Boring and misguided. Most potential iMac buyers do not need a 20" screen. I hope that this is not the extent of the iMac update. What the iMac actually needs in the short-term is lower prices and a faster processor. What it needs in the long-term is a rethink of its design. There have been several threads recently that have made some interesting suggestions .
For some time now, we've been discussing how all we actually need is a fast G4 processor and a decent sized screen at work. We've recently purchased a G5 and a 20" ACD, and the 20" iMac had been available we would definately have gone for that instead. I suspect we might be buying the new 20" iMacs from now on - they have everything that we are looking for!
And the iMac has an interesting plus point too, the positional screen - no more round sholders huddled around the Cinema Displays that we use at the moment!
So they may have missed the conventional consumer market, but this machine might just interest other professional users who don't require a REALLY power machine.
Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board.
Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?
You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.
What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.
The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.
Quote:
People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. [...] 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.
So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.
You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.
Quote:
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.
You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.
Quote:
My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic.
I'm getting tired of this argument.
It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.
Quote:
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.
So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want. At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.
if you step back and take a look at Apple's consumer line now, you'll see that there's everything from a 17-inch CRT model that rings up at a budget-conscious $799, to a 20-inch flat-panel monstrosity that will set you back nearly three times as much...
...the bottom line is that the age-old complaint of not being able to choose your monitor size and type when buying a consumer-level Apple computer, is officially now a dead one. If you intend to intend to invest in something larger than a 20-inch flat-panel, you can undoubtedly afford a G5 minitower to go with it.
If Apple can offer this arrangement in a next-gen AIO iMac too, the whole argument for a headless iMac is moot.
A far as why they only added a bigger monitor, I would think the iMac is so tightly designed especially around heat and power issues that adding a G5 or significantly faster G4 would bring up issues that affect the design of the whole thing.
At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.
And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.
The 20" is more of a niche product for small 2-D design firms. The 17" on the other hand covers the greater general population.
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the
20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.
And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.
Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.
Quote:
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the 20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.
You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.
You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.
We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost.
Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.
Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.
[/QUOTE][/B]
You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.
You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.
We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm not assuming anything...just speculating and playing armchair CEO like everyone else here. You're right, we'll just have to see how things play out.
Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.
Going for the jugular and getting it are two different things.
If you look around a little, Apple's biggest problem is simply getting people hip to their machines. I've maintained for a good long while now that no matter what Apple did to increase market share they'd go nowhere fast for a year or two, simply because they have such a small part of the market now, and inertia is a bitch. Each success is a little bit more movement. The tech and popular presses are now paying attention; the iTunes / iPod / iTMS combo is enticing PC users and the iBook is snagging them. Education is warming to Apple's iBook initiative as well, while higher ed snaps up PowerBooks (particularly in CS departments - Mac developers in training!); Xserve is beginning to get traction in an all-new market because of favorable reviews from early adopters. VT dropped jaws even at Apple by assembling the world's #3 supercomputer out of PowerMacs. And if nothing is really moving that much, that's because this is not going to be a linear growth cycle. It's going to be one of those things where you push and push and push and get nowhere, and then suddenly you're moving. Fast.
If the 20" serves as one more lust object for Apple to dangle in front of people, great.
Its just opinion, but as a Mac user since 1987, im quite dissapointed at the 20" - and for that matter the iMac in general. Whilst I applaud Amorph case, I have to seriously question Apple on this products price/performance. Again, no arguments from me on price!, but a G4 @1.25?, 256MB RAM, 80GHD, no Video IN!!!.
Hey come to think of it Im a little relieved, instead of parting with my cash over the holidays, Ill continue to build up more video source material of family and friends, play some golf and enjoy the beach (southern hemisphere), until such time as this product comes with a G5.
It should have been G5 1.6G 512/160G/Superdive, with s-video in.
Apple wants to rip off the unsuspecting?, fine, but not me!.
Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?
You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.
What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.
The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.
So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.
You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.
You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.
I'm getting tired of this argument.
It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.
So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want. At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.
You believe that I have a hard time accepting reality? You must be joking. 99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM! Apple has simply created an artificial market for them by limiting options. I am not the one with an ideological bent toward a certain form factor. Apple is. Even if people never upgrade their machines, they want the ability to do it. That is not likely to change. When I first bought my computer, DV editing was not even possible at a consumer level. After I bought my camcorder, I upgraded my system with an add-on card for DV capture. Had I owned an AiO, I would have been out of luck. Upgradability is not about what you want to do with your computer right now. It is about what you want to do with your computer in the future. It is usually something you never thought about and did not know was even possible at the time you bought the thing. You seem to be arguing that Apple is doing the 'moral' thing by limiting consumer options to the AiO. The AiO is more expensive at purchase and it is more expensive in the long run because it will become obsolete sooner and have to be replaced faster. Nice try. Bad argument.
Another part of your argument seems to suggest that Apple could not possibly be that far off the mark because they know what they are doing. You put too much faith in Apple. They have about the worst marketing there is. They do not sell because of it. They sell in spite of it. Do they know what they are doing when it comes to pricing? CUBE! CUBE! CUBE! SJ is stubborn. He will price himself to death in spite of what the numbers show. He believes in the iMac and he is not willing to give up on it. Even if the numbers proved that it was a bad idea, I believe he would keep pushing it at his fantasy price points anyway. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. You have way too much faith in his good sense.
So you are tired of the "crippling" argument. Too bad. You are going to hear a lot more of it. I do not believe that using a 1.42 gig would have blown the thing up as some seem to suggest. I also have not heard a credible argument as to why the HD has not kept pace with industry standards. If the design truly is the reason the iMac has been so slow with upgrades to its internals, then it was a truly bad design. Is it also poor design that makes bluetooth a $50 add-on? That brings me to your last argument. You keep using the term "lust object." Sorry, I thought we were talking about computers. If all we are talking about is a fashion statement, then Apple has a winner on their hands. I looked at the computer in the local Apple Store and it is very nice to look at. Still, its target market seems to be wealthy people who do not have much to do with their computer and know little or nothing about computers. It is for people who have more dollars than sense. In short, I believe its target market is made up of rich suckers. I can't imagine this model will be around for very long and you suggest it is only here to boost the profile of the line as something of a profit gathering stop-gap. I guess we do not disagree too much after all. I can just see the commercial for this thing. Luscious images followed by the words:
"Introducing the 20" iMac... Merry Christmas, SUCKERS!"
99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM!
This is not true at all. There aren't any decent AIOs in Windows-land...not a single one...zippo...zilch. Look at the options they have...
There's the Sony with the non-detachable keyboard...it's so squat you'll have irreversible chronic neck problems after a day's use.
There's the Gateway Profile 5. HHAHAhahHAHAHhahahahaAHhAha. Next.
Well, there aren't that many choices...Neither Dell nor HP have any...but wait, they do...they're called laptops. Laptops are becoming much more popular these days.
Mini-PCs too. Look at all the barebones Shuttle, Soyo, etc. systems. People want computers in smaller packages. They are willing to give-up expandability for size. It's just that good exterior design seems to be anathema to most PC manufacturers.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO). The problem with the iMacs right now is that they are so underpowered they have become a pathetic joke. Hopefully they will put the fastest G5 available in the next revision, in which case it will be a very tempting machine. (Would anyone be complaining about the 20" iMac if it had a 2GHz G5 and a Radeon 9600XT in it?)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO).
Well... that depends.
I'm personally from the 'keep all your options open - because the computer market evolves so quickly' school of thought.
The main problem with AIO in IMO, is that they date VERY quickly. It doesn't matter what you stick in them - they are always going to age prematurely. Compare what you can do (in terms of upgradeability) with a two year old iMac (or laptop for that matter) and a two year old Quicksilver. You can't upgrade the graphics card on the the iMac, and you can't upgrade to a larger sized monitor.
Which is the reason that all manufacturers love the AIO concept.
You're effectively reducing the useful lifespan of your machine to that of it's weakest link. Also, if you buy a G5, there's a very good chance that you aren't going to pick a new Cinema Display to with it. With AIO, they get the profit on the base unit and the Cinema Display. And when the base unit needs replaced, you need to buy a new display as well. And vice verse. If that display goes tits up, you're a captive audience for those inflated repair prices. You have no option.
AIO is perfect for some people, and way to restrictive for others. It depends if you consider a computer to be a disposeable consumer item or not. Some people buy a computer, and never buy another piece of software - ever. They're happy with what came in the box, and they expect the computer to work for the rest of their lives. But if you like to run the latest versions of your favourite software, that 1.25GHz G4 isn't going to look so clever in a years time when everything that's being written is optimized for dual 3GHz G5s.
That's what's wrong with the AIO, IMO.
You could of course argue that a G5/Cinema Display combo is AIO anyway, because the ADC connector has been specifically designed so that you can't use the Cinema Display with an non ADC machine (without forking out some serious cash).
The prices of the AIO are not exactly reasonable Amorph. Especially the 15 and 17" models. The 20 is expensive, but then, with that display on it, it was bound to be. Desktop AIO's make little sense, laptops are much better in the Apple universe -- providing 99% of the funtionality at the same price or lower, and adding the huge bonus of portability.
If Apple can remake the e/iMac line into an set of nice "eMac FP" models (branded as iMacs, of course), then all that you say has some merit, but not until prices can match the competition.
Expansion is still a powerful plus to a desktop system. Want a DVD burner, 200 Canadian and 5 minutes of installation and it's there, no expensive firewire chassis, just install and go. In a sense, the AIO loses a lot of it's AIO-ness once you add anything, since it all has to be external, while the tower begins to save space and money as you add drives and cards. I don't see any slow down in the need to add more drives. Each of my two towers has 2 opticals and at least two HDD's. One has been through a mobo/CPU and video card upgrade too.
People still want those features, and Apple had better figure out a way to add some of them if it hopes to gain more interest from them.
Also, while the PC-AIO may not have done well in the past, it doesn't come down to them all being crap. I've seen some nice LCD units, but they were always ***expensive*** (priced like a laptop) compared to the very good and affordable tower offerings often available in the same shop. In the mac aisle, people don't have a choice in the matter, there is no affordable headless machine, so they either buy an AIO or a Pro Tower, or once they've decided that they'd like a consumer tower the way they want it, since they're paying afterall, then, well... then they buy a PC tower -- something which they have not been shy about doing in ever increasing numbers.
There is no AiO desktop market. Period. A laptop is not even close to the same thing because they are mobile and portable. Even in Apple land, there is only a small niche for the AiO. Having said that, the AiO, if priced like a tower, and speced like it meant business, could find a very receptive market.
An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often. Bull! People buy new PCs more often because they can, not because they must. A good PC is far less expensive, partially due to the form factor. Instead of buying a DVD burner and a 120 Gig HD and a good video card for their old system, they have the option to just buy a whole new system for $799, hook it up to the old monitor, and keep on going. Compare that to buying a new mid-range iMac every two years and you should be able to see my point.
The iMac is one of those products that I really want to like. However, I am not a fashionable Web surfer. I will gladly take an ugly box that gets the job done at a reasonable price. So will the vast majority of people. They will look at the iMac and love it for its style and ergonomics. But they will buy a PC because it will play their kid's favorite games for a lot less. I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day. Given the choice between a top of the line iMac with the best internals at a reasonable price and a PowerBook, it becomes a much tougher decision. I would probably be inclined to buy both. To each their own.
Funny, since the iMac has been on the bestseller list before.
Any prejudice against it probably comes from the ingenuity of the packaging: I had one friend shake her head out how her mom just loved her iMac, even though it was just a terminal and she had to dial up to use it. (It had never occurred to her that Apple had indeed fit a whole computer into that case, and she didn't believe me when I told her.) Even modest feats of engineering are unheard of on that side, apparently.
Quote:
A laptop is not even close to the same thing because they are mobile and portable.
Well, except for the fragile, heavy (8-12lb) beasts with half hour battery lives and 15"-17" screens. The ones that consumers are buying in droves.
Even so, it proves that there are apparently things that people are more than willing to trade future-proofing for. Notebooks are among the least upgradable machines available.
I don't count PCI expansion in the consumer space, either: Just imagine Joe or Jane Average unplugging everything, cracking open their tower, carefully grounding themselves, handling a circuit board and applying the necessary force to seat it on the motherboard properly. Not gonna happen.
Quote:
An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often.
No, the fact is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. Whether you like that or not is another question.
The tower is so common on the PC side because it's the most convenient form for the manufacturer. Client-side expandability is an afterthought at best (if it weren't, Dell would ship decent power supplies and Sony wouldn't ship their multimedia PCs with every slot already full). It takes no R&D to buy a commodity case and a commodity board, outfit it with commodity parts as desired, and boot it out the door. That's why PCs look like that. The amount of research done on how well the form is suited to the actual use of the machine? Nada. The amount of engineering done to adapt the machine to the way it will be used? Nada. It's much easier to ship something that is easy to put together, make claims about what it's theoretically capable of, and blame the customer if they can't exploit those capabilities in practice.
So guess what? As soon as notebooks became powerful enough in their own right, people started spurning towers. Even though the average notebook is even harder to upgrade after the fact than an iMac is.
What I gather from this is that if Apple made a low-end tower, people might come for the price (monitor not included, natch) but they'd leave with an iBook or an iMac. If they're trying to impress someone during a major holiday season, they just might splurge on a nice one.
Quote:
I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day.
That's fine. That's why Apple makes PowerBooks, and eMacs, and iBooks, and PowerMacs: Not everyone needs or wants the iMac. Nobody is arguing that everyone does, or should. It is, however, presumptuous in the extreme to assume that anyone who does is merely misinformed or stupid or misguided just because they've decided that it's not a machine they'd buy themselves. If, to a particular person, a quiet, moderately powerful and highly ergonomic machine with a great deal of practical capability out of the box and a gorgeous monitor is worth the money, who are you to tell them they're wrong? Can you honestly say that you know what they need better than they do?
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO). The problem with the iMacs right now is that they are so underpowered they have become a pathetic joke. Hopefully they will put the fastest G5 available in the next revision, in which case it will be a very tempting machine. (Would anyone be complaining about the 20" iMac if it had a 2GHz G5 and a Radeon 9600XT in it?)
I wouldn't complain if it had a 2GHz G4!, although a Radeon 9600/9800 would be VERY helpful even if its a BTO Option.
On the AIO debate, Im a huge fan, I love something styled beautifully, without the tower/display monstrosity. But as a Prosumer, im more at the top end for a desktop - my Powerbook with a 15" TFT is ideal size/weight/performance for my every day computing, but for home, Im mainly working with photo libraries, music compilations, and the dreaded time consuming video/DVD authoring . The 'home' machine is the second machine for me and acts as the suppositry for lots of data/backups.
The 20" iMac in my opinion is potentially ideal for this 'home' work, but really needs to have video-in and a chip that could handle about 3 years of service before being handed down or sold, a 1.25G4 is not my idea of a strong enough performing chip with longevity.
A new iMac, based on all the reports of availability of the new 970 chips wouldn't be out until early summer of next year. The first new 90nm chips would certainly go to the G5 Towers I suspect. The current high voltage chips wouldn't seem to fit into an all-in-one new design iMac.
I did stop by the local Apple Store and the 20" iMac looks fantastic. Salesman told me they put them out on Wednesday and have sold about 6.
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
Boring and misguided. Most potential iMac buyers do not need a 20" screen. I hope that this is not the extent of the iMac update. What the iMac actually needs in the short-term is lower prices and a faster processor. What it needs in the long-term is a rethink of its design. There have been several threads recently that have made some interesting suggestions .
For some time now, we've been discussing how all we actually need is a fast G4 processor and a decent sized screen at work. We've recently purchased a G5 and a 20" ACD, and the 20" iMac had been available we would definately have gone for that instead. I suspect we might be buying the new 20" iMacs from now on - they have everything that we are looking for!
And the iMac has an interesting plus point too, the positional screen - no more round sholders huddled around the Cinema Displays that we use at the moment!
So they may have missed the conventional consumer market, but this machine might just interest other professional users who don't require a REALLY power machine.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
What can I say about the iMac?
INSANE!
Amorph, sometimes I think you are on Apple's payroll to give the pro Apple spin on this board.
Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?
You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.
What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.
The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.
People do not buy what they should. They buy what they want. [...] 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.
So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.
You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.
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.
You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.
My biggest gripe is that they are still crippling this machine as if the PM line was still pathetic.
I'm getting tired of this argument.
It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.
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.
So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want.
http://billpalmer.net/com000036.html
if you step back and take a look at Apple's consumer line now, you'll see that there's everything from a 17-inch CRT model that rings up at a budget-conscious $799, to a 20-inch flat-panel monstrosity that will set you back nearly three times as much...
...the bottom line is that the age-old complaint of not being able to choose your monitor size and type when buying a consumer-level Apple computer, is officially now a dead one. If you intend to intend to invest in something larger than a 20-inch flat-panel, you can undoubtedly afford a G5 minitower to go with it.
If Apple can offer this arrangement in a next-gen AIO iMac too, the whole argument for a headless iMac is moot.
A far as why they only added a bigger monitor, I would think the iMac is so tightly designed especially around heat and power issues that adding a G5 or significantly faster G4 would bring up issues that affect the design of the whole thing.
Originally posted by Amorph
At any rate, until the numbers come in for the holiday quarter, all we can do is speculate. My speculation is that you'll be shocked and amazed by how well the 20" does. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it'll do good business and make Apple some money before it sails off into the sunset.
And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.
The 20" is more of a niche product for small 2-D design firms. The 17" on the other hand covers the greater general population.
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the
20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.
Originally posted by satchmo
And that's the problem with Apple. Why just do "good business" when you can do great business. Apple seems content on coasting along instead of going for the jugular when the opportunity arises.
Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.
If this probable last FP iMac, had improved specs in the 20" model, you could justify it's higher costs and make your margins and still achieve volume sales from the 17" by lowering it's price.
You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.
You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.
We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost.
Originally posted by Amorph
Um, really? It seems to me that they've gone for the jugular quite a few times this year.
Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.
[/QUOTE][/B]
You're presuming to know more about Apple's numbers than Apple does. If the 17" is selling well enough that a slightly lower price wouldn't affect sales enough to offset the drop in revenue, and the 20" gets some potential 17" customers to spend even more on a nice (if not 31337!!1!) personal computer with a gorgeous monitor, then Apple gets a lot of return for a little investment. If they thought they could help the line out by lowering the price, they'd have lowered the price. They have the numbers to make that sort of decision and we don't.
You also assume that Apple did this instead of releasing the next generation iMac now. Well, had it been done, they might well have. Apple has proven that they no longer save major releases for MWSF.
We'll just have to see if the monitor isn't enough to justify the machine's higher cost. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm not assuming anything...just speculating and playing armchair CEO like everyone else here. You're right, we'll just have to see how things play out.
Originally posted by satchmo
Yes, they're profitable and making strides with iTMS/iPod, but I'd hardly call 3-5% marketshare as going for the jugular.
Going for the jugular and getting it are two different things.
If you look around a little, Apple's biggest problem is simply getting people hip to their machines. I've maintained for a good long while now that no matter what Apple did to increase market share they'd go nowhere fast for a year or two, simply because they have such a small part of the market now, and inertia is a bitch. Each success is a little bit more movement. The tech and popular presses are now paying attention; the iTunes / iPod / iTMS combo is enticing PC users and the iBook is snagging them. Education is warming to Apple's iBook initiative as well, while higher ed snaps up PowerBooks (particularly in CS departments - Mac developers in training!); Xserve is beginning to get traction in an all-new market because of favorable reviews from early adopters. VT dropped jaws even at Apple by assembling the world's #3 supercomputer out of PowerMacs. And if nothing is really moving that much, that's because this is not going to be a linear growth cycle. It's going to be one of those things where you push and push and push and get nowhere, and then suddenly you're moving. Fast.
If the 20" serves as one more lust object for Apple to dangle in front of people, great.
Hey come to think of it Im a little relieved, instead of parting with my cash over the holidays, Ill continue to build up more video source material of family and friends, play some golf and enjoy the beach (southern hemisphere), until such time as this product comes with a G5.
It should have been G5 1.6G 512/160G/Superdive, with s-video in.
Apple wants to rip off the unsuspecting?, fine, but not me!.
Originally posted by Amorph
Because it conflicts with your beliefs to imagine that someone with some degree of technical capability can agree with the idea of an AIO? We're all supposed to be out flogging systems where the processor bus logic is upgradable?
You have this bizarre idea that this is about beliefs and ideology. It's not. Here's a little tidbit for you: Apple surveyed PowerMac 8600 owners shortly after Steve came back. If you're not familiar with the 8600, it was a $3000 workhorse tower, a bread-and-butter professional machine with generous room for internal expansion. The survey asked: How many PCI cards had the owners added to their machines? 80% - eighty percent - replied none.
What you need to understand is that surveys and observation indicate that most people get what they need at purchase time, use it until they get tired of it, hand it down or junk it, and then go and purchase a whole new system. The only people who try to sell them on future expansion options are salesmen pitching a more expandable (and therefore more expensive) product, and tinkerer who doesn't understand that not everyone wants to tinker.
The simple fact is that anyone who doesn't design products to be used the way they're going to be used is not doing their customers any favors. Since you seem to insist on some sort of ethical bent, here you go: By optimizing people's buying habits into an AIO, Apple is able to reduce costs substantially and offer an extremely well-made, quiet, full-featured and ergonomic machine at a reasonable price.
So you're saying that what people want is a headless computer with affordable display options, but that's not what they should buy? I don't follow.
You almost make it sound like Apple is offering them what they should buy already.
You're welcome to think that, but the best-selling iMacs have been in the $1500+ range for as long as they've been available at that price. And this is the central error in your argument: The idea that Apple is locked up in an ivory tower, releasing products to theoretical customers. It should be obvious at this point that they have their eyes firmly on the numbers. The fact that you don't like the results of that focus follows from your exasperation with customers' taste in PCs.
I'm getting tired of this argument.
It's a two year old design. There's widely rumored to be a redesign in the works, which Apple can't release before it's good and done. In the mean time, sticking a 20" monitor on the base of a 17" iMac is a nice, simple enhancement of the existing lineup. That's all this is: A bandaid to pretty the line up for the holidays. It's not the future of the iMac for the next decade.
So far, the market hasn't hesitated to let Apple know when they misfire. Their customers might not know what they should buy, but they certainly do know what they want.
You believe that I have a hard time accepting reality? You must be joking. 99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM! Apple has simply created an artificial market for them by limiting options. I am not the one with an ideological bent toward a certain form factor. Apple is. Even if people never upgrade their machines, they want the ability to do it. That is not likely to change. When I first bought my computer, DV editing was not even possible at a consumer level. After I bought my camcorder, I upgraded my system with an add-on card for DV capture. Had I owned an AiO, I would have been out of luck. Upgradability is not about what you want to do with your computer right now. It is about what you want to do with your computer in the future. It is usually something you never thought about and did not know was even possible at the time you bought the thing. You seem to be arguing that Apple is doing the 'moral' thing by limiting consumer options to the AiO. The AiO is more expensive at purchase and it is more expensive in the long run because it will become obsolete sooner and have to be replaced faster. Nice try. Bad argument.
Another part of your argument seems to suggest that Apple could not possibly be that far off the mark because they know what they are doing. You put too much faith in Apple. They have about the worst marketing there is. They do not sell because of it. They sell in spite of it. Do they know what they are doing when it comes to pricing? CUBE! CUBE! CUBE! SJ is stubborn. He will price himself to death in spite of what the numbers show. He believes in the iMac and he is not willing to give up on it. Even if the numbers proved that it was a bad idea, I believe he would keep pushing it at his fantasy price points anyway. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. You have way too much faith in his good sense.
So you are tired of the "crippling" argument. Too bad. You are going to hear a lot more of it. I do not believe that using a 1.42 gig would have blown the thing up as some seem to suggest. I also have not heard a credible argument as to why the HD has not kept pace with industry standards. If the design truly is the reason the iMac has been so slow with upgrades to its internals, then it was a truly bad design. Is it also poor design that makes bluetooth a $50 add-on? That brings me to your last argument. You keep using the term "lust object." Sorry, I thought we were talking about computers. If all we are talking about is a fashion statement, then Apple has a winner on their hands. I looked at the computer in the local Apple Store and it is very nice to look at. Still, its target market seems to be wealthy people who do not have much to do with their computer and know little or nothing about computers. It is for people who have more dollars than sense. In short, I believe its target market is made up of rich suckers. I can't imagine this model will be around for very long and you suggest it is only here to boost the profile of the line as something of a profit gathering stop-gap. I guess we do not disagree too much after all. I can just see the commercial for this thing. Luscious images followed by the words:
"Introducing the 20" iMac... Merry Christmas, SUCKERS!"
99% of the PC using world have already spoken loudly on the subject of AiOs. THEY DON'T WANT THEM!
This is not true at all. There aren't any decent AIOs in Windows-land...not a single one...zippo...zilch. Look at the options they have...
There's the Sony with the non-detachable keyboard...it's so squat you'll have irreversible chronic neck problems after a day's use.
There's the Gateway Profile 5. HHAHAhahHAHAHhahahahaAHhAha. Next.
Well, there aren't that many choices...Neither Dell nor HP have any...but wait, they do...they're called laptops. Laptops are becoming much more popular these days.
Mini-PCs too. Look at all the barebones Shuttle, Soyo, etc. systems. People want computers in smaller packages. They are willing to give-up expandability for size. It's just that good exterior design seems to be anathema to most PC manufacturers.
Originally posted by Res
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO).
Well... that depends.
I'm personally from the 'keep all your options open - because the computer market evolves so quickly' school of thought.
The main problem with AIO in IMO, is that they date VERY quickly. It doesn't matter what you stick in them - they are always going to age prematurely. Compare what you can do (in terms of upgradeability) with a two year old iMac (or laptop for that matter) and a two year old Quicksilver. You can't upgrade the graphics card on the the iMac, and you can't upgrade to a larger sized monitor.
Which is the reason that all manufacturers love the AIO concept.
You're effectively reducing the useful lifespan of your machine to that of it's weakest link. Also, if you buy a G5, there's a very good chance that you aren't going to pick a new Cinema Display to with it. With AIO, they get the profit on the base unit and the Cinema Display. And when the base unit needs replaced, you need to buy a new display as well. And vice verse. If that display goes tits up, you're a captive audience for those inflated repair prices. You have no option.
AIO is perfect for some people, and way to restrictive for others. It depends if you consider a computer to be a disposeable consumer item or not. Some people buy a computer, and never buy another piece of software - ever. They're happy with what came in the box, and they expect the computer to work for the rest of their lives. But if you like to run the latest versions of your favourite software, that 1.25GHz G4 isn't going to look so clever in a years time when everything that's being written is optimized for dual 3GHz G5s.
That's what's wrong with the AIO, IMO.
You could of course argue that a G5/Cinema Display combo is AIO anyway, because the ADC connector has been specifically designed so that you can't use the Cinema Display with an non ADC machine (without forking out some serious cash).
If Apple can remake the e/iMac line into an set of nice "eMac FP" models (branded as iMacs, of course), then all that you say has some merit, but not until prices can match the competition.
Expansion is still a powerful plus to a desktop system. Want a DVD burner, 200 Canadian and 5 minutes of installation and it's there, no expensive firewire chassis, just install and go. In a sense, the AIO loses a lot of it's AIO-ness once you add anything, since it all has to be external, while the tower begins to save space and money as you add drives and cards. I don't see any slow down in the need to add more drives. Each of my two towers has 2 opticals and at least two HDD's. One has been through a mobo/CPU and video card upgrade too.
People still want those features, and Apple had better figure out a way to add some of them if it hopes to gain more interest from them.
Also, while the PC-AIO may not have done well in the past, it doesn't come down to them all being crap. I've seen some nice LCD units, but they were always ***expensive*** (priced like a laptop) compared to the very good and affordable tower offerings often available in the same shop. In the mac aisle, people don't have a choice in the matter, there is no affordable headless machine, so they either buy an AIO or a Pro Tower, or once they've decided that they'd like a consumer tower the way they want it, since they're paying afterall, then, well... then they buy a PC tower -- something which they have not been shy about doing in ever increasing numbers.
An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often. Bull! People buy new PCs more often because they can, not because they must. A good PC is far less expensive, partially due to the form factor. Instead of buying a DVD burner and a 120 Gig HD and a good video card for their old system, they have the option to just buy a whole new system for $799, hook it up to the old monitor, and keep on going. Compare that to buying a new mid-range iMac every two years and you should be able to see my point.
The iMac is one of those products that I really want to like. However, I am not a fashionable Web surfer. I will gladly take an ugly box that gets the job done at a reasonable price. So will the vast majority of people. They will look at the iMac and love it for its style and ergonomics. But they will buy a PC because it will play their kid's favorite games for a lot less. I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day. Given the choice between a top of the line iMac with the best internals at a reasonable price and a PowerBook, it becomes a much tougher decision. I would probably be inclined to buy both. To each their own.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
There is no AiO desktop market. Period.
Funny, since the iMac has been on the bestseller list before.
Any prejudice against it probably comes from the ingenuity of the packaging: I had one friend shake her head out how her mom just loved her iMac, even though it was just a terminal and she had to dial up to use it. (It had never occurred to her that Apple had indeed fit a whole computer into that case, and she didn't believe me when I told her.) Even modest feats of engineering are unheard of on that side, apparently.
A laptop is not even close to the same thing because they are mobile and portable.
Well, except for the fragile, heavy (8-12lb) beasts with half hour battery lives and 15"-17" screens. The ones that consumers are buying in droves.
Even so, it proves that there are apparently things that people are more than willing to trade future-proofing for. Notebooks are among the least upgradable machines available.
I don't count PCI expansion in the consumer space, either: Just imagine Joe or Jane Average unplugging everything, cracking open their tower, carefully grounding themselves, handling a circuit board and applying the necessary force to seat it on the motherboard properly. Not gonna happen.
An argument that I am tired of hearing is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. The suggestion is that PCs need to be replaced more often.
No, the fact is that Macs have a longer effective life span than PCs. Whether you like that or not is another question.
The tower is so common on the PC side because it's the most convenient form for the manufacturer. Client-side expandability is an afterthought at best (if it weren't, Dell would ship decent power supplies and Sony wouldn't ship their multimedia PCs with every slot already full). It takes no R&D to buy a commodity case and a commodity board, outfit it with commodity parts as desired, and boot it out the door. That's why PCs look like that. The amount of research done on how well the form is suited to the actual use of the machine? Nada. The amount of engineering done to adapt the machine to the way it will be used? Nada. It's much easier to ship something that is easy to put together, make claims about what it's theoretically capable of, and blame the customer if they can't exploit those capabilities in practice.
So guess what? As soon as notebooks became powerful enough in their own right, people started spurning towers. Even though the average notebook is even harder to upgrade after the fact than an iMac is.
What I gather from this is that if Apple made a low-end tower, people might come for the price (monitor not included, natch) but they'd leave with an iBook or an iMac. If they're trying to impress someone during a major holiday season, they just might splurge on a nice one.
I own a Mac now and my next computer will be a Mac. But given the choice between an iMac and a PowerBook, I'll take the PowerBook any day.
That's fine. That's why Apple makes PowerBooks, and eMacs, and iBooks, and PowerMacs: Not everyone needs or wants the iMac. Nobody is arguing that everyone does, or should. It is, however, presumptuous in the extreme to assume that anyone who does is merely misinformed or stupid or misguided just because they've decided that it's not a machine they'd buy themselves. If, to a particular person, a quiet, moderately powerful and highly ergonomic machine with a great deal of practical capability out of the box and a gorgeous monitor is worth the money, who are you to tell them they're wrong? Can you honestly say that you know what they need better than they do?
Originally posted by Res
There is nothing inherently wrong with the AIO concept, and they are selling very well on both the Apple and PC side (remember laptops are AIO). The problem with the iMacs right now is that they are so underpowered they have become a pathetic joke. Hopefully they will put the fastest G5 available in the next revision, in which case it will be a very tempting machine. (Would anyone be complaining about the 20" iMac if it had a 2GHz G5 and a Radeon 9600XT in it?)
I wouldn't complain if it had a 2GHz G4!, although a Radeon 9600/9800 would be VERY helpful even if its a BTO Option.
On the AIO debate, Im a huge fan, I love something styled beautifully, without the tower/display monstrosity. But as a Prosumer, im more at the top end for a desktop - my Powerbook with a 15" TFT is ideal size/weight/performance for my every day computing, but for home, Im mainly working with photo libraries, music compilations, and the dreaded time consuming video/DVD authoring . The 'home' machine is the second machine for me and acts as the suppositry for lots of data/backups.
The 20" iMac in my opinion is potentially ideal for this 'home' work, but really needs to have video-in and a chip that could handle about 3 years of service before being handed down or sold, a 1.25G4 is not my idea of a strong enough performing chip with longevity.
A) Everyone here is very passionate about the subject at hand.
or
I pick (b)
People if you want it go and get it....if you hate it don't get it, is just me or is it just that simple?
Frank_t
I did stop by the local Apple Store and the 20" iMac looks fantastic. Salesman told me they put them out on Wednesday and have sold about 6.