If the Cube came back... - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>I don't think that is Apple's market at all. I don't think they are aiming at all to the type of people who buy a 500-600 dollar computer or buy one with a 400 dollar MSN rebate or off of the HSN.

and I don't think the people buying those computers are even thinking about Apple.

that really is th last market I want to see Apple get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ohmigod, tell me about it

Yeah, Macs aren't cheap (and in a couple of cases, they're downright ridiculous, price-wise), but I would rather them be what they are now than to try and take that lame-ass, cheesy "budget brand" route because you know what?

Non-Mac people STILL wouldn't buy them, for all the same reasons they don't buy Macs now.

Apple's pricing is but a small, small piece of the pie as to why more people don't use them.

Half a decade (or more) of myths, weak (or sometimes nonexistent) marketing, rumors (false, bullshit ones of course) of bankruptcy/buyout, lies, false appearances, etc. have probably done more to cut into Apple's marketshare than anything else.

I STILL, to this day, will run into someone at work or at a CompUSA or whatever who firmly believes one or more of the following:

1. There isn't any software for Macs.
2. Apple is going out of business
3. Macs are only for graphics
4. Macs - with their colors and curves - can't be "serious", REAL computers

AFTER the above four comes things like price, the MHz myth, etc.

I believe that until Apple (or SOMEONE) confronts and deals with the first four in a strong, decisive way, good prices and 2GHz Macs aren't going to change much in the mind of a non-Mac user.

The airwaves and magazines should be borderline saturated with CLEVER, hard-hitting ads from Apple, touting all that is cool and righteous about the platform (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, OS X, AirPort, Firewire, actual hardware, etc.).

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>

In reference to the title, if the cube came back, it would do the same thing for Apple shares that John Roth did for Nortel shares. Not good.

Amen scates!

Why would ANYONE want a G3 CPU in ANY Mac?

It's time to EOL the G3 and move on. Powermacs will have G5s soon enough, so the rest of the Macs should have G4s at the very least. With OS X Apple has proven that they are fully committed to Altivec. Why would Apple optimize OS X for Altivec and then put G3s in the majority of Macs sold? No, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Apple optimized OS X for Altivec because they plan on G4s or better in all Macs before long. To release a new Mac with a G3 would be utter insanity.

And no, just because a Mac has a G3 doesn't mean that Apple can magically price it at $599. The G3 is only slightly cheaper than the G4, not enough to make much of a difference in the final price. Model pricing is more about marketing than CPU cost.

I think Paul's overstating the situation from many a shopper's point of view - and defending the status quo a little too strongly...

The "they cost more" criticism directed at the Mac is more problematic than any other. It's the deterrant that finally prevents a sale; even when other factors are taken care of, and the product is widely appealing - as was the case with the Cube. As much as people raved about the it, the price drove buyers away. Not software, not clock speeds, not the Mac's reputation, but price, above all else. This speaks to something true, not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It's a dubious, defeatist position to say that a leap in sales is impossible regardless of price.

Apple's hit the mark before - as we've seen in other instances. The current iBook is a runaway success - and a prime example. Is it an El Cheapo box? Did it demoralize Apple to bring it to market? Obviously not. Also, many PC users who disparaged the first-generation iBook nonetheless bought its replacement - so much for the 'cute-n'-cuddly' problem - but you can bet they would've stayed away had the iBook come at twice the cost. Even with everything else in place, price still speaks the loudest.

It might not be an overnight transformation. But for Apple to eliminate the most common, most long-standing deterrent to buying Mac rather than PC? Whose to say that it couldn't be the start of something huge?


Cheers,

Mark.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Mark ]</p>

As a cube owner, I need to add my 3 cents to this thread..

1. The ONLY reason the cube failed was price. (of course, if you lower anything to $0, it will sell well.) But seriously, I jumped at the chance to get a refurb off Apple's site for $1100. The Cube IS the prosumer slotless "tower" that some would like to see.

2. Anyone who says that the cube is marvelous piece of engineering because of what they fit inside it is full of crap. Stop parroting Job's marketing spin! Get out of the RDF!! There is a heck of a lot less volume in a PBG4, or even an iBook. And those contain a keyboard and LCD screen in addition to everything a cube has! The cube is NOT amazing for what is stuffed inside it, and should not demand a $800 premium because of it. It IS a very attractive and well thought out device, and should demand a $200 premium because of it.

3. I think the iMac should be relegated to one entry level model at $799, and the cube should fill in the $799 - $1499 price range (w/o monitor). The one improvement they should make however, is to integrate the speakers into the LCD monitors. The USB and power is already there. Get those wires, speakers, and amplifier off my desk!


iMac - 667 Mhz G4
Cube - 867/933/1.2 GH G4
Tower - 1.2/Dual 1.2 G4 (if no G5)
Monitors (with speakers) - 15" ($450), 17" ($750), 19" ($1199), 22" (who cares)

Given the prices of stuff these days, I don't see why Apple can't do that.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Cubed ]</p>

1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then

2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.

3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then

2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.

3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius</strong><hr></blockquote>


1. relax

2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.

3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.

4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?

[quote]Originally posted by Cubed:
<strong>


1. relax

2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.

3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.

4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?</strong><hr></blockquote>

1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it. but it was just a desktop thrown into a cube right People never fail to amaze me. Maybe one day you should open up your cube and really take a look at it. maybe then you'll see just how impressive it is.

2.) uh... what does PPC performance have to do with anything? Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.

the lowend tower at the time was 400Mhz. but it was also 200 dollars cheaper, had expansion, and better specs all around. that's why it was a dumb pricing decision. why would anyone go for the cube when you could get a tower for a better deal? it made no sense unless all you cared about was styling and didn't mind paying more for it which apparantly very few did.

the 500Mhz G4 tower was not successful. the day the cube came out the G4/500 tower was replaced by the dual G4/500 tower. before that G4/500 tower sales sucked.

3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.

the $799 model of the imac they offer now is a piece of shit. it was originally only available to schools because 1. the schools eat cheap stuf up 2. the margins are too small for resellers to take it serious. obviously they brought it back to the public hoping it would clear out some imac inventory for christmas.

a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?

What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it

[quote]Originally posted by jhtrih:
<strong>So when can we expect to see the new cube?

Hopefuly MWNY '02, or MWSF '03</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think you will ever be able to expect it, you can hope all you want, I know I am. It's just that there is NO evidence that they are bringing it back.

[quote]Originally posted by Wrong Robot:
<strong>What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:


1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it.
<hr></blockquote>

Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?

[quote]
Maybe one day you should open up your cube and really take a look at it. maybe then you'll see just how impressive it is.<hr></blockquote>

I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!

[quote] Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.<hr></blockquote>

Well, we agree. Like I said, price was it's only problem.

[quote]
3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.<hr></blockquote>

&lt;applenut attitude&gt;
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius .
&lt;/applenut attitude&gt;

[quote]
a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?<hr></blockquote>

I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.
You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it.

Nobody has mentioned the dodecahedron rumor, with twelve sides, each a pentagon. It is to be the G5 enclosure, appear in Spring, 2002. I personally think it was invented at Apple to throw everyone off the scent.

[quote]Originally posted by Cubed:
<strong>

That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.</strong><hr></blockquote>


uh... no. nice try at an insult by the way.

Apple wasn't able to maintain decent profit margins with the cube at 1299. what makes you think they would do it all over and at the same time release a single iMac with next to no profit margin?

[quote]Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?<hr></blockquote>

people did try. read a little more. there was actually a pretty interesting PC clone but it was no where near as good as the G4 Cube.

[quote]I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!<hr></blockquote>

yet it has:
a G3,
soldered in ram with one ram slot open
a 2.5 inch notebook harddrive
integrated graphic chipset instead of an agp slot
a slower bus (you quoted the 1299 model)


yea, take away the G4, stick a G3 in, take away the ram slots, take away the AGP slot, make other power savings cuts across the motherboard, remove a firewire port and an ADC port and you'll have what amounts to an iBook. you're point?

nevermind the fact that a good portion of the Cube's size is due to its center chimney. if that was not there they could have made it even smaller. they would have just had to make it sound like a jet with its fan like the powerbook.

[quote]&lt;applenut attitude&gt;
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius .
&lt;/applenut attitude&gt;<hr></blockquote>


:confused: if you are going to make shithead like comments like that you should read around a bit more. Wherre did I have say to keep the iMac the same forever and never change anything?

iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299

tell me how that is me saying they should keep the imac the same forever and not make any changes?

an then I always say to have a 799 or 899 CRT based iMac for schools and the entry level.

and then I have said that the cube could fill the spot between the imac and the PowerMac like it should have in the first place.

[quote]I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.<hr></blockquote>

how is the price even remotely near it?

1299 for a cube plus display. cheapest apple display is 599. you have to do some interesting math to think that's what people pay for the high end iMacs.

[quote]You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it. <hr></blockquote>

you're not improving anything. you're taking away and opening up a 1000 dollar gap between the imac and the next product, "you're cube".

[quote]Nobody has mentioned the dodecahedron rumor, with twelve sides, each a pentagon. It is to be the G5 enclosure, appear in Spring, 2002. I personally think it was invented at Apple to throw everyone off the scent. <hr></blockquote>

I'm just trying to imagine how that would look

um, the only thing i have to add to this thread is thati have thought that the cube should have been the imac II, and, truth be told, it still could, since we now it can hold a g4 (allowing the towers to prgress up to g5 without any crossover in technology between the consumer and pro markets), but the cube was still not all-in-one idiot-proof like the imac (remember the video of the kid and dog pulling it out and setting it up?). so maybe they really could do the "headless imac" design based off the cube and flat-panel displays. who knows?

complete tangent: watching the motor city bowl on tsn/espn (because it's the only football on right now, that's why), and saw a guy on cincinnati's team named, i kid you not, "deathrage." can you imagine being named something like chuck deathrage? holy crap! :eek:

applenut - it looks like cubed picked up where I left off yesterday. I suggest that he read my post and buy an "iSlab."

cubed - You don't really want a cube. I think applenut is right, we want this!



The iMac LCIII - Slim and efficient and $699!

[quote]Originally posted by A/UX:
<strong>


The iMac LCIII - Slim and efficient and $699! </strong><hr></blockquote>

hmmm. I wonder if a G3 tower motherboard would fit in a LCIII

_________________________________
applenut:
iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299____________________________

ok, if that is the next imac with LCD screen, can apple re-release the cube with those specs for the same price with out a display??

so iMac LCD Combo--1299
Combo Cube-1299

then you take that G4 Combo Cube and bundle a 15" ASD for $1749 (special pricing for buying apple cube and apple display)---a Combo cube and a 17" ASD for $1999

can or would apple make a SE cube with Superdrive??? make it 1599....then it is
iMac combo 1299
Combo Cube 1299
Super Cube 1599

Cube Bundles: Combo + 15" ASD--1749
Super + 15" ASD- 1999
Combo + 17" ASD 1999
Super + 17" ASD--2249

dang, the more i think about, the more i want a freakin cube---plus i just like to say Combo Cube and Super Cube....

g

holy crap. That was the most confusing post I've ever seen. I don't know how to respond :eek:

dang, i befuddled Applenut...i should get a prize...or else it's late and my brain is in misfunction mode (it has happened before)...must stop looking at CRT screen and sleep soon...g

ps...more confusing than codenames post??

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>

[quote] What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it <hr></blockquote>

No, because a headless iMac would cost LESS than an iMac, just subtract the cost of the CRT. Add a G4 and it should cost about the same as an iMac, at most. Pricing the cube so high was dumb, it made no sense.

The price of a cube, WITH display, should be no higher than $1500. It would sell better than the iMac, because the #1 complaint about the iMac is it's small screen. The cube fixed this.

Apple even bragged about the cube having the highest margin in the industry...LOL, I guess they found out why it's margin was so high..because it was overpriced.

I think it would be a great idea to release another cube, but this time price it like a headless iMac. And give it an Apollo.

and a superdrive

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

they couldn't make a cube for 1000 before how could they do it now? at 1299 their margins were too small to maintain the product.

how is the switch from a G4 to a G3 going to solve those problems.

the cube should and could be better placed with specs like this:
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 3 MX
56K Modem
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Superdrive
$1299</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excuse me?

If the Cube was/is as expensive to produce as you say above (reasonably, IMO) how can you possibly expect them to re-release it @ the 1299 price point w/ a SUPERDRIVE in it, for crying out loud?

Was right there with you 'til this popped out....

thought he had it at 1299 with the combo drive....superdrive would up the cost to 1599--1499 would be nice, but i doubt it...g

Ooo...what if the new iMac was indeed a resurrected, restyled (given a cool glossy white skin, a la the iBook) Cube?

Still call it the iMac, of course, and perhaps make a separate line of LCDs (same specs, sizes as the current 15" and 17" Studio Displays) with a matching white finish to go with the new iMac cube?

With ADC, any idiot could connect the display to the Cube.

That would be SHARP.

I can totally imagine an all-white, glossy cube AND matching display. Talk about sleek!

Would easily solve the whole "but the iMac's screen is too small!" gripe, as the customer could choose their display, based on need and/or budget.

Of course, this all hangs on Apple reducing the price on their flat panel displays to reasonable, affordable levels...



Could you imagine a GHz-level G3 (or even a 800MHz or so G4...IF a G5 is unveiled next week) with the cool slot loading "toaster" combo drive, a nice video card, etc.

I've always maintained that the Cube was a beautiful, way-cool design that got axed JUST when it could've gotten really interesting (faster G3/G4, combo drive, etc.).

It's just a shame it came out of the gate priced the way it did. It kinda doomed it beyond help I guess. But there's no good reason it couldn't be reborn and restyled. They spent a lot of time and effort in the design, research, engineering, etc. Shame to let all that effort and time go to waste after only a year.

The Cube was ONLY a failure because of its pricing, related to the towers and iMacs. If it BECAME the new iMac...

Don't call it something lame like the iCube. That's too easy and stock. Just call it the iMac and people will accept it.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that it's "carved in stone" that the iMac absolutely HAS to be an all-in-one unit. I mean, it HAS been of course...but what if that's simply not the best solution, three years down the road?

Everything changes and it's not 1998 anymore. The ADC thing greatly simplifies the whole hooking up process (adds but one more step to the whole iMac set-up). I'd like to think that people are savvy enough (ones buying Macs, anyway) to simply attach one cable from the computer to the display.

The benefits of that far outweight any chances of someone being such a clueless dumbass that they can't figure out how to connect an ADC thing. If you're coming from a PC background, then you're already used to hooking up a monitor cable, speakers, printer, power, etc.

The ADC thing will seem like a stroke of genius. And if you ARE someone who can't handle the ADC thing and absolutely can't fathom hooking up one cable, you're probably not the kind of customer Apple wants anyway. You're the kind of person who'll be calling the goddamn tech support line everytime your computer goes to sleep or whatever.



[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>