iMac As An All-In-One Is Done - Page 3

ok
let me clarify.............
what apple really needs to do is have 1 imac at just below the 1000.00 dollar price point.
it should have a superdrive,a fast g4 or preferably a g5 in it,airport extreme built-in,ect..............
that would be ideal.
and it should be an imac NOT an emac because although the emac is the best deal going right now its kindof ......uh.
not a computer that people lust for.
and that just proves my point.
if all people wanted were specs........then the emac would be flying off the shelves.
apple should have a sub 1000.00 dollar lcd imac,just below 1000.00......like 999.99.
if they put a 1.5 ghz G4 with a superdive and a decent video card in it WITH airport extreme for under a grand they basically have a good consumer mac.
just as others have stated.........owning an apple "anything"..........is becoming a commodity,like the ipod.
i honestly think that if apple looked at itself as a niche product with room to grow they would be a lot better off.
their powerbooks,the 17 inch in particular are almost luxury items and i think should be marketed as such.
same thing with the mini-ipod.
the imac has the opportunity to be THE luxury computer that people want,not just mac-heads.
look at the the cube...............
it WONT die!
why?
it was a luxury item,a niche product that people lust after.
if apple recognizes its true role and stops trying to compete with dell and hp and the others they would be ok.
their real competition at this point is sony.
its not about price/performance anymore.
its about "sex" appeal.
the original imac has it.
the new imac has it.
the emac does not.
i think a great product for apple,albeit with limited mass appeal due to the price would be a imac/tablet combo.
in others words the lcd screen would be detatchable and you could carry it with you like a portable.
if it had a touch screen/pen input capabilities and wi-fi capablities that would be killer.
but it would be expensive.
its not about price/performance its about LUST.

Does anyone remember when the eMac wasn't here? It was iMac--PowerMac and iBook--PowerBook. Anyone care to venture a guess as to why it was implemented? Not too hard was it - COST! Education and cheapo consumers bought the eMac and now the iMac is stuck with its swing arm flailing away at $1300. People think, yeah the LCD arm is cool, but I can only spend $800 on it and I WANT a Mac. Guess what, eMac sales.

The Swingarm Display is cool as hell, but Apple shitcan the eMac AND iMac with a box with the choice of a Swingarm Display or external monitor. You want an LCD integrated, get it. You don't, well, don't then and save costs. You want to use your existing 17" CRT's (schools etc) fine. Cost savings not having to product an iMac/eMac combination too. Back to the 2x2 philosophy. How is that not, win-win?

It is difficult to understand why Apple won't take a look at the iMac, determine how much profit they make on it, remove all the expensive stuff including the swing arm and display and sell a Mac like that with exactly the same amount of profit. I suspect such a Mac could sell for about $999. Maybe not.

I totally agree! Why not, after all? The guts of the system are nothing special - additional cost for the video circuitry to the swing arm (think ADC or somesuch built in) and the external video out. But that is miniscule compared with the rest of the system. I would think they could easily recoupe costs by not having production lines for iMacs AND eMacs.

I for one would like to see the CRT totally go away. It is cost effective enough for them to do it, but if a low-budget school or something wanted to hook up a CRT, just plug it in. Similar to the way internal/external video is handled with a laptop.

Maybe it's me, but that seems so much more flexible and cost-effective.

The eMac is a low-profit machine provided mainly for schools and, by popular demand, to the public. It'll probably stick around. Schools seem to prefer CRTs after all (more durable) and I gather they also like the all-in-one concept.

The average consumer wants more and better choices. I would assume Apple wants to make more profit on consumers too. So, providing a non-expandable headless computer on which Apple makes the same amount of profit as an iMac would seem to make sense. Lots of other people seem to think so too, but does Apple?

I suppose for Apple to make as much profit on such a headless machine as they do on the 17" and 20" iMacs, is impossible. They might sell a heck-of-a-lot more of them though.

I dunno what average consumers you know, but all the ones I know are buying laptops as their primary machines. Because a laptop just gives you sooooo many options.

Laptop guy myself, I have a PowerBook. However, for my office I have an iMac. In cases where you don't ever need to move your computer, the iMac is an ideal solution; superior to a laptop, IMHO. If for no other reason a desktop computer is less theft-prone than a laptop.

Just wanted to chime in with a little tidbit. I just started working for a local Junior college near me as a cross-platform specialist in the Academic Computing Department, I have to train in each of the labs, and what I learned about the new upgrades they are getting this summer, in the PC labs is this, an AOI from Gateway, the school is very excited about these machines.

http://products.gateway.com/products...d=prf5m&seg=ed

I am not sure which of the configurations, but I believe it is the 15" version which I have linked. I saw one in an Office while getting the tour and I swear it had an eMachines label on it, but they don't list one on the eMachines website. Yes, I know that Gateway purchased eMachines.

AIO's are not dead, school's are using them.

1. That is an ugly aio. The imacs are better designed.

2. The arm will stay for awhile. The arm is the best thing(in my opinion) that ever happened to the imac.

3. I think we could see the imac back on the top of the most sold list again for consumer computers if the imac would go sub $1000 again.

1. You're right, it looks like dick

2. The arm is about the only thing that has ever happened to the iMac

3. Never will the iMac be sub $1000 again. The eMac will move in and fill that space.

Many of us believe the price/performance ratio is a problem for the iMac. But I think it is worse than what has actually been put into words. Remember, the iMac 2 is, and has always been about offering an LCD to the consumer. Apple was in the embarrassing position of being the only computer company that limited consumers to a CRT. LCDs were popular and dropping in price. But they were non-existent to the vast majority of Mac users. The iMac 2 introduced the LCD monitor to the Mac community for under $2k. The iMac 2 was perhaps the first computer ever introduced where the peripheral was more of a draw than the computer. Here is the price problem. A 15 LCD only costs about $200.00. In the Apple universe, it costs $1300.00. The computer is a secondary concern for the iMac crowd. So in effect, the vast LCD market is still mostly closed to the Apple consumer. Their only alternative to the iMac LCD is to buy a $2000.00 box for the privilege of purchasing a separate display of their choice. Apple needs to find a better way to make LCD screens available to their consumers. That cannot be done with the AIO form factor. Once upon a time, the monitor was not a very big deal. Once upon a time, the monitor was just something companies threw in with the package as a matter of expedience. Consumers are much more sophisticated and they value choice. How many people would buy an eMac but dont want to be stuck with that retro display? How many people would buy an iMac but understandably refuse to pay $1300.00 for a 15 LCD? I think there was never a large market for the AIO, but now it is even worse. The AIO factor still eliminates the LCD as an option for most modern-day consumers IMO. The AIO cannot continue to stand alone as the only consumer option. I dont understand what Apple has to loose by opening the vast and thriving display market to their consumers.

That thing is ugly as hell.



School's what are using them? Seems you could use a little more time there yourself. (And yes, I will point this out every time I see it.)

Control.

Apple - especially with Steve at the helm - is all about controlling the entire user experience - especially at the "low" end. Apple wants to make sure a first time buyer has the best computing experience ever. They do that by forcing the buyer to use an Apple keyboard, an Apple mouse, and an Apple display. Apple makes very nice displays. Lots of other companies make crappy displays. Apple doesn't want their customers to whine and complain about their Mac experience because they bought a cheapo display to save a few dollars.

I think you overestimate the sophistication of the "average" computer buyer, too. There is a segment of the market that wants to choose from 20 or so different monitors. There is another segment that just wants to buy a computer; all at once, keep the choices to a minimum, please, these computer thingies are complicated enough as it is, I have better things to do with my time. Apple apparently believes that second segment is more profitable for them than the first.

Is there a market for a "headless" iMac? Yes. Could Apple still package a cool matching display? Yes. Would that expand their marketshare? Maybe. Apple will never sell hardware cheap enough to appease the "Apples are too expensive" crowd. Granted, right now they are in a particularly bad spot with the iMac - and the PMac's are getting long in the tooth.

- Jasen.
[edit] changed "Apple's" to "Apples" (Yes, I know the difference, but I made a typo.

Yes, it is very ugly. As for your other comment, this specific school is replacing their standard tower/monitor configuration with this AIO configuration in non-critical situations. By this time next year the majority of PC labs will be using AIO's.

ARRGGHHH! (bangs head against wall)

I wasn't asking for details on your Gateway Profile deployment, I was pointing out yet another egregious misuse of the common apostrophe. "School's"? "You need to spend some more time there yourself"? Get it?

How could any native English speaker over the age of five think the plural of "school" is "school's"?

And yes mods, it is worth pointing out, every time it happens, even if it's OT. This problem is so widespread that I'm honestly trying to help people out. Everyone on these boards is assumedly pursuing an academic or professional career of some sort, but put that mistake in a term paper, job application or report to your boss and you will look like the complete fool that you are.

While we're doling out life lessons, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and there's absolutely no reason not to correct things like this in a PM.

Well, since you are picking on me, you should know a few facts. I am Dyslexic with ADD. I can read, and can read well, but when it comes to writing and proper grammer, I suck. I can't proofread my own material because I can't see the mistake. Yes, I know it is a mistake, but if I believe it is not there, I can't see it. It is harder for me to explain, but that is the way it is.

When I was little (7 or so)the problem was diagnosed, and then sugar coated and ignored. I should have been held back 2 or 3 times, but they didn't because I was good at math, science, and history. I have had to figure out work arounds on the fly as an adult. In my college work, that meant special proofreaders, audio textbooks, and several other services. Since this is a casual forum, I do not use proofreaders before I post. Now, if not using a proofreader is going to bug you, then you need to skip my posts when you come along them, because I might have errors.

Now, I try my best to make sure that I have as few errors as possible, but I will never be perfect.

So I would like to appoligize for all the grammatically challenged casual posters on this board.

Sincerely

OMF

you are forgetting about User C who occupys a part of each of us. The consumer who enjoys well thought out form factors but generally wants a machine that has upgrade capabilities beyond just 2 open slots for ram. this is the reason the iMac has not met sales expectations. Most people want the option of upgrading down the line, they may never do it (and likely wont), but they want the option. I say give the people what they want. this is how you increase market share.

Exactly. I couldn't agree with his anymore. While I owned a G4/400 when the gumdrop iMacs were around, the one thing I always felt that could have made them better was at least one PCI slot on the other side of the computer that didn't have the USB ports, etc. Give customers the ability to upgrade their iMacs a little more easily. The distinction between customers isn't just as simple as pro/consumer. The ability to upgrade even the graphics card in the iMac would be a big success as far as drawing in customers who are used to being able to do just that.

OMF, my sincere apologies. That is, of course, an entirely different situation.

OMF what?

I can't stand it that people in this day and age don't know how to properly use their net acronyms.