or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TS reports on new imac specs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TS reports on new imac specs - Page 5

post #161 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Most people don't Zap. Apple sells almost a million computers a qtr so imagine how many PCs are sold per qtr but not even half of these people upgrade their cards. Macintosh is admittedly not a platform for games so the whole "rush" to get the latest graphics card isn't really prevalent.

But you do admit that a huge lot of people actually do upgrade their cards? I'm willing to bet that there's ten times more PC buyers upgrading their graphics card than there are mac buyers. Why ignore all these people? (People, as in people who prefer a fast(er) graphics card)

Quote:
Again you're revising reality to meet your needs. My links previous showed adequately that both Dell and Gateway heavily utilize the 5200fx. Are PC user not as ambitious for gaming. Id guess many are MORE apt to play game yet they will find a 5200fx in computers up to $1800. Hence Apple is "skimping" no more than the worlds largest computer manufacturer(Dell).

Yes, I can see that Dell and Gateway utilize the 5200, but does it make the chip any better? Remember that the user is stuck with this chip until the machine is sold/dies.

Quote:
Apple never said they were going to take over the world. They simply make cool products and make a profit doing so. They must be suceeding as they turned a nice 60 million profit last qtr. They have money in the bank. You know what. For the first time I think I realize that it is some fans that have the Reality Distortion Field.

You shouldn't take the "take over the world" phrase literally, it was another way of saying "appeal to the big masses", since Apple obviously aren't getting to be the next Microsoft, market share wise, in any foreseeable future. They are succeeding in making money, still, but it's not because of the iMac. Apple is in dire need of recapturing market share, they need a good weapon to do this.

Quote:
The RDF on this board is amazing. I mean i'm being told that 98% of PC users want fast graphics yet most have the same damn card. Where's the "scratching my head" emoticon for these moments.

Eh, what? I never said that 98% of PC users want fast graphics, I seriously hope you didn't imply that there.

And thanks so much for being stroked with the RDF brush.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this. \
post #162 of 698
Quote:
I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

I'm not "that" stubborn

I still see Apple in transistion mode. We're almost to the halfway point.

I see the relevant milestones being around



1. Actually developing a future OS roadmap with OSX finally.

2. Reducing the complexity by going to the 4 quadrant strategy.

3. Reaching a point where people could really leave OS9 and not pull their hair out(Panther).

4. Today we're coming close to the point where Apple can start pushing out in new areas and breaking their dependence on MS. First Outlook Express went..we survived..then IE went and we survived. I don't want MS Office to go but Apple has to risk losing it if they want to move ahead.

5. Next step is filling in some missing pieces to acessorize the Xserve/XRAID combos. And shore up the software for the Biz sector and edu.

We're still 2-3 years away from Apple gaining enough strength and clout to move from selling boutique computers to more rugged and utilitarian models.

I'm not happy about the sacrifices Apple had to make in the iMac but I'm just patient. I'm hoping that Apple continues to grow and branch out like a tree so that one branch breaking doesn't harm the overall structure.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #163 of 698
hmurchison

I couldn't agree more about the RDF
"The only second chance you get in life is the chance to make the same mistake twice"
Reply
"The only second chance you get in life is the chance to make the same mistake twice"
Reply
post #164 of 698
4 quadrant crap is just that crap, it has killed off the consumer quadrant. what is apple offering there? nothing and sales prove it. what does this new machine offer over the last? G5 only everything else is the same or worse. iMac is made to fail with poor componets that are leftover or rejects from powermac. this mac offers little over imac G4. ergonomics will be worse and the specs suck. so we get last years G5 with nothing more. a more succesful model is one that allows the consumer to configure their machine for them not some G.D bean counter at apple who is used to raping its customer base. when will Apple figure out how to build for customers instead of building for Apple's art dept.?
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #165 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
4 quadrant crap is just that crap, it has killed off the consumer quadrant. what is apple offering there? nothing and sales prove it. what does this new machine offer over the last? G5 only everything else is the same or worse. iMac is made to fail with poor componets that are leftover or rejects from powermac. this mac offers little over imac G4. ergonomics will be worse and the specs suck. so we get last years G5 with nothing more. a more succesful model is one that allows the consumer to configure their machine for them not some G.D bean counter at apple who is used to raping its customer base. when will Apple figure out how to build for customers instead of building for Apple's art dept.?


The 4 Quadrant strategy was appropriate for the time. It no longer exists really because as Apple regained health they could afford to expand the lineup and hit new areas(read iPod) . As for the consumer lineup I think you'll find the sales to be stellar. To look at only the eMac and the iMac is far too myopic in scope. Look at the iBook and lowend Powerbook 12" sales and you'll see that consumers are flocking to portables. Apple has stated they don't mind if consumers buy portables or desktops. They're capturing what they can in this lucrative market.

Again I have to ask those so "caught up" on specs. What can't I do on these proposed Macs that is so vital? I can't play Doom decently I'll give you that but if I was to handle productivity applications or even base a business around my new iMac G5 what would be my obstacle to success? I'm a little unclear as to why I such take heed to such warnings. I'm told that I'll regret being locked out of future upgrades but doesn't that require me to have faith in something intangible? If I just focus on my needs today, what is wrong with a $12---1399 17" LCD iMac G5? Because quite honestly it's sounding like a good deal to me.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #166 of 698
Look at those specs - what a piece of crap!

I can't believe Apple is so DUMB!

That's so over priced no one will buy the damn thing!

When will Apple learn?!?!?

This is so far behind the competition it is a JOKE!!!!!!

Gee, I haven't seen so much bashing since, well, since the iPod mini was announced . . .

Me, I'm ordering my G5 iMac within hours of it hitting the Apple Store.

Just like my new 15" PB I'm going to bump up everything but memory, which I'll get from a third party vendor. A few bucks for the fastest graphics option and for the hard drive and I'm happy.

What I hope for is a 2:1 FSB ratio, SATA HDs, fast memory. Technologies that were pulled from the PM. I'll take care of the graphics with the BTO. The other thing I am on my knees praying for is the display. I thought my new PB display was pretty nice until I had to order a 23" this week because of ahuge project at work. Side by side the 23" blows my mind. If the iMac's displays are as good as the 23" I'll be in hog heaven.

Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.

The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #167 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Look at those specs - what a piece of crap!

I can't believe Apple is so DUMB!

That's so over priced no one will buy the damn thing!

When will Apple learn?!?!?

This is so far behind the competition it is a JOKE!!!!!!

Gee, I haven't seen so much bashing since, well, since the iPod mini was announced . . .

You knew how much the mini really failed in sales.
post #168 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
It really depends on what kind of LCD monitor. If it is an analog 17" LCD, the price should be in the $1000 to $1200 range. If it is a digital 17" LCD, than I don't see Apple, or any big manufacturer, selling it for less that $1300. If Apple is able to sell a digital 17" iMac for $1300, it'll be very impressive.

It really just comes down to price and the inflexibility of Apple's consumer systems. If the iMac starts at $1300, it won't be a big seller, and many people will have to settle with an eMac, with some chagrin probably. The other problem is inflexibility. People with less than $2000 to spend on a computer, virtually everybody, don't really have any options in the CPU, display, and graphics they can have. If Apple offered CPU and graphics options in the iMac, many of the complaints go away.

For instance, I'd like a large monitor, with a middle-of-road GPU and lower end processor. If Apple offered a 20" iMac with optional 1.6 GHz G5 and 64 MB GPU, instead of the standard 1.8 GHz G5 and 128 MB, with appropriate price reductions, the iMac could be a more attractive buy to me. Though I imagine a 17" one with faster CPU and GPU options would be more popular.

You sum up most of the problems with Apple (if these price rumors are true)

Most of the problem with inflexible options would be cured by offering a headless lineup with a range of displays that includes an affordable 17" display.

But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

So that leaves the iMac AIO.

Let's consider the rumor.

1299. This isn't an awful price, IF the machine is a complete. That includes adequate HDD space, adequate RAM, and a Superdrive. The overall CPU and GPU speed is not as important as the overall useability of the machine.

One buys an iMac for the integrated solution, something more useful than a frag-box for mal-adjusted teens.

But is the rumored 1299 iMac such a machine?

No.

Want to run iLife right?

You'll need more RAM -- 80 to a 100 bucks worth.
You'll need more HDD space -- depending on the Apple premium, 50-150 bucks worth for those big iMovie projects, iPhoto Albums fed by 5-8MP cameras and beyond, huge iTunes libraries, garageband projects, etc etc... and you'll need a Superdrive, period. Apple has made too much of iMovie, iDVD and the like (justifiably) to really sell the "Mac" experience without a DVD-burning machine.

You put all that in, and a 1299 price is no problem. And, given the very cheap prices of Superdrives, RAM, and HDD's these days, I find it hard to believe that Apple couldn't spec these at the 1299 price.

999 is the entry, that's a high entry, but it gets you a lot of the MacOS experience, sans DVD burning, and with some money to be spent to get you into the full potential of the machine (RAM plus HDD options)

Instead, there's a danger we may be getting the 999 worth of entry level machine for the 1299 full feature price. Eventually that just looks bad. You wanna charge, OK, but don't follow up by nickle and diming me on every single component that matters to the way the machine should be used.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #169 of 698
When I first switched 2+ years ago I kept the specs on my first PB to a minimum to save money - it was for business and I run a SMALL one man company. In the 2 years since buying it I learned a lot about Macs, and how they compare to the Dulls that I had owned before. When I bought a new PB in April I did a BTO order, pushing everything but the memory.

They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.

R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.

Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.

I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .

Let's see what is announced.

Let's see what the initial reaction is.

Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #170 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Never thought I'd be rooting for MOSR... \

Yeah, I really want that quad-processor iPod.
post #171 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
A few bucks for the fastest graphics option and for the hard drive and I'm happy.

Assuming there is a fast graphics option. I don't recall Apple ever having iMac GPUs configurable on BTO.
post #172 of 698
I think that Apple will offer more in the way of boosting a G5 iMac because it will be the single G5 platform. Makes sense and not that difficult - plus it increases the gross margin dollars on each BTO iMac, which is important as they have announced a reduction in GM% due to the need to air freight the iMacs when they are introduced.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #173 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
When I first switched 2+ years ago I kept the specs on my first PB to a minimum to save money - it was for business and I run a SMALL one man company. In the 2 years since buying it I learned a lot about Macs, and how they compare to the Dulls that I had owned before. When I bought a new PB in April I did a BTO order, pushing everything but the memory.

They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.

R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.

Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.

I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .

Let's see what is announced.

Let's see what the initial reaction is.

Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.

Thank you!

Steve compares Apple market share to BMW not only because they are similar numbers. What Apple does appeals to a fewer number. They turn out quality products for a slightly higher price. You get what you pay for. Buy a GM of the same quality as a BMW and it will cost you teh same or more. The same goes for a dell vs. Mac. But just like BMW, Apple does not make a Chevette.

Should they? Not sure- but they have chosen not to.

I also agree that there will be a big back order so no reason to lower price now. I predict they have designed a new iMac that can be made cheaply so that the price can fall as demand slacks off. That was the problem with the iMac(2) they couldn't get the price down on manufacturing the arm.
post #174 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Ah, finally, one of these threads gets some perspective.

At least you're getting an FX 5200 standard in PCs now.

Well in a nut shell this is the big problem I have, it is last years standard. Considering the likely deliver dates on these machines this machine will most likely make the majority of its sales in 2005, the FX 5200 will very likely be seen as very outdated by then. Once the migration to PCI-Express takes place, the whole of the market will look vastly differrent. Now that migration may be takeing longer than expected but it will happen and PCI-Express will be significant in the low end.
Quote:

Intel integrated graphics used to be available well over $1K. Sure, you can get an AGP card (sometimes) and go into driver update hell if you want, but this is suboptimal. Why should you have to bring your PC back to the store (because Joe Consumer does not crack the case open and add cards) and spend a significant amount of money just to get basic functionality?

I'm not sure anybody here can appreciate driver update hell unless they happen to be running Linux. In any event keeping a machine updated is usually the smart way to maintain stability. The problem is, if these specs are accurate, people will be spending significant money and getting limited functionality. I hate to use the word basic because I'm not to sure that would be accurate in light of video advancements for the next major OS/X release.
Quote:

The FX 5200 is pretty much the worst case for the iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship something better, at least on the 20".

Considering Apples behaviour of late I'd be surprised if they shipped a better card. What bothers me is that the just don't seem to get it, it being what the consumers want and how to clench the sale. Having a Mac sit on display with everything else available in the PC world and justifing the lackluster specs of the machine must be awfully trying on sales people.
Quote:
But even if they don't, they're par for the course. If a significant percentage of PC buyers bought aftermarket cards, the industry would be wildly more profitable than it is. As it is, ATI and NVIDIA both still make most of their money from OEM sales, so most people must not upgrade the card that ships in their machine. Therefore, whatever Apple ships looks like it'll be at least par for the course. Some people won't be happy, but they're the sort of people to whom Apple's approach isn't appealing in the first place.

Many times the card sold for installation in OEM machines are going into business computers, at times the chips are soldered into the board. There is a ligitmate market for such machines and if the iMac was targetted squarely at this market then I would almost agree with the configuration. The problem is the computer is not marketed as a corporate network node nor are many of its sales in that category. So one has to look at the machine as a general purpose computer and this is where it falls flat. If nothing else the machine needs to have what would be considered middle of the road GPU performance if up gradability is out of the question. My suspicion is that upgradeability is out of the question.

Now I do hope that I'm wrong there and Apple does offer BTO options or other solutions for those expecting a little more from there machine. Most corporate installations have the individual PC's set up as compute nodes, where memory, video performance and CPU performance are important. Heck even many homes now have a server set up where the important element for the satilite machines is the GPU/CPU performance.
post #175 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.

The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.

<RDF>You're so full of reason. Bubba will love the new iMac and will buy it because even if he got 3 eMachines or 2 Dells or 1 Sony, it won't be as cool as the new iMac 3. He'll give a rats ass if the video card is a RabbitMaster Nvidia Easterbunnier 3000. He'll love the dock and iLife and all that stuff. Sometimes, the numbers don't add up to the final sum. This machine will be more than its specs can tell you. More than the sum of its parts.</RDF>

So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.

Apple ain't in the business of making the iMac every geek's dream machine at a low, low, price.
post #176 of 698
The AIO is inevitable. The iMac is a very recognizable object. Very easy to spot on TV, in movies, ads, etc. A headless iMac would not offer this opportunity as a lot of people may use any monitor they choose.

Of course, most of this is in jest, but I think is part of the equation. The TV editors can scrub or fuzz out the Apple Logo on the back of a laptop but the shape of the iMac has always been very distinctive in it's own right. I think the new iMac will carry on this tradition.
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #177 of 698
Here is my problem with these specs.


If the iMac 4 is released with these specs it'll be a dead weight trying to float in water.

Why?

Because simply, it fails to capture the "Wow!" factor of people. The Bondi iMac relyed on appreances mostly to capture that "Wow" factor. Later....the slot-loaders used the price/performance ratio to capture that factor. iMac 3 did resort back to using appearances to capture people's attention...but the failure to update the internals on a timely basis killed that machine after the first 12months of its life.

IMO, people are now past the appearance thing. The average consumer now has only two questions when they walk into a store.

1. How fast is it.

2. What can I do with it.

Apple has question 2 down pat.

Question 1 is where they need help and a lot of it.

Going with TS's spec's here. I'm failing to understand why we need 4 models of the new iMac? two 17" and two 20"? WHY?

I would offer three models. Two for public, one for edu/bus.

17" iMac (Edu/Bus)
2.0Ghz G5
10/100/1000 Networking
no modem
60GB Hard drive
512MB RAM
no optical drive.
999.00 Individually...or 799.00 in lots of 50

The extra money saved by not using an optical drive is put toward more memory.


17" iMac
2GHz G5
10/100 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
256MB Ram
64MB Video
Superdrive
1,299.00

20" iMac
2.0GHz iMac
10/100/1000 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
512MB Ram
64MB Video (better chipset than 17")
Superdrive
1,699.00


A couple notes about the above.

You HAVE to have that 2.0GHz G5 there. That is part of the "Wow" factor. A 1.6GHz G5 in a 1,300.00 machine is just sad really.

The only difference in the two models is the screen size...memory...the gigabit port....and the video chipset. More than enough to justify the 400.00 price difference between the two.

This way you're only buying one CPU speed...which could save money and help margins...(economy of scales).

either way....you have to make the public look up and say "WHOA!!! I"ve gotta go check one of those out~!!!!"

TS's iMac will NOT do that.
post #178 of 698
I think it's gonna be impressive even with TS's specs. I'd take a 1.6 GHz G5 or a 1.8 GHz G5 over a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 anyday for one single reason: the Pentium won't run MacOS X (I keep trying to use Exposé on my mom's Dell. I'm so used to it.), iLife, Toast, Safari, etc.

And measuring GHz or MHz is just silly because each processor can perform a different amount of instructions in each clock cycle or something like that.
post #179 of 698
Let's see:

1. Apple doesn't include enough RAM. Since Apple is trying to sell an elegant user experience. An experience that tries to avoid the user tampering with the insides, I find this inexcusable. This can still be fixed before it goes on sale. Apple, are you listening?

2. The CPU speed is too low. I personally don't find any problem with this. This is a consumer machine after all.

3. The GPU sucks. Many people say that the iMac is fine without games. But you'd be stupid not to understand that the iMac will sell better if it can do games too. The last I checked Apple wanted to increase it's iMac sales, right? For those that say that serious gamers don't buy Macs, they might if Apple made a game-capable Mac. Developers will probably port more games if Apple had a serious game machine that sold in large quantities. PowerMacs don't sell enough to justify the porting of many games. The iMacs can make that happen.

4. Apple's price is too high. I don't think this is a problem as long they get the above requirements correct. If the most expensive iMac had to increase it's price by a $100 just to include a better GPU, I'd still buy it. The bottom of the line should stay the way it is. Not everyone is a gamer.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #180 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.

This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.
post #181 of 698
Quote:
This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.


Apple's Q3 results

Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.

Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share

For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.



Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.

More revenue equals more potential for profit

The quarters results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Companys net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.

Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.

Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.

It was an outstanding quarterour highest third quarter revenue in eight years,

This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.


Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #182 of 698
hmurchison,

You've convinced me!
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #183 of 698
I present you the marketshare graph (Courtesy of Jeremy Reimer):
post #184 of 698
Apple doesnt appear to be in trouble, but iMac sales were 60k units. A pretty sad number.


People need to step back and look at the big picture.

Who is supposed to buy an iMac???

Not business ( emac, powerbook ).
Not professionals ( powermac, powerbook ).
Not education ( emac, ibook ).

That pretty much leaves consumers. Why would a consumer drop 1500 on an iMac? What is their motivation as a buyer, and how could that motivation be satisfied with another machine.

People who want a Mac arent going to get a PC instead, so they are going to look at Apple's line up and see what else is on offer. In that price they can get an ibook or a powerbook, both very attractive machines. Or they can save some bucks and get an iMac. At the moment I think most buyers are looking at a laptop and an iMac side by side and getting a laptop.

People who arent Mac converts face the same choice, but they place less value on the Mac in and of itself. So when they compare the iMac with other machines it fails to win.

Ask yourself, what about the iMac makes you want it over an emac, ibook, or powerbook. It only has one thing going for it, the monitor. And guess what, if you buy a powerbook you get dual monitor support. People can, and do, justify getting a powerbook over an imac because it can work like a desktop if they get a monitor for ( which is a future purchase, and doesnt enter into cost comparisons ).

When I look at the product quadrant I see this:

powermac | powerbook
-----------------------------
emac | ibook


Where does the imac go. It has no compelling reason for purchase ( it is cool, but that isnt enough, just look at its sales numbers, very cube like ). Cost stops it being in the consumer half, and power stops it being in the pro half.

Im sure Apple have considered this, and if the iMac is going to be a successful product it needs to find its place.

It could be an AIO alternative pro machine ( at that price point it had better be ). But in that case it better have some pro features.

It could be the consumer desktop, but not at the projected price point.

TS' projected features and price put the iMac squarely in no mans land, and I think everyone here agrees that if Apple do that to the iMac again it once again will fail to make significant sales.

For all those who say that a consumer machine doesnt need a fast GPU, get a laptop, or save some bucks and get an eMac. Those machines fill that role. The role of the original iMac was as an AIO version of the powermac. It was just as fast, and had good graphics. Apple have lost that vision over time. The original iMac showed the following point very strongly:

When consumers are given the choice of a tower or an AIO they will choose the AIO, as long as it is as powerful as the tower. Presentation can win, but not in the absence of content.

Apple can do it again. A beautiful machine that people feel attached to, which competes toe to toe with the powermacs.
post #185 of 698
Quote:
1. The video specs are wrong - period. It would be disastrous to release that.

Uh oh, this guarantees that they'll end up being correct!
post #186 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by PowerPC
... You HAVE to have that 2.0GHz G5 there. That is part of the "Wow" factor. A 1.6GHz G5 in a 1,300.00 machine is just sad really.

i think a 1.6Ghz imac with superdrive for $1,300.00 should be a very good deal.
Quote:

This way you're only buying one CPU speed...which could save money and help margins...(economy of scales).

economy of scales would mean that there would be a 1.4Ghz iMac as well.

2.0Ghz G5 in a $1,300.00 iMac is bullshit from any economical perspective.
it's the fastest way for apple to get out of business.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #187 of 698
Here's what I've been thinking. If I'm factually wrong at some point, please forgive me. This is just a personal opinion.

The personal computer industry has been growing as a whole every year. Apple has been growing too but not quite keeping up with the rest of the industry. Software complexity and hence software development costs are rising even faster than the growth of the whole industry.

Therefore, software developers need increasingly more sales to make up for R&D costs. The PC marketshare is growing fast enough to make up for the increased software R&D. Is the Mac marketshare growing fast enough?

Many people say that marketshare is not important and that mac unit sales are the most crucial. But are those people considering the increased development costs of modern software? Digital hub software and video games will keep getting more sophisticated and keep requiring more money to develop. Apple is the only remaining major developer that makes digital hub software for the Mac. That's because everyone else was doing a half-ass job. Why? The Mac is not a big money maker for them. The marketshare is too small.

Sure Apple is currently still making a profit. That's a good thing if you only look at business in the short term. People who talk about marketshare are looking at the long-term. What exactly is Apple's plans?

I want to stress that gaming is a big market. Non-gamers may think that games are not important to Macs. I remember hearing in the news that the videogame industry is now larger than the motion picture industry. Crippling the iMac as a game machine is a larger crime than removing all DVD drives from the iMacs.

There are many reasons why the G4 iMac wasn't selling very well. Apparently, Apple didn't realize that the graphics capabilities was one of them.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #188 of 698
Market share graphs are interesting and surely show how a particular product -- in this case PCs vs. Macs do in a specific quarter. However this is only part of the equation. Cumulative stats would have Macs at a higher percentage of actual computers in use at any particular time then the market share shown for that period. Apple computers last longer and are held on to longer then Peecees. If market share were the only criteria for determining the success of a company and its products there would be a lot of bad corporations out there. In the automotive arena Mercedes, BMW and Subaru would be considered, in market share terms, dismal failures. They remain profitable and viable companies and produce superior (generally agreed on by many) products. Apple cannot and will never be the leader in market share. Yes, the iPod is at the moment, but this will pass as other companies join in on the parade. When Apple loses it's high market share in portable music players the company will be considered a failure by some. Yet, as the death bell continues to be wrung by some people, Apple is still here, making a profit and inovating in their industry. It would be nice to have it all, but that is very dificult. Because companies such as Apple lead in their industry in innovation and design and quality of user experience (just as the aforementioned automobile companies do) they will be appreciated by those who understand that numbers and percentages can be deceiving.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #189 of 698
One other thing. Long term profitabilty can be obtained even if market share is low. If this was not possible, Mercedes and BMW in the automobile industry and dozens of other companies would be long gone.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #190 of 698
Mercedes lost money and was propped up by increased sales/profitability of its Chrysler unit.

Just thought you'd want to know before you go using Mercedes as a model. Of course, if you did want to use Mercedes as a model, you could call Apple's CPU business Mercedes and the interest from their 4+Billion in the bank Chrysler unit profits.
post #191 of 698
I'm sorry that I have gotten into this discussion late but I have been a longtime lurker of AppleInsider since before purchasing my first iMac in 1998. I am very interested in this discussion because I am in the market for the G5 iMac but I can't help but recognize some glaring inconsistencies between the TS speculation and what Apple currently offers through the Apple Store.

First, I don't believe that there will be four models advertised to the public. I don't believe that the EDU model will be advertised to the public. Also, this would be inconsistent with the current iMac lineup of three models.

Second, why would Apple only offer the 1.8 G5 in the 20" model? Are the yeilds for that processor so low that they couldn't offer it in the 17" model?

Third, why would Apple only offer the Superdrive with the 20" model when they have previously offered it across the product line, excluding the very low-end iMac?

Lastly, why would there be a completely separate model for the 20" with upgraded hard drive when upgrading hard drive space has always been a BTO option at the Apple Store?

I do think that some of the specs are consistent with what Apple has been doing with the iMac product line. I believe they are going to offer three models again (excluding the EDU model):

17" Widescreen LCD
1.6 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
32MB DDR video memory
256MB RAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive
$1299.00

17" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$1699.00

20" Widescreen LCD
1.8 GHZ G5
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive
$2099.00

I believe that the larger screen and addition of the G5 on the low-end increases perceived value. I also believe that they will drop the price on the upper-end in order to increase perceived value there, as you are basically getting the iMac G4 in a great new form factor with the G5 for cheaper.

I also hope (greatly hope because this will determine my purchase) that they offer BTO options similar to those offered for the PowerBook/low-end PowerMac:
Video Memory up to 128 MB on 1.8 G5
Memory up to 2 GB
Hard Drive up to 160 GB

Is this viable? Wouldn't this decrease many of the complaints that have been given about the proposed specs? Wouldn't this allow Apple to continue making a fairly large profit on the iMac, while also increasing sales? Don't these specs sepearate it enough from the PowerMac?

If this were to happen, I can tell you that I would be purchasing one with BTO options as soon as they were released.
post #192 of 698
I agree that only 3 models will be listed on the website. It's also possible that the 20" will also be available in a build to order configuration.... better video card, more memory, larger hard drive, etc. 2 weeks and we'll know!
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #193 of 698
It seems that we are tending to forget that Apple is about to announce the first all 64 bit computer line for consumers. That, plus a new Ive design should be sufficient to get a lot of people looking and buying the G5 iMac.

Reality is that G5's are in short supply and development costs for the new iMac are not cheap. Apple will put together products and prices that result in them achieving their "normal" gross margin percent per unit. That is how they stay in business and bring us insanely great products.

Apple ain't Dull. They have a different pricing structure because they have a different cost structure. Apple spends a fortune on development of both hardware and software. Because they control "the whole widget" they can provide a fantastic experience, but that comes with some fantastic costs as well. It's the price that has to be paid (by both Apple and customers) to achieve that experience.

As someone who has used Dulls in the past I'm more than happy with what Apple is doing and will never go back as long as there is a Mac option available.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #194 of 698
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple's Q3 results

Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.

Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share

For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.



Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.

More revenue equals more potential for profit

The quarters results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Companys net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.

Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.

Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.

It was an outstanding quarterour highest third quarter revenue in eight years,

This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.


Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.

this is completely unnnecessary

1. net profit. what was their operating profit without interest from their stock pile of 4 billion dollars?
2. for a company with the largest margins in the industry why is their profit so small when their revenue was quite high?
3. the higher revenue is not attributed to mac sales. it's because of the insane increase in iPod sales.
4. 67 million is not about 70 million....only the math challenge think 3 million is nothing
5. 876,000 macs....apple has broken 1,000,000 in the past but has never stayed above 900,000. they are showed no sustained growth in unit sales since Jobs returned. they should be selling 1,000,000+ a quarter
5. 19% increase in unit sales..... can you please go back and look at the situation last year during this past quarter? I think you'll see why there is an increase in unit sales. Improvement over sucky quarters is good but hardly something to write home about
6. iMac sales were 60,000....that includes eMacs which I'm sure had a larger share of that number than imac. that is embarrassing and financially a disaster. the iMac should be their top seller by far. Yet it was selling worse than the cube ever did. That's probably why Apple decided to just kill it for the summer. They probably lost money making the things.
post #195 of 698
There sure is a lot of noise about the GPU in these machines. For those of you who think Apple should be putting a 9800 in the iMac... that must be pretty good crack you're smokin', where can I get some? C'mon, look at the price, power, and heat of those things ... all for fairly marginal gains in overall system performance for most users. We're not talking about the gaming elite here (they buy PCs), nor the 3D modeling or other Pro crowds (they buy towers). We're talking about the typical iMac buyer, most of whom are not in these forums at all.

And for the record the 5200FX Ultra does a fine job at an excellent price point, and most important it is not castrated in terms of developer functionality. Primarily this means that it has pixel and vertex shaders, so at least that software runs! This is a huge improvement over the 4MX, for example, where it was just missing huge pieces of modern functionality. The 5200FX is slower than the high end cards, but if you look at how this affects system performance in non-gaming situations it actually holds up pretty well. It will run CoreImage, it will do a decent job of it, and doing so will run significantly faster than just using the CPU (note that part of the advantage of the GPU is that it runs in parallel). For games the 5200FX is slower, although for most of the existing games it does okay because they were aimed at the former top-of-the-line geForce4... which the 5200FX matches or exceeds in speed! I think expectations have gotten rather out of line with reality on this one for Apple's AIO style-king machine.

The processor speeds look reasonable as well, and they will probably be using the same chipset (or a minor revision of it) that the 1.6 / 1.8 GHz single processor PowerMacs used. This will have plenty of bandwidth and the iLife applications should do very well on them (as should games). This combined with the FPUs and VPU of the 970 will mean that these machines do better than their clock rate suggests on applications where most people care about performance... The MHz Myth lives on, but now AMD and Intel admit it too.

The smaller memory configurations are really a dealer opportunity. These machines should really come with 512MB or more, but do you really want to pay Apple's memory prices? Apple has to hedge in their memory contracts so they will almost never beat the street price, and they know it. Let your dealer sell you more memory, its cheaper.


I think the real problem here is not with the iMac, it is with the lack of a low cost headless mini-tower. In fact this has been the most bitched about problem with Apple's lineup since the days of the PPC6100 passed. To appease this vocal group of techies looking for a customizable low cost machine Apple really needs to bring back this form factor (or its equivalent). This can be a dangerous market, however, because you guys are increadibly fickle! If they fall two months behind in the available technology, or somebody comes out with something better for $200 less then sales dry up. And because you want the latest stuff in a cheap box, the margins are razor thin. If they go with 10% margins (still healthy on machines like this) and only sell 90% of the machines, then they are flirting with losing money on this line of hardware. If they want to try this I think they should make the BTO only, and use the same components as are in their other products so that they don't carry extra inventory. Strip off all the frills and sell a bare bones set of machines that you pay for then they build and ship to you, and that carries a minimal margin. Otherwise they are going to lose their shirt trying it. This ought to wait until they have PCIe, and probably until they have the 970MP at their disposal -- this would allow the low-cost chipset to ship with a single or dual core on the same motherboard, with the same power supply, with any one of a few GPUs, in a generic looking case. But this is not the iMac.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #196 of 698
I hear all this bitching and moaning about specs and prices. I bet most of you use your macs mostly for reading email and surfing the web. Do you really need PS to be 3 seconds faster? Specs aren't important anymore, things are fast enough.
post #197 of 698
I love Apple, but if this information is true, its going to hurt apple, what about new users that compare a bottom-line iMac vs a PC Desktop

Dont get me wrong, Id love to see Apple claim a much bigger market share, but for people who know nothing about computers and compare a new iMac and these cheap PCs, and see the HUGE price gap might not care that much how a computer looks.

I might get flamed, but I still think Apple should bring in another line of computers, between the iMac and the PowerMac lines.
post #198 of 698
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 #199 of 698
Quote:
Specs aren't important anymore, things are fast enough.

Sure they aren't. That's what helped the iMac 2 to be the roaring success it was(n't).



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 #200 of 698
I smell Red Herring...!

These specs are dangerously behind the curve, and seem highly dubious. And I hope Apple does not go with the vertical 'Pizza box' style....they may pull it off, but IMHO, it would have about 10% the style of the 'sunflower' iMac....
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › TS reports on new imac specs