<strong>btw, name a reason why I would need a PCI slot if I used any of the following apps
Photoshop
Illustrator
DreamWeaver
FCP 3
Go Live
Free Hand
File Maker Pro
Office V.X
etc
</strong><hr></blockquote>
need, no. in fact i could make a living using older versions of software on a PPC604e - it just isn't as efficient. not a big deal in my home, i can do anything if i need to, but i don't want to work at home (in fact a nearly silent computer is a blessing in my home). in the office i want efficiency and speed. umm, a pci slot would be handy to drive a second monitor.
I'd consider myself a "prosumer," and if the Cube reincarnation had a single PCI slot, it'd be nice for any *possible* future needs or second monitor. Because I'm not fully "pro" though, I don't need multiple slots.
by titling it "consumer machine" what would that sacrifice to make it "consumer".
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Put a G3 in it and a $699 price tag. Did you read my first post? I think that the cube fits better here.
Regardless of your opinion of the cube as a pro machine, don't you think that it would make a pretty trick baseline G3?
[quote]
<strong>
btw, name a reason why I would need a PCI slot if I used any of the following apps
Photoshop
Illustrator
DreamWeaver
FCP 3
Go Live
Free Hand
File Maker Pro
Office V.X
etc
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would not need a PCI slot for any of these applications. I also am not going to pay more for a machine that does not have PCI slots simply because I do not need them. That is like paying more for a car without air conditioning because I live in Alaska.
I won't argue with you that the cube would have had more success if it were priced lower. This is clear.
My argument for positioning the cube below the iMac is simple. It costs less to build a machine without an integrated display.
Put a G4 in the iMac and the price differential makes even more sense. I'm not dogging your obvious adoration of the Power Mac G4 Cube. I just think that it's a better fit as a G3 iCube. What do others think?
I'd like a PCI slot not for graphic apps but for audio ones. Wouldn't even be able to add a SoundBlaster or surround decoder card, let alone anything in the way of pro recording/editing except the MOTU 828.
[quote]Put a G3 in it and a $699 price tag. Did you read my first post? I think that the cube fits better here.
Regardless of your opinion of the cube as a pro machine, don't you think that it would make a pretty trick baseline G3?
<hr></blockquote>
1.) how would the difference in price of a G3 and G4 (as little as 40 dollars to as much as 200) result in a price drop from 1299 to 699? are you even trying to be realistic
2.) no I think it would make a horrible baseline G3 and sell even worse because it would cost more to make then the price you quoted.
[quote]I would not need a PCI slot for any of these applications. I also am not going to pay more for a machine that does not have PCI slots simply because I do not need them. That is like paying more for a car without air conditioning because I live in Alaska. <hr></blockquote>
did you even read my post? I said for 1300. which was the final price of the cube after Apple cut prices.
[quote]
My argument for positioning the cube below the iMac is simple. It costs less to build a machine without an integrated display.<hr></blockquote>
and you're point? besides that neccessarily being true?
[quote]
Put a G4 in the iMac and the price differential makes even more sense. I'm not dogging your obvious adoration of the Power Mac G4 Cube. I just think that it's a better fit as a G3 iCube. What do others think?<hr></blockquote>
I think you don't understand that the price difference between a G3 and G4 is not 900 dollars and that it would not be possible to do what you describe.
[quote]I'd like a PCI slot not for graphic apps but for audio ones. Wouldn't even be able to add a SoundBlaster or surround decoder card, let alone anything in the way of pro recording/editing except the MOTU 828. <hr></blockquote>
The Cube is being used in the pro audio area with firewire.
I would like a soundblaster but I would rather Apple integrate it into the cube.
1.) how would the difference in price of a G3 and G4 (as little as 40 dollars to as much as 200) result in a price drop from 1299 to 699? are you even trying to be realistic
2.) no I think it would make a horrible baseline G3 and sell even worse because it would cost more to make then the price you quoted.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, applenut, it's clear that you think the Cube should be a G4 and be priced between the iMac and Power Mac G? at $1300. I think that this is too expensive for what your Cube would be: an iMac without a monitor and a G4 in it.
The Cube does not cost any more to manufacture than the iMac if you don't use more expensive components. Any and all R&D costs related to packing all of that cool stuff into the small package are already sunk costs and are not relevant to our discussion.
Apple can and should get the cost of the cube down to $699 where consumers can and will afford it. Use current specs for the iMac and remove the CRT, speakers, extra plastics, etc. Slap in a Sahara G3 and you have the iCube at $699, or at least $799, but not $1300.
Not necessarily. IF the revamped Cube is similar to the old, they might have higher costs for the clear plastic they use for the case, the materials for the pop-up handle, etc. Who knows?
I'm not saything that's the case, but it could be.
Call me a crazy optimist, but the numbers seem to add up. Current base iMac = $799. No CRT + No Speakers + smaller enclosure = $100 savings at least.</strong><hr></blockquote>
they couldn't make a cube for 1000 before how could they do it now? at 1299 their margins were too small to maintain the product.
how is the switch from a G4 to a G3 going to solve those problems.
I would say that the cube's case and internal motherboard cost a whole lot more than the iMac's. the cube was not cheap to make, you seem to think it was.
the cube should and could be better placed with specs like this:
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 3 MX
56K Modem
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Superdrive
$1299
The Cube could be positioned as the consumers or prosumers entry to iDVD 2 machine because its just a bit unrealistic the imac will have a superdrive yet.
I just don't see how you could think a cheap cube for 699 which would HAVE to suffer in the quality of the design and features to make that price would be a better move. Apple is not a low margin cheap computer maker. anyone who tries to compete in that area almost always loses
<strong>Add TiVo capability and an HDTV tuner and the Cube becomes the missing link to the "Digital Lifestyle" Apple can not ignore TV as part of this convergence. Throw a G5 and a SuperDrive in it and sell it for $5000 bundled with a Cinema Display and I'll order mine the day it is announced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has ignored tv and they will continue to do so. Steve sees no convergence between computers and tv and wishes to keep them entirely separate. You might recall that at one point he said something along the lines of: "You go to the tv to turn your mind off, you go to your computer to turn your mind on".
To Apple the digital lifestyle covers the following areas: music, movies, pictures and burning these forms of data onto Cds and DVD?s. Apple need only to introduce a piece of software that deals with photos and they have covered everything.
To Apple the digital lifestyle includes the following devices: digital cameras, camcorders and organizers as well as mp3 players. Apple only has an mp3 player so far. A camcorder is next up, as digital movies have obviously been a priority to Apple. A camera will come soon after or at the same time as some form of iphoto software is announced. Apple has shown no discernible interest in digital organizers outside of supporting them so as to play nice. Apple is only on record as insulting them and downplaying their importance. It is unlikely we will ever see a Newton2 or any kind of ?tablet?. Apple is playing it safe and refining what already exists in large markets with high demand, creating products which are the best of their class. The market for digital organizers and handheld computers is shrinking and presently of no interest to Apple.
Look for a DV camcorder at the next MacWorld to go along with the SuperDrive penetrating Apple?s line up as much as possible. Home made DVD?s are one of Steve?s main visions. This MacWorld will focus on this, among other things, once again.
Sorry for the thread drift <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
they couldn't make a cube for 1000 before how could they do it now? at 1299 their margins were too small to maintain the product.
how is the switch from a G4 to a G3 going to solve those problems.
I would say that the cube's case and internal motherboard cost a whole lot more than the iMac's. the cube was not cheap to make, you seem to think it was.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. Maybe what I am wanting is not a Cube at all, but the "iSlab." Basically a monitorless iMac in a relatively small form factor at $699. You have a good point.
[quote]<strong>
. . .
Apple is not a low margin cheap computer maker. anyone who tries to compete in that area almost always loses
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I also agree with you here. You and I know that Apple machines are built to a higher quality standard and are worth every penny.
The problem is that Apple is forced to compete here. Non-Mac-owners will always compare cut-rate no-name PeeCees with the low-end Apple machine. This is Apple's new target audience, they must attract new users.
Apple could make a top-notch G3 without a monitor for $699 and raise the price on the iMac to offset the cost of LCDs. This would also sell more Apple Displays as folks could afford them bundled with the new machines.
I don't think that is Apple's market at all. I don't think they are aiming at all to the type of people who buy a 500-600 dollar computer or buy one with a 400 dollar MSN rebate or off of the HSN.
and I don't think the people buying those computers are even thinking about Apple.
that really is th last market I want to see Apple get into.
If the cube returned, I'd like to see it target middle consumers like myself...who want a powerful machine with good features for a cheap price (doesn't everybody?). I'm with applenut on the price range?the cube is a prosumer device, not a consumer computer to be priced below the iMac. That would merely cannibalize sales. A reasonably priced TFT iMac would fill the entry level slots nicely. Apple can't get much cheaper than that...they have an extremely small, or no margin on the iMac. The cube with it's small, expensive parts is harder to manufacture. An AGP card is much more expensive than integrated graphics, especially when it is miniturized.
The iMac and Cube could overlap slightly on the low end, as the iMac already has it's display but cube buyers still have to buy one, that can be an additional 200-300 dollars at the least. Applenut's specs seem very optimistic, especially since there is no such thing as a GeForce 3MX (do you mean a GeForce 3 Ti 200?), especially for the Mac.
The iMac is not gonna hit much lower than $1000. $899 is the absolute best we could hope for, with other configs of $1199 and $1399. This would allow the cube to come in at $1199, or $1099. Figure two different configurations, completely BTO-able.
Cube A:
733MHz PPC 7440
256MB RAM
40GB HD
GeForce 2MX
DVD
$1099
Cube B:
933MHz PPC 7460
256MB RAM
60GB HD
Radeon 8500
Combo
$1599
Even this is extremely optimistic, considering the "B" configuration features a chip we are not quite sure exists yet.
But I'd take that entry level cube, spruce it up with an 8500 or GF3, add a LaCie 19" Electron Blue 3 for $400, and have a beautiful system for under $2000. Of course, I'd still need some surround sound speakers.
applenut: the cube should and could be better placed with specs like this:
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 3 MX
56K Modem
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Superdrive
$1299
____________________________________________
exactly---don't think it will happen as i think that the cube is dead (no, i have ABSOLUTELY no insider info regarding this or any other apple plans), but i would buy that... even over an iMac LCD (the cube's design is beautiful and, on a desk, it and the separate screen can easily be moved about)---bundle the "New Cube" or "Applenut" Cube with a 15" lcd ASD for $1749 and a 17" lcd ASD for $1999 and apple wouldn't be able to keep them in stock....g
<strong>I don't think that is Apple's market at all. I don't think they are aiming at all to the type of people who buy a 500-600 dollar computer or buy one with a 400 dollar MSN rebate or off of the HSN.
and I don't think the people buying those computers are even thinking about Apple.
that really is th last market I want to see Apple get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ohmigod, tell me about it
Yeah, Macs aren't cheap (and in a couple of cases, they're downright ridiculous, price-wise), but I would rather them be what they are now than to try and take that lame-ass, cheesy "budget brand" route because you know what?
Non-Mac people STILL wouldn't buy them, for all the same reasons they don't buy Macs now.
Apple's pricing is but a small, small piece of the pie as to why more people don't use them.
Half a decade (or more) of myths, weak (or sometimes nonexistent) marketing, rumors (false, bullshit ones of course) of bankruptcy/buyout, lies, false appearances, etc. have probably done more to cut into Apple's marketshare than anything else.
I STILL, to this day, will run into someone at work or at a CompUSA or whatever who firmly believes one or more of the following:
1. There isn't any software for Macs.
2. Apple is going out of business
3. Macs are only for graphics
4. Macs - with their colors and curves - can't be "serious", REAL computers
AFTER the above four comes things like price, the MHz myth, etc.
I believe that until Apple (or SOMEONE) confronts and deals with the first four in a strong, decisive way, good prices and 2GHz Macs aren't going to change much in the mind of a non-Mac user.
The airwaves and magazines should be borderline saturated with CLEVER, hard-hitting ads from Apple, touting all that is cool and righteous about the platform (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, OS X, AirPort, Firewire, actual hardware, etc.).
Comments
<strong>btw, name a reason why I would need a PCI slot if I used any of the following apps
Photoshop
Illustrator
DreamWeaver
FCP 3
Go Live
Free Hand
File Maker Pro
Office V.X
etc
</strong><hr></blockquote>
need, no. in fact i could make a living using older versions of software on a PPC604e - it just isn't as efficient. not a big deal in my home, i can do anything if i need to, but i don't want to work at home (in fact a nearly silent computer is a blessing in my home). in the office i want efficiency and speed. umm, a pci slot would be handy to drive a second monitor.
<strong>
by titling it "consumer machine" what would that sacrifice to make it "consumer".
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Put a G3 in it and a $699 price tag. Did you read my first post? I think that the cube fits better here.
Regardless of your opinion of the cube as a pro machine, don't you think that it would make a pretty trick baseline G3?
[quote]
<strong>
btw, name a reason why I would need a PCI slot if I used any of the following apps
Photoshop
Illustrator
DreamWeaver
FCP 3
Go Live
Free Hand
File Maker Pro
Office V.X
etc
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would not need a PCI slot for any of these applications. I also am not going to pay more for a machine that does not have PCI slots simply because I do not need them. That is like paying more for a car without air conditioning because I live in Alaska.
I won't argue with you that the cube would have had more success if it were priced lower. This is clear.
My argument for positioning the cube below the iMac is simple. It costs less to build a machine without an integrated display.
Put a G4 in the iMac and the price differential makes even more sense. I'm not dogging your obvious adoration of the Power Mac G4 Cube. I just think that it's a better fit as a G3 iCube. What do others think?
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: A/UX ]</p>
Tower G5's to follow in July
Regardless of your opinion of the cube as a pro machine, don't you think that it would make a pretty trick baseline G3?
<hr></blockquote>
1.) how would the difference in price of a G3 and G4 (as little as 40 dollars to as much as 200) result in a price drop from 1299 to 699? are you even trying to be realistic
2.) no I think it would make a horrible baseline G3 and sell even worse because it would cost more to make then the price you quoted.
[quote]I would not need a PCI slot for any of these applications. I also am not going to pay more for a machine that does not have PCI slots simply because I do not need them. That is like paying more for a car without air conditioning because I live in Alaska. <hr></blockquote>
did you even read my post? I said for 1300. which was the final price of the cube after Apple cut prices.
[quote]
My argument for positioning the cube below the iMac is simple. It costs less to build a machine without an integrated display.<hr></blockquote>
and you're point? besides that neccessarily being true?
[quote]
Put a G4 in the iMac and the price differential makes even more sense. I'm not dogging your obvious adoration of the Power Mac G4 Cube. I just think that it's a better fit as a G3 iCube. What do others think?<hr></blockquote>
I think you don't understand that the price difference between a G3 and G4 is not 900 dollars and that it would not be possible to do what you describe.
[quote]I'd like a PCI slot not for graphic apps but for audio ones. Wouldn't even be able to add a SoundBlaster or surround decoder card, let alone anything in the way of pro recording/editing except the MOTU 828. <hr></blockquote>
The Cube is being used in the pro audio area with firewire.
I would like a soundblaster but I would rather Apple integrate it into the cube.
1.) how would the difference in price of a G3 and G4 (as little as 40 dollars to as much as 200) result in a price drop from 1299 to 699? are you even trying to be realistic
2.) no I think it would make a horrible baseline G3 and sell even worse because it would cost more to make then the price you quoted.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, applenut, it's clear that you think the Cube should be a G4 and be priced between the iMac and Power Mac G? at $1300. I think that this is too expensive for what your Cube would be: an iMac without a monitor and a G4 in it.
The Cube does not cost any more to manufacture than the iMac if you don't use more expensive components. Any and all R&D costs related to packing all of that cool stuff into the small package are already sunk costs and are not relevant to our discussion.
Apple can and should get the cost of the cube down to $699 where consumers can and will afford it. Use current specs for the iMac and remove the CRT, speakers, extra plastics, etc. Slap in a Sahara G3 and you have the iCube at $699, or at least $799, but not $1300.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: A/UX ]</p>
<strong>lol. it's like dealing with SDW2001
I am persistent, but enjoying the lively discussion. Why couldn't Apple make a cube for less than $700.
Call me a crazy optimist, but the numbers seem to add up. Current base iMac = $799. No CRT + No Speakers + smaller enclosure = $100 savings at least.
SDW2001 seems to never be interested in the opinions of others. I'm all ears.
I'm not saything that's the case, but it could be.
<strong>
Call me a crazy optimist, but the numbers seem to add up. Current base iMac = $799. No CRT + No Speakers + smaller enclosure = $100 savings at least.</strong><hr></blockquote>
they couldn't make a cube for 1000 before how could they do it now? at 1299 their margins were too small to maintain the product.
how is the switch from a G4 to a G3 going to solve those problems.
I would say that the cube's case and internal motherboard cost a whole lot more than the iMac's. the cube was not cheap to make, you seem to think it was.
the cube should and could be better placed with specs like this:
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 3 MX
56K Modem
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Superdrive
$1299
The Cube could be positioned as the consumers or prosumers entry to iDVD 2 machine because its just a bit unrealistic the imac will have a superdrive yet.
I just don't see how you could think a cheap cube for 699 which would HAVE to suffer in the quality of the design and features to make that price would be a better move. Apple is not a low margin cheap computer maker. anyone who tries to compete in that area almost always loses
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
<strong>Add TiVo capability and an HDTV tuner and the Cube becomes the missing link to the "Digital Lifestyle" Apple can not ignore TV as part of this convergence. Throw a G5 and a SuperDrive in it and sell it for $5000 bundled with a Cinema Display and I'll order mine the day it is announced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has ignored tv and they will continue to do so. Steve sees no convergence between computers and tv and wishes to keep them entirely separate. You might recall that at one point he said something along the lines of: "You go to the tv to turn your mind off, you go to your computer to turn your mind on".
To Apple the digital lifestyle covers the following areas: music, movies, pictures and burning these forms of data onto Cds and DVD?s. Apple need only to introduce a piece of software that deals with photos and they have covered everything.
To Apple the digital lifestyle includes the following devices: digital cameras, camcorders and organizers as well as mp3 players. Apple only has an mp3 player so far. A camcorder is next up, as digital movies have obviously been a priority to Apple. A camera will come soon after or at the same time as some form of iphoto software is announced. Apple has shown no discernible interest in digital organizers outside of supporting them so as to play nice. Apple is only on record as insulting them and downplaying their importance. It is unlikely we will ever see a Newton2 or any kind of ?tablet?. Apple is playing it safe and refining what already exists in large markets with high demand, creating products which are the best of their class. The market for digital organizers and handheld computers is shrinking and presently of no interest to Apple.
Look for a DV camcorder at the next MacWorld to go along with the SuperDrive penetrating Apple?s line up as much as possible. Home made DVD?s are one of Steve?s main visions. This MacWorld will focus on this, among other things, once again.
Sorry for the thread drift <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: nathan22t ]</p>
<strong>
they couldn't make a cube for 1000 before how could they do it now? at 1299 their margins were too small to maintain the product.
how is the switch from a G4 to a G3 going to solve those problems.
I would say that the cube's case and internal motherboard cost a whole lot more than the iMac's. the cube was not cheap to make, you seem to think it was.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. Maybe what I am wanting is not a Cube at all, but the "iSlab." Basically a monitorless iMac in a relatively small form factor at $699. You have a good point.
[quote]<strong>
. . .
Apple is not a low margin cheap computer maker. anyone who tries to compete in that area almost always loses
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I also agree with you here. You and I know that Apple machines are built to a higher quality standard and are worth every penny.
The problem is that Apple is forced to compete here. Non-Mac-owners will always compare cut-rate no-name PeeCees with the low-end Apple machine. This is Apple's new target audience, they must attract new users.
Apple could make a top-notch G3 without a monitor for $699 and raise the price on the iMac to offset the cost of LCDs. This would also sell more Apple Displays as folks could afford them bundled with the new machines.
and I don't think the people buying those computers are even thinking about Apple.
that really is th last market I want to see Apple get into.
The iMac and Cube could overlap slightly on the low end, as the iMac already has it's display but cube buyers still have to buy one, that can be an additional 200-300 dollars at the least. Applenut's specs seem very optimistic, especially since there is no such thing as a GeForce 3MX (do you mean a GeForce 3 Ti 200?), especially for the Mac.
The iMac is not gonna hit much lower than $1000. $899 is the absolute best we could hope for, with other configs of $1199 and $1399. This would allow the cube to come in at $1199, or $1099. Figure two different configurations, completely BTO-able.
Cube A:
733MHz PPC 7440
256MB RAM
40GB HD
GeForce 2MX
DVD
$1099
Cube B:
933MHz PPC 7460
256MB RAM
60GB HD
Radeon 8500
Combo
$1599
Even this is extremely optimistic, considering the "B" configuration features a chip we are not quite sure exists yet.
But I'd take that entry level cube, spruce it up with an 8500 or GF3, add a LaCie 19" Electron Blue 3 for $400, and have a beautiful system for under $2000. Of course, I'd still need some surround sound speakers.
To each his own.
applenut: the cube should and could be better placed with specs like this:
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 3 MX
56K Modem
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Superdrive
$1299
____________________________________________
exactly---don't think it will happen as i think that the cube is dead (no, i have ABSOLUTELY no insider info regarding this or any other apple plans), but i would buy that... even over an iMac LCD (the cube's design is beautiful and, on a desk, it and the separate screen can easily be moved about)---bundle the "New Cube" or "Applenut" Cube with a 15" lcd ASD for $1749 and a 17" lcd ASD for $1999 and apple wouldn't be able to keep them in stock....g
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
Hopefuly MWNY '02, or MWSF '03
<strong>I don't think that is Apple's market at all. I don't think they are aiming at all to the type of people who buy a 500-600 dollar computer or buy one with a 400 dollar MSN rebate or off of the HSN.
and I don't think the people buying those computers are even thinking about Apple.
that really is th last market I want to see Apple get into.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ohmigod, tell me about it
Yeah, Macs aren't cheap (and in a couple of cases, they're downright ridiculous, price-wise), but I would rather them be what they are now than to try and take that lame-ass, cheesy "budget brand" route because you know what?
Non-Mac people STILL wouldn't buy them, for all the same reasons they don't buy Macs now.
Apple's pricing is but a small, small piece of the pie as to why more people don't use them.
Half a decade (or more) of myths, weak (or sometimes nonexistent) marketing, rumors (false, bullshit ones of course) of bankruptcy/buyout, lies, false appearances, etc. have probably done more to cut into Apple's marketshare than anything else.
I STILL, to this day, will run into someone at work or at a CompUSA or whatever who firmly believes one or more of the following:
1. There isn't any software for Macs.
2. Apple is going out of business
3. Macs are only for graphics
4. Macs - with their colors and curves - can't be "serious", REAL computers
AFTER the above four comes things like price, the MHz myth, etc.
I believe that until Apple (or SOMEONE) confronts and deals with the first four in a strong, decisive way, good prices and 2GHz Macs aren't going to change much in the mind of a non-Mac user.
The airwaves and magazines should be borderline saturated with CLEVER, hard-hitting ads from Apple, touting all that is cool and righteous about the platform (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, OS X, AirPort, Firewire, actual hardware, etc.).
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>