? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
I enjoyed your well thought out post. Made me smile.
• a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
• a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
• perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
• a mainstream optical drive
1. and 2. As long as the entry level price of the iMac hovers around a grand, consumers won't be clamouring for upgradable CPUs and GPUs.
3. I don't believe there's been any problem getting high capacity RAM for iMacs for a long time.
4. Yes, this is the biggest problem with the iMac. It's akin to buying a car that doesn't allow you to change the battery yourself. Ridiculous.
5. Would be nice, but USB and Firewire drives are cheap. Time Machine backups should be made to devices on a separate power supply.
6. The SuperDrive is as mainstream as it gets. BR is out there, but by no means a necessity.
What I'm saying is that if Apple engineered a user-replaceable 7200rpm drive in the iMac and gave it a matte screen, 90% of the complaints would disappear. No xMac necessary.
Nice to pop in occasionally, Kasper. Thanks for the welcome back.
Okay.
Now that I've had a chance to use the OTA optical drive "borrowing" feature that the MBA has, why not release an updated AirPort Extreme with the MBA's custom USB circuitry so that you can plug in the MBA DVD drive (or any other USB DVD drive) and share it OTA? Or just release an Airport Extreme with a Blu-Ray drive. It wouldn't take care of everyone's needs, but it would give every Mac (and PC, if they do it right) with a recent OS a Blu-Ray drive, regardless of what hardware it had on board. Sure, it's a bit slower, but it's an optical drive. Slow is a given.
Update the AirPort Express and the various laptops with the same USB circuitry and you have a solution for road warriors, and Apple can eliminate optical drives from the entire lineup if they so choose.
(The only problem I can see with this is Big Content going into a snit over their precious movies being broadcast OTA, even if it's over a protected home network. That wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. But they haven't said anything about Apple's existing implementationg of DVD sharing yet, so maybe there's hope.)
As for the iMac:
Matte screen is an easy option to implement: Coat the glass. Why not, if people want it?
As wizard69 points out, thinner is not mutually exclusive with faster. It just takes a little more work to get there.
Speaking as someone who's looked forward to multicore processing since they were doing it with 604e's: There is no compelling reason to sacrifice clock speed for 4+ cores until enough software takes advantage of more than 2 cores to make up for the hit in speed per core. And although Apple has done good work trying to make parallel programming as painless as possible, it's not easy; it's not something you can bolt on; and there are some problems, like FPS games, that really run best on 1 or 2 cores maximum.
Making it glossy black like the iPhone: No. It's one thing to have a shiny black accessory. It's another to have a shiny black box the size of a television. Generally, the larger the object, the more neutral the color and texture should be. (That said, I really miss the Ruby iMac.)
Blu-ray? Sure, if it's cost effective and the licensing doesn't require Apple to sabotage its hardware and software.
30" screen: Sure, why not? The iMac has already moved into the pro space. Maybe it will come with a quad CPU in recognition of the fact that a significant number of pros will use 4, or 8, or 16 cores, or however many are available.
Replaceable/serviceable innards: Apple did this with the first iMac G5. Then they stopped doing it. I can only assume that the extra cost and effort wasn't worth the payoff. If that's true, it's sad. I liked the maintainability and the VESA compliance of the original iMac G5.
That was a VERY smart move, in my book. The discounted outgoing models are always where the best value for money can be found.
I just picked up a £1,599 MacBook Pro for £1,149. Cheaper than the incoming base 15.4" model, and with a 9600M to boot.
But back to the sentiment of your post.
It is beyond me that Apple continue to put laptop components into a desktop computer that is constantly plugged into the wall. The whole premise of laptop components is to trade performance for battery life. To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag, for a desktop computer which has no real need for low power components ? simply so that you can make the design slimmer and quieter ? is beyond me.
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The iMac is a corporate statement. A design statement. It says 'this is a little slice of the future'. It appeals to people who have an eye for beautiful things and who don't mind paying a premium for such objects of desire. For these customers, the performance of the computer doesn't matter as much as having something beautiful on their desktop that people will complement them on. And that's fine, it's their money, and Apple is simply catering to that market.
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
'I don't really care if the £899 entry level MacBook offers better value for money than the £299 P.O.S. that Tesco are selling ? I may not have a job in 6 months time'.
Perhaps function over form is the order of the day? It certainly wouldn't hurt Apple to open up a new product family and test the water?
So if you were to start with a blank sheet of paper, and pick the components which offered the best back-per-puck (within the consumer marketspace) what would you end up with?
? a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
You can be damn sure that Apple has costed and built prototypes of this machine. And then the accountant pointed out that there was no margin in the product and that Apple would be slitting its own throat. Not only that, but that Apple would be supplying a product that customers would be able to freely upgrade for years to come without any of that revenue stream coming Apple's way.
And you realise that it's perhaps not a reluctancy on Apple's part to compete in the 'xMac' space, but rather a mechanism of survival. Apple know that they can't afford to compete with the cheap HP machines that are everywhere ? there's simply no margin. So all they can do is build beautiful products that convince those with the means to part with the extra cash in order to experience 'a little slice of the future'.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us. So with this in mind, the next iMac won't offer rational benefits like the best performing components for the job, but rather the components that will allow Apple to build a system that will appeal to the emotions. That means thin, desirable, hardware porn.
That means LED panels and 2.5" HDDs that will allow Apple to build a super-thin enclosure. Hell drop the optical drive completely and offer an optional external unit ? it almost worked with the MacBook Air?
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
A very thoughtful and compelling as well as reasoned post.
When are we going to see a damn SSD option for the iMac, the time has come. Come on Apple. As for doing it yourself, don't even think about it. You practically have to rebuild your whole Mac. It's like opening up an iPhone 2G, and we only know what a nightmare that it.
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
Giant flaw in your day dream - why on earth would anyone in their right mind want a 3G connection on a desktop PC? 3G is very, very, VERY slow compared to even a poor cable or ADSL connection. It has massive latency issues, is unstable, drops out continually, and will have crippling bandwidth caps. It's sufferable when on the move simply because it's better than the alternative (no connection at all), but to use 3G at home would be beyond absurd.
When people are using home PCs they like to stream TV shows, download HD movies, upload their photos to flickr, play online games etc. None of those are in any way possible on 3G, nor will they ever be. Maybe some future wireless tech could work, but not 3G.
I think the next major revision of the iMac will include:
1. improved iSight (don'f forget Apple bought 5MP censors a while ago)
Actually this one I'm neutral on. Frankly I don't use iSight so I don't care.
Quote:
2. Core i5 in BTO (Core i5 is released 5. September, very convenient for a autumn or winter refresh)
This would be absolutely terrible because you loose to much with i5 over i7. On an iMac you would want the katest virtualization tech and the other features cut out of i5. I could see i5 in the Mini and maybe the Macbook but that is about it.
Quote:
3. LED backlit display
That would certainly be nice if it saved power. However I would prefer an OLED display.
Quote:
4. upgraded graphics
Yes that would be nice. I'm neutral here again because I'm not convinced that Intel and Nvidia are going to work out their problems in a positive way for computer manufactures. I can see Intel shooting themselves in the foot over this sort of thing.
Quote:
5. minor price cuts
We can all wish but if Apple does make the leap to the newest tech that isn't likely to happen. Especially in a context where they seem to be GPU happy.
Quote:
I'm crossing my fingers, my money is burning in my pocket, but I refuse to buy a iMac runnig Core 2 Duo, and without LED display
In this case I don't blame you one bit. While we can argue about the short comings of Core I5 it is still a massive improvement over Core 2 which has been dead on the desktop for ages now. The LED display I don't know about. Some are no more than an update to the older tech and some far more innovative. In a way it would be nice if Apple could work with Sony on this, their multi LED array models are really sweet.
This would be absolutely terrible because you loose to much with i5 over i7. On an iMac you would want the katest virtualization tech and the other features cut out of i5. I could see i5 in the Mini and maybe the Macbook but that is about it.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
Nononono, not at all. It just means the i7's have special features to hardware-accellerate virtualization and thus enhance the performance of VMs.
i5's have no such features, and neither have Core 2 Duo's.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
It is my understanding that I5 won't have the LATEST virtualization. I don't have the full details but for I5 to exist it obviously can't have everything I7 has or what would be the point. Maybe at a later date I can scare up the chart I found on the net that covered the differences. In any event I wanted to clear this up before to many posts got logged in.
It is not just an issue of special features to accelerate Virtualization, as I7 has much more of its hardware virtualized. That can make a huge difference in how well virtualization works.
In any event I5 does come up short on another tech or two from what I can remember. People seem to think it is just a cheaper version of I7 core but forget to realize that making it cheaper means pulling something out of it. I wouldn't mind one bit seeing I5 in the Mini or even the lowest end iMac, but that won't be a pro machine in my mind.
Comments
? a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
I enjoyed your well thought out post. Made me smile.
Lemon Bon Bon.
• a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
• a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
• a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
• a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
• perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
• a mainstream optical drive
1. and 2. As long as the entry level price of the iMac hovers around a grand, consumers won't be clamouring for upgradable CPUs and GPUs.
3. I don't believe there's been any problem getting high capacity RAM for iMacs for a long time.
4. Yes, this is the biggest problem with the iMac. It's akin to buying a car that doesn't allow you to change the battery yourself. Ridiculous.
5. Would be nice, but USB and Firewire drives are cheap. Time Machine backups should be made to devices on a separate power supply.
6. The SuperDrive is as mainstream as it gets. BR is out there, but by no means a necessity.
What I'm saying is that if Apple engineered a user-replaceable 7200rpm drive in the iMac and gave it a matte screen, 90% of the complaints would disappear. No xMac necessary.
Okay.
Now that I've had a chance to use the OTA optical drive "borrowing" feature that the MBA has, why not release an updated AirPort Extreme with the MBA's custom USB circuitry so that you can plug in the MBA DVD drive (or any other USB DVD drive) and share it OTA? Or just release an Airport Extreme with a Blu-Ray drive. It wouldn't take care of everyone's needs, but it would give every Mac (and PC, if they do it right) with a recent OS a Blu-Ray drive, regardless of what hardware it had on board. Sure, it's a bit slower, but it's an optical drive. Slow is a given.
Update the AirPort Express and the various laptops with the same USB circuitry and you have a solution for road warriors, and Apple can eliminate optical drives from the entire lineup if they so choose.
(The only problem I can see with this is Big Content going into a snit over their precious movies being broadcast OTA, even if it's over a protected home network. That wouldn't surprise me at all, actually. But they haven't said anything about Apple's existing implementationg of DVD sharing yet, so maybe there's hope.)
As for the iMac:
Full agree. I own a 24" current gen iMac - don't think it needs to be slimmer. More RAM capacity and more cores would do it nicely.
I too agree. Throw in a SSD along with Blu-ray, and I think you have a winner.
1. improved iSight (don'f forget Apple bought 5MP censors a while ago)
2. Core i5 in BTO (Core i5 is released 5. September, very convenient for a autumn or winter refresh)
3. LED backlit display
4. upgraded graphics
5. minor price cuts
I'm crossing my fingers, my money is burning in my pocket, but I refuse to buy a iMac runnig Core 2 Duo, and without LED display
That was a VERY smart move, in my book. The discounted outgoing models are always where the best value for money can be found.
I just picked up a £1,599 MacBook Pro for £1,149. Cheaper than the incoming base 15.4" model, and with a 9600M to boot.
But back to the sentiment of your post.
It is beyond me that Apple continue to put laptop components into a desktop computer that is constantly plugged into the wall. The whole premise of laptop components is to trade performance for battery life. To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag, for a desktop computer which has no real need for low power components ? simply so that you can make the design slimmer and quieter ? is beyond me.
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The iMac is a corporate statement. A design statement. It says 'this is a little slice of the future'. It appeals to people who have an eye for beautiful things and who don't mind paying a premium for such objects of desire. For these customers, the performance of the computer doesn't matter as much as having something beautiful on their desktop that people will complement them on. And that's fine, it's their money, and Apple is simply catering to that market.
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
'I don't really care if the £899 entry level MacBook offers better value for money than the £299 P.O.S. that Tesco are selling ? I may not have a job in 6 months time'.
Perhaps function over form is the order of the day? It certainly wouldn't hurt Apple to open up a new product family and test the water?
So if you were to start with a blank sheet of paper, and pick the components which offered the best back-per-puck (within the consumer marketspace) what would you end up with?
? a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
You can be damn sure that Apple has costed and built prototypes of this machine. And then the accountant pointed out that there was no margin in the product and that Apple would be slitting its own throat. Not only that, but that Apple would be supplying a product that customers would be able to freely upgrade for years to come without any of that revenue stream coming Apple's way.
And you realise that it's perhaps not a reluctancy on Apple's part to compete in the 'xMac' space, but rather a mechanism of survival. Apple know that they can't afford to compete with the cheap HP machines that are everywhere ? there's simply no margin. So all they can do is build beautiful products that convince those with the means to part with the extra cash in order to experience 'a little slice of the future'.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us. So with this in mind, the next iMac won't offer rational benefits like the best performing components for the job, but rather the components that will allow Apple to build a system that will appeal to the emotions. That means thin, desirable, hardware porn.
That means LED panels and 2.5" HDDs that will allow Apple to build a super-thin enclosure. Hell drop the optical drive completely and offer an optional external unit ? it almost worked with the MacBook Air?
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
A very thoughtful and compelling as well as reasoned post.
I agreed with it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
Giant flaw in your day dream - why on earth would anyone in their right mind want a 3G connection on a desktop PC? 3G is very, very, VERY slow compared to even a poor cable or ADSL connection. It has massive latency issues, is unstable, drops out continually, and will have crippling bandwidth caps. It's sufferable when on the move simply because it's better than the alternative (no connection at all), but to use 3G at home would be beyond absurd.
When people are using home PCs they like to stream TV shows, download HD movies, upload their photos to flickr, play online games etc. None of those are in any way possible on 3G, nor will they ever be. Maybe some future wireless tech could work, but not 3G.
I think the next major revision of the iMac will include:
1. improved iSight (don'f forget Apple bought 5MP censors a while ago)
Actually this one I'm neutral on. Frankly I don't use iSight so I don't care.
2. Core i5 in BTO (Core i5 is released 5. September, very convenient for a autumn or winter refresh)
This would be absolutely terrible because you loose to much with i5 over i7. On an iMac you would want the katest virtualization tech and the other features cut out of i5. I could see i5 in the Mini and maybe the Macbook but that is about it.
3. LED backlit display
That would certainly be nice if it saved power. However I would prefer an OLED display.
4. upgraded graphics
Yes that would be nice. I'm neutral here again because I'm not convinced that Intel and Nvidia are going to work out their problems in a positive way for computer manufactures. I can see Intel shooting themselves in the foot over this sort of thing.
5. minor price cuts
We can all wish but if Apple does make the leap to the newest tech that isn't likely to happen. Especially in a context where they seem to be GPU happy.
I'm crossing my fingers, my money is burning in my pocket, but I refuse to buy a iMac runnig Core 2 Duo, and without LED display
In this case I don't blame you one bit. While we can argue about the short comings of Core I5 it is still a massive improvement over Core 2 which has been dead on the desktop for ages now. The LED display I don't know about. Some are no more than an update to the older tech and some far more innovative. In a way it would be nice if Apple could work with Sony on this, their multi LED array models are really sweet.
Dave
This would be absolutely terrible because you loose to much with i5 over i7. On an iMac you would want the katest virtualization tech and the other features cut out of i5. I could see i5 in the Mini and maybe the Macbook but that is about it.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
Nononono, not at all. It just means the i7's have special features to hardware-accellerate virtualization and thus enhance the performance of VMs.
i5's have no such features, and neither have Core 2 Duo's.
I wasn't aware i5 didn't have virtualisation. I take it that would mean Parallels etc would no longer be viable on an iMac? I can't believe Apple would make such a stupid decision.
It is my understanding that I5 won't have the LATEST virtualization. I don't have the full details but for I5 to exist it obviously can't have everything I7 has or what would be the point. Maybe at a later date I can scare up the chart I found on the net that covered the differences. In any event I wanted to clear this up before to many posts got logged in.
It is not just an issue of special features to accelerate Virtualization, as I7 has much more of its hardware virtualized. That can make a huge difference in how well virtualization works.
In any event I5 does come up short on another tech or two from what I can remember. People seem to think it is just a cheaper version of I7 core but forget to realize that making it cheaper means pulling something out of it. I wouldn't mind one bit seeing I5 in the Mini or even the lowest end iMac, but that won't be a pro machine in my mind.
Dave