If the vertical height of a 17" 16x9 screen is less than the current 15" 4x3 then I don't think it will happen. But if the virtical height is the same or larger I would rate is a possibility.
I Think that one of the most important iApp upadtes is 16x9 support in iDvd & iMovie and a wide screen would just do the trick.
personally, i would be more than happy with a GeForce 3 (NOT THE MX version) in the iMac2B. it delivers excepional performance, and will possibly be able to run the new Doom reasonably well.
as far as 17" LCD, i want it to be a 16:9 aspect ratio (great buy for college kids) and kids in general who can watch movies i ntheir rooms. As a matter of fact, i think apple should convert it's entire desktop line to a wide screen aspect ration..... they put empasis on digital media, especially movies, it would be nice to see them on par with DVDs and hollywood in general.
<strong>personally, i would be more than happy with a GeForce 3 (NOT THE MX version) in the iMac2B. it delivers excepional performance, and will possibly be able to run the new Doom reasonably well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always an interesting contrast between what the gamers want and what those who don't play games want. For me, every display card since the Rage 128 has been plenty fast enough. I'd rather see the extra $ go toward bigger displays, better bus or cache, more MHz, etc. But most of the hopes I see in the forums related to upgrades are "better video, FASTER Video."
Hi, love your show. Long-time lurker, first-time poster.
Having little connection to the IC or PC industries, I have never really had anything to contribute, mostly forming my own (usually incorrect) theories and keeping them to myself in order to avoid embarrassment.
However, several articles and posts in conjunction with the nice screen comparison layout posted by NBD got me thinking...
This excerpt has appeared in several places on this board:
?Industry sources said Quanta Computer will start producing the latest 17 and 19-inch iMacs in the third quarter, suggesting a strengthening partnership between the PC contract maker and Apple Computer.?
The 19" reference in the original article has always perplexed me.
Coupled with this:
?Baker credited the increased popularity of the larger display to dramatic price declines and a closing of the price gap between larger and smaller displays. For example, 15-inch flat-panel monitors sold for an average of $550 last summer compared with $1,113 for the larger display. In the year since, the price on 15-inch flat-panel displays dropped to $453, while their 17-inch counterparts dropped to $688.?
"When the price is right, consumers are saying, 'For a $600 or $700 difference, I'm not going to move, but for $200 it's worth stepping up,'" Baker said.
NBD?s comparison made me wonder; could Apple be planning on releasing a 17? iMac and (maybe somewhere down the road) a 19? widescreen iMac? Keep in mind that the 19? widescreen is only 15 sq. in. (11%) more real estate than a standard 4:3, 17? display so the incremental costs would not be prohibitive. Also there is over 1.5? of real estate outside the screen on the iMac (I?m typing on one), which could be modified to balance the look.
There is talk that Apple will be revamping it display line, perhaps changing to or adding widescreens in the smaller sizes. Apple's focus on DV applications would certainly be abetted by this change.
Just some thoughts. Go easy on me its my first time.
I think 17" in whichever aspect ratio is just about the most you'd want for a "consumer" system. I really can't see Apple offering anything larger unless they bring the 17" model down to the lowest price points. There were some pretty solid rumors about some Apple pamphlets that showed a $150 drop in iMac prices, the lowest coming in at $1249. I doubt Apple can or will offer a 17" iMac at that price because the margins would be pretty narrow.
The scenario where the current models are lowered in price and a Special Edition 17" model w/ 1Ghz G4, 133mhz bus, and GForce 4 MX is the most likely thing to happen. After that, come MWSF I see the lineup being like this:
[quote]Originally posted by Dennis the Phantom Menace:
<strong>Although I doubt that a 19-inch iMac will be unveiled at MWNY, I'd sure love to see it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt it too. But if we assume that the Quanta article was correct, then what are 19" iMac displays? Apple sure could use a product between the current 17" studio and 22" cinema display, say a 19" cinema; and, oh look, its available on the iMac, too.
A great advantage of the new iMac design over the CRT is that the display can be changed with no overall design change required for the machine. Without getting into a discussion about cannibalization of PM sales, an iMac line-up with three screen options; base/intro - 15", mid-range - 17", and dare I say pro-sumer - 19" wide-screen would be attractive.
dunno, but the 16:9 version looks a little bit odd to me.<hr></blockquote>
Your drawing seems a little off. 16:9 is not the correct ratio, and with a 16:10 ratio, the height of the 17 inch LCD would be almost exactly the same as the 15 inch model's That makes sense if you want to keep the swing-arm the same size and still have the same degrees of freedom in movement. It's novel too, and the iMac needs fresh novelty.
GeForce 4 MX because Apple need distinction between the iMac and eMac, Jaguar makes the GPU as important as the CPU, and it's replaced the GeForce 2 MX (the iMac now has a fan, so increased heat isn't as much of a worry).
1536x1024 would bring it up to PowerBook dot pitch.
Novemberish will see (if I had to guess):
17" Combo (1536x1024) 1GHz
17" Superdrive (1536x1024) 1.2GHz
19" Combo (1920x1200) 1.2GHz
19" Superdrive (1920x1200) 1.2GHz
The low end model stays at 1GHz to keep the price down like the iBook range.
<strong>ok. i thought 16:9 was the correct widescreen-ratio (because tv is 16:9 widescreen and 16:10 is the same as 8:5) but anyway....
i tried to imagine how it would look like.
andreas</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole 16:9 thing comes from Digital TV. DTV has 3 resolutions, 480p/i (640x480), 720p/i (720x1080), 1080p/i (1920x1080). 1920x1080 is 16:9, but Apple (and other companies) choose to use 1920x1200 and 1600x1024(close to 16:10) to be compatible with 1600x1200 and 1280x1024.
The more that I think about it the more I like the idea of a and LCD iMac line-up with 3 display options.
Currently we have 6 different iMac models if you count the eMac. Thinksecret says adios G3 iMac, leaving four models. The eMac becomes the bottom end machine; although I think that the would have to at least offer a combo drive if the G3 goes away. Say $899 CD-RW, $999 Combo. Argue if you will, but they would have to drop the price on the bottom end machine.
Note to Apple: Please put an L3 cache in at least the top 3 machines.
This only adds one machine to the line-up and, hopefully, greatly increases the marketability of the line-up.
Interestingly, with this approach Apple would effectively be reinventing the Cube. The Cube was a small footprint, all-in-one, which allowed you to have the monitor of your choice. Apple hoped that you would buy that monitor from them. The iMac line-up above gives you (almost) the same monitor choice but you to have buy your monitor from Apple.
Apple went to an arm design for most of its displays they could further reduce cost by making the internals of the three bottom displays the same, presumably with a different external designs to differentiate the line-ups.
<strong>The more that I think about it the more I like the idea of a and LCD iMac line-up with 3 display options.
Currently we have 6 different iMac models if you count the eMac. Thinksecret says adios G3 iMac, leaving four models. The eMac becomes the bottom end machine; although I think that the would have to at least offer a combo drive if the G3 goes away. Say $899 CD-RW, $999 Combo. Argue if you will, but they would have to drop the price on the bottom end machine.
Nobody will touch the bottom two iMacs above. Steve proclaimed the CRT dead a year ago when he should have proclaimed 15" monitors dead. The eMac moving into the consumer channel was a reflection of the desire by consumers for 17" and higher screens. $999 eMac, $1299 17" CD-RW iMac, $1499 17" Combo iMac (won't sell much), $1799 17" Superdrive iMac. Dump the 19" model - they don't need it and the jump from 15 -> 19 is too much. If they need a 19 they can intro it at MWSF and catch another media cycle.
Besides, your pricing shows a $100 between the 17 and the 19 and the cost difference to Apple between those two is probably at least $400-$500. 17s are getting pretty cheap, but not 19s - the volume isn't there yet.
Nobody will touch the bottom two iMacs above. Steve proclaimed the CRT dead a year ago when he should have proclaimed 15" monitors dead...
Besides, your pricing shows a $100 between the 17 and the 19 and the cost difference to Apple between those two is probably at least $400-$500. 17s are getting pretty cheap, but not 19s - the volume isn't there yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The $100 difference is between a standard 17" (4:3) and a 19" widescreen (16:10 in Apples incarnation). The actual size difference between the two displays is only 15 sq. in. (about 11%). I could be wrong but I believe that this would not cause a huge price increase. A 19" may be superfluous but it would be in keeping with Apple's DV focus and extend an affordable widescreen format to the masses.
I am somewhat in agreement about the bottom two machines. Basically I hesitated posting what I think Apple really should do for fear of being laughed off the board. But nothing ventured..
The 15" LCD iMac could serve as a "loss leader" for Apple with the goal of increasing market share. This was a common occurance in the Japanese car industry before their recent economic hard times. The best example was Lexus. When the first LS400 was introduced it sold for under $35,000. I'm probably off on the numbers, but I believe that Toyota lost about $6,000 on each car. This loss was easily absorbed by the high-profit Toyota brand. Within 3 years the LS400 was selling for about $50,000, the same price as competitive cars, but due to great early sales (mostly driven by an incredible price) it had brand recognition and a good reputation and continued to sell, now at about a $6,000 profit.
The 15" iMac could fill this roll for Apple. Sell the damn things for $999 (for a year or so then EOL 'em) lose $200 a machine. That machine would sell and mostly to "newbies" or "switchers". In two years those new users will be looking to upgrade, ideally to a high profit item. With $2B in actual cash on hand Apple could cover the losses easily.
Before numerous calls for my head are issued, I realize that this will never happen. The economic climate stinks and a publicly traded company is under too much pressure to produce short-term profit often at the expense of long-term gains. However, I believe that such a program could benefit Apple's 10% market share goal.
The $100 difference is between a standard 17" (4:3) and a 19" widescreen (16:10 in Apples incarnation). The actual size difference between the two displays is only 15 sq. in. (about 11%). I could be wrong but I believe that this would not cause a huge price increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not the size, it's the volume. Nobody is making 16:10 widescreen LCDs and offering it in one model won't generate the kind of volume that someone like Samsung will need to make it cost-effective. The reason the 17" are cheaper is due to the fact that people (Mac and Win) are buying 17" LCDs in volume, so the price is dropping rapidly. That hasn't happened to the traditional 19" screen yet, let alone a custom one.
[quote]<strong>The 15" LCD iMac could serve as a "loss leader" for Apple with the goal of increasing market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The eMac is the 'switch' machine. If you shop for a PC, you start with a 17" CRT and go from there. Apple started with an LCD which didn't compare to the Wintel market. I think at the start of the year, people looked at 17" and 15" and thought the better value was with the PC. Apple is more competitive now due to the eMac. Consumers *are* cluing into the fact that computers are absurdly powerful, and I think that enough are willing to let the MHz slide, but screen size, media options, software availability, ease of use become increasingly important.
The LCD iMac was a repeat of the Cube - it wasn't *quite* what people wanted. With a 17" LCD on there, I think it's a hit. Right now, I think the eMac is the better product, as much as I like LCDs.
It's not the size, it's the volume. Nobody is making 16:10 widescreen LCDs and offering it in one model won't generate the kind of volume that someone like Samsung will need to make it cost-effective. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed, an introduction of a screen of this type would at the very least require Apple to introduce a 19" Cinima display and would probably still be cost prohibitive unless it could be made on the same manufacturing line as the 17" , i.e. no additional capital expenditures just setup changes.
[quote]<strong>
The eMac is the 'switch' machine. If you shop for a PC, you start with a 17" CRT and go from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just have a hard time seeing the eMac in this light. Granted it is the machine that many of us were clamoring for two years ago but (G4 aside) it is still a hypothyroid iMac, nearly a 5 year old design. The new iMac still has enough of a "Wow!" factor to better serve attracting new users to the Mac platform. Particularly if you add "I can't believe they're selling such a cool computer at this price."
I just have a hard time seeing the eMac in this light. Granted it is the machine that many of us were clamoring for two years ago but (G4 aside) it is still a hypothyroid iMac, nearly a 5 year old design. The new iMac still has enough of a "Wow!" factor to better serve attracting new users to the Mac platform. Particularly if you add "I can't believe they're selling such a cool computer at this price."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac will get them in the door, but when it comes time to reach for the wallet, it's important to have something reasonable to step down to. The eMac is very important in this light.
Apple always uses things like Superdrives and LCDs to get people to look at the hardware - it's the hook. People will dial themselves back when it comes to price but Apple is pretty good at making those price points high, but not too high to cut off the "Well, maybe another $200 is worth it..." thoughts.
When the spectrum of iMacs came out, it was the high end DV models that sold best. People kept justifying their way up the price ladder. You need the right bottom ones for people to say 'Yeah, I can afford to consider these things as they do what I need' and then the baby steps up in features and price.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it. Start with a 17" CRT and ease them up from $999 to $1799 in no more then $200 or $300 increments. *Never* ask the consumer to pay more and give something up.
eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it.<hr></blockquote>
Hmmm... I hadn't considered that angle. So it's actually the eMac (with its superficially superior screen spec) that's nuking iMac sales?
[quote]eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.<hr></blockquote>
If your theory is correct, losing the 15" model would make a good deal of sense.
Comments
so now it seems time to compare the visual impression of different screensizes of a maybe upcoming imac.
dunno, but the 16:9 version looks a little bit odd to me.
I Think that one of the most important iApp upadtes is 16x9 support in iDvd & iMovie and a wide screen would just do the trick.
as far as 17" LCD, i want it to be a 16:9 aspect ratio (great buy for college kids) and kids in general who can watch movies i ntheir rooms. As a matter of fact, i think apple should convert it's entire desktop line to a wide screen aspect ration..... they put empasis on digital media, especially movies, it would be nice to see them on par with DVDs and hollywood in general.
<strong>personally, i would be more than happy with a GeForce 3 (NOT THE MX version) in the iMac2B. it delivers excepional performance, and will possibly be able to run the new Doom reasonably well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always an interesting contrast between what the gamers want and what those who don't play games want. For me, every display card since the Rage 128 has been plenty fast enough. I'd rather see the extra $ go toward bigger displays, better bus or cache, more MHz, etc. But most of the hopes I see in the forums related to upgrades are "better video, FASTER Video."
To each his own.
<strong>the first time i saw the imacg4 in front of me i was astonished how big the footprint compared to the 15'' screen was.
so now it seems time to compare the visual impression of different screensizes of a maybe upcoming imac.
dunno, but the 16:9 version looks a little bit odd to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most 17" screens are the bastard 5:4 (1280x1024). To complete your chart, you should probably make one of those, too.
ting5
Having little connection to the IC or PC industries, I have never really had anything to contribute, mostly forming my own (usually incorrect) theories and keeping them to myself in order to avoid embarrassment.
However, several articles and posts in conjunction with the nice screen comparison layout posted by NBD got me thinking...
This excerpt has appeared in several places on this board:
?Industry sources said Quanta Computer will start producing the latest 17 and 19-inch iMacs in the third quarter, suggesting a strengthening partnership between the PC contract maker and Apple Computer.?
The 19" reference in the original article has always perplexed me.
Coupled with this:
?Baker credited the increased popularity of the larger display to dramatic price declines and a closing of the price gap between larger and smaller displays. For example, 15-inch flat-panel monitors sold for an average of $550 last summer compared with $1,113 for the larger display. In the year since, the price on 15-inch flat-panel displays dropped to $453, while their 17-inch counterparts dropped to $688.?
"When the price is right, consumers are saying, 'For a $600 or $700 difference, I'm not going to move, but for $200 it's worth stepping up,'" Baker said.
NBD?s comparison made me wonder; could Apple be planning on releasing a 17? iMac and (maybe somewhere down the road) a 19? widescreen iMac? Keep in mind that the 19? widescreen is only 15 sq. in. (11%) more real estate than a standard 4:3, 17? display so the incremental costs would not be prohibitive. Also there is over 1.5? of real estate outside the screen on the iMac (I?m typing on one), which could be modified to balance the look.
There is talk that Apple will be revamping it display line, perhaps changing to or adding widescreens in the smaller sizes. Apple's focus on DV applications would certainly be abetted by this change.
Just some thoughts. Go easy on me its my first time.
The scenario where the current models are lowered in price and a Special Edition 17" model w/ 1Ghz G4, 133mhz bus, and GForce 4 MX is the most likely thing to happen. After that, come MWSF I see the lineup being like this:
-15" LCD, 1Ghz G4, 133mhz bus, 256MB RAM, 40GB, GF4 MX, CDRW, $1099.
-17" LCD, 1 Ghz G4, 133mhz bus, 256MB RAM, 40GB, GF4 MX, DVD-CDRW, $1299.
-17" LCD, 1.2 Ghz G4, 133mhz bus, 512MB RAM, 60GB, GF4 Ti, Superdrive, $1649.
And the eMac would have been dropped to $899 by then and moveld up to 800mhz.
<strong>Although I doubt that a 19-inch iMac will be unveiled at MWNY, I'd sure love to see it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt it too. But if we assume that the Quanta article was correct, then what are 19" iMac displays? Apple sure could use a product between the current 17" studio and 22" cinema display, say a 19" cinema; and, oh look, its available on the iMac, too.
A great advantage of the new iMac design over the CRT is that the display can be changed with no overall design change required for the machine. Without getting into a discussion about cannibalization of PM sales, an iMac line-up with three screen options; base/intro - 15", mid-range - 17", and dare I say pro-sumer - 19" wide-screen would be attractive.
dunno, but the 16:9 version looks a little bit odd to me.<hr></blockquote>
Your drawing seems a little off. 16:9 is not the correct ratio, and with a 16:10 ratio, the height of the 17 inch LCD would be almost exactly the same as the 15 inch model's That makes sense if you want to keep the swing-arm the same size and still have the same degrees of freedom in movement. It's novel too, and the iMac needs fresh novelty.
i tried to imagine how it would look like.
andreas
133MHz MPX & PC133 RAM.
15"
800MHz G4
GeForce 4 MX
CD-RW
$1499
15"
800MHz G4
GeForce 4 MX
Combo
$1599
15"
1GHz G4
GeForce 4 MX
Superdrive
$1799
Possible, but unlikely
17"
1GHz G4
GeForce 4 MX
Superdrive
$1999
---------------
GeForce 4 MX because Apple need distinction between the iMac and eMac, Jaguar makes the GPU as important as the CPU, and it's replaced the GeForce 2 MX (the iMac now has a fan, so increased heat isn't as much of a worry).
1536x1024 would bring it up to PowerBook dot pitch.
Novemberish will see (if I had to guess):
17" Combo (1536x1024) 1GHz
17" Superdrive (1536x1024) 1.2GHz
19" Combo (1920x1200) 1.2GHz
19" Superdrive (1920x1200) 1.2GHz
The low end model stays at 1GHz to keep the price down like the iBook range.
Barto
<strong>ok. i thought 16:9 was the correct widescreen-ratio (because tv is 16:9 widescreen and 16:10 is the same as 8:5) but anyway....
i tried to imagine how it would look like.
andreas</strong><hr></blockquote>
The whole 16:9 thing comes from Digital TV. DTV has 3 resolutions, 480p/i (640x480), 720p/i (720x1080), 1080p/i (1920x1080). 1920x1080 is 16:9, but Apple (and other companies) choose to use 1920x1200 and 1600x1024(close to 16:10) to be compatible with 1600x1200 and 1280x1024.
Barto
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
Currently we have 6 different iMac models if you count the eMac. Thinksecret says adios G3 iMac, leaving four models. The eMac becomes the bottom end machine; although I think that the would have to at least offer a combo drive if the G3 goes away. Say $899 CD-RW, $999 Combo. Argue if you will, but they would have to drop the price on the bottom end machine.
The iMac line-up consists of:
15" CD-RW 800 Mhz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1199
15" Combo 800 Mhz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1299
17" Combo 1.0 Ghz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1499
17" Superdrive 1.0 GHZ, GeForce 4 Mx,$1899
19" Widescreen, Superdrive 1.0 GHZ. GeForce 4 Mx, $1,999
Note to Apple: Please put an L3 cache in at least the top 3 machines.
This only adds one machine to the line-up and, hopefully, greatly increases the marketability of the line-up.
Interestingly, with this approach Apple would effectively be reinventing the Cube. The Cube was a small footprint, all-in-one, which allowed you to have the monitor of your choice. Apple hoped that you would buy that monitor from them. The iMac line-up above gives you (almost) the same monitor choice but you to have buy your monitor from Apple.
One last note: If, as discussed in this thread:
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002046"; target="_blank">forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002046</a>
Apple went to an arm design for most of its displays they could further reduce cost by making the internals of the three bottom displays the same, presumably with a different external designs to differentiate the line-ups.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: neumac ]</p>
<strong>The more that I think about it the more I like the idea of a and LCD iMac line-up with 3 display options.
Currently we have 6 different iMac models if you count the eMac. Thinksecret says adios G3 iMac, leaving four models. The eMac becomes the bottom end machine; although I think that the would have to at least offer a combo drive if the G3 goes away. Say $899 CD-RW, $999 Combo. Argue if you will, but they would have to drop the price on the bottom end machine.
The iMac line-up consists of:
15" CD-RW 800 Mhz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1199
15" Combo 800 Mhz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1299
17" Combo 1.0 Ghz, GeForce 2 Mx, $1499
17" Superdrive 1.0 GHZ, GeForce 4 Mx,$1899
19" Widescreen, Superdrive 1.0 GHZ. GeForce 4 Mx, $1,999
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody will touch the bottom two iMacs above. Steve proclaimed the CRT dead a year ago when he should have proclaimed 15" monitors dead. The eMac moving into the consumer channel was a reflection of the desire by consumers for 17" and higher screens. $999 eMac, $1299 17" CD-RW iMac, $1499 17" Combo iMac (won't sell much), $1799 17" Superdrive iMac. Dump the 19" model - they don't need it and the jump from 15 -> 19 is too much. If they need a 19 they can intro it at MWSF and catch another media cycle.
Besides, your pricing shows a $100 between the 17 and the 19 and the cost difference to Apple between those two is probably at least $400-$500. 17s are getting pretty cheap, but not 19s - the volume isn't there yet.
<strong>
Nobody will touch the bottom two iMacs above. Steve proclaimed the CRT dead a year ago when he should have proclaimed 15" monitors dead...
Besides, your pricing shows a $100 between the 17 and the 19 and the cost difference to Apple between those two is probably at least $400-$500. 17s are getting pretty cheap, but not 19s - the volume isn't there yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The $100 difference is between a standard 17" (4:3) and a 19" widescreen (16:10 in Apples incarnation). The actual size difference between the two displays is only 15 sq. in. (about 11%). I could be wrong but I believe that this would not cause a huge price increase. A 19" may be superfluous but it would be in keeping with Apple's DV focus and extend an affordable widescreen format to the masses.
I am somewhat in agreement about the bottom two machines. Basically I hesitated posting what I think Apple really should do for fear of being laughed off the board. But nothing ventured..
The 15" LCD iMac could serve as a "loss leader" for Apple with the goal of increasing market share. This was a common occurance in the Japanese car industry before their recent economic hard times. The best example was Lexus. When the first LS400 was introduced it sold for under $35,000. I'm probably off on the numbers, but I believe that Toyota lost about $6,000 on each car. This loss was easily absorbed by the high-profit Toyota brand. Within 3 years the LS400 was selling for about $50,000, the same price as competitive cars, but due to great early sales (mostly driven by an incredible price) it had brand recognition and a good reputation and continued to sell, now at about a $6,000 profit.
The 15" iMac could fill this roll for Apple. Sell the damn things for $999 (for a year or so then EOL 'em) lose $200 a machine. That machine would sell and mostly to "newbies" or "switchers". In two years those new users will be looking to upgrade, ideally to a high profit item. With $2B in actual cash on hand Apple could cover the losses easily.
Before numerous calls for my head are issued, I realize that this will never happen. The economic climate stinks and a publicly traded company is under too much pressure to produce short-term profit often at the expense of long-term gains. However, I believe that such a program could benefit Apple's 10% market share goal.
<strong>
The $100 difference is between a standard 17" (4:3) and a 19" widescreen (16:10 in Apples incarnation). The actual size difference between the two displays is only 15 sq. in. (about 11%). I could be wrong but I believe that this would not cause a huge price increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not the size, it's the volume. Nobody is making 16:10 widescreen LCDs and offering it in one model won't generate the kind of volume that someone like Samsung will need to make it cost-effective. The reason the 17" are cheaper is due to the fact that people (Mac and Win) are buying 17" LCDs in volume, so the price is dropping rapidly. That hasn't happened to the traditional 19" screen yet, let alone a custom one.
[quote]<strong>The 15" LCD iMac could serve as a "loss leader" for Apple with the goal of increasing market share.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The eMac is the 'switch' machine. If you shop for a PC, you start with a 17" CRT and go from there. Apple started with an LCD which didn't compare to the Wintel market. I think at the start of the year, people looked at 17" and 15" and thought the better value was with the PC. Apple is more competitive now due to the eMac. Consumers *are* cluing into the fact that computers are absurdly powerful, and I think that enough are willing to let the MHz slide, but screen size, media options, software availability, ease of use become increasingly important.
The LCD iMac was a repeat of the Cube - it wasn't *quite* what people wanted. With a 17" LCD on there, I think it's a hit. Right now, I think the eMac is the better product, as much as I like LCDs.
<strong>
It's not the size, it's the volume. Nobody is making 16:10 widescreen LCDs and offering it in one model won't generate the kind of volume that someone like Samsung will need to make it cost-effective. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed, an introduction of a screen of this type would at the very least require Apple to introduce a 19" Cinima display and would probably still be cost prohibitive unless it could be made on the same manufacturing line as the 17" , i.e. no additional capital expenditures just setup changes.
[quote]<strong>
The eMac is the 'switch' machine. If you shop for a PC, you start with a 17" CRT and go from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just have a hard time seeing the eMac in this light. Granted it is the machine that many of us were clamoring for two years ago but (G4 aside) it is still a hypothyroid iMac, nearly a 5 year old design. The new iMac still has enough of a "Wow!" factor to better serve attracting new users to the Mac platform. Particularly if you add "I can't believe they're selling such a cool computer at this price."
<strong>
I just have a hard time seeing the eMac in this light. Granted it is the machine that many of us were clamoring for two years ago but (G4 aside) it is still a hypothyroid iMac, nearly a 5 year old design. The new iMac still has enough of a "Wow!" factor to better serve attracting new users to the Mac platform. Particularly if you add "I can't believe they're selling such a cool computer at this price."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac will get them in the door, but when it comes time to reach for the wallet, it's important to have something reasonable to step down to. The eMac is very important in this light.
Apple always uses things like Superdrives and LCDs to get people to look at the hardware - it's the hook. People will dial themselves back when it comes to price but Apple is pretty good at making those price points high, but not too high to cut off the "Well, maybe another $200 is worth it..." thoughts.
When the spectrum of iMacs came out, it was the high end DV models that sold best. People kept justifying their way up the price ladder. You need the right bottom ones for people to say 'Yeah, I can afford to consider these things as they do what I need' and then the baby steps up in features and price.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it. Start with a 17" CRT and ease them up from $999 to $1799 in no more then $200 or $300 increments. *Never* ask the consumer to pay more and give something up.
eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it.<hr></blockquote>
Hmmm... I hadn't considered that angle. So it's actually the eMac (with its superficially superior screen spec) that's nuking iMac sales?
[quote]eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.<hr></blockquote>
If your theory is correct, losing the 15" model would make a good deal of sense.
[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: iconmaster ]</p>