<strong>In reference to the title, if the cube came back, it would do the same thing for Apple shares that John Roth did for Nortel shares. Not good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but the funny thing is that in the Standard and Poor's report on AAPL, they use the Cube failure as a reason to be cautious about the stock. If the Cube was brought back, it would be used another reason to be cautious How dumb are stock people anyway?
It's time to EOL the G3 and move on. Powermacs will have G5s soon enough, so the rest of the Macs should have G4s at the very least. With OS X Apple has proven that they are fully committed to Altivec. Why would Apple optimize OS X for Altivec and then put G3s in the majority of Macs sold? No, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Apple optimized OS X for Altivec because they plan on G4s or better in all Macs before long. To release a new Mac with a G3 would be utter insanity.
And no, just because a Mac has a G3 doesn't mean that Apple can magically price it at $599. The G3 is only slightly cheaper than the G4, not enough to make much of a difference in the final price. Model pricing is more about marketing than CPU cost.
I think Paul's overstating the situation from many a shopper's point of view - and defending the status quo a little too strongly...
The "they cost more" criticism directed at the Mac is more problematic than any other. It's the deterrant that finally prevents a sale; even when other factors are taken care of, and the product is widely appealing - as was the case with the Cube. As much as people raved about the it, the price drove buyers away. Not software, not clock speeds, not the Mac's reputation, but price, above all else. This speaks to something true, not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It's a dubious, defeatist position to say that a leap in sales is impossible regardless of price.
Apple's hit the mark before - as we've seen in other instances. The current iBook is a runaway success - and a prime example. Is it an El Cheapo box? Did it demoralize Apple to bring it to market? Obviously not. Also, many PC users who disparaged the first-generation iBook nonetheless bought its replacement - so much for the 'cute-n'-cuddly' problem - but you can bet they would've stayed away had the iBook come at twice the cost. Even with everything else in place, price still speaks the loudest.
It might not be an overnight transformation. But for Apple to eliminate the most common, most long-standing deterrent to buying Mac rather than PC? Whose to say that it couldn't be the start of something huge?
As a cube owner, I need to add my 3 cents to this thread..
1. The ONLY reason the cube failed was price. (of course, if you lower anything to $0, it will sell well.) But seriously, I jumped at the chance to get a refurb off Apple's site for $1100. The Cube IS the prosumer slotless "tower" that some would like to see.
2. Anyone who says that the cube is marvelous piece of engineering because of what they fit inside it is full of crap. Stop parroting Job's marketing spin! Get out of the RDF!! There is a heck of a lot less volume in a PBG4, or even an iBook. And those contain a keyboard and LCD screen in addition to everything a cube has! The cube is NOT amazing for what is stuffed inside it, and should not demand a $800 premium because of it. It IS a very attractive and well thought out device, and should demand a $200 premium because of it.
3. I think the iMac should be relegated to one entry level model at $799, and the cube should fill in the $799 - $1499 price range (w/o monitor). The one improvement they should make however, is to integrate the speakers into the LCD monitors. The USB and power is already there. Get those wires, speakers, and amplifier off my desk!
1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius
<strong>1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. relax
2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.
3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.
4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?
2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.
3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.
4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it. but it was just a desktop thrown into a cube right People never fail to amaze me. Maybe one day you should open up your cube and really take a look at it. maybe then you'll see just how impressive it is.
2.) uh... what does PPC performance have to do with anything? Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.
the lowend tower at the time was 400Mhz. but it was also 200 dollars cheaper, had expansion, and better specs all around. that's why it was a dumb pricing decision. why would anyone go for the cube when you could get a tower for a better deal? it made no sense unless all you cared about was styling and didn't mind paying more for it which apparantly very few did.
the 500Mhz G4 tower was not successful. the day the cube came out the G4/500 tower was replaced by the dual G4/500 tower. before that G4/500 tower sales sucked.
3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.
the $799 model of the imac they offer now is a piece of shit. it was originally only available to schools because 1. the schools eat cheap stuf up 2. the margins are too small for resellers to take it serious. obviously they brought it back to the public hoping it would clear out some imac inventory for christmas.
a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?
What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it
<strong>So when can we expect to see the new cube?
Hopefuly MWNY '02, or MWSF '03</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think you will ever be able to expect it, you can hope all you want, I know I am. It's just that there is NO evidence that they are bringing it back.
<strong>What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.
1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it.
<hr></blockquote>
Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?
[quote]
Maybe one day you should open up your cube and really take a look at it. maybe then you'll see just how impressive it is.<hr></blockquote>
I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!
[quote] Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.<hr></blockquote>
Well, we agree. Like I said, price was it's only problem.
[quote]
3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.<hr></blockquote>
<applenut attitude>
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius .
</applenut attitude>
[quote]
a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?<hr></blockquote>
I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.
You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it.
Nobody has mentioned the dodecahedron rumor, with twelve sides, each a pentagon. It is to be the G5 enclosure, appear in Spring, 2002. I personally think it was invented at Apple to throw everyone off the scent.
That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh... no. nice try at an insult by the way.
Apple wasn't able to maintain decent profit margins with the cube at 1299. what makes you think they would do it all over and at the same time release a single iMac with next to no profit margin?
[quote]Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?<hr></blockquote>
people did try. read a little more. there was actually a pretty interesting PC clone but it was no where near as good as the G4 Cube.
[quote]I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!<hr></blockquote>
yet it has:
a G3,
soldered in ram with one ram slot open
a 2.5 inch notebook harddrive
integrated graphic chipset instead of an agp slot
a slower bus (you quoted the 1299 model)
yea, take away the G4, stick a G3 in, take away the ram slots, take away the AGP slot, make other power savings cuts across the motherboard, remove a firewire port and an ADC port and you'll have what amounts to an iBook. you're point?
nevermind the fact that a good portion of the Cube's size is due to its center chimney. if that was not there they could have made it even smaller. they would have just had to make it sound like a jet with its fan like the powerbook.
[quote]<applenut attitude>
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius .
</applenut attitude><hr></blockquote>
if you are going to make shithead like comments like that you should read around a bit more. Wherre did I have say to keep the iMac the same forever and never change anything?
iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299
tell me how that is me saying they should keep the imac the same forever and not make any changes?
an then I always say to have a 799 or 899 CRT based iMac for schools and the entry level.
and then I have said that the cube could fill the spot between the imac and the PowerMac like it should have in the first place.
[quote]I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.<hr></blockquote>
how is the price even remotely near it?
1299 for a cube plus display. cheapest apple display is 599. you have to do some interesting math to think that's what people pay for the high end iMacs.
[quote]You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it. <hr></blockquote>
you're not improving anything. you're taking away and opening up a 1000 dollar gap between the imac and the next product, "you're cube".
[quote]Nobody has mentioned the dodecahedron rumor, with twelve sides, each a pentagon. It is to be the G5 enclosure, appear in Spring, 2002. I personally think it was invented at Apple to throw everyone off the scent. <hr></blockquote>
um, the only thing i have to add to this thread is thati have thought that the cube should have been the imac II, and, truth be told, it still could, since we now it can hold a g4 (allowing the towers to prgress up to g5 without any crossover in technology between the consumer and pro markets), but the cube was still not all-in-one idiot-proof like the imac (remember the video of the kid and dog pulling it out and setting it up?). so maybe they really could do the "headless imac" design based off the cube and flat-panel displays. who knows?
complete tangent: watching the motor city bowl on tsn/espn (because it's the only football on right now, that's why), and saw a guy on cincinnati's team named, i kid you not, "deathrage." can you imagine being named something like chuck deathrage? holy crap! :eek:
iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299____________________________
ok, if that is the next imac with LCD screen, can apple re-release the cube with those specs for the same price with out a display??
so iMac LCD Combo--1299
Combo Cube-1299
then you take that G4 Combo Cube and bundle a 15" ASD for $1749 (special pricing for buying apple cube and apple display)---a Combo cube and a 17" ASD for $1999
can or would apple make a SE cube with Superdrive??? make it 1599....then it is
iMac combo 1299
Combo Cube 1299
Super Cube 1599
Cube Bundles: Combo + 15" ASD--1749
Super + 15" ASD- 1999
Combo + 17" ASD 1999
Super + 17" ASD--2249
dang, the more i think about, the more i want a freakin cube---plus i just like to say Combo Cube and Super Cube....
Comments
<strong>In reference to the title, if the cube came back, it would do the same thing for Apple shares that John Roth did for Nortel shares. Not good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but the funny thing is that in the Standard and Poor's report on AAPL, they use the Cube failure as a reason to be cautious about the stock. If the Cube was brought back, it would be used another reason to be cautious
It's time to EOL the G3 and move on. Powermacs will have G5s soon enough, so the rest of the Macs should have G4s at the very least. With OS X Apple has proven that they are fully committed to Altivec. Why would Apple optimize OS X for Altivec and then put G3s in the majority of Macs sold? No, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Apple optimized OS X for Altivec because they plan on G4s or better in all Macs before long. To release a new Mac with a G3 would be utter insanity.
And no, just because a Mac has a G3 doesn't mean that Apple can magically price it at $599. The G3 is only slightly cheaper than the G4, not enough to make much of a difference in the final price. Model pricing is more about marketing than CPU cost.
The "they cost more" criticism directed at the Mac is more problematic than any other. It's the deterrant that finally prevents a sale; even when other factors are taken care of, and the product is widely appealing - as was the case with the Cube. As much as people raved about the it, the price drove buyers away. Not software, not clock speeds, not the Mac's reputation, but price, above all else. This speaks to something true, not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It's a dubious, defeatist position to say that a leap in sales is impossible regardless of price.
Apple's hit the mark before - as we've seen in other instances. The current iBook is a runaway success - and a prime example. Is it an El Cheapo box? Did it demoralize Apple to bring it to market? Obviously not. Also, many PC users who disparaged the first-generation iBook nonetheless bought its replacement - so much for the 'cute-n'-cuddly' problem - but you can bet they would've stayed away had the iBook come at twice the cost. Even with everything else in place, price still speaks the loudest.
It might not be an overnight transformation. But for Apple to eliminate the most common, most long-standing deterrent to buying Mac rather than PC? Whose to say that it couldn't be the start of something huge?
Cheers,
Mark.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Mark ]</p>
1. The ONLY reason the cube failed was price. (of course, if you lower anything to $0, it will sell well.) But seriously, I jumped at the chance to get a refurb off Apple's site for $1100. The Cube IS the prosumer slotless "tower" that some would like to see.
2. Anyone who says that the cube is marvelous piece of engineering because of what they fit inside it is full of crap. Stop parroting Job's marketing spin! Get out of the RDF!! There is a heck of a lot less volume in a PBG4, or even an iBook. And those contain a keyboard and LCD screen in addition to everything a cube has! The cube is NOT amazing for what is stuffed inside it, and should not demand a $800 premium because of it. It IS a very attractive and well thought out device, and should demand a $200 premium because of it.
3. I think the iMac should be relegated to one entry level model at $799, and the cube should fill in the $799 - $1499 price range (w/o monitor). The one improvement they should make however, is to integrate the speakers into the LCD monitors. The USB and power is already there. Get those wires, speakers, and amplifier off my desk!
iMac - 667 Mhz G4
Cube - 867/933/1.2 GH G4
Tower - 1.2/Dual 1.2 G4 (if no G5)
Monitors (with speakers) - 15" ($450), 17" ($750), 19" ($1199), 22" (who cares)
Given the prices of stuff these days, I don't see why Apple can't do that.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Cubed ]</p>
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius
<strong>1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good post, applenut
<strong>1.) The Cube also failed because its specs absolutely sucked. a 450Mhz G4 is a joke and was a joke back then
2.) Are you insane. You fail to realize that they fit desktop components into that 8 inch cube. they fit a normal 3.5 inch ATA/66 hard drive. they fit expansion for 1.5 GB of RAM, a processor daughtercard, and an AGP SLOT. and they did this without a fan and by using desktop components kept manufacturing costs down. To compare this technology to a Powerbook is extremely dumb and close minded.
3.) yea, the biggest selling iMac is the 1499 SE model but apple is just going to kill the high end models for a 799 model where they have no margin. you surely are a genius</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. relax
2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.
3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.
4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?
<strong>
1. relax
2. So they used bigger components than a laptop, and it takes more volumne than a laptop. Big deal. It took a lot of work on a CAD system to fit it all together. It's not like some freakin' miricle.
3. I don't remember exactly, but I think 450Mhz G4 matched the low end tower at the time. You can open the debate up to PPC performance, but that's a whole other story - it doesn't explain why the cube would fail while the 500 Mhz tower didn't.
4. The cube + monitor would be the replacement for the high margin iMacs. You still need something with a low end price (and low end specs to match). They offer a $799 iMac now, are you suggesting that they drop it? Are you suggesting they never update it's specs? Do you have serious hostility issues?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it. but it was just a desktop thrown into a cube right
2.) uh... what does PPC performance have to do with anything? Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.
the lowend tower at the time was 400Mhz. but it was also 200 dollars cheaper, had expansion, and better specs all around. that's why it was a dumb pricing decision. why would anyone go for the cube when you could get a tower for a better deal? it made no sense unless all you cared about was styling and didn't mind paying more for it which apparantly very few did.
the 500Mhz G4 tower was not successful. the day the cube came out the G4/500 tower was replaced by the dual G4/500 tower. before that G4/500 tower sales sucked.
3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.
the $799 model of the imac they offer now is a piece of shit. it was originally only available to schools because 1. the schools eat cheap stuf up 2. the margins are too small for resellers to take it serious. obviously they brought it back to the public hoping it would clear out some imac inventory for christmas.
a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?
<strong>So when can we expect to see the new cube?
Hopefuly MWNY '02, or MWSF '03</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think you will ever be able to expect it, you can hope all you want, I know I am. It's just that there is NO evidence that they are bringing it back.
<strong>What I find funny is how A BUNCH of people here wanted a headless iMac, and a BUNCH of people here wanted a g4 iMac, The cube, WAS a headless g4 iMac, the problem of course being the price, but its funny how when what everyone wanted came around, no one wanted it
That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.
1.) Try it yourself. Everyone other than you seems to think it was quite an accomplishment. The thing won countless design and breakthrough awards. tons of engineers have praised the design. no one has been able to copy it.
<hr></blockquote>
Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?
[quote]
Maybe one day you should open up your cube and really take a look at it. maybe then you'll see just how impressive it is.<hr></blockquote>
I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!
[quote] Apple should not have released the cube with that price and if they wanted to release it at that price they should have waited till they had processors running at decent speeds.<hr></blockquote>
Well, we agree. Like I said, price was it's only problem.
[quote]
3.) why woudl you replace something with a high margin with something that is lower margin and a success? you don't screw around with things that work.<hr></blockquote>
<applenut attitude>
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius
</applenut attitude>
[quote]
a 799 imac and only a 799 imac will never work and will never sell. and it would be a horrible business decision. the majority of iMacs sold are above 1000. why take that away?<hr></blockquote>
I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.
You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it.
<strong>
That's my point exactly Robot, that's why the cube should replace the imac, just drop down into it's price range. There's nothing inside the cube that makes it inherently more expensive to build than the iMac, except for a G4 chip (marginal price difference). applenut is just too high on himself to understand this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh... no. nice try at an insult by the way.
Apple wasn't able to maintain decent profit margins with the cube at 1299. what makes you think they would do it all over and at the same time release a single iMac with next to no profit margin?
[quote]Ha! and you think anyone tried, after its performance in the market place?<hr></blockquote>
people did try. read a little more. there was actually a pretty interesting PC clone but it was no where near as good as the G4 Cube.
[quote]I have, and I am impressed. I'm impressed when I look inside a iBook too, but that costs $1299, not $1799!<hr></blockquote>
yet it has:
a G3,
soldered in ram with one ram slot open
a 2.5 inch notebook harddrive
integrated graphic chipset instead of an agp slot
a slower bus (you quoted the 1299 model)
yea, take away the G4, stick a G3 in, take away the ram slots, take away the AGP slot, make other power savings cuts across the motherboard, remove a firewire port and an ADC port and you'll have what amounts to an iBook. you're point?
nevermind the fact that a good portion of the Cube's size is due to its center chimney. if that was not there they could have made it even smaller. they would have just had to make it sound like a jet with its fan like the powerbook.
[quote]<applenut attitude>
So just sell the current high end iMac forever and never change it. great idea, you ARE a marketing genius .
</applenut attitude><hr></blockquote>
iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299
tell me how that is me saying they should keep the imac the same forever and not make any changes?
an then I always say to have a 799 or 899 CRT based iMac for schools and the entry level.
and then I have said that the cube could fill the spot between the imac and the PowerMac like it should have in the first place.
[quote]I believe a Cube + LCD Monitor could offer comparable margins to a high end iMac. The cube would replace the iMac. People who buy high end iMacs today, would buy high end cubes because the price is near what they paid for a high end iMac.<hr></blockquote>
how is the price even remotely near it?
1299 for a cube plus display. cheapest apple display is 599. you have to do some interesting math to think that's what people pay for the high end iMacs.
[quote]You wouldn't be "taking that away", you would be IMPROVING the iMac, by detatching the head and putting in a G4. Come on, stretch your mind, I know you can do it. <hr></blockquote>
you're not improving anything. you're taking away and opening up a 1000 dollar gap between the imac and the next product, "you're cube".
[quote]Nobody has mentioned the dodecahedron rumor, with twelve sides, each a pentagon. It is to be the G5 enclosure, appear in Spring, 2002. I personally think it was invented at Apple to throw everyone off the scent. <hr></blockquote>
I'm just trying to imagine how that would look
complete tangent: watching the motor city bowl on tsn/espn (because it's the only football on right now, that's why), and saw a guy on cincinnati's team named, i kid you not, "deathrage." can you imagine being named something like chuck deathrage? holy crap! :eek:
cubed - You don't really want a cube. I think applenut is right, we want this!
The iMac LCIII - Slim and efficient and $699!
<strong>
The iMac LCIII - Slim and efficient and $699!
hmmm. I wonder if a G3 tower motherboard would fit in a LCIII
applenut:
iMac is getting an LCD. How do you expect that to go to 799? Iff you have read I have said this for the next imac
733 Mhz G4
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
Geforce 2 MX
56K Modem
Combo Drive
$1299____________________________
ok, if that is the next imac with LCD screen, can apple re-release the cube with those specs for the same price with out a display??
so iMac LCD Combo--1299
Combo Cube-1299
then you take that G4 Combo Cube and bundle a 15" ASD for $1749 (special pricing for buying apple cube and apple display)---a Combo cube and a 17" ASD for $1999
can or would apple make a SE cube with Superdrive??? make it 1599....then it is
iMac combo 1299
Combo Cube 1299
Super Cube 1599
Cube Bundles: Combo + 15" ASD--1749
Super + 15" ASD- 1999
Combo + 17" ASD 1999
Super + 17" ASD--2249
dang, the more i think about, the more i want a freakin cube---plus i just like to say Combo Cube and Super Cube....