Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line - Page 5

Very bad news

I would prefer a february update with Arrandale CPUs

Arrandale =
- cooler than Clarksfield (easier to put in iMac, MB, MBP)
- cooler than C2D if you disable the integrated GPU
- a lot cheaper (1000$ high end Clarksfield vs 332$ high end Arrandale)
- faster clock than Clarksfield (better for apps not multi core optimized like games)
- (integrated GPU for MB)

and February = chance to get an ATI 58xx option (or nVidia GT300)

Links:
Arrandale
ATI radeon 58xx (desktop version)


-*

In a word, no. In two words, no and no.

Most of the ads I see for Windows PCs don't even mention clock speed anymore.

Will it have a user replaceable hard drive?

I think anyone with sense if talking about quad core chips and cpu power that is available in machines costing half the price of an iMac.

*Shrugs. Don't let reality get in the way of zealout.

It beggars reason that Apple will STILL offer dual core iMacs. What's that, Toto? A SECOND side-grade for the iMac in the space of a year?

Blue ray? Whoop. Dual core? Whoop. Some low end gpu? Whoop.

A trimming of the price they grossly inflated here in the UK?

Trim a millimetre off the bezel? Whoop.

A ******************* disgrace of an upgrade.

Still, it hasn't landed. Who knows. Maybe some i7 'hyper-threaded' class cpu may land in the high end.

Looks like the model of '08 still reigns supreme. I can't say I'm glad about that fact. I'd rather the iMac move forwards. Still with the style over substance.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I would think that this assumption about who uses/buys Macs is wrong as it pertains to the mac market and Apple's growth objectives. Your belief that because most PCs are corporately bought (not sure but sounds plausible) is most likely the opposite for Macs. Look at the growth in Mac sales and your gut feel seems very out of place. Christmas quarter 2003 - 829K macs sold, same Q 2008 2.3M macs sold. 2003 was when Apple was much more supported by the traditional "Pro" crowd.
Of the 1.5M more macs sold now (in a quarter), hardly any would be going to traditional mac "pro user" shops, who if anything have been drifting away from the Mac as Adobe software etc. gets better for PCs. With the advent of the Apple Stores, most of those are going to consumers and prosumers (incl students), with some growth in institutional education. Corporate Mac penetration remains very low.

Consumers are the vastly bigger segment of the Apple pie right now and likely for a long time to come. Corporate and Govt sales ops in Apple are weak at best (esp. vs. Dell, HP and in-house IT departments).

The financial argument (from Apple's PoV) for an xMac has been debunked many times. Margins on standard PC boxes are razor thin and apple would struggle to differentiate theirs. It would inevitably cannibalize profitable iMac sales and would be a net negative to every P&L line except maybe revenue (which is debatable in itself). It would be a great computer (I'd buy one) but a terrible business decision. After all, Apple is not valued on a Price to Revenue basis is it? For reference Dell 2008 $61Bn rev $2.9Bn NI, Apple $32Bn rev, $4.8Bn NI. Who wants to be Dell? Note that Apple's Mac margins are not much lower than iPod/iPhone margins either.

As Consumers (non-gamers) are now the dominant Mac buyers, then you arguments hold no water since most people wandering into an Apple store could care less about the guts in the machine only that it does all their tasks lickety split! This only gets better with SL vs L so Apple are unlikely to need to go all out on hardware equivalency. Leave spec sheets to gamers and techie nerds, neither of which are a market niche Apple has ever cared about.

The niche of Pro users can still rationally evaluate whether they need a Pro, or an iMac or a PC but they are no longer the primary concern of Apple.

PS - Unrelated to the Mac market, most business users are also probably no more demanding on their computers than consumers except in the areas of durability and toughness since most PC sit around in offices doing offic-y things - nothing a pentium 4 couldn't manage unless it was trying to run Vista. Only a small proportion of the 92K users in my company need anything over a Pentium M for running complex software development runtimes etc.

not a dual core again - please! i don't want another laptop with 24"... i want more power for $1200

No kidding.

Apple offer 3 laptops and 2 others (total of 5) masquerading as desktops. Le biscuit tin. Le laptop on a stand.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Hey, go back to using your Apple IIe, you must still have it after 25 years of being a Mac user right? Some of us would like to do more with our computers than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail. Of course you probably think that the Apple IIe will run circles around any current Windows PC right?

A nice, thoughtful reply. Always welcomed.

First of all there is no "Mac Market" as I have constantly been berated on here by the like of Melgross and others - There is only the personal computer market of which Mac is a part. As of the 4th quarter of 2008, Apple only had a 3.4% of world-wide computer sales. A very tiny number, so any assumptions you make have to be taken inconsideration of that.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...rket-share.ars

Frankly it doesn't matter, because without a scientific survey by users of how they use their Macs, we will never no the true usage scenario of Macs and that's a shame because I think it could help software and hardware developers better target Apple's customers.

I never brought up the xMac, so I don't even know why you are bringing it up, it's irrelevant in this discussion.

As far as user demands of a computer - how can you compare a business user who typical runs 3 - 4 applications simultaneously for 8 hours or more a day, to a home user that uses maybe one or two applications for 2 - 3 hours a day max? Clearly the business user makes more use of their computer, requiring something more powerful than a consumer focused machine. That's why businesses use desktops and not netbooks.

PS. I know quite a few developers that would lynch you if you tried to make them use a Pentium M for software development - especially complex software development.

Pot, meet kettle...

So I imagine that everyone using a laptop as a primary machine, which, remember, is increasingly the norm, are doing nothing more than use VisiCalc or play Oregon Trail?

For that matter, what was everybody doing with their PC desktop computers a year ago? Using DOS so as not to bring them to their knees?

It's all well and good to want Apple to make a more powerful desktop machine. It's beyond asinine to pretend like the machines they do make are crippled and antiquated and incapable of doing "real" computing.

BTW, after you put forward your "Some of us want to......" formulation, you're supposed to say "Have fun with your blank, I'll think of you while I'm blanking with my blank."

It's right there in the Dickipedia.

So noted.

As I have clearly stated before: Techstud is neither.

No actually I was being critical of his numerous assertions that somehow being a Mac user for 25 years (which is probably stretching the truth seeing how the first Macs cost thousands of dollars and very few people could afford them, myself included) makes him any more knowledgeable on the topic than anyone else in this discussion.

And frankly your assertion that all most users do with their computers is surf the web and maybe do a bit of word processing is equivalent to my statement about the capabilities of the Apple IIe. If you were around back then, I'm sure you would of tried to make the same argument that nobody needs more than a 68k processor when the Intel 386 came out. Yet years later, here we are, people are using, and need, faster computers every year.

And from a profit standpoint Apple is right to deny us more powerful machines. Why? Because faster computers last longer. Selling machines that don't need to be replaced as often reduces sales. It's really simple math.

The higher income people who can afford to buy the latest new look are Apple's ONLY target market for the iMac. They don't want anyone who cares about performance per dollar, matte screens, decent GPUs or user accessible hard drive bays. All those things would cost Apple more and they believe they would not increase sales enough to compensate.

Apple has said many times they don't want to sell the most hardware; they want to sell the best. Right now they're doing neither, but have convinced a wealthy demographic that their stuff is worth paying for and that's all that matters.

What that focus does is alienate a group of people who want to run Mac OS X, but are offered no suitable hardware to put it on. A fair number of those people are regular contributors to forums such as this. We quite rightly put our own self interest first and want a machine that Apple will not make.

Apple does have one small problem with us. We're incredibly loud in our demands for something they don't want to make. Thus we have the potential to dissuade people within Apple's true target market from making purchases. Obviously Apple wants to shut us up, but the questions are how much that would cost and whether it's even achievable.

If they make a mini-tower it'll lower the complaint level to a low din, but that's the most dangerous form factor for them because it's hard to differentiate it from generic PCs and because their consumer target market would customize them and drive support costs through the roof.

Making the iMac good enough for us would take away from its appeal in the form over function demographic they currently earn so much profit from so they won't do that either.

I think they can't win and they know it. They're trying the do nothing approach and hope it's better than any of the other choices they could have made.

That leaves us with nothing but hackintosh machines. Maybe Apple wouldn't mind if we all bought one and shut up about their limited product line, but they can't seem to be supporting that option because of Psystar and their ilk.

Hoping we'll be satisfied with nothing and simply shut up is wishful thinking though.

Again, pot, meet kettle

Even if true, not an excuse. And not true.

I really, really, really hope the dual core thing will be only for the base 20" model at most... if Apple doesn't come with a decent quad-core processor inside (Core i5 or the mobile Core i7) than this is just plain sad. Every bigger and smaller company is introducing a quad-core notebooks and Apple having the brand new multi-processor optimised Snow Leopard OS and then a sad old slow dual core processor in a revamped iMac body... please don't... please please dont! Apple can do so much better...

Why be vague with your response, say what you mean man.

You and Addabox seem to think that Americans should be dumb and not care about what they are buying. That they should just over-pay and make Apple richer for outdated hardware.

Clearly, several other posters disagree with your sentiment. They all know the difference between 2 cores and 4 cores. It's pretty simple - 4 is more than 2 - surely you don't mean to say that Americans can't do simple math?

Just because a Hyundai Accent can do 80 MPH, doesn't mean we should trade our Ford Mustangs for one - true?

Would you rather a debate on healthcare reform? I'm sure as a doctor you could offer some valuable insight as to why or why we shouldn't reform healthcare?

Uh, no, I don't think that's what they're saying.

They're saying, "You live in America, which has a market economy, and no one is holding a gun to your head to buy something you don't want at a price you don't want to pay."

Hear, Hear!!

Otoh, if you caught a very bad pun in my post......

I mean how much longer can we be expected to tolerate the obscenely fat (7.4 inches - yecchh!) current iMacs?

If they don't make it thinner soon, I'm switching to Windows!

Does anyone else find the port locations to be extremely irritating? I don't keep my iPhone cable plugged into my iMac all the time because i use the cable along with the AC Charger adapter. When I have to sync I'm constantly having to dig into the back by feel to find the USB port.

Same with headphone's when my bluetooth headset is charging. I have to resort to the cord variety and it again requires digging around into the back to find it.

Here's hoping they at least move it to a side, or the lower front, or something.

Oh, I think it's pretty clear what they are saying. The average American is dumb and can't figure out that a $1500 computer is better than a $300 netbook if it looks all pretty and has a big shiny Apple logo on it.

Please, even my mother-in-law and grandmother can read the spec card on a display and are able to compare one computer to another and if there is something they don't understand, they know enough to ask someone who is knowledgeable and have them help them buy the "better" computer.

Noooooo - leave them on the back. I hate seeing open ports visible on a computer. I'd much rather grope around or turn the thing slightly than give up the clean appearance of the iMac.

Just as they should! And that will teach Apple a lesson, no?

What's the problem here? What exactly are you complaining about?

Again- change you byline dude. I's really disgusting and offensive. I'm surprised you're not banned out of here for degrading people with disabilities.
And you fail to insult or amuse. Shu!

Oh I am soo offended by your lame insults. Please stop - I can't take it. You are so AWSUM!

He may be dense, but your answer fails.
Why is Apple selling MORE glossy screens then they EVER sold of the matte screens, when people could, instead, buy any number of other computers with matte screens available on the market?

YOur insults are soo clever and imaginative. Too bad you have nothing to add of consequence to the thread itself.
Matte is back and Apple's never going back!

OMG- not you too!!!
OK here goes:-= Almost 2 1/2 years ago there was like this new invention from Apple called (let me remember)- oh yes, the iPhone!
And wouldn't you know this caused a lot of- switchers!!. Also in this period there was something released from Microsoft (what was it called?) - oh yes- VISTA!!!!
Both of these caused - what? ANs: A ton of SWITCHERS!!! Got it?
This cause more Mac - BUYERS!!! got it!! Glossy screened iMacs were the only new iMacs available in that period.
You don't need a degree in brain surgery to figure this out.
JEESH!

My god- you're relentless. Thank god it's just not me.

Let me ask you -Why is APple selling matte screens on the 17 " Pro- NOW?
Why did they quietly add matte to the 15" Pro - NOW?

I believe Intel has officially introduced i7 platform for notebooks recently, so there is no reason why iMacs wouldn't have any.

Well, no real reason at least \

Uh, I believe Mr Magoo is.

Most users here. Most users over on MacRumors perhaps. most users in the whole market, probably not

Most users want a machine that works for what they want to do. whether it has a dual core i7 or a quad core i2 or whatever matters little.


no shite sherlock and watson


actually not early at all. if they release now folks have time to do the budget math before they start shopping.


assuming that thinner means front to back, don't you think they would have a solution for that.


indeedy deed. if this is real, whoever is saying anything ain't going into details for one reason only. details would get him/her/them totally caught.


something I am curious about. is Amazon running their own warehouses for this stuff. it makes some sense. they buy in bulk and they might get a better discount. if so, then it begs the question are they out because the model has been cut by Apple to run down the old and make way for the new. or is it out because Amazon, believing the rumors, didn't buy more thinking they were about to get stuck with old machines.

after all, we haven't had the flurry of rumors from Best Buy and such about being told the current models were in short supply etc


i don't know about your specs but I do agree that the MacMini could handle a boast. it isn't even up to the specs of the 13" Macbook pro.




just for that, I hope they keep the 'raccoon'


dear god no. make it a generic slot and let us pick

or do the SD on the low end and make the upper users choice.


will there be activities.


something folks keep forgetting about with the Blu-ray issue. the Itunes store. they just upgraded the movies on the store to this new 'extras' business. why? to promote downloads over disks.

if they go and put in a built in blu-ray they are backpedaling on this issue.

now I could see them perhaps updating SL to work with an external drive for those that insist. or perhaps an internal option for the Pro for the business users. but an internal in the mini and imacs I can't see, at least not as a standard option


or crazier thought. dump Apple Care as an add on. just make the warranty 3 years, same conditions.



Because you say so. You are typical of the smaller part of the market that Apple is going after with the imacs. the folks they are going after don't care about the chip type, number of chips etc. they glaze over and tune out. what they care about is that they can do what they want without the computer freezing or taking all night for a simple task. and that the computer won't be obsolete in 2 years.


actually some of us have the business sense to see what Apple is up to with the line and where the focus is and we understand that what folks here are demanding is not what the focus audience is going to care about.

Apple Retail trains their peeps to ask 'what are you looking to do with your computer'. spend enough time in the stores and you hear that question in one form or another enough to know that this has been pounded into the sales people. they are like robots saying it. why do they ask. because the answer gives them the data of consumer/prosumer/professional. And they have whole subteams for the professionals and the businesses. and guess what desktop sells the most for that group. the Mac Pro. the iMacs are going to the parents that want a game machine for the kids, or grandma that needs that 20" screen to see what she's doing.

So when Apple is making design calls about the iMac (and even the Mini to some degree) they are looking at the answers to that question. Yes there are some professionals that use iMacs. Heck I work freelance for an editing house that does PSA and Industrials and I run Final Cut Studio on a 3.06 iMac with a second LED display hooked up to it. Would I love to have an imac with a bigger hard drive, faster processor and an esata connection. Heck yeah I would. Do I expect them to. No. Because I know that my needs are not typical of the market. I would settle for a cheaper starting price on the Mac Pro since the company can't quite afford the towers and would rather not lease (although I think I have them about convinced on that route)


those folks are still there. but they are a small part of the potential market. For Apple to grow in share they need to get the non techies as well.


define recent. cause the whole One-to-One program was started to deal with the growing consumer count among Mac users. in fact the whole Apple Retail was to snag those consumer users that were PC.


funny you say that. cause my best friend is a caterer with 3 kids who use the family computer for homework, games etc.

and guess where that computer is. mounted on the wall at the end of the breakfast bar where Shel can use it for cooking podcasts, invoicing etc. AND keep an eye on what the kids are doing.


actually Pucca and Garu want me to tell you that they are pissed about that change. now they have fewer cables to play with. Especially when I went wireless and keep the keyboard and mouse in a drawer when I am not at home.

although it is fun to 'back to my mac' and flip the camera on and scare them off the desk.


not to mention that it's easier to paint the alum casing.



note that matte is not back on all of them. only the highest end that the business users were getting has matte in the box. the rest you have to custom order online. however it does show that Apple is willing to test the issue. As I hope they will with at least the high end iMacs and the LED display. Because sometimes we aren't at liberty to move things so the option, even at a slightly higher price, would be nice.



no joke. I have to stare at the back of the other guy's computer all day and I would rather have the 'cheap plastic' of the mac than the candy colored back of a Dell any day.


that stuff works because Apple (both in the keynotes and the staff in stores) has a tendency to follow up the details with 'and this means'. so you can tune out the details about the specs and just here the 'why do I care about this'. Unlike the shirts at some places that just try to wow you with the details and leave you wondering if they actually know the answer to the Why?


I wouldn't be so sure they call it a mistake. After all, how many computers have they sold recently.
and before you bring up the whole LED display as an example, remember that it lacks a lot of the innards of an imac so it simply has no need for 'the chin'. and that could be why that detail is lacking


i could go for that. although I really like this one mock up I saw for a fully touchscreen keyboard that would charge labels according to what you were doing. so if you are typing you might see the letters (in your choice of QWERTY or other), if you are running FCP you would see the shortcuts, in a game you might see the controller labels if it uses kids, etc.



a little I wouldn't mind if they added front audio ports and perhaps front usb. or at least side. but if they do front they need to do something to cover it up when you aren't using it. slide off panel or something. having naked ports on the front is like seeing your granny in her panties. ugh.

I'm sure what ever they put out will still keep them 1 step ahead of others. But regardless of what they put it it will always be ahead of every computer company in the world due to one factor... OS X. Let's face it, that is the the king in the land of transistors. It can do anything we want it to. It can be anything we want it to be. It can even run every other OS on the planet.

And because it can run every OS on the planet and do so faster and better than the other guys... It is everything we want and need.

You can cry for mega flop sudo-core chips and GPU's beyond compare but the fact is that it doesn't matter because what they offer now is more than enough for 90% of the people on the planet. You need more? They have a system for you, it's called a MacPro. If your into apps that demand more than an iMac can handle then your not gonna find an All-in-One system anyways.

Love it or hate it they make the best because they use the best. And it's the best that make what they use.

Ok, back to the wish list...
Can I opt in for a smaller iMac with 1080 res? With a total power consumption of less than 40 watts. Gimme a MacMini with a 17-18.5" HR Screen and package the whole deal around $799. 2.0ghz, 2gb, 160gb HD with a super drive is plenty. HP's got an iMac look-a-like coming out October 22nd priced at $599 for the same bit of kit above cept it uses AMD's 3250e cpu (not bad, been using one for 2 weeks now along side the mini).

THEN make the high end mini a 2.2ghz base and 2.53 optional with 4gb, 320gb (7200rpm BTO) at $749... Still keeping the base Mini where it sits with maybe a price reduction or throw in the mini kybd and mini mouse. I think the Mini needs to be packaged with a kybd and mouse now. Small organic packaging and toss it on the shelves of any super-box store at $599.

Top it all off, SD Card slots on all, mini gets it right below the aluminum ring, center. iMac gets one dead center of the Apple logo (so to not smudge up the design with a slot).

Make the boxes green and white.

With the updates coming to iMac and MacBooks it's going to be a CPU update at least. So Core i series will probably be a go since no updates to the "Core" involve more performance just lower power (MacBook Air?).

Ohh... Towel Please,