I saw one today, and it is very likely to be my next computer. All I need is a fast FireWire CD-RW and a few external hard drives, and my G4 tower is history.
I played for a few minutes, and it is fast as all hell, even with only 256 MB of RAM. It feels Snappier than the 17" model, even though the specs seem to be exactly the same.
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.
You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.
Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.
Quote:
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.
When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.
Quote:
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.
Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.
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.
You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.
Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.
Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.
I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations. Nor does fastening a monitor worth more than the iMac's components help matters much. It's obvious Apple isn't interesting in selling a lot of iMacs at this time. I fully expect to see a great performance/price ratio when the redesigned models arrive sometime next year.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.
If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things. If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less. Still, I don't see the harm in letting one remove and reuse the head of their iMac for a future Apple system. When we're talking about displays that are worth more than the computer itself, it seems almost inevitable. It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs. Once LCD prices drop to the point that they aren't worth considerably more than the other components of the computer, they could return to the business of creating disposable AIOs. Just a thought
Amorph, people keep saying that certain components have stabilized but from where I stand they just get cheaper and cheaper. HDD's and RAM are pretty cheap, and where the prices hold, the specifications increase dramatically at the same price points. Opticals are dirt cheap and DVD burning is dropping REALLY fast in price. I can buy 4X units for 220 Canadian (about 160 USD) and 8X drives have just hit the market. And yes, even LCD prices have NOT "stabilized" -- no sir, they continue to drop. 15" panels are less than 300 Canadian, and 17-19" panels have really fallen in the past year with plenty of 17" panels for 500 Canadian and some lower, some 19" panels can be had for a mere 800 Canadian now (or about 570 USD). 12 months ago a 19" panel cost about 1200. That's a 33% drop, and still falling.
I will agree though, that at the larger sizes, it will be a while before display prices really fall much more. 20-22" CRT's didn't really fall in price very rapidly untill a while AFTER TFT demand started climbing. Anything 17" or under will, however, continue to fall steadily. Manufacturing proficiencies at these sizes are leaps and bounds above what they were only a little while ago and the displays are both better and cheaper.
But getting back in a round-a-bout way to what you said a DVI-in for the iMac, it looks to me like the iMac 20" would be one computer where such an imput would not be wasted. 20" wide screen panels are not likely to be relatively affordable in three years time. Yes, they will be cheaper than they are now, but that's still near the upper echelon of desktop display sizes, and compared to what will be bargain basement 15 and 17" displays (150-350USD) a 750 dollar 20" will still seem expensive. Someone with an iMac may want to use it exactly in the manner you describe (as a display with an integrated KVM). Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!
It's geeky, but it's a good idea. In 3-4 years when the iMac is feeling a little long in the tooth, you make a little hack, so as to use the iMac as a display, meanwhile the guts of the system can be put to work streaming Mp3's, or burning a DVD in the background, hosting a web site, etc etc, while your new main machine gets down to business with whatever you do with it.
It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.
Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!
*SNIP*
It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.
Both very insightful points . . . . there WILL be a way to hack this thing when it's been around a few years.
Most people don't even know you can burn DVDs. I am failing to see why Apple makes you buy a SuperDrive on the top two models, and don't let you BTO it. That makes them look a lot more expensive then they really could be, since most people aren't going to use the SuperDrive and just be annoyed with the slowness of it otherwise. That's my main beef actually.
It was the first model of its kind (in size, that is) to market, and I bought it shortly after it was introduced. The display cost notably more than the computer I bought it with.
Back then I wanted a good display, not only because display alone is a huge part of a computer experience, but because I realized the same display works for many computers which age more quickly than the display.
So far the monitor has served three sequential computers in four different cities, eight different desks, for six years. Naturally everything I spent on it back then feels like a great investment now.
Left as an exercise to the reader: Find something positive about the 20" iMac vs. an imaginary headless dome iMac with 20" Cinema Display priced together at $2200. (I imagine the latter configuration would, in the long run, give me double the "use value" of the former.)
Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.
Even if you price the Cinema Display at $900 and add it to the cost of the PowerMacs, the iMac doesn't look all that expensive. You pay less, you get less.
And, again, "extremely underpowered" for what?
Quote:
I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations.
The current iMac's limitations are set by the base, the motherboard, and the (expensive) arm. The monitor is one of the few things they can really play with. So, given that they obviously wanted a quick way to boost sales a little for the holidays, what's a better solution? Cutting prices might boost sales a bit, but at the expense of revenue - and revenue is the whole point of sales.
Quote:
If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things.
Both of those are considerably more technically challenging than the idea of a DVI pass-through (the removable monitor, though, really is tough - you want the connection to that arm to be solid, with as little play as possible, and you don't want people taking Allen wrenches to their machines). However, they are automatic, immediate and obvious benefits. Most consumers reuse little or nothing, on the theory that by the time they need a new computer all the peripherals are probably better, too. Plus, if you hand down a system (which is fairly common) you usually want to include the monitor.
Quote:
If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less.
News flash: So does everyone. I remember reading a meeting of Intel and Microsoft and the big vendors where they tried to find ways to get people to replace their PCs annually.
And yet, guess what? Macs have longer useful lifespans than PCs do in practice. In practice, reliability has more to do with the useful life of a machine than upgradability does, because most people don't upgrade their machines. Proof: PCs have been cheaper and easier to upgrade than Macs for years and years now, but over time the average measured life of a PC is 3 years, and the average measured life of a Mac is 5.
Quote:
It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs.
I sincerely doubt that.
The beauty of the AIO is that it takes advantage of the way the average person buys, sells, and looks at a PC: As a single system. Tinkerers are more common on the x86 side, out of necessity, but they aren't so much a large market as a voluble presence on geeky forums like web boards.
All this talk about the LCD on the iMac being worth more than the computer it's attached to makes no sense to me. The most expensive thing to replace on my powerbook is, guess what, the LCD. You don't hear laptop users complaining that "I can't use my great display on my next laptop!" because that's part of the deal with an all-in-one.
Yeah, that's something that's often lost/overlooked: we here at AppleInsider and other online forums are a bit TOO into it all, compared to the average schmo on the street.
A lot of us might think it's cool to twiddle with this, install that, upgrade this, rig-up that, etc.
But I'm guessing most normal people don't. They want to buy something, know it's not a cheaply thrown-together piece of crap, get online quickly and easily, work with digital photos of the grandkids, listen to some music, write, surf, etc.
That's the consumer market. And they outnumber Spec Whore? "pro users" by huge numbers, I'd imagine.
Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board. I don't mean that harshly. You do it well. I also know that you do not support their position all the time so try not to get overly defensive. I believe that both you and Apple have completely missed the boat on the whole AiO thing. You believe you have your finger on the pulse of what people should be doing with their computers. You believe you know their behavior and that behavior dictates what they should buy. This is a classic error. People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. Even though the masses use computers as if they were AiOs, they do not actually want to buy AiOs. The only reason the AiO is so strong on the Mac side is that there is no other choice for the Mac consumer. Period. If Apple were to release an affordable, headless computer with affordable display options in the consumer space, the iMac would be dead by the following day. Apple does not have the power to force consumers to want what they think the consumer needs. The iMac has lost its way. It is a product in search of a market. You cannot call it a consumer offering at the price point it occupies and you can't call it a pro machine because of its internals. It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take it seriously as a personal computer.
As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.
My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic. Well, the PM line is not pathetic. It is rather good. There are at least two G4 chips that are better than the one in this machine. I have already registered my disgust with the HD. $1000 PCs have 120 Gigs. At one point, crippling the iMac may have been an unfortunate necessity. Now, it is just plain greed. It is disrespectful to the customers. This offering by Apple does not just disappoint me. It pisses me off. I truly hope that iMac buyers decide to hold off on a purchase and force Apple to do better. Enough is enough.
Please give me a few minutes to put on my flame retardant suit before replying.
I think this 20" iMac is a sexy holiday stop-gap for the line. Apple's got something up its sleeve product-wise, and yet they felt that sticking a 20" on an iMac was a good way to go.
So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).
The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.
I think this 20" iMac is a sexy holiday stop-gap for the line. Apple's got something up its sleeve product-wise, and yet they felt that sticking a 20" on an iMac was a good way to go.
So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).
The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.
If they introduce a completely redesigned iMac in January, they'll anger anyone who buys the 20" now. Nothing new here, they've done it before; in fact last year with the PowerBook. I think it would be kind of dirty pool if that happens.
Now, could anyone make a little table with the iMac2 updates? Just to see if there is some trend and if one can expect processor updates for this machine relatively soon.
After seeing the 20" iMac in person (I'll give you 20 inches! ) I have to say it looks... kinda... un-natural.
The screen is WAY too big for the base...
I disagree. I saw it last night at The Grove and from a distance I thought it was a 17". Much better balanced in person than I would have thought. It actually looked just right to me.
the 17" must be outselling the 15" for Apple to release the 20". Apple wants to seperate the 17" crowd. It makes perfect sence. If people in the 17" crowd are willing to spend more Apple makes more money.
The bottom line is the bottom line, folks. It also gets these people closer to the G5's. There are also those in the 15" crowd that don't want top of the line iMac and had no option.
Also apple needs the iMac to have a 20" so they can increase profit margins on that item.
As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.
I think you're right on this account. Even if this 20 inch model is a merely a year end money grab, it needs something more than a larger screen to sway customers from the 17". Especially when it's $400 more.
Perhaps one reason the 1.42 GHz isn't used here is because it will be used in the next generation iMac. Now that would truly be sad.
It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer.
Absolutely, the iMac is no longer targeted to budget minded consumers or professionals.
It's still a nifty design and plenty functional but way overpriced. But Apple knows that. They want the iMac to be purchased by folks w/ money to burn (buy .Mac, a few iSights, a few iPods for the family and an iBook for the children). And it really has no competition.
What other AIO computer is out there? If you shop for furniture, the iMac(gen 1 and 2) are all over the place in fashionable catalogs. If all you want to do is type emails, print out designs, iChat/iSight, load a few songs in your iPod and your husband is paying, this is it. There's a market willing to pay(just ask martha stewart)
Apple's computer for the masses has become the laptop.
Comments
I saw one today, and it is very likely to be my next computer. All I need is a fast FireWire CD-RW and a few external hard drives, and my G4 tower is history.
I played for a few minutes, and it is fast as all hell, even with only 256 MB of RAM. It feels Snappier than the 17" model, even though the specs seem to be exactly the same.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
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.
You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.
Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.
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.
When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.
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.
Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
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.
Good post. Better post. Thanks!
Originally posted by Amorph
You can't leave the monitor out when it's a 20" LCD. By your own post, the iMac is a $700 system with a $900 monitor, so you're comparing a $700 system with a $1700 system and a $2500 system and complaining that the $700 system doesn't keep up.
Well, um, yeah. Now, factor in the $1299 price of that 20" LCD and tell me where the comparison stands.
Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.
Originally posted by Amorph
When the current iMac was designed, it was designed to house what was a perfectly good CPU and good internals. Did you expect Apple to design for a CPU that was still on paper at the time? Again, you're complaining that the iMac design is two years old. Well, yes, it is. It'll get redesigned when the redesign's ready, done and sensible. In the meantime, it is what it is and Apple has to work with the design they came up with when the 7455 was the only option.
I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations. Nor does fastening a monitor worth more than the iMac's components help matters much. It's obvious Apple isn't interesting in selling a lot of iMacs at this time. I fully expect to see a great performance/price ratio when the redesigned models arrive sometime next year.
Originally posted by Amorph
Hope for the former, because the latter would be a lot harder than you'd think. It would be easier to have a DVI or ADC in on the base that bypassed the computer altogether and used it as a stand; and even more interesting to have it take over the display and use the computer in the base as a distributed processing node if there was a network connection. But it's an iMac, so the odds of either are pretty slim. These ideas are firmly in the realm of geek fantasy.
If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things. If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less. Still, I don't see the harm in letting one remove and reuse the head of their iMac for a future Apple system. When we're talking about displays that are worth more than the computer itself, it seems almost inevitable. It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs. Once LCD prices drop to the point that they aren't worth considerably more than the other components of the computer, they could return to the business of creating disposable AIOs. Just a thought
I will agree though, that at the larger sizes, it will be a while before display prices really fall much more. 20-22" CRT's didn't really fall in price very rapidly untill a while AFTER TFT demand started climbing. Anything 17" or under will, however, continue to fall steadily. Manufacturing proficiencies at these sizes are leaps and bounds above what they were only a little while ago and the displays are both better and cheaper.
But getting back in a round-a-bout way to what you said a DVI-in for the iMac, it looks to me like the iMac 20" would be one computer where such an imput would not be wasted. 20" wide screen panels are not likely to be relatively affordable in three years time. Yes, they will be cheaper than they are now, but that's still near the upper echelon of desktop display sizes, and compared to what will be bargain basement 15 and 17" displays (150-350USD) a 750 dollar 20" will still seem expensive. Someone with an iMac may want to use it exactly in the manner you describe (as a display with an integrated KVM). Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!
It's geeky, but it's a good idea. In 3-4 years when the iMac is feeling a little long in the tooth, you make a little hack, so as to use the iMac as a display, meanwhile the guts of the system can be put to work streaming Mp3's, or burning a DVD in the background, hosting a web site, etc etc, while your new main machine gets down to business with whatever you do with it.
It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.
Originally posted by Matsu
Certainly there is an exposed DVI connector between the mobo and the arm, somewhere, probably a proprietary shape, but there -- all we need is for some company to make a little product that would let people hack their mac and perhaps add a nice flush mounted toggle switch through the Apple logo on the dome -- hey, there's a real lamp!
*SNIP*
It seems that the iMac 20" is more of a display with a built-in computer, than a computer with a built-in display.
Both very insightful points . . . . there WILL be a way to hack this thing when it's been around a few years.
It was the first model of its kind (in size, that is) to market, and I bought it shortly after it was introduced. The display cost notably more than the computer I bought it with.
Back then I wanted a good display, not only because display alone is a huge part of a computer experience, but because I realized the same display works for many computers which age more quickly than the display.
So far the monitor has served three sequential computers in four different cities, eight different desks, for six years. Naturally everything I spent on it back then feels like a great investment now.
Left as an exercise to the reader: Find something positive about the 20" iMac vs. an imaginary headless dome iMac with 20" Cinema Display priced together at $2200. (I imagine the latter configuration would, in the long run, give me double the "use value" of the former.)
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Which is exactly why it's so absurd that Apple released a system with an unremovable 20" LCD fastened to it. I agree that when you do the math and come down to what that LCD is worth, it almost seems justified. But it seems the large majority of people are in the same boat as me and see an extremely underpowered $2,200 system. It takes some real effort to convince someone this system is worth it with the "but the monitor is worth $1,300!" argument. Again, that's what Apple's currently charging for that display separately, but I as I stated earlier that monitor should be selling for $900, max. It's just not logical to have a monitor that great permanently stuck to a computer worth that little. Honestly, if the 20" iMac had arrived at $1,800 I'd be a happy camper.
Even if you price the Cinema Display at $900 and add it to the cost of the PowerMacs, the iMac doesn't look all that expensive. You pay less, you get less.
And, again, "extremely underpowered" for what?
I understand that, but continuing to sell the same hardware at a premium price, and having drab sales in return, doesn't seem the right way to go about the current iMac's limitations.
The current iMac's limitations are set by the base, the motherboard, and the (expensive) arm. The monitor is one of the few things they can really play with. So, given that they obviously wanted a quick way to boost sales a little for the holidays, what's a better solution? Cutting prices might boost sales a bit, but at the expense of revenue - and revenue is the whole point of sales.
If someone had told me Apple was going to design a 9 fan computer that was as quiet as my iMac, I wouldn't have believed them. If someone had told me Apple was going to design an iMac whose flat panel would float in the air and move with the touch of a finger, I wouldn't have believed them either. Apple does amazing things.
Both of those are considerably more technically challenging than the idea of a DVI pass-through (the removable monitor, though, really is tough - you want the connection to that arm to be solid, with as little play as possible, and you don't want people taking Allen wrenches to their machines). However, they are automatic, immediate and obvious benefits. Most consumers reuse little or nothing, on the theory that by the time they need a new computer all the peripherals are probably better, too. Plus, if you hand down a system (which is fairly common) you usually want to include the monitor.
If they wanted to, I'm confident they could design a line-up of LCDs that doubled as standard displays and future iMac heads. I too find this unlikely to happen, but only because Apple is in the business of building disposable consumer computers - they want you to buy a new system every 2 years or less.
News flash: So does everyone. I remember reading a meeting of Intel and Microsoft and the big vendors where they tried to find ways to get people to replace their PCs annually.
And yet, guess what? Macs have longer useful lifespans than PCs do in practice. In practice, reliability has more to do with the useful life of a machine than upgradability does, because most people don't upgrade their machines. Proof: PCs have been cheaper and easier to upgrade than Macs for years and years now, but over time the average measured life of a PC is 3 years, and the average measured life of a Mac is 5.
It'd give the buyer comfort in knowing they wouldn't have to repurchase a beautiful LCD display when their non-upgradable iMac becomes obsolete, and if they somehow based it on ADC it would lock the buyer in to future Apple system purchases. Sure, Apple would sell less displays in the future, but they'd sell twice as many iMacs.
I sincerely doubt that.
The beauty of the AIO is that it takes advantage of the way the average person buys, sells, and looks at a PC: As a single system. Tinkerers are more common on the x86 side, out of necessity, but they aren't so much a large market as a voluble presence on geeky forums like web boards.
Forest-trees. Forest-trees.
A lot of us might think it's cool to twiddle with this, install that, upgrade this, rig-up that, etc.
But I'm guessing most normal people don't. They want to buy something, know it's not a cheaply thrown-together piece of crap, get online quickly and easily, work with digital photos of the grandkids, listen to some music, write, surf, etc.
That's the consumer market. And they outnumber Spec Whore? "pro users" by huge numbers, I'd imagine.
INSANE!
Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board. I don't mean that harshly. You do it well. I also know that you do not support their position all the time so try not to get overly defensive. I believe that both you and Apple have completely missed the boat on the whole AiO thing. You believe you have your finger on the pulse of what people should be doing with their computers. You believe you know their behavior and that behavior dictates what they should buy. This is a classic error. People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. Even though the masses use computers as if they were AiOs, they do not actually want to buy AiOs. The only reason the AiO is so strong on the Mac side is that there is no other choice for the Mac consumer. Period. If Apple were to release an affordable, headless computer with affordable display options in the consumer space, the iMac would be dead by the following day. Apple does not have the power to force consumers to want what they think the consumer needs. The iMac has lost its way. It is a product in search of a market. You cannot call it a consumer offering at the price point it occupies and you can't call it a pro machine because of its internals. It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take it seriously as a personal computer.
As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.
My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic. Well, the PM line is not pathetic. It is rather good. There are at least two G4 chips that are better than the one in this machine. I have already registered my disgust with the HD. $1000 PCs have 120 Gigs. At one point, crippling the iMac may have been an unfortunate necessity. Now, it is just plain greed. It is disrespectful to the customers. This offering by Apple does not just disappoint me. It pisses me off. I truly hope that iMac buyers decide to hold off on a purchase and force Apple to do better. Enough is enough.
Please give me a few minutes to put on my flame retardant suit before replying.
So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).
The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I think this 20" iMac is a sexy holiday stop-gap for the line. Apple's got something up its sleeve product-wise, and yet they felt that sticking a 20" on an iMac was a good way to go.
So that tells me that they're stalling in such a way that Mac buyers will be appeased for a while, and Apple can make some extra $$$ during the holidays (Merry Christmas, Steve!).
The beginning of next year could be REALLY interesting.
If they introduce a completely redesigned iMac in January, they'll anger anyone who buys the 20" now. Nothing new here, they've done it before; in fact last year with the PowerBook. I think it would be kind of dirty pool if that happens.
The screen is WAY too big for the base...
Originally posted by Barto
After seeing the 20" iMac in person (I'll give you 20 inches!
The screen is WAY too big for the base...
I disagree. I saw it last night at The Grove and from a distance I thought it was a 17". Much better balanced in person than I would have thought. It actually looked just right to me.
The bottom line is the bottom line, folks. It also gets these people closer to the G5's. There are also those in the 15" crowd that don't want top of the line iMac and had no option.
Also apple needs the iMac to have a 20" so they can increase profit margins on that item.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
As far as the display size goes, I love it. I think it should come with the largest display possible. Some displays come with speakers, others come with TVs. This one comes with a built-in Mac. Too bad it is a low-end Mac. This display should be driven by the best video card available for the Mac. Gamers would love it. That should at least be an option. It should also come with the best processor that it can handle. Why does a notebook have a more powerful CPU? Why does it not come with a 1.42 GHz CPU? At this price, an 80 Gig HD is an insult. The fact that you have to pay another $50 for bluetooth is the ultimate slap in the face. Apple needs to give us a high-end iMac that has the best of everything, or it needs to make a 15" for $999 and leave the product line at that. Frankly, I think the latter is the better option.
I think you're right on this account. Even if this 20 inch model is a merely a year end money grab, it needs something more than a larger screen to sway customers from the 17". Especially when it's $400 more.
Perhaps one reason the 1.42 GHz isn't used here is because it will be used in the next generation iMac. Now that would truly be sad.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
It has become a lifestyle object for the rich and fashionable Web surfer.
Absolutely, the iMac is no longer targeted to budget minded consumers or professionals.
It's still a nifty design and plenty functional but way overpriced. But Apple knows that. They want the iMac to be purchased by folks w/ money to burn (buy .Mac, a few iSights, a few iPods for the family and an iBook for the children). And it really has no competition.
What other AIO computer is out there? If you shop for furniture, the iMac(gen 1 and 2) are all over the place in fashionable catalogs. If all you want to do is type emails, print out designs, iChat/iSight, load a few songs in your iPod and your husband is paying, this is it. There's a market willing to pay(just ask martha stewart)
Apple's computer for the masses has become the laptop.