Considering the sales of the 15" LCD iMac plus their production problems plus the cost/pricing issue with a 17" LCD , we won't see one for a little while, but no doubt one will come and they will sell like hotcakes if they price it as the high-end $1799 model.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but I really don't think Apple's going to price an iMac over $2000 ever.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because economies of scale wouldn't kick in if they only manufactured a modest number of them; they then couldn't get as substantial volume discounts on the flat panels, and scale down the manufacturing costs, and the end product would cost more than it otherwise would anyway.
And also because the last thing the Macintosh needs is an even stronger reputation as an "expensive" computer. If Apple sold any kind of consumer machine for $2200, many people would assume that *any* Mac was out of their price range.
A 16 or 17 incher iMac wouldn't cost all that much more....hell if Apple can sell one for $1800 with a superdrive then they can probably sell a 17" iMac for less than $1800 (w/o superdrive, of course). I think Apple will soon find that most people don't give a rat's *** about the superdrive, especially when they find out how bad it sucks for CD-rom read speeds and burning speeds for CDr and CDRW. The combo drive or just a plain CDRW drive is what most people want for the iMac.
Because economies of scale wouldn't kick in if they only manufactured a modest number of them; they then couldn't get as substantial volume discounts on the flat panels, and scale down the manufacturing costs, and the end product would cost more than it otherwise would anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the perception that Macs are too expensive, you'd never guess it by the number of iMac orders. But yes, there is a limit to how much people will pay (e.g. Cube).
However, if a new line of stand alone LCD's (17", 19" and 24") were to be introduced with a similar design to the one on the iMac, it may keep manufacturing costs down.
And JYD, I too believe the price can be kept at or around $1800 if the Superdrive is not standard.
I not sure what sort of reaction people have with the Superdrive. But given that the mid and low range iMacs aren't available, many don't have much of an option.
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><hr></blockquote>
yes, it does. everything by default save scroll bars is bigger in os x than 9, and would look better at a higher res. 1024x768 in x is comparable to 800x600 in 9. it really needs 1280. making x comprable to 9 means making everything smaller, which you shouldnt have to do. come on, 4 years ago apple introduced the &1299 bondi blue imac with a 15 inch crt at 1024x768. its time to make it better.
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
A 16 or 17 incher iMac wouldn't cost all that much more....hell if Apple can sell one for $1800 with a superdrive then they can probably sell a 17" iMac for less than $1800 (w/o superdrive, of course). I think Apple will soon find that most people don't give a rat's *** about the superdrive, especially when they find out how bad it sucks for CD-rom read speeds and burning speeds for CDr and CDRW. The combo drive or just a plain CDRW drive is what most people want for the iMac.
Apple will learn the hard way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
no, you dont want it for the imac. most people love the novelty, they like to be able to make dvds for their friends and family as dvd players become more and more common. others like myself love the high ammount of storage and small ammount of media for backups. the superdrive is great and its part of why the high end imac is the best selling, most liked by consumers, and considered a steal. apple wont learn the hard way because there is nothing to learn, they love to give technology like this to consumers first (think usb, firewire)
I think the current iMac is a good consumer package, and the PowerMac is a great value for someone who wants a 17" display. I'd also add that the most requested update to the CRT iMac was a 17" model, which is essentially what we now have in terms of viewable area; Apple definitely listened to consumers here, as they could easily have gone with a 14" and saved a little cash. I also agree with the policy of trying to keep it around the original iMac's price point...definitely no need to test the market's tolerance in today's economy. And you can't find a brighter, better-looking 15" display on any other consumer-level machine.
That said, as a PowerBook user I think I would request the 15.2" wide screen on the iMac before a 17". I can't imagine it raising the cost very much, and the extra space provides for the dock (I keep mine on the right side and love using it there...I think another user posted the same thing earlier in this thread). Not to mention DVD viewing.
Of course, technology will advance and we'll eventually have a 17" iMac, I don't doubt it. But taking into account that we don't live in the future, I have no complaints about the new model...
the only witch bughs me about the imac2, and the only thing witch keeps me from getting one is the little annoying fact that resolution for the screen on the new imac is the same as my 13.8 in veiwable imac1, drives me insane about that.
This just in: for 2899 Canadian (about 1900 US) a clone vendor in Toronto will sell you a 1.133Ghz P3/Combo-drive/17" LCD all-in-one. From the picture in the paper, it doesn't look all tht pretty, but it isn't a misprint, they also sell a 15" LCD model for 300 less.
at what price for this 17" iMac??? i paid 1799 for my iMac (1749 actually at education store)...for 1999 i would have bought a 17", for 2099 maybe, but probably not any higher...as for it not fitting the base...i highly question that as a user...i don't even see the base on my unit unless i stand the screen all the way up....the base is Completely blocked by the screen from my viewing angle..all i see is the screen...i love it!...g
though, of course, bigger is usually better...just can't see apple matching the price of 1799 for a bigger lcd any time soon...prices still seem to high...hope i am wrong and all you folks who waited will get an even nicer iMac than i have....g
Comments
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but I really don't think Apple's going to price an iMac over $2000 ever.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because economies of scale wouldn't kick in if they only manufactured a modest number of them; they then couldn't get as substantial volume discounts on the flat panels, and scale down the manufacturing costs, and the end product would cost more than it otherwise would anyway.
And also because the last thing the Macintosh needs is an even stronger reputation as an "expensive" computer. If Apple sold any kind of consumer machine for $2200, many people would assume that *any* Mac was out of their price range.
Apple will learn the hard way.
<strong>
Because economies of scale wouldn't kick in if they only manufactured a modest number of them; they then couldn't get as substantial volume discounts on the flat panels, and scale down the manufacturing costs, and the end product would cost more than it otherwise would anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the perception that Macs are too expensive, you'd never guess it by the number of iMac orders. But yes, there is a limit to how much people will pay (e.g. Cube).
However, if a new line of stand alone LCD's (17", 19" and 24") were to be introduced with a similar design to the one on the iMac, it may keep manufacturing costs down.
And JYD, I too believe the price can be kept at or around $1800 if the Superdrive is not standard.
I not sure what sort of reaction people have with the Superdrive. But given that the mid and low range iMacs aren't available, many don't have much of an option.
<strong>
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><hr></blockquote>
yes, it does. everything by default save scroll bars is bigger in os x than 9, and would look better at a higher res. 1024x768 in x is comparable to 800x600 in 9. it really needs 1280. making x comprable to 9 means making everything smaller, which you shouldnt have to do. come on, 4 years ago apple introduced the &1299 bondi blue imac with a 15 inch crt at 1024x768. its time to make it better.
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
A 16 or 17 incher iMac wouldn't cost all that much more....hell if Apple can sell one for $1800 with a superdrive then they can probably sell a 17" iMac for less than $1800 (w/o superdrive, of course). I think Apple will soon find that most people don't give a rat's *** about the superdrive, especially when they find out how bad it sucks for CD-rom read speeds and burning speeds for CDr and CDRW. The combo drive or just a plain CDRW drive is what most people want for the iMac.
Apple will learn the hard way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
no, you dont want it for the imac. most people love the novelty, they like to be able to make dvds for their friends and family as dvd players become more and more common. others like myself love the high ammount of storage and small ammount of media for backups. the superdrive is great and its part of why the high end imac is the best selling, most liked by consumers, and considered a steal. apple wont learn the hard way because there is nothing to learn, they love to give technology like this to consumers first (think usb, firewire)
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
That said, as a PowerBook user I think I would request the 15.2" wide screen on the iMac before a 17". I can't imagine it raising the cost very much, and the extra space provides for the dock (I keep mine on the right side and love using it there...I think another user posted the same thing earlier in this thread). Not to mention DVD viewing.
Of course, technology will advance and we'll eventually have a 17" iMac, I don't doubt it. But taking into account that we don't live in the future, I have no complaints about the new model...
S
though, of course, bigger is usually better...just can't see apple matching the price of 1799 for a bigger lcd any time soon...prices still seem to high...hope i am wrong and all you folks who waited will get an even nicer iMac than i have....g