That doesn't seem to be an exact cube. Maybe an inch too tall(not counting the plastic skirt). With the way the CD drive is, maybe it has to be like that. Apple could probably shrink down the components inside.
What about the CD tray? Obviously, it shouldn't be plain beige or black or even white. Perhaps a clear acrylic tray, but that might melt. Something clear would be really cool, but possibly hard to make, and it would melt.\
[administrative edit: image too wide, changed to link]
It doesn't have to be an exact cube. In fact, to give it a horizontal optical drive and a full-sized video card, it probably cannot be a cube without making it's base too large (width and depth would have to be excessive to make up for the height). Also, vertical space is nearly free on a typical desktop, it's the footprint that matters most, within a reasonable height.
I'd like to see something with slightly larger base dimensions than the cube, and much taller, like 4-5 inches taller. Only base would be larger, from there it would taper down to a width and depth a bit smaller the cube. The CD tray would be mounted horizontally at the bottom. Ports on the back, with a few FW and USB on the front bottom. Interior access by opening up the rear, it could either slide out, or maybe easier, open like the current El Capitan. It would have a handle on the top, melded into the design like the handles on El Capitan.
Inside, AGP slot, 3 RAM slots, CPU daughtercard. Fan-cooled to free up interior design options, and to ensure that the video card is upgradable.
The larger vertical size would hopefully make it cheaper to manufacture, and it would be easier to service than the cube because of it's easy-access back panel. Materials would be cheaper than the Cube's, no clear acrylic, just a matt plastic like the iMac G4.
No, that was my tought also. It's better to have a cube-ish desing, somewhat higher and possibly deeper than the old cube, but keeping the width the same. That would make it seem smaller than it actually is, but still leave room for decent cooling and a horisontal cd-rom drive, like my illustration in a previous post. I would need a new name, of course, but that is hardly negative since the cube somehow has the name "flop" connected to it even if it was a great design.
It doesn't 'have to' be the same design especially when the original design had several severe limitations. Being a little 'too small' and 'too clever' being among them.
I quite like the idea of a cuboid. That way...the design doesn't have to be too wide (addressing Brian Green's concerns) but it definitely needs the depth for expansion and long Nvidia graphic cards.
I think if Apple were to enamel 'Cube' the current PC Cuboids...that would suffice...kinda. Being Apple, it would be better.
A new Cube would deliver us from the limitations of the iMac2. A good AIO but flawed machine in terms of panacea to all Apple's problems. And sales are bearing this out.
Speaking of which. The original Cube design WAS flawed.
That and a price tag incongruous with its 'true mandate' rammed the message home big time via Apple's quarterly balance sheet.
That, in part, led to its ultimate demise. The iMac2, to its credit has addressed many of the Cube's problems. ie price with monitor. Brick included. Silent fan for faster and hotter components. A far superior ergonomic computer experience. Wider base to accommodate said components.
(But the iMac2 takes a step backward in terms of upgradabiity. Choice of graphic cards. Bumping the cpu for a longer life. CHoice of moinitor. Comparative steep price to previous iMac line. Ergo: 'Son of Cube' sticker badge.)
No. Any 're'-Cube will need a 're'-design. No Apple computer going forwards in the Jobs era has stayed the same anyway. So, even if the Cube was relaunched...it would be very different in many ways. Take the 'Ti' laptop. Perfection we thought when first it launched. However. Look at the 'Al' books now. Even better. Especially the 17 incher. Drool.
Or? Even more dramatic. Take the iMac. Compare the Jellybean to the desklamp.
And the Cube? Could be done...even better. That's why 150 plus posts (many of the best and substantial ones coming from the 'Holy Trinity of the Cube's Return') show us that we believe Apple made a few mistakes...they had 'something' and we believe without 'too much work' they can 'get it right'.
But I don't think the 'iCube' would need that dramatic (I don't think it needed to become a 'lamp', another Apple mistep...) a revision to set it straight. Bit bigger. Cheaper white plastic. Fully configurable. Wide range of prices.
I think many people feel there's a bit lacking in Apple "puzzle". You either have to select the "powermac" witch has too much of a "pro" sign attached to it. If the powermac it too much, then you have to settle for either an iMac or an eMac (taking desktops here). They have several limitations with the two most important being price and the attached screen. The 17" fp iMac is georgeous, but a lot of people have a decent screen already, and don't want to be tied to one screen (litteraly speaking) forever. The second problem is expandability/upgradability. I agree that most people never upgrade or expand their computer, but people like to at least have to choice. A "cuboid" with limited upgradability like a *real* AGP slot and processors on daughter card, would give people some peace of mind, knowing that they at least have the possibility to upgrade the machine in the future. Apple has always been afraid that upgradable machines would hurt sales and the bottom line, but I think it is an unfounded fear. Now people tend to wait the longest they can before they buy a new mac, knowing that they'll probably have to stay with that machine/config for some time. If they were upgradable as in "really easy to upgrade" I think a lot of people would skip one or two stepst in the "waiting-cycle" and probably buy the new macs sooner. I think it would probably lead to bigger sales because people would not be so afraid to run out and buy the latest and greatest.
Hmm, where was my point with all this. Yes, ultimately making options for consumer is GOOD and will NOT hurt Apples bottom line. That at least is my view on this matter.
An opinion on the upgradable question. I think NETRO has it right, the "ubpgradable" tag on a computer does help it sell, the trick is to make it more attractive to buy a new computer than it is to upgrade an old one.
For example, I have a Cube at home. It would be nice to upgrade from a 450 mhz processor. The new iMac 800's cost $1299, for what is essentially the same computer as my "old" Cube, with the same Firewire, airport, USB, and 100 mhz system bus. The Cube has a daughter card, and an extra RAM slot. With 800 mhz upgrade cards below $300 it is more economical for me to upgrade my Cube than it is to purchase a new iMac. For under $600 I could get a 1.2 Ghz processor card, which exceeds the speed of the top of the line iMac. Now, If Apple had boosted the speed of the iMac's system bus to 133, or 166 mhz, which they should be able to do with minimal increase to productioni cost, and updated the graphics system, USB and Firewire , Airport, and Firewire ports then the iMac looks more attractive. This leads to a strong market for "old" macs, which cuts into the sales of "New" macs, which cuts into Apples profits.
I think it's a bit more complicated than this. If you (for simplicity) divide computer buyers, or more specificly mac byers, into two groups. One group has lot's of money, and often buy the latest and gratest from Apple and don't care about upgrades or new graphics-cards. The other group is not so well funded, can't buy new machines every year. They have to buy a machine that will last them at least 3-5 years. These people would not spend $1299 on a new iMac or 1699 on a powermac every other year. For these people upgradability on the other hand is important, because they can buy a decent proc upgrade in a couple of years that will bring the machine back from being usable to being fun again. If they don't have the option to upgrade they will want a new mac, but will not buy it until they can afford it, most likely taking one to two years. They will just keep on using their "old" os and "old" software, that works just great BTW, and noone will earn money. Not Apple, and not processor upgrade companies, and Apple will likely not earn money on OS upgrades from these people either. So these people are not hurting Apples bottom line, am I right? For these people an upgradable mac would be the wicest choice in the long term, and that leaves them for the time being with only one option; the powermac. And to some of them, often computer literate people, the current powermac line seems like a bad deal, and to much of a computer for a premium price. Not exactly a product directed towards them. So what will they do. Maybe buy a wintel. Maybe just wait. Maybe buy a decent powermac on eBay. This is NOT earning Apple any money. You get my point?
So what will they do. Maybe buy a wintel. Maybe just wait. Maybe buy a decent powermac on eBay. This is NOT earning Apple any money. You get my point?
I certainly do. But do Apple?
Well argued, Netro'. No doubt Apple have begun looking at their tower sales and begun wondering the same thing. (Quark, lame G4 and soft economy not withstanding...)
And 'wait'? I've waited...and waited...still waiting...and...well...even the table's ready for the 'G5'. Still, not too much longer if Macoobiedoobie is to be believed. Another month-ish and 970 heaven?
My point was that Apple has not been keeping up with the market in regards to specs, which makes older computers more appealing, especially when the cost of processor upgrades is relatively low compared to the cost of a new computer of the same relative speed. My example was subjective, it is the computer that I own. There are a lot of cube owners out there that are upgrading processors and GPU's, and keeping their Cubes competative with the current offerings from Apple.
Now, I think that it is a good selling point to have that "upgradable" label on a computer. It definatly effects my buying choices, even if it is something that I know I am not likely to do. To be successfull at this from Apples perspective they need to make it more attractive to buy a new machine than upgrade an old one. They do this by continually adding features and upgrading the system performance of the computers that they are currently selling.
With the exception of the processor and monitor and optical drive, the current iMac has specs consistant with the iMacs sold in 1999...it still uses PC100 memory, still has 2 memory card slots, still has built in video only (and it is still based on a chip that is 2+ years old), still has USB and Firewire. Today I can buy a G4 450 tower for around $700, and pop in a $250 processor upgrade, and it is more powerfull than the current iMac, again a 4 year old computer. Now, granted most people wont look into doing this, but it shows how antiqauted even their "inovative" iMac FP is in its core technology.
Apple needs to attract new customers to gain market share, but they also need to make it more attractive to the current owners of Macs to buy a new Mac to get the repeat buisness to keep up their revenue.
Okay, I can see the benefits to upgrading the computers, and updates for Cubes are easily obtainable, as are updates for PM's. I think Apple could get into the market of selling upgrades if they wanted to. Kinda like buying a new engine for a car that you love. Who knows, perhaps they'll get a clue one of these days and do that but so far we have nothing from them on this issue.
As for the Cube design, I don't mind a little bigger, hell, if you remove the acrylic case and move to a much thinner durable white plastic you've already increased internal dimensions without exterior changes, now stretch the box ONLY enough to fit the fat ass graphics cards they make these days and then I can see that happening. I value desktop real estate and I want the absolute smallest killer Mac I can get. I believe the Cube is the answer to this, but certainly not some huge ass 10" box.
Okay, I can see the benefits to upgrading the computers, and updates for Cubes are easily obtainable, as are updates for PM's. I think Apple could get into the market of selling upgrades if they wanted to. Kinda like buying a new engine for a car that you love. Who knows, perhaps they'll get a clue one of these days and do that but so far we have nothing from them on this issue.
As for the Cube design, I don't mind a little bigger, hell, if you remove the acrylic case and move to a much thinner durable white plastic you've already increased internal dimensions without exterior changes, now stretch the box ONLY enough to fit the fat ass graphics cards they make these days and then I can see that happening. I value desktop real estate and I want the absolute smallest killer Mac I can get. I believe the Cube is the answer to this, but certainly not some huge ass 10" box.
Apple should look at it like this, the label "Upgradable" aids in selling computers. However, the platform should develop at a rate as to make it less economical to upgrade an old computer than it is to buy a new one. This hasnt happened with the iMac, it is still using PC100 memory which dates back 4 years on the iMac, which makes upgrading Cubes and towers more economical than buying a new iMac becouse you will have the same system bus speed, the same USB, the same FireWire, the same IDE Hard Drive speed, etc. I realize that this is comparing "Apples to Oranges" as far as the computers are concerned, but the cost of a used G4 450 and an 800 mhz processor card are less than that of an iMac today, so most of the specs are equil to the new system, which does not help Apple sell computers. The iMac today should have better specs all around than the bottom of the line PM of 4 years ago, the fact that it dosnt bolsters the used Mac market, and I would imagine attributes to the lagging sales of Macs today.
Apple should look at it like this, the label "Upgradable" aids in selling computers.
Ok, I'll buy that for some users.
Quote:
However, the platform should develop at a rate as to make it less economical to upgrade an old computer than it is to buy a new one.
Are you saying Apple should produce enough upgrades so that buying an upgraded CPU or GPU or RAM isn't economically feasible or wise? That would be nice. But remember, most of that was Motorola's fault.
G4...that says it all. Up to that point, Apple had the lead, or neck-and-neck with the Wintel world as far as performance. Give it a month, and performance will be back on track, and updates will come much faster and more reliably from IBM than from Motorola.
A degree of modularity in assembly also helps Apple. It makes it much easier for them to do mid stream upgrades, bumps, etc etc... when they only have to swap out a component rather than make modifications to the motherboard (however minor). That makes the machine easier and cheaper to build and even if you don't pass on all of those savings to the consumer, that means margins, and margins are good, right?
Another note. You can often get customers to spend MORE if you offer a range of options than if the spread between models is too great.
Two scenarios. Customer walks in looking to spend 1K. You sell machines of 1K and 2.5K. You sell the 1K machine and some accessories and goodnight. But if you have a spread, you can often move your 1K customer, in minor increments, up to 1.5K by selling him a bunch of crap he doesn't really need, and never knew he wanted untill you sold it to him. That's how car dealers work. Granted, the option packages for many models have become limited to economy and premium, but the game still takes place between the sheer volume of different models present. Makes that have only a few models, tend to have lotsa lotsa options. BMW, for instance, can option you a 3 series from near econo car price, all the way up. A friend of mine got reamed on a 3 series because he ordered up every damn option. Had no intention of doing so when he walked in, but he did by the time he walked out -- no will power -- will he use that trip computer? Does the BMW salesman care?
The modularity of an upgradable consumer machine makes this very profitable tact possible because all machines can essentially be built BTO. The core offering still has to be good -- OSX, iApps, someday soon, iOffice, and competitive reliable hardware/price. Get 'em in the door by offering them what they need at a decent price, make it back by selling them what they can't resist.
Matsu, the Cube was supposed to fill the hole in the current line-up. The only problem with it was that hardware wise it filled that hole, but price-vise it was in powermac land. A lot of people, and me among them, found the powermac to be better value-for-moeny. And the upgrade cautious people also found the cube to be lacking in the upgrade-area, were a computer in this price-range at least should offer an easy way to upgrade the graphics card.
So what can we learn from this is that Apple at least know there's a hole in the current line-up, but they also learned that if they didn't have the right combination of spec and price, not a lot of people will buy it. I'm sure Apple is very aware of this, and as they say, "have a plan" to fill this hole sometime in the future.
Are you saying Apple should produce enough upgrades so that buying an upgraded CPU or GPU or RAM isn't economically feasible or wise? That would be nice. But remember, most of that was Motorola's fault.
G4...that says it all. Up to that point, Apple had the lead, or neck-and-neck with the Wintel world as far as performance. Give it a month, and performance will be back on track, and updates will come much faster and more reliably from IBM than from Motorola.
Apple is not to blame for all of their problems, that is correct. However they have had leeway to improve overall system performance. For example, the G4 supports at least a 166 mhz FSB, but the iMac is still using the same 100 mhz FSB that they were using 4 years ago in the G3 iMac. The upgrade to a 133 FSB would be little to no cost, as the memory cost the same and other components. Another area of performance that they could easily address is HD speed, which effects performance not only in drive read/writes but also in the use of virtual memory (becouse of read/write speed). Apple could move to drives and get an overall system performance gain. USB 2 could be added as well, with neglegable cost to production (and if some reports are correct is essentially there in some computers but the USB 2 compatablility has been turned off in firmware).
As far as graphics systems, Apple could stop "crippling" their cards, and upgrade them at a faster rate. Most, if not all, GPU's today support 2 monitors, yet Apple has gone to the expense to turn off that support on the iMac and iBooks, loosing a potential "selling point" for the systems at NO NET COST to Apple. In fact it cost Apple money to write the software to turn this ability off in these systems. Add Svideo out, again it is supported by most commercial cards today. Yes this would add some component cost, but it adds flexability to the computers.
Sould Apple produce CPU or GPU upgrades for existing computers? No, this is better done by the commercial market. But Apple could do a better job at taking advantage of the available technology to make their keep their computers more competative both "upgraded" legacy hardware and the Wintel competition.
JCG, Apple is simply trying to differentiate it's offerings. The powermac has to have the fastest processors, the best gfx-cards, fastest memory. The iMac has to be lower spec to not compete directly with the powermac, and they have to have something to entice customers to buy the powermac over the iMac. If the iMac had a 166 mhz bus, dual 1.25 G4's and all the other features of the powermacs at the same price it is now, plus the possability to drive a second screen, I guess a lot of people would choose the iMac over the powermac, at least if the doesn't need the expansion.
So you can blame it on Apple, or you can blame Motorola for not having a higher specced processor and bus-speeds. If they made a 3 ghz G4 and had a 500 mhz bus for the powermac, they could simply sell a 2ghz G4 iMac with a 300-400 mhz bus and no-one would complain?? Am I right. This is just business, and Apple has to differentiate it's pro and consumer lines. It's not their fault that the highest specced processor from moto can't cope with more than a 166 mhz bus. And by the way, the 17" iMac has a 133 mhz bus.
JCG, Apple is simply trying to differentiate it's offerings. The powermac has to have the fastest processors, the best gfx-cards, fastest memory. The iMac has to be lower spec to not compete directly with the powermac, and they have to have something to entice customers to buy the powermac over the iMac. If the iMac had a 166 mhz bus, dual 1.25 G4's and all the other features of the powermacs at the same price it is now, plus the possability to drive a second screen, I guess a lot of people would choose the iMac over the powermac, at least if the doesn't need the expansion.
So you can blame it on Apple, or you can blame Motorola for not having a higher specced processor and bus-speeds. If they made a 3 ghz G4 and had a 500 mhz bus for the powermac, they could simply sell a 2ghz G4 iMac with a 300-400 mhz bus and no-one would complain?? Am I right. This is just business, and Apple has to differentiate it's pro and consumer lines. It's not their fault that the highest specced processor from moto can't cope with more than a 166 mhz bus. And by the way, the 17" iMac has a 133 mhz bus.
Apple has plenty of room to differentiate the iMac and the PM while offering better tech specs on the iMac than they do, though I didnt realize that the 17" iMacs finally got a 133 mhz bus. The PM's could be duals across the board with the level 3 cache on board, and leave the iMacs as single processors without Level 3 cache. That with the extra expansion, DDR Ram, and newest GPU's should do it. I wasnt suggesting that Apple match the PM's spec for spec, but that they have had room to push the iMac's performance a bit more than they have.
They could, but then more pros would buy iMacs. Really, the monitor's nice, the machine's fast enough for publishing and 2D work, or even audio (as long as you don't require PCI).
This is an artificial limitation imposed by a certain supplier. Once we have a CPU family that scales up steadily and reliably, Apple will have much more to work with than they currently do. They'll still gimp lower-line machines somewhat - it seems to be a longstanding tradition in Cupertino - but they can at least do it in homage to the Performa, not to avoid embarrassing their professional line.
As for BTO being easier to update: Yeah, but you get to pick any two of: cheap, quiet, small, reliable; manufacturing costs go up, because integrated chipsets are significantly cheaper; manufacturing logistics get more complicated; and performance can go down as well, at least in budget systems. If you want to know what Dell spends their half-billion R&D budget on, this is it: Making BTO cost effective.
The Cube should be as faithful to the original model as possible, because the original model captivated everyone who saw it, and really showed what a professional creative workstation could be like. What it needs, more than anything else (including, say, a more standard 7" AGP slot or more accessible ports) is a clearly defined market and a sane price. Had Apple been just a bit smarter, the Cube would have taken over design and publishing, and even started making inroads into audio (the shortage of FW-savvy products would have hurt initially, but if it had been popular enough that problem would have solved itself).
Comments
Originally posted by CubeDude
That doesn't seem to be an exact cube. Maybe an inch too tall(not counting the plastic skirt). With the way the CD drive is, maybe it has to be like that. Apple could probably shrink down the components inside.
What about the CD tray? Obviously, it shouldn't be plain beige or black or even white. Perhaps a clear acrylic tray, but that might melt. Something clear would be really cool, but possibly hard to make, and it would melt.
[administrative edit: image too wide, changed to link]
It doesn't have to be an exact cube. In fact, to give it a horizontal optical drive and a full-sized video card, it probably cannot be a cube without making it's base too large (width and depth would have to be excessive to make up for the height). Also, vertical space is nearly free on a typical desktop, it's the footprint that matters most, within a reasonable height.
I'd like to see something with slightly larger base dimensions than the cube, and much taller, like 4-5 inches taller. Only base would be larger, from there it would taper down to a width and depth a bit smaller the cube. The CD tray would be mounted horizontally at the bottom. Ports on the back, with a few FW and USB on the front bottom. Interior access by opening up the rear, it could either slide out, or maybe easier, open like the current El Capitan. It would have a handle on the top, melded into the design like the handles on El Capitan.
Inside, AGP slot, 3 RAM slots, CPU daughtercard. Fan-cooled to free up interior design options, and to ensure that the video card is upgradable.
The larger vertical size would hopefully make it cheaper to manufacture, and it would be easier to service than the cube because of it's easy-access back panel. Materials would be cheaper than the Cube's, no clear acrylic, just a matt plastic like the iMac G4.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
It doesn't have to be an exact cube.
No, that was my tought also. It's better to have a cube-ish desing, somewhat higher and possibly deeper than the old cube, but keeping the width the same. That would make it seem smaller than it actually is, but still leave room for decent cooling and a horisontal cd-rom drive, like my illustration in a previous post. I would need a new name, of course, but that is hardly negative since the cube somehow has the name "flop" connected to it even if it was a great design.
It doesn't 'have to' be the same design especially when the original design had several severe limitations. Being a little 'too small' and 'too clever' being among them.
I quite like the idea of a cuboid. That way...the design doesn't have to be too wide (addressing Brian Green's concerns) but it definitely needs the depth for expansion and long Nvidia graphic cards.
I think if Apple were to enamel 'Cube' the current PC Cuboids...that would suffice...kinda. Being Apple, it would be better.
A new Cube would deliver us from the limitations of the iMac2. A good AIO but flawed machine in terms of panacea to all Apple's problems. And sales are bearing this out.
Lemon Bon Bon
avoiding the obvious truth
Speaking of which. The original Cube design WAS flawed.
That and a price tag incongruous with its 'true mandate' rammed the message home big time via Apple's quarterly balance sheet.
That, in part, led to its ultimate demise. The iMac2, to its credit has addressed many of the Cube's problems. ie price with monitor. Brick included. Silent fan for faster and hotter components. A far superior ergonomic computer experience. Wider base to accommodate said components.
(But the iMac2 takes a step backward in terms of upgradabiity. Choice of graphic cards. Bumping the cpu for a longer life. CHoice of moinitor. Comparative steep price to previous iMac line. Ergo: 'Son of Cube' sticker badge.)
No. Any 're'-Cube will need a 're'-design. No Apple computer going forwards in the Jobs era has stayed the same anyway. So, even if the Cube was relaunched...it would be very different in many ways. Take the 'Ti' laptop. Perfection we thought when first it launched. However. Look at the 'Al' books now. Even better. Especially the 17 incher. Drool.
Or? Even more dramatic. Take the iMac. Compare the Jellybean to the desklamp.
And the Cube? Could be done...even better. That's why 150 plus posts (many of the best and substantial ones coming from the 'Holy Trinity of the Cube's Return') show us that we believe Apple made a few mistakes...they had 'something' and we believe without 'too much work' they can 'get it right'.
But I don't think the 'iCube' would need that dramatic (I don't think it needed to become a 'lamp', another Apple mistep...) a revision to set it straight. Bit bigger. Cheaper white plastic. Fully configurable. Wide range of prices.
'Job' done.
Lemon Bon Bon
Hmm, where was my point with all this. Yes, ultimately making options for consumer is GOOD and will NOT hurt Apples bottom line. That at least is my view on this matter.
Apple has always been afraid that upgradable machines would hurt sales and the bottom line
They do. FROM THE WINTEL SIDE! Because people can buy consumer Wintel machines that are upgradeable!
Apple still have these definite 'Pro'/'Con'(heh) boundaries.
Fact is, you can be a 'Pro' in Wintel land MUCH cheaper. Pick any PC tower around a grand that won't kick the snot out of the low-end Apple tower?
And these machines are upradeable.
Like you say, 'CHOICE'.
Lemon Bon Bon
For example, I have a Cube at home. It would be nice to upgrade from a 450 mhz processor. The new iMac 800's cost $1299, for what is essentially the same computer as my "old" Cube, with the same Firewire, airport, USB, and 100 mhz system bus. The Cube has a daughter card, and an extra RAM slot. With 800 mhz upgrade cards below $300 it is more economical for me to upgrade my Cube than it is to purchase a new iMac. For under $600 I could get a 1.2 Ghz processor card, which exceeds the speed of the top of the line iMac. Now, If Apple had boosted the speed of the iMac's system bus to 133, or 166 mhz, which they should be able to do with minimal increase to productioni cost, and updated the graphics system, USB and Firewire , Airport, and Firewire ports then the iMac looks more attractive. This leads to a strong market for "old" macs, which cuts into the sales of "New" macs, which cuts into Apples profits.
So what will they do. Maybe buy a wintel. Maybe just wait. Maybe buy a decent powermac on eBay. This is NOT earning Apple any money. You get my point?
I certainly do. But do Apple?
Well argued, Netro'. No doubt Apple have begun looking at their tower sales and begun wondering the same thing. (Quark, lame G4 and soft economy not withstanding...)
And 'wait'? I've waited...and waited...still waiting...and...well...even the table's ready for the 'G5'. Still, not too much longer if Macoobiedoobie is to be believed. Another month-ish and 970 heaven?
We'll see. Gasp.
Lemon Bon Bon
My point was that Apple has not been keeping up with the market in regards to specs, which makes older computers more appealing, especially when the cost of processor upgrades is relatively low compared to the cost of a new computer of the same relative speed. My example was subjective, it is the computer that I own. There are a lot of cube owners out there that are upgrading processors and GPU's, and keeping their Cubes competative with the current offerings from Apple.
Now, I think that it is a good selling point to have that "upgradable" label on a computer. It definatly effects my buying choices, even if it is something that I know I am not likely to do. To be successfull at this from Apples perspective they need to make it more attractive to buy a new machine than upgrade an old one. They do this by continually adding features and upgrading the system performance of the computers that they are currently selling.
With the exception of the processor and monitor and optical drive, the current iMac has specs consistant with the iMacs sold in 1999...it still uses PC100 memory, still has 2 memory card slots, still has built in video only (and it is still based on a chip that is 2+ years old), still has USB and Firewire. Today I can buy a G4 450 tower for around $700, and pop in a $250 processor upgrade, and it is more powerfull than the current iMac, again a 4 year old computer. Now, granted most people wont look into doing this, but it shows how antiqauted even their "inovative" iMac FP is in its core technology.
Apple needs to attract new customers to gain market share, but they also need to make it more attractive to the current owners of Macs to buy a new Mac to get the repeat buisness to keep up their revenue.
As for the Cube design, I don't mind a little bigger, hell, if you remove the acrylic case and move to a much thinner durable white plastic you've already increased internal dimensions without exterior changes, now stretch the box ONLY enough to fit the fat ass graphics cards they make these days and then I can see that happening. I value desktop real estate and I want the absolute smallest killer Mac I can get. I believe the Cube is the answer to this, but certainly not some huge ass 10" box.
Originally posted by Brian Green
Okay, I can see the benefits to upgrading the computers, and updates for Cubes are easily obtainable, as are updates for PM's. I think Apple could get into the market of selling upgrades if they wanted to. Kinda like buying a new engine for a car that you love. Who knows, perhaps they'll get a clue one of these days and do that but so far we have nothing from them on this issue.
As for the Cube design, I don't mind a little bigger, hell, if you remove the acrylic case and move to a much thinner durable white plastic you've already increased internal dimensions without exterior changes, now stretch the box ONLY enough to fit the fat ass graphics cards they make these days and then I can see that happening. I value desktop real estate and I want the absolute smallest killer Mac I can get. I believe the Cube is the answer to this, but certainly not some huge ass 10" box.
Apple should look at it like this, the label "Upgradable" aids in selling computers. However, the platform should develop at a rate as to make it less economical to upgrade an old computer than it is to buy a new one. This hasnt happened with the iMac, it is still using PC100 memory which dates back 4 years on the iMac, which makes upgrading Cubes and towers more economical than buying a new iMac becouse you will have the same system bus speed, the same USB, the same FireWire, the same IDE Hard Drive speed, etc. I realize that this is comparing "Apples to Oranges" as far as the computers are concerned, but the cost of a used G4 450 and an 800 mhz processor card are less than that of an iMac today, so most of the specs are equil to the new system, which does not help Apple sell computers. The iMac today should have better specs all around than the bottom of the line PM of 4 years ago, the fact that it dosnt bolsters the used Mac market, and I would imagine attributes to the lagging sales of Macs today.
Originally posted by @homenow
Apple should look at it like this, the label "Upgradable" aids in selling computers.
Ok, I'll buy that for some users.
However, the platform should develop at a rate as to make it less economical to upgrade an old computer than it is to buy a new one.
Are you saying Apple should produce enough upgrades so that buying an upgraded CPU or GPU or RAM isn't economically feasible or wise? That would be nice. But remember, most of that was Motorola's fault.
G4...that says it all. Up to that point, Apple had the lead, or neck-and-neck with the Wintel world as far as performance. Give it a month, and performance will be back on track, and updates will come much faster and more reliably from IBM than from Motorola.
Another note. You can often get customers to spend MORE if you offer a range of options than if the spread between models is too great.
Two scenarios. Customer walks in looking to spend 1K. You sell machines of 1K and 2.5K. You sell the 1K machine and some accessories and goodnight. But if you have a spread, you can often move your 1K customer, in minor increments, up to 1.5K by selling him a bunch of crap he doesn't really need, and never knew he wanted untill you sold it to him. That's how car dealers work. Granted, the option packages for many models have become limited to economy and premium, but the game still takes place between the sheer volume of different models present. Makes that have only a few models, tend to have lotsa lotsa options. BMW, for instance, can option you a 3 series from near econo car price, all the way up. A friend of mine got reamed on a 3 series because he ordered up every damn option. Had no intention of doing so when he walked in, but he did by the time he walked out -- no will power -- will he use that trip computer? Does the BMW salesman care?
The modularity of an upgradable consumer machine makes this very profitable tact possible because all machines can essentially be built BTO. The core offering still has to be good -- OSX, iApps, someday soon, iOffice, and competitive reliable hardware/price. Get 'em in the door by offering them what they need at a decent price, make it back by selling them what they can't resist.
So what can we learn from this is that Apple at least know there's a hole in the current line-up, but they also learned that if they didn't have the right combination of spec and price, not a lot of people will buy it. I'm sure Apple is very aware of this, and as they say, "have a plan" to fill this hole sometime in the future.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Ok, I'll buy that for some users.
Are you saying Apple should produce enough upgrades so that buying an upgraded CPU or GPU or RAM isn't economically feasible or wise? That would be nice. But remember, most of that was Motorola's fault.
G4...that says it all. Up to that point, Apple had the lead, or neck-and-neck with the Wintel world as far as performance. Give it a month, and performance will be back on track, and updates will come much faster and more reliably from IBM than from Motorola.
Apple is not to blame for all of their problems, that is correct. However they have had leeway to improve overall system performance. For example, the G4 supports at least a 166 mhz FSB, but the iMac is still using the same 100 mhz FSB that they were using 4 years ago in the G3 iMac. The upgrade to a 133 FSB would be little to no cost, as the memory cost the same and other components. Another area of performance that they could easily address is HD speed, which effects performance not only in drive read/writes but also in the use of virtual memory (becouse of read/write speed). Apple could move to drives and get an overall system performance gain. USB 2 could be added as well, with neglegable cost to production (and if some reports are correct is essentially there in some computers but the USB 2 compatablility has been turned off in firmware).
As far as graphics systems, Apple could stop "crippling" their cards, and upgrade them at a faster rate. Most, if not all, GPU's today support 2 monitors, yet Apple has gone to the expense to turn off that support on the iMac and iBooks, loosing a potential "selling point" for the systems at NO NET COST to Apple. In fact it cost Apple money to write the software to turn this ability off in these systems. Add Svideo out, again it is supported by most commercial cards today. Yes this would add some component cost, but it adds flexability to the computers.
Sould Apple produce CPU or GPU upgrades for existing computers? No, this is better done by the commercial market. But Apple could do a better job at taking advantage of the available technology to make their keep their computers more competative both "upgraded" legacy hardware and the Wintel competition.
So you can blame it on Apple, or you can blame Motorola for not having a higher specced processor and bus-speeds. If they made a 3 ghz G4 and had a 500 mhz bus for the powermac, they could simply sell a 2ghz G4 iMac with a 300-400 mhz bus and no-one would complain?? Am I right. This is just business, and Apple has to differentiate it's pro and consumer lines. It's not their fault that the highest specced processor from moto can't cope with more than a 166 mhz bus. And by the way, the 17" iMac has a 133 mhz bus.
Originally posted by NETROMac
JCG, Apple is simply trying to differentiate it's offerings. The powermac has to have the fastest processors, the best gfx-cards, fastest memory. The iMac has to be lower spec to not compete directly with the powermac, and they have to have something to entice customers to buy the powermac over the iMac. If the iMac had a 166 mhz bus, dual 1.25 G4's and all the other features of the powermacs at the same price it is now, plus the possability to drive a second screen, I guess a lot of people would choose the iMac over the powermac, at least if the doesn't need the expansion.
So you can blame it on Apple, or you can blame Motorola for not having a higher specced processor and bus-speeds. If they made a 3 ghz G4 and had a 500 mhz bus for the powermac, they could simply sell a 2ghz G4 iMac with a 300-400 mhz bus and no-one would complain?? Am I right. This is just business, and Apple has to differentiate it's pro and consumer lines. It's not their fault that the highest specced processor from moto can't cope with more than a 166 mhz bus. And by the way, the 17" iMac has a 133 mhz bus.
Apple has plenty of room to differentiate the iMac and the PM while offering better tech specs on the iMac than they do, though I didnt realize that the 17" iMacs finally got a 133 mhz bus. The PM's could be duals across the board with the level 3 cache on board, and leave the iMacs as single processors without Level 3 cache. That with the extra expansion, DDR Ram, and newest GPU's should do it. I wasnt suggesting that Apple match the PM's spec for spec, but that they have had room to push the iMac's performance a bit more than they have.
This is an artificial limitation imposed by a certain supplier. Once we have a CPU family that scales up steadily and reliably, Apple will have much more to work with than they currently do. They'll still gimp lower-line machines somewhat - it seems to be a longstanding tradition in Cupertino - but they can at least do it in homage to the Performa, not to avoid embarrassing their professional line.
As for BTO being easier to update: Yeah, but you get to pick any two of: cheap, quiet, small, reliable; manufacturing costs go up, because integrated chipsets are significantly cheaper; manufacturing logistics get more complicated; and performance can go down as well, at least in budget systems. If you want to know what Dell spends their half-billion R&D budget on, this is it: Making BTO cost effective.
The Cube should be as faithful to the original model as possible, because the original model captivated everyone who saw it, and really showed what a professional creative workstation could be like. What it needs, more than anything else (including, say, a more standard 7" AGP slot or more accessible ports) is a clearly defined market and a sane price. Had Apple been just a bit smarter, the Cube would have taken over design and publishing, and even started making inroads into audio (the shortage of FW-savvy products would have hurt initially, but if it had been popular enough that problem would have solved itself).