Why the eMac is only for the education market ?
The new e Mac has just be introduced. It's a lovely I mac G4, and many of you here, will remember the rumors last year about a 17 inch I Mac.
I could be possibily interested by this machine, but unfortunately i am no more a student and no more a teacher.
I think there are some reasons for this :
- do not enter in competition with the I mac 2
- not enough LCD screens available yet
- marketing trick : Apple made a special computer for the education market, it means that Apple said his special interest for this type of customers.
Is somebody here see differents reasons ? or do not share mines
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
I could be possibily interested by this machine, but unfortunately i am no more a student and no more a teacher.
I think there are some reasons for this :
- do not enter in competition with the I mac 2
- not enough LCD screens available yet
- marketing trick : Apple made a special computer for the education market, it means that Apple said his special interest for this type of customers.
Is somebody here see differents reasons ? or do not share mines
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
Comments
I think eMac will replace iMacG3 by late 2002, with similar spec as now, and similar price to iMacG3. iMacG4 will get slight bumps and LCd to distance it.
Right now, iMac is the better machine for consumers.
i expect them to fix this problem at MWNY and then to open the emac to the public there or soon after (sometime in the fall)
As far as Apple having already planned to release this to the public...
The eMac was created (*cough*recycled*cough*) because the LCD iMac was NOT WELL SUITED FOR EDUCATION. That is it.
Regardless of this silly thread [which probably is already hashed out in Current Hardware anyway], I'm getting an eMac this summer.
I suspect that Apple didn't want a situation where non-edu related sales were being made at the expense of schools and students being forced to wait several weeks or longer on their eMac orders. Since Apple is in heated competition for the edu market, and the edu buying season is relatively short, it's best to focus the eMac sales at first.
If eMac sales are strong in edu, and I'm sure they will be amazing, I think Apple will offer the computer to the general public, but probably under a different name and with a slightly different feature set. However pricing will remain close to current points, only 50-100 bucks higher at most.
The key is that Apple is targeting the sub-$1400 range, and they've finally acknowledged that the 15" CRT iMac is antiquated and lame. Nobody want's a 15" CRT...but the eMac's 17" flat CRT, what an awesome display for an all in one computer!
Funny thing, is that the eMac's display is SUPERIOR to the iMac's LCD display! IMO, it's better because it has greater viewable area, greater resolution, better color accuracy, and no viewing angle limitations. Thus the eMac will cannibalize iMac sales a bit, but the overlap will be small compared to the extra sales Apple will get from consumers who've always wanted a Mac but couldn't deal with the iMac's tiny 15" CRT. Now there is a reasonable Mac system for around $1100 that doesn't require buyers to sacrifice a decent display.
Way to go Apple! If the iBook get's a G4 soon, and the Powermacs get an acceptable update at MWNY, I think this may be the year that marks a turning point in Apple's history: Mac marketshare is going to begin growing after years of stagnating!
Niiice.
The 17" CRT is not superior to the 15" LCD.
1280x960 is only available at a barely passable 72HZ. 1152x864 is not bad, at 80hz. I use this res at 85Hz and I still get fatigue after a couple of hours. Only the standard XGA is a truly comfortable 89hz, that's the same as the LCD. Also the stated VIS (viewable image size) is ALWAYS optimistic. I have yet to encounter a CRT display that does not require you to back off that slightly in order to maintain good focus and geometry out to the corners/edges. There really are two levels of seperation in CRT sizes. One is the difference between the the CRT size and the max viewable area. That's what the manufacturers report with VIS. What they don't tell you is that the VIS they report is just the image pushed out to the edge of the bezel. An image displayed in this fashion will, even on the best CRT's, be slightly off in focus and geometry, and even show slight moire at the outside edges. If you want a nice tight, correct and consistent picture you have to back it in another half inch or so. Think of the real VIS of a 17" as about 15.5"
It's a half inch difference. Use the LCD for a whole day or two, the superior contrast and flicker free nature will give you far less eye-strain, and less headaches.
CRT has res scaling, viewing angle, and faster pixels on it's side. The first two advantages are mitigated by the nature of the machine. The higher resolutions are useable but far from ideal. Not good for gaming (where flicker would be less noticeable) cause of the greater vid-card demands. Not good for work, where the still screen would make the flicker much more noticeable. You can drop resolution for demanding games, and this will look better than an LCD, but the higher res modes are really not suitable for all day use.
At 120 degree viewable area is more than enough for one or two users gathered round. A highly adjustable arm keeps takes care of any other viewing angle concerns. You won't sit 170 degrees off center of your 17" CRT unless your a fool. The point is moot.
The only real advantage of CRT's is the faster pixel redraw. Yes, your CRT will not ghost at all, even in extremely fast action. However, modern LCD's will only display a hint of ghosting in very fast action. Watch a DVD, you'll only rarely notice it. But the CRT is perfect in this regard.
Taken as a whole, for the purpose of data or graphics work, the LCD is far nicer to look at and easier on the eyes than the CRT. CRt's are cheaper, and the eMac is a nice solution, but it is not superior to the iMac (display wise)
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
And of course the iMac has a better video card, so yes the iMac would be better for gaming.
But the eMac's display is just about as good as the iMac's LCD, at least, it's good enough that many people would compare the two and decide that it's not worth $500 extra for the LCD over the CRT.
Still, I'd rather have a flat CRT display than an LCD display...LCDs are RIP-OFFS and for my money I'd rather gaze into a 19"/18" viewable CRT than squint at a 15" LCD display. Size matters, and once you've used a 19" true flat CRT, there is no going back to a smaller size...it simply won't do.
And of course the iMac has a better video card, so yes the iMac would be better for gaming.<hr></blockquote>
Don't they both have the 32MB GeForce 2MX?
<strong>
Don't they both have the 32MB GeForce 2MX?</strong><hr></blockquote>
yup.
Yeah, it looks they have the same GPU. Price is, of course, on the CRT (and eMac's) side, but so far Apple isn't really passing the good prices on to individual ed buyers, only institutional buyers. I don't know whether many places will offer institutional prices to their students and faculty or not like, not ed prices more like the site licences they sell for software.
If, however the current eMac spec were to take over the iMacG3's price/market position (as the LCD iMac gets a few spec bumps and extra options -- like a 17" LCD) then, I think, the eMac would be a very hot property! Maybe by MWNY or a little later, but before X-mas '02.