IBM said that the PPC970 was the first in the line of 9xx series PPCs...
So, I bet IBM is fudging a bit on when this thing is gonna be available, and we will see the new PowerMac 970 come this January (at least announced, to ship later)...
Ditto for the xServe, it has PPC 970 written ALL over it...
Cannot wait to see Steve gloating in front of racks of these babies in the server room @ Pixar!
Possibly! Possibly the PowerBook will also make the leap, after all, it is part of the 'Pro' lineup...
The iMac, eMac & iBook lines all switch to G4s... iMacs & eMacs getting the models that are currently being used by the PowerMacs/PowerBooks... iBooks getting the ones that were being used by the iMacs & eMacs...
Unless, of course, IBM comes out with the mythical Sahara G3+VMX chip that has been mentioned around here in the past...
So, come next year the entire line has transitioned in their CPU assignments...
The exciting stuff comes around when IBM starts showing us the rest of the PPC9xx family...
These new PPCs go into the Power (and xServes, I didn't forget about those) series, and the smaller/cooler (die-shrunk to boot) PPC970 makes the move to consumerville...
The longer Apple can keep Moto and IBM intersted the better for them ("options, we like to have options"). My bet is the PowerMac goes all 970 MWSF 04, probably with a couple months before and after all other models are speed bumped. 6-8 months later the Powerbook changes over. Probably the XServe comes along in a similar time frame, if not a couple months longer (but it won't be at an Expo). If by that point the G4 is at 1.8 Ghz territory or close the iMac, eMac, iBook all will be G4 (from Mot). Perhaps MWSF 05 coinciding with a new form factor the iMac changes over (probably the eMac dies around that time as LCD screens address durability/cost concerns) or it may soldier on with high clocking G4s. The iBook is the last G3 and will be the last G4.
If Moto comes to a complete halt on PPC development maybe in the course of a year after the big Party at MWSF 04 the whole line changes over but only if Apple can get the new eMac, iMac, and iBook ready by June.
I'd bet on 18-24 months of transition even if Apple completely goes to the 970 (and its folow ons) across the line. If Moto is able to goose the G4 a bit more I bet it'll be arouund for a while.
Apple would do themselves a huge favor if they rid themslves of the eMac and the iMac lineup all together.
I propose the following:
1.2 GHz Single ~$899
1.8 GHz Single ~$1199
1.2 GHz Dual ~$1599
1.8 GHz Dual ~$1899
Move the G4 to the portable lineup:
13" iBook 0.80 GHz ~ $1099 Combo Drive
13" iBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1399 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1899 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.25 GHz ~ $2299 Combo Drive
Super Drive option for an additional $200. The pBooks should also have best of breed graphic cards.
If they do this, they might have a chance to get themselves out of the funk they?ve been in these last several quarters. I?ve seen the iMac and eMac and I?m not impressed. The all-in-one is a failed concept and the sooner Apple moves away from it the better. This is coming from a former iMac400dv owner. Let me tell you, I?ll never make such a mistake again.
<strong>Apple would do themselves a huge favor if they rid themslves of the eMac and the iMac lineup all together.
I propose the following:
1.2 GHz Single ~$899
1.8 GHz Single ~$1199
1.2 GHz Dual ~$1599
1.8 GHz Dual ~$1899
Move the G4 to the portable lineup:
13" iBook 0.80 GHz ~ $1099 Combo Drive
13" iBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1399 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1899 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.25 GHz ~ $2299 Combo Drive
Super Drive option for an additional $200. The pBooks should also have best of breed graphic cards.
If they do this, they might have a chance to get themselves out of the funk they?ve been in these last several quarters. I?ve seen the iMac and eMac and I?m not impressed. The all-in-one is a failed concept and the sooner Apple moves away from it the better. This is coming from a former iMac400dv owner. Let me tell you, I?ll never make such a mistake again.
I have been using an iMac DV SE since they came out. Essentially , if apple cancels all in ones, they've lost my business. One of the reasons I like this computer is because of the footprint. I like my 12" iBook for the same reason. Apple would be crazy to kill it's all in ones. The all in ones are the one style apple has that no one else has been able to compete with. If they dump the all in ones, they'd have to go back to those cheasy desktop thingies like the 6100, for people with no space. Boy would that suck.
I agree with Vinney and PC^Killa (except that part about dropping AIO's for now). All Power and x lines move to 970 (PBook when it runs cool enough) and new G4 for i lines. Power lines available as singles with duals as BTO.
The only other scenario I see is the 970 put into a totally new line. Perhaps the new Workstation class some have been dreaming about. More Powerful G4's into the Power line, while the 970 goes into a new ProMac or MacStation. This would allow Apple to get a higher premium on the new line of chips, while still selling PowerMacs to their prosumer customers. When volume is high enough on the 970, they can start migrating the PowerMacs to 970 as well. While I don't see this as the most likely scenario, I don't think it can be totally ruled out either. Apple is no longer binding itself to only selling 4 products. They are obviously making a play for the enterprise, albeit slowly right now, with products like xServe, xRaid, OSX Sever, WebObjects. These new class of Macs could fit in with products, targeting clients that need real workstation level power and have the money to spend on it.
There is absolutely no way Apple will stop selling all in one desktops. They are not dated.
The trend, actually, has been toward more all-in-one computers (desktop and portable), which have been steadily been driving the towers more and more into a niche. I don't see that changing. There are too many advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple.
<strong>There is absolutely no way Apple will stop selling all in one desktops. They are not dated.
The trend, actually, has been toward more all-in-one computers (desktop and portable), which have been steadily been driving the towers more and more into a niche. I don't see that changing. There are too many advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what are the ?advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple??
1] It?s been argued that these machines are silent.
That?s total hogwash. As an owner of one of these I can testify that?s false. The HD fan howling, the CRT buzzing, the CD player spinning, all right in front of your face, is not a pleasant experience.
2] It?s been argued that these machines reduce wire clutter.
Again, that?s total bunk. No matter how monstrous your HD might be, you will out grow it within the first year of ownership. So you?ll need additional HD storage. You can?t add this internally so your only choice is an expensive FireWire external HD. You will need to connect a printer. You will need to connect a scanner. So now you have a bunch of, in your face wires, going off in all directions and no way to hide them.
3] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for the consumer.
How this can be argued is beyond me. Just follow the QE fiasco. Your graphics card is not supported? Too bad. You can?t upgrade the graphics card. You need more HD storage space. Well, you can purchase a FW solution at double the price per GB. You need a bigger monitor? Forget it, you need a new machine. There?s no way to recoup any expenses invested in the computer. You basically need a brand new machine should your needs exceed your initial estimates.
4] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for Apple.
How are expenses lessened for apple? Apple needs to reengineer a whole new machine and motherboard. They need to make sure heat dissipation issues do not melt the delicate electronics inside. There?s no way to put a decent processor or graphics card in these space-confined machines because that will cause a melt down. The consumer suffers from sub par performance, and Apple is stuck with a box that cannot be adequately updated with competitive electronics.
Well, what are the disadvantages to a well-designed Tower, both for the average consumer and for Apple?
1] It?s been argued that these machines are loud.
Place these away from your face. If Apple?s built-in fans are too loud they can be replaced with less noisy models.
2] It?s been argued that these machines increase wire clutter.
Put the machine under your desk. Out of sight out of mind. You?ll only see, (maybe) the wires to the monitor, and the keyboard.
3] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for the consumer.
This is a purely marketing scheme by Apple. Apple milks its customers for the ?extra? expandability. In reality, streamlining their desktop offerings to tower models only, will reduce costs across the line. Consumers can upgrade their monitor, their Graphics Card, Hard Drive, sound system, add an additional optical drive. All this can be done without having to throw away the machine.
4] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for Apple.
The Mac started as an All in one, and it will always be that way. I can't remember a time when there wasn't and AIO. Personally they are not my style but I can see their appeal and the ones Apple makes are the best in the industry.
But i agree there should be a transition such as:
PowerMacs go to 970, all other lines go to 745X line including the iBook.
Later in the year (6-8 months) the PowerBook should be transitioned over to the 970 line.
Beyond that we can't tell for sure what IBM has planned but a 90nm 970 type processor would be good for the iMac and iBook I think and by then the next generation 9XX series should be out for the Pro line.
I love my DVSE.....its noisy and its HD is full, and I would like more graphics performance...but I can still make do with what I have, and the ability to be able to take the computer home with me(from my dorm room) to home whenever I go home for a weekend, is invaluable, and something that is alot more of a hassle with a tower.
AIO are not going to be dropped anytime soon, the iMac is what saved Apple oh so long ago, and the iMac is what MILLIONS of pc users have come to identify apple with, and have been impressed by it.
the iMac is also the cause for companies like gateway spending lots of money to make their imitations which always fail, so inadvertantly apple is stifling some competition.
the eMac is a great price for what you get, sure you can get bigger specs for less price on the pc world, but there are reasons to buy a mac, and we all know them, and I don't even want to get into that
the eMac is PERFECT for education....PERFECT, these things are cheap and powerful....any given elementary school or middle school, or even high school computer lab or library can benefit greatly in getting eMacs. they are powerful enough to do beginner video editing and graphics work, and they are small and cheap enough to be used as internet/research computers in a school library.
the iApps are also perfect for school situations, because they are simple enough to learn with and powerful enough to work with.
thats about all I have to say about that.
heres a piece of irony: towers were always known as desktops which are put under the desk to decrease heat issues, and clutter.
<strong>Well, what are the ?advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple??
1] It?s been argued that these machines are silent.
That?s total hogwash. As an owner of one of these I can testify that?s false. The HD fan howling, the CRT buzzing, the CD player spinning, all right in front of your face, is not a pleasant experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what machine you're describing, but the old CRT iMac (after the rev C, at least) is pleasantly quiet, and the LCD iMac is as well. I've never noticed CD players being a problem, but then I don't spend a lot of time with CDs in the drive. My mom's able to work in total silence most of the time on her iMac - with the exception of the CRT whine, but even that's not too bad.
[quote]<strong>2] It?s been argued that these machines reduce wire clutter.
Again, that?s total bunk. No matter how monstrous your HD might be, you will out grow it within the first year of ownership. So you?ll need additional HD storage. You can?t add this internally so your only choice is an expensive FireWire external HD. You will need to connect a printer. You will need to connect a scanner. So now you have a bunch of, in your face wires, going off in all directions and no way to hide them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you might outgrow it in the first year of ownership, but very few of the people I know have even come close, and the ones who do tend to embark on housecleaning. That's what CD-Rs are good for. Also, the HD is upgradable in the AIOs. Not as easily as in some towers, but no harder than in the cheapies (don't lose any of those screws!). And even with a FW drive nearby, you're still talking about much less clutter than a tower with a separate monitor and separate speakers. My mom's iMac slipped neatly into a corner of her desk.
[quote]<strong>3] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for the consumer.
How this can be argued is beyond me. Just follow the QE fiasco. Your graphics card is not supported? Too bad. You can?t upgrade the graphics card. You need more HD storage space. Well, you can purchase a FW solution at double the price per GB. You need a bigger monitor? Forget it, you need a new machine. There?s no way to recoup any expenses invested in the computer. You basically need a brand new machine should your needs exceed your initial estimates. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Most people - and by most, I mean the overwhelming majority - do not upgrade their machines. Apple has run the surveys and crunched the numbers. People buy a system in toto, use it until it doesn't do what they want anymore, and then replace everything. Yes, there are penny-pinchers and gamers who don't. But they're the exception, not the rule. For about 80% of the population, the AIO works perfectly. Pull it out, set it up, run it. If you do need the CD drive, it's right there, not under the desk behind a door. And, at least as far as the iMac is concerned, the AIO form allows for the movable LCD, which is a huge win for ergonomics and user convenience. There's a huge market for video cards on the PC side, but if you look at what most consumer towers in Best Buy come with (Intel video with 0MB RAM!) that's not really surprising.
The QE "fiasco" is a nonstarter. The primary purpose of QE is to enable advanced compositing features. Unless you're planning on running high-end video production apps on your old iMac, you're not missing out on too much. Jaguar sped the UI up in other ways.
[quote]<strong>4] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for Apple.
How are expenses lessened for apple? Apple needs to reengineer a whole new machine and motherboard. They need to make sure heat dissipation issues do not melt the delicate electronics inside. There?s no way to put a decent processor or graphics card in these space-confined machines because that will cause a melt down. The consumer suffers from sub par performance, and Apple is stuck with a box that cannot be adequately updated with competitive electronics.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Actually, the eMac and iMac share a motherboard, and most of the issues are the same ones that the PowerBook and iBook face. In fact, most of the parts are the same, too. But that's all design, which is a one-time expense for Apple that they will always have (since they will never just kick out a generic box). Where AIOs are a win for Apple is in production. The machines almost all use the same parts, and they're assembled and packaged exactly the same way. Any kind of BTO adds a significant level of complexity and cost to this arrangement, which can totally eclipse any savings in design costs.
It probably doesn't hurt for shipping and inventory that they're more compact, either.
[quote]<strong>Well, what are the disadvantages to a well-designed Tower, both for the average consumer and for Apple?
1] It?s been argued that these machines are loud.
Place these away from your face. If Apple?s built-in fans are too loud they can be replaced with less noisy models.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then all the ports and drives are away from you, which is less user-friendly. Those brave few who have tried to replace the fans in the new towers have realized that the real loud one is loud because it has to push a lot of air, and any quieter replacement might allow the machine to overheat. Besides, consumers don't replace fans. You're deep into hardware hacker territory at this point - just look at all the trouble, and all the disclaimers and caveats, attached to the fan-replacement articles.
[quote]<strong>2] It?s been argued that these machines increase wire clutter.
Put the machine under your desk. Out of sight out of mind. You?ll only see, (maybe) the wires to the monitor, and the keyboard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the rat's nest behind, which you will have to deal with every time you try to plug something in (unless you have a monitor with USB ports - but that only works for USB). And, as before, all the drives are now out of sight and out of mind.
[quote]<strong>3] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for the consumer.
This is a purely marketing scheme by Apple. Apple milks its customers for the ?extra? expandability. In reality, streamlining their desktop offerings to tower models only, will reduce costs across the line. Consumers can upgrade their monitor, their Graphics Card, Hard Drive, sound system, add an additional optical drive. All this can be done without having to throw away the machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTO manufacturing is far more complicated and expensive than AIO manufacturing, sorry. You have to keep a lot more parts around in small quantities, make sure you have enough of the options, but not too much of any of them (or you'll take a bath financially). Assembly is much less automated, and a more manual, more complicated, more error-prone, more expensive manufacturing process is an ongoing cost; designing an AIO is a one-time cost.
And, of course, Apple would feel the need to design a tower that a consumer could upgrade easily.
"Stripped" towers aren't happening. Apple invests a lot of effort into "out of box" experience, and they wouldn't risk shipping a machine that couldn't be plugged in, turned on, and running right out of the box. They don't even do that with their pro towers now. They never have.
[quote]<strong>4] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for Apple.
See above.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Likewise. You are greatly exaggerating the expense involved in designing an all-in-one (remember, notebooks are all-in-ones too - Apple is familiar with the issues involved) versus a tower, and also ignoring the significant level of cost and complexity involved in manufacturing a line with a lot of BTO options.
Apple has one of the best logistics guys in the business running their procurement and manufacturing: Tim Cook. And it's a funny thing, but when Apple's ramping up a new line of PowerMacs, what do they always do: Limit the BTO options, then expand them as the process matures. BTO is costly.
So what Mac model are you enjoying now? What desktop model do you plan purchasing in the future? A tower or them blimey iMacs?
If Apple does not offer a Tower model at a reasonable consumer price, their efforts at trying to gain market share will be a waste. This means they need to offer such a model at a price point < $1,000 USD. If they fail to do this within the next 3 to 6 months, I?ll not be around to care, osX or not.
I do agree that if they succeeded with the Cube (the intended iMac replacement) they could have ended the AIO lines once and for all. The cube was overpriced IMO. They could reintroduce the cube (970) alongside the desktop towers. But they will have to make a critical decision. Give up on the iMac line for good and concentrate on the iMac 3. It would make the marketing department's job very easy: iMac^3.
So what Mac model are you enjoying now? What desktop model do you plan purchasing in the future? A tower or them blimey iMacs?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) A Cube. It was the only thing at the time that was both quiet and capable of sporting an LCD.
2) If I had any intention of replacing it now, I'd get a 17" iMac.
Thanks for asking.
[quote]<strong>If Apple does not offer a Tower model at a reasonable consumer price, their efforts at trying to gain market share will be a waste.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is based on... what? Your assumption that everyone wants what you want?
[quote]<strong>This means they need to offer such a model at a price point < $1,000 USD. If they fail to do this within the next 3 to 6 months, I?ll not be around to care, osX or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless Apple does a strategic 180, you won't be around to care, unless you decide to start counting the used Mac market in your figuring.
Unless Apple does a strategic 180, you won't be around to care ..</strong><hr></blockquote>
The point is, neither will Apple.
Just look at their stock price. Yes, I know, Apple is the come back king. But that was with a 20% market share. We?re now at less than 5%. Ten years into the Internet age and we still don?t have a decent browser to compete with the Wintel world! No decent peer-to-peer software. No Internet telephony. Java that sux. Professional editing software that can barely ran on the new OS. Even word processing software bogs down the machine. Yeah, I know, blame M$. Barely any game titles, and when they do appear they?re unfinished buggy ports. We love the Mac. We pride ourself on the promise of its superiority. We?re smug about the fact that we pay these incredible premiums to use the MacOS. But should we be?
[quote]Just look at their stock price. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is a hard time for investors all over the tech market, but with their cash I don't think anyone except you is expecting them to leave in 6 months.
[quote] We?re now at less than 5%. <hr></blockquote>
Depends a bit on your metrics, bud. I won't get into it, but remember that the 20% was 20% of a lot smaller number, and since Macs last a lot longer than PCs (or folks just keep them longer) that 5% isn't really representative of how many are actually out there. But okay, it is not a majority by a long stretch.
[quote] we still don?t have a decent browser to compete with the Wintel world! <hr></blockquote>
We don't? Last I checked, we have all the ones that are in the Wintel world. You must mean we don't have the very FASTEST, we have the second FASTEST. Okay, I suppose so. And?
[quote] No decent peer-to-peer software. <hr></blockquote>
I like Carracho for that sort of thing, and Acquisition for the real network stuff, but I'm not a WAREZ D00D PIRATE, so I haven't spent a lot of time working on that.
[quote] No Internet telephony. <hr></blockquote>
Not true...check the Software forum.
[quote] Java that sux. <hr></blockquote>
And Java doesn't suck on what platform? It does everything I need it to--but I've actually never seen Java run like it is supposed to in theory on ANY platform.
[quote] Professional editing software that can barely ran on the new OS. <hr></blockquote>
FCP3? I don't think this is the case.
[quote] Even word processing software bogs down the machine. Yeah, I know, blame M$. <hr></blockquote>
They posted a patch yesterday, BTW...and yes, if it's Word you speak of, I think I would hold them responsible. Funny how that works.
[quote] Barely any game titles, and when they do appear they?re unfinished buggy ports. <hr></blockquote>
I think this is hyperbolic. I agree there aren't as many games, and more accurately that it takes too long for the games to get Mac releases, but my experience is actually that games run well.
Disclaimer: I am not an avid Mac gamer whatsoever, and when I am I use Ambrosia products...but when I have gamed on the Mac, it reminded me of gaming on a PC.
[quote] We?re smug about the fact that we pay these incredible premiums to use the MacOS. But should we be? <hr></blockquote>
I think being smug sucks rocks, and we should avoid that--it can be hard, as there is a fine line between the virtues of pride and the sin of pride.
I like my Mac. It is fun. It makes me happy. It gets work done. That's all.
You should probably get a PC if you really feel this strongly, esp. if you are waiting for a cheap tower that is never going to arrive.
I wish the Mac community didn?t behave like such a bunch of sheep. We need to hold Apple?s feet to the fire. We like to blame Motorola, Microsoft, and other lesser villains, but we should bring Apple to task as well. They can do better. For far too long, they have used and abused the loyalty of the Mac community. They have also failed in their most basic mission and promise to their shareholders. That of increasing market share with all the ramifications that this entails. I don?t want to switch. I really don?t. I used Macs exclusively since grade school. But I feel like Apple is almost forcing me to.
<strong>I wish the Mac community didn?t behave like such a bunch of sheep. We need to hold Apple?s feet to the fire. We like to blame Motorola, Microsoft, and other lesser villains, but we should bring Apple to task as well. They can do better. For far too long, they have used and abused the loyalty of the Mac community. They have also failed in their most basic mission and promise to their shareholders. That of increasing market share with all the ramifications that this entails. I don?t want to switch. I really don?t. I used Macs exclusively since grade school. But I feel like Apple is almost forcing me to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe where you live there's not this interesting concept called consumer freedom. The way to tell Apple to change is to switch.
Why do people buy expensive german cars? In most respects they are inferior to american and japanese equivalents. But there's amystique about them that causes people to but them. Try calling Mercedes and telling them "Make really plain cars that are cheaper." Not going to happen.
Comments
IBM said that the PPC970 was the first in the line of 9xx series PPCs...
So, I bet IBM is fudging a bit on when this thing is gonna be available, and we will see the new PowerMac 970 come this January (at least announced, to ship later)...
Ditto for the xServe, it has PPC 970 written ALL over it...
Cannot wait to see Steve gloating in front of racks of these babies in the server room @ Pixar!
Possibly! Possibly the PowerBook will also make the leap, after all, it is part of the 'Pro' lineup...
The iMac, eMac & iBook lines all switch to G4s... iMacs & eMacs getting the models that are currently being used by the PowerMacs/PowerBooks... iBooks getting the ones that were being used by the iMacs & eMacs...
Unless, of course, IBM comes out with the mythical Sahara G3+VMX chip that has been mentioned around here in the past...
So, come next year the entire line has transitioned in their CPU assignments...
The exciting stuff comes around when IBM starts showing us the rest of the PPC9xx family...
These new PPCs go into the Power (and xServes, I didn't forget about those) series, and the smaller/cooler (die-shrunk to boot) PPC970 makes the move to consumerville...
Speculate at will...!
[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>
If Moto comes to a complete halt on PPC development maybe in the course of a year after the big Party at MWSF 04 the whole line changes over but only if Apple can get the new eMac, iMac, and iBook ready by June.
I'd bet on 18-24 months of transition even if Apple completely goes to the 970 (and its folow ons) across the line. If Moto is able to goose the G4 a bit more I bet it'll be arouund for a while.
I propose the following:
1.2 GHz Single ~$899
1.8 GHz Single ~$1199
1.2 GHz Dual ~$1599
1.8 GHz Dual ~$1899
Move the G4 to the portable lineup:
13" iBook 0.80 GHz ~ $1099 Combo Drive
13" iBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1399 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1899 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.25 GHz ~ $2299 Combo Drive
Super Drive option for an additional $200. The pBooks should also have best of breed graphic cards.
If they do this, they might have a chance to get themselves out of the funk they?ve been in these last several quarters. I?ve seen the iMac and eMac and I?m not impressed. The all-in-one is a failed concept and the sooner Apple moves away from it the better. This is coming from a former iMac400dv owner. Let me tell you, I?ll never make such a mistake again.
[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>Apple would do themselves a huge favor if they rid themslves of the eMac and the iMac lineup all together.
I propose the following:
1.2 GHz Single ~$899
1.8 GHz Single ~$1199
1.2 GHz Dual ~$1599
1.8 GHz Dual ~$1899
Move the G4 to the portable lineup:
13" iBook 0.80 GHz ~ $1099 Combo Drive
13" iBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1399 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.00 GHz ~ $1899 Combo Drive
17" widescreen pBook 1.25 GHz ~ $2299 Combo Drive
Super Drive option for an additional $200. The pBooks should also have best of breed graphic cards.
If they do this, they might have a chance to get themselves out of the funk they?ve been in these last several quarters. I?ve seen the iMac and eMac and I?m not impressed. The all-in-one is a failed concept and the sooner Apple moves away from it the better. This is coming from a former iMac400dv owner. Let me tell you, I?ll never make such a mistake again.
[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no.
The all in one is not a failed concept. Outdated? possibly. failed? no.
and pigs will fly on the day that apples highest end sells for $1899
<strong>
Uh, no.
The all in one is not a failed concept. Outdated? possibly. failed? no.
and pigs will fly on the day that apples highest end sells for $1899</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok.
1.2 GHz Quads ~ $2899
1.8 GHz Quads ~ $3899
PowerMac, PowerBook, 970's
The consumer machines are about cute form, ease of use, iApps etc. The Power line are about er...power.
The All-in-Ones are not a dead format; that's a ludicrous troll statement. The LCD iMac's the best home PC I've ever had.
The only other scenario I see is the 970 put into a totally new line. Perhaps the new Workstation class some have been dreaming about. More Powerful G4's into the Power line, while the 970 goes into a new ProMac or MacStation. This would allow Apple to get a higher premium on the new line of chips, while still selling PowerMacs to their prosumer customers. When volume is high enough on the 970, they can start migrating the PowerMacs to 970 as well. While I don't see this as the most likely scenario, I don't think it can be totally ruled out either. Apple is no longer binding itself to only selling 4 products. They are obviously making a play for the enterprise, albeit slowly right now, with products like xServe, xRaid, OSX Sever, WebObjects. These new class of Macs could fit in with products, targeting clients that need real workstation level power and have the money to spend on it.
The trend, actually, has been toward more all-in-one computers (desktop and portable), which have been steadily been driving the towers more and more into a niche. I don't see that changing. There are too many advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple.
<strong>There is absolutely no way Apple will stop selling all in one desktops. They are not dated.
The trend, actually, has been toward more all-in-one computers (desktop and portable), which have been steadily been driving the towers more and more into a niche. I don't see that changing. There are too many advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, what are the ?advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple??
1] It?s been argued that these machines are silent.
That?s total hogwash. As an owner of one of these I can testify that?s false. The HD fan howling, the CRT buzzing, the CD player spinning, all right in front of your face, is not a pleasant experience.
2] It?s been argued that these machines reduce wire clutter.
Again, that?s total bunk. No matter how monstrous your HD might be, you will out grow it within the first year of ownership. So you?ll need additional HD storage. You can?t add this internally so your only choice is an expensive FireWire external HD. You will need to connect a printer. You will need to connect a scanner. So now you have a bunch of, in your face wires, going off in all directions and no way to hide them.
3] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for the consumer.
How this can be argued is beyond me. Just follow the QE fiasco. Your graphics card is not supported? Too bad. You can?t upgrade the graphics card. You need more HD storage space. Well, you can purchase a FW solution at double the price per GB. You need a bigger monitor? Forget it, you need a new machine. There?s no way to recoup any expenses invested in the computer. You basically need a brand new machine should your needs exceed your initial estimates.
4] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for Apple.
How are expenses lessened for apple? Apple needs to reengineer a whole new machine and motherboard. They need to make sure heat dissipation issues do not melt the delicate electronics inside. There?s no way to put a decent processor or graphics card in these space-confined machines because that will cause a melt down. The consumer suffers from sub par performance, and Apple is stuck with a box that cannot be adequately updated with competitive electronics.
Well, what are the disadvantages to a well-designed Tower, both for the average consumer and for Apple?
1] It?s been argued that these machines are loud.
Place these away from your face. If Apple?s built-in fans are too loud they can be replaced with less noisy models.
2] It?s been argued that these machines increase wire clutter.
Put the machine under your desk. Out of sight out of mind. You?ll only see, (maybe) the wires to the monitor, and the keyboard.
3] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for the consumer.
This is a purely marketing scheme by Apple. Apple milks its customers for the ?extra? expandability. In reality, streamlining their desktop offerings to tower models only, will reduce costs across the line. Consumers can upgrade their monitor, their Graphics Card, Hard Drive, sound system, add an additional optical drive. All this can be done without having to throw away the machine.
4] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for Apple.
See above.
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
But i agree there should be a transition such as:
PowerMacs go to 970, all other lines go to 745X line including the iBook.
Later in the year (6-8 months) the PowerBook should be transitioned over to the 970 line.
Beyond that we can't tell for sure what IBM has planned but a 90nm 970 type processor would be good for the iMac and iBook I think and by then the next generation 9XX series should be out for the Pro line.
AIO are not going to be dropped anytime soon, the iMac is what saved Apple oh so long ago, and the iMac is what MILLIONS of pc users have come to identify apple with, and have been impressed by it.
the iMac is also the cause for companies like gateway spending lots of money to make their imitations which always fail, so inadvertantly apple is stifling some competition.
the eMac is a great price for what you get, sure you can get bigger specs for less price on the pc world, but there are reasons to buy a mac, and we all know them, and I don't even want to get into that
the eMac is PERFECT for education....PERFECT, these things are cheap and powerful....any given elementary school or middle school, or even high school computer lab or library can benefit greatly in getting eMacs. they are powerful enough to do beginner video editing and graphics work, and they are small and cheap enough to be used as internet/research computers in a school library.
the iApps are also perfect for school situations, because they are simple enough to learn with and powerful enough to work with.
thats about all I have to say about that.
heres a piece of irony: towers were always known as desktops which are put under the desk to decrease heat issues, and clutter.
<strong>Well, what are the ?advantages to a well-designed all-in-one, both for the average consumer and for Apple??
1] It?s been argued that these machines are silent.
That?s total hogwash. As an owner of one of these I can testify that?s false. The HD fan howling, the CRT buzzing, the CD player spinning, all right in front of your face, is not a pleasant experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what machine you're describing, but the old CRT iMac (after the rev C, at least) is pleasantly quiet, and the LCD iMac is as well. I've never noticed CD players being a problem, but then I don't spend a lot of time with CDs in the drive. My mom's able to work in total silence most of the time on her iMac - with the exception of the CRT whine, but even that's not too bad.
[quote]<strong>2] It?s been argued that these machines reduce wire clutter.
Again, that?s total bunk. No matter how monstrous your HD might be, you will out grow it within the first year of ownership. So you?ll need additional HD storage. You can?t add this internally so your only choice is an expensive FireWire external HD. You will need to connect a printer. You will need to connect a scanner. So now you have a bunch of, in your face wires, going off in all directions and no way to hide them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you might outgrow it in the first year of ownership, but very few of the people I know have even come close, and the ones who do tend to embark on housecleaning. That's what CD-Rs are good for.
[quote]<strong>3] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for the consumer.
How this can be argued is beyond me. Just follow the QE fiasco. Your graphics card is not supported? Too bad. You can?t upgrade the graphics card. You need more HD storage space. Well, you can purchase a FW solution at double the price per GB. You need a bigger monitor? Forget it, you need a new machine. There?s no way to recoup any expenses invested in the computer. You basically need a brand new machine should your needs exceed your initial estimates. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Most people - and by most, I mean the overwhelming majority - do not upgrade their machines. Apple has run the surveys and crunched the numbers. People buy a system in toto, use it until it doesn't do what they want anymore, and then replace everything. Yes, there are penny-pinchers and gamers who don't. But they're the exception, not the rule. For about 80% of the population, the AIO works perfectly. Pull it out, set it up, run it. If you do need the CD drive, it's right there, not under the desk behind a door. And, at least as far as the iMac is concerned, the AIO form allows for the movable LCD, which is a huge win for ergonomics and user convenience. There's a huge market for video cards on the PC side, but if you look at what most consumer towers in Best Buy come with (Intel video with 0MB RAM!) that's not really surprising.
The QE "fiasco" is a nonstarter. The primary purpose of QE is to enable advanced compositing features. Unless you're planning on running high-end video production apps on your old iMac, you're not missing out on too much. Jaguar sped the UI up in other ways.
[quote]<strong>4] It?s been argued that these machines reduce expense for Apple.
How are expenses lessened for apple? Apple needs to reengineer a whole new machine and motherboard. They need to make sure heat dissipation issues do not melt the delicate electronics inside. There?s no way to put a decent processor or graphics card in these space-confined machines because that will cause a melt down. The consumer suffers from sub par performance, and Apple is stuck with a box that cannot be adequately updated with competitive electronics.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Actually, the eMac and iMac share a motherboard, and most of the issues are the same ones that the PowerBook and iBook face. In fact, most of the parts are the same, too. But that's all design, which is a one-time expense for Apple that they will always have (since they will never just kick out a generic box). Where AIOs are a win for Apple is in production. The machines almost all use the same parts, and they're assembled and packaged exactly the same way. Any kind of BTO adds a significant level of complexity and cost to this arrangement, which can totally eclipse any savings in design costs.
It probably doesn't hurt for shipping and inventory that they're more compact, either.
[quote]<strong>Well, what are the disadvantages to a well-designed Tower, both for the average consumer and for Apple?
1] It?s been argued that these machines are loud.
Place these away from your face. If Apple?s built-in fans are too loud they can be replaced with less noisy models.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then all the ports and drives are away from you, which is less user-friendly. Those brave few who have tried to replace the fans in the new towers have realized that the real loud one is loud because it has to push a lot of air, and any quieter replacement might allow the machine to overheat. Besides, consumers don't replace fans. You're deep into hardware hacker territory at this point - just look at all the trouble, and all the disclaimers and caveats, attached to the fan-replacement articles.
[quote]<strong>2] It?s been argued that these machines increase wire clutter.
Put the machine under your desk. Out of sight out of mind. You?ll only see, (maybe) the wires to the monitor, and the keyboard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the rat's nest behind, which you will have to deal with every time you try to plug something in (unless you have a monitor with USB ports - but that only works for USB). And, as before, all the drives are now out of sight and out of mind.
[quote]<strong>3] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for the consumer.
This is a purely marketing scheme by Apple. Apple milks its customers for the ?extra? expandability. In reality, streamlining their desktop offerings to tower models only, will reduce costs across the line. Consumers can upgrade their monitor, their Graphics Card, Hard Drive, sound system, add an additional optical drive. All this can be done without having to throw away the machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BTO manufacturing is far more complicated and expensive than AIO manufacturing, sorry. You have to keep a lot more parts around in small quantities, make sure you have enough of the options, but not too much of any of them (or you'll take a bath financially). Assembly is much less automated, and a more manual, more complicated, more error-prone, more expensive manufacturing process is an ongoing cost; designing an AIO is a one-time cost.
And, of course, Apple would feel the need to design a tower that a consumer could upgrade easily.
"Stripped" towers aren't happening. Apple invests a lot of effort into "out of box" experience, and they wouldn't risk shipping a machine that couldn't be plugged in, turned on, and running right out of the box. They don't even do that with their pro towers now. They never have.
[quote]<strong>4] It?s been argued that these machines increase expense for Apple.
See above.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Likewise.
Apple has one of the best logistics guys in the business running their procurement and manufacturing: Tim Cook. And it's a funny thing, but when Apple's ramping up a new line of PowerMacs, what do they always do: Limit the BTO options, then expand them as the process matures. BTO is costly.
So what Mac model are you enjoying now? What desktop model do you plan purchasing in the future? A tower or them blimey iMacs?
If Apple does not offer a Tower model at a reasonable consumer price, their efforts at trying to gain market share will be a waste. This means they need to offer such a model at a price point < $1,000 USD. If they fail to do this within the next 3 to 6 months, I?ll not be around to care, osX or not.
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>Right.
So what Mac model are you enjoying now? What desktop model do you plan purchasing in the future? A tower or them blimey iMacs?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) A Cube. It was the only thing at the time that was both quiet and capable of sporting an LCD.
2) If I had any intention of replacing it now, I'd get a 17" iMac.
Thanks for asking.
[quote]<strong>If Apple does not offer a Tower model at a reasonable consumer price, their efforts at trying to gain market share will be a waste.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is based on... what? Your assumption that everyone wants what you want?
[quote]<strong>This means they need to offer such a model at a price point < $1,000 USD. If they fail to do this within the next 3 to 6 months, I?ll not be around to care, osX or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless Apple does a strategic 180, you won't be around to care, unless you decide to start counting the used Mac market in your figuring.
<strong>
Unless Apple does a strategic 180, you won't be around to care ..</strong><hr></blockquote>
The point is, neither will Apple.
Just look at their stock price. Yes, I know, Apple is the come back king. But that was with a 20% market share. We?re now at less than 5%. Ten years into the Internet age and we still don?t have a decent browser to compete with the Wintel world! No decent peer-to-peer software. No Internet telephony. Java that sux. Professional editing software that can barely ran on the new OS. Even word processing software bogs down the machine. Yeah, I know, blame M$. Barely any game titles, and when they do appear they?re unfinished buggy ports. We love the Mac. We pride ourself on the promise of its superiority. We?re smug about the fact that we pay these incredible premiums to use the MacOS. But should we be?
[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
[quote]Just look at their stock price. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is a hard time for investors all over the tech market, but with their cash I don't think anyone except you is expecting them to leave in 6 months.
[quote] We?re now at less than 5%. <hr></blockquote>
Depends a bit on your metrics, bud. I won't get into it, but remember that the 20% was 20% of a lot smaller number, and since Macs last a lot longer than PCs (or folks just keep them longer) that 5% isn't really representative of how many are actually out there. But okay, it is not a majority by a long stretch.
[quote] we still don?t have a decent browser to compete with the Wintel world! <hr></blockquote>
We don't? Last I checked, we have all the ones that are in the Wintel world. You must mean we don't have the very FASTEST, we have the second FASTEST. Okay, I suppose so. And?
[quote] No decent peer-to-peer software. <hr></blockquote>
I like Carracho for that sort of thing, and Acquisition for the real network stuff, but I'm not a WAREZ D00D PIRATE, so I haven't spent a lot of time working on that.
[quote] No Internet telephony. <hr></blockquote>
Not true...check the Software forum.
[quote] Java that sux. <hr></blockquote>
And Java doesn't suck on what platform? It does everything I need it to--but I've actually never seen Java run like it is supposed to in theory on ANY platform.
[quote] Professional editing software that can barely ran on the new OS. <hr></blockquote>
FCP3? I don't think this is the case.
[quote] Even word processing software bogs down the machine. Yeah, I know, blame M$. <hr></blockquote>
They posted a patch yesterday, BTW...and yes, if it's Word you speak of, I think I would hold them responsible. Funny how that works.
[quote] Barely any game titles, and when they do appear they?re unfinished buggy ports. <hr></blockquote>
I think this is hyperbolic. I agree there aren't as many games, and more accurately that it takes too long for the games to get Mac releases, but my experience is actually that games run well.
Disclaimer: I am not an avid Mac gamer whatsoever, and when I am I use Ambrosia products...but when I have gamed on the Mac, it reminded me of gaming on a PC.
[quote] We?re smug about the fact that we pay these incredible premiums to use the MacOS. But should we be? <hr></blockquote>
I think being smug sucks rocks, and we should avoid that--it can be hard, as there is a fine line between the virtues of pride and the sin of pride.
I like my Mac. It is fun. It makes me happy. It gets work done. That's all.
You should probably get a PC if you really feel this strongly, esp. if you are waiting for a cheap tower that is never going to arrive.
It's cool--to each their own!
<strong>I wish the Mac community didn?t behave like such a bunch of sheep. We need to hold Apple?s feet to the fire. We like to blame Motorola, Microsoft, and other lesser villains, but we should bring Apple to task as well. They can do better. For far too long, they have used and abused the loyalty of the Mac community. They have also failed in their most basic mission and promise to their shareholders. That of increasing market share with all the ramifications that this entails. I don?t want to switch. I really don?t. I used Macs exclusively since grade school. But I feel like Apple is almost forcing me to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe where you live there's not this interesting concept called consumer freedom. The way to tell Apple to change is to switch.
Why do people buy expensive german cars? In most respects they are inferior to american and japanese equivalents. But there's amystique about them that causes people to but them. Try calling Mercedes and telling them "Make really plain cars that are cheaper." Not going to happen.