I have said it before, and I will say it again and again and again?
It?s the ?i? stupid!
My last three posts address this, so I guess it is officially a soapbox. The ?i? line does not need to be modernized. It needs to be euthanised and eulogized. The target market is dwindling. It is aimed at people who are too stupid to plug in a monitor cable. Trust me, the people who can?t plug in a monitor, also can?t hook up the speakers. They will still need a guru to help them. There are fewer and fewer people who know absolutely nothing about computers. They are in the work places and in the schools. Practically everyone has some encounter with them on a regular basis. It is no longer cool to be totally ignorant of computer operations. The ?i? line was created for people who were totally ignorant and afraid of computers. They could not figure out how to get on the Internet. I do not recall it being all that difficult. Still, the ?i?, (Internet) line of products was born for such people.
We all know that an Internet appliance is not a real computer. Furthermore, none of us think of people who use computers only for Web surfing and email as ?real? computer users. The ?i? line simply carries on this unnecessary stigma. Further compounding this image problem is the ?Power? line. Having a PowerMac in the lineup is a not so subtle message that the alternative is not powerful. Fewer are the people who want a simple Internet appliance. People are buying digital cameras at a break-neck pace, as well as other types of devices. They now want computers that they perceive are powerful enough to handle there growing needs.
A coworker of mine just recently bought a PC. I advised him, (after he asked my advice), to consider an eMac. I told him why I thought that would be best for his needs. He was very interested, but for all the usual reasons, he bought a PC. I when to his house and set it up for him. I asked him why he went with that particular system. He told me, in all honesty, that he perceived the PC to be more powerful. The name of the system was Thunderbolt, or something to that affect. It had neon blue lights surrounding it, and it just gave off a feeling of power. I reminded him that he was not a power user. He said that he knew that, but he wanted to feel like he got his money?s worth. Also, he said he intended to learn and grow and he wanted something that he felt would keep pace with his future needs. Even if he never did anything more than surf the Web, he did not want to be painted into a corner.
This is typical. This is not unreasonable. And it is Apple?s fault. There may still be a few women and children and grandmas who don?t mind being considered a non-power using, consumer who doesn?t know which jack to plug the monitor into. But there are precious few men who fit this category. It is time for Apple to throw away the ?i?, throw away the ?Power?, and rediscover the ?Mac?. Every Mac should be perceived as powerful.
... "I do not agree that the "attaching" is the "heart", but rather that the high cost (and thus high price) is... I think the LCD cost is a large part of the cost... The design of the iMac is undoubtedly higher cost than a typical pc" ...
Attaching the display necessitated building the arm, and that arm (stainless steel and all) added significantly to the cost
Quote:
"I think all of us here would like that" - [removable and upgradeable displays] - "but how many would do it?" ... "the balance is the extra cost for detachable/upgradeable vs how many would do it and pay extra for the possibility. It would be a selling point."
Yes, it would be a selling point. That 20" FPD on the current iMac will be a fine display for years to come, unfortunately the "box" it's permenently attached to won't hold up as well over time. It doesn't even hold up well now. As far as extra cost to make it detachable, it would be minimal compared to the arm itself.
Quote:
"As far as the FPs, I think the "economies of scale" benefit is already taken - more at the manufacturer who supplies standard panels across many display makers."
The arm is a great idea and elegantly executed. expensive, but worth it. Putting that arm on all the displays would ad to their cost, but allow a very attractive redesign of the displays, that also gives the entire Apple product line-up the ergonometric advantage that the iMac has.
Economy of volume will result in lower costs per unit for the adjustable arm, and that cost being spread across all displays. Other savings would result in the ability to easily detach the screen from the box. Getting either fixed for one thing. If the backlight blew out, just unplug the thing and send it back to be fixed. You get to keep computing with your now headless Mac by plugging in a cheap CRT while you wait for Apple to ship you back your screen. Just the saving on shipping alone would be significant.
I'll mention a final savings. By using the 15" and 17" wide aspect LCDs from the Powerbooks as the new low end displays Apple will be able to buy in greater volume and thus lower costs for both displays and Powerbooks. This is something they need to pay attention to if they want to lower prices.
Quote:
"As far as motherboards,.. Having the same parts in everything is both a benefit and a risk.. differences allows incremental changes that lowers the risk for the next product... Having different groups responsible for different product lines is just a reality of time-to-market ..."
Designing a small footprint motherboard that incorporates the new 970FX seems to me to be imperative for both the next Mac and the next Powerbook. Why not save some money by having them be the same. Put your best team on it Apple! Revision "A" would be the next Mac and revision "B" would be the next Powerbook. Time to market indeed, these two things need to be released ASAP for marketing reasons.
Quote:
"Bottom line - no silver bullets for lowering costs significantly due to common parts."
I disagree, perhaps not a "silver bullet", but certainly significant savings when all factors are considered. Reduction in R&D costs, repair costs, shipping costs, volume buying from suppliers, manufacturing cost consolidation, assembly costs. All these incrementally add up to lower costs and better price points for us, the consumers.
Designing a small footprint motherboard that incorporates the new 970FX seems to me to be imperative for both the next Mac and the next Powerbook. Why not save some money by having them be the same. Put your best team on it Apple! Revision "A" would be the next Mac and revision "B" would be the next Powerbook. Time to market indeed, these two things need to be released ASAP for marketing reasons.
Good comeback. On your last point, I think that the motherboard cost for a notebook is significantly more expensive then for a small footprint computer. This is because of space, heat, and power constraints. Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
... Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
Is this lame?
The Joint Strike Fighter
Quote:
The Mission:
Provide the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, and the United Kingdom?s Royal Navy and Royal Air Force with an affordable and stealthy tactical aircraft for the 21st century.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF has been designed to satisfy the diverse needs of each of these services with a family of affordable, lethal, survivable and supportable combat aircraft.
U.S. and international aerospace leaders have come together on the F-35 JSF team, bringing direct experience in each of the key areas critical to JSF program success.
The Concept:
A common design with affordable variants that meet the individual requirements of each service.
Each variant reflects a key focus on the most critical aspect of JSF: achieving affordability ? while setting new standards for lethality, survivability and supportability.
Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
Umm, the Department of Defence is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
I'm going to re-post and pimp my "new Macintosh as a pyramid concept" post from the '04 Rollout thread that seems to be dying, just above a locked thread:
Quote:
Jubelum: "pyramids are a waste of space for their footprint."
I disagree, the square footprint of a pyramidal base allows the form factor of a 12" Powerbook to be used as it's mobo. Stacked above that would be a Superdrive, and above that, space for a 3.5" hard drive.
Amorph: "Seriously, the dome is the most functional design for the current unit. The circle implies and accommodates the arm's ability to rotate, and the lack of sharp corners and the matte finish allow it to disappear into the background, so that you get that cool effect of only seeing the monitor floating in space once you start concentrating on your work."
A pyramid shape allows for rotation of the monitor arm (if you choose to attach it). The "cool" effect of the monitor hiding the base applies equally well to a pyramid shape. A piece of aluminum sheet wrapped around the front and sides of the pyramid to create it's form would be very inexpensive to manufacture.
In my vision of the thing, the back panel (removable for servicing and upgrades) would have the "cheese grater" holes like the towers, as would the bottom surface to promote airflow and cooling. The base would sit on hidden rubber feet, giving the elevation to allow air to be drawn in from the bottom, and allow for a "cool" hovering above the desk look to it.
Speakers would be hidden in the front corners, firing downwards through the bottom grate, so as to leave the visible surfaces unbroken. A hidden panel on the lower front would rotate up and in to reveal USB, Firewire, and headphone ports. The CD/DVD would have a similar hidden door.
Mounting a display would be as simple as plugging the arm into the apex of the pyramid. Making the ADC connection inside would be easy, since the whole back panel would slide out for servicing, adding memory, swapping hard drives, ect.
Manufacturing the new Macintosh (no more "i" Mac) would be very cost effective due to the next generation Powerbook motherboard (RE:G5) and inexpensive shell. Assembly would also be cheap, as it would come down the line in a bare chassis until the final fitting of the aluminum shell. Only four steps to it's assembly: 1) Insert motherboard into chassis. 2) Install optical drive and hard drive assembly in carrier on top, 3) Drop on the shell, and 4) slide in ventilated back panel.
~ The New Macintosh $999 ~
with 15.2" wide display $1299
with 17" wide display $1499
with 20" wide display $1799
(bundled prices)
I wish I had some Photoshop skills to create a cool rendition of this idea. Whatever the next Macintosh turns out to be, it will have to be easy and cheap (relatively) to manufacture to hit the price points they need to avoid a cube redux pricing fiasco, and they know it.
The above prices assume a 1.8 or 2.0 GHz G5 and superdrive. Let the eMac continue to be the low end with a speed bump and price cut.
Umm, the Department of Defence is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
You guys are right But I was thinking back to the Johnson administration, with McNamara's F-111. (I think - I'm a little fuzzy, just look at my gray hair )
You guys are right But I was thinking back to the Johnson administration, with McNamara's F-111. (I think - I'm a little fuzzy, just look at my gray hair )
don't worry, I am blonde and it hides my gray very well...
Umm, the Department of Defense is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
Actually it is not the first plane to be used by multiple branches of the military. The F4 phantom was used by the Air Force and Navy. The FA 18 was originally designed in competition for the Air Force contract against the F16, which it lost to. The design was then "hardened" to withstand the rigors of carrier based landing, so it basically covered the A and C variants of the JSF even if the Air Force award the contract for that plane. The F16 could not pass the Navy's standards because it is a single engine jet and the Navy required 2 engines for safety at the time of those contracts, I believe that the JSF is a single engine as well and would not have passed those requirements. I think that the main distinction that could be attributed to the JSF is that it will have a variant with STOVL capability on the same platform as the others. Up until this plane VTOL craft were designed specifically for that purpose (the Harrier), and the Harrier fleet is probably the most in need of replacement. An end note, this could be one of the worst mistakes that the DOD has ever made because it is possible that there wont be any other companies capable or willing to invest in the competition for the plane after the JST, thus the design of its successor may not be as advanced as it could be.
Actually it is not the first plane to be used by multiple branches of the military. The F4 phantom was used by the Air Force and Navy. The FA 18 was originally designed in competition for the Air Force contract against the F16, which it lost to. The design was then "hardened" to withstand the rigors of carrier based landing, so it basically covered the A and C variants of the JSF even if the Air Force award the contract for that plane. The F16 could not pass the Navy's standards because it is a single engine jet and the Navy required 2 engines for safety at the time of those contracts. I think that the main distinction that could be attributed to the JSF is that it will have a variant with STOVL capability on the same platform as the others. Up until this plane VTOL craft were designed specifically for that purpose (the Harrier), and the Harrier fleet is probably the most in need of replacement. An end note, this could be one of the worst mistakes that the DOD has ever made because it is possible that there wont be any other companies capable or willing to invest in the competition for the plane after the JST, thus the design of its successor may not be as advanced as it could be.
Sorry I wasn't quite clear on my point, No other airframe has ever been used in so many differing fashions,the fact that the STOVL capabilities
were workable in this airframe is remarkable. This one implemenation
is truly a "Think Different" approach to solving the problem. Even for ground up STOVL capable air craft.
The next new hardware will be the new iMac and it will be next week. This is to not steal the thunder from the iPod mini expected on the 20th.
It will be a knockout design that will make Ive proud and I believe it will have a top end G5 at 2.4 GHz and a low end at 2.0 GHz....This is good.
Now the real issue will be the price from top to bottom and this is Apple's chance to shine because for the first time in 3 years they have some wiggle room.
My hope is that the 90 mm G5's are cheaper to produce and are exceeding expectations. Now Apple can go for market share with aggressive price points because the duel Power Mac G5's will come in March at 2.8 GHz top and better price margins to balance things out.
If the new iMacs are AIO then $1,599 top, $1,399 middle and $1,100 low end would be a home run.(Great power and fair price).
Non AIO iMacs would $1,299, $1,099 and $899 with new screens starting at $299 for the 17", $425 for the 19" and $599 for the 20"
Follow up with an eMac redesign with 17" screen and 10 pounds lighter with a 2 GHz G5 at $699.
Now we can get serious about market share, especially with a redesigned iBook in time for the next school cycle.
A pyramid shape allows for rotation of the monitor arm (if you choose to attach it). The "cool" effect of the monitor hiding the base applies equally well to a pyramid shape. A piece of aluminum sheet wrapped around the front and sides of the pyramid to create it's form would be very inexpensive to manufacture.
1) the pyramid doesn't imply the rotation, and;
2) the "cool" effect is not the monitor hiding the base, it's the base not calling attention to itself by having a matte finish and no sharp corners. The "hiding" is accomplished merely by focusing on the monitor, even if it's not hiding the base at all. Your pyramid would call attention to itself, and doubly so with an aluminum exterior.
And the pyramid is still space-inefficient. The only conceivable advantage is that it would allow Apple to use a rectangular motherboard, which might cost them a bit less.
I don't think Apple will do anything with the iMac. They will upgrade it and maybe change a few things but they will never produce the kind of simple, low cost tower many want. The #1 reason being they never have. Why would Apple suddenly change direction to a non AIO as their flagship consumer product? We think they should but can anybody site anything that would give the impression that Apple might even consider doing that? Don't say the Cube because that was not a standard tower. It was a great computer but not standard. My feeling has always been if Apple wanted a consumer tower they would have done it before now.
You are right that Apple will (IMO) never produce a cheap tower machine. That is not who Apple is and hopefully never who they will be. They can and have produced cheap, headless boxes. The LC was (for a Mac) low cost and sold incredibly well. Educational buyers snatched up a lot of them with monitors. Once it got old and tired, upgrade to an LC III and keep the display and other sundries. I never liked the LC, it wasn't right for me (I had a IIx), but, it sold like crazy.
Isn't that just what Apple needs for the 21st Century Macintosh?
Yes and no.
The genius of the jellybean iMac was that it had that shape and those bold colors, but when you were using one, no matter how colorful it was, the color dropped to a few accents and the machine appeared to be a white-rimmed screen and a keyboard. So it was eye-catching to look at without being distracting to use. (This was also true of the original iBooks.)
The LCD iMac has the latter attribute, but not the former. Your revision would have the former attribute, but not the latter. I'd like to see a design that brings back the fusion of appeal and utility in the jellybean iMac. Ideally, you want the machine to catch your eye when you're not using it, and you want the machine out of the way when you are using it.
The genius of the jellybean iMac was that it had that shape and those bold colors, but when you were using one, no matter how colorful it was, the color dropped to a few accents and the machine appeared to be a white-rimmed screen and a keyboard. So it was eye-catching to look at without being distracting to use. (This was also true of the original iBooks.)
The LCD iMac has the latter attribute, but not the former. Your revision would have the former attribute, but not the latter. I'd like to see a design that brings back the fusion of appeal and utility in the jellybean iMac. Ideally, you want the machine to catch your eye when you're not using it, and you want the machine out of the way when you are using it.
Reading this thread I have agreed with your line of thinking Amorph, but here is a statement that, in my book, doesn't seem right. Could you explain to me how the current iMac, in your book, is not eye-catching? I would think that the current design is the most eye-catching of all Apples computer designs.
Comments
It?s the ?i? stupid!
My last three posts address this, so I guess it is officially a soapbox. The ?i? line does not need to be modernized. It needs to be euthanised and eulogized. The target market is dwindling. It is aimed at people who are too stupid to plug in a monitor cable. Trust me, the people who can?t plug in a monitor, also can?t hook up the speakers. They will still need a guru to help them. There are fewer and fewer people who know absolutely nothing about computers. They are in the work places and in the schools. Practically everyone has some encounter with them on a regular basis. It is no longer cool to be totally ignorant of computer operations. The ?i? line was created for people who were totally ignorant and afraid of computers. They could not figure out how to get on the Internet. I do not recall it being all that difficult. Still, the ?i?, (Internet) line of products was born for such people.
We all know that an Internet appliance is not a real computer. Furthermore, none of us think of people who use computers only for Web surfing and email as ?real? computer users. The ?i? line simply carries on this unnecessary stigma. Further compounding this image problem is the ?Power? line. Having a PowerMac in the lineup is a not so subtle message that the alternative is not powerful. Fewer are the people who want a simple Internet appliance. People are buying digital cameras at a break-neck pace, as well as other types of devices. They now want computers that they perceive are powerful enough to handle there growing needs.
A coworker of mine just recently bought a PC. I advised him, (after he asked my advice), to consider an eMac. I told him why I thought that would be best for his needs. He was very interested, but for all the usual reasons, he bought a PC. I when to his house and set it up for him. I asked him why he went with that particular system. He told me, in all honesty, that he perceived the PC to be more powerful. The name of the system was Thunderbolt, or something to that affect. It had neon blue lights surrounding it, and it just gave off a feeling of power. I reminded him that he was not a power user. He said that he knew that, but he wanted to feel like he got his money?s worth. Also, he said he intended to learn and grow and he wanted something that he felt would keep pace with his future needs. Even if he never did anything more than surf the Web, he did not want to be painted into a corner.
This is typical. This is not unreasonable. And it is Apple?s fault. There may still be a few women and children and grandmas who don?t mind being considered a non-power using, consumer who doesn?t know which jack to plug the monitor into. But there are precious few men who fit this category. It is time for Apple to throw away the ?i?, throw away the ?Power?, and rediscover the ?Mac?. Every Mac should be perceived as powerful.
Originally posted by jwdawso
... "I do not agree that the "attaching" is the "heart", but rather that the high cost (and thus high price) is... I think the LCD cost is a large part of the cost... The design of the iMac is undoubtedly higher cost than a typical pc" ...
Attaching the display necessitated building the arm, and that arm (stainless steel and all) added significantly to the cost
"I think all of us here would like that" - [removable and upgradeable displays] - "but how many would do it?" ... "the balance is the extra cost for detachable/upgradeable vs how many would do it and pay extra for the possibility. It would be a selling point."
Yes, it would be a selling point. That 20" FPD on the current iMac will be a fine display for years to come, unfortunately the "box" it's permenently attached to won't hold up as well over time. It doesn't even hold up well now. As far as extra cost to make it detachable, it would be minimal compared to the arm itself.
"As far as the FPs, I think the "economies of scale" benefit is already taken - more at the manufacturer who supplies standard panels across many display makers."
The arm is a great idea and elegantly executed. expensive, but worth it. Putting that arm on all the displays would ad to their cost, but allow a very attractive redesign of the displays, that also gives the entire Apple product line-up the ergonometric advantage that the iMac has.
Economy of volume will result in lower costs per unit for the adjustable arm, and that cost being spread across all displays. Other savings would result in the ability to easily detach the screen from the box. Getting either fixed for one thing. If the backlight blew out, just unplug the thing and send it back to be fixed. You get to keep computing with your now headless Mac by plugging in a cheap CRT while you wait for Apple to ship you back your screen. Just the saving on shipping alone would be significant.
I'll mention a final savings. By using the 15" and 17" wide aspect LCDs from the Powerbooks as the new low end displays Apple will be able to buy in greater volume and thus lower costs for both displays and Powerbooks. This is something they need to pay attention to if they want to lower prices.
"As far as motherboards,.. Having the same parts in everything is both a benefit and a risk.. differences allows incremental changes that lowers the risk for the next product... Having different groups responsible for different product lines is just a reality of time-to-market ..."
Designing a small footprint motherboard that incorporates the new 970FX seems to me to be imperative for both the next Mac and the next Powerbook. Why not save some money by having them be the same. Put your best team on it Apple! Revision "A" would be the next Mac and revision "B" would be the next Powerbook. Time to market indeed, these two things need to be released ASAP for marketing reasons.
"Bottom line - no silver bullets for lowering costs significantly due to common parts."
I disagree, perhaps not a "silver bullet", but certainly significant savings when all factors are considered. Reduction in R&D costs, repair costs, shipping costs, volume buying from suppliers, manufacturing cost consolidation, assembly costs. All these incrementally add up to lower costs and better price points for us, the consumers.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
...It?s the ?i? stupid!... It needs to be euthanised and eulogized...
Good post. I like your thinking...
Aphelion
Originally posted by Aphelion
Designing a small footprint motherboard that incorporates the new 970FX seems to me to be imperative for both the next Mac and the next Powerbook. Why not save some money by having them be the same. Put your best team on it Apple! Revision "A" would be the next Mac and revision "B" would be the next Powerbook. Time to market indeed, these two things need to be released ASAP for marketing reasons.
Good comeback. On your last point, I think that the motherboard cost for a notebook is significantly more expensive then for a small footprint computer. This is because of space, heat, and power constraints. Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
Good post. I like your thinking...
Hey, that's my line...
I do like the idea of Apple's displays having chrome arms. That way every desktop Mac can be an iMac but way more flexible! (Pun intended...)
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by jwdawso
... Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
Is this lame?
The Joint Strike Fighter
The Mission:
Provide the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, and the United Kingdom?s Royal Navy and Royal Air Force with an affordable and stealthy tactical aircraft for the 21st century.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF has been designed to satisfy the diverse needs of each of these services with a family of affordable, lethal, survivable and supportable combat aircraft.
U.S. and international aerospace leaders have come together on the F-35 JSF team, bringing direct experience in each of the key areas critical to JSF program success.
The Concept:
A common design with affordable variants that meet the individual requirements of each service.
Each variant reflects a key focus on the most critical aspect of JSF: achieving affordability ? while setting new standards for lethality, survivability and supportability.
The LINK
Originally posted by jwdawso
Trying to save money by having the same reference is like trying to buy jet fighters that satisfy the marine corp, navy, and air force at the same time. Sounds good, but the product is lame in all applications.
Umm, the Department of Defence is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
Jubelum: "pyramids are a waste of space for their footprint."
I disagree, the square footprint of a pyramidal base allows the form factor of a 12" Powerbook to be used as it's mobo. Stacked above that would be a Superdrive, and above that, space for a 3.5" hard drive.
Amorph: "Seriously, the dome is the most functional design for the current unit. The circle implies and accommodates the arm's ability to rotate, and the lack of sharp corners and the matte finish allow it to disappear into the background, so that you get that cool effect of only seeing the monitor floating in space once you start concentrating on your work."
A pyramid shape allows for rotation of the monitor arm (if you choose to attach it). The "cool" effect of the monitor hiding the base applies equally well to a pyramid shape. A piece of aluminum sheet wrapped around the front and sides of the pyramid to create it's form would be very inexpensive to manufacture.
In my vision of the thing, the back panel (removable for servicing and upgrades) would have the "cheese grater" holes like the towers, as would the bottom surface to promote airflow and cooling. The base would sit on hidden rubber feet, giving the elevation to allow air to be drawn in from the bottom, and allow for a "cool" hovering above the desk look to it.
Speakers would be hidden in the front corners, firing downwards through the bottom grate, so as to leave the visible surfaces unbroken. A hidden panel on the lower front would rotate up and in to reveal USB, Firewire, and headphone ports. The CD/DVD would have a similar hidden door.
Mounting a display would be as simple as plugging the arm into the apex of the pyramid. Making the ADC connection inside would be easy, since the whole back panel would slide out for servicing, adding memory, swapping hard drives, ect.
Manufacturing the new Macintosh (no more "i" Mac) would be very cost effective due to the next generation Powerbook motherboard (RE:G5) and inexpensive shell. Assembly would also be cheap, as it would come down the line in a bare chassis until the final fitting of the aluminum shell. Only four steps to it's assembly: 1) Insert motherboard into chassis. 2) Install optical drive and hard drive assembly in carrier on top, 3) Drop on the shell, and 4) slide in ventilated back panel.
~ The New Macintosh $999 ~
with 15.2" wide display $1299
with 17" wide display $1499
with 20" wide display $1799
(bundled prices)
I wish I had some Photoshop skills to create a cool rendition of this idea. Whatever the next Macintosh turns out to be, it will have to be easy and cheap (relatively) to manufacture to hit the price points they need to avoid a cube redux pricing fiasco, and they know it.
The above prices assume a 1.8 or 2.0 GHz G5 and superdrive. Let the eMac continue to be the low end with a speed bump and price cut.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Umm, the Department of Defence is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
You guys are right
Originally posted by jwdawso
You guys are right
don't worry, I am blonde and it hides my gray very well...
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Umm, the Department of Defense is building this plane as we speak. The f-35 JSF will be used by multiple branches of the military. They were told it wouldn't work and the scientists and engineer's "Thought Different" and made believers out of doubters. Sorry to burst your bubble on that, It is no where near lame in it's applications. 8)
Actually it is not the first plane to be used by multiple branches of the military. The F4 phantom was used by the Air Force and Navy. The FA 18 was originally designed in competition for the Air Force contract against the F16, which it lost to. The design was then "hardened" to withstand the rigors of carrier based landing, so it basically covered the A and C variants of the JSF even if the Air Force award the contract for that plane. The F16 could not pass the Navy's standards because it is a single engine jet and the Navy required 2 engines for safety at the time of those contracts, I believe that the JSF is a single engine as well and would not have passed those requirements. I think that the main distinction that could be attributed to the JSF is that it will have a variant with STOVL capability on the same platform as the others. Up until this plane VTOL craft were designed specifically for that purpose (the Harrier), and the Harrier fleet is probably the most in need of replacement. An end note, this could be one of the worst mistakes that the DOD has ever made because it is possible that there wont be any other companies capable or willing to invest in the competition for the plane after the JST, thus the design of its successor may not be as advanced as it could be.
Originally posted by @homenow
Actually it is not the first plane to be used by multiple branches of the military. The F4 phantom was used by the Air Force and Navy. The FA 18 was originally designed in competition for the Air Force contract against the F16, which it lost to. The design was then "hardened" to withstand the rigors of carrier based landing, so it basically covered the A and C variants of the JSF even if the Air Force award the contract for that plane. The F16 could not pass the Navy's standards because it is a single engine jet and the Navy required 2 engines for safety at the time of those contracts. I think that the main distinction that could be attributed to the JSF is that it will have a variant with STOVL capability on the same platform as the others. Up until this plane VTOL craft were designed specifically for that purpose (the Harrier), and the Harrier fleet is probably the most in need of replacement. An end note, this could be one of the worst mistakes that the DOD has ever made because it is possible that there wont be any other companies capable or willing to invest in the competition for the plane after the JST, thus the design of its successor may not be as advanced as it could be.
Sorry I wasn't quite clear on my point, No other airframe has ever been used in so many differing fashions,the fact that the STOVL capabilities
were workable in this airframe is remarkable. This one implemenation
is truly a "Think Different" approach to solving the problem. Even for ground up STOVL capable air craft.
It will be a knockout design that will make Ive proud and I believe it will have a top end G5 at 2.4 GHz and a low end at 2.0 GHz....This is good.
Now the real issue will be the price from top to bottom and this is Apple's chance to shine because for the first time in 3 years they have some wiggle room.
My hope is that the 90 mm G5's are cheaper to produce and are exceeding expectations. Now Apple can go for market share with aggressive price points because the duel Power Mac G5's will come in March at 2.8 GHz top and better price margins to balance things out.
If the new iMacs are AIO then $1,599 top, $1,399 middle and $1,100 low end would be a home run.(Great power and fair price).
Non AIO iMacs would $1,299, $1,099 and $899 with new screens starting at $299 for the 17", $425 for the 19" and $599 for the 20"
Follow up with an eMac redesign with 17" screen and 10 pounds lighter with a 2 GHz G5 at $699.
Now we can get serious about market share, especially with a redesigned iBook in time for the next school cycle.
8) 8) 8) 8)
A pyramid shape allows for rotation of the monitor arm (if you choose to attach it). The "cool" effect of the monitor hiding the base applies equally well to a pyramid shape. A piece of aluminum sheet wrapped around the front and sides of the pyramid to create it's form would be very inexpensive to manufacture.
1) the pyramid doesn't imply the rotation, and;
2) the "cool" effect is not the monitor hiding the base, it's the base not calling attention to itself by having a matte finish and no sharp corners. The "hiding" is accomplished merely by focusing on the monitor, even if it's not hiding the base at all. Your pyramid would call attention to itself, and doubly so with an aluminum exterior.
And the pyramid is still space-inefficient. The only conceivable advantage is that it would allow Apple to use a rectangular motherboard, which might cost them a bit less.
Originally posted by Amorph
... Your pyramid would call attention to itself, and doubly so with an aluminum exterior...
Isn't that just what Apple needs for the 21st Century Macintosh?
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_9.html
Have a nice day.
Originally posted by imacFP
I don't think Apple will do anything with the iMac. They will upgrade it and maybe change a few things but they will never produce the kind of simple, low cost tower many want. The #1 reason being they never have. Why would Apple suddenly change direction to a non AIO as their flagship consumer product? We think they should but can anybody site anything that would give the impression that Apple might even consider doing that? Don't say the Cube because that was not a standard tower. It was a great computer but not standard. My feeling has always been if Apple wanted a consumer tower they would have done it before now.
You are right that Apple will (IMO) never produce a cheap tower machine. That is not who Apple is and hopefully never who they will be. They can and have produced cheap, headless boxes. The LC was (for a Mac) low cost and sold incredibly well. Educational buyers snatched up a lot of them with monitors. Once it got old and tired, upgrade to an LC III and keep the display and other sundries. I never liked the LC, it wasn't right for me (I had a IIx), but, it sold like crazy.
Originally posted by Aphelion
Isn't that just what Apple needs for the 21st Century Macintosh?
Yes and no.
The genius of the jellybean iMac was that it had that shape and those bold colors, but when you were using one, no matter how colorful it was, the color dropped to a few accents and the machine appeared to be a white-rimmed screen and a keyboard. So it was eye-catching to look at without being distracting to use. (This was also true of the original iBooks.)
The LCD iMac has the latter attribute, but not the former. Your revision would have the former attribute, but not the latter. I'd like to see a design that brings back the fusion of appeal and utility in the jellybean iMac. Ideally, you want the machine to catch your eye when you're not using it, and you want the machine out of the way when you are using it.
Originally posted by Amorph
Yes and no.
The genius of the jellybean iMac was that it had that shape and those bold colors, but when you were using one, no matter how colorful it was, the color dropped to a few accents and the machine appeared to be a white-rimmed screen and a keyboard. So it was eye-catching to look at without being distracting to use. (This was also true of the original iBooks.)
The LCD iMac has the latter attribute, but not the former. Your revision would have the former attribute, but not the latter. I'd like to see a design that brings back the fusion of appeal and utility in the jellybean iMac. Ideally, you want the machine to catch your eye when you're not using it, and you want the machine out of the way when you are using it.
Reading this thread I have agreed with your line of thinking Amorph, but here is a statement that, in my book, doesn't seem right. Could you explain to me how the current iMac, in your book, is not eye-catching? I would think that the current design is the most eye-catching of all Apples computer designs.