Macinchat's MWSF rumors

[Carson O'Genic]

I don't remember MacinChat being a rumor site. I really don't know these guys. For what its worth:

"Without getting into the who, where and why...

We have received confirmation that the following products will be introduced and/or updated at this upcoming MWSF '04:

NEW Powermac G5 configurations:

Uni III motherboard
DDR400 Ram

New Processors and bus:

Single 2.0 / 1.0 GHz
Dual 2.2 / 1.1 GHz per processor
Dual 2.6 / 1.3 GHz per processor

Things that have not changed:

AGP 8X
2 Serial ATA drives
Same port complement (USB 2.0, FW400/800, etc...)

Optical audio issues have been resolved, USB static issues have been resolved, and the fan subsystem runs even quieter than before.

The single 2.0 will come at the same price-point as today's 1.6. The dual 2.2 will come at the same price-point as today's dual 1.8, but the dual 2.6 will come in at a higher price-point than the current top of the line dual 2.0 (aaproximately $400 more). I don't think too many folks will mind, because this machine is the most impressive desktop workstation ever, on either platform.

The Dual 2.6 will ship in the first week of February, the other two machines will ship immediately.

New Apple displays (new enclosure):

20 inch
23 inch
30 inch

Pricing on the displays was not revealed.

New G5 Xserve:

Although we were previously told the enclosure would be 3U, we are now being told the enclosure will be 2U. Dual 2.6 will be the top-of-the-line configuration.

new iLife Application:

Apple will release a new consumer music editing application, and it will NOT be called iMusic. We have the new name, which is very cool, but we will not disclose it.

More info:

New iPods: We cannot confirm or deny the existence of the lower priced iPods.

This is shaping up to be the another great Macworld!

Michael"

Sounds nice if its true!

[whoami]

this would be great news indeed....
i still think steve's got a few surprises up his sleeve...

[Ensign Pulver]

Link?

[crayz]

A dual 2.6 could beat the pudding out of any sub-$5000 machine living or dead and screw your mom at the same time

[Gamblor]

I hope this rumor is wrong... The Powermacs should all be duals (at current price points), leaving room for single proc G5's to be introduced starting at $1k.

[satchmo]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I hope this rumor is wrong... The Powermacs should all be duals (at current price points), leaving room for single proc G5's to be introduced starting at $1k.

..or poised to be used in the top of the line iMac 20" model.

[Gamblor]

... or better yet, both.

[Eugene]

Raising the price of the high-end makes no sense to me.

Single 2.0 GHz for $1800 -> dual 2.2 GHz for $2500 -> dual 2.6 GHz $3400? Not a chance.

A single 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 shouldn't at all affect iMac sales. The 15" iMac's days are numbered. It's going to be just the 17" and 20" next round and clockspeed probably won't be an option. It'll probably be either 1.6 or 1.8 GHz, not both.

[mattyj]

Apple should keep the 1.6Ghz G5 and Introduce it at an ultra low price point. Even a Dual 1.6Ghz would be great at a price point equal to the supposed single 2Ghz single or lower.

[Nebagakid]

I dont trust it... Sorree

[jwdawso]

• Entry 1.6 -> 2.0 $1800
• Mid dual 1.8 -> dual 2.2 $2500
• High dual 2.0 -> dual 2.6 $3000 -> $3400

Doesn't look too bad price wise, certainly performance wise it is a great jump. I expect the entry will have PCI-X, plus not be limited in memory. The new entry should smack all G4s, the new high should be faster than any x86...

Looks like there's room for G5s in other boxes... How about the original entry minus pci slots in a cube for $1500?

I'm hoping the display rumor is right, because I want one! 20" for $999?

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Arent they using DDR400 at the moment? *Too lazy to check*

[Nebagakid]

Originally posted by jwdawso
Looks like there's room for G5s in other boxes... How about the original entry minus pci slots in a cube for $1500?
[/B]

Never again will the CUBE rise from its forgotten grave

[mlnjr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Apple already has machines out now with two 2 GHz processors in them, how is having machines with dual 1.1 and 1.3 GHz processors that exciting? Unless these configurations will be added to the mix?

[Programmer]

Originally posted by mlnjr
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Apple already has machines out now with two 2 GHz processors in them, how is having machines with dual 1.1 and 1.3 GHz processors that exciting? Unless these configurations will be added to the mix?

I think he was quoting bus speeds (for whatever reason).


I don't buy it myself.

[@homenow]

Apple really needs to keep a headless box in a lower price point. This should start out at no more that $1299, preferably $999 to allow a few configurations between the bottom end an the G5 tower. If I were building a "wish list" for it there would be at least 1 PCI slot, and AGP slot for custom building at Apple's stores. There is also a psychological aspect to the PCI slot, even if they are rarely used, that can be used as a marketing tool just.

Right now, at least in the Graphics industry, there is still a need for a dual boot and I'm sure that is part of the reason that Apple is still selling the "legacy" G4 tower. The current model is fast enough for most of the applications that will be run on them, though it could use a boost to at least 1.4, or if Motorola has 7457's coming of the line even faster. This could be seen as backpedalling on the all OS X statements from Jobs, but they are already doing that to a degree now. OS X is mature enough now for this industry, but Quark 6 isn't and it will take up to 18 months for the publishing industry to switch production to this or another page layout application (Some projects, like text book projects can last up to 24 months, and once they start the programs used to produce them rarely if ever change, even if it is a version revision, so there will be a need for OS 9 boot production computers for a while).

[Leonis]

Wonder if Apple will offer audio fix to the existing G5s or not.....If user only can get out of the audio noise nightmere by buying another machine I don't think this is good for Apple

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Link?

http://macinchat.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s...81&m=529008865

[Wrong Robot]

Consumer level music editing application sounds nice. I hope that it offers at least 8 tracks of audio.

[Nebagakid]

Originally posted by @homenow
Apple really needs to keep a headless box in a lower price point. This should start out at no more that $1299, preferably $999 to allow a few configurations between the bottom end an the G5 tower. If I were building a "wish list" for it there would be at least 1 PCI slot, and AGP slot for custom building at Apple's stores. There is also a psychological aspect to the PCI slot, even if they are rarely used, that can be used as a marketing tool just.

never will happen. They tried something like that, it was the Cube, and it failed. It was a middle ground that gave either too few options and was too costly for what is was offering (no monitor). If Apple went any lower, than would not be making as much money as they could.

[@homenow]

Originally posted by Nebagakid
... If Apple went any lower, than would not be making as much money as they could.

By that logic Apple should bump the price of their entire line-up $100 +, because lord knows they could still sell them at that price so they are loosing $100 or more per computer.

The Cube came out at what, $1799 (which gave it a bad rap from the start) and when they pulled the plug on it they were selling the 450 Cube for $1299 if I remember correctly. This was also shortly after the Y2K buying spree, and in the heat of the economic downturn. There were many things factors working against the Cube, not all of them within Apples control. I personally think that at the price point at the end would have worked for Apple, but they needed to keep it around for a little longer for that to happen. I know that the company that I work for had a pretty large order for Cubes ready to go, but it was held up because of the economic downturn, so instead we got a bunch of 733 G4's that will never see an upgrade card and use a lot more desk space up. As for myself, I picked up a floor model about 6 months after they went off the market (for $699 if I recall).

As for the need for a lower price desktop (non-AIO), Apple acknowledged that when they kept the G4 tower around, which a quick check at the store is still available starting for $1299. They need to keep a model in there to cover the lower end, and it needs to get below that psychological barrier of $1000 for better "starting at" advertising. It should also offer a similar price/performance ratio to the iMac. As I stated in a thread on the iMac, up until recently the high end iMac held the same or faster clock speed as the low end PowerMac, and if sales are going to pick up then they need to regain that standing.

The main reason that Apple needs a "consumer" tower though is to gain market share. Although they have put the switcher campaign on hold for the moment, they still need to address this problem. They wont be able to do that with the iMac/eMac alone, they need another product to address the needs/wants of people who don't want AIO computers, but can't afford $1700 for a home computer. This is also the format that most Wintel consumers expect in a computer, and may be reluctant to move to an iMac because they perceive it as a toy. Add to that the number of Designers that may be putting off a new home computer purchase because of the price of the entry G5's, when a few years ago the entry PM was $1499 its now $1799. (I don't consider the G4 PM a current computer especially since it is not even using the highest speed G4 that is available and was used by Apple in that line-up, and the $1499 price was for a computer using the latest chips that Apple had available. Heck, even the $1299 Cube had the latest crop of G4 chips in them)

[HOM]

Originally posted by @homenow
As for the need for a lower price desktop (non-AIO), Apple acknowledged that when they kept the G4 tower around, which a quick check at the store is still available starting for $1299. They need to keep a model in there to cover the lower end, and it needs to get below that psychological barrier of $1000 for better "starting at" advertising. It should also offer a similar price/performance ratio to the iMac. As I stated in a thread on the iMac, up until recently the high end iMac held the same or faster clock speed as the low end PowerMac, and if sales are going to pick up then they need to regain that standing.
snip...

The G4 tower is being kept around for one reason and one reason alone. So people that have no option but to run their software in Mac OS 9 can. That's it.

Now for this headless Mac crap. Switchers don't care about headless or not headless. They don't care if the monitor comes off the iMac or any of the other nonsense that we as geeks would like to think they care about. Apple will not start to see big upticks in market share until these questions are not asked by every single potential switcher:

What version of Windows does it run?
Will old software work on it?
Isn't Apple going out of business?
Where are all the games?
Can I run Kazza?
But where will I turn for help when something goes wrong, all my friends use PC's?
Is there a Mac version of this obscure piece of software?
ect...

These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

[@homenow]

Originally posted by HOM
These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed? Your tone implies as much, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and mine was above.

I think that if you look at the bulk of PC sales today they are not AIO systems. Part of this is the price, another is expandability (wether used or not), and I'm sure that there are many others.

Right now SUV's are selling very good as well; so well in fact that Porsche, Mercedes, VW, and BMW have come out with SUV's for the American market. People looking a new vehicle wont buy a Porsche if they don't offer a model that fits what they are looking at. I think that there is a similar situation hamstringing Apples penetration into the Wintel market place today. "I just bought a good 18" LCD, why would I want to spend the extra for an AIO when I have a perfectly good monitor on my desktop." At the same time "I don't need a $1800 computer". I also don't think that I am alone in this opinion. The key is to offer people a choice in what they can buy, that is why Ford sells compact cars, sports cars (Jaguar), luxury cars, Trucks, and SUV's.

Apple may not see this logic, but they also don't see the logic in advertising the lowest price. Most of the ads for Apple computers in my area print the medium to high end prices. This goes against most marketing models that I know of, you advertise the lowest price you can (even if you don't have them as seems to be the case with most car dealers) and let your sales people talk the customer into a more expensive model once you have their interest. But if they are looking to spend $1500 on a computer and you are only advertising your $1800 computer you wont even get them in the door.

[Gamblor]

These are the real issues. A headless Mac is an Apple geek's wet dream. It allows you to have a powerful upgradable Mac, but without having to buy the Pro system. TOUGH LUCK! Save a little longer and get a G5 or quit your bitching and buy an iMac.

I just don't get this attitude-- "If you don't like what Apple offers, then sit down and SHAADUP!!!" Do you really think you've added anything to the discussion? I don'kt know about you, but I think a big part of the reason Future Hardware is here is to discuss what we'd like to see Apple create, not just to ponder the latest rumor.

I agree with @homenow. I'd love to see Apple come out with something "cube like", starting at $1299, but hopefully closer to $999 (who'm I kidding? This is Apple we're talking about-- it'll be $1299 ). One PCI slot would be nice, but it's not required. An AGP slot is. Use G5's in the current speed range. Four memory slots, and the current compliment of ports. They'd fly off the shelves.

[HOM]

Originally posted by Gamblor
I agree with @homenow. I'd love to see Apple come out with something "cube like", starting at $1299, but hopefully closer to $999 (who'm I kidding? This is Apple we're talking about-- it'll be $1299 ). One PCI slot would be nice, but it's not required. An AGP slot is. Use G5's in the current speed range. Four memory slots, and the current compliment of ports. They'd fly off the shelves.

But why would they fly off the shelves? How does a headless Mac address any of the issues that I mentioned as really keeping Apple from gaining market share? It doesn't! A headless Mac is not a switcher box anymore then an iMac, iBook, PowerMac, or PowerBook is. It's not price, it's not expandability, it is compatibility and the myths of compatibility that are keeping Mac sales down.

Ok, now I get it why a headless Mac like you've described would fly off the shelves. Cheap geeks would buy them instead of PowerMacs. We've seen this before with the clones. People's "loyalty" to Apple went out the window as soon as it could. It nearly put Apple out of business. Same with the dual 867 mHz PowerMac. Ever wonder why the low end PowerMac is a single processor? It's because cheap bastard like you would rather starve Apple of their revenue then save for a little longer and buy a more expensive and more powerful system.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but rather a pragmatist. It's sales of Apple's high margin products like PowerMacs and PowerBooks that allow them to give you the best damned OS on the planet. But like I said above, the only people that are clamoring for a headless Mac are cheap Mac geeks. A headless Mac is not the reason that switchers aren't coming over in droves.

[@homenow]

Thanks Gamblor. My take on this forum is exactly that, to discuss what is desired, what is likely, and even what is likely based on current designs, technology, and rumor. After all, once it has been released and we can talk more definatively about the hardware it no longer belongs in this forum, it is current hardware.

Hopefully there are some people at Apple in Marketing and new product development that read these forums from time to time to get some idea of what their customers are talking about.

[@homenow]

Originally posted by HOM
... Ok, now I get it why a headless Mac like you've described would fly off the shelves. Cheap geeks would buy them instead of PowerMacs. We've seen this before with the clones. People's "loyalty" to Apple went out the window as soon as it could. It nearly put Apple out of business. Same with the dual 867 mHz PowerMac. Ever wonder why the low end PowerMac is a single processor? It's because cheap bastard like you would rather starve Apple of their revenue then save for a little longer and buy a more expensive and more powerful system.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but rather a pragmatist. It's sales of Apple's high margin products like PowerMacs and PowerBooks that allow them to give you the best damned OS on the planet. But like I said above, the only people that are clamoring for a headless Mac are cheap Mac geeks. A headless Mac is not the reason that switchers aren't coming over in droves.

You are working on a myth as well, sales of less expensive Macs mean that Apples revenue will decrease. What Apple needs to do to increase market share is find a market that is not addressed by their current product matrix and build a product to address this market. Then they need to adjust their current product production levels to adjust for the anticipated drop in sales as current Mac owners replace their computers with the new form factor instead of an iMac or PowerMac. As for the profit margin of the new product, again it should be set to compensate for the loss in sales of those models so that Apple makes as much or more based on their estimates of conversion of current customers to the new form factor. If someone was going to buy an iMac or a PowerMac, and they buy a Cube instead then Apple still gets the money. What they need is to get the people who were going to buy a Dell to buy a Mac.

As for compatibility, Apple does a horrible job at educating the public on this. Most of the big software is out there for Macs, and Apple should make sure that this knowlege is out in the PC world, not just the Mac world. This means advertising in non-mac media, trips to Comdex, etc., that is where they will find switchers, not at MacWorld. They also need an updated Works that can read and write Word files, and they should update this every time Word comes out with a new version so that their customers are not left behind.

In fact Apples advertising doesn't do much to attribute to their sales today (at least in my opinion). They have nice trendy, sometimes flashy adds that rarely if ever mention price, yet price is one of the perceived problems with Apples products. Every time I see an local ad for Apple products in the local paper or ad inserts the companies that sell Macs (like Comp-USA) always show the higher priced Mac products, if they show them at all, this does no more for the publics perception than the anemic software offerings that these stores maintain for Apple products.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by mattyj
Apple should keep the 1.6Ghz G5 and Introduce it at an ultra low price point. Even a Dual 1.6Ghz would be great at a price point equal to the supposed single 2Ghz single or lower.

The ultra low pricepoint is the iMac range. They want a general progression between the iMacs an Power Macs, with just a little bit of overlap possible.

[a_greer]

i have been doing my mac v pc homework for a few months now as a winxp user looking at macintosh and discovered that when you cut through the hype and bs in the sunday paper you ill see that mac(power, E- and I-) are great

example:

NEW BRAND ABCXYZ 2GHZ CELERON 256MEG RAM 40 G HDD 17INCH CRT (NOT FLAT CRT) AND CDRW FOR $399.99

the glitch is in the details, fine print:
1399.99-500$manf. rebate-store mailin rebaite and so on and so on.

MAIN PRICE IS REALY BALANCED BETWEEN APPLE AND PC
APPLE is honest and up front
THATS THE DIFF

[Gamblor]

A headless Mac is not a switcher box anymore then an iMac, iBook, PowerMac, or PowerBook is. It's not price, it's not expandability, it is compatibility and the myths of compatibility that are keeping Mac sales down.

Wrong. Apple's low end machines don't sell well because they don't offer a good price/performance ratio when compared with the competition-- plain and simple. If Apple had G5's across the line, their sales would be a hell of a lot higher, and their profits would be too.

And who honestly cares about making a machine specifically for switchers? Why isn't the entire damn line attractive to switchers?

It's because cheap bastard like you[...]

Think you can make a post without the dumbass insults?

The ultra low pricepoint is the iMac range. They want a general progression between the iMacs an Power Macs, with just a little bit of overlap possible.

And why shouldn't there be overlap? Apple doesn't have a problem with overlap in the laptop lines-- hell, neither iBook offers anything really unique compared with the Powerbooks. There's actually a lot of overlap there. If they're not averse to overlap with laptops, why should they be averse to it with desktops?

[crayz]

BTW, most info says that the dual G5 has been selling extremely well. If there is that much demand for the high end, it makes sense to push those people to pay more for the privilege. If Apple did it, they'd assume the amount of money they'd make with the higher price would be more than the amount they'd lose from people going to the midrange model instead. It's probably a good bet that this is true. For example:

Dual 2.2 = $400 profit sold at $2500
Dual 2.6 = $600 profit sold at $3000
Dual 2.6 = $1000 profit sold at $3400

If that was the case, Apple could lose 4/5 of the people who would buy high-end at $3000 to midrange, and the 1/5 who paid $3400 would make it break even.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Gamblor is on the money.

I wished Apple would take on board some of his advice.

Drive down the price of single G5 towers.

Have the speed bumps all dual.

Get that cheap tower under 1K. Well, it is at the mo'. But it is G4 based (and not selling well because of that?) Bring the 1.6 G5 tower to the same 1K mark. 1.8 just above a K. Single 2 gig a couple of hundred more. Then 3 tiers of duals. Dual 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. More choice.

Gamblor, I wouldn't listen to the Apple 'grid' analites. The 'grid' is history. As anybody who has been paying attention for the last few years would know. (Gosh, who'd a thunk Apple would have 3, rather than 2(!) Powerbooks in their Powerbook line!? It's SO confusing! Apple shouldn't have the affordable 12inch Powerbook because it affects sales of the 17 inch Powerbook and hampers Apple's ability to make itself into a smaller niche. Or tower under 1K? Or G4 and G5 towers just to confuse Apple buyers. Or the pending switch to a 'two-tier' iPod range? Or 12inch and 14 inch iBook screen sizes...or...gasp, 3(!!!) screen sizes for your iMac 2? Why add a 20 inch screen? It would only cause confusion and cost too much...or why do a 17 inch iMac(eMac) because it would break somebody's wrist from carrying it around all day... Or better still, why not have two overlapping lines of overpriced AIOs, eh? (iMac/eMac...) Because that would make more sense than offering a little bit of choice ie a range of cheap consumer towers to complement a cheap range of consumer AIOs? And there's always the danger that pro users might confuse the X-serve and PowerMac range...or Wintel users might confuse Apple's Mac OS with their new Unix OS...or the iPod with a PDA...)

I'm sorry folks. I can't help speaking crap.

Lemon Bon Bon

[Gamblor]

Gamblor is on the money.

I wished Apple would take on board some of his advice.

Thanks, LBB!

Hey Steve: I work cheap, too.

(I've got to, in order to maintain my "cheap bastard" status. )

[mooseman]

...I think ol' (ad)HOM(inem) is dead wrong. I'd have several more Macs if they were priced lower. I want a headless cuz I don't need a monitor. I want a multimedia Mac that I can connect to TVs or put in with audio systems.

A 19" home audio form factor headless flat mac with a 1GHz G4, 2 RAM slots, 1 AGP Vid with HDTV component out and 2 CardBus slots built in wifi and bluetooth with a CD-RW/DVD for $699 with BT or $779 with BT and WiFi would see me owning 2 or 3. There is really nothing to prevent Apple from making money on such a product. The current eMac is closely spec'd. Throw out the monitor and big plastic case and throw in BT/WiFi/AGP/CardBus in its place.

As it is, I snatched up an old iMac motherboard when I had the chance and crammed it in a Marathon iRack. They are slick as hell, but they really need AltiVec to do the MM stuff. I just want to be able to do the stuff I do on my G4 Mac without it choking. You don't need much power to run iTunes, but you do need that AltiVec power for iSight/iChat AV, and Halo, and the like. And with BT, would n't you just love to sit in front of your big screen HDTV with a BT keyboard and mouse and play some Halo or UT2004?

There are so many different ways to use Apple's software, but they limit their market by having complete control over the hardware. Like that dude who use to work at Appel and came up with a little mini-PC with a 7" integrated screen. He wanted Apple to make it but Steve told him to get lost. So now it will be a Windows product.

No room for form factor innovation for Apple cuz they hold all the cards. Its a damn shame. OS X is such a powerful and well integrated system. Apple has some damn nice technology, but their limited product quadrant keeps many markets closed to them.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Gamblor
And why shouldn't there be overlap? Apple doesn't have a problem with overlap in the laptop lines-- hell, neither iBook offers anything really unique compared with the Powerbooks. There's actually a lot of overlap there. If they're not averse to overlap with laptops, why should they be averse to it with desktops?

Oh GOD. What the hell are you talking about? Of COURSE the iBook doesn't offer anything 'unique.' That's not what I mean by overlap, Jeebus!

Here's what I mean by overlap. The preconfigured iBook range is $1100 to $1500. The preconfigured PowerBook range is $1600-$3000. If you want a 12" 1 GHz laptop, you must get a PowerBook. If you want something with a larger screen but don't have $2000, the only option is the 14" iBook. Comprende?

The iMac is $1300-$2200. The Power Mac line is $1800-$3000 sans monitor.

Apple's been keeping steady in sales ~800,000 units per quarter while their total marketshare slowly dwindles. There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

[imacFP]

The truth is Apple needs both good price/performace and also a lot of myth busting. My fiance's friend wants a Mac because she liked the 23" display, but when I talked to her about Macs the two things that most put her off were the lack of an internal floppy drive and Office not coming pre-loaded. The I've always used Macs and hopefully always will but most people are not as dedicated as I (we) are. Apple has the best platform, but not the most popular, and for many people that really matters. They don't want to be different. Apple's doing a great job with the iPod and ITMS but it could very quickly go badly for them. Having a $1,000 or less headless box is a good start but won't be enough with out a lot of education.

[Eugene]

Lemon Bon Bon, how many people do you know with 14" iBooks? Frankly, I hate the 14" iBook for the very reason you cite. It offers marginal advantages over the 12" because its screen is STILL 1024x768px.

As for the iMac. The 20" iMac is A-OK because the 15" iMac is going to go the way of the dodo. Apple's pretty much just trying to get rid of the backlogged inventory.

It's not really about the grid. It's about taking a distributed area and rechalking the lines without adding anything really new. Let's say Apple adds a headless iMac, a line of cheap uniprocessor towers, a true sub-notebook, etc. Not only do they have to add manpower to support these, they have to find a place to manufacture them. They have to stock shelves with them and advertise them. They have somehow convince NEW buyers, not just old buyers. Apple needs to actually maintain its marketshare before branching out like crazy.

[OverToasty]

Originally posted by Eugene


Apple's been keeping steady in sales ~800,000 units per quarter while their total marketshare slowly dwindles. There's no reason to dilute this number by offering more computers with even smaller differences between them in both price and specs.

... lock a bunch of engineers in a room, and make 'em find a way to get HDTV show up on that lovely 20" screen using the vector unit ... might do something about that market decline.

Ok, I'm done, let it fly ...

[edit, grammar]

[imacFP]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

new iLife Application:

Apple will release a new consumer music editing application, and it will NOT be called iMusic. We have the new name, which is very cool, but we will not disclose it.!

If this rumor is true I beat the new application is based upon Sound Studio, which Apple seemed to be promoting as a good app to work with iMovie. I got it and it's pretty slick.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by OverToasty
... lock a bunch of engineers in a room, and make 'em find a way to get HDTV show up on that lovely 20" screen using the vector unit ... might do something about that market decline.

Ok, I'm done, let it fly ...

That's actually kind of easy. Add component and SPDIF inputs to the Mac and you can hook-up any of the cable or DSS company HDTV tuner boxes to it.

It's funny that most people don't actually use the built-in HDTV tuners in their TVs if they have one, unless they're watching OTA broadcasts.

But, watching TV of any sort on your computer doesn't really sound like such a huge selling point.