Bottom end mac? hmm...

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
With MWNY around the figurative corner, the death of the iMac classic seems inevitable. Will there be something to replace it? I think apple should make something to compete with the $500 PCs you see. I think they should make sort of an... LC IV.



-700Mhz G3 or G4 (G4 as an upgrade, G3 as base model)

-128MB of ram (base)

-40GB U6 hard drive

-Rage 128 onboard

-the old LC startup chime as a reference back

-2x AGP and one 33Mhz PCI slot

-$599 base G3, $749 base G4.



That would be cool.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 65
    dobbydobby Posts: 794member
    I think they would probably call it an Emac.



    Dobby
  • Reply 2 of 65
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    And um. Like, why wouldn't Apple just keep the G3 iMac instead of wasting their margins on R&D/production for something like that?



    Heh. That was rhetorical, before you answer. Not a worthwhile idea, IMHO. They could lower the G3 iMac's price, though, and maybe give us a snazzy new color.
  • Reply 3 of 65
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:

    <strong>And um. Like, why wouldn't Apple just keep the G3 iMac instead of wasting their margins on R&D/production for something like that?



    Heh. That was rhetorical, before you answer. Not a worthwhile idea, IMHO. They could lower the G3 iMac's price, though, and maybe give us a snazzy new color.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    beige
  • Reply 4 of 65
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    "nu-beige" The New Apple Beige
  • Reply 5 of 65
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    As a school teacher with 4 iMacs in my classroom. I wish Apple would continue to make the classic iMac for quite a while. They are very quiet and just perfect for schools.



    The new 700-800 mhz G3 used in the iBook is quite snappy from various forum responses and changing the motherboard for new video isn't honestly all that hard. iMacG4 should go to geforce4mx and iMac classic should go to Geforce 2mx. If Apple started popping them out at $499 they couldn't sell enough of them.



    Trumptman
  • Reply 6 of 65
    Apple is certianly losing a lot of customers by not having an affordible, upgradible computer. Rage 128, and even Geforce 2Mx are quite dated cards. It is one thing to ship a computer with a c ard like that (many PC manufacturers ship with lesser cards) but entirely another to ship a computer with that and not have any upgrade path. there are so many kids without much money to spend on computers who want something they can keep a good video card in. $1600 is the cheapest upgradible apple computer on the market. That will drive those consumers either to eBay (where apple makes no money) or to the PC platform. You realize the Rage 128 card in the iMac G3s is soldered onto a 2X AGP slot. If it wasn't soldered down, I could put Radeon 8500 in there. I do like the eMac, and I would get one, but I don't want to be stuck with Geforce2mx for the life of te computer. Fortunately for my dad, he's on the education circuit, and he was able to get a G4/733 for $1,182, but most can't do that. I will certianly go to eBay and get an old G4 or blue G3 for my next computer.
  • Reply 7 of 65
    "As a school teacher with 4 iMacs in my classroom. I wish Apple would continue to make the classic iMac for quite a while. They are very quiet and just perfect for schools.

    The new 700-800 mhz G3 used in the iBook is quite snappy from various forum responses and changing the motherboard for new video isn't honestly all that hard. iMacG4 should go to geforce4mx and iMac classic should go to Geforce 2mx. If Apple started popping them out at $499 they couldn't sell enough of them."



    As a teacher myself, I have to ditto that.



    Apple are missing out on a heap of edu' sales due to not having a £500 inc VAT model.



    The base imac CRT should have a 700-800 G3 already AND Geforce 2mx.



    At $499 that would probably work out at £350. It would offer schools with problematic NT networks a compelling alternative.



    I'd buy one myself for that kinda price



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 8 of 65
    apple really does need a small semi-upgradeable CHEAP model. hmmmm i believe apple already did the R&D on this. It's called the cube. reintro the cube with a really crappy $499 model going up to a $999 decent model.



    people want the cube give it back to us.
  • Reply 9 of 65
    "Apple is certianly losing a lot of customers by not having an affordible, upgradible computer. Rage 128, and even Geforce 2Mx are quite dated cards. It is one thing to ship a computer with a c ard like that (many PC manufacturers ship with lesser cards) but entirely another to ship a computer with that and not have any upgrade path. "



    and...



    "$1600 is the cheapest upgradible apple computer on the market. "



    Yeah. We know. I sympathise with what you're saying, Blackbird.



    There's no doubt that Apple has conquered many of its old demons eg 'not invented here', modern OS, relevance, retail presence, a sub £1000 computer and having a decent range of its OWN software etc.



    BUT, the 'value added' approach aint that value added! Being stuck with a Geforce 2mx on an LCD is pathetic. There should be an option for a Titanium! And...why no option for a bigger screen?



    emac. Nice computer. But where are the options to upgrade the graphics card?



    As many customers as wins with its 'simplicity' it pushes more away (remember the Cube debacle?)



    They still don't see the 'BIG' picture. If sub £500 PCs have an upgrade path then why don't Apple's costing up to £1,800 inc Vat? It's ridiculous.



    Anyways. You two guys said it better than I did.



    If Apple want people to 'switch' then give them a low-cost low risk option? A sub £500 imac crt could be it. If they only made £10-25 on each one then with the amount of 'switchers' they're after...it could soon add up...and there's that 'double' yer market share thing too...



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 10 of 65
    "apple really does need a small semi-upgradeable CHEAP model. hmmmm i believe apple already did the R&D on this. It's called the cube. reintro the cube with a really crappy $499 model going up to a $999 decent model.

    people want the cube give it back to us."



    Yeah. Now THAT I WOULD buy in a second



    Tear their arm off and LCD monitor of my choice. I'd be in heaven.



    No monitor. A Geforce 2mx. A G3 700 mhz. Bare bones everything else. (For me, the Cube's enclosure needed to be a bit bigger alround for industry standard components eg graphics card...)



    Sub: £500.



    Just how much would it cost to put out a sub £500 block of plastic anyhow?



    The Cube: Gorgeous. The perfect 'switch' machine.



    Wake up Apple! Quit the built in 'obselete'.



    Lemon Bon Bon



    [ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 65
    cablecable Posts: 76member
    You want cheap Macs? How about they use the Mac Classic Case and stick a 9 inch monitor in there? Have a port to use an external monitor if needed. Use one or two PCI slots, a few USB ports, and call it an affordable portable classic Mac. It could be make in tan, black, grey, and white for the cases.



    Or better yet, make a G4 iMac dome without the LCD monitor and have them attach any monitor they want to it to keep the costs down. I figure that 15" LCD screen adds to at least 1/3rd the system cost. Make it red and white and call it R5G4 or something



    Or open up the Mac Clone market, bad for Apple but good for the Mac and Mac Users. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Cable ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 65
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    For a really low end Mac, no monitor makes sense. Many people have one they could use, so their initial cost is less. I proposed what might be called a hobby Mac over a year ago. It had two PCI slots, and really low end video on board. There are many applications for controller and special uses that do not need great video. PCI slots are a must for lab type controller output and other special needs. With PCI slots better video could be added, if needed. Also no modem, that could be added too, but most hobby/lab control uses do not need it. Right now, people who do this stuff build their own PC, or buy a cheap one. Why not get them introduced to OS X and the Mac? The problem? The biggest hit this idea took then is that Apple does not want such an image for the Mac. The user experience would not measure up, and the Mac would get a bad name. Better to have fewer satisfied customers than lots of unhappy coustomers. Maybe the eMac is a low as Apple is willing to go.
  • Reply 13 of 65
    What consumers need is a low end tower, something like:



    G4

    agp graphics

    room for 2 hds

    A single external optical drive bay (oh wait, Apple's HIGH end towers have this! doeh!)

    Full gamut of I/O ports



    Such a tower could be made much smaller since it doesn't need room for as many extra HDs, PCI slots, or drive bays. It's basically a cube without all the expensive engineering and manufacturing gimmicks. It would be easier to cool. And I think Apple could sell such a tower at prices competitive with PC crap out there, like $800 low end.



    The problem with such a mac is that it would cut into iMac sales, and thus kill Apple's margins. Apple relies on gross margins of 28-30% to survive, they CANNOT subsist with margins any lower.



    With an all-in-one system, Apple is guaranteed greater margins because the cost of a monitor is included. Apple gets the monitors in bulk for cheap, and all-in-ones guarantee their sale. But offer a headless Mac at a low price, and suddenly Apple's margins are going to be ruined and Apple goes belly up.



    This is why the cube was overpriced, because Apple couldn't count on display sales with each cube.



    It's the ugly truth about Apple, and until their market share increases to something like 15%, they are screwed.
  • Reply 14 of 65
    cablecable Posts: 76member
    How about a mac based on iBook technology that is basically a brick, no LCD screen, but the option to add one in via a video port?
  • Reply 15 of 65
    zazzaz Posts: 177member
    The only real problem with a 'low-end' unit is OS X. It is already almost to big for consumer machines that are 12-18 months old.



    As X progresses many of the machines that are being discussed here would be horrifically(sp?) crippled within a short 12-18 months. Hardly the image and reputation Apple wants. In that matter price point is not a factor. The cost to dispel a reputation as that far outweighs the benefit.



    The eMac is really the cut-off. A headless eMac for 899 may be appealing, but in 6 months it will go for that anyhow.



    A low end machine may be in the cards eventually.... But they are really just the retail machines of today.



    It will trickle down.. but until then any R&D in that area is a poor investment. Pro models always get the R&D because they bring in the high margin. Consumer units get the tech when the cost is lower.
  • Reply 16 of 65
    cablecable Posts: 76member
    Eventually the low end Mac would have the technology to run OSX as hard drive, memory, and other prices fall. Just get a 700+ MHZ G4 Mac with 256M of RAM, and a 10G hard drive, good enough, right?
  • Reply 17 of 65
    cablecable Posts: 76member
    How about a MicroATX and ATX motherboard made by Apple and the cloners can roll their own Macs? Just add the video, audio, hard drive, CD/DVD/CDRW drive, etc and then slap in some memory and a monitor.



    But oh, I forgot, Apple doesn't like Mac Clones anymore. The Mac Clones used to sell for cheaper than the Apple made Macs?



    How about an iMac on a PCI card for PC machines to run MacOS and OSX applications? Run it under a Window in Linux, Windows 9X/NT/W2K/XP, and Darwin?
  • Reply 18 of 65
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Remember, the clone wars brought an end to the republic.



    Apple has a fairly solid low end currently. The eMac is a great computer for the price, with a beautiful display that is in many ways better (and larger, w/higher resolution) than the G4 iMac's display. If I were in the market for an all-in-one Mac, it would be an eMac for sure, it's basically the same computer as the G4 iMac, with a better display and minus the cutesy looks and gimmicky joint.
  • Reply 19 of 65
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "The new 700-800 mhz G3 used in the iBook is quite snappy from various forum responses and changing the motherboard for new video isn't honestly all that hard. iMacG4 should go to geforce4mx and iMac classic should go to Geforce 2mx. If Apple started popping them out at $499 they couldn't sell enough of them."



    Yep. I still agree.



    Though, I prefer said specs in a Cube like body.



    Then I buy the display I want.



    With Jaguar and a Geforce 2mx (a low spec card even two years ago...) 'X' aint going to be a problem. The G4 at 700mhz (the pending desktop 'low end') will more than handle what people want to do with a 'low end' machine.



    'X' performance won't be an issue in another half a year.



    Apple's low end needs re-defining. Make the iMac crt G3 a £499 price. It would fly for schools. But better is just to push those eMacs down further in price.



    Yeesh, if Apple can't sell a four year old processor on a crap bus with crap memory, with a tiny disply combined with a lump of plastic and a crap Rage Ati card for less than £500 then they're never going to reach 10% marketshare like Stevie wants... Yeesh.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 20 of 65
    [quote]Originally posted by Cable:

    <strong>How about a MicroATX and ATX motherboard made by Apple and the cloners can roll their own Macs? Just add the video, audio, hard drive, CD/DVD/CDRW drive, etc and then slap in some memory and a monitor.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's interesting that you mention Darwin later in your post. For the low-end, I imagine the best, non-Mac-cannibalizing solution to be an ATX and/or Flex-ATX motherboard that supports a G4 processor and DDR RAM., with possibly modem, ethernet and USB/Firewire built-in.



    Apple sells just the motherboard online(providing pointers to where to get the rest of the parts, and possibly some kind of assembly guide for certain "preferred configurations"). Customers buy their own case, RAM, video, audio, etc. Apple sets aside a few people to work with the OpenDarwin and GNUStep people on source code compatibility, then releases Darwin/GNUStep binaries for certain key OS X apps, like Mail, either free or at low prices. Of course, if we can get source code compatibility, then these apps could also run on x86 Darwin.



    Not sure how the image and brand exposure things would balance out with releasing Apple apps for such a potentially varied hardware base.



    Can anyone else see this?
Sign In or Register to comment.