Problems with current iMac, possible revisions
Before the flat-screen iMac came out I said that what I wanted most was a widescreen, G4 system with superdrive. I didn't mind if it had a CRT display. Now I realise that the current iMac and also the eMac meet these requirements. However, I have a problem with the current iMac (which I have and am pleased with in terms of performance etc.) and that is its design. I remember people discussing here before how the old iMac was 'cuddlier' looking and that the new iMac never won a place in the heart in quite the same way. I don't think the eMac is as aesethically pleasing either.
So what I wanted to suggest is that the next iMac revision should return to the kind of principles that made the original so popular and, for want of a better word, 'likeable'. Is there any reason, for instance, why the iMac could not return to something similar to its original form factor to enable the use of the G5 chip? The extra room, created by use of a flat-panel screen, would surely help cooling ... And do you expect the next revision to include an all new form factor? ... Just a thought
So what I wanted to suggest is that the next iMac revision should return to the kind of principles that made the original so popular and, for want of a better word, 'likeable'. Is there any reason, for instance, why the iMac could not return to something similar to its original form factor to enable the use of the G5 chip? The extra room, created by use of a flat-panel screen, would surely help cooling ... And do you expect the next revision to include an all new form factor? ... Just a thought
Comments
Originally posted by mpw_amherst
Before the flat-screen iMac came out I said that what I wanted most was a widescreen, G4 system with superdrive. I didn't mind if it had a CRT display. Now I realise that the current iMac and also the eMac meet these requirements. However, I have a problem with the current iMac (which I have and am pleased with in terms of performance etc.) and that is its design. I remember people discussing here before how the old iMac was 'cuddlier' looking and that the new iMac never won a place in the heart in quite the same way. I don't think the eMac is as aesethically pleasing either.
So what I wanted to suggest is that the next iMac revision should return to the kind of principles that made the original so popular and, for want of a better word, 'likeable'. Is there any reason, for instance, why the iMac could not return to something similar to its original form factor to enable the use of the G5 chip? The extra room, created by use of a flat-panel screen, would surely help cooling ... And do you expect the next revision to include an all new form factor? ... Just a thought
I love the current iMac's design! I really don't care about my computer being "cuddly". I think the current design is awesome and I wouldn't want to go back to the old iMac style. With this design, there are so many more choices of monitor placement and since the speakers arn't attached to the base along with the monitor, the screen doesn't shake every time you listen to music.
Design aside, what I really would like to see is better performance for the price. Maybe a nice 1.6 G5, 160GB HD, 512RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9600 for $1799? I would buy that iMac the day it comes out!
Give it one PCI-X slot and 1 AGP slot. FW800, FW400 USB2.0 bluetooth GigE, Airport Extreme. External Power Supply, Single G5 at 1.3 to 1.6
Have a BTO option to not bundle it with an LCD and save $300. Give people the option of using other monitors.
THAT SHOULD BE THE NEXT iMAC.
Originally posted by dferigmu
Design aside, what I really would like to see is better performance for the price. Maybe a nice 1.6 G5, 160GB HD, 512RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9600 for $1799? I would buy that iMac the day it comes out!
At $1,799, why not just buy a dual G4 PowerMac and monitor? At least that way you can upgrade the graphics card, you have more room for RAM, internal HDs, optical drives, etc.
What the heck is the point in paying that much money for a limited all-in-one computer? In my opinion, the eMacs should be priced at $699-$899 (particularly with their current features) and the iMacs should be priced at $999-$1,399.
The problem with current iMacs (and eMacs) is that they cost too much considering what you get. I miss the affordable price range of the old CRT iMacs. Those babies competed with the PowerMac towers the same way the current iMac competes with the G5 ... but the price was where the eMacs are now.
I don't think I'm being unrealistic with my pricing expectations. The reason so many PC users keep buying HORRIBLE PeeCees is because you can buy a "relatively" high-end PC desktop for less than $1,500 ... and a cheap PC desktop with monitor for $599. Apple could grab twice it's current market share if it just lowered prices by a couple hundred.
Originally posted by tak1108
My Opinon would be to replace the base with a Cube. Brushed Alluminum, and bundle it with an external LCD for the same price as the current iMac. With my LCD, I have all kinds of options on placement. Tilt, pan, but no up and down movement, but who needs that?
Give it one PCI-X slot and 1 AGP slot. FW800, FW400 USB2.0 bluetooth GigE, Airport Extreme. External Power Supply, Single G5 at 1.3 to 1.6
Have a BTO option to not bundle it with an LCD and save $300. Give people the option of using other monitors.
THAT SHOULD BE THE NEXT iMAC.
OKAY.
Sorry I posted this earlier and now I'm posting it again, when I posted it earlier the thread was already dying so no one really saw it.
Originally posted by tak1108
I was thinking more like this:
The cube was a PERFECT idea for Apple. They should have kept the iMac as the most affordable all-in-one and made the cube the computer that you buy if you don't have "quite enough" to afford a PowerMac. Right now, you can buy a superior PowerMac G4 tower for less than a fully-loaded iMac ... and the iMac doesn't give you the expandability/upgradability of the PowerMac.
Apple needs to kill the eMac, reduce the price of the iMac (even if it means they have to not update it with the most recent goodies every few months), and bring back the CUBE! Heck, the Cube was even honored with a place in the Smithsonian! There's no other "recent" desktop computer that has managed that. Hmm ... maybe it's because the cube is an AMAZING idea.
Originally posted by rustedborg
The cube was a PERFECT idea for Apple. They should have kept the iMac as the most affordable all-in-one and made the cube the computer that you buy if you don't have "quite enough" to afford a PowerMac. Right now, you can buy a superior PowerMac G4 tower for less than a fully-loaded iMac ... and the iMac doesn't give you the expandability/upgradability of the PowerMac.
Apple needs to kill the eMac, reduce the price of the iMac (even if it means they have to not update it with the most recent goodies every few months), and bring back the CUBE! Heck, the Cube was even honored with a place in the Smithsonian! There's no other "recent" desktop computer that has managed that. Hmm ... maybe it's because the cube is an AMAZING idea.
I would buy a G5 Cube if it ever came back. It was a really good idea, but I think Apple will never bring it back b/c it failed. Why bring back a failed product? So it can fail again?
BTW, why did it fail? Was it too expensive?
If Apple killed off the eMac, made a $699-1299 iMac, kept the G5 Powermac, and then introduce a low-powered G5 (something like the Cube), it would be perfect!
It should be $999 - $1499 with superdrive. 17" widescreen monitor should be $300.
Same cost as the iMac. Just as cool, but you would get more switchers because of the monitorsless option
a $1299 model should be in the middle.
From this article:
Starting at $1,800, the 8-inch cube-shaped computer was expensive. It had limited upgrade potential, and the translucent case suffered hairline cracks, which put many buyers off.
Having sold a paltry 150,000 units, Apple put the Cube "on ice" in July 2001.
Article
Originally posted by tak1108
The cube died because it was too close in price to a powermac. it should have been a ton less. I recall at least one model was $1799. thta is just way too much for un unexpandable computer, when the powermac was $1999.
It's worse than that: The PowerMac was $1599 at the time. So you were paying $200 more for less expansion and more quiet (and stunning looks).
Had they been $200 less ($1399 and up) Apple might have moved them. Not in the insane quantities they'd projected (while downing speedballs, I can only imagine - who actually thought they'd sell 300K per quarter?!), but well enough.
There's more room for a Cube like thing now that the PowerMac G5 starts at $1999. The iMac is currently filling that spot, and I don't think it's the best solution there. (I'm still aghast at the fact that you can actually spend $2500 on an iMac, right there on the main product page at the Apple Store. That's just wrong. Maybe Apple has a handle on pr0nsumer buying habits that I don't?)
As for the iMac, I'm not sure where it should go, except that it should go someplace that starts around $999 and doesn't go up past, say, $1799. It's supposed to be a consumer computer, and it's best as a consumer computer, and it needs to go back to its roots.
Originally posted by tak1108
The cube died because it was too close in price to a powermac. it should have been a ton less. I recall at least one model was $1799. thta is just way too much for un unexpandable computer, when the powermac was $1999.
It should be $999 - $1499 with superdrive. 17" widescreen monitor should be $300.
Same cost as the iMac. Just as cool, but you would get more switchers because of the monitorsless option
a $1299 model should be in the middle.
From this article:
Article
To be honest, I wouldn't object if Apple kept two different PowerMacs in the lineup. A selection of PowerMac G5s and a selection of PowerMac G4s. The single processor G4 sells for just a little more than an iMac right now. For the money, the PowerMac G4 is THE best value in Apple's lineup ... unfortunately I don't think the folks in charge at Apple have the brains to realize it's a good idea to keep a low-cost tower in the lineup.
However, the 450 MHz Cube (really the only model that lots of people bought, the 500 MHz was even more outrageously priced) was about equal in real-world performance and benchmarks to the 400 MHz PowerMac, and definitely less powerful than the PowerMac G4/450. So in essence, you were paying more. It really would have been better to have a 400 MHz and a 450 MHz Cube, and to have them sell for perhaps $1300 and $1600 instead of $1800 and $2000-something. Apple did eventually lower the price to $1200, but not before the damage had been done to the Cube's reputation.
The floating screen of the current iMac is awesome. However, the half cantalope base is too restrictive to change. (Ain't no way they are getting a G5 in that thing.)
The cube is cool but it takes up too much room, too many pieces as compared to the last 2 imac body styles. (The powerbrick on the cube somehow never seems to show up in any of the pictures either.)
I keep wondering why they can't put all of the innards into an expanded keyboard and then come out with an LCD screen that is much more flexible in viewing angles than the studio screens they have now.
They do it for laptops, just make the keyboard bigger, thicker and more capable of a desktop solution. Maybe you could haul this keyboard around with you. Kind of a big ipod looking for a screen.
The Apple IIc, Apple's first attempt at a "portable" computer. Built in disk drive and power supply. The idea was you just have to bring a power cord and an RF modulator, then you connect it to any TV that's available once you get to your destination. I think it looks very cool and sleek despite being almost 20 years old. Something like this would be a cool low-end computer.
The key to the iMac for me is that it's footprint is small. The "big" keyboard with a screen would keep this compact design.
The other key is that it has always been reasonably priced (IMO) as an all in one format. (At least the earlier models before the moto processor speed lag.)
If Apple bundled this with a new killer format screen as well as giving the option to purchase without the screen, they would have a more flexible consumer product which is what a lot of the switcher crowd is looking for anyway.
I think the iMac crowd is still looking for the one package idea which they could also have.
I don't believe Apple wants this flexibility in the consumer product but I hope I am wrong.
$1000+ G5 Mini with single G5
$ 600+ G4 Mini with single G4
$1300+ iMac with dual G4
$ 800+ eMac with single G4
A dual 1 GHz G4 iMac at $1300 and a dual 1.25 GHz G4 iMac at $1800. Once Apple has cheap headless machines, the AIO machines become boutique products and will have a lot less volume. Still, AIOs are really good products for certain markets, and there probably will be enough volume to keep it viable.
G5 Mini would be just the current Power Mac G5 at half the size, and the G4 Mini would be the current Power Mac G4 at half the size.
Oh yeah, I think having a Firewire keyboard with an optical drive in it would alleviate some problems with Appe's AIO machines.
hmmmm. sounds kind of like a digital hub thing...
Park it in front of the TV for the entertaiment mode...park it in front of the computer screen for the work mode...maybe needs some wireless way of connecting to the screen...
Tablet my ass. I want a keyboard!
As for those who want a new Cube. I actually agree that that might be better than the current iMac - not that I ever thought I'd say that. But then I think a combination of the old iMac and the new would work best. How that could be conceived I don't know. Old iMac with flatpanel, aluminium bottom half, slot loading superdrive, clear or white top half and built in speakers as well as G5? Sony have an alright concept in the new W1 series (PCVW1GB.CED), which I'm sorely tempted by. I think Apple want to present users with an attractive, all-in-one system with decent, modern performance. But IMPORTANTLY a system which looks like a household appliance. The old iMac did, the Sony W1 does - the flatpanel just looks a bit odd. I love the screen on a metal arm, but the 'dumpling' base just looks stupid and as someone said could in no way house a G5.
I think we're forgetting why the iMac's base is the shape it is. Try swiveling the screen around with a squarish base. The arm will run into the corners. It's that arm which allows the screen to be the most flexible I've ever seen.
It'll work, and work well.
My big problem with it is all the style comes with a great cost. With the cost of the components inside pretty much the same for all manufacturers, there is a big premium on the specialized parts and additional labor that go into assemblying an iMac over a cheap tower. As much as I like my iMac, I wonder how much cheaper a similar computer would be if it were in a 'Hide-Under-the-Desk-Ugly' case.
BTW does anyone else remember the introduction of the IIcx? From what I remember, it was assembled on stage by someone at Apple during its introduction. There may have been 1 screw holding in the motherboard but everything else snapped into the plastic of the case. In some ways that was a very elegant design if not that pretty outside.
Originally posted by kcmac
"Firewire keyboard with an optical drive"
hmmmm. sounds kind of like a digital hub thing...
Park it in front of the TV for the entertaiment mode...park it in front of the computer screen for the work mode...maybe needs some wireless way of connecting to the screen...
Tablet my ass. I want a keyboard!
I think the whole keyboard thing is too risky. what if you dropped it
spilled something on it
a key breaks or something
that would make the whole thing a hassle