I seem to recall in the 'last' significant iMac run, the 'pattern' iMac sold around 50K from 350, 000 (Something like that...). Not bad when you consider they're currently scraping the imac2 sales off the floor with eMac sales...
I think the colours can make a return. And have. iPod mini is here.
I see no reason why Aluminum G5 Mini-G5 towers couldn't straddle the £495-£995 price range.
Yes, I do think the colours were a little more fun, personal and loveable and exciting than the current 'clinical' white. I like white. I like the iMac 2's style. But I haven't bought one. And neither are alot of other people. Just look at the poor eMac. It lacks the iMac's charm and curves. It's rather lardy looking. With a poor crt screen. Er. iBook or eMac give or take £100. ER...('Gee, hard decision, I'll take a G4 iBook please...')
Make a chopped down G5 mini-tower and bang! Colour excitement. iPod Mini switcher fanatics can upgrade their 3 year old PC with a spanking new colour matching G5 'Mini'. (Name match!)
G5s on 0.09 have got to be so cheap...is there any reason why a 1.6-2.4 gig G5 mini range can't straddle every Dell consumer price point from £495 to £995? One case to make. Not two (eMad and iMac.)
Choose yer colour. Choose your monitor. (Price bundle for studio monitor...Cheap 17 inch LCD...few hundred, tops...) Choose your G5 speed. Choose integrated or upgradeable graphics. Choose your price. Choose your customer. Choose your switcher.
PC Shuttles are the hot 'mini' PC thing. It's happening under Apple's nose. Are we surprised consumer customers are voting with their wallets? Apple, the same company who gave us the wide choice of DVD only when the rest of the PC market was giving CDRW options away...
Clearly, Apple does NOT have their finger on the desktop consumer pulse.
If they're selling less consumer desktops then pro desktops (and that goes same for the laptops...) then they've clearly lost touch.
In that sense, they have clearly failed to build upon the original iMac's half a million per quarter sales rocket.
Problem? Apple refuse to admit they've made a mistake until it's too late.
They clung on to the iMac's 15 inch screen for too long when they should have merely offered the 'eMac' much sooner. They wait until sales dry up before they offer? Guess what? An overpriced iMac 2 which completely outstrips the previous iMac price range.
Classic Apple own goal. Brilliant but we've just blown our feet off.
Again, they haven't learned their less with the iMac 2. They wait 13 months before an update. That indicates a serious problem. Give the thing a price hike just after a debut...and kill any momentum they had. The 17 inch version should have been hot on the heals of the 15 inch LCD version and been given a few price breaks.
Look at the iBook, nice...and it was a great improvement over the clam. But I thought the clam was more colourful and exciting. The iBook is cool...but it's taking Apple far too long to get revisions out...and way too long to get a design refresh out there. When iBook sales were lifting off into the 250k range...where was the product to build on that moment. Nope. The price downward spiral has stalled. The design has stalled. The ram is stingy and the screen res' is modest. The screen isn't the brightest. The cpu bumps are still measly by x86 standards. Where's the superdrive iBooks? You can get superdrive x86 laptops for £795. Same price as Apple's ENTRY level iBook.
Look, Apple's prices are sometimes reasonable to begin with but 6 months later they look stupid.
Apple really have to improve on their product launch and ramp and refreshes.
I know they try to innovate...but sometimes I feel Apple should standardise their cases to some degree like they have the innards to more standard PC equations. Yes, Apple colours and style and smartness...but sometimes...you can be TOO far out there as the Cube and the iMac 2 have shown.
To me, the G5 case get's it right. And if it ran the gamut of price down to £795 for a single 2 gig G5 then I'm confident Apple would get loads of switchers and half a million sales per quarter easy.
That's what 'X' is. That's why it's getting rave press. Sure, it's not that far from what Window's users know (window column mode...) but it looks better, more stable, has more compelling innovation and it's cheaper than windows (as sold per box...minus cpu...)
And...surprise, surprise, Apple has ACTUALLY been listening to what people want in an OS by LISTENING carefully to feedback and being responsive what the customer wants instead of what Steve thinks the customer should want.
I wish Apple would sprinkle some of that on its desktop line... I don't want an eMac. I don't want an iMac 2 with an old G4 and a monitor I can't remove. I don't want to pay £1350 before I get choice and a decent desktop. AND, there's plenty of PC sales going to PC computers below the iMac's 'sweet spot' that agree with me.
I just think Apple is going to have to get real down and dirty with the Mac line. To me, they almost had all their ducks in a line and they barely broke 800K units for the Christmas quarter with 75 Apple stores.
Clearly, Apple's consumer line isn't pulling its weight.
Essentially one slightly modifiable model, 3 color choices. (Alluminum because I like the idea...futurized in either White, Original Alluminum Bondi Blue, and the top selling color from the other iPod mini choices, maybe Green)
One price: $899
One speed (at first): 1.6 Ghz G5
One drive option: Superdrive
Standard RAM: 384 MB
One hard drive size: 60 GB's
All the I/O.
No LCD or CRT just a stand alone.
No Firewire 800.
No ULTRA miniaturization, because that causes price hikes.
The last thing it HAS is the option for adding an "iMac arm" if desired...for $329 at 17 inches. And those would work with PC's as well.
My solution was to just have a headless low-cost Mac and the eMac/iMac coexist. No conundrum needs to be solved.
For the headless low-cost Mac, take the PowerMac G5, reduce its dimensions to 8x12x12 inches, have the same cooling technique and design language, chop 40% of the motherboard off that was occupied by the second processor, take out 2 slots, have only 4 DIMM slots, 1 drive, 1 optical, 1 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 1.6 to 2.0 GHz uniprocessor G5, and sell for $1200 or around there. Call it the G5 mini.
For the iMacs, stick with the G4, but make them dual processors at the same price points. Dual processors machines will stay smooth for a lot longer than single processor machines.
For the eMacs, stick with the G4, and have it as a 600 to 700 dollar specials. These are so cheap that obsolescence shouldn't become a problem.
For a super low cost Mac, take the design language of the PowerMac G4, put it in a 9x12x12 form factor, 1 processor, 1 AGP, 1 drive, 1 optical, 2 DIMM slots, and sell it for $600. Call it the G4 mini.
When the 970 derived CPU with 1 MB L2 and multithreading comes, Apple can than start the process of shifting the 970fx to low cost machines.
Big problem is, can Apple really get a 7457 G4 for $40, a graphics chip w/32MB for $40, a system ASIC for $20 and an I/O ASIC for $20 or less? They have to build low cost machines for at most $450 in order to sell at $600, and be willing to do so. I don't think they ever had a profit margin of less than 24% since Jobs came back.
Look at my above post, and one last thing. DONT CALL IT THE MINI! Apple has incalculable brand name recognition from the name iMac. They need to call it the iMac still, in some way. The G5 iMac, the iMac mini (maaaybe). Not just the Mini Mac or something.
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
Essentially one slightly modifiable model, 3 color choices. (Alluminum because I like the idea...futurized in either White, Original Alluminum Bondi Blue, and the top selling color from the other iPod mini choices, maybe Green)
One price: $899
One speed (at first): 1.6 Ghz G5
One drive option: Superdrive
Standard RAM: 384 MB
One hard drive size: 60 GB's
All the I/O.
No LCD or CRT just a stand alone.
No Firewire 800.
No ULTRA miniaturization, because that causes price hikes.
The last thing it HAS is the option for adding an "iMac arm" if desired...for $329 at 17 inches. And those would work with PC's as well.
------------------------------
The 20th Anniversary G5 iMac
------------------------------
Made for iLife, priced so you still have one.
No it must be 512MB of ram (one chip), 100GB SATA hard drive, and the biggest catch, the 128mb videocard needs to work with all monitors instead of just Apple displays (DVI/VGA) without converter. And you can have an Apple Display with a free Adapter if you want. Lastly, don't backwards engineer it to not span multiple monitors. $949.00.
My solution was to just have a headless low-cost Mac and the eMac/iMac coexist. No conundrum needs to be solved.
For the headless low-cost Mac, take the PowerMac G5, reduce its dimensions to 8x12x12 inches, have the same cooling technique and design language, chop 40% of the motherboard off that was occupied by the second processor, take out 2 slots, have only 4 DIMM slots, 1 drive, 1 optical, 1 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 1.6 to 2.0 GHz uniprocessor G5, and sell for $1200 or around there. Call it the G5 mini.
For the iMacs, stick with the G4, but make them dual processors at the same price points. Dual processors machines will stay smooth for a lot longer than single processor machines.
For the eMacs, stick with the G4, and have it as a 600 to 700 dollar specials. These are so cheap that obsolescence shouldn't become a problem.
For a super low cost Mac, take the design language of the PowerMac G4, put it in a 9x12x12 form factor, 1 processor, 1 AGP, 1 drive, 1 optical, 2 DIMM slots, and sell it for $600. Call it the G4 mini.
When the 970 derived CPU with 1 MB L2 and multithreading comes, Apple can than start the process of shifting the 970fx to low cost machines.
Big problem is, can Apple really get a 7457 G4 for $40, a graphics chip w/32MB for $40, a system ASIC for $20 and an I/O ASIC for $20 or less? They have to build low cost machines for at most $450 in order to sell at $600, and be willing to do so. I don't think they ever had a profit margin of less than 24% since Jobs came back.
Look at my above post, and one last thing. DONT CALL IT THE MINI! Apple has incalculable brand name recognition from the name iMac. They need to call it the iMac still, in some way. The G5 iMac, the iMac mini (maaaybe). Not just the Mini Mac or something.
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
sounds good. hopefully there will be some "discontinued" 17 inchers pretty soon maybe keep manufacturing those, and drop the resolution to 1024xwhatever. cheap, afforadbale, and something to go with any kind of headless mac idea.
Im a huge fan of the iMac2, but have I bought one?, no! (just like i didnt buy a cube). I was thinking of getting a 20" iMac as a second machine to my PB 15" mainly for iLife stuff - and lots of it!.
Long story short, Im coming around to the headless iMac concept discussed, so people who already have laptops can use second monitors when theyre available. I would love to use the 20" LCD with my PB (make more use of an already expensive product).
Instead of expensive displays tethered to badly ageing G4's?, no thanks.
Friends (PC switchers) have bought the 17" iMacs and they are wrapped in these machines, but obviously not enough people have because people prefer laptops, so if Apple wants to sell more product, the headless low cost computer will have to be an option.
This product then appeals to the value proposition to entice people to buy a 2nd machine.
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
Education doesn't require the AIO "concept." They require an AIO: A single, monolithic unit that can tolerate all kinds of abuse.
Two-part systems are more expensive to manufacture (when you have to design and build the whole thing), more expensive to ship, and less capable of standing up to the rigors of K-12 lab use.
As for the iMac: You can have a choice of monitors without leaving the AIO behind: The iMac has three choices right now, and even here they've become the primary means of distinguishing the models: We refer to the 15", 17" and 20" iMac, not the 800MHz, 1GHz ,etc. iMac. So that's not a problem with the line. The absolute monochrome nature of the machine might be a problem, insofar as it's not as personal a design as the jellybean. More generally, I think the design needs to be redone. Right now it's a bit clinical, and it can't be colored or patterned easily. And, of course, it has to hit the sweet spot, sub-$1K.
I liked Mac Voyer's suggestion at the top of page 3 just because it really showed some different thinking about the problem, and because it breaks a large, periodic expense into smaller expenses, which makes things more affordable in practice. This exact sort of upgrade system has been offered for mainframes and other large systems for decades. The technical hurdles for implementing it are actually fairly low, if you design for them, and actually in a consumer AIO it would be fairly easy to do just because everything's integrated - there wouldn't be much to swap out or swap in. You could have the motherboard in a tray whose side housed all the ports, and just take the old tray out and put a new tray in - and there, in 60 seconds, is your new board with new ASICs attached to new ports. This is the sort of thing Apple excels at.
The main problems are: Apple would be committed to upgrading a given design every year for four years, even if that model bombs. That at least doubles the amount of engineering required. Had Apple had this policy in place in 2000, they would currently be trying to figure out how to stuff G5s into Cubes. Putting that much more work on engineering (hardware and software and QA) means either less work on new models, or more engineers. Neither is heartening. Furthermore, since the number of consumers who actually take advantage of such offers is very small, Apple would have to do limited runs of the boards, which would not benefit from economies of scale, and which would not be cheap.
Also, they might run into future-proofing issues. Apple tends to design within fairly close tolerances, which allows them to create things like the PowerBook and the iMac that are amazingly compact. By implementing this system, Apple would essentially have to make sure that their designs could take the next four years' worth of technological advancements, which is a seriously tall order. Will a 1.25GHz G4 go into a Dalmation iMac?
I like the general idea, and I'd be interested in further discussion. It would have to be done very, very carefully in order to work, though.
I think that eventually we will have computers that are more like home appliance purchases than current computers, a true "Digital Hub" so to speak. When that happens "long-term upgradable" systems will be needed. However I don't think that time is here yet. Probably the first sign that they are coming is when internet distribution of video becomes practice in time and cost of the bandwidth. Then it will be in the best interest of computer companies to offer "blade" style designs that they can sell either a second or third processor, or a faster replacement if the backplane is maxed out. But we aren't there in "parallelism" in home computing quite yet, though the signs are pointing there. We need better integration with AV systems than we have today and some industry standards in format copywrite protection and connectivity that are not quite there yet.
But the AIO's big problem is this: for ~$1000 you will sacrifice a nmonitor...but if you are spending $1299 you better be able to reuse something after 2-3 years during upgrade time.
A lot of potential switchers could get over the AIO if it was cheaper. Bur for $1299 you get a PC with a 17" flat panel, a DVD burner, 512 RAM, 120GB hard drive and 128MB video card. Why switch when that 15" imac is was overpriced and under-powered. Switching to an Apple desktop is cost prohibitive for most PC users. MAny people are impressed with all of the bundled software and it will do mostly everything they want...but it cost $500 more and it is not worth it for them.
I do think it is pretty ridiculous you have to pay $1800 to get a superdrive equipped tower..and it is a really hard comparison when you can get 2x the RAM, 2x the VRAM, and 150% more hard drive space for 1/2 the cost of a powermac.
If apple is going to get serious about increasing marketshre...Apple has to get serious about readingint eh market. Bring back a CUBE!
But none of this unerpowered g4/32MB VRAM super cheap towers. Apple doesn't need to play at the super cheap end of the market..just be in the ball parks of the Sony's of the worlld..not $500 more.
Two-part systems are more expensive to manufacture (when you have to design and build the whole thing), more expensive to ship, and less capable of standing up to the rigors of K-12 lab use.
Not if Faeylin's idea comes to pass. ie Apple could have a line of monitors which fairly well match most of the line. (Which, in fairness, the current LCDs do, most of the time.)
Apple has a range of studio monitors that have presumably paid for their R&D (given the whopping prices...)
If said headless Mac comes sans monitor it will be cheaper to make.
The two piece design is more expensive to make, that's why PC tower prices can be had for half the price of the eMacs and still off more...
And there's no reason Apple can't offer bundle prices to make a mini-tower cheaper and more flexible than the current iMac 2. The current price of the Studio 17 inch isn't far away from the price of the Apple 17 inch CRT which looked awkward alongside price fugal Cube buyers.
Given a price cut, a redesigned 17 inch LCD and a headless mini-tower would or could look quite nice together.
When I purchased my original iMac I was drawn to it by its style, simplicity and the fact that it was an AIO. In particular I wanted to avoid separate speakers and the wiring that goes with it.
For me the iMac2 is not a true AIO because it has separate speakers. I am also suprised that the ports are all at the back and thus difficult to access - with still and video cameras, iPods etc to be attached, the ports should be more accessible.
I beleive that, in the UK at least, there is a clear demand for AIOs as most users simply do not expand or upgrade their machines. If you beleive that you need the facility to upgrade graphics cards, shouldn't you be using a tower?
[Currently using an iBook with Bluetooth keyboard and mouse pending eMac / iMac upgrade.]
I'm telling ya...horizontally-situated "loaf of bread". Wide, include speakers on each end. It would be about 6" tall and deep and about 18" or so wide.
Squared (no funky curves), back panel opens up to access video. Plenty of room for components and lots of surface area to put vent holes.
And an LCD pivots up and down on a wide cylinder swivel, perched on top. Still all in one, just wide (as wide as monitor, so who cares?).
The two piece design is more expensive to make, that's why PC tower prices can be had for half the price of the eMacs and still off more...
I am getting beyond tired of debunking this stupid line of thought.
ATX cases and boards are commodities. The ASICs on them are commodities. Anyone building ATX PCs can take advantage of economies of scale vastly larger than their own production line.
Apple can't. No comparison. Period. End of discussion.
(And I won't even go into the differences in materials and quality of manufacture...)
If Apple has to design everything, then they have to build two things instead of one; they have to ship two things instead of one; the two things will be larger than an AIO (the iMac was smaller than most 15" monitors) and thus more expensive to stock and ship; the board and power supply can't make any assumptions about the nature of the display, which adds cost and complexity... all you have to do is think through the problem, and it's obvious that there are no savings whatsoever in a two-part system. None.
There is a possibility of some savings if you only buy half a system, but a) hardly anyone does, and b) you'd save maybe $50.
The iMac isn't a counterargument, either. Everyone knows it's overpriced for its own peculiar reasons, which are not an indictment against AIOs in general.
Comments
I think the colours can make a return. And have. iPod mini is here.
I see no reason why Aluminum G5 Mini-G5 towers couldn't straddle the £495-£995 price range.
Yes, I do think the colours were a little more fun, personal and loveable and exciting than the current 'clinical' white. I like white. I like the iMac 2's style. But I haven't bought one. And neither are alot of other people. Just look at the poor eMac. It lacks the iMac's charm and curves. It's rather lardy looking. With a poor crt screen. Er. iBook or eMac give or take £100. ER...('Gee, hard decision, I'll take a G4 iBook please...')
Make a chopped down G5 mini-tower and bang! Colour excitement. iPod Mini switcher fanatics can upgrade their 3 year old PC with a spanking new colour matching G5 'Mini'. (Name match!)
G5s on 0.09 have got to be so cheap...is there any reason why a 1.6-2.4 gig G5 mini range can't straddle every Dell consumer price point from £495 to £995? One case to make. Not two (eMad and iMac.)
Choose yer colour. Choose your monitor. (Price bundle for studio monitor...Cheap 17 inch LCD...few hundred, tops...) Choose your G5 speed. Choose integrated or upgradeable graphics. Choose your price. Choose your customer. Choose your switcher.
PC Shuttles are the hot 'mini' PC thing. It's happening under Apple's nose. Are we surprised consumer customers are voting with their wallets? Apple, the same company who gave us the wide choice of DVD only when the rest of the PC market was giving CDRW options away...
Clearly, Apple does NOT have their finger on the desktop consumer pulse.
If they're selling less consumer desktops then pro desktops (and that goes same for the laptops...) then they've clearly lost touch.
In that sense, they have clearly failed to build upon the original iMac's half a million per quarter sales rocket.
Problem? Apple refuse to admit they've made a mistake until it's too late.
They clung on to the iMac's 15 inch screen for too long when they should have merely offered the 'eMac' much sooner. They wait until sales dry up before they offer? Guess what? An overpriced iMac 2 which completely outstrips the previous iMac price range.
Classic Apple own goal. Brilliant but we've just blown our feet off.
Again, they haven't learned their less with the iMac 2. They wait 13 months before an update. That indicates a serious problem. Give the thing a price hike just after a debut...and kill any momentum they had. The 17 inch version should have been hot on the heals of the 15 inch LCD version and been given a few price breaks.
Look at the iBook, nice...and it was a great improvement over the clam. But I thought the clam was more colourful and exciting. The iBook is cool...but it's taking Apple far too long to get revisions out...and way too long to get a design refresh out there. When iBook sales were lifting off into the 250k range...where was the product to build on that moment. Nope. The price downward spiral has stalled. The design has stalled. The ram is stingy and the screen res' is modest. The screen isn't the brightest. The cpu bumps are still measly by x86 standards. Where's the superdrive iBooks? You can get superdrive x86 laptops for £795. Same price as Apple's ENTRY level iBook.
Look, Apple's prices are sometimes reasonable to begin with but 6 months later they look stupid.
Apple really have to improve on their product launch and ramp and refreshes.
I know they try to innovate...but sometimes I feel Apple should standardise their cases to some degree like they have the innards to more standard PC equations. Yes, Apple colours and style and smartness...but sometimes...you can be TOO far out there as the Cube and the iMac 2 have shown.
To me, the G5 case get's it right. And if it ran the gamut of price down to £795 for a single 2 gig G5 then I'm confident Apple would get loads of switchers and half a million sales per quarter easy.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by pscates
This is the toughest issue we've ever tackled... Oh, iMac...what are you going to be?)
The iMac is DEAD ~ long live the new Macintosh!
That's what 'X' is. That's why it's getting rave press. Sure, it's not that far from what Window's users know (window column mode...) but it looks better, more stable, has more compelling innovation and it's cheaper than windows (as sold per box...minus cpu...)
And...surprise, surprise, Apple has ACTUALLY been listening to what people want in an OS by LISTENING carefully to feedback and being responsive what the customer wants instead of what Steve thinks the customer should want.
I wish Apple would sprinkle some of that on its desktop line... I don't want an eMac. I don't want an iMac 2 with an old G4 and a monitor I can't remove. I don't want to pay £1350 before I get choice and a decent desktop. AND, there's plenty of PC sales going to PC computers below the iMac's 'sweet spot' that agree with me.
I just think Apple is going to have to get real down and dirty with the Mac line. To me, they almost had all their ducks in a line and they barely broke 800K units for the Christmas quarter with 75 Apple stores.
Clearly, Apple's consumer line isn't pulling its weight.
Lemon Bon Bon
The iMac is DEAD ~ long live the new Macintosh!
Give this guy a cigar.
Lemon Bon Bon
One price: $899
One speed (at first): 1.6 Ghz G5
One drive option: Superdrive
Standard RAM: 384 MB
One hard drive size: 60 GB's
All the I/O.
No LCD or CRT just a stand alone.
No Firewire 800.
No ULTRA miniaturization, because that causes price hikes.
The last thing it HAS is the option for adding an "iMac arm" if desired...for $329 at 17 inches. And those would work with PC's as well.
------------------------------
The 20th Anniversary G5 iMac
------------------------------
Made for iLife, priced so you still have one.
For the headless low-cost Mac, take the PowerMac G5, reduce its dimensions to 8x12x12 inches, have the same cooling technique and design language, chop 40% of the motherboard off that was occupied by the second processor, take out 2 slots, have only 4 DIMM slots, 1 drive, 1 optical, 1 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 1.6 to 2.0 GHz uniprocessor G5, and sell for $1200 or around there. Call it the G5 mini.
For the iMacs, stick with the G4, but make them dual processors at the same price points. Dual processors machines will stay smooth for a lot longer than single processor machines.
For the eMacs, stick with the G4, and have it as a 600 to 700 dollar specials. These are so cheap that obsolescence shouldn't become a problem.
For a super low cost Mac, take the design language of the PowerMac G4, put it in a 9x12x12 form factor, 1 processor, 1 AGP, 1 drive, 1 optical, 2 DIMM slots, and sell it for $600. Call it the G4 mini.
When the 970 derived CPU with 1 MB L2 and multithreading comes, Apple can than start the process of shifting the 970fx to low cost machines.
Big problem is, can Apple really get a 7457 G4 for $40, a graphics chip w/32MB for $40, a system ASIC for $20 and an I/O ASIC for $20 or less? They have to build low cost machines for at most $450 in order to sell at $600, and be willing to do so. I don't think they ever had a profit margin of less than 24% since Jobs came back.
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Essentially one slightly modifiable model, 3 color choices. (Alluminum because I like the idea...futurized in either White, Original Alluminum Bondi Blue, and the top selling color from the other iPod mini choices, maybe Green)
One price: $899
One speed (at first): 1.6 Ghz G5
One drive option: Superdrive
Standard RAM: 384 MB
One hard drive size: 60 GB's
All the I/O.
No LCD or CRT just a stand alone.
No Firewire 800.
No ULTRA miniaturization, because that causes price hikes.
The last thing it HAS is the option for adding an "iMac arm" if desired...for $329 at 17 inches. And those would work with PC's as well.
------------------------------
The 20th Anniversary G5 iMac
------------------------------
Made for iLife, priced so you still have one.
No it must be 512MB of ram (one chip), 100GB SATA hard drive, and the biggest catch, the 128mb videocard needs to work with all monitors instead of just Apple displays (DVI/VGA) without converter. And you can have an Apple Display with a free Adapter if you want. Lastly, don't backwards engineer it to not span multiple monitors. $949.00.
My solution was to just have a headless low-cost Mac and the eMac/iMac coexist. No conundrum needs to be solved.
For the headless low-cost Mac, take the PowerMac G5, reduce its dimensions to 8x12x12 inches, have the same cooling technique and design language, chop 40% of the motherboard off that was occupied by the second processor, take out 2 slots, have only 4 DIMM slots, 1 drive, 1 optical, 1 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 1.6 to 2.0 GHz uniprocessor G5, and sell for $1200 or around there. Call it the G5 mini.
For the iMacs, stick with the G4, but make them dual processors at the same price points. Dual processors machines will stay smooth for a lot longer than single processor machines.
For the eMacs, stick with the G4, and have it as a 600 to 700 dollar specials. These are so cheap that obsolescence shouldn't become a problem.
For a super low cost Mac, take the design language of the PowerMac G4, put it in a 9x12x12 form factor, 1 processor, 1 AGP, 1 drive, 1 optical, 2 DIMM slots, and sell it for $600. Call it the G4 mini.
When the 970 derived CPU with 1 MB L2 and multithreading comes, Apple can than start the process of shifting the 970fx to low cost machines.
Big problem is, can Apple really get a 7457 G4 for $40, a graphics chip w/32MB for $40, a system ASIC for $20 and an I/O ASIC for $20 or less? They have to build low cost machines for at most $450 in order to sell at $600, and be willing to do so. I don't think they ever had a profit margin of less than 24% since Jobs came back.
I like your thinking...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Look at my above post, and one last thing. DONT CALL IT THE MINI! Apple has incalculable brand name recognition from the name iMac. They need to call it the iMac still, in some way. The G5 iMac, the iMac mini (maaaybe). Not just the Mini Mac or something.
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
sounds good. hopefully there will be some "discontinued" 17 inchers pretty soon
Long story short, Im coming around to the headless iMac concept discussed, so people who already have laptops can use second monitors when theyre available. I would love to use the 20" LCD with my PB (make more use of an already expensive product).
Instead of expensive displays tethered to badly ageing G4's?, no thanks.
Friends (PC switchers) have bought the 17" iMacs and they are wrapped in these machines, but obviously not enough people have because people prefer laptops, so if Apple wants to sell more product, the headless low cost computer will have to be an option.
This product then appeals to the value proposition to entice people to buy a 2nd machine.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Also, if education requires the AIO concept, have Apple just provide an extremely low cost but decently designed display that can go along with the iMac. Maybe for the $899 price plus a $199 LCD, even 12''. And for education the iMac would be $700 + the $199 LCD if so desired. Total package= $999...THE SWEET SPOT.
Education doesn't require the AIO "concept." They require an AIO: A single, monolithic unit that can tolerate all kinds of abuse.
Two-part systems are more expensive to manufacture (when you have to design and build the whole thing), more expensive to ship, and less capable of standing up to the rigors of K-12 lab use.
As for the iMac: You can have a choice of monitors without leaving the AIO behind: The iMac has three choices right now, and even here they've become the primary means of distinguishing the models: We refer to the 15", 17" and 20" iMac, not the 800MHz, 1GHz ,etc. iMac. So that's not a problem with the line. The absolute monochrome nature of the machine might be a problem, insofar as it's not as personal a design as the jellybean. More generally, I think the design needs to be redone. Right now it's a bit clinical, and it can't be colored or patterned easily. And, of course, it has to hit the sweet spot, sub-$1K.
I liked Mac Voyer's suggestion at the top of page 3 just because it really showed some different thinking about the problem, and because it breaks a large, periodic expense into smaller expenses, which makes things more affordable in practice. This exact sort of upgrade system has been offered for mainframes and other large systems for decades. The technical hurdles for implementing it are actually fairly low, if you design for them, and actually in a consumer AIO it would be fairly easy to do just because everything's integrated - there wouldn't be much to swap out or swap in. You could have the motherboard in a tray whose side housed all the ports, and just take the old tray out and put a new tray in - and there, in 60 seconds, is your new board with new ASICs attached to new ports. This is the sort of thing Apple excels at.
The main problems are: Apple would be committed to upgrading a given design every year for four years, even if that model bombs. That at least doubles the amount of engineering required. Had Apple had this policy in place in 2000, they would currently be trying to figure out how to stuff G5s into Cubes. Putting that much more work on engineering (hardware and software and QA) means either less work on new models, or more engineers. Neither is heartening. Furthermore, since the number of consumers who actually take advantage of such offers is very small, Apple would have to do limited runs of the boards, which would not benefit from economies of scale, and which would not be cheap.
Also, they might run into future-proofing issues. Apple tends to design within fairly close tolerances, which allows them to create things like the PowerBook and the iMac that are amazingly compact. By implementing this system, Apple would essentially have to make sure that their designs could take the next four years' worth of technological advancements, which is a seriously tall order. Will a 1.25GHz G4 go into a Dalmation iMac?
I like the general idea, and I'd be interested in further discussion. It would have to be done very, very carefully in order to work, though.
I think that eventually we will have computers that are more like home appliance purchases than current computers, a true "Digital Hub" so to speak. When that happens "long-term upgradable" systems will be needed. However I don't think that time is here yet. Probably the first sign that they are coming is when internet distribution of video becomes practice in time and cost of the bandwidth. Then it will be in the best interest of computer companies to offer "blade" style designs that they can sell either a second or third processor, or a faster replacement if the backplane is maxed out. But we aren't there in "parallelism" in home computing quite yet, though the signs are pointing there. We need better integration with AV systems than we have today and some industry standards in format copywrite protection and connectivity that are not quite there yet.
Blade Runner ~ Modular Mac
With xGrid and hypertransport it should be possible to design a PCI-X processor card that plugs in to double your processing power.
A lot of potential switchers could get over the AIO if it was cheaper. Bur for $1299 you get a PC with a 17" flat panel, a DVD burner, 512 RAM, 120GB hard drive and 128MB video card. Why switch when that 15" imac is was overpriced and under-powered. Switching to an Apple desktop is cost prohibitive for most PC users. MAny people are impressed with all of the bundled software and it will do mostly everything they want...but it cost $500 more and it is not worth it for them.
I do think it is pretty ridiculous you have to pay $1800 to get a superdrive equipped tower..and it is a really hard comparison when you can get 2x the RAM, 2x the VRAM, and 150% more hard drive space for 1/2 the cost of a powermac.
If apple is going to get serious about increasing marketshre...Apple has to get serious about readingint eh market. Bring back a CUBE!
But none of this unerpowered g4/32MB VRAM super cheap towers. Apple doesn't need to play at the super cheap end of the market..just be in the ball parks of the Sony's of the worlld..not $500 more.
Two-part systems are more expensive to manufacture (when you have to design and build the whole thing), more expensive to ship, and less capable of standing up to the rigors of K-12 lab use.
Not if Faeylin's idea comes to pass. ie Apple could have a line of monitors which fairly well match most of the line. (Which, in fairness, the current LCDs do, most of the time.)
Apple has a range of studio monitors that have presumably paid for their R&D (given the whopping prices...)
If said headless Mac comes sans monitor it will be cheaper to make.
The two piece design is more expensive to make, that's why PC tower prices can be had for half the price of the eMacs and still off more...
And there's no reason Apple can't offer bundle prices to make a mini-tower cheaper and more flexible than the current iMac 2. The current price of the Studio 17 inch isn't far away from the price of the Apple 17 inch CRT which looked awkward alongside price fugal Cube buyers.
Given a price cut, a redesigned 17 inch LCD and a headless mini-tower would or could look quite nice together.
Lemon Bon Bon
For me the iMac2 is not a true AIO because it has separate speakers. I am also suprised that the ports are all at the back and thus difficult to access - with still and video cameras, iPods etc to be attached, the ports should be more accessible.
I beleive that, in the UK at least, there is a clear demand for AIOs as most users simply do not expand or upgrade their machines. If you beleive that you need the facility to upgrade graphics cards, shouldn't you be using a tower?
[Currently using an iBook with Bluetooth keyboard and mouse pending eMac / iMac upgrade.]
Squared (no funky curves), back panel opens up to access video. Plenty of room for components and lots of surface area to put vent holes.
And an LCD pivots up and down on a wide cylinder swivel, perched on top. Still all in one, just wide (as wide as monitor, so who cares?).
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
The two piece design is more expensive to make, that's why PC tower prices can be had for half the price of the eMacs and still off more...
I am getting beyond tired of debunking this stupid line of thought.
ATX cases and boards are commodities. The ASICs on them are commodities. Anyone building ATX PCs can take advantage of economies of scale vastly larger than their own production line.
Apple can't. No comparison. Period. End of discussion.
(And I won't even go into the differences in materials and quality of manufacture...)
If Apple has to design everything, then they have to build two things instead of one; they have to ship two things instead of one; the two things will be larger than an AIO (the iMac was smaller than most 15" monitors) and thus more expensive to stock and ship; the board and power supply can't make any assumptions about the nature of the display, which adds cost and complexity... all you have to do is think through the problem, and it's obvious that there are no savings whatsoever in a two-part system. None.
There is a possibility of some savings if you only buy half a system, but a) hardly anyone does, and b) you'd save maybe $50.
The iMac isn't a counterargument, either. Everyone knows it's overpriced for its own peculiar reasons, which are not an indictment against AIOs in general.