I have ordered one of the new iMacs because I want to see if moving down from a 17"CRT to a 15" LCD is going to be acceptable. If they had brought out a 17" LCD iMac I would have ordered seven new iMacs straight away.
Now here's the point.
If the 15" is unacceptable, I will have to buy six Powermacs and Six 17" LCD's to go with them.
What would you advise Apple to do introduce a 17" iMac or not?
come on, so if i stand in front of my tower and someone ejects a cd and it hits me and breaks that's the fault of apple too? jesus. how can they be expected to know what's in front of the cd tray? jesus, they could look... it's not like you can put the base on the floor and the screen somewhere else as is the case with traditional laptops... i'm getting tired of responding to your posts, aren't there other boards you can spam?
also, on your screen size issue, 15" lcd = 17" crt
1.) apple is all about design and elegance. it's not rocket science to make the display arm not make the screen go low enough to interfere with the tray. it's basic stuff
2.) 15 inch LCD DOES NOT equal 17inch CRT. Every 17 inch CRT on the market is nearly ALWAYS 16 inch viewable AND support up to 1600 x 1200. don't make dumb statements based on pr bullshit
[quote]
It is not a big concern for Apple right now anyway. LCD prices are still not low enough to offer a reasonably priced 17" imac in the consumer marketplace. Hopefuly I will get my new iMac before new ones are released! <hr></blockquote>
if people are willing to pay why not offer it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because probably not enough people are willing to pay for it to be a concern. Apple needs to get fast production of the others going first before they even think about a new model. They also have to see how sales hold up over the year.
Why not offer the Cube if people are willing to pay for it? Probably because there is not enough demand for such a high ticket item that has limited appeal in the consumer space. I can imagine Apple sitting a 17'' LCD iMac for $2,199 next to a $1,200 VAIO at Circuit City.
Apple hit a homer wih the new iMac and you shouldnt be complaining about it. It is nearly the perfect consumer computer.
<strong>I have ordered one of the new iMacs because I want to see if moving down from a 17"CRT to a 15" LCD is going to be acceptable. If they had brought out a 17" LCD iMac I would have ordered seven new iMacs straight away.
Now here's the point.
If the 15" is unacceptable, I will have to buy six Powermacs and Six 17" LCD's to go with them.
What would you advise Apple to do introduce a 17" iMac or not?
Because probably not enough people are willing to pay for it to be a concern. Apple needs to get fast production of the others going first before they even think about a new model. They also have to see how sales hold up over the year.
Why not offer the Cube if people are willing to pay for it? Probably because there is not enough demand for such a high ticket item that has limited appeal in the consumer space. I can imagine Apple sitting a 17'' LCD iMac for $2,199 next to a $1,200 VAIO at Circuit City.
Apple hit a homer wih the new iMac and you shouldnt be complaining about it. It is nearly the perfect consumer computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you're wrong
1.) the added R/D cost of a 17 inch iMac is next to nothing. all they do is place a 17 inch display on it and call it a day
2.) they did the exact same thing with the iBook 14 inch even though it wasn't a "popular" request. it's not likely to be the biggest seller but there are people who want it and it didn't cost much to develope. same thing with the iMac
3.) The iMac is in a completely different situation than the cube and its a dumb analogy for you to make. the iMac has sales. the cube never did. the imac is standing on solid ground and will make money no matter if apple makes a 17 inch version BTO or as a prebuilt
4.) already a 17inch version is the most requested update besides gpu so I don't know where you get that there is limited demand?
5.) oh and a 1799 15 inch iMac looks better next to a 999 16 inch LCD PC?
6.) don't use rolleyes when you make a dumb uninformed post. makes you look dumber
That's why there's two other models.</strong><hr></blockquote>
never said there weren't. if apple is willing to offer models at a very prosumer price and the majority of people are buying it at that price there is no reason to think that a 17 inch model would not be a good descision for 1999 or so.
and Macintosh's original statement was that a 17 icnh would somehow not make the iMac a consumer machine anymore. IT ISN'T NOW!
never said there weren't. if apple is willing to offer models at a very prosumer price and the majority of people are buying it at that price there is no reason to think that a 17 inch model would not be a good descision for 1999 or so.
and Macintosh's original statement was that a 17 icnh would somehow not make the iMac a consumer machine anymore. IT ISN'T NOW!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am sorry but you are just wrong.
The Cube did have ales at first, accounting for 10% of all Apple Hardware sales at one time.
In what way isnt the iMac a consumer machine? You are just dumb to say that. Not only is it a consumer machine it is the best consumer machine on the market. People will and do pay a little more for a better machine, especially since the diference between an $899 computer and a $1299 computer is only $400. But the difference between the $899 machine and the $1299 machine is great in terms of performance.
[quote]I am sorry but you are just wrong.<hr></blockquote>
nope. I'm not
[quote]
The Cube did have ales at first, accounting for 10% of all Apple Hardware sales at one time.<hr></blockquote>
uh... you think that's good? lol. what a dipshit.
that 10% came when it was first introduced. being 1/5 of the overall product line, a desktop, and a brand new release the percentage of sales should have been FAR MORE than 10%. the fact that you claim 10% was good shows how out of touch you are with what you are talking about
[quote]
In what way isnt the iMac a consumer machine? You are just dumb to say that.<hr></blockquote>
no it isn't. The 1799 iMac and arguably the whole imac LCD line is more of a consumer-midrange-prosumer line. in that order. to say the 1799 iMac is strictly a consumer machine is dumb and ignorant. A very high portion of its sales are going to people who use it for their profession and who would have bought a powermac had that 1799 imac not been there
[quote]Not only is it a consumer machine it is the best consumer machine on the market<hr></blockquote>
yawn.. can you at least prove a point or participate in an arguement without using dumb apple propaganda? it doesn't help you.
[quote]People will and do pay a little more for a better machine, especially since the diference between an $899 computer and a $1299 computer is only $400.<hr></blockquote>
I guess that's why sub 1000 PCs are still the biggest sellers and price is the number once concern of potential buyers
[quote]But the difference between the $899 machine and the $1299 machine is great in terms of performance.<hr></blockquote>
what 899 machine?
[quote]
Apple's iMac product line is priced from $799 to $1799. Sounds pretty consumerish to me.<hr></blockquote>
again, you're not very good with reading comprehension. I said the 1799 imac and arguably the other LCD imacs are more of a midrange/prosumer lineup than consumer machines. the 1799 imac most definitely is and I used that to justify the market for a 17 inch iMac priced a bit higher. you have yet to dispute that and instead just go off saying everything is consumer and apple is god
The Cube had a sustained 10% sales rate for almost its entire life, but alas it wasnt what Apple had hoped for and they had to ice it.
The new iMac is in the price range of the Cube but the differnce is the iMac has a built in screen all with more power than the original Cube and at $100 less.
The new iMac for $1799 is a consumer computer, obviously Apple knows that the prosumer market is too small so they wont go there ever again.
Argue the fact that the iMac isnt a consumer computer all you want, I bought one and I am not prosumer or profesional.
What do you want? Apple will not go into troubled waters for the sake of a few applenuts who think they need more screen space on a consumer machine.
Apple sold 6 million iMacs that had built in 13.8'' viewable screens.
[quote]The Cube had a sustained 10% sales rate for almost its entire life, but alas it wasnt what Apple had hoped for and they had to ice it.<hr></blockquote>
uh.. no. apple sold 120,000 in its first quarter of availability and then sales dropped down to the 20,000 range. how that equals 10% throughout its life I don't know
[quote]
The new iMac is in the price range of the Cube but the differnce is the iMac has a built in screen all with more power than the original Cube and at $100 less.<hr></blockquote>
makes that cube like it was a good idea huh?
[quote]
The new iMac for $1799 is a consumer computer, obviously Apple knows that the prosumer market is too small so they wont go there ever again. <hr></blockquote>
uh... they are there. just because you have no idea what that means doesn't mean they aren't <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]
Argue the fact that the iMac isnt a consumer computer all you want, I bought one and I am not prosumer or profesional. <hr></blockquote>
congratulations. and so did many other like you. but it is very much a prosumer machine at a prosumer price point.
I own a Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G4. I'm far from a professional but do you not consider those professional machines now because consumers also buy those?
you're arguements make no sense
[quote]
Apple sold 6 million iMacs that had built in 13.8'' viewable screens.<hr></blockquote>
they dragged the life out of the 13.8 inch imac for as long as they could and basically abused it left and right and let sales slow down until they sucked beyond belief and they still don't have the honor to kill it or at least give it a bit of a face lift
they dragged the life out of the 13.8 inch imac for as long as they could and basically abused it left and right and let sales slow down until they sucked beyond belief and they still don't have the honor to kill it or at least give it a bit of a face lift</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
They abused it left and right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
what are you smoking son? iMac sales were horrible in 2001. worst ever. pitiful. the imac needed an update eas early as MWT last year and instead Apple released Flower Power :eek:
I just don't know where you come up with some of your stuff sometimes. it is just so wrong.
I've gotta side with Applenut on this one. The iMac is not a consumer machine at all. It is targeted at the midrange market. The old carried over iMacs are for the consumers, and maybe the LCD CDRW model. Anything above $1300 is a midrange computer. While it may be a consumer product to a person who is looking at Macs that cost $2000 all of his life, the rest of the market sees differently. Any person who walks into CompUSA looking for a "consumer" computer is not expecting to pay $1800. That is midrange, and gleaning dangerously close to high end.
The cube was a flop. A complete flop. They invested a ton of R & D dollars into it. The cube did not have sales numbers anywhere near Apple's expectations. That's why they pulled the plug on it.
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
They abused it left and right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was one of the stupidest things you've ever said (well maybe not since you say a lot). The CRT iMac stopped selling well over a year ago. Flower Power's real cool <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> . The iMac's performace to price ratio was absolutely horribe. $1499 for the 700MHz iMac was such a ripoff. Give me a break Macintosh, have you become Steve Jobs' bitch?
Apple imac sales were indeed bad in 2001 but not outrageously bad enough to make Apple lose profits.
Apple is a smart company and they charged the hell out of people for those iMacs near the end. Apple should sell their $899 for $599 but they just wont because it will sell at $899.
Comments
Now here's the point.
If the 15" is unacceptable, I will have to buy six Powermacs and Six 17" LCD's to go with them.
What would you advise Apple to do introduce a 17" iMac or not?
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: JW Pepper ]</p>
<strong>
also, on your screen size issue, 15" lcd = 17" crt
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) apple is all about design and elegance. it's not rocket science to make the display arm not make the screen go low enough to interfere with the tray. it's basic stuff
2.) 15 inch LCD DOES NOT equal 17inch CRT. Every 17 inch CRT on the market is nearly ALWAYS 16 inch viewable AND support up to 1600 x 1200. don't make dumb statements based on pr bullshit
[quote]
It is not a big concern for Apple right now anyway. LCD prices are still not low enough to offer a reasonably priced 17" imac in the consumer marketplace. Hopefuly I will get my new iMac before new ones are released! <hr></blockquote>
if people are willing to pay why not offer it?
<strong>
if people are willing to pay why not offer it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because probably not enough people are willing to pay for it to be a concern. Apple needs to get fast production of the others going first before they even think about a new model. They also have to see how sales hold up over the year.
Why not offer the Cube if people are willing to pay for it? Probably because there is not enough demand for such a high ticket item that has limited appeal in the consumer space. I can imagine Apple sitting a 17'' LCD iMac for $2,199 next to a $1,200 VAIO at Circuit City.
Apple hit a homer wih the new iMac and you shouldnt be complaining about it. It is nearly the perfect consumer computer.
<strong>I have ordered one of the new iMacs because I want to see if moving down from a 17"CRT to a 15" LCD is going to be acceptable. If they had brought out a 17" LCD iMac I would have ordered seven new iMacs straight away.
Now here's the point.
If the 15" is unacceptable, I will have to buy six Powermacs and Six 17" LCD's to go with them.
What would you advise Apple to do introduce a 17" iMac or not?
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: JW Pepper ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Depends on where the margin is better. Apple might be better off if you buy the six Powermacs and six 17" monitors.
<strong>
Because probably not enough people are willing to pay for it to be a concern. Apple needs to get fast production of the others going first before they even think about a new model. They also have to see how sales hold up over the year.
Why not offer the Cube if people are willing to pay for it? Probably because there is not enough demand for such a high ticket item that has limited appeal in the consumer space. I can imagine Apple sitting a 17'' LCD iMac for $2,199 next to a $1,200 VAIO at Circuit City.
Apple hit a homer wih the new iMac and you shouldnt be complaining about it. It is nearly the perfect consumer computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you're wrong
1.) the added R/D cost of a 17 inch iMac is next to nothing. all they do is place a 17 inch display on it and call it a day
2.) they did the exact same thing with the iBook 14 inch even though it wasn't a "popular" request. it's not likely to be the biggest seller but there are people who want it and it didn't cost much to develope. same thing with the iMac
3.) The iMac is in a completely different situation than the cube and its a dumb analogy for you to make. the iMac has sales. the cube never did. the imac is standing on solid ground and will make money no matter if apple makes a 17 inch version BTO or as a prebuilt
4.) already a 17inch version is the most requested update besides gpu so I don't know where you get that there is limited demand?
5.) oh and a 1799 15 inch iMac looks better next to a 999 16 inch LCD PC?
6.) don't use rolleyes when you make a dumb uninformed post. makes you look dumber
<strong>
Apple hit a homer wih the new iMac and you shouldnt be complaining about it. It is nearly the perfect consumer computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
at 1799 the iMac is hardly a strictly consumer computer
<strong>
at 1799 the iMac is hardly a strictly consumer computer</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why there's two other models.
<strong>
That's why there's two other models.</strong><hr></blockquote>
never said there weren't. if apple is willing to offer models at a very prosumer price and the majority of people are buying it at that price there is no reason to think that a 17 inch model would not be a good descision for 1999 or so.
and Macintosh's original statement was that a 17 icnh would somehow not make the iMac a consumer machine anymore. IT ISN'T NOW!
<strong>
never said there weren't. if apple is willing to offer models at a very prosumer price and the majority of people are buying it at that price there is no reason to think that a 17 inch model would not be a good descision for 1999 or so.
and Macintosh's original statement was that a 17 icnh would somehow not make the iMac a consumer machine anymore. IT ISN'T NOW!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am sorry but you are just wrong.
The Cube did have ales at first, accounting for 10% of all Apple Hardware sales at one time.
In what way isnt the iMac a consumer machine? You are just dumb to say that. Not only is it a consumer machine it is the best consumer machine on the market. People will and do pay a little more for a better machine, especially since the diference between an $899 computer and a $1299 computer is only $400. But the difference between the $899 machine and the $1299 machine is great in terms of performance.
"The iMac is not a consumer computer."
-Applenut
Apple's iMac product line is priced from $799 to $1799. Sounds pretty consumerish to me.
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
nope. I'm not
[quote]
The Cube did have ales at first, accounting for 10% of all Apple Hardware sales at one time.<hr></blockquote>
uh... you think that's good? lol. what a dipshit.
that 10% came when it was first introduced. being 1/5 of the overall product line, a desktop, and a brand new release the percentage of sales should have been FAR MORE than 10%. the fact that you claim 10% was good shows how out of touch you are with what you are talking about
[quote]
In what way isnt the iMac a consumer machine? You are just dumb to say that.<hr></blockquote>
no it isn't. The 1799 iMac and arguably the whole imac LCD line is more of a consumer-midrange-prosumer line. in that order. to say the 1799 iMac is strictly a consumer machine is dumb and ignorant. A very high portion of its sales are going to people who use it for their profession and who would have bought a powermac had that 1799 imac not been there
[quote]Not only is it a consumer machine it is the best consumer machine on the market<hr></blockquote>
yawn.. can you at least prove a point or participate in an arguement without using dumb apple propaganda? it doesn't help you.
[quote]People will and do pay a little more for a better machine, especially since the diference between an $899 computer and a $1299 computer is only $400.<hr></blockquote>
I guess that's why sub 1000 PCs are still the biggest sellers and price is the number once concern of potential buyers
[quote]But the difference between the $899 machine and the $1299 machine is great in terms of performance.<hr></blockquote>
what 899 machine?
[quote]
Apple's iMac product line is priced from $799 to $1799. Sounds pretty consumerish to me.<hr></blockquote>
again, you're not very good with reading comprehension. I said the 1799 imac and arguably the other LCD imacs are more of a midrange/prosumer lineup than consumer machines. the 1799 imac most definitely is and I used that to justify the market for a 17 inch iMac priced a bit higher. you have yet to dispute that and instead just go off saying everything is consumer and apple is god
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
BTW, the 799-999 imacs are a different lineup buddy. No one is even talking about those.
The new iMac is in the price range of the Cube but the differnce is the iMac has a built in screen all with more power than the original Cube and at $100 less.
The new iMac for $1799 is a consumer computer, obviously Apple knows that the prosumer market is too small so they wont go there ever again.
Argue the fact that the iMac isnt a consumer computer all you want, I bought one and I am not prosumer or profesional.
What do you want? Apple will not go into troubled waters for the sake of a few applenuts who think they need more screen space on a consumer machine.
Apple sold 6 million iMacs that had built in 13.8'' viewable screens.
uh.. no. apple sold 120,000 in its first quarter of availability and then sales dropped down to the 20,000 range. how that equals 10% throughout its life I don't know
[quote]
The new iMac is in the price range of the Cube but the differnce is the iMac has a built in screen all with more power than the original Cube and at $100 less.<hr></blockquote>
makes that cube like it was a good idea huh?
[quote]
The new iMac for $1799 is a consumer computer, obviously Apple knows that the prosumer market is too small so they wont go there ever again. <hr></blockquote>
uh... they are there. just because you have no idea what that means doesn't mean they aren't <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[quote]
Argue the fact that the iMac isnt a consumer computer all you want, I bought one and I am not prosumer or profesional. <hr></blockquote>
congratulations. and so did many other like you. but it is very much a prosumer machine at a prosumer price point.
I own a Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G4. I'm far from a professional but do you not consider those professional machines now because consumers also buy those?
you're arguements make no sense
[quote]
Apple sold 6 million iMacs that had built in 13.8'' viewable screens.<hr></blockquote>
they dragged the life out of the 13.8 inch imac for as long as they could and basically abused it left and right and let sales slow down until they sucked beyond belief and they still don't have the honor to kill it or at least give it a bit of a face lift
<strong>
they dragged the life out of the 13.8 inch imac for as long as they could and basically abused it left and right and let sales slow down until they sucked beyond belief and they still don't have the honor to kill it or at least give it a bit of a face lift</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
They abused it left and right?
<strong>
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
They abused it left and right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
what are you smoking son? iMac sales were horrible in 2001. worst ever. pitiful. the imac needed an update eas early as MWT last year and instead Apple released Flower Power :eek:
I just don't know where you come up with some of your stuff sometimes. it is just so wrong.
The cube was a flop. A complete flop. They invested a ton of R & D dollars into it. The cube did not have sales numbers anywhere near Apple's expectations. That's why they pulled the plug on it.
<strong>
You are bitter about someting and your arguments dont make sense. The iMac was such a good machine that they didnt need the new one until recently.
They abused it left and right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was one of the stupidest things you've ever said (well maybe not since you say a lot). The CRT iMac stopped selling well over a year ago. Flower Power's real cool <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> . The iMac's performace to price ratio was absolutely horribe. $1499 for the 700MHz iMac was such a ripoff. Give me a break Macintosh, have you become Steve Jobs' bitch?
Apple is a smart company and they charged the hell out of people for those iMacs near the end. Apple should sell their $899 for $599 but they just wont because it will sell at $899.
The new iMac is a consumer targeted computer.