Apple unveils the new iMac G5 - Page 11

On that we agree. I can easily recommend the iMac3 to many people, whereas I couldn't with the iMac2.

That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).

As for your thesis -- if I was on your Review Committee you would not be getting your PhD

Remember we are not talking about spending $1300 for a computer just to play games on, we are talking about spending $1340 to buy a computer that can play the games in addition to doing all the other stuff we want to do with a computer.

Yes the mac/games subject has been ground into the earth. People like you cannot seem to get it through your heads that console gaming and computer gaming are different entities, and most of the gamers I know play games on consoles and on their computers. The world wide PC consumer gaming market is over 3 billion dollars, and should not be ignored by any computer company that claims it is selling computers to consumers.

.

Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere £95 (PS2), £100ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about £500.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ £919.

As some one else was saying on IRC (gzl) gaming and the Mac isn't exactly Apples fault. Developers out there are not going to develop games for a company that doesn't have the hardware to run said games, and Apple will not look at gaming seriously as the bulk of developers are working on PC/Console games, which is quite orthogonal (yes gzl, I like it too).

Getting back on topic here - It seems obvious that Apple has targetted the new iMac at the very misinformed newbie to the computer, which in its self is dangerous considering the specs of the machine as newbies tend to rely on what *others* say as they are incapable of passing their own judgement (for obvious reasons). Of course the informed will state that its GPU is under par and memory/HDD specs are lacking as well - however, people will buy this as many people out there want a very 'basic' machine in say the living room or in a stylish apartment. It is space saving and will get pretty much everything done for your 'regular' mac user (the kind that couldn't spell GPU even if the 3 letters were supplied on paper). They would buy it knowing that they are paying a premium for something that will be obsolete by the time Tiger 10.4.5 comes out.

Right now Apple needs to seriously address the (headless) SFF G5 that would *really* sell like hot cakes. Many people have covered possible specs here etc, and I'm sure Apple knows we want it....all we can do is hope.

These iMacs would make perfect dumb terminals. With more power and better screens then our current Sun Rays, I can see Apple selling alot of these to the corporate world. Something to compliment their Xservers.

A bit of a tangential question...

All I see above, where I'd expect to see prices, are question marks. This isn't the only post where I've seen this happen, and I don't think that in every case the posters posting such messages meant to be so non-commital about their monetary figures.

What did you really type? Some currency symbol, followed by a number? If so, which currency symbol?

Whatever it is that you're typing, I think you're triggering something in the vB message board software for numerically specifying characters, most of which turn out by chance to be non-displayable characters, which then get turned into question marks.

They show for me. He is quoting price in pounds.

Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere 95 (PS2), 100ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about 500.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ 919.


ps - I removed the pound symbols so you can perhaps see his numbers now.

Sorry, that's incredibly strange!

All those prices were quoted in GBP (Sterling Pounds).

Regards,

Mike

I'm not sure I agree with you, maybe this is true in the Mac market but not the computer industry as a whole.There seems to be an awfull lot of consumer oriented graphics cards offered by a number of companies (though most of ate ATI or Nvidia based cards). If there was not a market for these then I doubt that there would be as many for sale as there are. Then there are sound cards, again mostly consumer oriented products on the lower end. Video in and TV tuners, sure you can get FireWire and USB boxes to do this, but that takes up more space and used to cost more (I admit I haven't priced them lately) than the PCI cards do (on the low end at least). Sure there are alternatives to most of these for the Mac, but again they take up more desktop space than an internal card would.

PCI is only high end in the Mac market place, it is mid grade (or even lower end) in the rest of the industry. Since we pay more for Macs I would say that it is reasonable to expect some pariaty with the industry as a whole. Now I do admit that the only 2 cards that I would consider upgrading are video card and daughter card, however if there were more manufacturers making a greater variety of cards something else may become available that I would like to add down the road , such as a FW 800/USB 3 card or a newer WiFi standard card that is not "supported" by the internal Airport slot (such as the Aiport Extream and my Cube)

You can have all the data you want, but if you can't convice the consumers that they don't need the expansion that you don't offer then you will never make those sales. If Apple want's to grow market share they need come out with products that address the needs of markets that are not covered by their current products and customers that do not currently own Macs. A medium to low-end expandable computer without a display does this, and there is plenty of room below the bottom end PowerMac for such a product.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Res
That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).

Actually, you were correct the first time. PC games accounted for 1/3 of PC software revenue in 2003 but 1/2 of all software units shipped. (Google is your friend.) Interestingly, though, PC game revenue has declined for each of the past 2 years while console game revenue has increased.

Couple of other interesting Google tidbits, as long as I'm being pedantic:

1. According to this article, most computer gamers purchase games that are generally non-demanding of a video card: "Computer gamers, however, most often purchased strategy games (27.1%), childrens entertainment games (14.5%) and shooter games (13.5%), followed by family entertainment titles (9.5%), role-playing games (8.7%), sports titles (5.8%), racing (4.4%), adventure (3.9%), and simulation games (3.5%)."

So if you assume *all* "shooter" games are too demanding for the new iMac's video system (a pretty unrealistic assumption) and that the other categories work OK, at least 70% of all games purchased are no problem at all for a new iMac (and probably a much higher percentage).

2. The 10 best-selling PC software titles in the US in 2003 were, according to NPD Group:

Intuit's TurboTax 2002 Deluxe
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2003
Intuit's TurboTax 2002
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2004
Intuit's TurboTax State 2002 Multistate 45
H&R Block's TaxCut Deluxe 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft Office XP Student and Teacher Edition
H&R Block's TaxCut State2002
Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2003

Looks like the big PC market isn't gamers, it's tax-preparers \

Wow, 3 of the top 10 products deal with viruses and security! Looks like the Windows swiss cheese security model has sprung up one hell of a software cottage community!

Also, the fact that 5 of the top 10 programs deal with taxes proves the IRS should be abolished and the tax code simplified for us mere mortals. I'm guilty of buying a copy of H&R Block's TaxCut software, and I'm an accountant!

expandable consumer machine = placebo

You might as well paint a PCI expansion slot on the side, as it will be used just as much and apparently make the sale by all accounts.

Anyway, I think we see the other half of future Mac marketing. We already know that Macs have a much easier time of it when it comes to malware, but obviously, Apple needs to sell their own tax software, and ship their consumer machines with a slot for printing on small paper rolls!

I predict the rumored i*** is, in fact, a calculator! Wireless, even!

[added]eh, I should probably weigh in wrt the new iMac:

I think the pictures from the Expo floor, as usual, make the new iMac look more exciting. I generally like the way Apple photographs and displays its wares, but they I guess suck some of the life out of them in the process. Really, I warm up the new design a lot once I think of all the peripherals cluttered around it, then the almost deceptive simplicity of the design, how obvious it is, becomes a lot more important. I mean, Apple would probably be better suited to show the iMac surrounded by a printer, scanner, iPod, keyboard and mouse, still camera, music keyboard, movie camera, etc. I imagine this riot of stuff that all plugs into this simple center hub. While I'd like to see the proportion get to be wider, that is, taking some of the material below the screen away, it's less important than tat image I have in my head. It has the promise to be the computer on your kitchen counter as well as in your den, though it might not quite be there yet to make a multi-computer networked household obvious or possible to everyone.

For me at least, all of this back and forth comes down to one thing. At a time when Apple has seized more of the public's mindshare than in the recent past, they are still artificially narrowing the target market for consumer machines. All arguments concerning price/performance, video card capability, hard drive size, etc. both pro and con when compared to Windows machines seem irrelavent to this one concept.

Apple has stated they wanted to increase market share(re: they didn't say installed user base), therefore, if it were me I would be targeting a much broader base than just consumers prefering AIO design.

One minor nit pick, for those that say the FX5200 ultra should suit most consumer needs, that may be true, and that many people never upgrade graphics, that may be true also. But many many people opt for upgraded graphics at the time of purchase of the computer. The AIO also eliminates this convenience.

Ever wonder why ATI and Nvidia don't offer more options for upgrading video card options for the Mac, one guess. it begins with A and ends with O.

Please don't get me wrong, I liked the iLamp, a lot, I also like this new iMac, for the money they are even price competative compared to Dell, moreso than Apple bashers will admit.

Will I buy one? No.
To quote Steve Jobs himself,"We(I) like options."

I agree, Apple needs to find more markets for their PC's, it is after all still their "Core" business", and one way to do this would be to offer new products that fill the needs of consumers that are not met by Apple's current offerings. This includes a consumer grade computer without a monitor. In fact, since the bottom end PM is now $1999 this product could also fill the missing low end pro computer (PM's historic price up untill the G5 hovered between $1499 and $1699, mid range from $1999-2499 if I remember correctly).


An interesting note, ATI is still shipping Radeon 9200 PCI video cards, and I think I heard that they have a announced a new PCI video card coming out.

You guys seen the video? Come Rev B (I'll have more cash by then) I'll be getting one

What I think is funny about all this moaning and whining is that no-one (except maybe Amorph as usual) is looking at the historical context.

To those now saying the iMac G5 makes the Powermac/CD combo look overpriced: Apple ALWAYS DOES THIS! They alway release a new product with a sufficent price/features delta over the current offerings in order to switch interest to that new model line. THey did it with the original iMac, with the ibook G4 with many others. This allows them to "upsell" people to a more expensive (higher profit margin) computer. In the case of Powermac G5 the difference between the two machines is more than enough to appeal to different buyers.

To those b*tching about the graphics card in the iMac: I bet anything that Apple had the specs of the iMac G5 locked down and the orders for components set in stone back in March. The delay in release is clearly due to the G5. A huge company like Apple cannot just back out of an order for xxx amount of screens, graphics cores, etc, etc. just cos they now have 2-3 months extra. I'm sure when a low power low heat core at a similar price to what they got the FX5200 for comes along they'll use it. This decision is all about price. Simple as that. If the iMac G5 had come out in June then the 5200 might not have seemed so bad really.

As for the ram: Apple is just being cheap, simple really. its not justifable really but as many others have pointed out, it is a useable amount for web-surfing, iPhoto etc. I personally think the 20 incher should have more standard, but like I said Apple are just being cheap.

For those b*tching about the iMac not including the latest stuff like PCIe, etc. Remeber these technologies are only just starting to appear on the market now (here in NZ PCIe motherboards have only been out for a matter of weeks) So before the specs for the iMac were locked down 4-5 months ago, where was PCIe then?

I am not trying to justify Apples decisions, just sick to death of all the fanboys who dont not think before posting!

The iMac G5 does look great, both physically and technically. Those expecting more of anything (except RAM, WTF Apple?) don't quite get the iMac line. As Thereubster said, a valid reason may be the delay. Either way the graphics are sufficient and all to be expected. I'd also like to see a thinning of bezel over time, along with colors introduced at some point.

The eMac should be re-designed though. And not as an AIO. IT staff at schools already have TONS of monitors. Why not introduced an inexpensive, headless unit for schools. That would also appeal to switchers. Nothing like targeting a new demographic with an existing, albeit redesigned line.

I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.

The whole point is to hook you with the lower price point that's possible with the skimpy RAM, then either sell you the extra memory after hooking you, or at least convince you that you want the thing badly enough to buy it then add more memory yourself.

It's not like Apple is the only one who does this.

i don't get you people

on the one hand you argue that the imac is a consumer machine. consumers dont upgrade, they dont do this and that, they never open the computer and then on the other you say a RAM upgrade is cheap and not a problem and easy to add

the truth is, a lot of people don't upgrade their ram, a lot of stores dont upgrade the ram. people are all about first impressions. if they use one in a store and its slow because of low ram then they are turned off. this used to happen all the time back when apple was stuck on 32MB and then 64MB. and a lot of people when they do buy it, they say it sucks cuz the ram is too low, only they dont know that is the reason.

and graphics card is as easy to upgrade as ram....or, it could be if they ever allowed it

Well, part of the problem is that we aren't all the same people.

But anyway, ordering extra RAM right from the get-go when you buy a new computer is hardly what I think most people are thinking about when they say "people don't upgrade".

It's sort of like the difference between the number of people likely to spring for the optional fancy hubcaps or "deluxe" sound system when buying a car vs. the number of people who'd add any those things well after having bought the car and used it without those things for a time.

It's a rough analogy, but fairly close in the case of buying extra RAM as a BTO option from Apple... or Dell as the case might be. The analogy gets a little rougher in the case of buying third-party RAM at the same time you buy a new computer -- because then you have to be willing to install it yourself or find a geek friend/relative to do it for you -- but the analogy still holds to a degree, because I think there's a tendency for people to be more motivated to change things up front at purchase time, but then as long as what they've then got gets the job done for them, a lot of people settle in with what they've got and then leave it alone until they buy another whole new system.

I'd hazard a guess -- and it's only a guess -- that when people do actually bother to upgrade their computers (apart from the above-mentioned case of extra RAM bought at the same time as the original purchase) that RAM would turn out to be the number-one internal upgrade, that is, the number one upgrade among all upgrades that requiring cracking open their computer's case. I'd futher hazard the guess that whatever the #2 internal upgrade is -- perhaps it is video -- it's a distant second to RAM.

Yeah, their prices are something huh? Do they hand solder their own chips in cupertino? For being a digital hub, and having a 1.6-1.8GHz G5 processor on a RAM hungry OS, why not bump up to 512MB? Even on the 20" version? How much money are they saving me? Is 256MB of RAM cost them $100?

Being a multimedia hub requires RAM. What Applenut said is true.

Here's a nice little story about my self. After having my 12" Pbook SD for over a month on 256MB all I did was very light stuff, GPRS, surfing and IMing.....(didn't have time as I was on the constant move.

Now I'm tied to the wall here most of the time in Geneva (all the way from Sri Lanka!) and got about 8 apps running.

So in England I ordered another 512 from Crucial and ran around Leeds looking for a Philips 00 screw driver to do it my self (I've installed way more RAM than it could be called 'healthy') but alas none had em!

Went to the AppleStore, asked nicely and they did it free of charge knowing that I got my ram for GBP 30 CHEAPER than them!

On the way out I'm like "Could you please trash this box?" and the store manager is like "You buy the ram from Crucial, get us to install it and now make us dispose of the box? You are seriously taking the micky out of us!"

Bsodmike,

it's hard to take some of your comments seriously when you write "it will be obsolete in a couple of months" in relation to the new iMac.

I guess it depends on your definition of "obsolete", but I am running at home both an G4 iLamp 8--Mhz and a orihinal iMac G3 400 Mhz machine. The latter is, what, four and a half years old and cannot be described as obsolete in any sense. Sure I don't edit movies on it, and the Photoshop work is relatively light, but apart from that it still works a treat.

Shame really, as when it dies the new iMac will replace it, whatever video card it has :-)

Cheers,

David

Sorry to don't know english as well as you do, but what does this means? Just curious.

Mmm, I was thinking if I should have defined it at the time but cba But you are right, what I meant by obsolete was you'd end up doing less on it, or found that what you *did* do was slightly restricted (by hardware constraints).

However, for basic emailing, web-browsing etc it'll be fine. I got the go5200FX chip in my 12" Pbook here and it's great, so I'm not really too sure what the fuss is about.

I will wait for Rev B hoping for a speed bump in CPU and a better GPU (would be nice but not too important for me) and maybe they'll consider doing a 23" version, which I highly doubt.....but can hope for!

If you are waiting it to die, the wait risks to be very long. I have a Wallstreet Powerbook (6 years from its introduction this September), a real computer dinosaur, that still works perfectly. Tough nuts those old Macs.

It's like 'taking the piss out of' or 'making fun of' Another version would be me pointing my index finger @ the Manager and going "Bwahahahhahahhahha!"

Get it?

Exactly my thoughts for this model which, by design, could go up to 30" with the appropriate video card. But I would not expect a 23" model before 2006.

Bodsmike,

yep, I agree. BTW, what's cba? Haven't come across that one. :-)

And yes, waiting for a Mac to die requires patience. The G3 iMac (running 10.2.8 ) started making a noise about 2 years ago, when previously it was silent as a lamb. I think it's connected to the power supply, but not too sure. Still, it keeps on going, and it is switched on 24/7 as it acts as the router in my house, so can't even sleep.

iMac David, my revision a iMac died after three to four years of use, the culprit was the power supply circuit which just simply chose to break. Apprently it's easy enough to fix, however it was a timely demise for the machine as I needed a new Mac for work.

Now I've got a Powerbook 15" 1.33Ghz for uni, (this has got to last for at least 3 years lol) it's fantastic, the measley 256MB of RAM has to be boosted though, an extra 512MB should be enough. 256MB of RAM is way too little these days, games stutter, loading times slow to a crawl, garageband runs well but can do with more easily.

These are interesting comments from the two of you. My current Mac, a circa 1999 iMac DV SE, has had every major internal component fail on me (and that was as of 2002) *except* the interrnal power supply. I'm nervously waiting for the other shoe to drop. Given that I'm not a gamer, and the much-maligned graphics card in the iMac G5, I'm actually more concerned about the mirroring-vs.-spanning complaints vis-å-vis the new iMac. A second monitor would be nice alongside whatever I replace my current iMac with, but why would I want to see the same thing on both monitors? Do the Powerbooks have monitor spanning, or is that reserved for the G5 Power Macs?

I have a rev. A iMac from 1998. I had one of the ones with the bad analog board but since they fixed that it has kept going ever since. It's often left on for weeks at a time.

Powerbooks have monitor spanning. I use mine with a 19" CRT when I want to have a larger screen to work with. It's a great feature.

Thanks, Bancho. It'll be awhile, but it seems my next Mac will be a Powerbook. After my previous post about mirroring, the following may sound odd, but here goes: Can the information (browser, varios apps, whatever) on a Powerbook be mirrored onto a larger external monitor? I wouldn't want to do this all the time, but my eyes would love a monitor of 20 inches or more, vs. the 17 inch screen on the Powerbook. If that's possible, it'd make it even better for me, as I could buy the smaller, more-portable 15-inch Powerbook for the same purpose.

Addendum Edit: Odd, but this is what Apple's site says about the mirroring/spanning question: 'The system automatically displays to the external monitor when you connect it to the PowerBook. Alternatively, you can toggle between dual display and video mirroring modes through one touch of the F7 key.' It seems mirroring *and* spanning are capable with the Powerbooks.

if someone is intelligent enough to know ram will offer better performance they are intelligent enough to know a better video card will as well. if they are capable of upgrading ram they are capable of upgrading a video card. if apple can offer to charge a premium for a ram upgrade at the time of sale they can also charge a premium to upgrade the graphics card.

put aside your ideologies about the imac and what it is and how dumb "consumers" are. (personally I think consumer is the stupidest term ever created and means shit, I'm not a consumer by most of your definitions, i'm certainly not a professional, I don't have thousands of dollars to spend, so the iMac is what I need, however, since its "consumer" its only for idiots who know nothing and do nothing intense) Apple is missing out on increased revenue and profits by not offering a BTO option for the graphics card. Look at the Powerbook. How many people are ordering direct from Apple just so they can upgrade the VRAM, nevermind change the chip. A lot. Direct sales mean more money, BTO options mean more money. Apple is being dumb when they know demand is there. It just doesn't make sense. If they offered a 50 dollar upgrade to 128MB of VRAM don't you think a ton of people would jump at that? How about a 149 dollar upgrade to a better graphic chip?

So true. People order BTO so that they get that flexibility. The iMac design is very nice but it would have been nice had Apple stated that future cards would be "approved" for installation as long as they met thermal requirements. Has anyone been able to confirm that the card is soldered?

Based on what data?

Not trying to be combative here, as I agree that it's silly not to offer such an upgrade option if the design allows for it. (Given the space and cooling constraints, I'm guessing they would have done it if they could.) I'm curious to know if figures have ever been released on how many PowerBooks were sold with BTO upgrades.

cba = can't be arsed, not sure if I came up with this but I've been using it for some time....

Well, if you can't wait for it to die you can always use that sledgehammer that's behind you on the table next to the iMac G5

(Of course, don't use it on the iMac G5)

no figures....but i've seen no shortage of people ordering from apple to get the 128MB option. Personally, I'd never buy from Apple, because of tax, but the 128MB option would make me.

as for space and cooling...I really don't think that is the problem. Apple has never offered a BTO option for this on the iMac. Even with designs that could have easily had no cooling or space issues. And if they can offer a 128MB option in a powerbook they surely can do that and then some in the iMac.

You can run the Powerbooks in clamshell mode and use an external monitor exclusively if you like. When run this way the entire VRAM is devoted to the external display unlike when you are spanning and VRAM is split 50/50 between built-in LCD and external display.

The extra functionality is definitely a nice perk of the Powerbooks.

Just taking a look at the way BTO stores lay out your upgrade options, I don't think anyone would arugue this point. Both Apple and Dell offer RAM as the first configurable hardware option, followed by hard drive. On the PowerMacs, the video card is the next option on the page. With Dell, you have to scroll almost all the way to the bottom before you find the video card options. Also, note that their "consumer" machines come standard with Intel Integrated Graphics (whatever that is), and have no dedicated VRAM whatsoever.

Point being: perhaps video performance isn't the huge deal to most PC buyers that a few on this board would make it out to be.

For most it's not, but for a substantial minority it is. Those buyers can easily fix the poor graphics on a stock PC with a cheap AGP card. With the iMac, they can't.