I think that the eMac was really not supposed to grab sales too much, not in comparison to the LCD iMac (which I am sitting in front of right now). There's no way that Apple would let, or intended for, the eMac to compete with the new iMac in sales, this soon after it's introduction. Either way, I'm sure the eMac is a good machine (hell, it's a mac), but my money's with the iMac. Literally.
The thing about the iMac with a superdrive is that people will be using the DVDs not only for home use, but for business use as well. Being able to film my boss, edit it in with titles and transitions, dump a premade video presintation on it and burn it is great. I can easily give a presentation to people several hundred miles away and still have it be personal. Oh and it's great for home movies too.
It should come as a surprise to no one who is less than absurdly wealthy that the G4 iMac isn't doing too well. It's expensive and some of its features are utterly pointless for the average user. I personally consider eMac my salvation. No, I'm not thrilled with the size and weight, but I don't buy Macs for the form factor, I buy them *because of Mac OS*. As long as it'll run OS X well, then great. Of course, it would be nice if Apple made the Combo drive an option for eMac, but I guess I have to get used to them planfully pushing the medium and high-end at the expense of the affordable systems.
The difference in price here in Canada is $550 Canadian at the low end, with the same processor, RAM, CD-RW, etc. I'd have to be nuts (or wealthy, which I'm not) to pay that much extra for a nifty form factor and an LCD screen *that I can never use again*. Frankly, I wish Apple had moved more towards the Cube-type microtower than the all-in-one, so we could all decide what kind of monitor we wanted as a separate decision, and keep it when we upgrade systems. Part of the reason I'm still using my Rev 'A' iMac while my PC friends have upgraded or in some case entirely replaced their systems two or more times since is that I need to buy *everything* all over again while they just get a new chipset, RAM and video card. I've been understandably anxious to get the best value for the dollar, since I can only spend that kind of money every 2.5 to 3.5 years, and Apple won't let me do it incrementally unless I pony up the $2550 to $6550 for a G4 tower and *then* buy my own display.
I almost bought the G4 iMac the day it was released, probably would have on sheer hype alone but fortunately I waited. One lesson for those of us who bought early iMacs (and Cubes too, I understand) is that sometimes Apple will just leave you floating in the wind. Believe it or not, they promised that my Rev. 'A' would run OS X when it came out. They also said it would come in the next year (this was what, 1999?). I got stuck with the one iMac that had a Rage IIc (read useless) video chipset and having to find and pay for Powerbook RAM.
Unless there is a huge price drop on the LCD iMac, and a real reason to buy, I'm gonna get the eMac as soon as the 2nd revision is available. I don't pay half-a-grand extra for outside looks, I pay extra for Mac OS. And frankly, if they do something stupid like cancel eMac or raise prices again I will probably have to eat my pride and buy a PC.
Wow. That was long for an early post. Trust a lurker to let out all that pent up stuff all at once.
<strong>It's too early for an "I told you so," but......
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Easy there Nostradamus, but I hardly think this story calls for a "told ya so" comment. If you would take the time to read the whole thing, and between the lines you would have seen the comment, and I quote
"Other PC makers in the consumer market are facing difficult times as well."
I don't the Apple has yet sold enough eMac's to cripple the PC market, but then again...I could be reading that wrong. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"4. Companies that realize the Power Savings of the more efficient LCD iMac"
I wish I could agree. My instinct said you were right, but an eMac uses only 40W more than an iMac. Assuming eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year, that's 80 kwh more. In Massachussets, electricity costs $0.056 per kwh. An iMac therefore saves only about $4.50 a year. That hardly justifies a $300 price difference. Maybe in California...
On the other hand, the iMac might justify itself in savings on treatment for stress injuries. In fact, forget savings. The spinal health of workers is priceless. Chiropractors say the most important element in preventing workplace spinal stress is to change working positions at least once an hour, and optimally four times. Try that with a CRT.
As for the article about slow sales, everybody knew they were coming. When Intels sluggish CISC chips hit 400 MHz, many articles pointed out that if one installed only the standard applications that home-users want on a clean copy of Windows 98, there was absolutely no reason to ever upgrade again. PC makers were in a panic. Microsoft helped them out, of course. Windows 98 SE and Windows ME were released as a deliberate unnecessary stopgap measures, occupying more and more of the computer's resources with extra APIs nobody needed. Windows XP raised the bar so high it's surprising PC makers have the audacity to bundle it. My relatives work with 2GHz machines that are less responsive than the ones they used five years ago.
Moreover, for four years PC gamers also bought the newest video cards every five months and new PCs to use them. Games rose from a niche industry to gross more than the film theatre industry. That's correct: more is now spent on games than on going out to the movies.
Meanwhile, Apple introduced completely new uses for a computer that both took more processing power, like digital video and real-time PDF rendering. Fantastic new hardware like the iMac, USB, AirPorts, and FireWire convinced Mac users who hadn't upgraded for many years to buy all-new equipment, especially peripherals. Apple maxed out the buying power of its 5% share.
Now, however, things aren't so rosy. Microsoft doesn't really know what to add to a new version of Windows. Consumers have gotten pretty comfortable with how fast Wintel boxes go, an unintended ill side-effect of artifically holding that speed back. Home users just aren't chomping a the bit anymore.
PC gamers have gotten fed up with paying thousands of dollars a year to play Quake III a little faster, and indeed many of them have taken on enough debt doing so that they can't afford that habit anymore. For these players the current consoles seem like an escape, costing only a few hundred bucks and offering rock-hard framerates on standard equipment. Soon that will change as the consoles age and the PCs outpace them, but for now the money is in console gaming.
So PC sales are down, and many Apple users are ready to settle in with the equipment they've just purchased for another seven years. Don't forget, we're the group some of whom are still using pre-PPC computers to actually get our work done. We may be 5% of the overall market, but we're almost 100% of the market still using microcomputers from 1986.
So, as I say, the industry feared this would happen four years ago, and it finally has. This doesn't necessarily spell the end of PCs or the Macintosh, though. It's just an interaction of a set of trends. What companies need to survive now is new types of equipment, and new applications of computing. Fortunately for us, that's exactly what Apple is good at.
-A little verification on the gaming trends. I no longer have links to the E3 reports that games are bigger than movies and music, second only to home sales and rentals of films, but this article says "rivals," which is good enough.
Comments
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Crusader ]</p>
eMac is to iMac what PC is to Mac. Okay, that's a little unfair since they both have Mac OS, but even so.
The eMac will certainly find its market. It's market is not the same as the iMac's though.
It's too early for an "I told you so," but......
There is no Jet Powers
The difference in price here in Canada is $550 Canadian at the low end, with the same processor, RAM, CD-RW, etc. I'd have to be nuts (or wealthy, which I'm not) to pay that much extra for a nifty form factor and an LCD screen *that I can never use again*. Frankly, I wish Apple had moved more towards the Cube-type microtower than the all-in-one, so we could all decide what kind of monitor we wanted as a separate decision, and keep it when we upgrade systems. Part of the reason I'm still using my Rev 'A' iMac while my PC friends have upgraded or in some case entirely replaced their systems two or more times since is that I need to buy *everything* all over again while they just get a new chipset, RAM and video card. I've been understandably anxious to get the best value for the dollar, since I can only spend that kind of money every 2.5 to 3.5 years, and Apple won't let me do it incrementally unless I pony up the $2550 to $6550 for a G4 tower and *then* buy my own display.
I almost bought the G4 iMac the day it was released, probably would have on sheer hype alone but fortunately I waited. One lesson for those of us who bought early iMacs (and Cubes too, I understand) is that sometimes Apple will just leave you floating in the wind. Believe it or not, they promised that my Rev. 'A' would run OS X when it came out. They also said it would come in the next year (this was what, 1999?). I got stuck with the one iMac that had a Rage IIc (read useless) video chipset and having to find and pay for Powerbook RAM.
Unless there is a huge price drop on the LCD iMac, and a real reason to buy, I'm gonna get the eMac as soon as the 2nd revision is available. I don't pay half-a-grand extra for outside looks, I pay extra for Mac OS. And frankly, if they do something stupid like cancel eMac or raise prices again I will probably have to eat my pride and buy a PC.
Wow. That was long for an early post. Trust a lurker to let out all that pent up stuff all at once.
there IS a combo drive eMac g4 in the .edu section. If you aren't a student or teacher, I'll bet you know someone who is.
It's not like Apple looks into this, anyway.
Good luck!
ting5
<strong>It's too early for an "I told you so," but......
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Easy there Nostradamus, but I hardly think this story calls for a "told ya so" comment. If you would take the time to read the whole thing, and between the lines you would have seen the comment, and I quote
"Other PC makers in the consumer market are facing difficult times as well."
I don't the Apple has yet sold enough eMac's to cripple the PC market, but then again...I could be reading that wrong. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I wish I could agree. My instinct said you were right, but an eMac uses only 40W more than an iMac. Assuming eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year, that's 80 kwh more. In Massachussets, electricity costs $0.056 per kwh. An iMac therefore saves only about $4.50 a year. That hardly justifies a $300 price difference. Maybe in California...
On the other hand, the iMac might justify itself in savings on treatment for stress injuries. In fact, forget savings. The spinal health of workers is priceless. Chiropractors say the most important element in preventing workplace spinal stress is to change working positions at least once an hour, and optimally four times. Try that with a CRT.
Moreover, for four years PC gamers also bought the newest video cards every five months and new PCs to use them. Games rose from a niche industry to gross more than the film theatre industry. That's correct: more is now spent on games than on going out to the movies.
Meanwhile, Apple introduced completely new uses for a computer that both took more processing power, like digital video and real-time PDF rendering. Fantastic new hardware like the iMac, USB, AirPorts, and FireWire convinced Mac users who hadn't upgraded for many years to buy all-new equipment, especially peripherals. Apple maxed out the buying power of its 5% share.
Now, however, things aren't so rosy. Microsoft doesn't really know what to add to a new version of Windows. Consumers have gotten pretty comfortable with how fast Wintel boxes go, an unintended ill side-effect of artifically holding that speed back. Home users just aren't chomping a the bit anymore.
PC gamers have gotten fed up with paying thousands of dollars a year to play Quake III a little faster, and indeed many of them have taken on enough debt doing so that they can't afford that habit anymore. For these players the current consoles seem like an escape, costing only a few hundred bucks and offering rock-hard framerates on standard equipment. Soon that will change as the consoles age and the PCs outpace them, but for now the money is in console gaming.
So PC sales are down, and many Apple users are ready to settle in with the equipment they've just purchased for another seven years. Don't forget, we're the group some of whom are still using pre-PPC computers to actually get our work done. We may be 5% of the overall market, but we're almost 100% of the market still using microcomputers from 1986.
So, as I say, the industry feared this would happen four years ago, and it finally has. This doesn't necessarily spell the end of PCs or the Macintosh, though. It's just an interaction of a set of trends. What companies need to survive now is new types of equipment, and new applications of computing. Fortunately for us, that's exactly what Apple is good at.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/771503.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/771503.asp</a>;
-A little verification on the gaming trends. I no longer have links to the E3 reports that games are bigger than movies and music, second only to home sales and rentals of films, but this article says "rivals," which is good enough.