or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › 20" iMac Is Here!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

20" iMac Is Here! - Page 2

post #41 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by CaseCom
That weight gain can't be all screen. Maybe they had to make the base heavier to help counterbalance it?

Methinks they probably also "tightened" the arm on the unit to compensate for the 20"er's weight. It probably moves as smoothly as the other two sizes, but the insides of it have more tensioning.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #42 of 178
It's the new bluetooth module.
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
post #43 of 178
OK.

First, this is the holiday season. People splurge more during the holidays, and a computer with a high lust factor will do well. Second, note Phil Schiller's quote that they were pleased and surprised with 17" sales. The iMac's moving upscale because, for now, that's working, "industry trends" (read: Dell trying to run everyone else out of business) be damned.

Second, who says this isn't appealing to pros? The bare fact is that you don't need a dual G5 to run most of the traditional Mac apps. Sure, it helps, but for a lot less you can get a nice, quiet workstation with a large, ergonomic monitor that runs your apps well, if not at blinding speeds. pscates could do what he does on a tangerine iMac DV. If there's a bottleneck in the 2D creative process, it's usually sitting at the keyboard.

There's this assumption that pro implies tower. Obviously, some pros want them, and some pros need them. But how many pros don't? MacWorld UK is put together on eMacs.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #44 of 178
Greatest post EVER!



It's funny how our perceptions change when we get a little bit of power in our hands, huh?

Two years ago, if you had an 800MHz G4 tower, you were the King Daddy Bad Ass. And go back a few years to a blue-and-white 450MHz G3 tower or whatever.

And now, we have a $1099 iBook that many of you would've killed to have in a tower just 1-2 years ago.

Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.

Everyone dings the eMacs up and down these forums, but if I were buying a desktop tomorrow OR was buying one for a friend OR was outfitting a small desktop publishing/graphics studio, I'd buy an eMac before I would anything else.

Some people act like NOTHING was getting done on Mac, graphics-wise, prior to the dual G4s and the G5.



As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.

Maybe some of you honestly push your Macs to the absolute limit and we just aren't aware of it here. But I suspect that's a "few and far between" scenario and it's simply human nature to want the biggest, fastest, etc.

I'm blown away by this silly 1.25GHz PowerBook of mine. That either means I'm easily impressed or know that I've got a machine that more than meets my needs and am happy with it.



The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them. But it has very little - if anything - to do with any sort of creative or artistic process and no one I know who is good with design and knows Photoshop or is a page layout master isn't "held back" because they decide to work on an eMac or an iBook or whatever.

The most talented artist I know uses a 400MHz blue and white tower and does things in Painter that blow me away everytime I see them! Granted, she's waiting a bit for those progress bars. But she's not truly suffering over it. If she were doing it for a living, she'd get something that scooted along a bit more.
post #45 of 178
Thanks for the new sig, Amorph! (hope you don't mind)

That's the truest statement I've seen here in ages.
post #46 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.

and herein lies the problem... apple pounds these messages down our collective throats so often that when we start to believe them, it hurts sales of other products.

apple was screaming at the top of their marketing lungs of the greatness of the g4 for a LONG time. eventually, it became harder and harder to convince anyone who had been believing this hype that the g3 was still a useful chip.

then apple kept working the "mhz myth" to offset motorola's inability to get past 500 mhz in quantity. when that message started to finally seep into the masses, people were slower to upgrade, partially because we had convinced ourselves, thanks to apple's own marketing and spin, that approx. 500 mhz was FAST ENOUGH, at leats until the next evolutionary jump.

with the g5 commercials, you're seeing the same thing. i mean, did we even go 24 hours before people started clamoring for g5's in a powerbook???
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #47 of 178
Quote:
"The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them."

Well said yourself there, Scates.

I do obviously wish it were $200 less, just so it's "under" $2000.

Anyway, as far as power, speed and productivity are concerned (nevermind creativity) the larger 1600x screen area alone would boost my productivity probably two fold if not more, 124% more, as Apple's page notes.
post #48 of 178
I don't mind at all, Clayton. It's also true in my own field (software development) where, hours-long builds notwithstanding, the #1 bottleneck in any project is the developer himself. You can always sleep during the build (in fact, overnight builds are standard practice).

The 20" iMac is under $2000 for me. Working for a university has its advantages.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #49 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.

True enough. But don't underestimate the value in greater productivity.

In my office, some people are still limping along running Quark on Power Mac 8600s (that is not a typo) running OS 9.1. They hate 'em because they're so slow.

We're now in the process of upgrading to InDesign, Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 on MDD G4s and, after the first of the year, G5s -- and we can't wait. Why? Because they'll help us do our jobs faster, and we'll do better quality work while we frantically meet our daily deadlines.

Of course given the bottlenecks elsewhere on our network we can't always put that speed to full use. But despite that, for many of us, especially those working under daily deadline pressure, faster really does equal better.
Why am I whispering?
Reply
Why am I whispering?
Reply
post #50 of 178
Wow Apple is stupid I am getting sick of this.

MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #51 of 178
Quote:
A 20" display on the iMac is a big waste. My current monitor has lasted 5 years, so far, and is attached to it's third computer. In a couple of years when that iMac starts feeling really slow, that 20" is stuck on there.

Exactly. I used to want to be able to plug in a computer to an old Toaster Compact Classic Mac, and I still think laptop makers should have VIDEO IN! Especially for the 17" PowerBook. Because that screen is worth almost as much as the rest of the iMac and is going to outlast it by far especially considering it's pathetic G4. Apple messed up big time here. Who the hell would buy this?

My family is looking at the low or mid iMac and waiting for price to go down a lot. This isn't a nice development for our holiday season. I guess we'll stomach the 15" iMac but as usual I'm sure we'll get burned and it'll be updated right afterwards. \
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #52 of 178
I think you people are smoking crack. It's a nice machine. Sure, it's probably the last hurrah for the sunflower iMac, but it's a much better finale than its predecessor had...

Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #53 of 178
pscates and others are 100% correct. If a person is sitting in front of a computer all day long and it is a Mac, it had better be a powerful unit such as a tower and likely now a G5. (At least if using the system for CPU-intensive video or photo work, etc.)

But for most of the rest of us, a 1Ghz+ G4 will still be able to serve us for a good long while. I use my 1Ghz G4 iMac 2 for a little e-mail, a little internet surfing, and quite a bit of video work. As it is a side venture, it just occupies an hour or so each evening on the average. So I never get frustrated with a system which is not the fastest on the market. If I was sitting in front of the thing all day, then yes, I would definitely spring for the fastest G5 currently available.

Aquatic, for your own good, you must get a superdrive so you can save all of those video memories for future generations of Aquatics.
post #54 of 178
hehe, when you put it that way slackula.

I know it's a great computer, it's just I wish I could buy a 17" iMac withOUT a SuperDrive. I save memories on my PowerBook 12" G4's SuperDrive and charge for them.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #55 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?

Exactly! At least make this a BTO option and not force individuals to go with a slow Superdrive when all they want is a fast CDR-W burner.

You'd think with a SD, they at least drop in at least one FW800 or upgrade the video card.

I may be wrong...but I think the 20" will be a very niche product to prosumers and some pros.
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.
post #56 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
I think you people are smoking crack. It's a nice machine. Sure, it's probably the last hurrah for the sunflower iMac, but it's a much better finale than its predecessor had...

Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?

I haven't smoked crack in at least 72 hours!
It's just my opinon. I have never been a huge fan of all in one systems, but up until the 17" imac I always saw the cost of the display as minimal. At least they are not forcing you to buy the 20" model.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just mad that my G5 is short one 1.8GHz processor .
post #57 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.

Well, if they run up huge losses expanding market share (you're talking $300 a machine in lost revenue - millions, if not tens of millions of dollars!) they've just traded one problem for another.

The trick is not to shave margins to the bone, because you can't sustain Apple's cash pillow and R&D budget that way. The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium. Could the iPod be cheaper? Hell yes. The margin on those things is fat. Should they be cheaper? They're selling hand over fist and making Apple a mint.

Unfortunately, it's a trick, not a science. There is some science involved, obviously, but there's the great big if of consumer taste and there are no certainties there. Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy. I'd have expected the LCD iMac to do better than it has done, and clearly Apple expected that as well. But it seems that the people who are buying iMacs are buying the 17" rather than the 12" [edit: 15"! ], so in a way it makes sense to go up rather than down. Especially during a holiday season when people are inclined to get the more dazzling, whiz-bang models.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #58 of 178
Amorph is exactly correct!

I'm just praying to God that no one spoils this thread with the typical "Apple should just make a sub-$1000 tower....It would sell like hotcakes....guaranteed!"
post #59 of 178
So where is our 20 inch Powerbook!!??
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
post #60 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium...
Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy.

You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.

But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position.
People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.

I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.
post #61 of 178
Regarding the downside of having a 20" screen connected to an aging CPU, does anyone else think screens aren't going to be that expensive in 3 yrs?

OLED and other technologies are supposed to be here by then. I think I saw an estimate a little bit ago that by 2005 LCD and other flat screens would only cost 1.5x as much as CRTs. Of course, at that point who the hell is going to by a CRT.

Personally, as long as they find a way of playing HDTV on one I'd have no problem with retiring an iMac to TV and base station duty in 3 yrs.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #62 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Patton Harlot
Thanks for the new sig, Amorph! (hope you don't mind)

That's the truest statement I've seen here in ages.


Damn you! I wanted to use it as my sig!
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #63 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Hairmah
So where is our 20 inch Powerbook!!??

I can see it now...dual 4.0 ghz g5 with 8 gigs of ram 20 inch powerbook bluh
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #64 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeremiah Rich
So where is our 20 inch Powerbook!!??

This would provide enough space to squeeze in the cooling required by the G5 they put into it. And it seems, Apple uses the high-end iMac's display in the PowerBook revision. So, who knows what surprise Apple will serve us come MWSF.

P.S.: Think Secret again was very accurate - they seem to have some pretty good sources.
post #65 of 178
All I want is to be able to composite a simple animation file over a piece of video without waiting 3 years for it to preview it for me. This does not make me power user. I would have thought that nearly a decade and a half after I first played with video (on a mac plus no less in glorious black and white!) it would now be possible to do something this straightforward without a wait or a fri*gin' progress bar (or god forbid that symbol of all things cra*py - the beac ball). You don't have to be working on Star wars 3 to be frustrated by the G4 (or even the G5 if some of my early adopter friends are right)
Greatly Insane
Reply
Greatly Insane
Reply
post #66 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Wow Apple is stupid I am getting sick of this.

MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC!

On the face of it I'd agree with you. But when the lineup was all 15-inchers and the only real difference was the optical drive, the SuperDrive model outsold the other two models combined, and by a ratio of about two-to-one, if memory serves. So a majority of buyers do want them. I'd go along with the idea of letting you delete the SuperDrive if you buy online, but the iMac has never been about CTO options.

If there was ever a time for a 20-inch iMac, it's now. People splurge at the holidays. They would wince at the cost if they were shopping in June, but in November they might go for it.
post #67 of 178
The problem with the iMac line right now is the powerbook. Only on 2 occasions have the iMacs been faster than the powerbooks and then for only a few weeks. Since the PB line was just updated, that can't happen. Apple's stuck with the consumer line until they can get the G5 in a PB. Let's hope that's sooner rather than later. But I still think it's too expensive.
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
post #68 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.

But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.

$499 for the first while. For an MP3 player that was considerably less capable than the one now selling for $299.

$2200 for a computer that can do pretty much anything right out of the box, complete with an enormous monitor? Why not? People might want to be ruthlessly pragmatic for themselves, but for their spouse or child? "Look at that screen! And you can make movies and burn DVDs and and and..." And then you have to pry them away from the machine they just got you.

Quote:
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position. People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.

I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.

Priced as a cash cow, or priced as a product for the masses? Pick one.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #69 of 178
How do my pricing whinges go so far understood?

Sometimes I say something is expensive, sometimes I say it's over-priced. Apple has plenty of pro equipment that isn't exactly affordable, but neither is it overpriced.

So what does that make this iMac? For most consumers it's just too expnsive and that's that. For a good many pros, it isn't either fast or expandable enough, also. However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.

Why would you want another display with all that real-estate? A justifiable comment from the good folks at Apple marketting. Basically, 99.9% of the time you don't, though I wait for the final evolution of the iMac HDTV, (21"+ 1920x1080 minimum, haha)

But what is this here iMac all about? I think, as Amorph points out, it's the last hurrah for the sunflower. However, this does nothing to improve the state of Apple's consumer desktops, which are still pretty far behind their PC competition on a bang for buck scale.

It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?

I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?

My thought is that if you're going to build AIO, they should above all else be affordable, since the customer buying them is more likely not to be a demanding spec-no-crat type. And if you need a high end no pro machine, then you should offer that with some of the expansion modularity that pros crave. Perhaps Apple will do it the other way around, and move the AIO into the middle tier while going headless at the low end?

Or maybe at Apple everybody gets head, those crazy hippy vegans!
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #70 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
How do my pricing whinges go so far understood?

*bites tongue*

Quote:
However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.

You know, that's a big niche. Big enough to, say, support Apple Computer.

Design and publishing pros used to buy Apple towers because there was no real choice in the matter, not because of expansion options or what-have-you (except for monitors, when comfortably sized monitors for design were rare and expensive things). For much of the beige G3 era there was literally no choice at all. Now there is. For less than the cost of a tower plus a monitor you can plunk eMacs or iMacs down on everyone's desk. In the first instance, you get major cost savings. In the second, you get ergonomics and quiet, and some savings. Both can run d&p apps well enough for use in studios and publishing houses and Hallmark. The choices of a 17" and a 20" monitor on the iMac seal the deal.

Think about it: Have magazines gotten any larger? Books? Posters? Design and publishing have essentially fixed problem sets, as pscates has confirmed (sepia is sepia) and so you can reach a point where any given hardware can handle those problems well.

Quote:
It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?

Well, people have been saying LCDs would be commodities for, oh, about three years now. There are two problems: First, the general aversion to dead pixels makes them even more expensive to manufacture, and second, the industry that makes them has a vested interest in keeping them profitable. If LCD prices drop, they either step up sales or throttle back production until the prices go right back up. If anything, LCD prices have stabilized, modulo the usual pricing variance because of acute gluts or shortages. There's no mystery here: This is basic resource management, and it's crucial when a product that requires a great deal of overhead and which has relatively low yields is threatened with commodity status. LCDs are not nearly as easy to make as CRTs or plastic toys or other true commodities, and since their flaws are obvious and visible to anyone, they're not even like RAM or hard drives or even CPUs, whose flaws can be largely disguised or ignored or worked around.

Display prices will go down when a cheaper display technology emerges, and not sooner. This is the real lesson of the sunflower iMac.

Quote:
I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?

People have more modest expectations of notebooks? Really, the notebook is the new AIO. Steve has come right out and said that the numbers conclude that the perfect machine for the low end desktop owner is a notebook. That's what they're buying.

And I think this is where things are going: The low end desktop is essentially dead at Apple. Oh, there'll be something like the eMac kicking around, but the machine aimed at this market now is the iBook (why does it look so attractive? ). I believe the 20" iMac is the last gasp of the sunflower design, but I also believe that it points toward Apple's strategy (adjusting for holiday gadget acquisition syndrome): Notebooks for the low end; desktops only for things that notebooks simply can't offer (which, of course, cost money). I frankly don't think the next iMac's basic price bracket will budge from where it is now. What they'll do, instead, is try to design a machine that makes people want to pay that kind of money. The sunflower was designed to drop to $999, which is why it looks a little silly where it is now.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #71 of 178
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.
post #72 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.

For some idiotic reason, I think Apple is afraid that the iMac would be perceived as being as fast or faster than their high end pro PowerBooks. No good reason, in my opinion. So what, if a completely different product has a slightly higher spec. than another. A sale is a sale.
post #73 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.

See my post a few up the page. That's my take on it.
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
post #74 of 178
The 20" iMac is absolutely absurd in every aspect. From concept, performance, and price, it fails all around.

First of all, let's get something straight. Apple's standalone Cinema displays are currently overpriced. I took a look around and all of the 20" LCD's I found were $1,100 or less and doubled as TVs, with component video, RCA, an every other video connector known to man on the things. Apple sells their 20" display for $1,300 without all of these other capabilities. Their 20" should be $900, at best.

Now, let's talk about the 20" iMac's concept.
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components? That's like buying a Plasma TV that has a built-in VCR and no video in ports. I understand that this is true for a laptop as well, but that's the trade you make for portability. I honestly think Apple either created this 20" iMac to try and get rid of an abundance of 20" LCDs, or they're trying to make their laptops look really attractive by making their consumer desktops highly unattractive.

Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already. At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.

I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? It's true that we've all hopped on the "G5 or nothing at all!" mentality bandwagon, but there are two reasons for that. The first being the previously mentioned processor slump Apple fell into for 3 years. Now that Apple has fast processors available to them, they need to crank those bitches up and trickle them down into everything they've got. There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers. Second, since the advent of Mac OS X software has become so slow and sluggish that you literally do need a G5 to use any of today's creativity applications. When Apple stopped speeding up their computers for 3 years, software developers did not stop bloating their software. I suspected for a long time that this was due to software developers incapability of writing clean, quick code for OS X, but Adobe and Macromedia are on their second incarnation of OS X applications now, and they actually managed to make all of their programs run slower in their second incarnation! Whether this is Apple's fault or the developers, it makes a 1.25Ghz G4 sluggish and unusable for all of the things a 20" display would actually be necessary for. Not to mention the 1GB RAM limit of the iMac - between that and the processor, you've got a very short life in that computer. It's too bad you can't rip that fantastic display off and use it with another computer. No, that would actually be logical.

Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.

Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.

On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right
post #75 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Now, let's talk about the 20" iMac's concept.
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components?

Who cares? I can think of no shortage of applications where desktop space is more important than raw CPU power. I know a lot of people get powerful machines and cheap monitors, but that's stupid: You spend all your time staring at the monitor!

Quote:
Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already.

I doubt anyone's forgotten about Motorola. The point is that at there was a time when a machine with less power than the iMac - the PowerMac G3, say, back before the CPU drought - was a lust object.

As for the G5, I don't know what this is doing in a criticism of the 20" iMac. Apple has to use what's available to them. The 2.5GHz G5 isn't available in quantity (and it reportedly chews almost 100 watts!) , so Apple can't put it in their PowerMac. The iMac design is still based on the much cooler G4, so you can't just put a G5 in it. The redesign is coming, but in the meantime, the current iMac can't take what it wasn't designed to take.

Quote:
At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.

Desktops in the PC world don't even begin to resemble iMacs. Apple makes desktops that take the fastest available CPU, too, and they aren't iMacs either.

Quote:
I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? [...] There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers.

We'll let the market decide that. If the 20" iMac boosts sales for the few months it'll exist, more power to it. You can throw numbers around, but if you can take the machine home and do far more with it than you could with a comparably priced PC in practice then who cares if the bus chokes every so often?

Besides, this isn't a major redesign. It's a new toy for the holidays; a minor, late enhancement to an aging design.

Quote:
Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.

What measly system performance? Don't quote specs. I want actual, real-world performance, preferably with the apps that actually ship with an iMac, since those are what people will use.

Anyone who expected Apple to slash $300 off the price of the iMac this abruptly... well, it ain't gonna happen. Low end buyers are being shown iBooks. The iMac isn't in that niche any more. Low end machines don't ship with really nice 20" LCDs.

Quote:
Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.

We'll see what people will buy. So far they seem to be opting for the 17" iMac far more than the 15" despite the fact that it isn't headless and doesn't cost $999.

At any rate, again, this appears to be a special for the holidays. But I'd suggest you get used to these price points with whatever the next iMac looks like. It's going upscale, because that's where the money is. They know how much of what is selling at any given time, unlike anyone here.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #76 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Wow Apple is stupid I am getting sick of this.

MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?

AMEN!!! It's $200 for nothing as far as I'm concerned!
"Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Reply
"Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Reply
post #77 of 178
i just happened to be in the apple store today and they said to me, "did you see the new 20" iMac". i had no idea it was coming out! it's very nice

i also checked out the G5's for the first time and i like them better in person than in pics
post #78 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right

Yeah, $1800, $2500 or $3000 for a computer with no display. You blew your whole argument with the last paragraph.



Actually, you have some good points, but you're a little harsh and a little optimistic about price drops. This is Apple, after all. They've never been about cheap.
post #79 of 178
Quote:
AMEN!!!

To Amorph, that is.



To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #80 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!

Excellent point! Yep, that's the whole point of the iMac. It's not the fastest or the cheapest but it's got the best adjustable display anywhere and you don't have to find room for a tower on, next to, or under your desk. Nine out of ten computer users have no need for any more power than it's got.

That said, there's no doubt someday, it or a similar unit will be faster and cheaper.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › 20" iMac Is Here!