TS reports on new imac specs - Page 11

Agreed. But to argue that the latter is the only reasonable course for Apple is... short-sighted.

Get the word out. AMD started the ball rolling with the new naming scheme, and now even Intel is jumping on the bandwagon, defocussing on MHz. The trend is coming - absolute hardware specs matter less, relative worth of the system matters more.

And as for Apple itself educating the masses... iTunes is a start. I know a lot of PC users that use it and *love* it, and have asked questions about iLife specifically because of exposure to iTunes and the iTMS. "Is it all this nice?" "Does it really come for free?" etc This is one arena where ad campaigns just aren't capable of doing it justice in 30 sec spots. Sucks.

Laptops are a special case.


The question is not whether there is demand, but whether there's enough. There was demand for the Cube, too. After all, I have one.

Just remember: Graphics card expandability means constraining the design to accept a 12" card of nearly arbitrary heat and noise characteristics (which means a beefed-up cooling system), adding height to satisfy the recent NVIDIA proclivity for taking up a neighboring PCI slot, beefing up the power supply to handle an essentially arbitrary power draw, and of course paying more for an entire graphics card, and for the additional overhead of swapping it in from a BTO list, instead of just paying for a single GPU soldered to the board. So everyone is accepting a larger, louder, less elegant and costlier design for the distinct minority that will ever upgrade the GPU. At best, this will make the iMac no better a design than any random PC tower, and those aren't designed for consumer use at all - in fact, it's a stretch to even say they're designed.

I'd surprise you, in my neck of the woods, you buy the beer, I' buy the steak -- good prices on Canadian beef lately

Extremely. *NO* vendor provides an open architecture laptop. They simply don't exist. Buy from Dell, IBM, Toshiba, or Apple, and you're going to get a closed system. And yet, somehow, the consumer has made this the fastest growing market in computers. Odd, no?

Totally Off Topic(sorry people)

DaveGee

You want to hear some stories about that. I spoke to a guy that got $6000 back in 2003. I said "You know you should probably talk to a tax advisor so that you can setup your exemptions so that you are keeping your money during the year"

and he said "I like getting big returns" WTF???? Imagine if he had that $6000 in a 6 month CD. Wouldn't be a lot of interest but you would get that interest and not Uncle Sam.

DaveGee here's what I want to do. If I'm on a fixed income I want to grab the latest Publication 15 from irs.gov and find out what my total tax liability should be. Once I get that number I know that my taxes will not exceed that amount unless I get a Bonus, Commission or sell stock. Bonusus are taxed at the Supplemental rate of %25 anyways so I'm ok there.

Then I will exempt myself from Federal Income Tax and take a monthly amount that should be going to FIT and deposit to a CD or any investment that allows me to deposit for up to one year.

Come tax time the "Gubment" ask for their money I pay from the CD and any interest I've earned is mine.

Also I've seen people with monthly daycare expenses that didn't know that they could apply for a Flexible Spending Account. $600 a month in daycare expenses is not uncommon for multiple children. Getting that tax free saves you at least a $100 or more annually.

Plus you have Health Care Spending accounts for prescriptions and other things. Did you all know you can cover Lasik Eye surgery with a HCSA sometimes? Tax free baby!!

Last but not least 401k. All you young folks just entering the job force. Try to max out your 401k when you're young. Live frugally and when you're 30 you'll be sitting on a very nice plot of cash.

The Government is not going to tell you how to strip "your" money away from them. You have to seek it out and match it to your needs but you will save money.

Again folks sorry for the Off Topic rant. I just had to respond to DaveGees post because what he says happens all the time. It's not bad when your returns are very low but when you start making some cheese you're best to earn the interest on your money yourself.

Couldn't have said it better myself. People bitch about computers being very expensive. Well, save! GET A JOB. Manage your money. Get out of your parents' basement and and stop throwing cash down the drain. Even people with 6 figure salaries overspend. Even people that make minimum wage live debt free. It's all about managing your dough.

It can be done. It's a matter of wanting to do it. It takes some conscious saving, though. Money won't appear magically.

Sounds risky but I'd be MAD not to pass on those special Canadian COW.

Monkeyastronaught- you'd be amazed at how many people that make 6 figures

1. Do their own taxes(probably costing themselve thousands)
2. Have no clue how our tax system works(exemptions etc)

As for $1299 I don't want to trivialize the plightt of some families. I probably sounded a bit obtuse but I'm thinking that if I'm on a pretty severe budget the eMac isn't looking half bad. Sure it's not a LCD but to a family that needs a computer and wants a Mac..it is not bad.

I haven't finished this entire thread yet (only got to page 4), but I wanted to share my story with you folks.

I work in IT. I have built my own PCs (albeit, the last was many moons ago). And I am going to buy the new iMac as soon as it is released.

I am the consumer that Apple is trying to convert. I last bought a PC in 2000. Price was a major factor and I needed to upgrade to a PC that I could burn CDs on. It was a cheap Celeron PC that I spent about $700 on. Hell, this PC was obsolete 1 year after I bought it. Yet here I am today with the same PC. And I never upgraded it. I only took the case off once to replace a bad NIC. I could upgrade it, but I don't care to. I don't want to fight upgrades. I don't want to download new drivers. I don't want to change settings in the bios. I don't want to run uninstall programs. I don't want my PC to hang when I try to burn a CD. I don't want viruses.

I want the better OS. I want to be able to edit and burn home movies without jumping through hoops. I want to use Garage Band to mix things recorded on my digital 8 track. I want a box that is wireless ready with a minimal amount of cords hanging out the back that I can put anywhere in my house. I want a widescreen LCD. I want an iPod. I want to open the box and have the PC work. And I NEVER want to open up the computer. Never. And most people are like me. They want to fool around with thier home videos and pictures and just have fun.

Does that include gaming? Not for me, but it does for some (I have a GameCube for that and until computers come with 36 inch flat screen monitors and sound that can rival my home theather setup, I won't be playing any games on a computer in the near future). It seems to me the gamers would be better off with the PowerMac, just like PC gamers would be better off with the High End Dell Gamer machine or an AlienWare PC or something highly customizable. The price points on these would be similar.

I MAY pay a couple hundred bucks more for the iMac over a similar PC, but for the reasons listed above (and many more I am sure), I feel that I will get a better deal in the long run with an iMac. I think some here are losing sight of the big picture. Apple wants to convert people like me...because I am the most common type of computer user in the world.

I think his point was that Applenut is just a damn kid who doesn't know how to handle money. I'm sure Applenut or you or anyone can give computer purchasing advice. Hmurchison was explaining how affordable a mac can be if you manage your budget right, and that's something he probably knows about since he's got a kid, etc.

Sad it comes down to bad words and stuff, but hey, let's not forget this is just a forum to express (frequently) opposing views.

Like many many people have said, Apple should have lots of BTO options in the iMac line, and many of our issues just fade away.

$999 15" iMac (the 15" Powerbook widescreen)
Standard: 1.6 GHz G5, 32 MB graphics, 40 GB drive, combo optical, 256 MB
BTO options: 1.8/2.0 GHz, 64 MB graphics, Superdrive, etc.

$1299 17" iMac
Standard: 1.6 GHz G5, 64 MB graphics, 80 GB drive, combo optical, 256 MB
BTO options: 1.8/2.0 GHz, 128 MB graphics, Superdrive, etc.

$1799 20" iMac
Standard: 1.8 GHz G5, 64 MB graphics, 80 GB drive, Superdrive, 512 MB
BTO options: 2.0 GHz, 128 MB graphics, etc.

Hehe, TS corrected the graphics nomenclature conflicts in the current version of the "exclusive". Originally they used GeForce MX 5200 Ultra, now it is FX. It's the web for you, where publishers can correct mistakes without mention, not even a bump in version numbers.

Yes, laptops are a special case. I was going to throw in a disclaimer but I wanted to get a post out there regarding non-upgradeable video and an AIO enclosure. Many people have posted to budget for a new computer every 3 years. I can live with that. What I was trying to say was sometimes the AIO form factor (in my example the Rev A PBG4) won't allow a computer to make it even 3 years.

At this point, I'm not concerned about the case. If they have to tweak it to allow an AGP/PCI-e slot that's fine with me. I just want a (slightly) expandable Mac without paying $2K USD. I want it so I can get rid of my 5 year old PC and move exclusively to OS X at home. If the new iMac can't give me what I'm looking for then I'll have to keep plugging on with my AlBook.

I have 2 kids and due to cost of daycare my wife stays at home, meanwhile I'm making ~30k a year gross. I could save up for an iMac but why would I want a lesser computer, you keep goin on and on about how the LCD is worth this the comp is worth this and yet you can't see that to me that LCD is worthless. The 300 or so bucks I'd be forced to spend on that LCD I can save to buy clothes and presents for my kids. The 19" CRT I currently have looks better to me than most 15" and 17" LCD's I've seen including Apple's. Furthermore I like to play games occasionally w/o needing to take over the TV from my son or wife and that means being able to change the video card. You may not like it but the market has spoken,

AIO desktops are NOT what most consumers want or need. After all if that 'great' LCD that Apple forces on you died out w/in 2 years I for one wouldn't be able to justify buying yet another $1300 AIO, and I seriously doubt most other consumers could either.

For those of you who point out that laptops are beginning to outsell desktops and yet they are AIO's are again missing the point. Laptops unlike the iMac are portable and often lighter (yes there are some PC laptops that might actually be heavier but they are still portable in a way the iMac is not).

Yes, I'm fully aware the iMac is not the solution to all consumer needs. But as I said before, I think the iMac has become a computer more concerned with being Apple's showcase for good design, rather than a machine that wants to meet the desires of the people in the market for an upgradable consumer machine.

The machine you describe may be what you want, but it's not an iMac. It's not a PowerMac or an eMac. It's just something Apple is not manufacturing. However, I think they do a fine job in providing adequate alternatives for different type of computing needs. Not perfect, just adequate.

I'm not a big fan of the LCDs on desktop machines. I say, "if you don't have to move it around, why the heck do you need to spend an extra 300 on the screen?!" It's not the feature I liked the most about the iMac G4 (the circular, white-igloo like body was), but it's sure pretty and expensive.

I guess I'm rambling a little, but some see it as "Apple doesn't make the iMac a computer that reflects what consumers want. Let me choose the screen and upgrade, etc." but then you get on the whole argument regarding the headless Mac that may never happen. I guess* Apple just ain't interested in biting away from lower-end PowerMac sales.

*and bound to be wrong.

So get a PC!

Nah, just kidding. You echo the sentiments of probably many people that consider the Mac and then turn their head. It's one thing to force things on consumers and have them be successful (iTunes/iPod). It's a totally different thing to force things on a consumer (attached monitor, soldered video card, etc.) and have it not be successful at all. Just look at unit sales; Apple has to rethink their lineup and do some market analysis. They can do better than 3% of the pie by starting with the midrange market.



If only Apple's design team would understand this.

Well said. If only "the computer for the rest of us" was meant to target what Apple is currently not.

So true. One more reply and you hit 100!

Hey, any of you guys remember when it was possible to upgrade VRAM? On some of those machines, you put chips in sockets; in other ones, you put in a SIMM.

So people who wanted to upgrade their video could do so cheaply, and people who didn't, didn't have to pay a lot more for the machine. All it took was a fifty-cent socket or two. (sigh)

That was possible on the Bondi blue iMacs, wasn't it? I wasn't a mac user back then. I was just a mac fan without a mac.

True and what did apple do? they closed that slot right away. who ran the show ? Steve. He is the one who doesnt want expansion in consumer models while the otherside is starting to have upgradeable video in laptops.

That was way before the iMacs, IIRC. That was when Apple integrated their own graphics on the motherboard, similar to Intel Integrated Graphics today. I remember being able to do that in the 680x0 days, and also with the early Power Macs. Nowadays, Apple uses video cards from ATI or NVidia, which don't have extra VRAM slots on them.

The rev A bondis I think could have another few mb of vram added to them, the rev B came with 6mb and the rev A 2mb.. after that what you got given was all you could get.

Not completely true. The Rev. A and B iMacs used ATI Rage II (or similar version) graphic chips and came with 2MB onboard. They also had a slot to add another 4MB VRAM (I know because I upgraded mine). The later iMacs had all memory on motherboard and I believe cold no longer be upgraded at all.

Why do you keep saying the base iMac is going to be $1299?


People didn't believe the Powermac line would start at 2 grand. The low end iMac is going to be $1599. I've watched Apple far to long and I know that they are going to stupidly do this.

Nick

Because $1299 is very doable. I don't think I'm getting a Superdrive at that price and that sucks. But Apple has likely realized that they have to have something at the price of the original iMac.

It's easy to be pessimistic about Apple because they always go for the jugular after finding success(Cube,Imac2) and find that people's patience for their pricing doesn't extend any further.

<thanks PBG4 Dude>

Yea, take out the juggler, they hoard all the good bouncy balls and bowling pins.

However, if Apple went for the jugular, we could have a problem.

Jugglers are bastards. I rank them right there with mimes.

hmurchison, I respect your opinions, but disagree completely wtih this statement.

Please speak for yourself. I have a wife, 2 children in high school and make considerably more than the median income. I have a mortgage, one car payment two other paid for cars. I also have a daughter that drives(read high insurance here) her own car, 2 daughters in club volleyball @ $1500 - $2000 per season per daughter(not including my or my wifes travel expenses to tournaments), private musical insturment lessons for one daughter, travel expenses for the other daughter on choir trips, church sponsored travel for one daughter, looming college expenses and a retirement I'd sincerely like to fund. I don't have a plasma or projection TV or spend money on frivolous items.

Yes, I could afford a $1299 computer without hardship, but for what Apple MAY BE offering in this price range($1299 - $2200), especially considering that it is AIO, I'll pass. The decision will be easy for me. If I need a computer soon, which I do, I'll be buying refurbished or more probably used. It boils down to priorities and an elegant AIO design increases costs above and beyond the utility that I need. Blanket statements about finacial mismanagement are divisive in this argument and accomplishs nothing.

It is obvious, through this forum and countless others, that the general public wants options and for the most part do not see the utility in an AIO design especially if it increases costs. The lack of flexibility of the AIO by all rights and logic should be less expensive because of its' lower utility, but Apple continues under the misguided belief that an AIO should be elegant and expensive.

Sorry, rant over.

1500-2000 dollars per season? Why would you shop around for the best price when it comes to computers but not for volleyball clubs? 1500 is a bit steep don't you think?

I actually agree with hmurchison...most people have financial management problems. If someone really wanted and cared for a good computer, they could shave a couple hundred dollars here and there to buy a Mac...a small sacrifice, IMO.

It's not like we're talking about a huge investment here. 1299, right? As opposed to 899 or 999?

If you can't scrape up 300 dollars more by making a few small sacrifices here and there, then you probably aren't above the median income.

I think the issue here is whether being locked into your purchase is worth paying $1299. Especially when you can get a 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 for this same price (check out Apple's special deals section).

If Apple can sell actual PowerMacs for $1299, why can't they put together a headless, slightly expandable Mac for us consumers at the same price? Apple doesn't sell computers at a loss, so why not shrink the 1.6GHz PowerMac, reduce the expandability to say, 1 AGP + 1 PCI, 1 optical drive and 1 internal hard drive? Either that or use the PowerMac case across the whole line (for cost reduction), and make "consumer Macs" single processor and "professional Macs" dual or more processor with greater RAM expandability ...

I want my next computer purchase to be an Apple. I also want to make my next computer purchase before my first child comes along because the change in my wife's work schedule + baby expenses (and home remodeling) will make it difficult to buy a new computer once the baby is here.

I want Apple to earn my money, and succeed in getting more users to the OS X platform. I just don't think the iMac as an AIO is the way to go. Apple has the ability to put out a single processor G5 in the $1200 - 1500 price range and make a decent profit while giving us consumers the flexability we desire. Why won't Apple do this?!? is my question.

No, actually it's not. The cost is proportional to ability and travel clubs cost a lot no matter the club affiliation.


You didn't catch the part of my rant about utility and priorities did you? Sure I could afford the cost, I'm currently typing this reply on a G4 15" Powerbook, but at least for me the value for an desktop AIO at these spec.s isn't worth it. The Powerbook, at the time I purchased it, provided me the value I needed so I bought.

Interjecting financial mismanagement into this argument if a false dead end. The same could be said for purchasers of Windows machines and diverts the argument away from the true issues with the iMac and low sales volume.

Ok...so you have a spec problem. But most others that aren't so anal about specs probably have a finance management problem.

Like hmurchison said, lots of people go out and buy SUVs and the gas to go with it and all sorts of products that aren't very important...but the computer which is increasing in importance is still neglected by most people. People are ready to pay a shitload of cash for an SUV and expensive iPods but not ready to spend a couple hundred dollars extra to get a more pleasant computing experience?

People's priorities and money management are a bit misplaced...but that's just my take on it. Someone will undoubtedly ask me "who are you to decide what's more important to someone else." I am the Wise Man Who Knows Everything.

I just thought this part of your statement should be repeated. If you really ponder this statement it inevitably leads to part of the reason the iMac has not and will not increase market share.

People who care for a good computer are voting by not buying Apple consumer desktops and paying slighly less than the cost of the LOWEND of the iMacs for the Window machines they do buy. People who do not care are buying low cost eMachines and the like.

Apple should be marketing to the people who really want and care for a good computer, these same people understand the limitations and expenses of the iMac and the woeful spec's of the eMac.

Rickag,
It is obvious that you are not a member of the financial mismanagement group but I assure you it does exist. I think it is important for people to realize that the disappointment in specs is always going to be there. I do the same thing.

I guess we're really going to have to watch what Apple does right now. It is time to increase sales and move the company into new directions. How they do that is going to be interesting. People ask why Apple doesn't just create a headless mac. Well looking at their history it doesn't seem like much of what they do really affects sells. Couple that with the desire for desktops diminishing and you can see why Apple is keeping things simple.

hmurchison

What burns my but more than anything, I'm speaking as an Apple stockholder now, is that Apple is now in a position with the advent of the G5, maturation of OS X, Apple's capturing of the public's attention, introduction of Apple Stores and its' consumer applications(iApps) to actualy increase marketshare. It has been years since Apple has been in such a position, if ever. Add to that the grumbling about Microsoft's security issues and delay in Longhorn.

Then what the heck does Apple have to offer the consumer. The AIO iMacs and eMacs. Both force decisions on the consumer that many do not want to make. The iMac has choices of monitors, but they are expensive LCD's, no option to upgrade the video card. All that for entry level pricing of $1299. The eMac doesn't offer a choice of monitors, want a larger or smaller monitor, too bad and the cpu is old technology on an older system bus.

Apple is and has been restricting the size of the total market that will give serious consideration to their products, when it really needs to be broadening their market appeal. All this on top of Apple's stated goal of increasing market share and meeting, by their own admition, the entry level pricing of under $1000.

but then again, all this ranting I've done is base on one rumor sites projected specifications

best thing anyone has written on this forum in weeks...

Now here's someone who's hit the nail right on the head! Apple is in the best position they've been in for ages to grow market share and what are they doing? From what I can see they're doig zilch to capitalise on their current successes.

I'm sure they could produce an affordable headless G5 that could be upgraded but why the heck won't they?

Hey Steve! Give us a decent, upgradeable, headless G5 PLEASE!!?

It's not so much as if they "could" but if they "should". Apple is a public company that must seek to make a profit. Headless G5s are nice to dream about but the only way they are created is if Apple can profit from them.

What people are asking Apple to do is create a system that will last them longer and allow them to choose non Apple monitors. Apple is not in a position where they can do that. The increase in sales that lowcost headless Mac would generate would not be enough to offset the loss in revenue from the attached LCD.

"Think like an accountant and not a consumer and it all makes sense"

I'd think that if they provided good enough deals on iMac headless + a decent monitor, people would get the monitor if they needed it, and maybe even if they didn't need it. :-)

I'm a financial systems analyst, thank you very much, and I'm thinking about a profitable low cost headless Mac from the economic perspective called "price elasticity of demand". Maybe you've heard of it? Apple should have plenty of wiggle room to maximize their economic profitability by giving the people clamoring for a single CPU expandable headless Mac.

Apple does have the momentum necessary to bust out of its marketshare rut. If PC switchers (remember that whole spiel?) could get a headless Mac at a $1300 price point (I'll again point out that Apple is selling $1300 PowerMac G5s with a 1.6GHz CPU) and put some marketing behind the iApps, the people will go to the Apple stores to check these computers out. At reasonable prices, expandability (Apple could make some cash from on the spot BTO, have the Apple genius do the upgrade instead of ordering from the mothership *poof* instant gratification) and the mature iApps will push these computers out the door.

You say people want to do things with their computers and I concur. My boss is going hog-wild converting his VHS collection of family videos into digital format, doing some editing and burning DVDS. The only real problem with his workflow is that his 2.xxGHz CrapaQ takes about 20 hours to encode and burn a single DVD.

I've shown him how simple and FAST iMovie + iDVD is and he knows that Apple is where it's at as far as video editing goes. The only problem is, he won't buy a computer that doesn't have expandability (he's added a 2nd HD for all his video, and added the PCI analog capture card) because he needs PCI slots for what he does, and a $2K entry point doesn't sit well with him when he can get a PC for 1/2 that. I've tried the whole "time is $$$" argument (which of course he understands, being a CPA and all) but he won't experiment with an Apple computer if the cheapest model he would even consider buying costs $2K.

I guarantee that if Apple put out an expandable $1300 consumer computer I could get one in my boss' house as fast as they could get one in stock at Westfarms.