As an investment, it's a horrible investment, almost nothing depreciates faster than a computer. So, while a professional may look at the machine as an investment in tools of the trade, a home user, the iMac's target audience, makes no such "investment" benefit. The technology depreciates way too fast for it to be an investment and the more expensive the item is, the more you lose each time you buy. "High priced, quality things" that you may buy have value, when they work well and last and last. However well a computer may work, it doesn't last and last, and so NEVER presents the same price-value metric as other consumer goods.
The current iMac won't look any where near so bad when it comes with Panther and MPC7457. I would suggest moving the screen to 18" and 16" wide screen. Just two models both with superdrives. USB2 is also a must.
I don't tnink it look tired, it is just slow and seems uncompetitive. Don't tell me G4 arn't slow, browsing on a PC is SOOOO much faster even with a 450mhz Celeron.
The technology depreciates way too fast for it to be an investment and the more expensive the item is, the more you lose each time you buy.
I agree.
But how do you really make a rational investment in Apple's products?
For example, having used an iMac for these last four years - I've grown fond of the all-in-one footprint. Call me old-fashioned - but I like CRTs. So I'm interested in an eMac. But when I look at the specs - the graphics in the eMac seem under-powered. Why can't Apple offer a BTO option to get a better graphics solution for the all-in-ones? I'd gladly increase my upfront investment if it would lengthen the backend ROI.
I don't tnink it look tired, it is just slow and seems uncompetitive. Don't tell me G4 arn't slow, browsing on a PC is SOOOO much faster even with a 450mhz Celeron.
What the hell!
My CRT iMac 400Mhz G3 is way faster browsing the internet with Safari compared to my 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 on the same connection.
My CRT iMac 400Mhz G3 is way faster browsing the internet with Safari compared to my 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 on the same connection.
Safari was defintely a *HUGE* improvement to browsing on my iMac. I don't use IE anymore.
However, Ghost Recon is barely playable (and that's being kind) on my 400 MHz iMac. Have to drop everything to the lowest settings. Many other newer games won't play at all.
The eMac is only using a Radeon 7500. Its usable today for many games. But what about next year?
I'd prefer that Apple either create an upgradable graphics solution or offer some high-end options at purchase time for their all-in-ones.
I really think that Apple in general is becoming a luxury computer manufacturer- maybe like BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW. I don't want to get into the Apple/Auto market share debate, but I was thinking more like style/price/performance/experience.
When people buy a dell or cheap PC they are not looking at the other things. Just like when people buy a cheap GM or Ford vehicle- they are not really looking at the performance/style/experience- they want the rebates/cheap financing/etc.
Sit in and drive a BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW and then sit in a GM or Ford- you'll notice a huge difference that's worth the extra price for the German car...
One BIG problem with this analogy, BMW, Audi, Mercedies, VW, well for that matter Ausitn Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus all build cars that use gasoline, drive on roads, and use the tires (well, to a point), just like Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota so all of the infrastructure for the Ford will work for a BMW.
Apple runs on OS X, and relies on specialized development of software for OS X (Some file systems are "standards" but too many that are needed for every day work are proprietary still). As such they will have to find the right mix of innexpensive consumer computers (becouse people want what they have at home to be compatable with what they have at work), and high end computers to keep and attract new developers to build software for their platform. Apple can no more ignore the low end than they can the high end.
I don't want Apple to just build H2 vehicles - and in many ways the current G5 offerings remind me of an H2. (Except for that yellow body option.)
But an H2 is built on a modified Tahoe chassis. The Tahoe is cheaper, gets better gas mileage and will still be a good investment three years from now.
There must be a way to retool the G5 chassis into a compelling iMac/eMac?
One BIG problem with this analogy, BMW, Audi, Mercedies, VW, well for that matter Ausitn Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus all build cars that use gasoline, drive on roads, and use the tires (well, to a point), just like Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota so all of the infrastructure for the Ford will work for a BMW.
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Why do you guys use an Apple and not a cheap PC?
While you may have a point inthere somewhere, this is hardly the issue at hand here...
And BTW, weren't we talking about a future version of the iMac?
As it turns out - I use Unix at work and a Mac at home. The absence of Mentor Graphics and Synopsys software for Mac OS X translates to using a Linux box at work for $paycheck tasks.
I like Unix. I like X11. I like Xemacs. I love the ability to type "kill -9 ..." whenever I please for no good reason.
I "choose" to use a Mac because I truly believe that the "Journey is the reward" and have always felt kinship with "the rest of us". I also like iTunes and it likes my iPod. (My credit card likes neither.)
Cheap PC's suck even more than eMacs when it comes to component selection. Hard drives are too slow. The use of Intel's built-in graphics ruins Ghost Recon performance. Often they leave out the "CDs" for the pre-installed software - leaving you stuck when it comes to doing clean installs. I will never purchase one (Presario) for precisely these reasons.
I don't care too much about product matrix, virtual price points, and the whole consumer versus pro debate. I simply want *the* latest components in an iMac/eMac form-factor.
on the other hand, the 15" panels should by now be cheap enough to reduce the entry-level iMac's price and get rid of the eMac. Apple should create something like this (although 'create' is probably the wrong word...):
This should be possible at AppleExpo Paris. Doesn't have to go G5 straight away. Let the Pros keep their hands on those machines. If the graphics cards in the iMacs are up to date, this is still a very nice machine, although not a G5, of course. But a differentiation should be made, and 'G4' would be it.
The iMac could later use the PPC 7457, just like the PowerBooks probably will. And the iBooks could move up to (a bit slower) 7457s, too.
ummm... no... not going to happen... that is way to cheap $499 is what a 30 gig iPod costs... not a whole computer with a combo drive ans a monitor
people are moving to laptops and desktops if they don't make a statement are just commodity priced , how upgradable is that 599 from gateway or dell, apple is in there own league and people will pay more for quality and the ease of use most people want a machine that they can use, isn't dead after 6months etc
ummm... no... not going to happen... that is way to cheap $499 is what a 30 gig iPod costs... not a whole computer with a combo drive ans a monitor
The Apple store currently lists a $500. difference btw. a 1 GHz eMac ($1299.) and a 1 GHz 17" iMac ($1799.). I know, they use different chip sets - but the peripheral components are pretty similar.
fryke speculated on the following LCD config:
iMac 17", 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 999$
That's an $800. price drop (including loss of SuperDrive and some hard disk space).
What do you think would be the equivalent price drop for an eMac? If $499. is too low - then what? $799? That's the list price of the cheapest model eMac today.
on the other hand, the 15" panels should by now be cheap enough to reduce the entry-level iMac's price and get rid of the eMac. Apple should create something like this (although 'create' is probably the wrong word...):
This should be possible at AppleExpo Paris. Doesn't have to go G5 straight away. Let the Pros keep their hands on those machines. If the graphics cards in the iMacs are up to date, this is still a very nice machine, although not a G5, of course. But a differentiation should be made, and 'G4' would be it.
The iMac could later use the PPC 7457, just like the PowerBooks probably will. And the iBooks could move up to (a bit slower) 7457s, too.
What? I maintain the cMac idea ($499 G3, $619 G4, $1674 G5), but Apple shouldn't kill the eMac; instead they should boost it to 1/1.25 Ghz, and add the iMac 3:
900 Mhz $1,074
1.25 Ghz, SuperDrive $1,339 (no SuperDrive BTO $1219)
1.25 Ghz, SuperDrive, 17", $1579 (no SuperDrive BTO $1434)
The iMac outside might not change but they HAVE to change the mobo a LOT. Either Moto has to come out with a very different G4 or they need to put a G5 in there. Here is why. The G4 bus max is 167mhz though I think someone said it could go to 200. That is still woefully inadequate, and it's not even DDR RAM. No matter how fast the G4 it will be neutered with that kind of bus.
Frankly Apple really is not in a position to manufacture computers that don't sell well. The development costs are to high.
You are making a mistake relative to the reason the current iMacs do not sell, at least for this individual. That is simply the lack of power in a contemporary sense. By that I mean the processor and memory design along with the I/O ports. There is little sense in buying a PC from the top shelf if it is behind in implementing the features that keep it current. This is where the iMac fails badly.
If the iMac is to keep the smae price point it will need several enhancements, most important would be a 50% cpu speed increase and a corresponding improvement in the memory subsystem. Unfortunately the only way Apple is likely to get this is through implementation of a 970, though there is always the possibility of a surprise from Moto. All of this should be driving an improved display processor. To finish the machine off up to date ports should be added.
DAVe
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
That's true. Apple product positioning is completely and utterly different from the old 4 corners or Pro, Go, Whoa of '99 and '98 (respectively).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped
The majority of sales of G5s are to people who actually need the power (or have special expansion needs - avid cards, fiber storage etc). Production houses, Universities, developers etc. Only a small minority of sales are to people with wallets as big as their geek-ness.
--------------
The 17" iMac was never designed or intended to have the huge sales of the original iMac. It occupies a smaller, but important, market position. After stuffing up the line-up with the Cube, Apple has got it right again.
A few years ago Apple's strategy was to have four product segments. Pro Desktop/Laptop, Consumer Desktop/Laptop. Then they chucked the cube into the pro mix and that didn't work out. Now they have seemingly the same problem, only it's in the consumer line. The reason the released the eMac to the public was because there was a demand for a cheaper desktop. This should've clued them into the fact the people generally weren't happy with the price/performance of the FP iMac.
They shouldn't need two consumer desktops. The iMac should be able to cover this segment.
Maybe they remove the eMac and only sell it to edu/biz, keep the low end iMac a G4 for $900-1000 and make the high end iMac a G5.
And the G5 should be a metal sphere that hovers above you desk.
Comments
I don't tnink it look tired, it is just slow and seems uncompetitive. Don't tell me G4 arn't slow, browsing on a PC is SOOOO much faster even with a 450mhz Celeron.
Originally posted by Addison
Don't tell me G4 arn't slow, browsing on a PC is SOOOO much faster even with a 450mhz Celeron.
Web browsing speed has virtually nothing to do with processor speed.
Originally posted by Matsu
The technology depreciates way too fast for it to be an investment and the more expensive the item is, the more you lose each time you buy.
I agree.
But how do you really make a rational investment in Apple's products?
For example, having used an iMac for these last four years - I've grown fond of the all-in-one footprint. Call me old-fashioned - but I like CRTs. So I'm interested in an eMac. But when I look at the specs - the graphics in the eMac seem under-powered. Why can't Apple offer a BTO option to get a better graphics solution for the all-in-ones? I'd gladly increase my upfront investment if it would lengthen the backend ROI.
Originally posted by Addison
I don't tnink it look tired, it is just slow and seems uncompetitive. Don't tell me G4 arn't slow, browsing on a PC is SOOOO much faster even with a 450mhz Celeron.
What the hell!
My CRT iMac 400Mhz G3 is way faster browsing the internet with Safari compared to my 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 on the same connection.
Originally posted by MacUsers
What the hell!
My CRT iMac 400Mhz G3 is way faster browsing the internet with Safari compared to my 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 on the same connection.
Safari was defintely a *HUGE* improvement to browsing on my iMac. I don't use IE anymore.
However, Ghost Recon is barely playable (and that's being kind) on my 400 MHz iMac. Have to drop everything to the lowest settings. Many other newer games won't play at all.
The eMac is only using a Radeon 7500. Its usable today for many games. But what about next year?
I'd prefer that Apple either create an upgradable graphics solution or offer some high-end options at purchase time for their all-in-ones.
Originally posted by tacojohn
I really think that Apple in general is becoming a luxury computer manufacturer- maybe like BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW. I don't want to get into the Apple/Auto market share debate, but I was thinking more like style/price/performance/experience.
When people buy a dell or cheap PC they are not looking at the other things. Just like when people buy a cheap GM or Ford vehicle- they are not really looking at the performance/style/experience- they want the rebates/cheap financing/etc.
Sit in and drive a BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW and then sit in a GM or Ford- you'll notice a huge difference that's worth the extra price for the German car...
One BIG problem with this analogy, BMW, Audi, Mercedies, VW, well for that matter Ausitn Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus all build cars that use gasoline, drive on roads, and use the tires (well, to a point), just like Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota so all of the infrastructure for the Ford will work for a BMW.
Apple runs on OS X, and relies on specialized development of software for OS X (Some file systems are "standards" but too many that are needed for every day work are proprietary still). As such they will have to find the right mix of innexpensive consumer computers (becouse people want what they have at home to be compatable with what they have at work), and high end computers to keep and attract new developers to build software for their platform. Apple can no more ignore the low end than they can the high end.
But an H2 is built on a modified Tahoe chassis. The Tahoe is cheaper, gets better gas mileage and will still be a good investment three years from now.
There must be a way to retool the G5 chassis into a compelling iMac/eMac?
Originally posted by @homenow
One BIG problem with this analogy, BMW, Audi, Mercedies, VW, well for that matter Ausitn Martin, Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus all build cars that use gasoline, drive on roads, and use the tires (well, to a point), just like Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota so all of the infrastructure for the Ford will work for a BMW.
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Why do you guys use an Apple and not a cheap PC?
Originally posted by tacojohn
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Why do you guys use an Apple and not a cheap PC?
While you may have a point inthere somewhere, this is hardly the issue at hand here...
And BTW, weren't we talking about a future version of the iMac?
Originally posted by tacojohn
Why do you guys use Apple's and not a cheap PC?
As it turns out - I use Unix at work and a Mac at home. The absence of Mentor Graphics and Synopsys software for Mac OS X translates to using a Linux box at work for $paycheck tasks.
I like Unix. I like X11. I like Xemacs. I love the ability to type "kill -9 ..." whenever I please for no good reason.
I "choose" to use a Mac because I truly believe that the "Journey is the reward" and have always felt kinship with "the rest of us". I also like iTunes and it likes my iPod. (My credit card likes neither.)
Cheap PC's suck even more than eMacs when it comes to component selection. Hard drives are too slow. The use of Intel's built-in graphics ruins Ghost Recon performance. Often they leave out the "CDs" for the pre-installed software - leaving you stuck when it comes to doing clean installs. I will never purchase one (Presario) for precisely these reasons.
I don't care too much about product matrix, virtual price points, and the whole consumer versus pro debate. I simply want *the* latest components in an iMac/eMac form-factor.
iMac 15"
1 GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60 GB Harddrive
Combo Drive
799$ (entry-level eMac's current price)
the 17" model could come in two models:
- iMac 17", 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 999$
- iMac 17", 1.25 GHz G4, 80 GB HD, SuperDrive, 1199$
This should be possible at AppleExpo Paris. Doesn't have to go G5 straight away. Let the Pros keep their hands on those machines. If the graphics cards in the iMacs are up to date, this is still a very nice machine, although not a G5, of course. But a differentiation should be made, and 'G4' would be it.
The iMac could later use the PPC 7457, just like the PowerBooks probably will. And the iBooks could move up to (a bit slower) 7457s, too.
Originally posted by fryke
the 17" model could come in two models:
- iMac 17", 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 999$
- iMac 17", 1.25 GHz G4, 80 GB HD, SuperDrive, 1199$
But what would these new configs cost with a CRT (aka eMac)?
- eMac 17" CRT, 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 499$
- eMac 17" CRT, 1.25 GHz G4, 80 GB HD, SuperDrive, 699$
Throw in an up to date graphics card and Im ready to place my order.
Originally posted by MacUsers
ummm... no... not going to happen... that is way to cheap $499 is what a 30 gig iPod costs... not a whole computer with a combo drive ans a monitor
people are moving to laptops and desktops if they don't make a statement are just commodity priced , how upgradable is that 599 from gateway or dell, apple is in there own league and people will pay more for quality and the ease of use most people want a machine that they can use, isn't dead after 6months etc
Originally posted by MacUsers
ummm... no... not going to happen... that is way to cheap $499 is what a 30 gig iPod costs... not a whole computer with a combo drive ans a monitor
The Apple store currently lists a $500. difference btw. a 1 GHz eMac ($1299.) and a 1 GHz 17" iMac ($1799.). I know, they use different chip sets - but the peripheral components are pretty similar.
fryke speculated on the following LCD config:
iMac 17", 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 999$
That's an $800. price drop (including loss of SuperDrive and some hard disk space).
What do you think would be the equivalent price drop for an eMac? If $499. is too low - then what? $799? That's the list price of the cheapest model eMac today.
Originally posted by fryke
on the other hand, the 15" panels should by now be cheap enough to reduce the entry-level iMac's price and get rid of the eMac. Apple should create something like this (although 'create' is probably the wrong word...):
iMac 15"
1 GHz PowerPC G4 Processor
60 GB Harddrive
Combo Drive
799$ (entry-level eMac's current price)
the 17" model could come in two models:
- iMac 17", 1 GHz G4, 60 GB HD, Combo Drive, 999$
- iMac 17", 1.25 GHz G4, 80 GB HD, SuperDrive, 1199$
This should be possible at AppleExpo Paris. Doesn't have to go G5 straight away. Let the Pros keep their hands on those machines. If the graphics cards in the iMacs are up to date, this is still a very nice machine, although not a G5, of course. But a differentiation should be made, and 'G4' would be it.
The iMac could later use the PPC 7457, just like the PowerBooks probably will. And the iBooks could move up to (a bit slower) 7457s, too.
What? I maintain the cMac idea ($499 G3, $619 G4, $1674 G5), but Apple shouldn't kill the eMac; instead they should boost it to 1/1.25 Ghz, and add the iMac 3:
900 Mhz $1,074
1.25 Ghz, SuperDrive $1,339 (no SuperDrive BTO $1219)
1.25 Ghz, SuperDrive, 17", $1579 (no SuperDrive BTO $1434)
You are making a mistake relative to the reason the current iMacs do not sell, at least for this individual. That is simply the lack of power in a contemporary sense. By that I mean the processor and memory design along with the I/O ports. There is little sense in buying a PC from the top shelf if it is behind in implementing the features that keep it current. This is where the iMac fails badly.
If the iMac is to keep the smae price point it will need several enhancements, most important would be a 50% cpu speed increase and a corresponding improvement in the memory subsystem. Unfortunately the only way Apple is likely to get this is through implementation of a 970, though there is always the possibility of a surprise from Moto. All of this should be driving an improved display processor. To finish the machine off up to date ports should be added.
DAVe
Originally posted by Barto
That's true. Apple product positioning is completely and utterly different from the old 4 corners or Pro, Go, Whoa of '99 and '98 (respectively).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped
The majority of sales of G5s are to people who actually need the power (or have special expansion needs - avid cards, fiber storage etc). Production houses, Universities, developers etc. Only a small minority of sales are to people with wallets as big as their geek-ness.
--------------
The 17" iMac was never designed or intended to have the huge sales of the original iMac. It occupies a smaller, but important, market position. After stuffing up the line-up with the Cube, Apple has got it right again.
Barto
They shouldn't need two consumer desktops. The iMac should be able to cover this segment.
Maybe they remove the eMac and only sell it to edu/biz, keep the low end iMac a G4 for $900-1000 and make the high end iMac a G5.
And the G5 should be a metal sphere that hovers above you desk.