have been few, because in games, strong processors need strong cards and vice versa. If it's *work* then the processor is usually the only thing that matters.
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands. Of these, the adaptability is a bit overvalued, because a feature laden and balanced original design rarely needs to be adapted. Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
Originally posted by Gon
.....I have switched cards between machines while fixing computers, and I have bought used graphics cards for machines I was assembling - these are useful things....
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands......
Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
Based on this, I vote for Apple including an 8X AGP slot on all consumer machines sold.
Originally posted by snoopy
I believe this market is very important to the Mac platform, to overcome the "niche" status the Mac has in most people's eyes. Why couldn't Apple enlist China to build such a low end Mac that Apple could then sell all over the world?
Apple *already* contracts out production of their computers to China/Taiwan. How are they going to magically make a cheaper computer?
Apple's high prices are a combination of a concious decision to aim for more expensive parts of the market to maintain margins, lack of economies of scale seen in the x86 market and *some* more expensive components - notably the case and screen - not using an analogue display for example.
Yes, producing a simple box would reduce the cost of Apple's base computer, but Macs simply aren't going to be as cheap as generic PCs.
Originally posted by Gon
I have never upgraded a graphics card.
So, what do I think about modularity, like card slots? The biggest benefits are easy repair, easier production of original parts that translates into good things like price+availability+reliability, better availability of 3rd party parts which serves to press the prices further down, and adapting to changing demands. Of these, the adaptability is a bit overvalued, because a feature laden and balanced original design rarely needs to be adapted. Naturally, if the system is modular, you could skimp on a graphics card initially and buy a good one later when your cashflow/graphics card market/new games dictate so.
I'm thinking that "modularity" has a couple of other benefits:
1. Consumer perception would be that buying an "expensive" Mac would not be so risky because most Mac buyers keep their boxes for longer than most PC buyers. Keeping an upgradeable box is less risky if modules could be made standard. Will LCD AIO's have a longer lifespan?
2. Laptops in the days of hotswapping gave buyers a sense of freedom and relatively inexpensive upgrade paths.
3. Switchers need an inexpensive way of trying out the Mac platform, that means sub $1000 systems. I'm fine with making the eMac this if it was marketed well enough.
4. Work with 3rd party vendors to create a "standard," like Apple did with FW and USB. The standard would give 3rd party businesses a pathway that they could count on to invest in providing solutions in the long-term. Also if the standard was one that unified options for all PPC devices, then market forces in the Linux/IBM community could give the standard added weight and give Apple another link to a suspicious IT community.
I understand that in many ways it is easy to overstate the benefits of upgrading computers in an age of "disposable" appliances (how many would buy upgrade modules for their stereos or TV's?!?!?!) - but it is an idea that could create its own buzz and demand.
Originally posted by mortigi tempo
Apple *already* contracts out production of their computers to China/Taiwan. How are they going to magically make a cheaper computer? . . .
By first designing a cheaper computer and getting into this market. If China builds such computers cheaper than anyone else, then give them the contract.
I was responding to doom and gloom about the low cost market. Quote, "The other challenge low cost PC makers face is the potential of somewhere like China developing a PC that they can flood the US with. . . These guys flood the US market and Dell is going to have a problem - as will all of the other cheap PC makers. I think Apple is wise to avoid this market."
If China makes low cost computers for Apple and Dell, they will not be able to make their own model much cheaper. The only way China could flood the market at much lower prices is by taking a loss. Within China itself the local brands may have some advantages. I don't know.
Originally posted by snoopy
If China makes low cost computers for Apple and Dell, they will not be able to make their own model much cheaper. The only way China could flood the market at much lower prices is by taking a loss. Within China itself the local brands may have some advantages. I don't know.
How much of the cost of an Apple or Dell is merely parts, assembly and shipping? I don't know myself, but I bet if China just decided to take a 10% profit margin and not spend alot on advertising, they would still underprice Apple and Dell.
Apple and Dell's success is partially dependent upon values of customer service and such, that give them an advantage, but I wonder ... do you ever think about customer service for your refridgerator or microwave or stereo? Will computers ever be THAT much of a mere commodity? If they do, that's when more than just manufacturing will go overseas.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Apple and Dell's success is partially dependent upon values of customer service and such, that give them an advantage, but I wonder ... do you ever think about customer service for your refridgerator or microwave or stereo? Will computers ever be THAT much of a mere commodity? If they do, that's when more than just manufacturing will go overseas.
Refrigerators, microwaves and stereos aren't nearly as finicky as computers are, so that analogy doesn't hold. Nevertheless, the stores that sell them do good business on service contracts, and since the problems that do arise tend to be mechanical and non-user-serviceable, that service has to be local. No US consumer's going to be removing a Viking gas range and shipping it to Bangalore themselves.
That said, tech service is already going overseas. All of Dell's consumer phone support is in India now. I know a number of current Dell users who are suddenly interested in other brands now. I know that Dell was forced to keep their small-business and enterprise support stateside by a firestorm of protest. Why? Because I don't need to interact with the people who build my computer, so it doesn't matter how good their English is or what time zone they're in. But if I've got a problem, and I need to talk to someone, suddenly all of that becomes much more important. The scripts they hand out are woefully inadequate for all but the most hare-brained problems ("is it plugged in?"), and so general English comprehension, along with the ability to speak comprehensible English, is a real issue.
(I'm taking a US-centric view for simplicity, but this is a general problem: I'm sure that customers in Delhi would not be thrilled to find themselves talking to some guy in Texas, either. The point is that there are real benefits to local support.)