This would provide enough space to squeeze in the cooling required by the G5 they put into it. And it seems, Apple uses the high-end iMac's display in the PowerBook revision. So, who knows what surprise Apple will serve us come MWSF.
P.S.: Think Secret again was very accurate - they seem to have some pretty good sources.
All I want is to be able to composite a simple animation file over a piece of video without waiting 3 years for it to preview it for me. This does not make me power user. I would have thought that nearly a decade and a half after I first played with video (on a mac plus no less in glorious black and white!) it would now be possible to do something this straightforward without a wait or a fri*gin' progress bar (or god forbid that symbol of all things cra*py - the beac ball). You don't have to be working on Star wars 3 to be frustrated by the G4 (or even the G5 if some of my early adopter friends are right)
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC!
On the face of it I'd agree with you. But when the lineup was all 15-inchers and the only real difference was the optical drive, the SuperDrive model outsold the other two models combined, and by a ratio of about two-to-one, if memory serves. So a majority of buyers do want them. I'd go along with the idea of letting you delete the SuperDrive if you buy online, but the iMac has never been about CTO options.
If there was ever a time for a 20-inch iMac, it's now. People splurge at the holidays. They would wince at the cost if they were shopping in June, but in November they might go for it.
The problem with the iMac line right now is the powerbook. Only on 2 occasions have the iMacs been faster than the powerbooks and then for only a few weeks. Since the PB line was just updated, that can't happen. Apple's stuck with the consumer line until they can get the G5 in a PB. Let's hope that's sooner rather than later. But I still think it's too expensive.
You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.
But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.
$499 for the first while. For an MP3 player that was considerably less capable than the one now selling for $299.
$2200 for a computer that can do pretty much anything right out of the box, complete with an enormous monitor? Why not? People might want to be ruthlessly pragmatic for themselves, but for their spouse or child? "Look at that screen! And you can make movies and burn DVDs and and and..." And then you have to pry them away from the machine they just got you.
Quote:
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position. People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.
I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.
Priced as a cash cow, or priced as a product for the masses? Pick one.
Sometimes I say something is expensive, sometimes I say it's over-priced. Apple has plenty of pro equipment that isn't exactly affordable, but neither is it overpriced.
So what does that make this iMac? For most consumers it's just too expnsive and that's that. For a good many pros, it isn't either fast or expandable enough, also. However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.
Why would you want another display with all that real-estate? A justifiable comment from the good folks at Apple marketting. Basically, 99.9% of the time you don't, though I wait for the final evolution of the iMac HDTV, (21"+ 1920x1080 minimum, haha)
But what is this here iMac all about? I think, as Amorph points out, it's the last hurrah for the sunflower. However, this does nothing to improve the state of Apple's consumer desktops, which are still pretty far behind their PC competition on a bang for buck scale.
It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?
I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?
My thought is that if you're going to build AIO, they should above all else be affordable, since the customer buying them is more likely not to be a demanding spec-no-crat type. And if you need a high end no pro machine, then you should offer that with some of the expansion modularity that pros crave. Perhaps Apple will do it the other way around, and move the AIO into the middle tier while going headless at the low end?
Or maybe at Apple everybody gets head, those crazy hippy vegans!
However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.
You know, that's a big niche. Big enough to, say, support Apple Computer.
Design and publishing pros used to buy Apple towers because there was no real choice in the matter, not because of expansion options or what-have-you (except for monitors, when comfortably sized monitors for design were rare and expensive things). For much of the beige G3 era there was literally no choice at all. Now there is. For less than the cost of a tower plus a monitor you can plunk eMacs or iMacs down on everyone's desk. In the first instance, you get major cost savings. In the second, you get ergonomics and quiet, and some savings. Both can run d&p apps well enough for use in studios and publishing houses and Hallmark. The choices of a 17" and a 20" monitor on the iMac seal the deal.
Think about it: Have magazines gotten any larger? Books? Posters? Design and publishing have essentially fixed problem sets, as pscates has confirmed (sepia is sepia) and so you can reach a point where any given hardware can handle those problems well.
Quote:
It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?
Well, people have been saying LCDs would be commodities for, oh, about three years now. There are two problems: First, the general aversion to dead pixels makes them even more expensive to manufacture, and second, the industry that makes them has a vested interest in keeping them profitable. If LCD prices drop, they either step up sales or throttle back production until the prices go right back up. If anything, LCD prices have stabilized, modulo the usual pricing variance because of acute gluts or shortages. There's no mystery here: This is basic resource management, and it's crucial when a product that requires a great deal of overhead and which has relatively low yields is threatened with commodity status. LCDs are not nearly as easy to make as CRTs or plastic toys or other true commodities, and since their flaws are obvious and visible to anyone, they're not even like RAM or hard drives or even CPUs, whose flaws can be largely disguised or ignored or worked around.
Display prices will go down when a cheaper display technology emerges, and not sooner. This is the real lesson of the sunflower iMac.
Quote:
I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?
People have more modest expectations of notebooks? Really, the notebook is the new AIO. Steve has come right out and said that the numbers conclude that the perfect machine for the low end desktop owner is a notebook. That's what they're buying.
And I think this is where things are going: The low end desktop is essentially dead at Apple. Oh, there'll be something like the eMac kicking around, but the machine aimed at this market now is the iBook (why does it look so attractive? ). I believe the 20" iMac is the last gasp of the sunflower design, but I also believe that it points toward Apple's strategy (adjusting for holiday gadget acquisition syndrome): Notebooks for the low end; desktops only for things that notebooks simply can't offer (which, of course, cost money). I frankly don't think the next iMac's basic price bracket will budge from where it is now. What they'll do, instead, is try to design a machine that makes people want to pay that kind of money. The sunflower was designed to drop to $999, which is why it looks a little silly where it is now.
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.
For some idiotic reason, I think Apple is afraid that the iMac would be perceived as being as fast or faster than their high end pro PowerBooks. No good reason, in my opinion. So what, if a completely different product has a slightly higher spec. than another. A sale is a sale.
The 20" iMac is absolutely absurd in every aspect. From concept, performance, and price, it fails all around.
First of all, let's get something straight. Apple's standalone Cinema displays are currently overpriced. I took a look around and all of the 20" LCD's I found were $1,100 or less and doubled as TVs, with component video, RCA, an every other video connector known to man on the things. Apple sells their 20" display for $1,300 without all of these other capabilities. Their 20" should be $900, at best.
Now, let's talk about the 20" iMac's concept.
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components? That's like buying a Plasma TV that has a built-in VCR and no video in ports. I understand that this is true for a laptop as well, but that's the trade you make for portability. I honestly think Apple either created this 20" iMac to try and get rid of an abundance of 20" LCDs, or they're trying to make their laptops look really attractive by making their consumer desktops highly unattractive.
Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already. At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.
I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? It's true that we've all hopped on the "G5 or nothing at all!" mentality bandwagon, but there are two reasons for that. The first being the previously mentioned processor slump Apple fell into for 3 years. Now that Apple has fast processors available to them, they need to crank those bitches up and trickle them down into everything they've got. There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers. Second, since the advent of Mac OS X software has become so slow and sluggish that you literally do need a G5 to use any of today's creativity applications. When Apple stopped speeding up their computers for 3 years, software developers did not stop bloating their software. I suspected for a long time that this was due to software developers incapability of writing clean, quick code for OS X, but Adobe and Macromedia are on their second incarnation of OS X applications now, and they actually managed to make all of their programs run slower in their second incarnation! Whether this is Apple's fault or the developers, it makes a 1.25Ghz G4 sluggish and unusable for all of the things a 20" display would actually be necessary for. Not to mention the 1GB RAM limit of the iMac - between that and the processor, you've got a very short life in that computer. It's too bad you can't rip that fantastic display off and use it with another computer. No, that would actually be logical.
Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.
Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.
On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components?
Who cares? I can think of no shortage of applications where desktop space is more important than raw CPU power. I know a lot of people get powerful machines and cheap monitors, but that's stupid: You spend all your time staring at the monitor!
Quote:
Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already.
I doubt anyone's forgotten about Motorola. The point is that at there was a time when a machine with less power than the iMac - the PowerMac G3, say, back before the CPU drought - was a lust object.
As for the G5, I don't know what this is doing in a criticism of the 20" iMac. Apple has to use what's available to them. The 2.5GHz G5 isn't available in quantity (and it reportedly chews almost 100 watts!) , so Apple can't put it in their PowerMac. The iMac design is still based on the much cooler G4, so you can't just put a G5 in it. The redesign is coming, but in the meantime, the current iMac can't take what it wasn't designed to take.
Quote:
At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.
Desktops in the PC world don't even begin to resemble iMacs. Apple makes desktops that take the fastest available CPU, too, and they aren't iMacs either.
Quote:
I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? [...] There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers.
We'll let the market decide that. If the 20" iMac boosts sales for the few months it'll exist, more power to it. You can throw numbers around, but if you can take the machine home and do far more with it than you could with a comparably priced PC in practice then who cares if the bus chokes every so often?
Besides, this isn't a major redesign. It's a new toy for the holidays; a minor, late enhancement to an aging design.
Quote:
Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.
What measly system performance? Don't quote specs. I want actual, real-world performance, preferably with the apps that actually ship with an iMac, since those are what people will use.
Anyone who expected Apple to slash $300 off the price of the iMac this abruptly... well, it ain't gonna happen. Low end buyers are being shown iBooks. The iMac isn't in that niche any more. Low end machines don't ship with really nice 20" LCDs.
Quote:
Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.
We'll see what people will buy. So far they seem to be opting for the 17" iMac far more than the 15" despite the fact that it isn't headless and doesn't cost $999.
At any rate, again, this appears to be a special for the holidays. But I'd suggest you get used to these price points with whatever the next iMac looks like. It's going upscale, because that's where the money is. They know how much of what is selling at any given time, unlike anyone here.
On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right
Yeah, $1800, $2500 or $3000 for a computer with no display. You blew your whole argument with the last paragraph.
Actually, you have some good points, but you're a little harsh and a little optimistic about price drops. This is Apple, after all. They've never been about cheap.
To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!
To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!
Excellent point! Yep, that's the whole point of the iMac. It's not the fastest or the cheapest but it's got the best adjustable display anywhere and you don't have to find room for a tower on, next to, or under your desk. Nine out of ten computer users have no need for any more power than it's got.
That said, there's no doubt someday, it or a similar unit will be faster and cheaper.
I don't expect Apple to sell cheap computers. I'm not one to think they need to sell iMacs for $399. But I do expect them to include system performance and hardware that justifies a product's price tag. If they want to sell 2 year old hardware, then they should price it accordingly. Just because a 1.25Ghz G4 is good enough for a lot of home users doesn't mean they should put it in $2,200 systems while they sell 1.6Ghz G5 systems for less and Dual 1.8Ghz G5's for slightly more. I understand the display is included (and not with the mentioned Powermacs), but there has to be a better middle ground.
I would like to think of the design touches Apple puts on their systems as additions to the computer specs and capabilities itself, not as a means of making up for lackluster internal hardware. The Powermac G5 is a fantastic case in point (no pun intended). While the case itself is a fantastic design, with it's brilliant and clean layout and nearly silent operation, it has the hardware and the expandability to back up the prices they are selling for. I can look at a Powermac G5, and I can read the specs, and I can say, "yeah, that's worth the $$$ they're asking". The same should be true for the iMac.
Believe me, I understand the beauty of the iMac's design and it's nothing-else-like-it arm - I own the original 15" iMac myself - but that doesn't make up for it's current overpriced/underpowered situation. When I purchased my 15" iMac, it was not only a fantastic design, but also had the performance and specs to justify such a price tag. You didn't have to equate the swivel arm into the price tag. It carried the same processor as the low-end Powermac did at the time, and I'd like to see the new iMacs inherit that trait if they're going to retain their luxury pricing. I don't expect Apple to just throw a G5 into the iMac like there's no engineering involved, but I do expect that they lower the prices on outdated hardware if they can't come up with something to justify the cost.
I work with pro applications all day - Final Cut Pro 4, DVD Studio Pro 2, Adobe Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2, After Effects 5.5, Cinema 4D, the list goes on. Obviously a Dual Powermac G5 is the ticket for that kind of work, and we have one. But we've also got a 1Ghz Powermac we purchased less than a year ago and it's already damn near worthless for what we do. Why is that? Because while Motorola was busy picking their noses, everyone continued to enhance their applications beyond what the G4 was really comfortable handling. Apple did this knowing they had G5's in the pipeline. I'd really like to be able to pick up a machine from Apple that could handle working with those Applications comfortably, and that didn't cost $3,000. I think that time will come next year as Apple does slip a G5 into more and more systems, and as the G5 processor continues to scale up the Mhz ladder.
At any rate, I plan to purchase a new Apple system next year in the $2,000 range. I certainly wouldn't mind paying $2,200 for a 20" iMac model so long as I'm convinced the internal hardware is going to last me as long as that $1,000 monitor they've got adhered to the top will, or if they scheme a way to use monitors on their iMacs that can also be removed and used as a standard display. Really, I think that's the way they've got to go, considering the value of LCDs in relation to the CPU they're eternally bounding it to.
Comments
Originally posted by Patton Harlot
Thanks for the new sig, Amorph! (hope you don't mind)
That's the truest statement I've seen here in ages.
Damn you! I wanted to use it as my sig!
Originally posted by Hairmah
So where is our 20 inch Powerbook!!??
I can see it now...dual 4.0 ghz g5 with 8 gigs of ram 20 inch powerbook bluh
Originally posted by Jeremiah Rich
So where is our 20 inch Powerbook!!??
This would provide enough space to squeeze in the cooling required by the G5 they put into it. And it seems, Apple uses the high-end iMac's display in the PowerBook revision. So, who knows what surprise Apple will serve us come MWSF.
P.S.: Think Secret again was very accurate - they seem to have some pretty good sources.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Wow Apple is stupid I am getting sick of this.
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC!
On the face of it I'd agree with you. But when the lineup was all 15-inchers and the only real difference was the optical drive, the SuperDrive model outsold the other two models combined, and by a ratio of about two-to-one, if memory serves. So a majority of buyers do want them. I'd go along with the idea of letting you delete the SuperDrive if you buy online, but the iMac has never been about CTO options.
If there was ever a time for a 20-inch iMac, it's now. People splurge at the holidays. They would wince at the cost if they were shopping in June, but in November they might go for it.
Originally posted by satchmo
You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.
But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.
$499 for the first while. For an MP3 player that was considerably less capable than the one now selling for $299.
$2200 for a computer that can do pretty much anything right out of the box, complete with an enormous monitor? Why not? People might want to be ruthlessly pragmatic for themselves, but for their spouse or child? "Look at that screen! And you can make movies and burn DVDs and and and..." And then you have to pry them away from the machine they just got you.
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position. People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.
I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.
Priced as a cash cow, or priced as a product for the masses? Pick one.
Sometimes I say something is expensive, sometimes I say it's over-priced. Apple has plenty of pro equipment that isn't exactly affordable, but neither is it overpriced.
So what does that make this iMac? For most consumers it's just too expnsive and that's that. For a good many pros, it isn't either fast or expandable enough, also. However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.
Why would you want another display with all that real-estate? A justifiable comment from the good folks at Apple marketting. Basically, 99.9% of the time you don't, though I wait for the final evolution of the iMac HDTV, (21"+ 1920x1080 minimum, haha)
But what is this here iMac all about? I think, as Amorph points out, it's the last hurrah for the sunflower. However, this does nothing to improve the state of Apple's consumer desktops, which are still pretty far behind their PC competition on a bang for buck scale.
It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?
I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?
My thought is that if you're going to build AIO, they should above all else be affordable, since the customer buying them is more likely not to be a demanding spec-no-crat type. And if you need a high end no pro machine, then you should offer that with some of the expansion modularity that pros crave. Perhaps Apple will do it the other way around, and move the AIO into the middle tier while going headless at the low end?
Or maybe at Apple everybody gets head, those crazy hippy vegans!
Originally posted by Matsu
How do my pricing whinges go so far understood?
*bites tongue*
However, there's a niche of people working in 2-d graphics and design who really need a big display more than outright power. For them, this style statement makes sense and is one way to adress the screaming headless masses while both giving them head and forcing them to pay for it.
You know, that's a big niche. Big enough to, say, support Apple Computer.
Design and publishing pros used to buy Apple towers because there was no real choice in the matter, not because of expansion options or what-have-you (except for monitors, when comfortably sized monitors for design were rare and expensive things). For much of the beige G3 era there was literally no choice at all. Now there is. For less than the cost of a tower plus a monitor you can plunk eMacs or iMacs down on everyone's desk. In the first instance, you get major cost savings. In the second, you get ergonomics and quiet, and some savings. Both can run d&p apps well enough for use in studios and publishing houses and Hallmark. The choices of a 17" and a 20" monitor on the iMac seal the deal.
Think about it: Have magazines gotten any larger? Books? Posters? Design and publishing have essentially fixed problem sets, as pscates has confirmed (sepia is sepia) and so you can reach a point where any given hardware can handle those problems well.
It may be impossible to build 15" and 17" iMacs down to the 799 (15") 999 (17" combo) and 1199-1299 (17" superdrive) prices where they need to be. DVD burning and 17" LCD will be commodity priced technologies within a few months, and we WILL see 999 (17" DVD burning PC's) within a few months. Will Jobs, who with much fanfare declared the death of the CRT, be left to offer a CRT (and a pretty bad one at that) to customers in this bracket?
Well, people have been saying LCDs would be commodities for, oh, about three years now. There are two problems: First, the general aversion to dead pixels makes them even more expensive to manufacture, and second, the industry that makes them has a vested interest in keeping them profitable. If LCD prices drop, they either step up sales or throttle back production until the prices go right back up. If anything, LCD prices have stabilized, modulo the usual pricing variance because of acute gluts or shortages. There's no mystery here: This is basic resource management, and it's crucial when a product that requires a great deal of overhead and which has relatively low yields is threatened with commodity status. LCDs are not nearly as easy to make as CRTs or plastic toys or other true commodities, and since their flaws are obvious and visible to anyone, they're not even like RAM or hard drives or even CPUs, whose flaws can be largely disguised or ignored or worked around.
Display prices will go down when a cheaper display technology emerges, and not sooner. This is the real lesson of the sunflower iMac.
I wonder how the iBook could look so good and the iMac 15 and 17" could look so bad?
People have more modest expectations of notebooks? Really, the notebook is the new AIO. Steve has come right out and said that the numbers conclude that the perfect machine for the low end desktop owner is a notebook. That's what they're buying.
And I think this is where things are going: The low end desktop is essentially dead at Apple. Oh, there'll be something like the eMac kicking around, but the machine aimed at this market now is the iBook (why does it look so attractive?
Originally posted by BRussell
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.
For some idiotic reason, I think Apple is afraid that the iMac would be perceived as being as fast or faster than their high end pro PowerBooks. No good reason, in my opinion. So what, if a completely different product has a slightly higher spec. than another. A sale is a sale.
Originally posted by BRussell
I wonder why they're not using the 1.3Ghz G4 in any iMac.
See my post a few up the page. That's my take on it.
First of all, let's get something straight. Apple's standalone Cinema displays are currently overpriced. I took a look around and all of the 20" LCD's I found were $1,100 or less and doubled as TVs, with component video, RCA, an every other video connector known to man on the things. Apple sells their 20" display for $1,300 without all of these other capabilities. Their 20" should be $900, at best.
Now, let's talk about the 20" iMac's concept.
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components? That's like buying a Plasma TV that has a built-in VCR and no video in ports. I understand that this is true for a laptop as well, but that's the trade you make for portability. I honestly think Apple either created this 20" iMac to try and get rid of an abundance of 20" LCDs, or they're trying to make their laptops look really attractive by making their consumer desktops highly unattractive.
Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already. At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.
I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? It's true that we've all hopped on the "G5 or nothing at all!" mentality bandwagon, but there are two reasons for that. The first being the previously mentioned processor slump Apple fell into for 3 years. Now that Apple has fast processors available to them, they need to crank those bitches up and trickle them down into everything they've got. There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers. Second, since the advent of Mac OS X software has become so slow and sluggish that you literally do need a G5 to use any of today's creativity applications. When Apple stopped speeding up their computers for 3 years, software developers did not stop bloating their software. I suspected for a long time that this was due to software developers incapability of writing clean, quick code for OS X, but Adobe and Macromedia are on their second incarnation of OS X applications now, and they actually managed to make all of their programs run slower in their second incarnation! Whether this is Apple's fault or the developers, it makes a 1.25Ghz G4 sluggish and unusable for all of the things a 20" display would actually be necessary for. Not to mention the 1GB RAM limit of the iMac - between that and the processor, you've got a very short life in that computer. It's too bad you can't rip that fantastic display off and use it with another computer. No, that would actually be logical.
Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.
Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.
On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Now, let's talk about the 20" iMac's concept.
Who's decision was it to physically bound a $900 monitor to $700 worth of computer components?
Who cares? I can think of no shortage of applications where desktop space is more important than raw CPU power. I know a lot of people get powerful machines and cheap monitors, but that's stupid: You spend all your time staring at the monitor!
Ok, on to the iMac's performance.
I've read mentions of how just a few years ago, people would have killed for a 1.25Ghz G4. Some seem to forget we were in a processor slump for 3 years thanks to Motorola. Thanks to IBM and the G5, we're out of that now, but only in the Powermac line. The rest of Apple's systems need G5's as soon as possible. Move those Powermacs up to Dual 2.5Ghz G5's and trickle the single processor G5's down into the iMacs already.
I doubt anyone's forgotten about Motorola. The point is that at there was a time when a machine with less power than the iMac - the PowerMac G3, say, back before the CPU drought - was a lust object.
As for the G5, I don't know what this is doing in a criticism of the 20" iMac. Apple has to use what's available to them. The 2.5GHz G5 isn't available in quantity (and it reportedly chews almost 100 watts!) , so Apple can't put it in their PowerMac. The iMac design is still based on the much cooler G4, so you can't just put a G5 in it. The redesign is coming, but in the meantime, the current iMac can't take what it wasn't designed to take.
At the very least, they could throw that 1.42Ghz G4 in the iMac, since it's no longer reserved for the Powermac line. Just because the PowerBooks aren't capable of accepting a G4 faster than 1.33Ghz doesn't mean they should cripple their desktop systems. You don't see this happing in the PC world. Desktop systems get the fastest available, and the laptops get whatever they can handle.
Desktops in the PC world don't even begin to resemble iMacs. Apple makes desktops that take the fastest available CPU, too, and they aren't iMacs either.
I read discussion of how people can do great work with slow-ass computers. That is very true, but how does that justify a company selling color crayons for $1,000 a piece? [...] There's absolutely no excuse to keep using 167Mhz system busses and putting 1.25Ghz processors in $2,200 computers.
We'll let the market decide that. If the 20" iMac boosts sales for the few months it'll exist, more power to it. You can throw numbers around, but if you can take the machine home and do far more with it than you could with a comparably priced PC in practice then who cares if the bus chokes every so often?
Besides, this isn't a major redesign. It's a new toy for the holidays; a minor, late enhancement to an aging design.
Lastly, the iMac'sprice.
Okay, I have to admit last night when I heard the 20" iMac rumors I was excited, but that's because I anticipated the 20" to come in at the $1,800 price tag and push the other iMacs down a good $300 each. Instead, I wake up to find this 20" iMac price $400 more than I anticipated! $400!! Now, I am fully aware that LCDs are expensive, but I thought the iMac's null expandability and measly system performance was supposed to be the sacrifices made for keeping the price down. There is no logical reason Apple can't sell (and make a profit) on their current iMac line by selling them at $999, $1,399, and $1,799. And at those prices, they would actually sell iMacs, instead of using them as a deterrent to get more iBook and PowerBook sales.
What measly system performance? Don't quote specs. I want actual, real-world performance, preferably with the apps that actually ship with an iMac, since those are what people will use.
Anyone who expected Apple to slash $300 off the price of the iMac this abruptly... well, it ain't gonna happen. Low end buyers are being shown iBooks. The iMac isn't in that niche any more. Low end machines don't ship with really nice 20" LCDs.
Now, kill the iMac already and bring on a headless alternative, using single G5 processors and ranging from $999 to $1,599, depending on the system's performance. People will not buy disposable computers with $900 displays anchored to them. The original iMac worked because, although it was disposable, the Monitor wasn't any better than the rest of the computer's components. With the latest iMacs, All-In-One desktops systems just don't make sense anymore.
We'll see what people will buy. So far they seem to be opting for the 17" iMac far more than the 15" despite the fact that it isn't headless and doesn't cost $999.
At any rate, again, this appears to be a special for the holidays. But I'd suggest you get used to these price points with whatever the next iMac looks like. It's going upscale, because that's where the money is. They know how much of what is selling at any given time, unlike anyone here.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Wow Apple is stupid I am getting sick of this.
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?
AMEN!!! It's $200 for nothing as far as I'm concerned!
i also checked out the G5's for the first time and i like them better in person than in pics
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
On the plus side, Apple's PowerMac G5 line-up is damn near perfect at this time. At least they got something right
Yeah, $1800, $2500 or $3000 for a computer with no display. You blew your whole argument with the last paragraph.
Actually, you have some good points, but you're a little harsh and a little optimistic about price drops. This is Apple, after all. They've never been about cheap.
AMEN!!!
To Amorph, that is.
To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!
Originally posted by FormerLurker
To all the would-be number crunchers and comparison shoppers - show me any other 20" digital flat panel with free-floating tilt & swivel on an integrated supporting arm... at any price!
Excellent point! Yep, that's the whole point of the iMac. It's not the fastest or the cheapest but it's got the best adjustable display anywhere and you don't have to find room for a tower on, next to, or under your desk. Nine out of ten computer users have no need for any more power than it's got.
That said, there's no doubt someday, it or a similar unit will be faster and cheaper.
I would like to think of the design touches Apple puts on their systems as additions to the computer specs and capabilities itself, not as a means of making up for lackluster internal hardware. The Powermac G5 is a fantastic case in point (no pun intended). While the case itself is a fantastic design, with it's brilliant and clean layout and nearly silent operation, it has the hardware and the expandability to back up the prices they are selling for. I can look at a Powermac G5, and I can read the specs, and I can say, "yeah, that's worth the $$$ they're asking". The same should be true for the iMac.
Believe me, I understand the beauty of the iMac's design and it's nothing-else-like-it arm - I own the original 15" iMac myself - but that doesn't make up for it's current overpriced/underpowered situation. When I purchased my 15" iMac, it was not only a fantastic design, but also had the performance and specs to justify such a price tag. You didn't have to equate the swivel arm into the price tag. It carried the same processor as the low-end Powermac did at the time, and I'd like to see the new iMacs inherit that trait if they're going to retain their luxury pricing. I don't expect Apple to just throw a G5 into the iMac like there's no engineering involved, but I do expect that they lower the prices on outdated hardware if they can't come up with something to justify the cost.
I work with pro applications all day - Final Cut Pro 4, DVD Studio Pro 2, Adobe Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2, After Effects 5.5, Cinema 4D, the list goes on. Obviously a Dual Powermac G5 is the ticket for that kind of work, and we have one. But we've also got a 1Ghz Powermac we purchased less than a year ago and it's already damn near worthless for what we do. Why is that? Because while Motorola was busy picking their noses, everyone continued to enhance their applications beyond what the G4 was really comfortable handling. Apple did this knowing they had G5's in the pipeline. I'd really like to be able to pick up a machine from Apple that could handle working with those Applications comfortably, and that didn't cost $3,000. I think that time will come next year as Apple does slip a G5 into more and more systems, and as the G5 processor continues to scale up the Mhz ladder.
At any rate, I plan to purchase a new Apple system next year in the $2,000 range. I certainly wouldn't mind paying $2,200 for a 20" iMac model so long as I'm convinced the internal hardware is going to last me as long as that $1,000 monitor they've got adhered to the top will, or if they scheme a way to use monitors on their iMacs that can also be removed and used as a standard display. Really, I think that's the way they've got to go, considering the value of LCDs in relation to the CPU they're eternally bounding it to.