So what? Even in the towers, the 64-bitness of the G5 is mostly a non-issue. The main benefit is that it's much better at 32-bit applications. It makes no sense to reject the idea of a G5 in the iMac *because* it's 64-bit.
Bingo! I want a G5 in the iMac not because of its 64-bitness, instead because it has a good bus design and performance. Of course it never hurts to have more users with machines capable of 64 bit operation when 64 bit makes it into the operating system.
I think many of the response in this thread pretty much sum up the sales issue with the iMac. Who in their right mind will pay that much money for 1.xxGHz G4. What is even worst is that no one can reasonable reccomend such a machine to friends.
Understand that I like the iMac as far as its all in one form factor goes. There really are a few pluses there. On the other hand I work for every dollar I spend on my computing hardware. If one is to maximise those dollars they have to buy performance right on the knee of the price performance curve. I'm not sure the iMac is even on the contemporary curve.
If Apple does come out with the 1.5 GHz revision to the iMac I can't see this having positive impact on sales. It might just alienate even more customers.
DAVE
I definitely wouldn't consider the iMac the top consumer machine. I'd consider the low end PowerMac g5 to be. For about the same money you get a lot more horsepower. So you have to spend a little extra for a monitor... I think people realize this and the iMac just won't be appealing. But sticking a 2ghz g5 in an iMac now in the current enclosing won't happen. It will be at least another 6 months... probably october. I'm sure apple could wait until then to update. I mean hell, they will have milked the PowerMac g5 for almost a year by WWDC.
The main reason that I can think of is to take full advantage of the current and future G5 optimizations and the benefits fo the IBM's "tuned" compiler for the G5.
The common consumer doesn't think that far ahead... especially if they don't know what 64 bit is. It is hard to really comprehend the difference between 64 and 32 bit unless you've done a little assembly. How could you explain to the consumer that the jump is far away because all the register accessing has to be re-written in software?
The common consumer doesn't think that far ahead... especially if they don't know what 64 bit is. It is hard to really comprehend the difference between 64 and 32 bit unless you've done a little assembly. How could you explain to the consumer that the jump is far away because all the register accessing has to be re-written in software?
No the consumer does not, and I wasnt trying to suggest that they do. However, the performance gains from IBM's new compiler and optamised code are substantial for the G5 processor. Apple should take advantage of this improved code to make their OS feel "snappier" than it currently does, it would only help sales. So it is Apple, not the consumer that I feel should think ahead to help their own sales, and create a good reason why people should upgrade to a G5 from their 2 year old G4 computer. It is the same thing that they did with Quartz Xtream and the pre-Radeon GPU's.
No the consumer does not, and I wasnt trying to suggest that they do. However, the performance gains from IBM's new compiler and optamised code are substantial for the G5 processor. Apple should take advantage of this improved code to make their OS feel "snappier" than it currently does, it would only help sales. So it is Apple, not the consumer that I feel should think ahead to help their own sales, and create a good reason why people should upgrade to a G5 from their 2 year old G4 computer. It is the same thing that they did with Quartz Xtream and the pre-Radeon GPU's.
True... it will all happen in time. It was extemely hard to migrate 16 bit code to 32 bit when that happened. But then you might be talking about code not being functional on 32 bit machines?
Man you guys are totally missing the point. Joe Sixpack cares about two things, and two things only: clock speed and price.
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Ouch. Read it again. The situation is a complete joke.
The MHz Myth, 64 bitness, the "you don't need a fast machine for what you do" argument and the "yeah, but you can do more with a Mac" argument are all completely meaningless.
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
Man you guys are totally missing the point. Joe Sixpack cares about two things, and two things only: clock speed and price.
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Ouch. Read it again. The situation is a complete joke.
The MHz Myth, 64 bitness, the "you don't need a fast machine for what you do" argument and the "yeah, but you can do more with a Mac" argument are all completely meaningless.
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
You are right about Joe. But Joe will be severly dissapointed in his purchase 1 year down the road.
That 2.8Ghz Dell will not last 1/2 as long as the iMac. I have seen so many 2.xGhz cheap windows boxes that feel a hell of a lot slower than an iMac when doing day to day tasks. And further, the 2.8Ghz pentium in an otherwise crappy machine is a waste when you try to do a little video editing or photoshop work. I constantly see people pissed off because they have a Pentium 4 but there machine is sluggish and glitchy. I think what a lot of people are saying, is that if those people sat down and used an iMac they would see that there is a huge difference in the overall feel of the machine because of the hardware and software being tuned to work together.
Man you guys are totally missing the point. Joe Sixpack cares about two things, and two things only: clock speed and price.
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Yeah, it's amazing how silly things look when you narrow things down that absurdly.
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
Quote:
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Joes who buy Dells think that an iMac is a funny-looking blue thing that can't run the internet.
Fine. Joe can go to hell. Maybe you should give him a ride...
Quote:
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
Exactly. This is what I was alluding to in my post. Would you buy a car from a magazine or off of the internet without driving it? Just because it is cheaper? No. So why do that with a computer?
I can't believe the number of people that blindly order a computer off the internet based on specs. Sometimes I think Apple should put a similarly priced windows box next to the iMac in their stores so that people can try them out side by side, but I know that is a bad idea.
Joe Average is not gonna buy a mac no matter what the specs are.
macs are for peeps who like to think or feel different.
that doesn't comply with being average....
Apple could very easily sell to the "Average Joe" if they had the product (lower cost), marketing, and sales channels to win over the "Average" consumer. The problem is that they do not, and that won't change tomorrow even with the Apple Stores.
It is odd that people will only look at a couple numbers and make buying decisions like that. Would you ever buy a car by looking at horsepower and price only?
I have used a bunch of those cheap boxes from Dell and others and to be honest they *never* live up to their numbers. Of course you can still see those nice numbers when it boots and you get it cheap right?
I do not argue the point because many people do look for "cheap" when they make purchases and other factors are secondary at best.
Apple could very easily sell to the "Average Joe" if they had the product (lower cost), marketing, and sales channels to win over the "Average" consumer. The problem is that they do not, and that won't change tomorrow even with the Apple Stores.
Average Joe probably has more PC buddies to get pirated software from than Mac buddies. That and "borrowed" software from work. I know from my job that is a factor as well.
Hey people, I'm not defending Average Joe's buying decisions, just explaining them. Yeah he's worse off in the end, we all know that, but the vast majority of people don't buy anything based on TCO or productivity. They buy based on saving $112 at the time of purchase.
Average Joe probably has more PC buddies to get pirated software from than Mac buddies. That and "borrowed" software from work. I know from my job that is a factor as well.
This is more true than I would have ever guessed. Several people have told me recently that friends of theirs bought new PCs because "Jim next door" gave them copies of all his games, or because "they can get all the software they need at work."
A factor to consider in comparing LCD iMac sales to the CRT model, I think, is the number of gumdrop iMacs that were purchased by first-time computer buyers. Apple managed to strike just when home use of the Internet was taking off, and they were able to sell the iMac as the easiest way to get on the Net. But that market is pretty much saturated, and it's a lot easier to sell a Mac to someone who has no computer at all than it is to get them to switch.
Hey people, I'm not defending Average Joe's buying decisions, just explaining them. Yeah he's worse off in the end, we all know that, but the vast majority of people don't buy anything based on TCO or productivity. They buy based on saving $112 at the time of purchase.
I didn't mean any offense to you. I was just sort of marveling at the mentality of someone who buys a computer based on a limited set of data (price, speed). I don't dispute what you say at all and I do wish more thought could be put into such purchases.
I realize not every machine Apple makes is a gaming powerhouse but every machine is now a G4 or G5 at 1GHz and up. Every machine in the lineup is capable of running apps just fine.
<small pointless rant>
The budget machines they look at *often* have some pretty weak features like integrated graphics with shared memory (in many cases the budget machines DO NOT have an AGP slot open to install an upgraded video card - I know some of Sony's cheaper Vaio machines were like this). I applaud Apple for offering decent graphics in all their machines with dedicated VRAM.
Yeah, it's amazing how silly things look when you narrow things down that absurdly.
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Joes who buy Dells think that an iMac is a funny-looking blue thing that can't run the internet.
To you and the one you responded to. Let me get this straight. Joe is stupid because he compared every tag item and finds the almost $2000 iMac lacking in every comparable category? Let's just say he goes to the Net to read reviews, both from Mac centric and none Mac centric sources. He looks at every conceivable benchmark he can find and every opinion piece he can read and still finds the iMac severely lagging behind in the price-performance department. So he decides to buy the PC. What has he done so wrong here? You are asking him to ignore everything that he can objectively learn about this machine and take a leap of faith. Besides its looks, there is absolutely nothing that suggests the iMac actually warrants its price. That is not Joe consumer's fault. That's Apple's fault. If this product is something that requires a person to take a pilgrimage to a special store in order to discover any real value in it, that might just explain why it is not doing well.
Just a thought. If last year's PC kicked the crap out of a dual 4.2 GH PM, how do you think the iMac will compare to this year's PC in the same price range. (Don't start spouting off about integrated graphics. You know that doesn't apply here.) Yeah, Apple is gonna put a fast PC in the Apple retail stores and sit it right next to an iMac. Good call.
Comments
So what? Even in the towers, the 64-bitness of the G5 is mostly a non-issue. The main benefit is that it's much better at 32-bit applications. It makes no sense to reject the idea of a G5 in the iMac *because* it's 64-bit.
Bingo! I want a G5 in the iMac not because of its 64-bitness, instead because it has a good bus design and performance. Of course it never hurts to have more users with machines capable of 64 bit operation when 64 bit makes it into the operating system.
Originally posted by wizard69
I think many of the response in this thread pretty much sum up the sales issue with the iMac. Who in their right mind will pay that much money for 1.xxGHz G4. What is even worst is that no one can reasonable reccomend such a machine to friends.
Understand that I like the iMac as far as its all in one form factor goes. There really are a few pluses there. On the other hand I work for every dollar I spend on my computing hardware. If one is to maximise those dollars they have to buy performance right on the knee of the price performance curve. I'm not sure the iMac is even on the contemporary curve.
If Apple does come out with the 1.5 GHz revision to the iMac I can't see this having positive impact on sales. It might just alienate even more customers.
DAVE
I definitely wouldn't consider the iMac the top consumer machine. I'd consider the low end PowerMac g5 to be. For about the same money you get a lot more horsepower. So you have to spend a little extra for a monitor... I think people realize this and the iMac just won't be appealing. But sticking a 2ghz g5 in an iMac now in the current enclosing won't happen. It will be at least another 6 months... probably october. I'm sure apple could wait until then to update. I mean hell, they will have milked the PowerMac g5 for almost a year by WWDC.
Originally posted by JCG
The main reason that I can think of is to take full advantage of the current and future G5 optimizations and the benefits fo the IBM's "tuned" compiler for the G5.
The common consumer doesn't think that far ahead... especially if they don't know what 64 bit is. It is hard to really comprehend the difference between 64 and 32 bit unless you've done a little assembly. How could you explain to the consumer that the jump is far away because all the register accessing has to be re-written in software?
Originally posted by emig647
The common consumer doesn't think that far ahead... especially if they don't know what 64 bit is. It is hard to really comprehend the difference between 64 and 32 bit unless you've done a little assembly. How could you explain to the consumer that the jump is far away because all the register accessing has to be re-written in software?
No the consumer does not, and I wasnt trying to suggest that they do. However, the performance gains from IBM's new compiler and optamised code are substantial for the G5 processor. Apple should take advantage of this improved code to make their OS feel "snappier" than it currently does, it would only help sales. So it is Apple, not the consumer that I feel should think ahead to help their own sales, and create a good reason why people should upgrade to a G5 from their 2 year old G4 computer. It is the same thing that they did with Quartz Xtream and the pre-Radeon GPU's.
Originally posted by JCG
No the consumer does not, and I wasnt trying to suggest that they do. However, the performance gains from IBM's new compiler and optamised code are substantial for the G5 processor. Apple should take advantage of this improved code to make their OS feel "snappier" than it currently does, it would only help sales. So it is Apple, not the consumer that I feel should think ahead to help their own sales, and create a good reason why people should upgrade to a G5 from their 2 year old G4 computer. It is the same thing that they did with Quartz Xtream and the pre-Radeon GPU's.
True... it will all happen in time. It was extemely hard to migrate 16 bit code to 32 bit when that happened. But then you might be talking about code not being functional on 32 bit machines?
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Ouch. Read it again. The situation is a complete joke.
The MHz Myth, 64 bitness, the "you don't need a fast machine for what you do" argument and the "yeah, but you can do more with a Mac" argument are all completely meaningless.
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Man you guys are totally missing the point. Joe Sixpack cares about two things, and two things only: clock speed and price.
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Ouch. Read it again. The situation is a complete joke.
The MHz Myth, 64 bitness, the "you don't need a fast machine for what you do" argument and the "yeah, but you can do more with a Mac" argument are all completely meaningless.
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
You are right about Joe. But Joe will be severly dissapointed in his purchase 1 year down the road.
That 2.8Ghz Dell will not last 1/2 as long as the iMac. I have seen so many 2.xGhz cheap windows boxes that feel a hell of a lot slower than an iMac when doing day to day tasks. And further, the 2.8Ghz pentium in an otherwise crappy machine is a waste when you try to do a little video editing or photoshop work. I constantly see people pissed off because they have a Pentium 4 but there machine is sluggish and glitchy. I think what a lot of people are saying, is that if those people sat down and used an iMac they would see that there is a huge difference in the overall feel of the machine because of the hardware and software being tuned to work together.
Originally posted by buckeye
You are right about Joe. But Joe will be severly dissapointed in his purchase 1 year down the road.
For < 1/2 the cost, Joe doesn't care.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Man you guys are totally missing the point. Joe Sixpack cares about two things, and two things only: clock speed and price.
2.8GHz Pentium 4 Dell with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $588
1.0GHz G4 iMac with Combo Drive and 15" LCD = $1299
Yeah, it's amazing how silly things look when you narrow things down that absurdly.
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
Joe does the math. Joe buys the Dell. End of story.
I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Joes who buy Dells think that an iMac is a funny-looking blue thing that can't run the internet.
Originally posted by buckeye
You are right about Joe. But Joe will be severly dissapointed in his purchase 1 year down the road
Originally posted by dglow
For < 1/2 the cost, Joe doesn't care.
Exactly.
I don't wanna pierce your bubbles buttehhhhhhh
Joe Average is not gonna buy a mac no matter what the specs are.
macs are for peeps who like to think or feel different.
that doesn't comply with being average....
Originally posted by dglow
For < 1/2 the cost, Joe doesn't care.
Fine. Joe can go to hell. Maybe you should give him a ride...
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
Exactly. This is what I was alluding to in my post. Would you buy a car from a magazine or off of the internet without driving it? Just because it is cheaper? No. So why do that with a computer?
I can't believe the number of people that blindly order a computer off the internet based on specs. Sometimes I think Apple should put a similarly priced windows box next to the iMac in their stores so that people can try them out side by side, but I know that is a bad idea.
Originally posted by ~ufo~
erm.... peeps
I don't wanna pierce your bubbles buttehhhhhhh
Joe Average is not gonna buy a mac no matter what the specs are.
macs are for peeps who like to think or feel different.
that doesn't comply with being average....
Apple could very easily sell to the "Average Joe" if they had the product (lower cost), marketing, and sales channels to win over the "Average" consumer. The problem is that they do not, and that won't change tomorrow even with the Apple Stores.
I have used a bunch of those cheap boxes from Dell and others and to be honest they *never* live up to their numbers. Of course you can still see those nice numbers when it boots and you get it cheap right?
I do not argue the point because many people do look for "cheap" when they make purchases and other factors are secondary at best.
Originally posted by JCG
Apple could very easily sell to the "Average Joe" if they had the product (lower cost), marketing, and sales channels to win over the "Average" consumer. The problem is that they do not, and that won't change tomorrow even with the Apple Stores.
Average Joe probably has more PC buddies to get pirated software from than Mac buddies. That and "borrowed" software from work. I know from my job that is a factor as well.
However, I think Apple does indeed cater to the hillbilly, check out some of the Garageband loops...
Originally posted by Bancho
Average Joe probably has more PC buddies to get pirated software from than Mac buddies. That and "borrowed" software from work. I know from my job that is a factor as well.
This is more true than I would have ever guessed. Several people have told me recently that friends of theirs bought new PCs because "Jim next door" gave them copies of all his games, or because "they can get all the software they need at work."
A factor to consider in comparing LCD iMac sales to the CRT model, I think, is the number of gumdrop iMacs that were purchased by first-time computer buyers. Apple managed to strike just when home use of the Internet was taking off, and they were able to sell the iMac as the easiest way to get on the Net. But that market is pretty much saturated, and it's a lot easier to sell a Mac to someone who has no computer at all than it is to get them to switch.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Hey people, I'm not defending Average Joe's buying decisions, just explaining them. Yeah he's worse off in the end, we all know that, but the vast majority of people don't buy anything based on TCO or productivity. They buy based on saving $112 at the time of purchase.
I didn't mean any offense to you. I was just sort of marveling at the mentality of someone who buys a computer based on a limited set of data (price, speed). I don't dispute what you say at all and I do wish more thought could be put into such purchases.
I realize not every machine Apple makes is a gaming powerhouse but every machine is now a G4 or G5 at 1GHz and up. Every machine in the lineup is capable of running apps just fine.
<small pointless rant>
The budget machines they look at *often* have some pretty weak features like integrated graphics with shared memory (in many cases the budget machines DO NOT have an AGP slot open to install an upgraded video card - I know some of Sony's cheaper Vaio machines were like this). I applaud Apple for offering decent graphics in all their machines with dedicated VRAM.
</small pointless rant>
Originally posted by Amorph
Yeah, it's amazing how silly things look when you narrow things down that absurdly.
This is why Apple has retail stores: So that people - who, by and large, still like to see the thing they're spending lots of money on first hand - can see more than what you're listing here.
I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Joes who buy Dells think that an iMac is a funny-looking blue thing that can't run the internet.
To you and the one you responded to. Let me get this straight. Joe is stupid because he compared every tag item and finds the almost $2000 iMac lacking in every comparable category? Let's just say he goes to the Net to read reviews, both from Mac centric and none Mac centric sources. He looks at every conceivable benchmark he can find and every opinion piece he can read and still finds the iMac severely lagging behind in the price-performance department. So he decides to buy the PC. What has he done so wrong here? You are asking him to ignore everything that he can objectively learn about this machine and take a leap of faith. Besides its looks, there is absolutely nothing that suggests the iMac actually warrants its price. That is not Joe consumer's fault. That's Apple's fault. If this product is something that requires a person to take a pilgrimage to a special store in order to discover any real value in it, that might just explain why it is not doing well.
Just a thought. If last year's PC kicked the crap out of a dual 4.2 GH PM, how do you think the iMac will compare to this year's PC in the same price range. (Don't start spouting off about integrated graphics. You know that doesn't apply here.) Yeah, Apple is gonna put a fast PC in the Apple retail stores and sit it right next to an iMac. Good call.