17" LCD iMac would fly off the shelves
Okay, okay, I know they're having trouble getting the current ones out.
But the more I look at the iMac, visually seems "off". The base is too big in relation to the screen. A larger 17" display would balance it much better.
While it would add substantially to the cost of one, it certainly wouldn't be much to implement for Apple and make it a BTO option.
I'd love to see this sooner than later, but they don't even have 2 of the 3 current models out the door yet. Perhaps a GHZ 17" headed iMac at MWNY?...well okay more likely MWSF 03.
But the more I look at the iMac, visually seems "off". The base is too big in relation to the screen. A larger 17" display would balance it much better.
While it would add substantially to the cost of one, it certainly wouldn't be much to implement for Apple and make it a BTO option.
I'd love to see this sooner than later, but they don't even have 2 of the 3 current models out the door yet. Perhaps a GHZ 17" headed iMac at MWNY?...well okay more likely MWSF 03.
Comments
<strong>News Flash-15" iMac already flying off the shelves. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Really?
We know that. All I'm saying is that I'm hoping for a BTO option soon.
And I wouldn't be so sure the 15" ASD will be around for much longer...and certainly not at that $599 price either.
<strong>I doubt they'll be a BTO for a 17" screen. It weighs more and the current configuration has the CPU and screen in the proper weight ratios. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Although I'm not sure if any tweeking would be necessary to compensate for the extra weight.
But how much more weight is added by having an extra 2" for an LCD display? I would think it would be minimal.
I wouldn't expect it, though for a while.
<strong>$1800 for an imac is already a very high price for a consumer computer. Apple would not do anything else to make it more expensive than it already is</strong><hr></blockquote>
LCD Display
G4 Processor
DVD burner
Most advanced OS available
Easiest software for burning CD's, editing photos, creating home movies & DVDs included
1800 for this "consumer" machine is very reasonable to say the least, especially from apple who has been known to charge and arm and a leg for their comps.
Just my $0.02
<strong>In any event I will be happy so long as we get a resolution change...Mac OS X screams for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no it doesn't. with dock and icon changes os x handles 1024 better than 9. rez is not a problem on the ibooks or imac, however for 1800 i'd like 1280. and if it was available i'd use it.
<strong>$1800 for an imac is already a very high price for a consumer computer. Apple would not do anything else to make it more expensive than it already is</strong><hr></blockquote>
the 1800 iMac and a higher priced one could easily be considered prosumer
G-News
<strong>$1800 for an imac is already a very high price for a consumer computer. Apple would not do anything else to make it more expensive than it already is</strong><hr></blockquote>
for a consumer? yes. for its features and components? no. probably the most reasonably priced mac in a long time.
The simple fact is that if a 17" LCD widescreen or otherwise were released it would be the top seller even if it cost $300 more. The fact is Apple wouldn't want to position the iMac with that spec, it is too close to bottom end Power Macs.
However, when sales of the new iMac fall bellow 100,000 a month and they offer a 19" Lcd for the Power Macs it will come. That probably means another two years.
Incidently I find that making the dock as small as possible and putting it on the right with magnification off is the best place. It hardly effects the desktop real-estate.
<strong>I bet a 10GHz G5 for 1000$ would fly off the shelves too. Get real.
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
how about next time making a relevant post, thank you.
iMac with a 17 inch LCD with identical specs to the high end could sell for $1999 come MWNY or the Fall.
It would be to the imac what the 14 inch iBook is to the iBook.
--Joe
<strong>I was in CompUSA this past weekend drooling over the iMac on display. A gentleman came up and started looking so I stepped aside and we began to talk. The first he did, of course, is move the display. After he moved it in every conceivable direction, his first remark was that Apple should put a 17" "screen on there--It's begging for it!" The demand is out there, it's only a matter of time.
--Joe</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course the demand is out there. When they can do it for a good price it'll be done.
<strong>
Of course the demand is out there. When they can do it for a good price it'll be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't understand that arguement. Even if they could only do it for 2199 or 2299 why not do it if people will pay? maybe not as many will buy as if it were 1999 but still there would be sales. they don't HAVE to order them by the hundreds of thousands.
<hr></blockquote>
YES!!
I have been saying this since the G4 iMac was unvieled. It's obvious strategy and I think that apple wil do it whe wholesael pre ripo to reasnab le levels.
I would personally rather have a larger disp0lay than a superdrive, and many otherws think the same tjhing.
So My guesss is a 17" (possibly 16") LCD iMac for MjkkK gfssssssssss
<strong>
YES!!
... wholesael pre ripo to reasnab le levels.
....So My guesss is a 17" (possibly 16") LCD iMac for MjkkK gfssssssssss</strong><hr></blockquote>
Late night?
If it requires little modification (switch the LCD and perhaps add counterweight to the base), having 17" BTO option is a no brainer.
But as you've pointed out (somewhat), Apple will try to milk as much out of the current config before giving us that option.
Kinda of makes you wonder about Apple's mindset. They have many loyal customers who are willing to shell out for extras but only if it were available.
I understand if they're a bit apprehensive about public perception that their stuff is expensive after the Cube fiasco, but they can market this simply as an add on option.
<strong>If it requires little modification (switch the LCD and perhaps add counterweight to the base), having 17" BTO option is a no brainer.
[...]
I understand if they're a bit apprehensive about public perception that their stuff is expensive after the Cube fiasco, but they can market this simply as an add on option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It'll be a standard feature when it appears - like the bigger iBook screen - so that 1) people know about it, and 2) they can reasonably hope to sell more of them (which means they can order more, and pay less for each one).
The bigger iBook screen is just there for people who thought the pixels on the 12" were too small. That's not a problem with the iMac's screen, so there's no need to introduce another model to compensate. A 17" will appear when the costs become reasonable - not just LCD costs (which are not dropping anymore) but the costs of manufacturing the iMac itself.
Apple could reserve it for the high-end models if they wanted to - $1799 for a SuperDrive, a 17" LCD and a GeForce4MX would be pretty sweet.