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

20" iMac Is Here! - Page 3

post #81 of 178
I don't expect Apple to sell cheap computers. I'm not one to think they need to sell iMacs for $399. But I do expect them to include system performance and hardware that justifies a product's price tag. If they want to sell 2 year old hardware, then they should price it accordingly. Just because a 1.25Ghz G4 is good enough for a lot of home users doesn't mean they should put it in $2,200 systems while they sell 1.6Ghz G5 systems for less and Dual 1.8Ghz G5's for slightly more. I understand the display is included (and not with the mentioned Powermacs), but there has to be a better middle ground.

I would like to think of the design touches Apple puts on their systems as additions to the computer specs and capabilities itself, not as a means of making up for lackluster internal hardware. The Powermac G5 is a fantastic case in point (no pun intended). While the case itself is a fantastic design, with it's brilliant and clean layout and nearly silent operation, it has the hardware and the expandability to back up the prices they are selling for. I can look at a Powermac G5, and I can read the specs, and I can say, "yeah, that's worth the $$$ they're asking". The same should be true for the iMac.

Believe me, I understand the beauty of the iMac's design and it's nothing-else-like-it arm - I own the original 15" iMac myself - but that doesn't make up for it's current overpriced/underpowered situation. When I purchased my 15" iMac, it was not only a fantastic design, but also had the performance and specs to justify such a price tag. You didn't have to equate the swivel arm into the price tag. It carried the same processor as the low-end Powermac did at the time, and I'd like to see the new iMacs inherit that trait if they're going to retain their luxury pricing. I don't expect Apple to just throw a G5 into the iMac like there's no engineering involved, but I do expect that they lower the prices on outdated hardware if they can't come up with something to justify the cost.

I work with pro applications all day - Final Cut Pro 4, DVD Studio Pro 2, Adobe Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2, After Effects 5.5, Cinema 4D, the list goes on. Obviously a Dual Powermac G5 is the ticket for that kind of work, and we have one. But we've also got a 1Ghz Powermac we purchased less than a year ago and it's already damn near worthless for what we do. Why is that? Because while Motorola was busy picking their noses, everyone continued to enhance their applications beyond what the G4 was really comfortable handling. Apple did this knowing they had G5's in the pipeline. I'd really like to be able to pick up a machine from Apple that could handle working with those Applications comfortably, and that didn't cost $3,000. I think that time will come next year as Apple does slip a G5 into more and more systems, and as the G5 processor continues to scale up the Mhz ladder.

At any rate, I plan to purchase a new Apple system next year in the $2,000 range. I certainly wouldn't mind paying $2,200 for a 20" iMac model so long as I'm convinced the internal hardware is going to last me as long as that $1,000 monitor they've got adhered to the top will, or if they scheme a way to use monitors on their iMacs that can also be removed and used as a standard display. Really, I think that's the way they've got to go, considering the value of LCDs in relation to the CPU they're eternally bounding it to.
post #82 of 178
Back on topic (sort of..?)

I saw one today, and it is very likely to be my next computer. All I need is a fast FireWire CD-RW and a few external hard drives, and my G4 tower is history.

I played for a few minutes, and it is fast as all hell, even with only 256 MB of RAM. It feels Snappier than the 17" model, even though the specs seem to be exactly the same.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #83 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
I don't expect Apple to sell cheap computers. I'm not one to think they need to sell iMacs for $399. But I do expect them to include system performance and hardware that justifies a product's price tag. If they want to sell 2 year old hardware, then they should price it accordingly. Just because a 1.25Ghz G4 is good enough for a lot of home users doesn't mean they should put it in $2,200 systems while they sell 1.6Ghz G5 systems for less and Dual 1.8Ghz G5's for slightly more. I understand the display is included (and not with the mentioned Powermacs), but there has to be a better middle ground.

You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.

Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.

Quote:
I would like to think of the design touches Apple puts on their systems as additions to the computer specs and capabilities itself, not as a means of making up for lackluster internal hardware.

When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.

Quote:
At any rate, I plan to purchase a new Apple system next year in the $2,000 range. I certainly wouldn't mind paying $2,200 for a 20" iMac model so long as I'm convinced the internal hardware is going to last me as long as that $1,000 monitor they've got adhered to the top will, or if they scheme a way to use monitors on their iMacs that can also be removed and used as a standard display. Really, I think that's the way they've got to go, considering the value of LCDs in relation to the CPU they're eternally bounding it to.

Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.
"...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 #84 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
I don't expect Apple to sell cheap computers. I'm not one to think they need to sell iMacs for $399. But I do expect them to include system performance and hardware that justifies a product's price tag. If they want to sell 2 year old hardware, then they should price it accordingly. Just because a 1.25Ghz G4 is good enough for a lot of home users doesn't mean they should put it in $2,200 systems while they sell 1.6Ghz G5 systems for less and Dual 1.8Ghz G5's for slightly more. I understand the display is included (and not with the mentioned Powermacs), but there has to be a better middle ground.

I would like to think of the design touches Apple puts on their systems as additions to the computer specs and capabilities itself, not as a means of making up for lackluster internal hardware. The Powermac G5 is a fantastic case in point (no pun intended). While the case itself is a fantastic design, with it's brilliant and clean layout and nearly silent operation, it has the hardware and the expandability to back up the prices they are selling for. I can look at a Powermac G5, and I can read the specs, and I can say, "yeah, that's worth the $$$ they're asking". The same should be true for the iMac.

Good post. Better post. Thanks!
post #85 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.

Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.

Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.

I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations. Nor does fastening a monitor worth more than the iMac's components help matters much. It's obvious Apple isn't interesting in selling a lot of iMacs at this time. I fully expect to see a great performance/price ratio when the redesigned models arrive sometime next year.

Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.

If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things. If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less. Still, I don't see the harm in letting one remove and reuse the head of their iMac for a future Apple system. When we're talking about displays that are worth more than the computer itself, it seems almost inevitable. It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs. Once LCD prices drop to the point that they aren't worth considerably more than the other components of the computer, they could return to the business of creating disposable AIOs. Just a thought
post #86 of 178
Amorph, people keep saying that certain components have stabilized but from where I stand they just get cheaper and cheaper. HDD's and RAM are pretty cheap, and where the prices hold, the specifications increase dramatically at the same price points. Opticals are dirt cheap and DVD burning is dropping REALLY fast in price. I can buy 4X units for 220 Canadian (about 160 USD) and 8X drives have just hit the market. And yes, even LCD prices have NOT "stabilized" -- no sir, they continue to drop. 15" panels are less than 300 Canadian, and 17-19" panels have really fallen in the past year with plenty of 17" panels for 500 Canadian and some lower, some 19" panels can be had for a mere 800 Canadian now (or about 570 USD). 12 months ago a 19" panel cost about 1200. That's a 33% drop, and still falling.

I will agree though, that at the larger sizes, it will be a while before display prices really fall much more. 20-22" CRT's didn't really fall in price very rapidly untill a while AFTER TFT demand started climbing. Anything 17" or under will, however, continue to fall steadily. Manufacturing proficiencies at these sizes are leaps and bounds above what they were only a little while ago and the displays are both better and cheaper.

But getting back in a round-a-bout way to what you said a DVI-in for the iMac, it looks to me like the iMac 20" would be one computer where such an imput would not be wasted. 20" wide screen panels are not likely to be relatively affordable in three years time. Yes, they will be cheaper than they are now, but that's still near the upper echelon of desktop display sizes, and compared to what will be bargain basement 15 and 17" displays (150-350USD) a 750 dollar 20" will still seem expensive. Someone with an iMac may want to use it exactly in the manner you describe (as a display with an integrated KVM). Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!

It's geeky, but it's a good idea. In 3-4 years when the iMac is feeling a little long in the tooth, you make a little hack, so as to use the iMac as a display, meanwhile the guts of the system can be put to work streaming Mp3's, or burning a DVD in the background, hosting a web site, etc etc, while your new main machine gets down to business with whatever you do with it.

It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #87 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!

*SNIP*

It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.

Both very insightful points . . . . there WILL be a way to hack this thing when it's been around a few years.
post #88 of 178
Most people don't even know you can burn DVDs. I am failing to see why Apple makes you buy a SuperDrive on the top two models, and don't let you BTO it. That makes them look a lot more expensive then they really could be, since most people aren't going to use the SuperDrive and just be annoyed with the slowness of it otherwise. That's my main beef actually.
"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 #89 of 178
I'm still using a 19" CRT.

It was the first model of its kind (in size, that is) to market, and I bought it shortly after it was introduced. The display cost notably more than the computer I bought it with.

Back then I wanted a good display, not only because display alone is a huge part of a computer experience, but because I realized the same display works for many computers which age more quickly than the display.

So far the monitor has served three sequential computers in four different cities, eight different desks, for six years. Naturally everything I spent on it back then feels like a great investment now.

Left as an exercise to the reader: Find something positive about the 20" iMac vs. an imaginary headless dome iMac with 20" Cinema Display priced together at $2200. (I imagine the latter configuration would, in the long run, give me double the "use value" of the former.)
post #90 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.

Even if you price the Cinema Display at $900 and add it to the cost of the PowerMacs, the iMac doesn't look all that expensive. You pay less, you get less.

And, again, "extremely underpowered" for what?

Quote:
I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations.

The current iMac's limitations are set by the base, the motherboard, and the (expensive) arm. The monitor is one of the few things they can really play with. So, given that they obviously wanted a quick way to boost sales a little for the holidays, what's a better solution? Cutting prices might boost sales a bit, but at the expense of revenue - and revenue is the whole point of sales.

Quote:
If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things.

Both of those are considerably more technically challenging than the idea of a DVI pass-through (the removable monitor, though, really is tough - you want the connection to that arm to be solid, with as little play as possible, and you don't want people taking Allen wrenches to their machines). However, they are automatic, immediate and obvious benefits. Most consumers reuse little or nothing, on the theory that by the time they need a new computer all the peripherals are probably better, too. Plus, if you hand down a system (which is fairly common) you usually want to include the monitor.

Quote:
If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less.

News flash: So does everyone. I remember reading a meeting of Intel and Microsoft and the big vendors where they tried to find ways to get people to replace their PCs annually.

And yet, guess what? Macs have longer useful lifespans than PCs do in practice. In practice, reliability has more to do with the useful life of a machine than upgradability does, because most people don't upgrade their machines. Proof: PCs have been cheaper and easier to upgrade than Macs for years and years now, but over time the average measured life of a PC is 3 years, and the average measured life of a Mac is 5.

Quote:
It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs.

I sincerely doubt that.

The beauty of the AIO is that it takes advantage of the way the average person buys, sells, and looks at a PC: As a single system. Tinkerers are more common on the x86 side, out of necessity, but they aren't so much a large market as a voluble presence on geeky forums like web boards.
"...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 #91 of 178
All this talk about the LCD on the iMac being worth more than the computer it's attached to makes no sense to me. The most expensive thing to replace on my powerbook is, guess what, the LCD. You don't hear laptop users complaining that "I can't use my great display on my next laptop!" because that's part of the deal with an all-in-one.

Forest-trees. Forest-trees.
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
Thread Finder. I find lost threads.
Reply
post #92 of 178
Yeah, that's something that's often lost/overlooked: we here at AppleInsider and other online forums are a bit TOO into it all, compared to the average schmo on the street.



A lot of us might think it's cool to twiddle with this, install that, upgrade this, rig-up that, etc.

But I'm guessing most normal people don't. They want to buy something, know it's not a cheaply thrown-together piece of crap, get online quickly and easily, work with digital photos of the grandkids, listen to some music, write, surf, etc.

That's the consumer market. And they outnumber Spec Whore "pro users" by huge numbers, I'd imagine.
post #93 of 178
What can I say about the iMac?

INSANE!

Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board. I don't mean that harshly. You do it well. I also know that you do not support their position all the time so try not to get overly defensive. I believe that both you and Apple have completely missed the boat on the whole AiO thing. You believe you have your finger on the pulse of what people should be doing with their computers. You believe you know their behavior and that behavior dictates what they should buy. This is a classic error. People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. Even though the masses use computers as if they were AiOs, they do not actually want to buy AiOs. The only reason the AiO is so strong on the Mac side is that there is no other choice for the Mac consumer. Period. If Apple were to release an affordable, headless computer with affordable display options in the consumer space, the iMac would be dead by the following day. Apple does not have the power to force consumers to want what they think the consumer needs. The iMac has lost its way. It is a product in search of a market. You cannot call it a consumer offering at the price point it occupies and you can't call it a pro machine because of its internals. It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take it seriously as a personal computer.

As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.

My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic. Well, the PM line is not pathetic. It is rather good. There are at least two G4 chips that are better than the one in this machine. I have already registered my disgust with the HD. $1000 PCs have 120 Gigs. At one point, crippling the iMac may have been an unfortunate necessity. Now, it is just plain greed. It is disrespectful to the customers. This offering by Apple does not just disappoint me. It pisses me off. I truly hope that iMac buyers decide to hold off on a purchase and force Apple to do better. Enough is enough.

Please give me a few minutes to put on my flame retardant suit before replying.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #94 of 178
I think this 20" iMac is a sexy holiday stop-gap for the line. Apple's got something up its sleeve product-wise, and yet they felt that sticking a 20" on an iMac was a good way to go.

So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).

The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.
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 #95 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I think this 20" iMac is a sexy holiday stop-gap for the line. Apple's got something up its sleeve product-wise, and yet they felt that sticking a 20" on an iMac was a good way to go.

So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).

The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.

If they introduce a completely redesigned iMac in January, they'll anger anyone who buys the 20" now. Nothing new here, they've done it before; in fact last year with the PowerBook. I think it would be kind of dirty pool if that happens.
post #96 of 178
Now, could anyone make a little table with the iMac2 updates? Just to see if there is some trend and if one can expect processor updates for this machine relatively soon.
post #97 of 178
After seeing the 20" iMac in person (I'll give you 20 inches! ) I have to say it looks... kinda... un-natural.

The screen is WAY too big for the base...
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #98 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
After seeing the 20" iMac in person (I'll give you 20 inches! ) I have to say it looks... kinda... un-natural.

The screen is WAY too big for the base...

I disagree. I saw it last night at The Grove and from a distance I thought it was a 17". Much better balanced in person than I would have thought. It actually looked just right to me.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #99 of 178
the 17" must be outselling the 15" for Apple to release the 20". Apple wants to seperate the 17" crowd. It makes perfect sence. If people in the 17" crowd are willing to spend more Apple makes more money.

The bottom line is the bottom line, folks. It also gets these people closer to the G5's. There are also those in the 15" crowd that don't want top of the line iMac and had no option.

Also apple needs the iMac to have a 20" so they can increase profit margins on that item.
post #100 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer


As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.

I think you're right on this account. Even if this 20 inch model is a merely a year end money grab, it needs something more than a larger screen to sway customers from the 17". Especially when it's $400 more.

Perhaps one reason the 1.42 GHz isn't used here is because it will be used in the next generation iMac. Now that would truly be sad.
post #101 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer.

Absolutely, the iMac is no longer targeted to budget minded consumers or professionals.
It's still a nifty design and plenty functional but way overpriced. But Apple knows that. They want the iMac to be purchased by folks w/ money to burn (buy .Mac, a few iSights, a few iPods for the family and an iBook for the children). And it really has no competition.
What other AIO computer is out there? If you shop for furniture, the iMac(gen 1 and 2) are all over the place in fashionable catalogs. If all you want to do is type emails, print out designs, iChat/iSight, load a few songs in your iPod and your husband is paying, this is it. There's a market willing to pay(just ask martha stewart)

Apple's computer for the masses has become the laptop.
post #102 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
Boring and misguided. Most potential iMac buyers do not need a 20" screen. I hope that this is not the extent of the iMac update. What the iMac actually needs in the short-term is lower prices and a faster processor. What it needs in the long-term is a rethink of its design. There have been several threads recently that have made some interesting suggestions .

For some time now, we've been discussing how all we actually need is a fast G4 processor and a decent sized screen at work. We've recently purchased a G5 and a 20" ACD, and the 20" iMac had been available we would definately have gone for that instead. I suspect we might be buying the new 20" iMacs from now on - they have everything that we are looking for!

And the iMac has an interesting plus point too, the positional screen - no more round sholders huddled around the Cinema Displays that we use at the moment!

So they may have missed the conventional consumer market, but this machine might just interest other professional users who don't require a REALLY power machine.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #103 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
What can I say about the iMac?

INSANE!

Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board.

Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?

You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.

What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.

The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.

Quote:
People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. [...] If Apple were to release an affordable, headless computer with affordable display options in the consumer space, the iMac would be dead by the following day.

So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.

You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.

Quote:
Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.

You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.

Quote:
My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic.

I'm getting tired of this argument.

It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.

Quote:
This offering by Apple does not just disappoint me. It pisses me off. I truly hope that iMac buyers decide to hold off on a purchase and force Apple to do better. Enough is enough.

So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want. At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.
"...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 #104 of 178
Amorph, you rock. Keep up the fight!
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #105 of 178
I think Bill Palmer makes the point I've been thinking since Apple released the 20" iMac a few days ago:

http://billpalmer.net/com000036.html

Quote:
if you step back and take a look at Apple's consumer line now, you'll see that there's everything from a 17-inch CRT model that rings up at a budget-conscious $799, to a 20-inch flat-panel monstrosity that will set you back nearly three times as much...

...the bottom line is that the age-old complaint of not being able to choose your monitor size and type when buying a consumer-level Apple computer, is officially now a dead one. If you intend to intend to invest in something larger than a 20-inch flat-panel, you can undoubtedly afford a G5 minitower to go with it.

If Apple can offer this arrangement in a next-gen AIO iMac too, the whole argument for a headless iMac is moot.

A far as why they only added a bigger monitor, I would think the iMac is so tightly designed especially around heat and power issues that adding a G5 or significantly faster G4 would bring up issues that affect the design of the whole thing.
post #106 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.

And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.

The 20" is more of a niche product for small 2-D design firms. The 17" on the other hand covers the greater general population.
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the
20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.
post #107 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.

Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.

Quote:
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the 20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.

You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.

You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.

We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost.
"...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 #108 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.

Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.

[/QUOTE][/B]
You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.

You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.

We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost. [/B][/QUOTE]

Nah, I'm not assuming anything...just speculating and playing armchair CEO like everyone else here. You're right, we'll just have to see how things play out.
post #109 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by satchmo
Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.

Going for the jugular and getting it are two different things.

If you look around a little, Apple's biggest problem is simply getting people hip to their machines. I've maintained for a good long while now that no matter what Apple did to increase market share they'd go nowhere fast for a year or two, simply because they have such a small part of the market now, and inertia is a bitch. Each success is a little bit more movement. The tech and popular presses are now paying attention; the iTunes / iPod / iTMS combo is enticing PC users and the iBook is snagging them. Education is warming to Apple's iBook initiative as well, while higher ed snaps up PowerBooks (particularly in CS departments - Mac developers in training!); Xserve is beginning to get traction in an all-new market because of favorable reviews from early adopters. VT dropped jaws even at Apple by assembling the world's #3 supercomputer out of PowerMacs. And if nothing is really moving that much, that's because this is not going to be a linear growth cycle. It's going to be one of those things where you push and push and push and get nowhere, and then suddenly you're moving. Fast.

If the 20" serves as one more lust object for Apple to dangle in front of people, great.
"...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 #110 of 178
Its just opinion, but as a Mac user since 1987, im quite dissapointed at the 20" - and for that matter the iMac in general. Whilst I applaud Amorph case, I have to seriously question Apple on this products price/performance. Again, no arguments from me on price!, but a G4 @1.25?, 256MB RAM, 80GHD, no Video IN!!!.

Hey come to think of it Im a little relieved, instead of parting with my cash over the holidays, Ill continue to build up more video source material of family and friends, play some golf and enjoy the beach (southern hemisphere), until such time as this product comes with a G5.

It should have been G5 1.6G 512/160G/Superdive, with s-video in.

Apple wants to rip off the unsuspecting?, fine, but not me!.
post #111 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?

You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.

What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.

The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.



So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.

You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.



You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.



I'm getting tired of this argument.

It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.



So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want. At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.

You believe that I have a hard time accepting reality? You must be joking. 99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM! Apple has simply created an artificial market for them by limiting options. I am not the one with an ideological bent toward a certain form factor. Apple is. Even if people never upgrade their machines, they want the ability to do it. That is not likely to change. When I first bought my computer, DV editing was not even possible at a consumer level. After I bought my camcorder, I upgraded my system with an add-on card for DV capture. Had I owned an AiO, I would have been out of luck. Upgradability is not about what you want to do with your computer right now. It is about what you want to do with your computer in the future. It is usually something you never thought about and did not know was even possible at the time you bought the thing. You seem to be arguing that Apple is doing the 'moral' thing by limiting consumer options to the AiO. The AiO is more expensive at purchase and it is more expensive in the long run because it will become obsolete sooner and have to be replaced faster. Nice try. Bad argument.

Another part of your argument seems to suggest that Apple could not possibly be that far off the mark because they know what they are doing. You put too much faith in Apple. They have about the worst marketing there is. They do not sell because of it. They sell in spite of it. Do they know what they are doing when it comes to pricing? CUBE! CUBE! CUBE! SJ is stubborn. He will price himself to death in spite of what the numbers show. He believes in the iMac and he is not willing to give up on it. Even if the numbers proved that it was a bad idea, I believe he would keep pushing it at his fantasy price points anyway. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. You have way too much faith in his good sense.

So you are tired of the "crippling" argument. Too bad. You are going to hear a lot more of it. I do not believe that using a 1.42 gig would have blown the thing up as some seem to suggest. I also have not heard a credible argument as to why the HD has not kept pace with industry standards. If the design truly is the reason the iMac has been so slow with upgrades to its internals, then it was a truly bad design. Is it also poor design that makes bluetooth a $50 add-on? That brings me to your last argument. You keep using the term "lust object." Sorry, I thought we were talking about computers. If all we are talking about is a fashion statement, then Apple has a winner on their hands. I looked at the computer in the local Apple Store and it is very nice to look at. Still, its target market seems to be wealthy people who do not have much to do with their computer and know little or nothing about computers. It is for people who have more dollars than sense. In short, I believe its target market is made up of rich suckers. I can't imagine this model will be around for very long and you suggest it is only here to boost the profile of the line as something of a profit gathering stop-gap. I guess we do not disagree too much after all. I can just see the commercial for this thing. Luscious images followed by the words:

"Introducing the 20" iMac... Merry Christmas, SUCKERS!"
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #112 of 178
Quote:
99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM!

This is not true at all. There aren't any decent AIOs in Windows-land...not a single one...zippo...zilch. Look at the options they have...

There's the Sony with the non-detachable keyboard...it's so squat you'll have irreversible chronic neck problems after a day's use.

There's the Gateway Profile 5. HHAHAhahHAHAHhahahahaAHhAha. Next.

Well, there aren't that many choices...Neither Dell nor HP have any...but wait, they do...they're called laptops. Laptops are becoming much more popular these days.

Mini-PCs too. Look at all the barebones Shuttle, Soyo, etc. systems. People want computers in smaller packages. They are willing to give-up expandability for size. It's just that good exterior design seems to be anathema to most PC manufacturers.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #113 of 178
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO). The problem with the iMacs right now is that they are so underpowered they have become a pathetic joke. Hopefully they will put the fastest G5 available in the next revision, in which case it will be a very tempting machine. (Would anyone be complaining about the 20" iMac if it had a 2GHz G5 and a Radeon 9600XT in it?)
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #114 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO).

Well... that depends.

I'm personally from the 'keep all your options open - because the computer market evolves so quickly' school of thought.

The main problem with AIO in IMO, is that they date VERY quickly. It doesn't matter what you stick in them - they are always going to age prematurely. Compare what you can do (in terms of upgradeability) with a two year old iMac (or laptop for that matter) and a two year old Quicksilver. You can't upgrade the graphics card on the the iMac, and you can't upgrade to a larger sized monitor.

Which is the reason that all manufacturers love the AIO concept.

You're effectively reducing the useful lifespan of your machine to that of it's weakest link. Also, if you buy a G5, there's a very good chance that you aren't going to pick a new Cinema Display to with it. With AIO, they get the profit on the base unit and the Cinema Display. And when the base unit needs replaced, you need to buy a new display as well. And vice verse. If that display goes tits up, you're a captive audience for those inflated repair prices. You have no option.

AIO is perfect for some people, and way to restrictive for others. It depends if you consider a computer to be a disposeable consumer item or not. Some people buy a computer, and never buy another piece of software - ever. They're happy with what came in the box, and they expect the computer to work for the rest of their lives. But if you like to run the latest versions of your favourite software, that 1.25GHz G4 isn't going to look so clever in a years time when everything that's being written is optimized for dual 3GHz G5s.

That's what's wrong with the AIO, IMO.

You could of course argue that a G5/Cinema Display combo is AIO anyway, because the ADC connector has been specifically designed so that you can't use the Cinema Display with an non ADC machine (without forking out some serious cash).
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #115 of 178
The prices of the AIO are not exactly reasonable Amorph. Especially the 15 and 17" models. The 20 is expensive, but then, with that display on it, it was bound to be. Desktop AIO's make little sense, laptops are much better in the Apple universe -- providing 99% of the funtionality at the same price or lower, and adding the huge bonus of portability.

If Apple can remake the e/iMac line into an set of nice "eMac FP" models (branded as iMacs, of course), then all that you say has some merit, but not until prices can match the competition.

Expansion is still a powerful plus to a desktop system. Want a DVD burner, 200 Canadian and 5 minutes of installation and it's there, no expensive firewire chassis, just install and go. In a sense, the AIO loses a lot of it's AIO-ness once you add anything, since it all has to be external, while the tower begins to save space and money as you add drives and cards. I don't see any slow down in the need to add more drives. Each of my two towers has 2 opticals and at least two HDD's. One has been through a mobo/CPU and video card upgrade too.

People still want those features, and Apple had better figure out a way to add some of them if it hopes to gain more interest from them.

Also, while the PC-AIO may not have done well in the past, it doesn't come down to them all being crap. I've seen some nice LCD units, but they were always ***expensive*** (priced like a laptop) compared to the very good and affordable tower offerings often available in the same shop. In the mac aisle, people don't have a choice in the matter, there is no affordable headless machine, so they either buy an AIO or a Pro Tower, or once they've decided that they'd like a consumer tower the way they want it, since they're paying afterall, then, well... then they buy a PC tower -- something which they have not been shy about doing in ever increasing numbers.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #116 of 178
There is no AiO desktop market. Period. A laptop is not even close to the same thing because they are mobile and portable. Even in Apple land, there is only a small niche for the AiO. Having said that, the AiO, if priced like a tower, and speced like it meant business, could find a very receptive market.

An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often. Bull! People buy new PCs more often because they can, not because they must. A good PC is far less expensive, partially due to the form factor. Instead of buying a DVD burner and a 120 Gig HD and a good video card for their old system, they have the option to just buy a whole new system for $799, hook it up to the old monitor, and keep on going. Compare that to buying a new mid-range iMac every two years and you should be able to see my point.

The iMac is one of those products that I really want to like. However, I am not a fashionable Web surfer. I will gladly take an ugly box that gets the job done at a reasonable price. So will the vast majority of people. They will look at the iMac and love it for its style and ergonomics. But they will buy a PC because it will play their kid's favorite games for a lot less. I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day. Given the choice between a top of the line iMac with the best internals at a reasonable price and a PowerBook, it becomes a much tougher decision. I would probably be inclined to buy both. To each their own.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #117 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
There is no AiO desktop market. Period.

Funny, since the iMac has been on the bestseller list before.

Any prejudice against it probably comes from the ingenuity of the packaging: I had one friend shake her head out how her mom just loved her iMac, even though it was just a terminal and she had to dial up to use it. (It had never occurred to her that Apple had indeed fit a whole computer into that case, and she didn't believe me when I told her.) Even modest feats of engineering are unheard of on that side, apparently.

Quote:
A laptop is not even close to the same thing because they are mobile and portable.

Well, except for the fragile, heavy (8-12lb) beasts with half hour battery lives and 15"-17" screens. The ones that consumers are buying in droves.

Even so, it proves that there are apparently things that people are more than willing to trade future-proofing for. Notebooks are among the least upgradable machines available.

I don't count PCI expansion in the consumer space, either: Just imagine Joe or Jane Average unplugging everything, cracking open their tower, carefully grounding themselves, handling a circuit board and applying the necessary force to seat it on the motherboard properly. Not gonna happen.

Quote:
An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often.

No, the fact is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. Whether you like that or not is another question.

The tower is so common on the PC side because it's the most convenient form for the manufacturer. Client-side expandability is an afterthought at best (if it weren't, Dell would ship decent power supplies and Sony wouldn't ship their multimedia PCs with every slot already full). It takes no R&D to buy a commodity case and a commodity board, outfit it with commodity parts as desired, and boot it out the door. That's why PCs look like that. The amount of research done on how well the form is suited to the actual use of the machine? Nada. The amount of engineering done to adapt the machine to the way it will be used? Nada. It's much easier to ship something that is easy to put together, make claims about what it's theoretically capable of, and blame the customer if they can't exploit those capabilities in practice.

So guess what? As soon as notebooks became powerful enough in their own right, people started spurning towers. Even though the average notebook is even harder to upgrade after the fact than an iMac is.

What I gather from this is that if Apple made a low-end tower, people might come for the price (monitor not included, natch) but they'd leave with an iBook or an iMac. If they're trying to impress someone during a major holiday season, they just might splurge on a nice one.

Quote:
I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day.

That's fine. That's why Apple makes PowerBooks, and eMacs, and iBooks, and PowerMacs: Not everyone needs or wants the iMac. Nobody is arguing that everyone does, or should. It is, however, presumptuous in the extreme to assume that anyone who does is merely misinformed or stupid or misguided just because they've decided that it's not a machine they'd buy themselves. If, to a particular person, a quiet, moderately powerful and highly ergonomic machine with a great deal of practical capability out of the box and a gorgeous monitor is worth the money, who are you to tell them they're wrong? Can you honestly say that you know what they need better than they do?
"...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 #118 of 178
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO). The problem with the iMacs right now is that they are so underpowered they have become a pathetic joke. Hopefully they will put the fastest G5 available in the next revision, in which case it will be a very tempting machine. (Would anyone be complaining about the 20" iMac if it had a 2GHz G5 and a Radeon 9600XT in it?)

I wouldn't complain if it had a 2GHz G4!, although a Radeon 9600/9800 would be VERY helpful even if its a BTO Option.

On the AIO debate, Im a huge fan, I love something styled beautifully, without the tower/display monstrosity. But as a Prosumer, im more at the top end for a desktop - my Powerbook with a 15" TFT is ideal size/weight/performance for my every day computing, but for home, Im mainly working with photo libraries, music compilations, and the dreaded time consuming video/DVD authoring . The 'home' machine is the second machine for me and acts as the suppositry for lots of data/backups.

The 20" iMac in my opinion is potentially ideal for this 'home' work, but really needs to have video-in and a chip that could handle about 3 years of service before being handed down or sold, a 1.25G4 is not my idea of a strong enough performing chip with longevity.
post #119 of 178
This topic shows one of 2 things.

A) Everyone here is very passionate about the subject at hand.

or

B) They have too much time on there hands and think that the other is going to give in to there argument.

I pick (b)



People if you want it go and get it....if you hate it don't get it, is just me or is it just that simple?

Frank_t
post #120 of 178
Frank, eye think your write.

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!