I understand your reservations about my idea. There is no easy answer except that everyone would have to be reasonable in their expectations. A G4 iMac may never be upgraded to a G5. But, it could still be upgraded within the parameters of a G4 system. If a person prepay for upgrades that are not forth coming due to a product hitting the end of its life cycle, they could just apply the subscription to the next model they buy.
On a separate note, I am frankly surprised at the number of articles now being written about the dismal state of the iMac. These are not just the usual suspects. Even places where you can usually count on a pro Apple spin are openly agreeing that the iMac has a problem. In a way, I am gratified that so many people are finally starting to agree with what I have been saying on these boards for some time. On the other hand, it brings me no satisfaction because I genuinely like the iMac, just not enough to buy one. I would, however, buy an iMac subscription as I outlined above.
I really believe that the iMac has run its course. We pretend that the iMac has always been around and is synonymous with Apple. It has not and it is not. In fact, I believe that it is time to drop the who "i" line of products altogether. It unnecessarily stigmatizes perfectly good products as being somehow sub-parr. It also requires Apple to cripple certain products in obvious ways so that they can not be mistaken for or compete with "pro" products. All product lines should cover the range of entry level to high end. If Apple wants to continue to build an AIO, fine. Offer an entry level all the way up to the high end with all the "pro" power and bells and whistles that can be crammed in there. Same with the towers. Build your best tower enclosure and offer configuration that range from the entry level to the high end. Ditto notebooks. Naturally, each level would have added features that justify the price. Professionals know who they are. They do not need Apple to tell them who they are or what they should buy. People will simply buy what they need or want without the unnecessary stigma.
An example of this would be the first 12" AL. It was so obviously a G4 iBook. The problem is that Apple could not call it an iBook and justify the price which, at the time, was quite high for what you got, as I recall. Monitor spanning would be enabled on every notebook, not just the "pro" models. The AIO would never have to be crippled with lower processors, graphics cards, and the like. Let every product line cover the spectrum of prices and features and let them live or die based on their own merits. No more iMac! Just give me a Mac. Give me an AIO Mac, or a tower Mac, or a note Mac, or a rack Mac. I believe this will go a long ways toward bringing down some of the switcher barriers. I know it will never happen, but one can hope.
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.
The iMac does have internal speakers, but they arent that great.
It's pretty much only good for hearing the startup chime.
I think, though, he was talking more like the jellybean iMacs or eMac speakers: two, separated a bit, etc.
Those a little more picky about their sound can buy an iSub to fill it out (as I did with my iMac DV...sounded wonderful in combination with the iMac DV's built-in speakers) OR buy some Creatures, SoundSticks or whatever you want.
Mac Voyer, I'll have to agree and disagree with two of your points:
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
... If a person prepay for upgrades that are not forth coming due to a product hitting the end of its life cycle, they could just apply the subscription to the next model they buy...
... I really believe that the iMac has run its course. We pretend that the iMac has always been around and is synonymous with Apple. It has not and it is not. In fact, I believe that it is time to drop the who "i" line of products altogether. It unnecessarily stigmatizes perfectly good products as being somehow sub-parr.
About a "subscription plan", I'm sorry but that will never fly. Microsoft is not having real good luck with it's "software assurance" extortion plan, and this hardware subscription will not be viewed much better by it's intended target audience.
Besides if you want to "churn" your Macintosh with a new one every year, just set up a lease.
But I am with you in realizing that the whole "i" thing has run it's course. Time to move onto something that will be the ~ NEW MACINTOSH ~ Something completely different and insanely great. / \\
Strip away the monitor in the eMac. Make a standard case (how's that for reducing costs...) with standard configurations... Realistically price the 17 inch LCD (which, let's face it...is 6 months overdue for a price drop...)
...and you've already got a more flexible system than an iMac entry point.
Bigger screen. Or choose which monitor to go with it. A more configurable and flexible spec list. A consumer can pay for what they want.
You haven't debunked nada. PCs use standard components and have plenty of competition to make sure they're cheaper.
The only stupid thing around here is Apple's insistence on crippled consumer desktops. The achilles heel of AIO designs Apple style. And sales figures bare it out. Most PC customers go in store and see a 'computer'. Apple should make a 'computer' they recognise. With a price, mhz and flexibility and choice they recognise in the x86 equation.
It's Apple's problem to sort. They will keep losing marketshare until they recognise what consumers want from a consumer machine.
200,000 emac/imac2. Pathetic.
200,000ish ibooks? Not good either.
It isn't all down to awareness. Given a choice of two items, the Apple iApps and 'OS' should be the swinging argument. There shouldn't be hurdles of: I have to take this monitor when I already got one, I want to put a better graphics card in it, why can't I? I want a flexible spec and design? Why isn't? Why does this chrome arm cost $300 more? Why can't I use the superior trinitron monitor at home instead of the crap CRT attached to the overpriced eMac? Why is the eMac using a two year old speed bump? Why can't I run my windows apps? Why can't Apple help me become a customer? Why do I have to foot the bill for Mac versions of £500-2000 worth or software?
I'm not a PC customer, but if I was, I can see that my questions aren't being answered by great intrinsic values of Apple's duplicated AIO line...right up £1795 and I still can't get any damn flexiblility. (Chrome Arm not included...)
Instead of overblown design statements like the iMac 2 (and Cube to some degree...) Apple should focus on their OS, their iApps and getting that product out to consumers affordably. I'm not saying we return to beige cases of course. But, some of those cases must be damned expensive and tricky to make. The iMac 2 and the Cube were over the top to some degree. The Cube too small. The iMac 2 way over designed. Guess what? Priced wayyyyyyyyy over what the average consumer is prepared to pay. Once people (quickly in the iMac 2's case) get over the novelty. Once the 'loyal' Mac userbase dries up then sales dive...by 25% here and there over a quarter or two. You can't kid the consumer, Amorph.
The iMac 2 is an overpriced failure. And sales figures back me up. If it's cheaper to make the AIO then how come Apple is $300 dollars beyond the 'sweet spot' pricing of today's average consumer computer?
The iMac 2 AIO is an overpriced and underspecced piece of boutique art. It's a backward step from the Cube in many respects. It aint cheap enough, it aint specced enough and it aint endearing enough. People are voting with their wallets.
Instead of making overpriced plastic with a monitor that I may not need (another 'two piece' saving...) then why not make it easy on themselves. A nice white tower case. Standard consumer tower size. Apple logo on it. Bundle with nice white rimmed studio display.
A standard tower case has got to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper than the iMac case (hello, expensive chrome arm! Hello limited Pudding shape dome!) or the mountain of white plastic/and bulky crt monitor of the eMac.
Or put it succintly, I agree with you Amorph, a one piece would be alot cheaper than a two piece. Which is why the iMac/eMac should lose their monitor. The 'headless one piece' would be lots cheaper.
It becomes apparent that you all have no understanding of Apple's design philosophy, nor why it's produced the best designed consumer products ever.
Your ideas are all too complicated, they expect too much of the user. Apple expects nothing of the user, except to possess an acceptable level of common sense.
I wish Apple designed every appliance and tool I use in my life (and the money required to afford them).
Speak for yourself. Hey, there's obviously something amiss in the iMac world. We're just gathered here a bit to talk about it.
I "understand" lots of things perfectly. I could see - AND appreciate - Apple going either way on this. I see amorph's point and good arguments for the continued AIO approach. And I see and understand other's who feel a more traditional two-piece design is the way to go.
Yeah, Apple is great at making this stuff easy to use.
I get tired of the argument that people are too idiotic to figure out how to connect one damn ADC cable.
BUT...I also get tired of the argument that the iMac - in it's current form - "sucks". It's a bit overpriced and "boutique-y" and out of the reach of most. But, on its own, it doesn't "suck" and it's a beautiful piece of machinery.
But, bottom line: does Apple throw all their eggs into the "dazzle 'em with design and price it out of reach" approach (they're on strike two, counting the G4 Cube) OR go more for "plain Jane box" to get those fence-sitters curious about the Mac and OS X a wonderful incentive to make the leap.
Personally, I hope they'll figure out at way to do a bit of both. I refuse to believe that good, eye-popping design somehow excludes mass appeal affordability. I think we're on the brink of being very impressed...
My only request is that WHATEVER it is, Apple actually go to bat for it and support it with some true, captivating marketing. Otherwise, we'll all gather here next year or so and still be bitching about "3%?!?! STILL? WTF!!!"
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...but if regular, non-Mac geek people (you know, those "switchers" who were oh-so important a year or so ago and STILL get courted and spoken about in Macworld keynotes) don't know it exists, or know anything about it, well then guess what?
"i" stands for crippled. Mac stands for expensive but well designed.
I don't mind paying for expensive but well designed products. I just don't like the idea of paying for crippled, expensive, but well designed products. I remember when the Mac was just the Mac, and every Mac was great. Now we have two separate classes of Macs. In class warfare, the lower class always loses.
If that makes no sense, it is because I have been up all day and I am just getting home from work.
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...
Yes, they probably could but just think how many sales of $1799 G5 towers it would cost them. I don't know what the answer (to increasing market share) is, but it's clear Apple doesn't want to sell cheap computers, except to schools. Back in the days of the LCs and Performas, they were bleeding money, big time.
bottom line: does Apple throw all their eggs into the "dazzle 'em with design and price it out of reach" approach (they're on strike two, counting the G4 Cube) OR go more for "plain Jane box" to get those fence-sitters curious about the Mac and OS X a wonderful incentive to make the leap.
Personally, I hope they'll figure out at way to do a bit of both. I refuse to believe that good, eye-popping design somehow excludes mass appeal affordability. I think we're on the brink of being very impressed...
My only request is that WHATEVER it is, Apple actually go to bat for it and support it with some true, captivating marketing. Otherwise, we'll all gather here next year or so and still be bitching about "3%?!?! STILL? WTF!!!"
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...but if regular, non-Mac geek people (you know, those "switchers" who were oh-so important a year or so ago and STILL get courted and spoken about in Macworld keynotes) don't know it exists, or know anything about it, well then guess what?
Exactly...
A
A good, balanced post.
There's no point marketing if your customers have no where to go.
I think Apple have realised this. And have created a perfect environment to sell the Mac point of view.
This is where the 75 retail stores are a Good Thing! The flagship stores, particularly in Japan and the one in London (yay, we UKers finally get a bit of Apple goodness...I'll visit if it opens in time for Christmas!) should really begin to open up a bit of Apple exposure.
Apple are getting to the point where they can finally put some money into PSCates soapbox issue: marketing. Avertising. On tv. Radio. Getting the message out.
People will finally have somewhere to shop.
Just as exciting is the news that Apple UK have teamed up with the 'Games' retail shops to have a Mac games software selection (featuring the latest and best Mac games have to offer! !) alongside PCs, PSX, Gamecube etc.
It's like the planets are slowly coming into alignment.
I have nothing against, overall, the idea of an AIO. The Cube and iMac 2 are beautiful designs.
However, they both suffered from stagnation. They close down choice and exclude a wider variety of customers who don't want their options closed for them. It's patronising. Customers aren't stupid. They do ask the annoying questions that Apple's consumer line can't answer.
To offer AIOs to the exclusion of a more flexible solution is outrageous. And you don't see Dell, Gateway, Sony or IBM doing that. Guess what, they sell bucket loads more.
I'd like to see Apple offer both. I'd put my Appleinsider credits on the table. Let sales decide. And if Apple sells 150K worth of iMac 2 and 150K worth of iWhite mini tower then Apple sells 300K consumer desktops. More than they are currently.
A standard, pretty Apple white consumer tower design that scales £495-£995 has got to be cheaper than maintaining two very different and limited AIO designs which have expensive components which are difficult to manufacture. Cheaper to include industry standard motherboard designs. One motherboard shape. R&D savings for one design. Money not lost by customers who want something different. Apple already has a line of studio line of monitors that pays for itself. So why pump money into designing eclectic monitor cases for the iMac 2 and the eMac? More money wasted. Money wasted for the customer who doesn't want a 'stuck with it' monitor when it's time to upgrade the machine.
If Apple took a blood bath on cheaper machines years ago then it was because they didn't have their webstore which does half of their business these days. Didn't have this much media exposure. Didn't have 75 retail stores with several flagship international stores in the offing. Didn't have the Pepis and iPod exposure. Didn't have this burgeoning mind-share in the media/consumer...
They need one or two more consumer products that meet different needs with prices closer to their x86 components...for when the Wintel Switcher foot patrol really starts to take off...otherwise...they'll walk into those Apple stores...and out again. If they can make G5 towers competitive with high end Dell towers...if they can out price Dell/IBM on X-Serve/X-Raid pricing and licensing then there's something very clearly wrong with Apple's consumer line. Following current trends, Apple should be selling 300K imacs and 400-500K ibooks...so, what's wrong?
I have nothing against, overall, the idea of an AIO. The Cube and iMac 2 are beautiful designs.
However, they both suffered from stagnation. They close down choice and exclude a wider variety of customers who don't want their options closed for them. It's patronising. Customers aren't stupid. They do ask the annoying questions that Apple's consumer line can't answer.
To offer AIOs to the exclusion of a more flexible solution is outrageous. And you don't see Dell, Gateway, Sony or IBM doing that. Guess what, they sell bucket loads more.
I'd like to see Apple offer both. I'd put my Appleinsider credits on the table. Let sales decide. And if Apple sells 150K worth of iMac 2 and 150K worth of iWhite mini tower then Apple sells 300K consumer desktops. More than they are currently.
Well that sums up my viewpoint pretty well. I happen to think the iMac2 is a magnificent design. However, I'd only be tempted to buy one if it were (a) cutting edge in performance and/or (b) very cost effective, because that's the only way I'd be willing to overlook the inherent problem of investing in an expensive FP monitor that I'll have to ditch along with the computer when I upgrade. Right now it is neither.
Keep a beautiful AIO in the product line; there are always some who will want it, and it makes a great showpiece for Apple design. But offer at least one more traditional form factor for the masses who want that flexibility. I don't see how Apple wouldn't come out ahead.
I think the real argument would come down to the details of the headless solution. A true headless iMac (read: completely non-expandable) would still leave a lot of people clamoring for something with at least an upgradeable video card. In contrast, a mini-tower with any expandability at all would likely be priced (given Apple's history) too high to really fill in the low end that many people want.
Let's face it, Apple could really use *two* additional non-AIO machines: super low-end, non-expandable, *cheap*. Sort of a headless eMac. And a mini-tower, with reduced expandability and capability relative to the PowerMac, but at least a few hundred cheaper than the low-end PowerMac. But now I'm really in fantasyland....
If Apple were to remove the LCD and maybe the CRT from their AIOs they would then open up a market for a line of monitors they currently don't have.
Widescreen 17"s would sell like hotcakes, not only to iMacs and eMacs, but to Tower owners who can't aford a 20" but want an Apple monitor. They would get powerbook and iBook people buying those monitors.
In short it would be a great way to move more product, while reducing the price of the iMac and eMac.
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
If Apple were to remove the LCD and maybe the CRT from their AIOs they would then open up a market for a line of monitors they currently don't have.
Widescreen 17"s would sell like hotcakes, not only to iMacs and eMacs, but to Tower owners who can't aford a 20" but want an Apple monitor. They would get powerbook and iBook people buying those monitors.
In short it would be a great way to move more product, while reducing the price of the iMac and eMac.
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
Yes, Yes, Yes, I want another screen on my little desk so when me and my PB 15" are home, we can span two monitors and do are work in comfort. But I do not want to buy an expensive adaptor to hook it up. Give us a choice. I only have 8" of depth to play with on my desk. It has to be a flat panel.
Oh man, I'd TOTALLY buy a stylish Apple 17" widescreen (at the current 1440x900) for $399!
Either in PowerBook-matching aluminum OR glossy white. I don't care. I'd buy it and more than double my desktop space while at home (e-mail, iChat, Safari, etc. on PowerBook screen...Adobe crap on 17" wide).
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
I have to snicker sometimes at the dreams some of you have. If a new Apple widescreen 17" display is going to become available, it might be one or two hundred dollars less than the current 17" Studio, but not $300-400 less. Keep dreaming though. It's fun, isn't it?
15'', 17'' and 20'' should not mean you have to pay $1299, $1799, and $2199!
People just want the computer, then they buy a display. PC users are USED to buying the 2 seperately. PC users only think of laptops as AIO's. Selling a a well designed, low cost computer (minus the display) caters to PC mentality and everyone elses financial well being.
This does not mean Apple should pack its bag with the iMac concept, but instead offer a way to drop in the "chrome arm display.'' If that is possible, then all of the bases are covered. More options dont always equal more confusion. More options would equal more sales in this instance.
Apple is famous for being able to offer the best pre-packaged solution in an AIO enclosure. This time they can offer that solution yet they wont have to be FORCING that solution. Not surprisingly, people only pay a little bit more money if they get A LOT more benefit.
In this case, Apple's premium is too much for what it gets you. Apple can still charge people those above prices for the iMac, but I think to do that they would need to bundle an iPod mini with them. THAT is how overpriced iMacs are right now.
Moral of the story: For those prices our money needs to get us more, whether it be specs, expansion, or a device like the iPod. If Apple refuses to drop the AIO then those seem to be a possible way out of having to.
Come down in price Apple, come up in specs, (macminutes G5 news may prove that this could happen as soon as next week) or re-do your product line and strategy surrounding it. Right now the current solution is not solving anyones problems, it is causing them.
I think the real argument would come down to the details of the headless solution. A true headless iMac (read: completely non-expandable) would still leave a lot of people clamoring for something with at least an upgradeable video card. In contrast, a mini-tower with any expandability at all would likely be priced (given Apple's history) too high to really fill in the low end that many people want.
Let's face it, Apple could really use *two* additional non-AIO machines: super low-end, non-expandable, *cheap*. Sort of a headless eMac. And a mini-tower, with reduced expandability and capability relative to the PowerMac, but at least a few hundred cheaper than the low-end PowerMac. But now I'm really in fantasyland....
I agreed with your post. There is room for a mini-tower design that scales the 'cheap' to the 'I don't need a shredded wheat giant size' tower of the G5.
I'm not saying AIOs should be canned but rather if Apple can offer to lines of AIOs, there's alot of overlap there...why not two ranges of consumer tower that cover what PC users and many Mac users would like without having to fork out £1395 just to get a low end tower. It's absurd.
Anyhow. I'm sure we'll know one way or another in the next 3 months.
15'', 17'' and 20'' should not mean you have to pay $1299, $1799, and $2199!
People just want the computer, then they buy a display. PC users are USED to buying the 2 seperately. PC users only think of laptops as AIO's. Selling a a well designed, low cost computer (minus the display) caters to PC mentality and everyone elses financial well being.
This does not mean Apple should pack its bag with the iMac concept, but instead offer a way to drop in the "chrome arm display.'' If that is possible, then all of the bases are covered. More options dont always equal more confusion. More options would equal more sales in this instance.
Apple is famous for being able to offer the best pre-packaged solution in an AIO enclosure. This time they can offer that solution yet they wont have to be FORCING that solution. Not surprisingly, people only pay a little bit more money if they get A LOT more benefit.
In this case, Apple's premium is too much for what it gets you. Apple can still charge people those above prices for the iMac, but I think to do that they would need to bundle an iPod mini with them. THAT is how overpriced iMacs are right now.
Moral of the story: For those prices our money needs to get us more, whether it be specs, expansion, or a device like the iPod. If Apple refuses to drop the AIO then those seem to be a possible way out of having to.
Come down in price Apple, come up in specs, (macminutes G5 news may prove that this could happen as soon as next week) or re-do your product line and strategy surrounding it. Right now the current solution is not solving anyones problems, it is causing them.
As has been said here, I think the best solution is to offer a modular machine that can have the capability of being set up as an AIO or as two separate pieces. The ADC connector brings AIO functionality to the monitor, although I think an update to that connector so it can provide power, USB 2.0, and FW400/800 would be good. This would mean Apple displays would have to function in just one enclosure instead of several. Granted, the enclosure would vary in size depending on screen size, but Apple would not need different enclosures for the Cinema displays and the iMac.
I also think it best to eliminate the eMac altogether. The new iMac or iBox would have the capability of becoming an AIO, but you could also attach a different screen to it. Standard VGA adapters should still be allowed to cater to the schools and CRTs for the time being. Schools don't need AIO. They buy the little Dells by the bundle. The key here is to make a better looking, better quality machine that has front access and can be used with older monitors, etc.
An iMac/iBox should probably come in three configurations. Low-end G5 and high end G4, possibly offering dual processor capability on the G4 end. They should have some expandability. The major thing to think about is easy access for processor upgrades and the ability to upgrade video. I also think the machine should be able to accept up to 2GB of RAM.
It would save money if Apple can narrow down its product line and make it more versatile. You have two in the Power lineup (PowerMac and PowerBook), eaching offering 3 to 4 different stock configurations. You also end up with two in the iLineup (iMac/iBox, iBook), also offering 3 to 4 different stock configs.
I'd also start all Macs off at 512MB in RAM. It's not a very expensive jump from 256 for a manufacturer like Apple. We also should expect Macs to cost a bit more than PCs, but it shouldn't be overwhelming. I also think a small, flexible enclosure should cost less than what the current iMac enclosure does and could still be of good quality and have innovative design.
Comments
I understand your reservations about my idea. There is no easy answer except that everyone would have to be reasonable in their expectations. A G4 iMac may never be upgraded to a G5. But, it could still be upgraded within the parameters of a G4 system. If a person prepay for upgrades that are not forth coming due to a product hitting the end of its life cycle, they could just apply the subscription to the next model they buy.
On a separate note, I am frankly surprised at the number of articles now being written about the dismal state of the iMac. These are not just the usual suspects. Even places where you can usually count on a pro Apple spin are openly agreeing that the iMac has a problem. In a way, I am gratified that so many people are finally starting to agree with what I have been saying on these boards for some time. On the other hand, it brings me no satisfaction because I genuinely like the iMac, just not enough to buy one. I would, however, buy an iMac subscription as I outlined above.
I really believe that the iMac has run its course. We pretend that the iMac has always been around and is synonymous with Apple. It has not and it is not. In fact, I believe that it is time to drop the who "i" line of products altogether. It unnecessarily stigmatizes perfectly good products as being somehow sub-parr. It also requires Apple to cripple certain products in obvious ways so that they can not be mistaken for or compete with "pro" products. All product lines should cover the range of entry level to high end. If Apple wants to continue to build an AIO, fine. Offer an entry level all the way up to the high end with all the "pro" power and bells and whistles that can be crammed in there. Same with the towers. Build your best tower enclosure and offer configuration that range from the entry level to the high end. Ditto notebooks. Naturally, each level would have added features that justify the price. Professionals know who they are. They do not need Apple to tell them who they are or what they should buy. People will simply buy what they need or want without the unnecessary stigma.
An example of this would be the first 12" AL. It was so obviously a G4 iBook. The problem is that Apple could not call it an iBook and justify the price which, at the time, was quite high for what you got, as I recall. Monitor spanning would be enabled on every notebook, not just the "pro" models. The AIO would never have to be crippled with lower processors, graphics cards, and the like. Let every product line cover the spectrum of prices and features and let them live or die based on their own merits. No more iMac! Just give me a Mac. Give me an AIO Mac, or a tower Mac, or a note Mac, or a rack Mac. I believe this will go a long ways toward bringing down some of the switcher barriers. I know it will never happen, but one can hope.
Originally posted by Capt Peacock
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.
The iMac does have internal speakers, but they arent that great.
I think, though, he was talking more like the jellybean iMacs or eMac speakers: two, separated a bit, etc.
Those a little more picky about their sound can buy an iSub to fill it out (as I did with my iMac DV...sounded wonderful in combination with the iMac DV's built-in speakers) OR buy some Creatures, SoundSticks or whatever you want.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
... If a person prepay for upgrades that are not forth coming due to a product hitting the end of its life cycle, they could just apply the subscription to the next model they buy...
... I really believe that the iMac has run its course. We pretend that the iMac has always been around and is synonymous with Apple. It has not and it is not. In fact, I believe that it is time to drop the who "i" line of products altogether. It unnecessarily stigmatizes perfectly good products as being somehow sub-parr.
About a "subscription plan", I'm sorry but that will never fly. Microsoft is not having real good luck with it's "software assurance" extortion plan, and this hardware subscription will not be viewed much better by it's intended target audience.
Besides if you want to "churn" your Macintosh with a new one every year, just set up a lease.
But I am with you in realizing that the whole "i" thing has run it's course. Time to move onto something that will be the ~ NEW MACINTOSH ~ Something completely different and insanely great. / \\
Apple can't.
Yes they can. How do you know they can't?
Strip away the monitor in the eMac. Make a standard case (how's that for reducing costs...) with standard configurations... Realistically price the 17 inch LCD (which, let's face it...is 6 months overdue for a price drop...)
...and you've already got a more flexible system than an iMac entry point.
Bigger screen. Or choose which monitor to go with it. A more configurable and flexible spec list. A consumer can pay for what they want.
You haven't debunked nada. PCs use standard components and have plenty of competition to make sure they're cheaper.
The only stupid thing around here is Apple's insistence on crippled consumer desktops. The achilles heel of AIO designs Apple style. And sales figures bare it out. Most PC customers go in store and see a 'computer'. Apple should make a 'computer' they recognise. With a price, mhz and flexibility and choice they recognise in the x86 equation.
It's Apple's problem to sort. They will keep losing marketshare until they recognise what consumers want from a consumer machine.
200,000 emac/imac2. Pathetic.
200,000ish ibooks? Not good either.
It isn't all down to awareness. Given a choice of two items, the Apple iApps and 'OS' should be the swinging argument. There shouldn't be hurdles of: I have to take this monitor when I already got one, I want to put a better graphics card in it, why can't I? I want a flexible spec and design? Why isn't? Why does this chrome arm cost $300 more? Why can't I use the superior trinitron monitor at home instead of the crap CRT attached to the overpriced eMac? Why is the eMac using a two year old speed bump? Why can't I run my windows apps? Why can't Apple help me become a customer? Why do I have to foot the bill for Mac versions of £500-2000 worth or software?
I'm not a PC customer, but if I was, I can see that my questions aren't being answered by great intrinsic values of Apple's duplicated AIO line...right up £1795 and I still can't get any damn flexiblility. (Chrome Arm not included...)
Instead of overblown design statements like the iMac 2 (and Cube to some degree...) Apple should focus on their OS, their iApps and getting that product out to consumers affordably. I'm not saying we return to beige cases of course. But, some of those cases must be damned expensive and tricky to make. The iMac 2 and the Cube were over the top to some degree. The Cube too small. The iMac 2 way over designed. Guess what? Priced wayyyyyyyyy over what the average consumer is prepared to pay. Once people (quickly in the iMac 2's case) get over the novelty. Once the 'loyal' Mac userbase dries up then sales dive...by 25% here and there over a quarter or two. You can't kid the consumer, Amorph.
The iMac 2 is an overpriced failure. And sales figures back me up. If it's cheaper to make the AIO then how come Apple is $300 dollars beyond the 'sweet spot' pricing of today's average consumer computer?
The iMac 2 AIO is an overpriced and underspecced piece of boutique art. It's a backward step from the Cube in many respects. It aint cheap enough, it aint specced enough and it aint endearing enough. People are voting with their wallets.
Instead of making overpriced plastic with a monitor that I may not need (another 'two piece' saving...) then why not make it easy on themselves. A nice white tower case. Standard consumer tower size. Apple logo on it. Bundle with nice white rimmed studio display.
A standard tower case has got to be wayyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper than the iMac case (hello, expensive chrome arm! Hello limited Pudding shape dome!) or the mountain of white plastic/and bulky crt monitor of the eMac.
Or put it succintly, I agree with you Amorph, a one piece would be alot cheaper than a two piece. Which is why the iMac/eMac should lose their monitor. The 'headless one piece' would be lots cheaper.
Lemon Bon Bon
Your ideas are all too complicated, they expect too much of the user. Apple expects nothing of the user, except to possess an acceptable level of common sense.
I wish Apple designed every appliance and tool I use in my life (and the money required to afford them).
I "understand" lots of things perfectly. I could see - AND appreciate - Apple going either way on this. I see amorph's point and good arguments for the continued AIO approach. And I see and understand other's who feel a more traditional two-piece design is the way to go.
Yeah, Apple is great at making this stuff easy to use.
I get tired of the argument that people are too idiotic to figure out how to connect one damn ADC cable.
BUT...I also get tired of the argument that the iMac - in it's current form - "sucks". It's a bit overpriced and "boutique-y" and out of the reach of most. But, on its own, it doesn't "suck" and it's a beautiful piece of machinery.
But, bottom line: does Apple throw all their eggs into the "dazzle 'em with design and price it out of reach" approach (they're on strike two, counting the G4 Cube) OR go more for "plain Jane box" to get those fence-sitters curious about the Mac and OS X a wonderful incentive to make the leap.
Personally, I hope they'll figure out at way to do a bit of both. I refuse to believe that good, eye-popping design somehow excludes mass appeal affordability. I think we're on the brink of being very impressed...
My only request is that WHATEVER it is, Apple actually go to bat for it and support it with some true, captivating marketing. Otherwise, we'll all gather here next year or so and still be bitching about "3%?!?! STILL? WTF!!!"
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...but if regular, non-Mac geek people (you know, those "switchers" who were oh-so important a year or so ago and STILL get courted and spoken about in Macworld keynotes) don't know it exists, or know anything about it, well then guess what?
Exactly...
"i" stands for crippled. Mac stands for expensive but well designed.
I don't mind paying for expensive but well designed products. I just don't like the idea of paying for crippled, expensive, but well designed products. I remember when the Mac was just the Mac, and every Mac was great. Now we have two separate classes of Macs. In class warfare, the lower class always loses.
If that makes no sense, it is because I have been up all day and I am just getting home from work.
Good night, all.
Originally posted by pscates
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...
Yes, they probably could but just think how many sales of $1799 G5 towers it would cost them. I don't know what the answer (to increasing market share) is, but it's clear Apple doesn't want to sell cheap computers, except to schools. Back in the days of the LCs and Performas, they were bleeding money, big time.
bottom line: does Apple throw all their eggs into the "dazzle 'em with design and price it out of reach" approach (they're on strike two, counting the G4 Cube) OR go more for "plain Jane box" to get those fence-sitters curious about the Mac and OS X a wonderful incentive to make the leap.
Personally, I hope they'll figure out at way to do a bit of both. I refuse to believe that good, eye-popping design somehow excludes mass appeal affordability. I think we're on the brink of being very impressed...
My only request is that WHATEVER it is, Apple actually go to bat for it and support it with some true, captivating marketing. Otherwise, we'll all gather here next year or so and still be bitching about "3%?!?! STILL? WTF!!!"
Apple could come out with a G5-based luscious hunk of iGoodness that everyone here actually agreed on, priced for $699...but if regular, non-Mac geek people (you know, those "switchers" who were oh-so important a year or so ago and STILL get courted and spoken about in Macworld keynotes) don't know it exists, or know anything about it, well then guess what?
Exactly...
A
A good, balanced post.
There's no point marketing if your customers have no where to go.
I think Apple have realised this. And have created a perfect environment to sell the Mac point of view.
This is where the 75 retail stores are a Good Thing! The flagship stores, particularly in Japan and the one in London (yay, we UKers finally get a bit of Apple goodness...I'll visit if it opens in time for Christmas!) should really begin to open up a bit of Apple exposure.
Apple are getting to the point where they can finally put some money into PSCates soapbox issue: marketing. Avertising. On tv. Radio. Getting the message out.
People will finally have somewhere to shop.
Just as exciting is the news that Apple UK have teamed up with the 'Games' retail shops to have a Mac games software selection (featuring the latest and best Mac games have to offer!
It's like the planets are slowly coming into alignment.
I have nothing against, overall, the idea of an AIO. The Cube and iMac 2 are beautiful designs.
However, they both suffered from stagnation. They close down choice and exclude a wider variety of customers who don't want their options closed for them. It's patronising. Customers aren't stupid. They do ask the annoying questions that Apple's consumer line can't answer.
To offer AIOs to the exclusion of a more flexible solution is outrageous. And you don't see Dell, Gateway, Sony or IBM doing that. Guess what, they sell bucket loads more.
I'd like to see Apple offer both. I'd put my Appleinsider credits on the table. Let sales decide. And if Apple sells 150K worth of iMac 2 and 150K worth of iWhite mini tower then Apple sells 300K consumer desktops. More than they are currently.
A standard, pretty Apple white consumer tower design that scales £495-£995 has got to be cheaper than maintaining two very different and limited AIO designs which have expensive components which are difficult to manufacture. Cheaper to include industry standard motherboard designs. One motherboard shape. R&D savings for one design. Money not lost by customers who want something different. Apple already has a line of studio line of monitors that pays for itself. So why pump money into designing eclectic monitor cases for the iMac 2 and the eMac? More money wasted. Money wasted for the customer who doesn't want a 'stuck with it' monitor when it's time to upgrade the machine.
If Apple took a blood bath on cheaper machines years ago then it was because they didn't have their webstore which does half of their business these days. Didn't have this much media exposure. Didn't have 75 retail stores with several flagship international stores in the offing. Didn't have the Pepis and iPod exposure. Didn't have this burgeoning mind-share in the media/consumer...
They need one or two more consumer products that meet different needs with prices closer to their x86 components...for when the Wintel Switcher foot patrol really starts to take off...otherwise...they'll walk into those Apple stores...and out again. If they can make G5 towers competitive with high end Dell towers...if they can out price Dell/IBM on X-Serve/X-Raid pricing and licensing then there's something very clearly wrong with Apple's consumer line. Following current trends, Apple should be selling 300K imacs and 400-500K ibooks...so, what's wrong?
Lemon Bon Bon
From Lemon Bon Bon:
I have nothing against, overall, the idea of an AIO. The Cube and iMac 2 are beautiful designs.
However, they both suffered from stagnation. They close down choice and exclude a wider variety of customers who don't want their options closed for them. It's patronising. Customers aren't stupid. They do ask the annoying questions that Apple's consumer line can't answer.
To offer AIOs to the exclusion of a more flexible solution is outrageous. And you don't see Dell, Gateway, Sony or IBM doing that. Guess what, they sell bucket loads more.
I'd like to see Apple offer both. I'd put my Appleinsider credits on the table. Let sales decide. And if Apple sells 150K worth of iMac 2 and 150K worth of iWhite mini tower then Apple sells 300K consumer desktops. More than they are currently.
Well that sums up my viewpoint pretty well. I happen to think the iMac2 is a magnificent design. However, I'd only be tempted to buy one if it were (a) cutting edge in performance and/or (b) very cost effective, because that's the only way I'd be willing to overlook the inherent problem of investing in an expensive FP monitor that I'll have to ditch along with the computer when I upgrade. Right now it is neither.
Keep a beautiful AIO in the product line; there are always some who will want it, and it makes a great showpiece for Apple design. But offer at least one more traditional form factor for the masses who want that flexibility. I don't see how Apple wouldn't come out ahead.
I think the real argument would come down to the details of the headless solution. A true headless iMac (read: completely non-expandable) would still leave a lot of people clamoring for something with at least an upgradeable video card. In contrast, a mini-tower with any expandability at all would likely be priced (given Apple's history) too high to really fill in the low end that many people want.
Let's face it, Apple could really use *two* additional non-AIO machines: super low-end, non-expandable, *cheap*. Sort of a headless eMac. And a mini-tower, with reduced expandability and capability relative to the PowerMac, but at least a few hundred cheaper than the low-end PowerMac. But now I'm really in fantasyland....
Widescreen 17"s would sell like hotcakes, not only to iMacs and eMacs, but to Tower owners who can't aford a 20" but want an Apple monitor. They would get powerbook and iBook people buying those monitors.
In short it would be a great way to move more product, while reducing the price of the iMac and eMac.
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
Originally posted by tak1108
If Apple were to remove the LCD and maybe the CRT from their AIOs they would then open up a market for a line of monitors they currently don't have.
Widescreen 17"s would sell like hotcakes, not only to iMacs and eMacs, but to Tower owners who can't aford a 20" but want an Apple monitor. They would get powerbook and iBook people buying those monitors.
In short it would be a great way to move more product, while reducing the price of the iMac and eMac.
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
Yes, Yes, Yes, I want another screen on my little desk so when me and my PB 15" are home, we can span two monitors and do are work in comfort. But I do not want to buy an expensive adaptor to hook it up. Give us a choice. I only have 8" of depth to play with on my desk. It has to be a flat panel.
Either in PowerBook-matching aluminum OR glossy white. I don't care. I'd buy it and more than double my desktop space while at home (e-mail, iChat, Safari, etc. on PowerBook screen...Adobe crap on 17" wide).
Originally posted by tak1108
Widescreen 17" for $299 would sell like hotcakes. Even $399 they would sell like mad.
I have to snicker sometimes at the dreams some of you have. If a new Apple widescreen 17" display is going to become available, it might be one or two hundred dollars less than the current 17" Studio, but not $300-400 less. Keep dreaming though. It's fun, isn't it?
People just want the computer, then they buy a display. PC users are USED to buying the 2 seperately. PC users only think of laptops as AIO's. Selling a a well designed, low cost computer (minus the display) caters to PC mentality and everyone elses financial well being.
This does not mean Apple should pack its bag with the iMac concept, but instead offer a way to drop in the "chrome arm display.'' If that is possible, then all of the bases are covered. More options dont always equal more confusion. More options would equal more sales in this instance.
Apple is famous for being able to offer the best pre-packaged solution in an AIO enclosure. This time they can offer that solution yet they wont have to be FORCING that solution. Not surprisingly, people only pay a little bit more money if they get A LOT more benefit.
In this case, Apple's premium is too much for what it gets you. Apple can still charge people those above prices for the iMac, but I think to do that they would need to bundle an iPod mini with them. THAT is how overpriced iMacs are right now.
Moral of the story: For those prices our money needs to get us more, whether it be specs, expansion, or a device like the iPod. If Apple refuses to drop the AIO then those seem to be a possible way out of having to.
Come down in price Apple, come up in specs, (macminutes G5 news may prove that this could happen as soon as next week) or re-do your product line and strategy surrounding it. Right now the current solution is not solving anyones problems, it is causing them.
I think the real argument would come down to the details of the headless solution. A true headless iMac (read: completely non-expandable) would still leave a lot of people clamoring for something with at least an upgradeable video card. In contrast, a mini-tower with any expandability at all would likely be priced (given Apple's history) too high to really fill in the low end that many people want.
Let's face it, Apple could really use *two* additional non-AIO machines: super low-end, non-expandable, *cheap*. Sort of a headless eMac. And a mini-tower, with reduced expandability and capability relative to the PowerMac, but at least a few hundred cheaper than the low-end PowerMac. But now I'm really in fantasyland....
I agreed with your post. There is room for a mini-tower design that scales the 'cheap' to the 'I don't need a shredded wheat giant size' tower of the G5.
I'm not saying AIOs should be canned but rather if Apple can offer to lines of AIOs, there's alot of overlap there...why not two ranges of consumer tower that cover what PC users and many Mac users would like without having to fork out £1395 just to get a low end tower. It's absurd.
Anyhow. I'm sure we'll know one way or another in the next 3 months.
Lemon Bon Bon
As for the monitor issue.
It's about time Apple offered two low-end studio models.
Widescreen 15 and 17 inch models which could be bundled with a headless iMac/eMac/mini-tower.
Prices £195-£350 tops.
'bout time brought some more choice and sanity to their Studio line. 3 sizes aint enough. 4 models would be better. Two high end. Two low end.
'nuff said.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
15'', 17'' and 20'' should not mean you have to pay $1299, $1799, and $2199!
People just want the computer, then they buy a display. PC users are USED to buying the 2 seperately. PC users only think of laptops as AIO's. Selling a a well designed, low cost computer (minus the display) caters to PC mentality and everyone elses financial well being.
This does not mean Apple should pack its bag with the iMac concept, but instead offer a way to drop in the "chrome arm display.'' If that is possible, then all of the bases are covered. More options dont always equal more confusion. More options would equal more sales in this instance.
Apple is famous for being able to offer the best pre-packaged solution in an AIO enclosure. This time they can offer that solution yet they wont have to be FORCING that solution. Not surprisingly, people only pay a little bit more money if they get A LOT more benefit.
In this case, Apple's premium is too much for what it gets you. Apple can still charge people those above prices for the iMac, but I think to do that they would need to bundle an iPod mini with them. THAT is how overpriced iMacs are right now.
Moral of the story: For those prices our money needs to get us more, whether it be specs, expansion, or a device like the iPod. If Apple refuses to drop the AIO then those seem to be a possible way out of having to.
Come down in price Apple, come up in specs, (macminutes G5 news may prove that this could happen as soon as next week) or re-do your product line and strategy surrounding it. Right now the current solution is not solving anyones problems, it is causing them.
As has been said here, I think the best solution is to offer a modular machine that can have the capability of being set up as an AIO or as two separate pieces. The ADC connector brings AIO functionality to the monitor, although I think an update to that connector so it can provide power, USB 2.0, and FW400/800 would be good. This would mean Apple displays would have to function in just one enclosure instead of several. Granted, the enclosure would vary in size depending on screen size, but Apple would not need different enclosures for the Cinema displays and the iMac.
I also think it best to eliminate the eMac altogether. The new iMac or iBox would have the capability of becoming an AIO, but you could also attach a different screen to it. Standard VGA adapters should still be allowed to cater to the schools and CRTs for the time being. Schools don't need AIO. They buy the little Dells by the bundle. The key here is to make a better looking, better quality machine that has front access and can be used with older monitors, etc.
An iMac/iBox should probably come in three configurations. Low-end G5 and high end G4, possibly offering dual processor capability on the G4 end. They should have some expandability. The major thing to think about is easy access for processor upgrades and the ability to upgrade video. I also think the machine should be able to accept up to 2GB of RAM.
It would save money if Apple can narrow down its product line and make it more versatile. You have two in the Power lineup (PowerMac and PowerBook), eaching offering 3 to 4 different stock configurations. You also end up with two in the iLineup (iMac/iBox, iBook), also offering 3 to 4 different stock configs.
I'd also start all Macs off at 512MB in RAM. It's not a very expensive jump from 256 for a manufacturer like Apple. We also should expect Macs to cost a bit more than PCs, but it shouldn't be overwhelming. I also think a small, flexible enclosure should cost less than what the current iMac enclosure does and could still be of good quality and have innovative design.