The problem is that the iMac is not the product it was originally created to be.
When the iMac was released it matched the low end professional machine's specs nearly exact and ssold with a suitable screen and other consumer features for a set low price.
233 Mhz
512K/cache
32 MB RAM
6 GB HD
ATI Rage IIC
56K Modem
10/100 Ethernet
24X CD-ROM
15 inch Display
$1299
it sold because for that one price it was a great all around consumer machine with a consumer focus and a great consumer software package. It also sold because of design and later because of personal preference in design. Apple now, doesn't seem to use these beliefs/guidelines in the iMac.
The iMac i think could be a great seller again, but Apple has to refocus it on its target market. They can't try to cover both the lowend consumer and the prosumer with it.
I totally agree...
I bought a Bondi iMac to run QuarkXpress in my office, and it ran like a dream for a few years. I never dreamt of replacing it, as it was stylish, and had enough power for low end design and prosumer work.
As soon as the G4 came out, it became unappealing despite it's price, because it just couldn't compete speed wise. This has only got more apparent since OS X.
I feel that this is the same situation we are in now with the iMac 2, but there is the added problems of the eMac and the high price...
The price of the iMac has to drop, and it needs an increased spec soon...
I hate to mention it again, but I think the problems yet again stem from Motorola's inability to get any decent speed chips out and move beyond the mpx bus. If the iMac 2 was clocking at say 1.6ghz when the G5 had come in, the iMac would be vastly more attractive...
The eMac could have stayed at around 1ghz for a while longer, and you have 3 clear markets...
The problem is that the iMac is not the product it was originally created to be.
When the iMac was released it matched the low end professional machine's specs nearly exact and ssold with a suitable screen and other consumer features for a set low price.
Yes the Imac was a really good deal at the time. But you have to remember that the G3 was supposed to be the low end chip, and the 604ev, the high end chip. But a weird thing happened the low end chip was more performant than the high end one. That's why the imac was so performant at the time compared to the towers.
Now the G5 is a different beast, who cost certainly more than a one ghz G4, recquire much more power supply and produce more heat. The mobo also is certainly much more power hungry herself, and much more expansive than the lattest G4 design.
We will certainly not see an imac G5, before the 90 nm process. However, it will be good to see 7457 imac. Why not for Paris expo ?
Powerdoc I like reading your posts. I noticed an abberation today however.
Quote:
The mobo also is certainly much more power hungry herself, and much more expansive than the lattest G4 design.
The G5 is one scary looking lady!
iMacs are here to stay, the way to fix the main problem of price is an iMac that is the same but without the screen or perhaps with a slight redesign (yeeeea, kind of like the Cube.) I was against the Cube but now that they broke out of the 4 product grid I think it would help, not hurt. But instead of a Cube, how about a pyramid (someone made one somewhere, I saw a picture), a sphere (we already have the circular mobo, it would have a stand and just look COOL) or dodecahedron (no not really.)
Education, Consumer, and Pro ranges, marketed under those headings.
You instantly have differentiation in both prices and features...
it is not too late.
Apple: Hire this man!
But it still needs a detachable screen... picture a pole-piece that snaps into the bottom of the monitor. Now people have three choices:
1) use it exactly like iMacs of the past.
2) upgrade the base when a new iMac comes out
3) buy a base-station thats sole purpose is to provide power and convert the connection in the pole to a standard adaptor so the customer can upgrade to a power mac if (s)he chooses.
There is nothing wrong with the computer or design. They need to dump the 15 " and drop prices dramatically to get them in the $800 -1600 range. Flats have come way down from other manufacturers, but apple has not followed suit and still overprices all of their Flat screens compared to others.
Well, not all of their flat screens are overpriced, just the smallest ones. Curious.
If they put the iMac down to $800, where does the eMac go? It needs a big upgrade, and has to fill the gap between the $1200 eMac and the $2000 PowerMac. The $1600 sounds right, as high as $1800, and a base model at $1200 or $1300. It would be great if 17" was the base monitor and if they could somehow add a bigger 19" one. I would think they can now afford to put some distance between the iMac and eMac processors, extra hard drive space, and a better graphics chip. The sticky widget seems to be the monitor. It deserves to be bigger, but the format may not allow it. And thus, is the iMac, the all-in-one, a gonner? I dunno, I kind of hope not just because I like to form so much.
Reading the financial reports of today, revenues from iMacs are down 25% compared to one year ago while Powerbooks are up.
Somehow, I got the impression that the form factor of the iMacs with their flatpanel display is not focused enough:
- if you want a desktop, you are going to buy a tower
- if you want an AIO, you are going to buy an eMac
- if you want a sleek, space-saving computer, you are going to buy a 'book.
There just seems a shrinking nieche for an AIO that wants to be as flexible as a notebook yet as powerful as a tower - especially since the price/performance rating is just soso compared to the eMac or iBook.
Is the iMac just a cube reloaded, overdesigned and overpriced for its target audience?
We are now shopping for two new machines. We want to hook up with iSight to our out of town inlaws (wifes dad is terminal) after going deleriously wild when we saw iChatAV.
We have an iMac DVSE 400 so it won't work with AV. Inlaws acquired our old desktop that we replaced with the iMac.
The eMac and iMac market is very confusing. The eMac has almost everything, feature for feature of the iMac and costs way less. But the form factor of the eMac is poor as compared to the iMac. Being able to completely manipulate the screen on the iMac is still its killer feature. This will also be important for dad and his situation. (He's not bedridden, just can't move around so well.)
The iMac does need to get some serious distance on the eMac in terms of speed but the eMac is getting long in the tooth and in need of an update itself. Something has got to give.
I still think the iMac can be the prosumer computer. Stick a G5 in the thing. Let the eMac stay in G4/G3 land with the iBooks. (This assumes that PB's will move to G5.) The iMac will never be as versatile as a tower and display so they don't really compete. Right now, the eMac and iMac go head to head way too directly.
Wasn't the eMac made for education in the first place partly due to the fact that the moveable screen of the iMac was thought too fragile for kid use in the long run? (Price was also too high for schools.)
We will probably buy a couple of refurbished iMacs and move on. Of course, this means that the iMac will get a big speed bump right afterwards.
I've said this before, but since I enjoy repeating myself. ;-)
Get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/Cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k (ideally, make this machine be able to accept a modular arm/screen a la the LCD iMac; I think this was discussed above). Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
I've said this before, but since I enjoy repeating myself. ;-)
Get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/Cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k (ideally, make this machine be able to accept a modular arm/screen a la the LCD iMac; I think this was discussed above). Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
that's stupid.
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
With the success of Dell in the Education market it appears that Education wants computers that are as innexpensive as possible. Apple is having a harder time with every product cycle filling this order as Intel computers become less and less expensive, and more powerfull. Blame it on Motorolla, or Apple or whoever, the cold hard fact is that G4 based Macs do not compete will in price and performance. Apple needs to both boost the speed of their consumer models and give them a price cut. The iMac needs to be below $1000. Apple could also benefit from a Cube/Desktop/pizzabox model that is innexpensive and does not have a built in monitor.
With the success of Dell in the Education market it appears that Education wants computers that are as innexpensive as possible.
Education administrators want Windows, because Windows is what's used in "the real world," and it's what the IT people coming into education are used to.
This, coupled with Dell's highly aggressive sales tactics, is a lot of what Apple is up against. That's not to say there isn't intense price pressure - there is - but Apple's not nearly as far behind in that area as you seem to think they are. And the eMac is actually designed for use in education, rather than just being a repurposed enterprise desktop.
Quote:
Apple is having a harder time with every product cycle filling this order as Intel computers become less and less expensive, and more powerfull.
Apple gained market share in education last quarter. It's a hell of a battle against a much larger company making boxes in the service of a monopoly, but Apple's still very much in the fight.
The G5 is so much better, it's killing me. My family is looking for a new computer. The iMac is what we want but it's far too slow for its price. If it's a quarter the speed of a G5 it should be half the price, since it at least has a display. iMac prices are FUBAR, they either need a massive update with a much faster bus or $500 off.
Grrr? you can't cut the iMac price by $500 because the eMac is right there! How stupid would it be to have eMacs and iMacs in exactly the same place? iMacs need and update, not a price slash, because the eMac will not drop by $500 in turn.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fred Anderson's comment about the iMac at the conference call. He said something like "given its price, it's not selling too bad." It really stood out to me, because it almost acknowledged that it was too expensive or not well-priced for its market. It also sounded like a punt - usually they defend their machines so irrationally, like blaming G4 sales on Quark for the past several years. At least it suggests they're aware of the problem, and maybe they're doing something about it in the near future.
iMacs need and update, not a price slash, because the eMac will not drop by $500 in turn.
They need an update and a price slash. £500 off the top end model and several hundred off the entry level. You can now buy an entry level Apple tower...dual 1.25 gig for less than the 'high end' iMac2.
In fact, you can buy a sub K Apple tower (shock, horror...) AND a 'proper' 17 inch display for roughly the same price as the iMac2 'top end'.
How...ironic.
The iMac2/eMac desktop line needs a damn good shake.
Over priced and underspecced. It's due a revamp.
Maybe have all Apple displays on an iMac2 style chrome arm. That would free the iMac/eMac form factor to go 'headless' with some nominal expandability.
I'm still for a less flawed Cube, ie an iCube for £500 to £1000 inc VAT. Onboard graphics at the low end and an upgradable graphics card at the higher end. Little expandability at the low end...more expandability at the higher end. After that, the consumer towers pick up the slack with great this and that (me wonders...will Apple replace the current G4 towers with the current speed grades when the G5 gets bumped early 04?)
Lot of the Edu' places I know went PC because of price. And the mhz thing. And the fact that the whole world runs Windows and the Mac didn't was a not inconsiderable factor. (Yeesh, I remember when English schools were lemming after the Acorns. Why? Apparently they were THE Edu' machines...) School budgets over here are crippled at the moment. Apple 'must try harder'. heh.
1. Robust, Headless Mac. Cheaper prices.
2. Software (Where's all the edu' X software? Maybe bundle Real PC with edu' Mac sales to at least get Macs back into consideration. Keep Classic for forseeable future.)
3. Keep pushing the X-Serve.
4. Keep up the Apple Teacher I.T training conferences. Seem to be popular.
5. Keep making the Mac easier to integrate into PC networks.
6. Maybe bundle free software site license with every suite purchase of new Macs.
7. Keep fighting the laptop market tooth and nail. I'd like to see an eBook for £495.
8. Loads of Apple software bundled with each machine. They're started to do that.
9. Free .Mac accounts..? Deal sweetners...
10. Better deals on iBook suites...with free IT trolley,
Just some thoughts. Looks like Apple are targeting certain edu' institutions to convert them...or reinforce them so they don't lose what they've got.
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
Oh? Education doesn't want a less expensive option? My wife's school district had to charge back hundreds of dollars in insurance expenses to its teachers this year because it just didn't have the money to pay its agreed-upon share. Do you really think that a Mac that costs less up front wouldn't be a more appealing option than a relatively expensive eMac?
Since you didn't bother to actually state it, what does the education market want/need in your opinion?
My original post didn't touch on the education market at all. If you'd like to go there, I'll revise my original thought to say that the eMac has no real place in Apple's CONSUMER lineup. Let them keep it as an education-only model (as it originally was) if they want, but in consumer-land, I, PERSONALLY, feel that the lineup would be better served by removing the eMac, offering a "headless iMac" instead, and having the iMac cover the consumer/prosumer range between $1 - 2k. Just my opinion.
PS - Shouldn't this board's moderators be setting an example for the rest of on how to conduct a civilized conversation rather than offhandedly calling an idea stupid?
PS - Shouldn't this board's moderators be setting an example for the rest of on how to conduct a civilized conversation rather than offhandedly calling an idea stupid?
Maybe he did moderate his statement?
Does anyone know if you add the sales of the eMacs to those of the iMacs if that equals what the iMac used to do by itself? Has the eMac added customers or has it just eaten away at the iMac? (Laptop sales definitely cloud this issue but still...)
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
The problem is that the iMac is not the product it was originally created to be.
When the iMac was released it matched the low end professional machine's specs nearly exact and ssold with a suitable screen and other consumer features for a set low price.
233 Mhz
512K/cache
32 MB RAM
6 GB HD
ATI Rage IIC
56K Modem
10/100 Ethernet
24X CD-ROM
15 inch Display
$1299
it sold because for that one price it was a great all around consumer machine with a consumer focus and a great consumer software package. It also sold because of design and later because of personal preference in design. Apple now, doesn't seem to use these beliefs/guidelines in the iMac.
The iMac i think could be a great seller again, but Apple has to refocus it on its target market. They can't try to cover both the lowend consumer and the prosumer with it.
I totally agree...
I bought a Bondi iMac to run QuarkXpress in my office, and it ran like a dream for a few years. I never dreamt of replacing it, as it was stylish, and had enough power for low end design and prosumer work.
As soon as the G4 came out, it became unappealing despite it's price, because it just couldn't compete speed wise. This has only got more apparent since OS X.
I feel that this is the same situation we are in now with the iMac 2, but there is the added problems of the eMac and the high price...
The price of the iMac has to drop, and it needs an increased spec soon...
I hate to mention it again, but I think the problems yet again stem from Motorola's inability to get any decent speed chips out and move beyond the mpx bus. If the iMac 2 was clocking at say 1.6ghz when the G5 had come in, the iMac would be vastly more attractive...
The eMac could have stayed at around 1ghz for a while longer, and you have 3 clear markets...
--->1Ghz G4. Cheap eMac. Basic features. £650-£1000.
--->1.6Ghz G4. iMac. Good features inc Bluetooth etc. £1000-£1500.
--->1.6Ghz Upwards G5. Inc Duals. Advanced features inc Duals. £1500 upwards.
Education, Consumer, and Pro ranges, marketed under those headings.
You instantly have differentiation in both prices and features...
it is not too late.
Originally posted by applenut
The problem is that the iMac is not the product it was originally created to be.
When the iMac was released it matched the low end professional machine's specs nearly exact and ssold with a suitable screen and other consumer features for a set low price.
Yes the Imac was a really good deal at the time. But you have to remember that the G3 was supposed to be the low end chip, and the 604ev, the high end chip. But a weird thing happened the low end chip was more performant than the high end one. That's why the imac was so performant at the time compared to the towers.
Now the G5 is a different beast, who cost certainly more than a one ghz G4, recquire much more power supply and produce more heat. The mobo also is certainly much more power hungry herself, and much more expansive than the lattest G4 design.
We will certainly not see an imac G5, before the 90 nm process. However, it will be good to see 7457 imac. Why not for Paris expo ?
The mobo also is certainly much more power hungry herself, and much more expansive than the lattest G4 design.
The G5 is one scary looking lady!
iMacs are here to stay, the way to fix the main problem of price is an iMac that is the same but without the screen or perhaps with a slight redesign (yeeeea, kind of like the Cube.) I was against the Cube but now that they broke out of the 4 product grid I think it would help, not hurt. But instead of a Cube, how about a pyramid (someone made one somewhere, I saw a picture), a sphere (we already have the circular mobo, it would have a stand and just look COOL) or dodecahedron (no not really.)
Originally posted by Marcus
The eMac could have stayed at around 1ghz for a while longer, and you have 3 clear markets...
--->1Ghz G4. Cheap eMac. Basic features. £650-£1000.
--->1.6Ghz G4. iMac. Good features inc Bluetooth etc. £1000-£1500.
--->1.6Ghz Upwards G5. Inc Duals. Advanced features inc Duals. £1500 upwards.
Education, Consumer, and Pro ranges, marketed under those headings.
You instantly have differentiation in both prices and features...
it is not too late.
Apple: Hire this man!
But it still needs a detachable screen... picture a pole-piece that snaps into the bottom of the monitor. Now people have three choices:
1) use it exactly like iMacs of the past.
2) upgrade the base when a new iMac comes out
3) buy a base-station thats sole purpose is to provide power and convert the connection in the pole to a standard adaptor so the customer can upgrade to a power mac if (s)he chooses.
There is nothing wrong with the computer or design. They need to dump the 15 " and drop prices dramatically to get them in the $800 -1600 range. Flats have come way down from other manufacturers, but apple has not followed suit and still overprices all of their Flat screens compared to others.
If they put the iMac down to $800, where does the eMac go? It needs a big upgrade, and has to fill the gap between the $1200 eMac and the $2000 PowerMac. The $1600 sounds right, as high as $1800, and a base model at $1200 or $1300. It would be great if 17" was the base monitor and if they could somehow add a bigger 19" one. I would think they can now afford to put some distance between the iMac and eMac processors, extra hard drive space, and a better graphics chip. The sticky widget seems to be the monitor. It deserves to be bigger, but the format may not allow it. And thus, is the iMac, the all-in-one, a gonner? I dunno, I kind of hope not just because I like to form so much.
Originally posted by Smircle
Reading the financial reports of today, revenues from iMacs are down 25% compared to one year ago while Powerbooks are up.
Somehow, I got the impression that the form factor of the iMacs with their flatpanel display is not focused enough:
- if you want a desktop, you are going to buy a tower
- if you want an AIO, you are going to buy an eMac
- if you want a sleek, space-saving computer, you are going to buy a 'book.
There just seems a shrinking nieche for an AIO that wants to be as flexible as a notebook yet as powerful as a tower - especially since the price/performance rating is just soso compared to the eMac or iBook.
Is the iMac just a cube reloaded, overdesigned and overpriced for its target audience?
Yep
We have an iMac DVSE 400 so it won't work with AV. Inlaws acquired our old desktop that we replaced with the iMac.
The eMac and iMac market is very confusing. The eMac has almost everything, feature for feature of the iMac and costs way less. But the form factor of the eMac is poor as compared to the iMac. Being able to completely manipulate the screen on the iMac is still its killer feature. This will also be important for dad and his situation. (He's not bedridden, just can't move around so well.)
The iMac does need to get some serious distance on the eMac in terms of speed but the eMac is getting long in the tooth and in need of an update itself. Something has got to give.
I still think the iMac can be the prosumer computer. Stick a G5 in the thing. Let the eMac stay in G4/G3 land with the iBooks. (This assumes that PB's will move to G5.) The iMac will never be as versatile as a tower and display so they don't really compete. Right now, the eMac and iMac go head to head way too directly.
Wasn't the eMac made for education in the first place partly due to the fact that the moveable screen of the iMac was thought too fragile for kid use in the long run? (Price was also too high for schools.)
We will probably buy a couple of refurbished iMacs and move on. Of course, this means that the iMac will get a big speed bump right afterwards.
Get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/Cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k (ideally, make this machine be able to accept a modular arm/screen a la the LCD iMac; I think this was discussed above). Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
I've said this before, but since I enjoy repeating myself. ;-)
Get rid of the eMac and replace it with the long-fabled headless iMac/Cube redux. Have the G4 Cube2 start at $500 and go up to $1k (ideally, make this machine be able to accept a modular arm/screen a la the LCD iMac; I think this was discussed above). Have the G4 iMac start there, and go up to $2k. The PowerMac G5's take it from there. Boom, you've covered the desktop price spectrum.
that's stupid.
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
Originally posted by applenut
that's stupid.
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
With the success of Dell in the Education market it appears that Education wants computers that are as innexpensive as possible. Apple is having a harder time with every product cycle filling this order as Intel computers become less and less expensive, and more powerfull. Blame it on Motorolla, or Apple or whoever, the cold hard fact is that G4 based Macs do not compete will in price and performance. Apple needs to both boost the speed of their consumer models and give them a price cut. The iMac needs to be below $1000. Apple could also benefit from a Cube/Desktop/pizzabox model that is innexpensive and does not have a built in monitor.
Originally posted by @homenow
With the success of Dell in the Education market it appears that Education wants computers that are as innexpensive as possible.
Education administrators want Windows, because Windows is what's used in "the real world," and it's what the IT people coming into education are used to.
This, coupled with Dell's highly aggressive sales tactics, is a lot of what Apple is up against. That's not to say there isn't intense price pressure - there is - but Apple's not nearly as far behind in that area as you seem to think they are. And the eMac is actually designed for use in education, rather than just being a repurposed enterprise desktop.
Apple is having a harder time with every product cycle filling this order as Intel computers become less and less expensive, and more powerfull.
Apple gained market share in education last quarter. It's a hell of a battle against a much larger company making boxes in the service of a monopoly, but Apple's still very much in the fight.
iMacs need and update, not a price slash, because the eMac will not drop by $500 in turn.
They need an update and a price slash. £500 off the top end model and several hundred off the entry level. You can now buy an entry level Apple tower...dual 1.25 gig for less than the 'high end' iMac2.
In fact, you can buy a sub K Apple tower (shock, horror...) AND a 'proper' 17 inch display for roughly the same price as the iMac2 'top end'.
How...ironic.
The iMac2/eMac desktop line needs a damn good shake.
Over priced and underspecced. It's due a revamp.
Maybe have all Apple displays on an iMac2 style chrome arm. That would free the iMac/eMac form factor to go 'headless' with some nominal expandability.
I'm still for a less flawed Cube, ie an iCube for £500 to £1000 inc VAT. Onboard graphics at the low end and an upgradable graphics card at the higher end. Little expandability at the low end...more expandability at the higher end. After that, the consumer towers pick up the slack with great this and that (me wonders...will Apple replace the current G4 towers with the current speed grades when the G5 gets bumped early 04?)
Lot of the Edu' places I know went PC because of price. And the mhz thing. And the fact that the whole world runs Windows and the Mac didn't was a not inconsiderable factor. (Yeesh, I remember when English schools were lemming after the Acorns. Why? Apparently they were THE Edu' machines...) School budgets over here are crippled at the moment. Apple 'must try harder'. heh.
1. Robust, Headless Mac. Cheaper prices.
2. Software (Where's all the edu' X software? Maybe bundle Real PC with edu' Mac sales to at least get Macs back into consideration. Keep Classic for forseeable future.)
3. Keep pushing the X-Serve.
4. Keep up the Apple Teacher I.T training conferences. Seem to be popular.
5. Keep making the Mac easier to integrate into PC networks.
6. Maybe bundle free software site license with every suite purchase of new Macs.
7. Keep fighting the laptop market tooth and nail. I'd like to see an eBook for £495.
8. Loads of Apple software bundled with each machine. They're started to do that.
9. Free .Mac accounts..? Deal sweetners...
10. Better deals on iBook suites...with free IT trolley,
Just some thoughts. Looks like Apple are targeting certain edu' institutions to convert them...or reinforce them so they don't lose what they've got.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by applenut
that's stupid.
the eMac is for education. Education doesn't want and doesn't need a "long fabled headless iMac/Cube redux"
Oh? Education doesn't want a less expensive option? My wife's school district had to charge back hundreds of dollars in insurance expenses to its teachers this year because it just didn't have the money to pay its agreed-upon share. Do you really think that a Mac that costs less up front wouldn't be a more appealing option than a relatively expensive eMac?
Since you didn't bother to actually state it, what does the education market want/need in your opinion?
My original post didn't touch on the education market at all. If you'd like to go there, I'll revise my original thought to say that the eMac has no real place in Apple's CONSUMER lineup. Let them keep it as an education-only model (as it originally was) if they want, but in consumer-land, I, PERSONALLY, feel that the lineup would be better served by removing the eMac, offering a "headless iMac" instead, and having the iMac cover the consumer/prosumer range between $1 - 2k. Just my opinion.
PS - Shouldn't this board's moderators be setting an example for the rest of on how to conduct a civilized conversation rather than offhandedly calling an idea stupid?
that's stupid.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
PS - Shouldn't this board's moderators be setting an example for the rest of on how to conduct a civilized conversation rather than offhandedly calling an idea stupid?
Maybe he did moderate his statement?
Does anyone know if you add the sales of the eMacs to those of the iMacs if that equals what the iMac used to do by itself? Has the eMac added customers or has it just eaten away at the iMac? (Laptop sales definitely cloud this issue but still...)
Economies of scale....