or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iMac Future
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iMac Future - Page 4

post #121 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
15'', 17'' and 20'' should not mean you have to pay $1299, $1799, and $2199!

People just want the computer, then they buy a display. PC users are USED to buying the 2 seperately. PC users only think of laptops as AIO's. Selling a a well designed, low cost computer (minus the display) caters to PC mentality and everyone elses financial well being.

This does not mean Apple should pack its bag with the iMac concept, but instead offer a way to drop in the "chrome arm display.'' If that is possible, then all of the bases are covered. More options dont always equal more confusion. More options would equal more sales in this instance.

Apple is famous for being able to offer the best pre-packaged solution in an AIO enclosure. This time they can offer that solution yet they wont have to be FORCING that solution. Not surprisingly, people only pay a little bit more money if they get A LOT more benefit.

In this case, Apple's premium is too much for what it gets you. Apple can still charge people those above prices for the iMac, but I think to do that they would need to bundle an iPod mini with them. THAT is how overpriced iMacs are right now.

Moral of the story: For those prices our money needs to get us more, whether it be specs, expansion, or a device like the iPod. If Apple refuses to drop the AIO then those seem to be a possible way out of having to.

Come down in price Apple, come up in specs, (macminutes G5 news may prove that this could happen as soon as next week) or re-do your product line and strategy surrounding it. Right now the current solution is not solving anyones problems, it is causing them.

As has been said here, I think the best solution is to offer a modular machine that can have the capability of being set up as an AIO or as two separate pieces. The ADC connector brings AIO functionality to the monitor, although I think an update to that connector so it can provide power, USB 2.0, and FW400/800 would be good. This would mean Apple displays would have to function in just one enclosure instead of several. Granted, the enclosure would vary in size depending on screen size, but Apple would not need different enclosures for the Cinema displays and the iMac.

I also think it best to eliminate the eMac altogether. The new iMac or iBox would have the capability of becoming an AIO, but you could also attach a different screen to it. Standard VGA adapters should still be allowed to cater to the schools and CRTs for the time being. Schools don't need AIO. They buy the little Dells by the bundle. The key here is to make a better looking, better quality machine that has front access and can be used with older monitors, etc.

An iMac/iBox should probably come in three configurations. Low-end G5 and high end G4, possibly offering dual processor capability on the G4 end. They should have some expandability. The major thing to think about is easy access for processor upgrades and the ability to upgrade video. I also think the machine should be able to accept up to 2GB of RAM.

It would save money if Apple can narrow down its product line and make it more versatile. You have two in the Power lineup (PowerMac and PowerBook), eaching offering 3 to 4 different stock configurations. You also end up with two in the iLineup (iMac/iBox, iBook), also offering 3 to 4 different stock configs.

I'd also start all Macs off at 512MB in RAM. It's not a very expensive jump from 256 for a manufacturer like Apple. We also should expect Macs to cost a bit more than PCs, but it shouldn't be overwhelming. I also think a small, flexible enclosure should cost less than what the current iMac enclosure does and could still be of good quality and have innovative design.
post #122 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
As has been said here, I think the best solution is to offer a modular machine that can have the capability of being set up as an AIO or as two separate pieces.

This would mean Apple displays would have to function in just one enclosure instead of several. Granted, the enclosure would vary in size depending on screen size, but Apple would not need different enclosures for the Cinema displays and the iMac.

I also think a small, flexible enclosure should cost less than what the current iMac enclosure does and could still be of good quality and have innovative design.

Could you explain how this would work a little bit more clearly...I just dont see how the enclosure idea would work? I'm not picturing something right maybe? A drawing would help...

What exactly is meant by a "modular machine?" Does that mean it basically has the ability to transform from AIO to a 2 piece and vice versa? Or does it mean it is highly expandable, maybe both of those things?

Thanks, good post too...I cant tell if your agreeing or disagreeing with mine tho, haha...I'm just blonde today.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #123 of 226
If I understand Mr. MacPhisto correctly, it would be somewhat like the current iMac, only the display could be removed to place in an inexpensive base unit and be used as a separate display. Each base and each iMac unit would be able to use different sized removable display panels. Am I close? I think it's a good idea anyway. That way if you sell your older computer, you could keep the display panel, stick it in a base unit or put it on a new computer. A drawing would help. Scates?

Or, maybe that's not what he was talking about at all.

Just working on my dreaming.
post #124 of 226
on my previous posts this is what i had in mind and intel beat me to the picture

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/te...ts/12inte.html

if that doesn't work try this and go to the new york tiimes link "intel blurs lines"

http://news.google.com/news/en/us/technology.html

buy using BT, wireless keyboard and mouse the design options expand, this way apple could allow you to upgrade your display or fix it at 17 or 20 inches

have the guts, processor optical drive and ports on a pod attaching to the back, out of site and upgradable displays, the present imac doen't allow screen upgrades.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #125 of 226
Thread Starter 
Some cool concept images...

http://www.theapplecollection.com/de...]Headless iMac







[edit by Amorph: No inlined images over 800x600.]
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #126 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Some cool concept images...

Headless iMac






Those are cool...I'll take one of the first.

[edit by Amorph: Don't inline images over 800x600.]
post #127 of 226
Cool designs guys. I'm not a talented artist, so I decided to stay away from it. I especially like the aluminum dome. I'd probably make it a little larger and not have a half-ring on the from of the display. I'd stick the USB and FW on the front of the base with audio coming out the back (and a passthrough on the monitor base so it is still accessible). There can be an ADC and VGA plug on the back so the display with the display able to lock-in and attach to the ADC flush (giving the user two power buttons to utilize as well - parity can be a good thing).

The nice thing about an aluminum dome is that it should be cheaper to manufacture than the current iMac dome. It also would allow a back panel and the top of the dome to come off for easy access.

In that back slot you could upgrade memory. It also would be good to be able to upgrade video via some small slot. Upgrades could be licensed out to a few companies (like PowerLogix and the sort) with Apple creating video and processor slots that would allow the upgrade. All offered upgrades would have to be authorized by Apple before offered. The benefits? Apple would continue to provide a warranty on the machine if any time remains (AppleCare). Motherboard upgrades may be too much to hope for and would be as expensive as buying a new machine.

Great thing is that the machine would have a smalll footprint, would look sleek, and would give the user more options.

Also, if I were Apple, I'd discount Apple displays when bought with the machines. Get $200 off the total cost in store when you buy a 17" display (greater for the 20") and an iMac. That way you can entice some customers to buy a new display that will work effectively with their base. Once again, the customer is not getting a display shoved down their throat - they're given options, with the a discount offered when they buy the machine (and maybe extended beyond initial purchase with a dated receipt).

The only problem with the small footprint is the lack of PCI expansion, but FW and USB help to eliminate that. You can add editing capability and drives via either, so allowing for video upgrades, processor upgrades, and RAM upgrades solves most problems. The more sophisticated user is better with the PowerMac anyways.


Of course, you could always just have an iBook and go back to the Duo Dock concept. The dock could add a second processor, card expandability, more HDD space, etc.
post #128 of 226
Thread Starter 
This thread is turning into a hellish circle of ideas and concepts, spritzed with similar opinions. I cant seem to figure it out yet, poor Apple probably has similar issues trying to nail down the strategy.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #129 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates


BUT...I also get tired of the argument that the iMac - in it's current form - "sucks". It's a bit overpriced and "boutique-y" and out of the reach of most. But, on its own, it doesn't "suck" and it's a beautiful piece of machinery.

But, bottom line: does Apple throw all their eggs into the "dazzle 'em with design and price it out of reach" approach (they're on strike two, counting the G4 Cube) OR go more for "plain Jane box" to get those fence-sitters curious about the Mac and OS X a wonderful incentive to make the leap.

Full disclosure: I workin a big box computer retailer that sells Apple computers.

This sums up the everage opinion on the iMac 2:

1. Hey that is really cool...and it has a DVD burner. $18000??????? That's a little out of my budget...and they leave with an HP with DVD Burner, 17" LCD and printer for about $1500 before the inevitable $200-$400 in rebates.
2. Those Apple computers look cool...but they aren't for me..I have been using PCs for 10 years.
3. The whole thing is the computer? And if the screen breaks do I need to replace the whole thing?????
4. Apple makes computers for rich people and graphic designers.
5. This computer looks like something Muffy and Todd use: "Oh look at my new computer...but it isn't really that functional"


So based on my observations....the imac misses the sweet spot by a mile...for $500 cheap you can get a PC with more RAM, more Video memory, more hard drive space, and will feel faster in many applications, pick up some iLife like software...and still come out saving $200-300. How is that incentive for switching.

AIO are great for SOME customers, but the entire consumer line should not be limited to an AIO. Even PC makers like Sony and Gateway are honest about the AIO #s. Sony releases their computer only for the holidays..and even businesses rarely buyt the all in one computers...although it is perfectly logical. Does Dell lose education customer by not having an AIO machine...I don't think so...it more closely relates to price, and performance, convinience. Education customers don't need emacs...they need reasonably priced computers.


PS I love the first concept, and the last concept!
post #130 of 226
Yes already, the iMac is the personal computer for rich people.

As long as there are customers who'll drop $1600 CAN on two portable music players for their kids, Apple will not be terribly concerned with providing a bargain machine.

As long as somebody cares about coolness, and style over sheer pragmatism, Apple can make premium products for a certain priveleged demographic.


Somebody criticized the iMac for being 'too boutiquey'... yeah, you missed the point.
oh hail to the thief!
Reply
oh hail to the thief!
Reply
post #131 of 226
I didn't miss "any point". I'm talking, relaying, as above, all the things I hear and read on a fairly routine basis.

In ANY case...you can't dodge facts, can you? They're not exactly flying off the shelves and how many people would enjoy having a Mac, but aren't quite sure they could swing the money OR like the idea of a display tethered to their machine.

Again, I love the iMac and AIO. Always have. But I'm just one guy. I quite sure I don't represent all those thousands (or millions) of others out there who don't.

Many people DO see the iMac 2 as an out-of-reach boutique item, right or wrong.

I saw it has a cool, great-looking computer that would handle any task I threw at it (because I'm not a S.W.), so that's why I bought one.

Others? Apparently not the case.
post #132 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by sorhed
Yes already, the iMac is the personal computer for rich people.

As long as there are customers who'll drop $1600 CAN on two portable music players for their kids, Apple will not be terribly concerned with providing a bargain machine.

As long as somebody cares about coolness, and style over sheer pragmatism, Apple can make premium products for a certain priveleged demographic.


Somebody criticized the iMac for being 'too boutiquey'... yeah, you missed the point.

Class warfare! I love it! 8)
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #133 of 226
Quote:
So based on my observations....the imac misses the sweet spot by a mile...for $500 cheap you can get a PC with more RAM, more Video memory, more hard drive space, and will feel faster in many applications, pick up some iLife like software...and still come out saving $200-300. How is that incentive for switching.

Ouch.

Credit to PSCates for offering a fair opinion on this debate. He loves the iMac 2 but recognises that he's one of an increasingly few amount of people prepared to buy the iMac 2. And is willing to accept the fact that they are people out there who want different things.

I'm dying to see what Apple has in store. 2 months into 2004 and we still haven't seen new Mac hardware...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #134 of 226
Thread Starter 
We've seen new Apple hardware, just not really Mac hardware if you dont consider Xserves to be "Mac hardware."
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #135 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Yes they can. How do you know they can't?

Because it's not an issue of design, it's an issue of sourcing. If they bought someone else's standard case, bought someone else's motherboard - both of which sell into the much larger PC market - then because of economies of scale they could sell cheaper.

If they designed a case and a board in an ATX format they'd be right back where they started, because their problem at the low end is that they can't take advantage of the commodity market for cases and boards. As long as they make their own stuff in the quantities their market supports, they're going to be more expensive at the low end.

All else being equal (that means ignoring the cost of things like the iMac 2's elaborate arm) a two piece will be more expensive to make, stock and sell than an AIO. On the PC side, all else is not equal because the commodity market is built around a two piece architecture.

The number of people who shop around for a separate monitor at the time of purchase is low enough to be irrelevant in terms of pricing the whole system - and Apple will discourage it anyway, because it will make it that much harder (and therefor more expensive) to figure out how many monitors to make. To cut cost, reduce the number of variables in play. You want to increase the number of variables in play.

Is this hard to understand?

I see downthread that you actually praise someone for saying the iMac 2 misses the mark. News flash: Nobody here - including me - is saying otherwise. It is a given that the iMac 2 is broken. It is a given that it needs fixing. The question is how, and that's far more interesting than further obsession over the iMac 2's sales numbers.
"...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 #136 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by clonenode
You are all hoping for too much, too soon. I'm in the Apple store near me every other day and people are STILL surprised when the sales person shows them how the LCD can be adjusted on the arm. It may seem old to us Mac faithful who obscess every other minute on what the next cool new Mac device might be, but to the general public the iMacs are still new and fresh.

Look for feature enhancements and little boosts and upgrades, but nothing very dramatic.


Of course by saying this, tomorrow Apple will reveal the G5, Aluminium iMac Sphere!

I agree. The other day I emailed a friend a picture of the iMac and she called and just gushed over how "pretty" it looked. She's been a Windows user for about 10 years. We do forget how unique the style of the machine is.
Bob Fricke
Reply
Bob Fricke
Reply
post #137 of 226
I claim to know nothing about marketing and running a billion dollar company. But I'll offer some advice and other things as I see fit.

With the G5 Apple finally has room to grow and expand. It's time to bring back the prestige and recognizability that the "Power" lineup used to envoke back in the 90's when people talked about Mac's.
Apple should have two goals when it comes to CPU sales. One short term one and one long term one.

*short term goal should be to sell 500,000 CPU units of the "Power" line combined. Simply put. Get as many G5's out there as you can. Expanding the PowerBook lineup to three configuration showed that Apple could sell boatloads of notebooks. By expanding the G5 desktops to 4 models and lowering the entery price to 1,499 (single G5), I think they could easily get past 225,000 Tower units a quarter....possibly 250,000. I'm not to worried about the Powerbooks. I have a feeling that once they get a G5....they will sell like nothing since the first iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if PowerBook G5 sales come close to the 250,000 mark that first quarter.
A strong "Power" lineup is the first key to market share and increased mindshare.

*Long term goal should be to get back above the 1,000,000 CPU mark per quarter.
This one is a little more difficult because it will require a complete revamp of the consumer Desktop lineup. (the iBooks are fine...leave them alone for the time being). But as people have been complaining in here about....the iMac/eMac situation needs desperate attention. Personally, I would like to see the eMac move back to eduction only. A completely new iMac would then cover the consumer lineup. Whatever it is, it needs to cover the 799 to 1,299 lineup. And if that's a new Cube....then so be it. A "consumer" PC should cost no more than 1,299 with moniter included. If you need that much power...then that's exactly where the 1,499 G5 comes in. (and at a higher gross margin for Apple).

Just for sh!ts and Giggles...it should look something like this:
Consumer Cube: All CPU's are fixed, RAM is upgradable, Videocard is upgradable, all come with new 2 year limited AppleCare Warranty.

Base Cube w/ no moniter: $699.00 (the true headless mac for those that have their own moniter. BTO any Optical drive

Entry Cube: 899.00
w/ 15" Apple LCD
Combo Drive

Cube Special Edition: 1,299
w/ 17" LCD
Superdrive
Soundsticks

I don't know.....I think that if people saw this sort of line-up (consumer and pro) they would take a little bit harder look at getting a Mac. I know i would be looking at the 699 or 899 option myself.

I don't know...I'm just dreaming though. But SOMETHING needs to happen! I think it's a slap in the face to make people pay 799+ tax and only get a 1GHz CPU and a lame, heavy 17" CRT beast that looks like it needs to go on the Atkins diet...

...and the iMac's price/performance ratio is so out of wack it isn't even funny.

But what do I know....I'm just a talking goat...
post #138 of 226
Well I'm in the same boat with repsect to marketing, I cetainly don't have any special knowledge in that area. But here is how I would run things:

Keep the PowerMac as pro equipment. That means very fast systems with atleast two real processors. The Power Mac should lead the Pac so to speak.

I do believe that Apple needs a low cost machine that can effectively be marketed around $500. That would be for a base machine with atleast 512MB of RAM. The only key element for the low cost machine is that it needs to be able to support graphics card upgrades, with via AGP port or its follow on. This could be a cube or a pizza box format like the old LC machines. The issue is, And I do hope that Apple and Steve hear this, that they not screw up with respect to performance. To that end the machine should hit at least 2GHz with a 970 class processor. Actually a little faster wouldn't hurt.

The All in ones need a upgrade that is obvious. Keeping them around in one form or the other would be ideal. While not my cup of tea they do fill a spot in the market place in a unique manner. They woud today if it wasn't for the fact that they have the performance of a three year old machine.

Thanks
Dave

Quote:
Originally posted by PowerPC
I claim to know nothing about marketing and running a billion dollar company. But I'll offer some advice and other things as I see fit.

With the G5 Apple finally has room to grow and expand. It's time to bring back the prestige and recognizability that the "Power" lineup used to envoke back in the 90's when people talked about Mac's.
Apple should have two goals when it comes to CPU sales. One short term one and one long term one.

*short term goal should be to sell 500,000 CPU units of the "Power" line combined. Simply put. Get as many G5's out there as you can. Expanding the PowerBook lineup to three configuration showed that Apple could sell boatloads of notebooks. By expanding the G5 desktops to 4 models and lowering the entery price to 1,499 (single G5), I think they could easily get past 225,000 Tower units a quarter....possibly 250,000. I'm not to worried about the Powerbooks. I have a feeling that once they get a G5....they will sell like nothing since the first iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if PowerBook G5 sales come close to the 250,000 mark that first quarter.
A strong "Power" lineup is the first key to market share and increased mindshare.

*Long term goal should be to get back above the 1,000,000 CPU mark per quarter.
This one is a little more difficult because it will require a complete revamp of the consumer Desktop lineup. (the iBooks are fine...leave them alone for the time being). But as people have been complaining in here about....the iMac/eMac situation needs desperate attention. Personally, I would like to see the eMac move back to eduction only. A completely new iMac would then cover the consumer lineup. Whatever it is, it needs to cover the 799 to 1,299 lineup. And if that's a new Cube....then so be it. A "consumer" PC should cost no more than 1,299 with moniter included. If you need that much power...then that's exactly where the 1,499 G5 comes in. (and at a higher gross margin for Apple).

Just for sh!ts and Giggles...it should look something like this:
Consumer Cube: All CPU's are fixed, RAM is upgradable, Videocard is upgradable, all come with new 2 year limited AppleCare Warranty.

Base Cube w/ no moniter: $699.00 (the true headless mac for those that have their own moniter. BTO any Optical drive

Entry Cube: 899.00
w/ 15" Apple LCD
Combo Drive

Cube Special Edition: 1,299
w/ 17" LCD
Superdrive
Soundsticks

I don't know.....I think that if people saw this sort of line-up (consumer and pro) they would take a little bit harder look at getting a Mac. I know i would be looking at the 699 or 899 option myself.

I don't know...I'm just dreaming though. But SOMETHING needs to happen! I think it's a slap in the face to make people pay 799+ tax and only get a 1GHz CPU and a lame, heavy 17" CRT beast that looks like it needs to go on the Atkins diet...

...and the iMac's price/performance ratio is so out of wack it isn't even funny.

But what do I know....I'm just a talking goat...
post #139 of 226
I don't think the above prices are viable.

Cube $799-$1299
Monitors sold separately, with the low end $299
So you go to basically to $1099 to $1599

Or have all-in-one-box that includes the $299 monitor for $999 - $1499.

Sell more monitors separately to other people. Let other people use other mointors that they may already have. I really don't get how someone will switch from PC if they HAVE to buy a new monitor.

Let them get that headless cube for cheap. Somewhere down the line, they will break down and get the matching LCD. Maybe even getting a larger display for more money.

2 display lines:

iDisplay - $299 - $799
15" - $299
17" Widescreen $499
18" or 19" 4:3 $799

ProDisplay
20" Widescreen - $899
23" Widescreen - $1499
30" Widescreen - $1999

I'd rather someone take these and come up with a good model pricing scheme. I don't like the 4:3's in there, but couldn't come up with something at the high end that wouldn't take away from the low end ProDisplays
post #140 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by tak1108
I don't think the above prices are viable.

Cube $799-$1299
Monitors sold separately, with the low end $299
So you go to basically to $1099 to $1599

Or have all-in-one-box that includes the $299 monitor for $999 - $1499.



2 display lines:

iDisplay - $299 - $799
15" - $299
17" Widescreen $499
18" or 19" 4:3 $799

ProDisplay
20" Widescreen - $899
23" Widescreen - $1499
30" Widescreen - $1999




There is not going to be a $299 display this year. No way. LCD prices have climbed somewhat, and $499 for a 17". Keep that crack pipe to your self.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #141 of 226
I just wish they'd release something...so these threads won't hurt my head so much and keep me up nights.



I'm truly stumped. I have no earthly idea what they're going to do. I only know one thing for sure: half the people here (probably including myself) will think it's the coolest, sexiest thing ever created and will slap their heads and go "of COURSE!!! Why didn't I think of that?!?! OMG! Ive ROCKS!!!".

The other half will bitch and moan as usual.

THAT is 100% guaranteed.

post #142 of 226
How about
15" $399 Way more expensive than PC LCD's so we keep the mac price high.

17" Widescreen $499 I think that is viable. It take less space than a 4:3 17" so it would be cheaper than the $699 on they sell now. And that is WAY overpriced.

17" 4:3 $599?

19" 4:3 $799?
20" Widescreen $999

They go with the anodized G5 Mini.
post #143 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
I do believe that Apple needs a low cost machine that can effectively be marketed around $500. That would be for a base machine with atleast 512MB of RAM. The only key element for the low cost machine is that it needs to be able to support graphics card upgrades, with via AGP port or its follow on. This could be a cube or a pizza box format like the old LC machines. The issue is, And I do hope that Apple and Steve hear this, that they not screw up with respect to performance. To that end the machine should hit at least 2GHz with a 970 class processor. Actually a little faster wouldn't hurt.

Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?

post #144 of 226
Thread Starter 
Ok, I went to my favorite thinking place today and came away from there with a few things.

To sell the iMac there needs to be a commercial about iLife. To me that is a no brainer, it would give people at least minor insight into what is different about a Mac. If a commercial showed people editing vacation video in iMovie, iPhoto slideshows, iDVD, and downloading a song from iTMS for the slideshow; then that might drive home SOMETHING to people. Then dont mention computer cost at the end of the commercial, just "iLife from Apple for $49."

How will this sell an iMac? When people go into an Apple store they will be looking for the lowest cost machine to run iLife with. Give them that machine in the form of a new iMac. But what will be different and what will Apple be able to do to sell a lower cost yet target market hitting iMac?

iMac target market: Everyone but the pro's and hardcore PC geeks.

iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.

Model 1-$799

Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive

Model 2-$1199

Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.

The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.

This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.

I think this would work.\
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #145 of 226
ShawnPatrick, defender of women and the downtrodden, ain't gonna dig that "homeless" remark. Watch your butt.
post #146 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
ShawnPatrick, defender of women and the downtrodden, ain't gonna dig that "homeless" remark. Watch your butt.



That comment is just a precursor to my idea for an iSteamvent. Climate controls for the summer and winter times. Genius.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #147 of 226
I would not have wasted my time otherwise. This is exactly what Apple needs, a low cost machine in the $500 ballpark.

Frankly I don't care if it is a 64 bit 970 based machine or a 32 bit machine. To be competitive they need more processing power now, 2GHx would be a good starting point. With the debut of the 970FX 2GHz is nothing. I would not be surprised if that processor is running at 3GHz today.

What would you have Apple do otherwise. They could come out with 1.2GHz G4 that can't compete with three year old processors from the other side of the PC world. We already know how these perform in the IMacs won't get any better in a $500 dollar machine.

The price is not an unrealistic expectation. The scope of the machine owuld be obviously limited, so a great deal of functionality in the current Towers can be done away with. All you are really talking about is a processor, a bridge-I/O chip, a graphics card and some memory. It would not be impossible for Apple to have IBM deliver an entire MAC on an IC, so you might be talking about just a graphicx card, memory and some buffering for the entire logic board beyond the SOC.

It is a question of competeing. Steve has so much as admitted to the need to expand market share, the low end is a reasonable place to do that. The big if or course is to maintain margins. That can be done by maintaining the scope of the machine within certain bounds and through the use of high integration.

Lets face it Apple has an excellent machine in the G5 Tower to address the medium to medium high end markets. But we mus also admit that those machines will not attrack everyone. The primary resistance will be the $$$$$$ to be expended for a PowerMac. Apple jus tneeds to round out its lines a bit at both the high and low ends. Currently they have nothing to full fill demands in either of those areas.

By the way the G5 XServe is an awsome unit, but the lack of video expansion capability removes it from being considered for or as a replacement for the PowerMac.

Thanks
Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?

post #148 of 226
Snipped a bit there but you do realize that slow processors are one of Apples issues that it is trying to over come. Further many school districts actually have intelligent people running them, they are not about to spend tax payer money on obsolete equipment. This is, at this moment in time, as big an issue with the educaiton market as is the lack of software.

Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh

The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.

This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.

I think this would work.\
post #149 of 226
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.

The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.

When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.

All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
post #150 of 226
Apple never lost money buy trying to compete at the low end and frankly I don't expect them to change their margins one bit. People far over estimate what it would actually cost to make one of these low cost machines. They can have it all, that is a low cost machine that still provides them with a tidy profit.

Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.

The artificial spread between the low cost line and the PowerMacs, that many are so wrapped up in, is a major marketing problem and one of the reasons Apple has so much trouble with its current line up. People don't want these barriers, generated by a marketing department, in place. They wan reasonably good value for their money. There is no reason to restrict CPU performance on the low end, in a nut shell this is the number one thing that people buy when they buy a PC. Don't believe me though as the proof is in Apples sales. Do you really think that the iMac's sales would be as bad as they are if the machine ran at a reasonable clip. It is not strickly a MHz issue, Apple could achieve speed ups in other ways, its just a matter of a machine that is responsive consideirng its price point.

Thanks
Dave

I don't see the IMac leaving the line up either, but it is not likely to ever be the basis for the low cost line. The low cost line needs a cheap, designed for assembly, plastic box. This machine literally needs to be designed for mass production. The idea is to get the cost to Apple well below $350, which should be very doable.

Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.

The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.

When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.

All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
post #151 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.

Sales of high-end Macs would tank if your hoped-for $500 model was available at similar speeds. (Why would anyone buy a Porche if the same thing was available at Yugo prices?) Apple might sell twice as many computers and only make a third as much money.
post #152 of 226
Thread Starter 
Honestly, every post after mine was not thought through very well and is full of holes. Let me disect...

Snipped a bit there but you do realize that slow processors are one of Apples issues that it is trying to over come. Further many school districts actually have intelligent people running them, they are not about to spend tax payer money on obsolete equipment. This is, at this moment in time, as big an issue with the educaiton market as is the lack of software.

Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.

Dave


The myth is that education needs anything more than a 500 dollar PC. Education PC's are primarily used for internet research and word processing. Some schools have 3D design, photo arts, film and CAD programs, those rooms usually get PowerMacs or PC's costing well over 1k each.

Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.

Apple sells a $700 dollar eMac, coming downin price by $200 more is feasable, if they cut back the form factor and HD space. Competing in the low end of the market doesnt mean you have to lose money. If you have ANY profit margin on the product that covers the R&D, marketing costs, and distribution rates; then there is no reason not to compete. If, after a certian number of units sold, Apple starts to turn a profit on the product, it is worth carving that low end niche out.

Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.

Not true, Apple would be dumb to introduce a 1.2 Ghz machine that sold for $1500. If they introduced a low cost, low spec PC, built for classic education uses...IT WOULD SELL. There is no doubt about it that Apple has all the necessary software for education, the hardware is amazingly capable of being used in such an environement, but the cost for it is too high. Right now, Apple's education issue is price and not performance.

And interestingly enough, nobody has been able to shoot down my iMac speculation. It seems reasonable to me too...
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #153 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh


iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.

Model 1-$799

Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive

Model 2-$1199

Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.

I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.
post #154 of 226
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.

No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #155 of 226
I agree with the PowerPC and Wizard69 posts.

Intelligently and realistically rendered posts.

I think you're right. Apple's sales show people are voting with their wallets.

I think Apple can compete in the low end. How 'low' is open to debate. But clearly they can. If you take the monitor off the eMac you have your £500 machine. I don't see a problem with sticking a single G5 2 gig in it. Obviously it will be limited in ways that the PowerMac G5 expands on. Apple are obviously making a profit on the eMac or they wouldn't be making one.

Just like you get in the PC market. You can get PC towers with 3 gig cpus that are mega cheap but they skimp by having low end cards or integrated graphics to get the price down. Clearly there are expensive PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them and low end PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them.

I think Apple should get all the single G5s below the £1K mark and have the high single mhz and three dual mhz PowerMac G5 towers above the 1K mark.

Maybe if Apple has a system on a chip with only upgradeable memory and graphics then perhaps they can drive the consumer generation of G5s down in price to stimulate growth.

If I could get a £495 G5 2 gig with integrated graphics tomorrow. I'd take it. That's the kind of machine which will get those disenfranchised M$ users to go 'Sod it...I'll give Apple a try for my next computer...' ie it's cheap enough not to loose sleep over...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #156 of 226
It's clear that many Mac users expect under delivery after years of Moto' product.

Apple should have 2 gig processors in their low end line up NOW! Should have had them last year if we'd have kept pace with x86 land.

Apple need to get ahead of the curve. Their consumer line is two years off the pace...on cpu and price.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #157 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."

Good points. I hope you're right on that last one. I believe though, that Apple will continue to make an all-in-one computer with a LCD display; that it won't be super cheap and it will be called iMac. I could always be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.
post #158 of 226
Thread Starter 
Thanks man, we'll all see this week hopefully.

Once we see what Apple comes up with, as pscates and I always do, we'll drop our jaws to the floor and say, "Oh shit, of course!"

But then after the shock of the seemingly, "theres no way this wont get everyone to buy a Mac" announcement dies down, there wont be any good ads touting it. Hopefully our desires are met, and PC users buy too. That would be the best solution of all.
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
People that are passionate about what they do, truly believe in their good cause, have a clear vision and understanding of what they want, those people are heroes.
Reply
post #159 of 226
I hope we are through with all those who think about prices far off reallity! Where the heck do they get these ideas from?
Would you please read Amorphs post about costs and prices?
Thank you!
post #160 of 226
Amorph works for Apple, it's like jobs saying, "awesome" doesn't make it true.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iMac Future