REALISTIC suggestions for new iMac 2004 - Page 5

I keep seeing post with people commenting the new iMac should start with 17" LCD. I am only going with my gut here, but it seemed to me that they would push the 20" LCD with iMac. They did not release a 17" CD LCD along with the 20", 23" and 30". I just think 15" and 17" are history with Apple.

I agree with your formatc2,

Applenut, matsu is ignorant. To say the eMac has no place in the computing market. the eMac served our company great all around. From testing unix applications to cinema 4d to photoshop to perl to cocoa. It was a great machine and WELL worth the money.

Formatc2 is correct... it is the cheapest way to get away from viruses and spyware and still be able to do what most home users do.

I think I need to explain what I mean... When the Industry made the 17" and 19" CRT the standard, Apple dumped theres for the CD's. When it seemed everyone was pushing 15"LCD's apple dumped the 15"CD. Now that dell and everyone else is offering 17"LCD's, I think apple will keep up there tradition and not offer any 17"CD any where in there line. (I do not include eMacs in this statement). Apple likes to be the pace mark, and in so very many ways they are so I belive that the new iMac will have 20"CD with it. That is only what I think. I am probable way off the mark here, but it would follow the pattern from there past.

Were talking about the eMac here.

Do you think the eMac is a pro machine? Sure it is. I make a living with mine, but I don't think you'll be running Motion, Final Cut, Logic, Shake, etc. on this thing.

Sorry to go down to Matsu's level in my post, but I'm tired of people slamming the eMac.

What market am I missing? Education? Sure, it's awesome for that. Government? Sure it's supported by the Office of Management and Budget.

You're right, I missed a bunch. Matsu sent me over the edge.

never said i agreed with matsu....i don't. but formatc2 also shows a bit of ignorance, nevermind immaturity himself.

Yeah, the eMac is a stroke of genius. It's such a great model, pretty affordable, nice design. I like it very much. Death of the CRT? Yeah, right Steve.

In Steve's defense LCD's had been falling at a pretty quick pace up untill around the release of the G4 iMac when demand really started outpacing supply. Since then 15" LCD's haven't dropped that much in price, and have seen a few increases due to high demand (though I don't know if they were always passed on to consumers). Right now there is still a high demand for 15" LCD's, especially since they are used in more laptops today than they were 24 months ago. Once supply (production capacity) increases or demand decreases (due to less expensive 17" displays for desktops) the prices should start coming down on the 15" screens again.

theinquirer.net has reported that LCD manufacturers have been keeping the cost of smaller screens artificially high by constraining supply, in an effort to sell larger screens. This seems to have back fired, leaving them with an abundance on small screens that nobody wants due to the high price. Expect to see 15" and 17" screens drop in price as a result, even tho there is a shortage of screens.

So here apple are:

the current iMac isn't doing all that well, not compared to the original iMac.
The people who want a machine like that go for the eMac.
It has a lot more bang for the buck, like the CRT iMac had

so:
iMac = interesting but overpriced for the market.
eMac = doing well but could do w/ a makeover since it is bulky.

the way I see this is that Apple are very much aware of this.

I think the two are gonna be merged.

Exit eMac, you have served us well, but the new iMac will be replacing your and its place in the product line. They only released you in the first place because there was such a cry for an 1G iMac kinda desktop after the latter was discontinued.
Current iMac, nice try, but too much of a gimmick for the time, that's what you get trying to be ahead of your time.... Albeit not usually the most rewarding strategy, kudos to you nonetheless.

Picture, the eMac, but then not so Deep, it will lose the CRT and get a LCD in stead, guts behind the screen..... a marriage between eMac and iMac.

Now think about the term: Pizza box...... doesn't sound all too weird anymore now does it?

A 20" iMac would be sweet but I don't want to hear a bunch of pissing and moaning when they see the price and then wish there had been a 17" option?

Isn't this contradictory, how can you have an abundance of small screens and a shortage of them at the same time? They eiter have an abundance, which at some point should lead to price cuts to decrease their inventory, or they have a shortage of the screens which should result in the price staying where it is or raising depending on the demand for the LCD panels.

eMac costs too much in consumer form. The edu optioned models, which make up the bulk of the sales of eMac, are good enough for edu. But that CRT has no place on a 999 machine. Needs to be an LCD. 17" CRT based systems of comparable spec sell for 500 CANADIAN. Less than half the price of an eMac. Nobody buying a computer for email and www browsing is interested. People buying a computer for something more, they know a little more, and typically opt for a better display. At 999, it's easy to spec a system with a 17 LCD panel.

I will never go back to using CRTs, NEVER. I still have one at work, which is soon to be replaced with a laptop, and then I will be CRT free.

It's such a horrible display choice, and ruins an otherwise perfectly good computer.

Matsu,

First off the eMac is 749 and 899 for edu / 799 and 999 for consumers. You forgot the low end model which is just as capable... just minus a superdrive and 40gb. That is hardly worth 150-200 dollars. Second of all, good CRTs make a world of a difference. Why do you think some 17" monitors are 300 dollars while others are 80 dollars? You get what you pay for. I am sitting pretty on a P95f+ Viewsonic Diamondtron display right now. I love this display more than my LCD at work. I like it because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR. It is hard to find clearity like this. Ask many graphics professionals and they will tell you the same thing.

When you say: "Nobody buying a computer for email and www browsing is interested.", don't you think thats a little ignorant? I know many people that love the eMac and its price and its CRT. Why? Because it is a cheap solution to get away from spyware, virii, and trojans. Why is the eMac so expensive? Many reseasons, first is design, second is because it can be. Sure this comptuer can drop another 100-200 and it would be great. But I don't believe it would have a huge effect. Apple has repeatedly admitted it doesn't want to be in the low-end market. Quality of a computer reduces quite drastically with computers in this field. Just look at dell. The 300-600 dollar computers made are extremely generic and poorly manufactured. The case sheet metal is thin, the motherboards are buggy, the plastic on the case breaks easily, etc.

Apple is doing fine with the eMac, only thing I wish they would do is add an eMac stand in the package. I would rather have them add that then drop the price down.

Right, the iMac works for edu, for pedagogical reasons, as it works for mac heads on a budget. It emphatically does not work as a machine that attracts new users to the fold. It is a consolation prize that slows the rate of defection, but it is far from ideal.

Apple actually sells the eMac a LOT cheaper than even 749 into the edu channel. And with opticals selling for a 20 in bulk, we know that they could sell the eMac for 60-75% of what they sell it at today. They already do it, just not for consumers, or edu consumers, but they do do it for educational institutions -- and that's where ALL the sales are, there ain't much in the consumer space.

999 is a great mark for a family computer. People will spend the money, but they expect a better display than a 17" CRT.

At 999, that has to be an iMac with some sort of LCD, even Apple has at least twice admitted that much.

It is not ignorant at all to say that nobody buying a computer for email/office/web is interested. Look at the sales, especially once you've removed heavily discounted institutional sales from the mix. Consumers JUST DO NOT want to spend a thousand dollars for a CRT. They expect an LCD. People buying a disposable computer for light use will pay a disposable price (500) on a 17" CRT bundle, and throw the machine away in two/three years, and just get another.

People spending a thousand expect more.

And let's not get into the low quality PC myth. Dell's boxes are very quiet, very reliable, and very cheap. They're ugly, sure, uninspiring, but they are fast enough, and reliable. I've seen 300 seat labs set up and deployed with no problems whatsoever. They get constant use in a campus of 35 000 plus students. They're locked down tight, and don't give any problems. The 15 and 17" LCD panels (on the systems) are also a lot nicer than the eMacs we got for the same price as those "crappy" Dells. I guess we need some anti-PC BS from time to time -- just be careful not to believe it.

PS, The CRT in the eMac is far from "good" It produces average refresh rates at 1024x768 and is too slow at 1152 and above. Got to be at least 85hz, that means XGA is the only ergonomically useable rez on the eMac. What's worse, it is not even a Trinitron type apeture grill, but an annoying shadow mask, and it produces a lot of moire. If you choose to ignore that, fine, either you're blind or uncritical enough not to see it. It's not better than the flat 17" CRT's that get bundled with a budget eMachines. In fact, the last eMachines I saw with a 17" CRT had a better display than that of the eMac. At best you couold say that the eMac's display is average for a flat screen. It's a budget item in a nice wrapper -- nothing more.

I don't know what you mean by reliable. At home we've had, um... 6 Dell machines. 5 of them have been really faulty (CD-burner problems, keyboard problems, trackpad/trackpoint, hard disk, motherboard, LCDs gone bad, you name it. Unfortunately, I'm not making this up). That's one of the reasons I use a Mac today.

I've worked for the tech support department at my university campus, and I'd say Dell machines are just cheap and unreliable.

Reliable wouldn't be a word I'd use to describe a Dell machine. One thing Dell does do very well is replace faulty computers parts really fast. That's their upside.

Well, that's just the experience I've had. I'm aware everyone will speak from their observations and past experience. Just my $0.02.

Certainly I've seen labs where anywhere from 10 - 30% of the Dells are out of commission due to mechanical faults. I'd hardly call them reliable.

As much as I hate the company dell... thats what we use at work (many many boxes...) and I have never seen one fail. Perhaps because they are only being used for office, outlook and internet access.

I asked our sysadmin why he chose dell, he said because a. they give the best bang for the buck, and b. because they have a local support center here (korea).

Anecdotes do not science make.
My experience with Dell boils down to this, they make uninspired solid equipment, and failures tend to be caused by faulty parts.
Apple is the opposite, they often have wonderful out there designs, with fundamental flaws. Components typical seem to go forever, given the chance.

Where they truly differ is quality of customer support. Ive never had a bad experience with Apple ( sometimes time consuming, but I never felt angry dealing with them ). Dell have similarly been great for providing business support ( next day replacement ), but as a consumer, dealing with Dell is like getting teeth pulled.

Look, it boils down this way: DELL makes perfectly reliable machines for stuff like student labs. The sys admin will lock down the network to avoid virii, spyware and other user induced nuissance, and the things will provide many years of trouble free use. This is not to say there aren't total POS shit PC labs/environs that some poor souls are forced to work in, but there's a similar proportion of bad Apples (pun, haha) on the mac side. There was a smurf tower lab in my old university that was total shit, every machine was buggered in one way or another. And the eMacs that went in (about 70) with the latest DELL lab (about 300) had much higher failure too -- could be a system admin failing, but it just goes to show, that for certain environs, your machines are only as good as your admin/support, no matter what platform you choose.

If we want to really talk about quality, or the lack thereof, we might want to recall the attrocious rate of video board failure on early eMacs, or logic board problems on numerous runs of iBook.

Apple is hardly immune.

The fact remains: eMac is a poor machine for consumers at the 799-999 range. 999 warrants an LCD. f they wish to have a cheaper CRT alternative in the line-up, the a 699 (max) eMac will do -- a combo-drive will suffice, as will a G4. They already sell eMacs much cheaper than this, just not to you and me.

Dell makes perfectly reliable machines if you pay over 800. Their machines under that figure are complete crap. The case is weak, the components they use are cheap and flakey... bottom line is you get what you pay for. They are the worst machines for linux or unix. The ones we had at school were shit.

Also no matter how good your IT is... pc's still get bugs. Remember the blaster virus? Yah no one saw that coming. Everyone got that even with the toughest firewall because of m$'s stupid communication ideas. This had EVERYTHING to do with windows and NOT IT. Every computer in our school's 4 campuses got nailed with it. That was a fun week.

This whole dell thing started because of people pointing out you can get them cheap and apple should too... fact is if you want to make a profit of any kind off of machines like that, you have to make a cheesy computer. This is fine if you want to have a bad reputation... I see why apple doesn't want to enter the low-end consumer market. More problems than it is worth.

Yes the whole thing started because...

Fact remains that Apple DOES sell the eMac MUCH CHEAPER to institutions. The only penalty is the deletion of an optical, and a slightly slower CPU. $50 in additional cost, at best, to treat the consumer machines in the same way. eMacs could easily sell for 599-699, they do not, not because the machine can't be sold at a profit at that price, most of the sales are at that price -- just not to consumers, or consumers-cum-"edu" consumers, ie teachers and students. The reason the eMac is 799-999 to consumers is to avoid making the iMac look like an abysmally bad deal. You don't want to win iMac customers away with a cheaper machine.

However, expect a 999 entry level iMac with the new redesign, expect the eMac to disappear from the consumer landscape (at least the high end eMac) within a few months of the iMac debut.

I think it would be a good idea for apple to build a sub-£500 machine. The equivalent of an iPod. Deliberately AIO if it has bog-standard parts to run 'X' reasonable. Barebones. A simple Cube like device with a simple and elegant enclosure. Do people know what speed their console processor runs at? But they still want one, eh?

They have and it makes sense they plan to address it or get continually pounded with 60,000 sales. They lumped the iMac2 with the eMac because they knew damn well early on that they got it wrong and tried to mask the iMac 2's failure.

£999 is the top end average price for a cpu around the UK. £750 is the new sweet spot, common for a PC that can hand the eMac its ass on cpu spec. But looking around the PC World store..? The eMac has two weaknesses.

1. CPU. Apple need to drive the G5 into the consumer desktops half a year ago. 2 gig G5.

2. Monitor. Dell, box makers are selling LCDs with £750 computers. The shadow mask moire refresh challenged eMac isn't in the same league. It's poor. Rather save on the monitor and knock the price down another 100 quid and you've got an eBox for £455 and £545. Suddenly, Mac as a switcher box is a real proposition. Actually with the super drive and grahics? The eMac is competitive. Less ram on graphics than eMachines. Smaller hard drive. That's about it.

CRT doesn't meet the new 'sweet spot' landscape criteria. Agreed. It looks very tired in person. Doesn't represent Apple or the iMac principles of quality at all.

The eMac was and is clearly a place holder graphic of a machine in leu of the pricing crisis that hit the iMac 2 almost from its debut. Apple's big mistake was replacing the Cube with the iMac. Duh. The iMac's success was built on entry level power and value. The iMac 2 is so far behind the PowerMac G5 it aint funny. You can't con consumers, Apple.

Duh. They voted with their feet and no-G4 zealot can argue with the results or Apple's statement that Apple missed the 'sweetspot', the designs for iMac2/eMac are old news and that, eh...the next iMac will be G5 all you G4 fans...heh...sorry to disappoint, ah-heh?

I cannot figure Apple. If they can offer such good value to institutions, why not consumers? There's a big 95% of the market they haven't got...

80 stores and counting. And Apple store customers still aren't buying enough Macs for the foot patrol they're getting.


I think Matsu's arguments resonate because Apple is as flawed as it is brilliant sometimes.

Two AIOs going up to £2000.

They're only 'headless' Mac is £1300-£2100.

Odd.

At least give consumers a choice below the £1300.

If Apple can make money on institutional selling on eMacs and iBooks which are already reasonably priced they they could make a killing I would have thought on PC users who want to try the Mac as a second computer.

I think the eMac represents the cheapest ever Mac? @ £545. Lose the crap CRT and I'd buy...would have bought by now. They could easily get the price below £500.

The iBook could easily be many PC users 2nd computer. A virus free laptop. Apple is rightfully going after the laptop market with 40-50% of sales going this way.

But to neglect the 50% of computer consumers out there is madness.

iMac sales of 350-450,000 is not beyond Apple. There is a reason why eMac and iMac2 aren't selling. Apple themselves have told us the reasons.

I think Apple should go for a design that is simple. Elegant. Less elcectic.

Apple Studio alu variation. Annodised to match iPod minis. Brilliant tie-in to iPod users who want to 'match', to women who like colours eg 'pink' is the 2nd biggest seller in the states and to PC users to want to try the iPod, sorry, 'Apple' experience.

A monitor on your table. No wires. No bulk. No clutter. Like the iPod. Sleek, simple. Cool. But not odd looking like the iMac 2. You can love your iPod. But do you love your lamp-Mac? (Appleinsider owning iMac2 owners don't count...) iMacs had charm. iPod minis have charm but elegance. iMac 2 was clinical. Cold. Lacking charm. Blobbing your tongue out indeed.

It needs G5. Given. 17 inch - 23 inch.

17 inch entry. If the iMac 2 got £999 then the 3G G5 iMac will make £999. Personally. It should go lower. £795. With the eMac underneath.

I'd like to see a sub-iMac desktop. Replace the eMac with a sub-iMac. Similar. White plastic. 1.5 gig G4 client. 15 inch. Selling for £595 and £695. Break through. CRT dropped. Onboard graphics.

Bit like the difference between the iBook and the Powerbook but for iMac range instead.

And a new catchy name. eMac is pants. Called it the...

Lemon Bon Bon

I usually post in USD, even though I buy in CAD, why Apple hates those who buy in GBP, I have no idea -- Apple really should apply a better conversion in foriegn markets.

The title of this thread is "REALISTIC suggestions for new iMac 2004".

Being realistic means that you also have to take into account the amount of money Apple has decided it needs to make on each box. Being realistic doesn't mean that you scour the internet for the cheapest components available and claim that Apple should make the iMac 3 using these; and then make next to no profit while they're at it!

Realism suggests that the iMac 3 will offer roughly the same quality of components as the iMac 2; with slight improvements here and there (mostly associated with the demands of including a G5 on the motherboard). A realistic view of the entire situation would indicate that the price points will be roughly the same as before. If Apple is able to shave $100-$200, then it should be considered a victory, but don't be surprised if the iMac 3 is slightly more expensive than the iMac 2.

I can understand why people have morphed this thread into a 'the iMac must compete with Dell or eMachines' discussion, but I just don't think that its realistic!

The eMac is forced to compete with DELL every day. Apple does well to lower the institutional price of the eMac substantially beyond that offered as a mere "edu" discount.

A thousand dollar iMac with a 17" LCD hardly competes with eMachines or DELL, nor scrapes the depths of the bargain hunters' aisle.

An LCD on a thousand dollar machine is pretty standard for a family/home computer. If we consider the market for the iMac -- home computers -- it's rather obvious that we're not talking about price competition in it's most aggressive price chopping mode, merely presenting an entry point that is not so costly as to be immediately dismissed as absurd.

The eMac has been filling that gap, but not entirely that well. Apple never tells you how many eMacs they sell at RETAIL, just the totals sold. Why? Because most of the eMacs are sold at heavy discount to edu institutions.

Margins on a 1000 machine with a 17" LCD are not a problem at all. I can build one from retail (not "OEM") priced components, I can almost do it in Canadian dollars even. Imagine what a company contracting out to build a few thousand units per week can do? Won't cost them more than 700-800 to design, build, ship, store such a product. Plenty of margin.

The only UNREALISTIC thing about the current iMac is its high price tag.

yawn..the same old bitchin' about pricing. Some people never tire of this. Trust, the eMac is not being sold for $999 to edu. If you think this then you haven't checked pricing for edu eMacs. This doesn't even take into consideration additional discounts that go to institutions and not just students.

Dell doesn't sell cheapo computers to schools because they like to. The cheapo clients are loss leaders for selling Dell Servers and support. That's where the money is. You want cheap Apple headless Macs then pray that Apple can start selling Xserves outside of cluster environments.

Being realistic also means taking into account the price point that the computer must compete in for it to be successfull, which does mean taking into account the price of the competition which , like it or not, does include Dell, suggesting otherwise is nieve.

Apple has admitted that the high price of the iMac G4 is part of its problem, therefore part of the realistic suggestions should take into account that the entry price point for the next iMac will be lower than the current $1299 retail. I would say that expecting the entry price for the successor to the iMac G4 to stay the same or be higher is unrealistic if Apple expects it to be successfull in today's market. $999 price tag is where it needs to be if they can put a computer together to compete at that price point, and a more agressive entry of $799 would be more appropriate for today's market.

Another broken record. We already have an eMac for $999. You guys keep tossing these price points out as if they are magical. Dell's crappiest Dimension 2400 would be over $999 with a decent 17" LCD. You guys are asking too much. No one is shipping a good machine(ie DVD-R, FW,USB, quality 17" good software) for $999. These are pipedreams people. The PCs at this level are crap and somehow you expect Apple to get there. Apple will not ship junk. They may ship something defective on the odd occaision but they will not ship subpar equipment, which is the PC norm on the low end.

Broken record or not, the marketing of the iMac has always been as Apple's consumer computer, which by Apple's own admission should have a lower entry price to compete in the market that it is targeted for. I'm not suggesting using a 17" LCD pannel for the low end iMac, just that it's price point needs to hit the "sweet spot" for it's intended market.

The eMac is intended for the education market, and it's release to the general public was due to Apple's inability to get the iMac down to the price that could compete in the lower end consumer market. I have not seen a concerted effort on Apples part to remarket the eMac as the entry consumer computer, and why should they? They have already spent a lot of money building up the iMac as their consumer computer. If they are going to abandon that market for the iMac to the eMac then it would be best to rename the eMac to the iMac and do a better job advertising this computer as their entry level. But as of today, the iMac has always been advertised as the conusmer level computer, and the "switcher's" solution. Add to that the fact that the eMac, after just recieving an update, is even more out of date and underpowered than the iMac will be when it is released next month and I think that it would be a bad idea for Apple to put their effort into marketing this computer as their entry model.

It has been addressed and re-stated so many times that my head hurts, and my eyes are tired of reading the same post over and over again.

Yes, to compete with the crappy entry level systems, Apple would themselves have to throw together, Bob's Modem, Sarah's LCD, and a bunch of other mix and match sub-par but magically higher specs based on a bunch of disclaimers at the bottom of the box, and have no aesthetic value, or lifetime cycle longer than two years, with many choices to upgrade to something useable, which I don't want them to do or see them doing, because then people will think of Apple as the other vendors, and even worse since it is Apple and not Dell, or whomever. Apple has picked their market, and did so a long time ago, and it is not the Wal-Mart shoppers, for those there is windows, linux, or whatever, but not Apple. Asking this is asking Apple to change its core business, and have an OS that will not run properly on the hardware, thus hurting the image even more.

Apple must offer better hardware, Always! Not cheaper! That is the problem, the other is the Cost per unit, since Apple has a smaller user base the cost of each component is higher than a Dell, etc. So, we pay more in the end. Apple also spends chunks of money on research and development and the people behind that development to help in the overall experience. After you factor all of that in, you have a computer that is reasonably priced, especially when comparing to a Dell, or whomever. Build one with similar specs, even if it is cheaper, it is not by much, and then you have the OS development and iLife development costs included with Apple. The Hardware is not the issue here people, it is the software. That is where the value and the cost come in. It costs Apple more to develop software than to make the hardware, that is why they make more money on hardware, the re-coup their spending on software from hardware, and we benefit from that by having the best OS, and Video software, and on and on.

You can build a cheap PC, but what do you have to run on it?! Windows, and a bunch of other crap, that just feels broke to me most of the time. But, have your price bitching, that is fine with me, but you may never get it.

I went to Dell's site on a whim and picked the lowest 2400 desktop they had. I had to add a combo drive, bump RAM to 256MB, bump the HDD to 80GB *and* add the 17"lcd because the system was by no means standard with it. The price when I was through was $959. With that price it still had crappy embedded shared memory graphics and whatever chaotic collection of software they bundle with it. I also bumped the OS to WinXP pro to make it as comparable to OSX as was possible.

I was a bit shocked since I didn't even specify the "nice" 17" lcd but just the basic one. I think Apple may be hard pressed to build an iMac with 17" lcd and G5 at $999. I *could* imagine one with G5 and 17" lcd at $1299 though and honestly, that may be good enough to spark interest.

People who look at the absolute bottom line and just want a cheap box will probably never consider Apple anyway so why try to bottomfeed?

edit - Dell's site is an atrocity which violates a number of the Geneva Conventions and as such there are a myriad of ways to configure any particular model they offer. I am sure you could price the 2400 lower or even a bit higher depending on how you navigate Dell's site. Sorry, just my small disclaimer .

I agree with ijerry on his second point, which is often not appreciated ... in that Apple can and must move profits from one part of the company to the other, yet they are smart enough to make sure iPods and the Retail stores are independently profitable.

I don't however agree that Apple can't compete with the Wal-mart crowd. I will be happy myself with an Apple that can survive the next 5o years giving me great hardware and software, regardless of the business accolades Dell may get. However if MS can steal Apple ideas, and Dell can develope business ideas, why can't Apple set up a low-end skunk works to find and MARKET to a (if not Wal-mart) at least Costco pricepoint. It isn't just about saving Apples face as high quality, it is about using imagination to open a new market with the same gusto as they did starting retail stores!!

And I believe the original iMac DID that and THAT is why it was successful.

Some people are just so ignorant of how selling things works it amazes me.

The point to having a $599-699 Mac isn't to sell a ton of them at lower margins, it is to get people looking. Once you have them looking you can upsell them to a system w/ higher margins. Dell doesn't advertise $399 PCs on TV because they want to sell people $399 PCs, they advertise them to get people to look at their other offerings.

Sorry but when your lowest cost system that you advertise starts at 999 or more (as in this case) people simply aren't going to look. For those who want to interject something about the emac's price being below 999, forget it Apple does not and likely never will advertise it as a consumer system.

I think it's a pretty good deal. I've used eMacs and I know the great quality they have. It's by no means a steal, but it's really worth the 799-999 USD that you could spend on it. And forget this talk about the LCD. It won't make or break the product. I'd rather have a good quality machine with a CRT for 999 than some 799 Dell with an LCD because sooner or later it's going down.

You know, you DO get what you pay for. It's not just a saying.

You are still missing the point that OS X is not Windows home edition, it is a pro OS, and you simply cannot run it on cheap hardware, there is no way around it. That is why on my G3, and even my G4 I have issues with X because it is a big and powerful OS. OS 9 was not this way, and thus Apple could use whatever parts they needed to, such is not the case now, we need a higher end graphics card, need a fast front-side bus, need ability for high memory, need a decent sized hard drive, and you still have to re-coup software development. Unlike Dell or MS, Apple cannot have a money-losing product in the hopes of acquiring a higher market share. They don't really have to as they are still making money, and that is what matters. Not the market share number as it is subjective. When people need an Apple product that the PC can't do or can't do well, then you will see the migration. Even if Apple was 200-300 dollars cheaper you would not see droves of switchers, I am not sure why many assume that. The software drives the hardware purchase, not the other way around, that is the way it is and many just don't understand that. IBM does as they sell anything to anybody and are perhaps the people that everyone should be paying attention to as far as a business model, including Apple. But for now, it is in Apple's best interest to offer the better computing experience than it is to offer the cheapest. It is also in their best interest to stay out of the gadgetry market and focus on consumer solutions. That is their market and their way to maintain profitability, and for now that is their only way.

There's a reason those Dell machines cost that. They're made of cheap materials and parts in massive quantities and won't last very long. Then users will feel sorry they even bought it. I wonder how would people feel about cheap Apple computers that stop working after a few months? The company won't get any new customers like that. Apple is about quality, durability, style, design, ease of use. Stop trying to get $699 dream machines or trying to make Apple sell at Dell's price points, which can't be done without compromising a lot of things.

Obviously you can't comprehend what I wrote, so next time simply don't respond.

Sometimes you won't get too many looks after selling a low-price, low quality product. That's what keeping a reputation as a computer company is all about. Apple can't afford to look bad.

Apple can't advertise machines at 399 so people look at their other offerings. Armani doesn't sell $50 suits.

You want Apple to build machines to draw people so they can "bait and switch". We comprehend and disregarded it as silly. Apple will not build a machine they cannot profit on.

You are the one with comprehension problems if you do not understand why Apple won't do it.

Really? Dell seems to be doing fine doing just that.

However, I never said low-quality or that Apple should price themselves the same as Dell. $699 should be more than adequate for a low-end headless Mac. One that doesn't have anywhere near the performance of a PowerMac or be quite as stylish as an iMac, but it would have to have decent quality and style. There is no reason that Apple could not make decent margins on such a system at $699 and likely even at $599. Again you miss the point, upselling works, but only if people look at what you have to offer in the first place.