<strong>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.
The new iMac is a consumer targeted computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you notice when they sold iMacs for $1499 and $1299 in 2001 that weren't worth the money, they didn't sell well at all.
Last weekend I went to my local Apple Store and checked out the new iMacs again. I had gone there a few days after they were released when they got display models. I noticed this time that there was a lot more freeplay in the arm where it attatched to the screen. I assume these are the same machines and have gotten a lot of handling over the last few weeks, but seems this is a week point and potential future problem, especially if a bigger, heavier screen is used in the future. This may not turn out to be a big problem for most owners of the new iMac since they won't be yanking on the thing like most people in the store have been doing to test them out, but still I wouldn't be surprised to hear complaints about this in the future after people have been using them for awhile. I think I will wait for rev.b on this one.
thank god, I'm not the only one who is wondering what's up with macintosh.. for a while I thought I was seeing something no one else could see or something <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>thank god, I'm not the only one who is wondering what's up with macintosh.. for a while I thought I was seeing something no one else could see or something <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well with a lot of things dealing with him I don't agree with you on, but this is just crazy. We all know the Cube was a big flop and the iMacs in 2001 were horrible. Macintosh fails to see this.
<strong>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.
The new iMac is a consumer targeted computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Apple didn't turn an operational profit for most if not all of 2001
2.) the iMac line sold far below expectations for the year and was the worst product performer in Apple's lineup and the worse year over year performer vs 2000
3.) the 899 model was the least selling iMac so i don't see how you can say it will sell at that price. the majority of orders for the CRT imac in the last year have probably been education over consumer.
new imac is not consumer targeted and if Apple hinks it is then they are clueless about the market and just lucky they actually made a competitive computer.
Well with a lot of things dealing with him I don't agree with you on, but this is just crazy. We all know the Cube was a big flop and the iMacs in 2001 were horrible. Macintosh fails to see this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now.
The Cube was a very important lesson for Apple, they now know that a prosumer computer isnt a product that has a large enough market. They know that a prosumer computer cant be unexpandable.
The new iMac is the polar opposite of the Cube. It may have a similar price tag on the high end, but it includes a monitor, is all in one, and has every choice in available optical drives.
The Cube sold well with initial sales but then sunk drastically. Apple pulled a bit more life out of it when they added a CD-RW drive and priced it at 1299. The new imac starts at $1299 and goes up to the prosumer price of $1799.
I've already explained and I know you agree because you can't and don't dispute any of the remarks I made. instead you act like a child and post the same thing over and over. read
[quote]The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now. <hr></blockquote>
cool computer. but being a flop is being a flop. there is no way to make it sound better. the only way in which the cube floped is that they didn't sell anything remotely close to what they wanted to
[quote]
The Cube was a very important lesson for Apple, they now know that a prosumer computer isnt a product that has a large enough market. They know that a prosumer computer cant be unexpandable.<hr></blockquote>
1.) Cube did not fail because it was a prosumer computer fool. it failed because it was a ripoff and people didn't want to pay just to have a cool design
2.) they are in the prosumer market now with both the 1799 iMac and the 1799 iBook.
[quote]
The Cube sold well with initial sales but then sunk drastically.<hr></blockquote>
initial sucked too. 120,000 in the first quarter is not good considering it was BRAND NEW and a desktop system. that's far below any other product line when that quarter it should have been the biggest selling product line and apple had anticipated it to be
[quote]Apple pulled a bit more life out of it when they added a CD-RW drive and priced it at 1299.<hr></blockquote>
after they released that update the cube had the worst sales of its life so I don't see how you can say the upgrade helped get more life out of it. I guess selling old overpriced stock at 1299 on clearance hoping to get it out anyway possible is "extending the life"
[quote]The new imac starts at $1299 and goes up to the prosumer price of $1799.<hr></blockquote>
congratulations.. you are almost making sense and understanding things now
The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, the Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made. Personally, I think they could've had it survive at $1799 if it had specs like the iMac currently has. Of course at the time there was no G4 over 500MHz and no superdrives, but the specs that the Cube had weren't worth the money. That's what made it a flop.
You're right, the Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made. Personally, I think they could've had it survive at $1799 if it had specs like the iMac currently has. Of course at the time there was no G4 over 500MHz and no superdrives, but the specs that the Cube had weren't worth the money. That's what made it a flop.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is why, despite all signals suggesting a contrary course of action is advisable, I love Junkyard Dawg.
One simple post filled to the brim with sarcasm, nobody gets it, and you have a two page argument with ugly insults in no time at all - and with no further contribution from the Dawg!
Comments
<strong>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.
The new iMac is a consumer targeted computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you notice when they sold iMacs for $1499 and $1299 in 2001 that weren't worth the money, they didn't sell well at all.
<strong>
But you notice when they sold iMacs for $1499 and $1299 in 2001 that weren't worth the money, they didn't sell well at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do notice that, but the margins on those machines were high enough to keep profits up.
<strong>
I do notice that, but the margins on those machines were high enough to keep profits up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the sad part. If the margins weren't so high, the prices would be lower.
<strong>thank god, I'm not the only one who is wondering what's up with macintosh.. for a while I thought I was seeing something no one else could see or something
Well with a lot of things dealing with him I don't agree with you on, but this is just crazy. We all know the Cube was a big flop and the iMacs in 2001 were horrible. Macintosh fails to see this.
<strong>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.
The new iMac is a consumer targeted computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Apple didn't turn an operational profit for most if not all of 2001
2.) the iMac line sold far below expectations for the year and was the worst product performer in Apple's lineup and the worse year over year performer vs 2000
3.) the 899 model was the least selling iMac so i don't see how you can say it will sell at that price. the majority of orders for the CRT imac in the last year have probably been education over consumer.
new imac is not consumer targeted and if Apple hinks it is then they are clueless about the market and just lucky they actually made a competitive computer.
<strong>Eh, the new iMac is not consumer-targeted? Please explain.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, please explain Applenut.
<strong>
Well with a lot of things dealing with him I don't agree with you on, but this is just crazy. We all know the Cube was a big flop and the iMacs in 2001 were horrible. Macintosh fails to see this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now.
The Cube was a very important lesson for Apple, they now know that a prosumer computer isnt a product that has a large enough market. They know that a prosumer computer cant be unexpandable.
The new iMac is the polar opposite of the Cube. It may have a similar price tag on the high end, but it includes a monitor, is all in one, and has every choice in available optical drives.
The Cube sold well with initial sales but then sunk drastically. Apple pulled a bit more life out of it when they added a CD-RW drive and priced it at 1299. The new imac starts at $1299 and goes up to the prosumer price of $1799.
<strong>Eh, the new iMac is not consumer-targeted? Please explain.</strong><hr></blockquote>
read,
[quote]Yes, please explain Applenut.<hr></blockquote>
I've already explained and I know you agree because you can't and don't dispute any of the remarks I made. instead you act like a child and post the same thing over and over. read
[quote]The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now. <hr></blockquote>
cool computer. but being a flop is being a flop. there is no way to make it sound better. the only way in which the cube floped is that they didn't sell anything remotely close to what they wanted to
[quote]
The Cube was a very important lesson for Apple, they now know that a prosumer computer isnt a product that has a large enough market. They know that a prosumer computer cant be unexpandable.<hr></blockquote>
1.) Cube did not fail because it was a prosumer computer fool. it failed because it was a ripoff and people didn't want to pay just to have a cool design
2.) they are in the prosumer market now with both the 1799 iMac and the 1799 iBook.
[quote]
The Cube sold well with initial sales but then sunk drastically.<hr></blockquote>
initial sucked too. 120,000 in the first quarter is not good considering it was BRAND NEW and a desktop system. that's far below any other product line when that quarter it should have been the biggest selling product line and apple had anticipated it to be
[quote]Apple pulled a bit more life out of it when they added a CD-RW drive and priced it at 1299.<hr></blockquote>
after they released that update the cube had the worst sales of its life so I don't see how you can say the upgrade helped get more life out of it. I guess selling old overpriced stock at 1299 on clearance hoping to get it out anyway possible is "extending the life"
[quote]The new imac starts at $1299 and goes up to the prosumer price of $1799.<hr></blockquote>
congratulations.. you are almost making sense and understanding things now
Back on topic.
The iMac will never have a 17'' screen within this year.
<strong>You present no facts, you make no comments other than "read, i already said that." </strong><hr></blockquote>
yea, it's amazing what one can believe when he/she chooses to read what he/she wants. perfect example
<strong>
The only way in which the Cube flopped was in price. The G4 Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made, I am typing on one right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, the Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made. Personally, I think they could've had it survive at $1799 if it had specs like the iMac currently has. Of course at the time there was no G4 over 500MHz and no superdrives, but the specs that the Cube had weren't worth the money. That's what made it a flop.
<strong>
You're right, the Cube is one of the coolest computers ever made. Personally, I think they could've had it survive at $1799 if it had specs like the iMac currently has. Of course at the time there was no G4 over 500MHz and no superdrives, but the specs that the Cube had weren't worth the money. That's what made it a flop.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
One simple post filled to the brim with sarcasm, nobody gets it, and you have a two page argument with ugly insults in no time at all - and with no further contribution from the Dawg!
<strong>
Agreed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
finally, we agree
<strong>
finally, we agree</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this a sign of the end of the world? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
Is this a sign of the end of the world?
:eek: I really think it is!