New Apple eMac in the works - Page 2

Tim Cook (or was it Peter Oppenheimer?) stated during today's analyst conference call that they were not interested in the sub $800 market. Soooooo, I'd think that just about puts an end - for the time being at least, to a "headless Mac." They did mention some "exciting products" coming, which of course gives no idea of any time frame. A G5 eMac would not seem to be in the cards before next year because of continuing supply constrains from IBM. One interesting comment was that the iMac G5 will contniue to be airfreighted during the next quarter at a cost to Apple of about $50 per unit (figured into the profit margins).

why do you expect apple to introduce a headless singleprocessor G5 (or G4) with some expansion options for less than $800 dollars? i think $1000 or slightly more is what you can expect to pay for a machine like that.

Weren't there rumors about there being an eMac model without a CD Rom, something teachers requested? Or at least having that option.

It would be nice if the eMac were made a little more stylish. I know it is the bottom of the line model, but it's fugly as it is.

Could the iMac be getting a major revision so early on? I am hanging out, waiting for rev b before I replace my G3 600mhz iMac. And dam proud that I have been able to wait this long while retaining a great little computer. The extra speed will be welcomed though.

May a revision of the iMac that allows for graphics card replacement. I know the given reason for not being able to replace certain components, but I think that excuse is becoming rather dated, there are ways around that now.

I'd say that half (ok, maybe not quite half) of the fun of getting a new Mac is the screen. That's where a lot of the cool points are. A low end headless Mac makes me think "PC", which is the only group that it would really appeal to.

That's been an option for awhile. I believe they are only sold to schools, but every now and then an optically-challenged eMac will show up on the Special Deals page on the Apple store.

Who out number us ninteen to one by the way.

what? hell no!!
i'm still waiting for the 20" iMacG5 i ordered the day after the philnote.

I doubt it, as well. Going by recent product line refreshes (the only one I can think off the top of my head is the PowerMac G5), it should be maybe 10 or 11 months. (I'm not counting the move from single to double 1.8's, that was more of a bump than a revision). Powerbooks, iBooks, eMacs, XServes all seem overdue for updates, so maybe Apple has decided to update a little less??? Who knows, just my one penny's worth... (my opinion's not worth the extra cent).

lol, optically challaneged...

To this day apple has been consistant updating the ibooks and powerbooks... If they update them within the next month or two... they are still on time... with 6-7 month life cycles. The powermac has been out of their control... otherwise I'm sure they too would be 7-8 months too. I don't think iMacs and eMacs have ever been on a consistant life cycle.

If it wasn't for other companies... i'm sure apple would like to update to stay competitive with other companies... its hard when you don't sell that many computers... thought after posting the profits they did yesterday... I'm sure they could give a little on their prices or more updating

Because in the past, Apple's Fred Anderson stated that Apple wished to increase market share. It's all well and good that Apple is doing quite well for the moment, however, over the last few years their total sales of computers has leveled off, with a minor blip of an increase, I believe about 2%. The rest of the industry, PC's, has increased sales substantially more than 2%, so, even after Apple stated they wanted to increase market share they are actually losing market share while posting what I believe to be insignificant total unit sales increases.

Apple is not increasing market share, and I believe, once those consumers that like and want an AIO, upgrade or buy into this trend, sales will again level off, we will all be discussing this same topic again in about a year maybe 2.

I suspect Apple's total unit sales will continue to increase modestly, sustaining the company, but, and I hope I'm wrong, I do not expect Apple to ever increase market share until they offer what most consumers want rather than what they believe the consumers need. And on top of that, I really don't think Apple cares anyway, as long as they make a profit.

But then again that's just me rambling.

well, following yesterday's report, you can bet it'll start at around $899 or higher, since apple said they don't see them making very much money in the sub $800 PC market.

that having been said, it'd be kinda cool to have a classroom set up with fifty of these guys, and anytime someone had a question, the housing on their computer would light up. yeah, okay, cheesy, but why not...

I stand corrected. For some reason, I had it in my head that the G4 iBooks of 10/03 were the last revision...I forgot about the April rev. Like I said, my opinion ain't worth much!

Well that is all fine and dandy that Apple can't figure out how to make money on low cost machines. I'd like to find out how and how much money they are making on their high cost lines. Certainly PowerMac sales have slipped enough that one has to question the economics of producing them.

Just like everything else great in this country.... apple will end eventually... unless they do something about growing their market share. You can only retain that size of a market share for so long. The iPod trend will only last for so long. The AIO trend will only last for so long. I hate to say it... but unless apple makes a Pro machine for less than 2k... they are screwed. 2k for a workstation is unacceptable. The rest of the industry won't move to OS X, even if it is a better OS, for that much money.

The eMac isn't the answer either. I hate the cube idea... because that was about as big as a failure as Lisa and the Newton.

Time for a new machine in the mix... This is getting us no where.

I remember reading somewhere that schools were moving towards laptops instead of traditional desktops. I'm sure Apple would be happier supplying schools with higher priced/margined iBooks than any eMac.

My thoughts on Apples market share lately have led me to think about other companies that have consistently only held a niche position in markets.

I think the easiest comparison is to car companies. Apple may be small, but it is the BMW/Acura of the computing world in a sense. It will never sell the number of computers that GM/Windows companies do, but those who are willing to shell out the (relatively small) extra expense, what they get is a much better product.

I would like to see Apple become the Toyota/Lexus (High quality, reliability, volume, and durability) one day. No one ever thought that one day Toyota would be breathing down GM's neck, but they may number one in as few as 11 years.

Unrelated tidbit, if you think the M$ money stash is impressive, you should check out Toyotas, something around $128 Billion!. Honda is way up there as well.

There is no reason why a determined Apple cannot beat up on a stumbling (and lately arrogant) Microsoft.

yep, only been working for them for, um, 20 years... apple, the only company that's been going out of business for two decades strong.


well, apple has openly declared they don't WANT the rest of the industry. the only people who want the rest of the industry is apple's users, so we can stop hearing crap from our pc-using co-workers.


the eMac isn't meant to be "the answer." in fact, i think the iMac from '98-2000 was meant to be the answer, but then its charm waned and there was no building of switching people over. apple sold a hell of a lot of imacs to current mac owners, which, in and of itself, is still an accomplishment, because mac owners are notorious for holding onto their macs until the last bolt falls out. contrast that with certain software makers who will remain nameless who count on people to upgrade to fix bugs and security holes that should not be there in the first place.

yes, the cube flopped, and as apple finally admitted, it was a combo of price point and some design issues (non-standard length video slot hindered upgrading, the clean cube design was hampered when you had to daisy-chain 5 peripherals out the bottom, etc). the newton, functionally, was ahead of its time, with great ambitions, but too much girth and expense.

the ipod is TODAY'S "answer." and they'll have to come up with a new "answer" in 3-5 years when the market is saturated or novelty has faded. the market and consumers' tastes change in that span, and so does the question of "what will people want." apple is becoming sony, but whereas sony is trying to get into the computer business from media supply, apple is leveraging the computer experience to, first, test the market with mac users, and then build hype, and unleash on the pc using market.


how 'bout this... give the new iMac G5 a little more than a friggin' month, 'kay?

Wrong!!! Apple's switcher campaign was aimed "at the other 95 percent". Apple most definitely wants (and probably needs) a higher market share, if only to encourage more developers to build for OS X.



I tried, but I ended up buying one anyway.

hmmm... i stand corrected. er, well, actually sit, slouching...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Apple ALWAYS made an AIO? Orignal Mac, the fat Mac, Classic, SE, etc, various Performas, 5xxx series, AIO G3, iMac, eMac? 20 years is a looong trend in the computer world! Granted some of these are/were education-only market, but that's a market nonetheless, and they did sell in large numbers.

I've seen past and current PC's that are AIO, as well, so it's not an Apple-only trend.

Greetings:

From most the messages here, I don't really understand the fevor to soup up eMacs to "PowerMac" levels (why hitch an "ideal" PC-rival low price?), especially since most purchasers will scarcely notice any performance difference. Arizona MUG plays it dispassionately straight:

http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/am...icles/emac125/


James Greenidge

Gasoline is platform-independent, computer peripherals and software are not. That's why people are wondering about sustainability for Apple, and not so much for boutique car makers (even though you'll notice almost all of the smaller premium makers have been bought out.)

I do like your Toyota/Lexus analogy in terms of quality and reliability, although Apple doesn't even have to switch 'brands'. BMW now has Mini, and plans more Mini models beyond the Cooper. BMW also has a new 1 Series coming out with at least some BMW DNA (overall design, rear-wheel drive, handling.)

I think Steven Jobs would detest your Toyota comparison though- do you think he'd drive a Camry in a million years???

Is that article good for the eMac, or bad for the Dual-G5 PowerMac???

I'm being partially sarcastic, but if this is the case why are people so excited about gettting their 'supercomputer' g5 iMac?

Also, judging from the posts here the G5 isn't much (if at all) more expensive than the outgoing G4. So a eMac rev makes sense when G5 supply problems go away (Apple predicts this quarter.)

Would it take 10 months of work to swap in a G5 for a G4 in the eMac (or include other incremental hardware improvements)?

I am still guessing that the new product is a G5 eMac, but that 10 month thing seems strange. "Slight external" modifications would seem to indicate it's still basically the same AIO format.

Not but I bet he is not entirely disapointed by the design and quality of the Lexus SC430, it's a beautiful machine.

Compare that to the amazing engineering in the LS430 and you start to get the picture.

I would say Toyota is the eMac while Lexus is more comparable to the Power Mac.

I think the iMac would be the IS300 with all the options. Nah, let's make it the RH330, the new hybrid SUV that is coming out soon, just cause it is going to set a new standard for luxury SUVs.

What they share in common though is that there is attention to quality and design at every level, but you can't expect to have it all at the eMac level. Though it still beats the crap out of a Wal Mart PC.

I think that BMW and Honda are still independant of other car companies. With the exception of who BMW has bought, they are still family owned aren't they?

Ughh, more silly auto analogies...

Back on track.

Some have mentioned the possibility of a G5?

Who knows...

I will say this. It seems a travesty to take a modern G5 architecture and marry it to a boat anchor of a CRT.

In that case, the eMac would certainly be a better machine for most consumers, if Apple merely sealed the "guts" in a nice small headless enclosure and left the display up to you/me/us...

Very true, however what I typically hear from PC enthusiasts is, "well, I'd buy a Mac if they weren't so expensive". Which, in my opinion is silly because the eMac starts at $799 (and has educational/gov discounts available). My point is that they'll probably never end up buying one because they look at it on a hardware level. "For $799 I can get a PC with components X and Y". They're ignoring the most important part, which is the OS and accompanied software. So why would Apple try to cater to this group on a hardware level (i.e. headless eMac), when they probably won't end up buying one anyways? This is evident by the "Switch" ads. They were an attempt to get people to switch over by interesting them in the OS and software, not the hardware.

Whew.. ok, a bit off topic. Sorry about that.

Well that is pretty accurate.

Well hardware is really the only thing that matters. Go with Linux and software costs drop close to zero. But Linux is software there is a very real coocern on the part of many that they are getting screw by buying Apple hardware. It is a matter so summing up the numbers and seeing what you get. Invariable Apple hardware is thin on features and the configurations are totally unreasonable considering the state of the technology. In other words one looks at the price asked and then talleys up the supplied disk space, the installed RAM, Video card features and whatever else is of interest and then says HELL NO!

The OS means absolutely nothing, especially when Apple charges annually for each major upgrade. In the case of Apple hardware the OS becomes an annual expense. Not that this is completely bad just that Apple charges way to much for those annual upgrades. The OS is decoupled from the hardware it is silly to associate the two.

The most important part is what you can get for $799 or $1299 if you are living large. Beyond that the is little incentive to invest extra money unless you have specific needs. I would have to say that $1299 gets you a hell of a lot more hardware when buying PC components relative to Apple hardware. This is very important because people have to go out, sometimes immediately, and buy additional items to get the Mac to a usable level.

At this moment in tiem there is not an Apple product with any sort of built in memory card reader. Now a good one isn't that expensive that is a given, the problem is that it becoems and extra item that dangles from the machine. Considering Apples former interest in Graphics and Photography it is rather stupid on their part not to atleast support compact flash for the professional market. Pretty much a clear example of Apple ignoring the market and its needs.

There wasn't alot of success with the "switch" ads. The focus on the OS was probally one of the big mistakes there. But then again when your hardware offers nothing of value that can't be had much cheaper in the PC world then I geuss you focus on software. So what do we get with Apple and OS/X; an annual expense and no compatability with the PC world. Granted it isn't all that bad but that is what many see first with Apple.

A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.

Dave

I'm not saying hte iMac isn't a great machine... it is!! I love all of apple's products... but AIO isn't the answer for growing market share.

And yes, you're right.... apple has been "going out of business" for 20 years... and I think its so awesome that they keep at it and keep making profits. I just don't see it staying static like this. 3 years ago market share was 5% (again this is sales, NOT CURRENT USER BASE like everyone gets mixed up). Now they are around 2.5%. Its sad... but if it keeps going down ... what will apple have to do to stay alive then? Jack prices up?

I wasn't clear, I meant the trend will only last so long for adopting new users. Apple has a very loyal customer base. Probably more loyal than any other company has. I don't have statistics but I would be willing to bet most of the users who buy AIO are repeat customers... OR your beginning users. Its time to find a machine that will convert users from PC->Mac.

I'm sorry to get off topic. I love the eMac... have one at work. My boss actually let me borrow it when I didn't have a mac until I bought my rev b g5.

The eMac is a great machine AS IS. I think they should bump up the graphics card and perhaps a faster hard drive (7200 instead of 5400) and finally a faster bus and cpu. That machine would get a lot of attention.

For a long time I cursed the people who wanted a headless iMac... I see the light now... that is what PC users would desire to switch...being that the price on powermacs is WAY too much. How about a dual 1.6 mini tower... for 1400. MMMMM I know many pc users that would switch!!!

It's another example of Apple's form over function policy as well. There's simply no place to put one in Apple's current designs. Then again, Lian-Li managed to squeeze 7 expansion slots, 5 5.25" bays, 6 hard drive bays in a box similar in size and styling to the G5 tower.


Plus the hardware they'd want starts at two grand. You're not going to win to many over when they have to buy a professional workstation just to get a tower.


Of course, the eMac is the ultimate novice machine. I hope they don't make the same mistake they made with the iMac G4 and can the cheap all in one in order to sell more iMacs. We all know how well that worked.

After Tiger, this is a non-issue. Apple has said that after Tiger, they are going to tone back on major ("point") OS updates.

The point I'm trying to make is that OS X is still a relatively new OS, and with new OS's, you are going to get a lot of updates until they get it to where they are comfortable with it. The updates on the 'classic' OS slowed down considerably once we got to System 6. They went from OS 1 to OS 6 in four years ( 1984-1988 ); that's two more updates than OS X in the same four-year time span.

I just think that the 'need' to upgrade will be much less now that Panther (& soon Tiger) are out. Much the same way that MANY home users (mom & pop & granny & etc) are still running Win 95 & 98. I know that my mother (who is of retirement age) is still doing her work on my father's old Quadra 650 (running 7.1), and checking her email on his old P133 Dell running Win 98 (both castoffs from his employment). I think that these are the kind of folks that Apple is largely trying to target with their eMac's and iMac's...and I KNOW my mother doesn't care how much VRAM a computer has, much less what a video card even is.

Even better, my boss's wife still uses an SE for her correspondence, and won't trade it for anything.

Most folks just want a computer that works without ANY user intervention, because they don't want to learn how to be a tech, they just want to check email and look at pictures of Jimmy and Johnny. And an eMac or iMac & Panther does this, and does it very, very well. If my father wasn't so damn cheap, my mother would have a new Mac now, and I could send her photos & movies more often (which, like any mother, she greatly enjoys), since I only see them once or twice a year anymore. As it is, she waits to see them on my father's laptop.

Sorry so long-winded, my $0.01, 'cause my opinion ain't worth much.

You can bump it up another 0.01 cent here. We appreciate opinions .

You're right about hte eMac and iMac working fine for people like the home user group. But the iMac and eMac do LOTS more. In fact, the eMac is an AWESOME programming machine. During my adv. Unix C Programming class I used an eMac 700. I was completely content with this machine. It did everything I needed it to. Keep in mind we did piping, threading, etc. All the cool unix stuff. I suppose the only thing it can't really do / test is 64 bit libraries. But thats ok!! You buy a g5 for that stuff anyways.

My point is the eMac is an awesome machine in more ways than one. Add a little bit of ram to that guy and it will stay good to your for the next year or so... as long as you aren't doing anything processor intense... IE Movie Editing, 3D graphics, and GAmes. If I had a lab for programming... it would probably be all eMacs and a few iMacs/Powermacs for 64bit stuff. The eMacs would definitely be sufficient.

Ok, but to me (and I realize it may be very different for other people), I want something that runs OS X. You can give me all the bus speed, and ghz's as you want, but if it doesn't run OS X, I have very little use for it. Hardware is not irrelivant to me, but it needs to be able to support the programs I use.

Moving on to the point of having to pay for OS upgrades; that's nothing new to the world. The only case where that's not true in today is with Linux/BSD/Solaris(sort of). Paying for commercial software is just a fact of life. True, I would be a happy camper if it were free, but then again I like most free stuff. By comparison to most commercial OS's, the $129 ($69 edu, $107 gov) for a new OS is pretty cheap.

Anyway, I agree with you that people will compare numbers and figures, and realize that on a hardware level, they aren't getting much by comparison. They're missing the bigger point by doing that. People typically buy Macs because they like the OS, and the programs associated, not because they run at x.xghz, and come with a 17" throwaway Dell flatscreen.

Like I said before, that's my opinion on the situation. Going back to the new eMac now... a new, high clocked, expandable (possibly headless) G4 eMac wouldn't fit into Apple's current line. Depending on the price, it could easily undermine the Powermac and iMac. Assuming they would want broad appeal to it, the price would be competitive and profits would be low.

In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.

If this was the case a headless eMac wouldn't cut into sales that much. iMac and a headless unit would be considered completely different computers. Apple sold TONS of computers when they were headless desktops. I know they could do it again if they offered it.

But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.

As PM sales decline — and they inevitably will — the price will go up, not down. The same trend that allowed PC towers to kill the real workstations will eventually kill the PC towers, at least in the professional market.

Bluntly: If you can do your work on a PowerBook, why bother with a PowerMac? At a certain point, the advantages of a tower are outweighed by the disadvantages, or mooted by technological trends. In 1997, 80% of all PowerMac 8600 owners had no PCI cards in their machines. That was before AGP. Now, think about how much less common PCI cards are.


It does what it's designed to do very well.

I don't think emig647 said this, but I'll respond to it here: "the AIO trend?" Who here remembers how Compaq got their name? AIOs have been a "trend" for as long as personal computers have been a "trend," because they make sense. The tower format is a lazy transposition of an old enterprise-friendly format to the consumer market, nothing more. If anything, you'll see fewer towers, not more, moving forward.

Ahh, yes, the Compaq luggable. Now that was a beast of a computer. Beware of any "portable" computer that uses a CRT and takes up more room & weighs more than your other luggage.

I think I saw one in Goodwill for $10 the other day. I was going to buy it if it came down to $5, but someone beat me to it.

Actually I did say AIO trend... and I addressed this already.

However, just because AIO != Towers... doesn't mean AIO != desktops.
Desktops will always be needed, no matter what format / design they are in. Yes AIO has been around forever, but it never picked up speed or had as much speed during the original and DV iMacs.

Laptops aren't practical for everyone. I doubt they ever will be. I know for me they aren't. I can't stand those keyboards. Yes I know I can dock it etc...

Long story short... I was on a powerbook two days ago (1.5 with 128mb vram). And I didn't like it at all. IMO it was a POS for Photoshop, Motion, and Cinema. Perhaps I'm spoiled on a dual 2.0 but I couldn't stand those extra seconds. It was driving me mad. For a machine that costs 2k-2.5k I think it was a rip off.

And when I said AIO trend I was referring directly to macs... not pcs. When I was referring to AIO (I already stated this above), I was referring to switching PC users. AIO will not switch a pc user forever. A 2k-3k desktop won't switch them either.

I wouldn't classify the original Compaqs or Kaypros as portables in the modern sense. They weighed at least 40 pounds—which makes the CRT iMac and the eMac their modern successors. They were luggable desktops.


Um, the original Macintosh line (through the SE/30)? Also a luggable desktop, but at a svelte 8 pounds, it was pretty luggable.

And AIO desktops don't have laptop keyboards, trackpads, or (if their done right) ergonomics, so that's not an issue either. Actually, since my brother got an iCurve and a wireless keyboard and mouse for his PowerBook....


That's why Apple's still selling PowerMacs. What happens when the PowerBook goes dual core? Or G5? Or both?

Apple sold over 600,000 PowerMacs a quarter once, when there were no real alternatives. Since then, as fewer of its features are needed, its market has shrunk accordingly. It's still indisputably useful to some people. But it's receding from the mainstream.

MacWeek UK is produced on eMacs.


The only way to prove or disprove that assertion is to watch how the numbers fall out. I disagree with your assertion, but my opinion carries as much weight as yours here.

For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify. Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.