So The iMac Is Next, Right? - Page 2

Shetline. Good Rebuttal. Honestly both of your points are valid. Market conditions will dictate what Apple does. Right now they have options.

G5 computers seem to offer lots of performance. Consumers will tell themselves that they want a G5 at their price point. Apple may choose to push G4s but Mac users are Legendary in their ability two wait...wait....wait. Apple needs to retrain it's users to pull the trigger. Product cycles need to be updated no more than 8 months apart. That isolates Apple from anger from the consumer about missing out on a latest update. It's alot easier to swallow not having the fastest on the block of you can point to the poor bloke who puchased the model before yours just 8 months prior.

G4's will not be competitive with X86 next year. $1300 PC computers will have 800Mhz Busses and 3Ghz processors with Hyperthreading. If Apple continues to slack in the under $1500 market then they obviously don't believe in their Switch Campaign. I reiterate the G5 needs to be in an iMac by next summer. That gives Apple one more G4 refresh in the line.

It makes sense to stick the low-end, as-yet-unused 1.2Ghz G5 in the iMac. I just wonder if it's even possible to stick the G5 in that little dome.

You will get a $1300US G5, it just won't be an iMac.

That also sets Apple up to move to the 980 in 24-30 months. The Power 5 will be here next year, and possibly the 980 the year after, I wouldnt count on 18 months but 24 might be a realistic "earliest we could see them" ship time for a 980 based Mac. Though I fear that Apple will stick with the G4 for 2 more updates (summer 03 and winter 04 anouncements) for the iMac.

Longer. at least three other products are ahead of th iMac in the G5 queue. The Xserve, a minor matter for the leaf blower. The "Headless" space currently occupied by the PMG4, and the Powerbooks. iMacs will almost certainly get the same CPU as Powerbooks stripped of a few features, when the time for their G5 finally arrives. PB's will take 12 months, iMacs will take longer, 16-18. Jan '05, mebbe Xmas '04.

I agree with this. I see a lot of posts mentioning the iMac using a 1.4 GHz G4 but that makes no sense to me because the 1.4 GHz 7455 runs way too hot to stick in an iMac. A 1.2 GHz G5 would run cooler and would be far more powerful. Some people also mention putting an L3 cache into the iMac along with some version of a G4. L3 cache adds to the cost and the G5 doesn't need it.

If the iMac is going to stick with a G4 in the next revision, due in August, I suspect, it'll be a 7457 at perhaps 1.2 GHz. Just how thrilling would sales be then? Maybe if the price were reduced?

I've also seen posts about a .09µ version of the 970. Is that really going to happen? I can see the 970 going to 2.4 GHz in January but still at .13µ. 6 months after that, there'll be a .09µ 980 G6 at 3 GHz. Is it worth it to refab the 970 at .09µ and if so, how soon would that be? I've been hearing spring, at the earliest. If there's going to be a G5 PB in Jan., it'd probably be 1.4 GHz using a .13µ 970. Some clever way will have been found to deal with the heat. Aside from cooling fans, they'll probably find ways to step down the power with a reworked controller.

Anyway, I'd hate to see the iMac held up by the PB. Sure, maybe for marketing reasons but technically, there's no reason why the iMac couldn't go G5 now.

Couple of things: where have you heard anything about the 980 other than pure speculation; nothing from IBM. As for the iMac going G5 now, Apple learned it's lesson and won't release an iMac so soon after Power Mac G5 introductions. People will buy them up left and right, and ignore the Power Mac yet again! Not going to happen soon. Later, much later.

BTW, all the Powerbooks have processor speed and voltage step downs already.

Apple's screwing the pooch. They need to look at their products like this.


Xserve/Xraid- High Margin + Service Packages

Powermacs- High Margin

iMacs/eMacs- Low Margin high volume(Promote iTMS, .mac services hard!)

a 1.2-1.4Ghz G5 in an iMac is simply not going to compete with a Powermac. And anyone who would chose a G5 iMac over a G5 Powermac propably really only needs that iMac. Apple ...sell the appropriate machine for the appropriate person.

Wasn't the intro of the G4 iMac LCD pretty much the nail in the PowerMac G4 coffin? Same CPU, same video, superdrive, AND LCD for around the same price!

Yes it was. But now Apple has more "range" in which to place their product.

1.2-1.4Ghz for iMacs while the PMs are 2.0-3.0Ghz in a year. No danger at all. PM SHOULD be overkill for most people and hence..priced accordingly.

Imacs should be low margin high volume. Marketshare builders.

Agree. Totally.

1.3 G4 on crap bus against Prescott and its bus?

How stupid would that be? No. Apple are going to have to think different.

Getting to 0.09 970 is imperative for Apple. That iMac needs it. The Powerbook needs it. I think their whole line needs it.

A 0.09 1.8 G5 iMac2 in no way competes with a 3 gig dual 970. This isn't the incremental G4, people! Heat, smeat. Dell seems to find a way for those Pentium 4 firebreathers to fit into x86 laptops and AIOs. A don't think a 1.2 970 is going to need 9 fans. I don't think a .09 970 is going to need 9 fans. For a start, I don't see an iMac being a dual 2 gig firebreather...

Apple must address the price of their consumer desktops...and the performance. Or the unit sales will continue to get a kicking. They need to show the same aggression as the laptop line. Up performance...drive down price...and at least one headless/semi-expandable Mac?

The next 6 months may not see the G5 in anything but Apple's 'heavy-iron' line. But I think first six months of 04? That's gotta change...

I await Apple's next 2 quarter sales with great interest.

Lemon Bon Bon

I concur with the last few posts...the G5 needs to be in the iMac ASAP. If anything, the G5 points out even further how far behind the G4 is to the P4. (Not that I wouldn't rather have a G4 based Mac than a P4 based PC any day of the week.)

All the talk of Apple's lines "competing" with each other I think is misleading. Most of the people here who have a G4 tower bought it because they wanted expandability that the iMac G4 didn't offer. The reality is that the 1 GHz G4 iMac is MORE than enough computer for many home and small business customers who insisted they "needed" the PowerMac. But some will always buy the tower because of legitimate need, or for some just the "wang" factor.

An iMac G5 won't have PCI-X slots, will have only 2 RAM slots, non-upgradable video, and 1.6 GHz/800 MHz bus at the very best in the first release. That machine, while potentially stealing some sales away from the 1.6 GHz tower for those who really don't need slots, is not even remotely going to satisfy those looking at the 1.8 and Dual 2.0 GHz machines. And as long as Apple keeps the best iMac at the same speed as the slowest single-CPU tower, this formula won't change.

Though there will always be a small percentage who are on the fence over the iMac and PowerMac and would skip buying a tower if the iMac G5 was available, that is probably a tiny portion of the entire market. There's far more to the AIO vs. tower decision than the processor, and to "embargo" the G5 from any other machine for that reason alone is very bad business.

-- Ensoniq

The problem Apple has now is that the G5 is both a blessing and a curse. Mostly a blessing, of course, but in the short term the G5 must be causing some major headaches at Apple as they try to strategize upgrading the rest of their line-up following the G5 Power Macs.

Before, the G4 simply looked bad when compared to the Intel/AMD world had to offer. Now it even looks bad within Apple's own line-up -- the G3 in the iBooks looks even worse. Apple's going to have dance a tricky dance while waiting for cooler-running G5s, doing what upgrading it can do with what it's got, and trying to keep the products that don't get upgraded right away from looking too bad compared to the products that do.

Do you really think if they plopped a 1.2GHz G5 in an iMac that Power Mac G5 sales wouldn't be cannabalized? Assuming they are priced as they have always been, who wouldn't buy an iMac in that case, assuming you didn't need expandability? And by that, I mean PCI (PCI-X) cards! That's it - everything else can be firewire (400/800), wireless, bluetooth, USB2, etc... Who's adding a bunch of internal hard drives these days?

I agree that it sucks that you have to buy a Power Mac to get a G5 right now, but that is what Apple wants and needs. I'd love to buy a PowerBook G5, but can't, just as I can't get an iMac G5. It's the high end. I know Apple should be trying to compete a little better with Wintel, but right now is not the proper time. Mac users like Macs and will spend the $ to get a Power Mac plain and simple. Give it 2 or 3 months, for the buyers that immediately hand over their cash to subside a bit then bump the others. The Power Mac is their ace in the hole right now; long term, I agree, but not just yet. I am sure other stock holders of AAPL would agree.

When upgrading a product line, Apple has to consider Panther performance. The type of CPU, GPU, memory and bus speed will make a huge difference in performance. Then there's software performance. What will be the user experience differences between using a G4 and a G5 when using iMovie and iDVD? How about iChat AV performance?

The iMac sales have been in decline for a while. What would it take to get them moving again? Sure, performance will be incrementally improved by going to the 7457 with its higher speed and greater L2 cache but how sexy is that? I'd hate to see the iMac stuck with a G4 for another 6 months to a year.

I think if Apple wants to boost sales, it needs to sex up the iMac with a G5 and a different shell for that dome.

Maybe replace that dome with an expandable cube...? Detach the monitor from the base?

iCube3?

I agree. The iMac2 stormed out the gates. Languished for the best part of 13 months with the same spec. Stupifying in any market...but in the computer market? Insane!

Let's hope that Apple can make it cheaper. Make it more powerful...

It IS a sexy computer. On the outside at least...

But the price and the specs aren't...'sexy'. Simple. Apple are now competing in the real world. In real stores. And people who come into those stores have clippings of PCs that include faster cpus...more ram, better graphics card...cheaper price...and Apple have got to match that.

The G5 shows what CAN be done. IT IS THE MAC-TRICKS RELOADED!!! The consumer desktop line needs a fundamental re-boot.

Lemon Bon Bon

That's just the point! Apple is trying to get users who want iMacs AND speed to buy Powermacs. That's wrong. In 6 months we should see 90nm 970s. This should increase yields and allow Apple to make 2/3rds or all the Powermac Line Dual configs. Having a low mhz(1.2-1.4Ghz) won't cannibalize too much. The Pro line can then be differentiated by Dual vs Single and extra options. The G4 didn't scale well enough to create much differentiation...Apple had an excuse. If they make the same mistake again then it's Apples fault. They have an opportunity here to ship lots of boxes.

What's missing right now from Apple is agressiveness. They have the products...they have the Sofware. It's time to start pushing the Pro Apps on Pro Hardware and consumer apps on consumer hardware. Both should offer speed relative to their markets. When iChat Video requires a 600mhz G3-5 processor then it's obvious that people should be getting a little more speed than they have been.

Ya, I agree with that. The entire line would benefit from G5's. Maybe there'll be new cooling designed cases for the entire line so they can update them sooner?? \

I think Apple will find a way to stuff that G5 into just about anything.... PB, iMac, eMac, you name it....

I would still like them to put a faster one in the powerbooks though...that would be nice...

This time next year.. should see .09 G5's and Low power G4's..

I'd look for

eMac: Single 1.6 - 2.0 G4
iBook: Single 1.6 - 2.0 G4
iMac: Single 2, 2.4 G5
PBook: Single 2, 2.4 G5
PMac: Single 2.4, Dual 2.4, Dual 3.0

As much as there might be a certain amount of feeling against Moto, Apple is making the wrong noises to be leaving them entirely, so expect the G4 to still be around.

All this is predicated on a .09u G5, and that WILL change things, but we haven't got one yet, and in any case, the Powerbook will get one BEFORE the iMac. And also, the new "headless" tier currently occupied by the PMG4 will also get a G5 before the iMac.

None of us knows what Moto will bring, but I do not think that they will be let out. They are testing .09u on their 200mm fab, and an older design, and if they have such a profound die shrink ready, it will come with other improvements whenthey move it to a new fab. The .13u part is already done, it will be in the next PB revs, it cuts G4 power consumption in half, at .09u savings will be even greater. You may laugh, but I think you may even see a "G5" class chip from moto within 2 years. Probably not an IBM level CPU, but some hybrid of the 64 bit 8xxx's FSB and memory adress space and the G4's low power consumption, think G5 light.

Considering the fact that I just bought a 17" iMac 2 days after WWDC, this thread is making me depressed.

The only thing I'll say (by way of justifying my purchase) is that the iMac is STILL a great deal...

I priced out a Dual G4 PowerMac, and Single G5 PowerMac as other alternatives before making my purchase...Here's the way it broke down for what I wanted (Superdrive, 30GB iPod)

PowerMac G4, Dual
512 MB RAM
Superdrive
Cinema display (widescreen)
TOTAL: Over $3700

PowerMac G5, similarly equipped: $4,100

iMac 17"
768MB RAM
30GB iPod
Applecare
Canon i850 printer
TOTAL: $2700


There is still value in the iMac line, though I do agree that a lower price point would've made my decision a no-brainer, instead of the 4-day stress-inducing face-off it turned out to be.

Depends on how much value you place on the overpriced 17" LCD.

I would have looked at a Single 1.25Ghz G4 (w 1MB L3) and a third party 17" LCD for roughly the same price as the iMac. In a year you'll be able to add the 4X superdrive for 150USD.

Something like that. Yes. That's it.

Ensign Pulver, thou speaketh sense.

Lemon Bon Bon

It's not like I'm saying it'll never happen, just NOT in 03/04 (mebbe LATE '04, mebbe, just), and not before the Powerbooks, and not to the eMac, whose days are numbered. LCD prices are dropping rapidly every day. Just the other day I had my pick of a VERY nice 1280x1024 19" LCD or a widescreen 17" LCD (1440x900) combination TV/Monitor both just under 1000 CANADIAN, roughly 700 USD !!!

Yeah, the res for the 19 was a touch low, but it had exceptional brightness contrast and viewing angle, and you could VERY comfortably sit back fromthe display and work, nice.

The eMac will keep a G4 and become a commodity computer or Apple will kill it. By mid 2005 NOBODY will buy a CRT based machine, 15" LCD's will be had for under 150 USD RETAIL. eMac will die before the G5 sees the insides of it.

I also expect a CHEAPER G5 based system, something in the 1299 range, but such a machine will be a "HEADLESS" machine (where the PMG4 sits) and frankly it makes more sense than an iMac. Apple may finally be staring into the cold hard reality that consumers want headless machines, expect the G5's to be distributed accordingly.

I think IBM stated a quick migration to .09u for the G5, and the plant that it is bieng manufactured at was designed for .09u. I get the idea from what I have read from IBM that they plan to have the 970 on .09u by the end of the year.

Since they are reprotedly "ahead of scheduel" with the 970 as it is, and getting better than expected yields at "speed" I wouldnt be supprised if they migrate to the new process sooner so that their blade processors are cooler and less costly, which will make the servers more competative and open the 970 to a larger portion of Apples product line (ie, more sales to Apple).

IBM wants this chip to succeed. Right now IBM and Apple are the only anounced customers for these chips. Based on IBM's past desires for the PowerPC, I would be willing to bet that they have their eyes set on taking on the Intel platform again. To do this they need to get the chip and motherboard down to a price that can compete with systems using AMD/Intel. The smaller process makes this closer to a reality, so all that will be left is to find 3rd party linex box makers to build computers based off of IBM hardware desings (CHRP II so to say). I dont think that the this would be a run-away success right now, but given a year of good benchmarks and real world performance tests on both IBM and Apple computers and IBM might start getting that interest from 3rd party vendors, which would bring in even more return on IBM's investment in the 970, and help pay for a 980 (or whatever).

One thing for sure, IBM has a vested interest in Apples success with the G5.

When a G5 is wedged into the half-dome iMac enclosure, won't the shape/size have to be changed to accommodate the 9 fans?
\

No. Powermacs are designed with 9 fans because they must dissipate up to 200 watts in Dual 2Ghz Powermacs. By the time the iMac would get a single 970 it would be at 90nm making it a smaller and cooler running chip. Probably between 20-30 watts which is similiar to the current 1Ghz 180nm G4s being used.

The thing is to get the Mobo costs down. Apple may need to design yet a third Motherboard. Stripping some features to reduce costs. I'd guess that the current G5 Dual Motherboard is at LEAST $350. Way too expensive for iMacs.

eMacs/iBooks can utilize 130nm G4s at up to 1.1Ghz. That would be just fine for anyone looking for $1k machines.

I don't see Apple scrambling to put the G5 in an iMac as soon as they can. I do see them using it as an excuse to finally put decent G4s in the lineup. 7457 G4s? Why not - it seems as though they're ready, or will be soon.

Optimistic predictions:

15" iMac

> 1.25 GHz G4
> 167 MHz bus
> 256 MB DDR333 memory
> 80 GB ATA133 hard drive
> Combo drive
> 64 MB GeForce 4 MX video
> AirPort Extreme ready
> Bluetooth ready
> $1299

17" iMac

> 1.42 GHz G4
> 167 MHz bus
> 256 MB DDR333 memory
> 120 GB ATA133 hard drive
> Superdrive
> 64 MB GeForce FX 5200 video
> AirPort Extreme ready
> Bluetooth ready
> $1799

eMacs don't only have a CRT because of cost issues. They're also perceived to be a lot sturdier than LCDs. The fact that they're monolithic is also an advantage, as are the built-in speakers.

Always remember the eMac's target market: K-12. The more abuse the machine can take at the hands of little kids, the better.

On another topic, the G5 doesn't have 9 fans because one 90nm 970 would require them, or even because two 2GHz 130nm 970s require them: They have 9 fans so that the computer will run quietly no matter what you put in it. This, and the G5's insane airflow, are overengineering at its best - and in a beast like this, you want overengineering.

9 large fans running at 1/10 speed (the default for most of the G5's fans) are a lot quieter, and a lot more reliable, than two or three small fans running full tilt. For a single die-shrunk 970 in a carefully cooled and far more controlled space (i.e., no variable number of drives, or PCI cards), the one quiet fan in the iMac should suffice.

I'm no engineer, but this is what I think, too. There are hardly any variables in constrast to the tower factor. Perhaps Apple will perforate the iMac's hemisphere (like a collander) or remove the power supply to a brick (like the Cube had). Perhaps Apple needs to do nothing to the current iMac form factor.

I have a feeling that we'll see a G5 chip in the iMac sooner than later--maybe at 1GHz and 1.2Ghz.

At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.

For those who think the 7457 has a 200 MHz bus, you might want to read this for some insights: 7457

This Mot site page was updated before the G5 was announced but when I first looked at that page some months ago, it did say 200 MHz. Now it says 133 MHz. I have no idea why the change. Of course, what Mot sez and what Apple actually uses may be two different things. For instance, nowhere on Moto's site does it mention a 7455 at 1.42 GHz with a 167 MHz bus. Apple may be skimming the cream off the top of the chip yield.

The big deal with the 7457 is that it's a very cool running chip and has twice the L2 cache of the 7455. I wouldn't expect Apple to put the old 1.42 GHz G4 into the iMac because it runs way too hot and it's expensive compared with the 7457. Besides, I'll bet a 7457 w/133 MHz bus at 1.3 GHz is way faster than a 1.42.

OK, what about the G5? Well, at 1.2 GHz, it dissipates 19W but the power can step down, depending on use. A 7457 at 1.3 GHz might dissipate 13W. If you rework the ventilation and the fan in the iMac, I'm sure it can handle an extra 6 watts without waiting another upgrade cycle or so for a .09µ chip.

Mot does have the 7457 about ready to go and has stepped up production. Since an Apple official said something nice about Moto when the G5 was announced, I assume that means that Apple will continue to use their chips in everything but the PM at least into the first half of 2004. Maybe production costs are too high to do anything else and maybe Apple's waiting for the .09µ process.

Even so, as far as I'm concerned, the faster Apple incorporates G5 chips, the better for the company's bottom line and the stock. As a consolation, the faster 7457 and the faster Panther might make up the difference in user experience.

My sentiments too ScottiB. It's a welcome change.

I know! Not only is there suddenly a gulf between the PowerMac and everything else, but we can actually debate which CPU would be a more appropriate upgrade for the iMac!

I can see why Apple employees couldn't wait for WWDC. It's like a sea change. The hardware takes a leap forward at just about the time that the operating system takes a leap forward. Damn.

I differ to beg. The eMac exist because edu couldn't AFFORD iMacs anymore, not because they weren't sturdy enough. I see lotsa schools getting LCD's, it's no biggie. For ergonomic/health reasons, a couple of Toronto boards now recommend LCD's over CRT's, even in grade schools -- where they can afford them. Can they afford to get them from Apple? Nope, but they can afford to get them from DELL, and they do.

If you look at the line-up, there are easily three models ahead of the iMac in the G5 pecking order. The Xserve, the 17" PB, and the 15" PB. If Apple sticks to the "Headless machine--affordable tower" statements they have made, then that makes four models which queue up to a nice shiny new G5 before the iMac does.

Those expecting the iMac to sprout a G5 any time in '03 are deluded. Those expecting it in '04, Might, maybe have reason to be optimistic towards the end of that year, but a whole raft of G5 product will be announced BEFORE G5 iMacs.

If for the next 18 months, Apple can get the speeds up over 1.33 with a simple drop in upgrade to an older machine, and chop a BIG part of the price out, many people will be happy. iMacs are like iBooks, they don't NEED big speed, they need "WOW! that's a deal!" prices. iBooks continue to sell well despite sporting a G3, why? PRICE! (don't make me dance ) If Apple could chop 300-500 out of the various iMac prices, that is a much more important upgrade over the next 12-18 months, than the inclusion of a G5. After that... then it's time for something new.

I DO agree with that.

It's clear Apple's line is going to go through a major transition in the next 12 months. G4s at 1.3 gig(?) may pad out the consumer line for the next 6 months and even the Powerbook for the time being...

I feel that Apple have got to finally face down their old foe. 'Critical Mass'.

I half agree with you (for the short-term, least ways...I'm not sure Apple have much option anyway...not until the 0.09 970 hits). If the low end iMac2 had a 1 gig G4 and was priced to move with onboard graphics for say, £695 inc VAT...then a its cpu/performance would be a moot point. It would walk into colleges, schools and consumer land and business and switchers and...

There's a reason why the iMac2 is not selling in the huge numbers the original did. The original is still doing its job! The original was much cheaper over the same period of time! The original offered a great choice of options over many price tiers. It got people on the ladder with a cheaper machine... It was obviously cheaper to produce?

It would be an ideal 'growth' machine in my mind if it was priced to move...but Apple obviously can't or won't get the price down.

I still don't see a compelling box for compelling money (short of the dual G5 2 gigger, the 12 incher Powerbook, the iPod or the entry iBook.) But even those could be made MORE compelling.

The UK iBook entry = £799 inc VAT. If they could lop another hundred off that...they'd be getting there. It's no coincidence why the iBook is selling. It aint for its state of the art G3. You get a nice notebook for yer money. It's fairly cheap for an Apple laptop. They've worked really hard on bringing its price down. In fact, I'm surprised the iMac2 has kept pace with the iBook's price reductions.

I still think Apple need a bare-bones iCube with 1 gig G4 , integrated graphics, stick of 256 ram... iapps galore and 'Move 2 Mac' and a free 'Apple support' package to get the switcher started.

Price it at £495 inc VAT, let people choose their own display. Looks white enamel gorgeous ibook style...

Walks out Apple store!

Steve Jobs was obviously cryptic when he said it was only the first six months of the year that Apple was innovating. There was still 6 months to do. Hint?

iMac2 refreshes? 1 more digital device? Refresh of monitors with an even bigger wow monitor? Powerbook refresh. Panther. X-serve refresh? And...and a cheap headless Mac?

?

Lemon Bon Bon

Oh no, I agree with matsu!

This time last year there was constraints on both the high end _and_ the low end. The "power"Macs were under powered to be "nice top-of-the-line boxes".

And the iMacs needed a certain level of minimum grunt to manage OS X. Everything sold in 2002 can probably run OS X pretty reasonably - but there wasn't too much 'fat' to cut out to lower the price. Not and have a reasonable 'full featured' computer.

But now, around 1.0 GHz (Either G3 or G4) with 'Quartz Extreme' capable cards... there's a chance for the same machines to go down in price but remain capable of running OS X.

So the iMac might just march slooowly up in speed, but have FW800 added. Or USB2. Other little things that shouldn't jack the price. And hopefully lowers it. Lots.

I am posting here because on more then one Apple site, I see people list the FX5200 as a "high end" option on future iMacs, ect.... I don't know where you people are coming from because the FX5200 just plain $ucks. It's the bottom barrel of Nvidia's lineup, and doesn't even compare to a current ATI7500. Video is a big thing for me, and I wouldn't want an FX 5200 any more then I'd want the current, equally crappy Geforce 4 MX. Put in at least an FX5600, or even better, an ATI 9600, and give eMacs the 64mb DDR ATI Raedon 9000..now that's an upgrade.....but an FX 5200??? I hope not for Apple's sake.

P.S. I can't imagine an FX5200 card in anything other then a low end system.