I do believe that Apple needs a low cost machine that can effectively be marketed around $500. That would be for a base machine with atleast 512MB of RAM. The only key element for the low cost machine is that it needs to be able to support graphics card upgrades, with via AGP port or its follow on. This could be a cube or a pizza box format like the old LC machines. The issue is, And I do hope that Apple and Steve hear this, that they not screw up with respect to performance. To that end the machine should hit at least 2GHz with a 970 class processor. Actually a little faster wouldn't hurt.
Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?
Ok, I went to my favorite thinking place today and came away from there with a few things.
To sell the iMac there needs to be a commercial about iLife. To me that is a no brainer, it would give people at least minor insight into what is different about a Mac. If a commercial showed people editing vacation video in iMovie, iPhoto slideshows, iDVD, and downloading a song from iTMS for the slideshow; then that might drive home SOMETHING to people. Then dont mention computer cost at the end of the commercial, just "iLife from Apple for $49."
How will this sell an iMac? When people go into an Apple store they will be looking for the lowest cost machine to run iLife with. Give them that machine in the form of a new iMac. But what will be different and what will Apple be able to do to sell a lower cost yet target market hitting iMac?
iMac target market: Everyone but the pro's and hardcore PC geeks.
iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.
Model 1-$799
Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive
Model 2-$1199
Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.
The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.
This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.
I would not have wasted my time otherwise. This is exactly what Apple needs, a low cost machine in the $500 ballpark.
Frankly I don't care if it is a 64 bit 970 based machine or a 32 bit machine. To be competitive they need more processing power now, 2GHx would be a good starting point. With the debut of the 970FX 2GHz is nothing. I would not be surprised if that processor is running at 3GHz today.
What would you have Apple do otherwise. They could come out with 1.2GHz G4 that can't compete with three year old processors from the other side of the PC world. We already know how these perform in the IMacs won't get any better in a $500 dollar machine.
The price is not an unrealistic expectation. The scope of the machine owuld be obviously limited, so a great deal of functionality in the current Towers can be done away with. All you are really talking about is a processor, a bridge-I/O chip, a graphics card and some memory. It would not be impossible for Apple to have IBM deliver an entire MAC on an IC, so you might be talking about just a graphicx card, memory and some buffering for the entire logic board beyond the SOC.
It is a question of competeing. Steve has so much as admitted to the need to expand market share, the low end is a reasonable place to do that. The big if or course is to maintain margins. That can be done by maintaining the scope of the machine within certain bounds and through the use of high integration.
Lets face it Apple has an excellent machine in the G5 Tower to address the medium to medium high end markets. But we mus also admit that those machines will not attrack everyone. The primary resistance will be the $$$$$$ to be expended for a PowerMac. Apple jus tneeds to round out its lines a bit at both the high and low ends. Currently they have nothing to full fill demands in either of those areas.
By the way the G5 XServe is an awsome unit, but the lack of video expansion capability removes it from being considered for or as a replacement for the PowerMac.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?
Snipped a bit there but you do realize that slow processors are one of Apples issues that it is trying to over come. Further many school districts actually have intelligent people running them, they are not about to spend tax payer money on obsolete equipment. This is, at this moment in time, as big an issue with the educaiton market as is the lack of software.
Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.
This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.
The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.
When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.
All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
Apple never lost money buy trying to compete at the low end and frankly I don't expect them to change their margins one bit. People far over estimate what it would actually cost to make one of these low cost machines. They can have it all, that is a low cost machine that still provides them with a tidy profit.
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
The artificial spread between the low cost line and the PowerMacs, that many are so wrapped up in, is a major marketing problem and one of the reasons Apple has so much trouble with its current line up. People don't want these barriers, generated by a marketing department, in place. They wan reasonably good value for their money. There is no reason to restrict CPU performance on the low end, in a nut shell this is the number one thing that people buy when they buy a PC. Don't believe me though as the proof is in Apples sales. Do you really think that the iMac's sales would be as bad as they are if the machine ran at a reasonable clip. It is not strickly a MHz issue, Apple could achieve speed ups in other ways, its just a matter of a machine that is responsive consideirng its price point.
Thanks
Dave
I don't see the IMac leaving the line up either, but it is not likely to ever be the basis for the low cost line. The low cost line needs a cheap, designed for assembly, plastic box. This machine literally needs to be designed for mass production. The idea is to get the cost to Apple well below $350, which should be very doable.
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.
The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.
When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.
All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
Sales of high-end Macs would tank if your hoped-for $500 model was available at similar speeds. (Why would anyone buy a Porche if the same thing was available at Yugo prices?) Apple might sell twice as many computers and only make a third as much money.
Honestly, every post after mine was not thought through very well and is full of holes. Let me disect...
Snipped a bit there but you do realize that slow processors are one of Apples issues that it is trying to over come. Further many school districts actually have intelligent people running them, they are not about to spend tax payer money on obsolete equipment. This is, at this moment in time, as big an issue with the educaiton market as is the lack of software.
Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.
Dave
The myth is that education needs anything more than a 500 dollar PC. Education PC's are primarily used for internet research and word processing. Some schools have 3D design, photo arts, film and CAD programs, those rooms usually get PowerMacs or PC's costing well over 1k each.
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.
Apple sells a $700 dollar eMac, coming downin price by $200 more is feasable, if they cut back the form factor and HD space. Competing in the low end of the market doesnt mean you have to lose money. If you have ANY profit margin on the product that covers the R&D, marketing costs, and distribution rates; then there is no reason not to compete. If, after a certian number of units sold, Apple starts to turn a profit on the product, it is worth carving that low end niche out.
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
Not true, Apple would be dumb to introduce a 1.2 Ghz machine that sold for $1500. If they introduced a low cost, low spec PC, built for classic education uses...IT WOULD SELL. There is no doubt about it that Apple has all the necessary software for education, the hardware is amazingly capable of being used in such an environement, but the cost for it is too high. Right now, Apple's education issue is price and not performance.
And interestingly enough, nobody has been able to shoot down my iMac speculation. It seems reasonable to me too...
iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.
Model 1-$799
Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive
Model 2-$1199
Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.
I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.
I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.
No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."
I think you're right. Apple's sales show people are voting with their wallets.
I think Apple can compete in the low end. How 'low' is open to debate. But clearly they can. If you take the monitor off the eMac you have your £500 machine. I don't see a problem with sticking a single G5 2 gig in it. Obviously it will be limited in ways that the PowerMac G5 expands on. Apple are obviously making a profit on the eMac or they wouldn't be making one.
Just like you get in the PC market. You can get PC towers with 3 gig cpus that are mega cheap but they skimp by having low end cards or integrated graphics to get the price down. Clearly there are expensive PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them and low end PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them.
I think Apple should get all the single G5s below the £1K mark and have the high single mhz and three dual mhz PowerMac G5 towers above the 1K mark.
Maybe if Apple has a system on a chip with only upgradeable memory and graphics then perhaps they can drive the consumer generation of G5s down in price to stimulate growth.
If I could get a £495 G5 2 gig with integrated graphics tomorrow. I'd take it. That's the kind of machine which will get those disenfranchised M$ users to go 'Sod it...I'll give Apple a try for my next computer...' ie it's cheap enough not to loose sleep over...
No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."
Good points. I hope you're right on that last one. I believe though, that Apple will continue to make an all-in-one computer with a LCD display; that it won't be super cheap and it will be called iMac. I could always be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.
Once we see what Apple comes up with, as pscates and I always do, we'll drop our jaws to the floor and say, "Oh shit, of course!"
But then after the shock of the seemingly, "theres no way this wont get everyone to buy a Mac" announcement dies down, there wont be any good ads touting it. Hopefully our desires are met, and PC users buy too. That would be the best solution of all.
All this talk is interesting, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot without knowing a few things like:
A. What does Apple (Jobs) know that we don't about their market and where they want to go.
B. Is Apple/Jobs really clueless about what consumers want, or think they want, from a computer spec and price stand point?
The point I'm trying to make is how can we see the "truth" so clearly but Apple can't? Are they doomed in the long run? Apple has never been a hardware spec company especially with Jobs. The PCs push hardware specs/price because they have nothing else to push. Apple on the other hand pushes their OS and more recently "value added software" i.e. iLife. I'm not saying they shouldn't lower their prices or give better hardware specs. I really wish they would. It's just that Apple never has and it seems counter to how Apple views themselves and their role. I guess if Apple wanted a lower priced box they would have done it before now. On the consumer end at least Apple values design and software more than raw specs.
Comments
Originally posted by wizard69
I do believe that Apple needs a low cost machine that can effectively be marketed around $500. That would be for a base machine with atleast 512MB of RAM. The only key element for the low cost machine is that it needs to be able to support graphics card upgrades, with via AGP port or its follow on. This could be a cube or a pizza box format like the old LC machines. The issue is, And I do hope that Apple and Steve hear this, that they not screw up with respect to performance. To that end the machine should hit at least 2GHz with a 970 class processor. Actually a little faster wouldn't hurt.
Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?
To sell the iMac there needs to be a commercial about iLife. To me that is a no brainer, it would give people at least minor insight into what is different about a Mac. If a commercial showed people editing vacation video in iMovie, iPhoto slideshows, iDVD, and downloading a song from iTMS for the slideshow; then that might drive home SOMETHING to people. Then dont mention computer cost at the end of the commercial, just "iLife from Apple for $49."
How will this sell an iMac? When people go into an Apple store they will be looking for the lowest cost machine to run iLife with. Give them that machine in the form of a new iMac. But what will be different and what will Apple be able to do to sell a lower cost yet target market hitting iMac?
iMac target market: Everyone but the pro's and hardcore PC geeks.
iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.
Model 1-$799
Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive
Model 2-$1199
Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.
The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.
This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.
I think this would work.
Originally posted by pscates
ShawnPatrick, defender of women and the downtrodden, ain't gonna dig that "homeless" remark. Watch your butt.
That comment is just a precursor to my idea for an iSteamvent. Climate controls for the summer and winter times. Genius.
Frankly I don't care if it is a 64 bit 970 based machine or a 32 bit machine. To be competitive they need more processing power now, 2GHx would be a good starting point. With the debut of the 970FX 2GHz is nothing. I would not be surprised if that processor is running at 3GHz today.
What would you have Apple do otherwise. They could come out with 1.2GHz G4 that can't compete with three year old processors from the other side of the PC world. We already know how these perform in the IMacs won't get any better in a $500 dollar machine.
The price is not an unrealistic expectation. The scope of the machine owuld be obviously limited, so a great deal of functionality in the current Towers can be done away with. All you are really talking about is a processor, a bridge-I/O chip, a graphics card and some memory. It would not be impossible for Apple to have IBM deliver an entire MAC on an IC, so you might be talking about just a graphicx card, memory and some buffering for the entire logic board beyond the SOC.
It is a question of competeing. Steve has so much as admitted to the need to expand market share, the low end is a reasonable place to do that. The big if or course is to maintain margins. That can be done by maintaining the scope of the machine within certain bounds and through the use of high integration.
Lets face it Apple has an excellent machine in the G5 Tower to address the medium to medium high end markets. But we mus also admit that those machines will not attrack everyone. The primary resistance will be the $$$$$$ to be expended for a PowerMac. Apple jus tneeds to round out its lines a bit at both the high and low ends. Currently they have nothing to full fill demands in either of those areas.
By the way the G5 XServe is an awsome unit, but the lack of video expansion capability removes it from being considered for or as a replacement for the PowerMac.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by iDave
Are you joking? That's the fastest processor currently used in the high end PowerMacs and you expect one for $500?
Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.
Dave
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
The eMac: Turned into an ultra-cheap computer, almost like the original iMac in design. Make it a 15 CRT, and give it a slow processor marketing it mainly for education or the homeless. We're talking $499 at the very most. And for God's sake, lose 20 LBS.
This would take back the education market in a big way and give consumers an iMac that goes back to its roots (which in my mind is power at a good price and simplicity, a computer capable of running the latest software and OS--AIO is not necessarily a must for the iMac). A low cost computer for education, and low cost iMac Cubes that deliver power but at a reasonable price. Maybe then Apple could also manufacture a lower cost 15'', 17'', and 20'' LCD to compliment the iMac.
I think this would work.
The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.
When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.
All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
The artificial spread between the low cost line and the PowerMacs, that many are so wrapped up in, is a major marketing problem and one of the reasons Apple has so much trouble with its current line up. People don't want these barriers, generated by a marketing department, in place. They wan reasonably good value for their money. There is no reason to restrict CPU performance on the low end, in a nut shell this is the number one thing that people buy when they buy a PC. Don't believe me though as the proof is in Apples sales. Do you really think that the iMac's sales would be as bad as they are if the machine ran at a reasonable clip. It is not strickly a MHz issue, Apple could achieve speed ups in other ways, its just a matter of a machine that is responsive consideirng its price point.
Thanks
Dave
I don't see the IMac leaving the line up either, but it is not likely to ever be the basis for the low cost line. The low cost line needs a cheap, designed for assembly, plastic box. This machine literally needs to be designed for mass production. The idea is to get the cost to Apple well below $350, which should be very doable.
Originally posted by iDave
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.
The iMac will likely always be an all-in-one. It would be nice to see a model this year at $999. Again, if that happens, a new lower priced iMac would likely start at 1.2 Ghz and would be non-expandable except for memory.
When PowerMacs are all above 2.5 Ghz and PowerBooks are above 2.0 Ghz, we might start to see consumer models approach 2.0 Ghz but not before.
All this is just my opinion, but I think it's based in reality more than some of the dreams I've read about here.
Originally posted by wizard69
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
Sales of high-end Macs would tank if your hoped-for $500 model was available at similar speeds. (Why would anyone buy a Porche if the same thing was available at Yugo prices?) Apple might sell twice as many computers and only make a third as much money.
Snipped a bit there but you do realize that slow processors are one of Apples issues that it is trying to over come. Further many school districts actually have intelligent people running them, they are not about to spend tax payer money on obsolete equipment. This is, at this moment in time, as big an issue with the educaiton market as is the lack of software.
Apple needs low cost hardware that puts it out in front of the materials being delivered by the I86 world. An IMac that cost 4 or 5 times the price of an equivalent PC is just not going to cut the mustard.
Dave
The myth is that education needs anything more than a 500 dollar PC. Education PC's are primarily used for internet research and word processing. Some schools have 3D design, photo arts, film and CAD programs, those rooms usually get PowerMacs or PC's costing well over 1k each.
Apple cannot and will not try to compete with low-end $500 PCs. If they did, they'd start losing money (again). The best (I think) we can ever hope to see would be a completely non-expandable (not even the GPU) headless Mac in the $599 range. If introduced this year at that price, it would probably start out at about 1.2 Ghz. I doubt that will ever come to pass but if it does, the computer won't be called an iMac.
Apple sells a $700 dollar eMac, coming downin price by $200 more is feasable, if they cut back the form factor and HD space. Competing in the low end of the market doesnt mean you have to lose money. If you have ANY profit margin on the product that covers the R&D, marketing costs, and distribution rates; then there is no reason not to compete. If, after a certian number of units sold, Apple starts to turn a profit on the product, it is worth carving that low end niche out.
Apple would be absolutely stupid to introduce another computer running at 1.2 GHz. It wouldn't make any differrence if it was a laptop, desktop or something else. Apple is so far behind the performance curve they have to address this by almost duobling the processor speed at the low end. If they don't the machines will sell no better than the current low cost machines.
Not true, Apple would be dumb to introduce a 1.2 Ghz machine that sold for $1500. If they introduced a low cost, low spec PC, built for classic education uses...IT WOULD SELL. There is no doubt about it that Apple has all the necessary software for education, the hardware is amazingly capable of being used in such an environement, but the cost for it is too high. Right now, Apple's education issue is price and not performance.
And interestingly enough, nobody has been able to shoot down my iMac speculation. It seems reasonable to me too...
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
iMac pricepoint: Two models, one at $799. The second at $1199.
Model 1-$799
Fast G4 processor
60 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive
Model 2-$1199
Single processor G5
80 GB HD
512 RAM
No display
Cube Shaped
Combo Drive standard with Superdrive as a BTO for $99 more.
I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.
Originally posted by iDave
I think this could be a very reasonable possibility but they wouldn't be called iMacs. I think the iMac will remain an all-in-one like the original Macintosh. The computers about which you speculate (if they materialize) would likely run at about 1.2 to 1.3 Ghz so as not to ruin high-end sales.
No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."
Intelligently and realistically rendered posts.
I think you're right. Apple's sales show people are voting with their wallets.
I think Apple can compete in the low end. How 'low' is open to debate. But clearly they can. If you take the monitor off the eMac you have your £500 machine. I don't see a problem with sticking a single G5 2 gig in it. Obviously it will be limited in ways that the PowerMac G5 expands on. Apple are obviously making a profit on the eMac or they wouldn't be making one.
Just like you get in the PC market. You can get PC towers with 3 gig cpus that are mega cheap but they skimp by having low end cards or integrated graphics to get the price down. Clearly there are expensive PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them and low end PCs that have the latest 3 gig cpu in them.
I think Apple should get all the single G5s below the £1K mark and have the high single mhz and three dual mhz PowerMac G5 towers above the 1K mark.
Maybe if Apple has a system on a chip with only upgradeable memory and graphics then perhaps they can drive the consumer generation of G5s down in price to stimulate growth.
If I could get a £495 G5 2 gig with integrated graphics tomorrow. I'd take it. That's the kind of machine which will get those disenfranchised M$ users to go 'Sod it...I'll give Apple a try for my next computer...' ie it's cheap enough not to loose sleep over...
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple should have 2 gig processors in their low end line up NOW! Should have had them last year if we'd have kept pace with x86 land.
Apple need to get ahead of the curve. Their consumer line is two years off the pace...on cpu and price.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
No, Apple has to redefine the iMac. iMac doesnt have to mean AIO. It wouldnt confuse customers, because nobody is buying iMac's anyway. And they wouldnt ruin high end sales because the high end is about to see a very large boost itself. A 1.6 Ghz Single G5 in a $1199 cube wouldnt impede on a $1799 dual 1.8 or whatever the tower gets on the "low end."
Good points. I hope you're right on that last one. I believe though, that Apple will continue to make an all-in-one computer with a LCD display; that it won't be super cheap and it will be called iMac. I could always be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.
Once we see what Apple comes up with, as pscates and I always do, we'll drop our jaws to the floor and say, "Oh shit, of course!"
But then after the shock of the seemingly, "theres no way this wont get everyone to buy a Mac" announcement dies down, there wont be any good ads touting it.
Would you please read Amorphs post about costs and prices?
Thank you!
Originally posted by Matsu
Amorph works for Apple ...
The economical consideratoins of his post become not untrue by that.
Back to iMac Future:
Put a 970FX @ 2GHz and an ATI 9600 AiW in it and everything would be fine. The specs would justify the price and it would be a real All-in-One.
But I think the next iMac will be a complete new maschine. As the G5 a more "industrial" design but still cute for a high WAF
A. What does Apple (Jobs) know that we don't about their market and where they want to go.
B. Is Apple/Jobs really clueless about what consumers want, or think they want, from a computer spec and price stand point?
The point I'm trying to make is how can we see the "truth" so clearly but Apple can't? Are they doomed in the long run? Apple has never been a hardware spec company especially with Jobs. The PCs push hardware specs/price because they have nothing else to push. Apple on the other hand pushes their OS and more recently "value added software" i.e. iLife. I'm not saying they shouldn't lower their prices or give better hardware specs. I really wish they would. It's just that Apple never has and it seems counter to how Apple views themselves and their role. I guess if Apple wanted a lower priced box they would have done it before now. On the consumer end at least Apple values design and software more than raw specs.