I think you're right about the competing "facts," but I have to disagree with you on your conclusion. ...
Why would Apple redesign the iMac just to throw a G4 in it?
The reason Apple would do that is because they will not have enough G5 parts in time. Therefore, they can redesign the case for the upcoming G5 and just drop it in on a future update. The high end G5 iMac is just the sort of thing they would do so they could market the new iMac G5 and still get top dollar for it. I bet it would sell better than the low end model. I don't believe the eMac will be on a G4 for the next two years so its specs tell me that at least one model of the next iMac is due for a G4.
By limiting the eMac to 1.25 GHz and giving the iMac a 1.5 GHz CPU, they will be able to keep the same price points or lower them only a little a suggest that the iMac is a better value. "See how much faster they are over the eMac."
Isn't there precedence for Apple to create a transition machine? That would be a machine that is designed to take the next generation tech before they could actually transition to that tech. That is the only explanation I can think of to account for the competing facts. I am fully prepared to be 100% wrong on this one.
I like being able to upgrade by way of pci slots, and don't think that one slot is too much to ask. Back to the car analogies... Most people don't run out of gas very often, but it's good to have that gas can in your trunk when you need it. A pci slot is one way that Apple can ensure a long useful life for their products. I do realize that Apple wants users to uprgrade to the latest/greatest, but they also want happy customers to spread the gospel. The 8600/300 that I type this on while waiting for the next rev, is sporting both firewire and usb cards. 8)
Really though, if you need a PCI slot you should just get a PowerMac. There's not much you would normally do with a PCI slot that you can't do with USB and FireWire.
Yes, I have a USB/FireWire card in my beige G3, but that's all I need anymore. I sold my PCI based MOTU 2408 and now have a FireWire 828. Pre USB/FireWire, I would agree that a PCI slot was import, but not anymore. I've been using a PowerBook as my main computer for almost 3 years now, and I don't even use the PCMCIA slot.
For the Cube a PCI slot would make the case a whole lot bigger, and you still wouldn't even have a full size slot.
I'd wager my left lung that most everyone, minus the most demanding 3D/animation/video-based professional, would be completely served by a 1.5-2.0GHz G4 for all the things MOST people (consumers, students, newbies, hobbyists, digital camcorder/camera owners, soccer moms, grannies, etc.) do with their computers.
-snip-
Don't make that bet -- you should really try to keep both lungs.
iMovie can be frustratingly slow on a dual 2GHz G5, so can iPhoto and photo shop express (especially since 4 - 6 megapixels are becoming the norm). And let's not forget games, which are a consumer product.
You must remember: no computer currently made is powerful enough, and nothing on the drawing boards for the next 5 years is powerful enough. We are all just making do with the current technology. In a few years we will all be joking about how primitive and slow the computers were back in '04.
The separation between consumer and pro is not the power of the computer (there is no computer powerful enough for either of them). It is simply price that divides the categories - since pros use their computers to earn money, they are usually willing to spend more for bleeding edge technology.
The iMac should have had a 2GHz G5 in it late last year. To keep current with similar priced consumer models on the PC side it should really be, at least, a 2.4 GHz G5 right now.
Of course, I really doubt that Apple will bring to market a competitive iMac with this revision, not with the problems IBM has had fabricating faster G5s.
Gee, looks like somebody really gave it to the 'spec whore' whiner...
Lemon Bon Bon
What jerkwad coined the phrase "spec whore" anyway? It must have been Apples minister of propaganda because I have access to a secret internal apple memo that lists the definitions of "spec whore" as follows:
1)Anyone who refuses to leave his brain at the door of the apple store.
2)An apple user who thinks its a disgrace apple dumps 2 year old tech leavings on the consumer market and prices it like it was made of gold.
3) A mac user who nontheless refuses to be apples beeyach!
Seems to me the G4 keeps skootching up 200MHz or so at a time, making it nice for a consumer type machine(s), so all but the most idiot, pain-in-butt Spec Whore types will be happy with G4-based iMacs because it totally handles the iApps, iLife, surfing, mailing, DTP, etc
And the iMac 2 sales keep dropping by 200mhz each time. Carefully blended with cheapo eMacs to disguise what lacklustre, Spielberg-Tarty but underpowered machines they are.
Even Apple themselves admit the iMac 2 doesn't meet the 'sweet spot'. So, most consumers have left it behind. It simply doesn't over value for money. It's hard to find a Wintel machine that doesn't blow it out the water on specs and value.
'Spec Whore' indeed. Laughable when only the delusional would be happy with a nearly five year old processor with a limp bus. Only Apple's rigid market grid could have a computer from their own line, laptops from their own line beating the crap out of an overpriced 'consumer' desktop.
The iMac 2 suffers from the same level of pretension that the original Cube did. Sure, they are reaching for the stars...but they crashed and burned because they didn't apply a bit of common sense.
Nearly £2000 quid for a snail and no option for a recent and decent Ati card?!? The iMac 2 is a cheescake computer.
God, I hope so. Kill the iMac and replace it with:
Dual processor Power Mac G5s
+
single processor G5 Minis
+
one line of affordable aluminum Cinema Displays
=
marketshare
My gawd, the voice of reason! Given the popularity of Shuttle PCs then G5 Minis would go down very well.
Get one or two below the £1,000 mark with an affordable Cinema display and you'd have a nice switcher machine. Attractive in Aluminium or Enamel white or a range of colours.
Can't Apple take the hint? Nobody (not many) wants an overpriced B*st**d Son of Cube with lame specs that echo the lame specs of the original Cube?
Desktops are still selling a plenty despite the trend towards laptops. Only Apple can't get any serious traction in the desktop market because...
...well, can somebody explain it to me, because I have no idea WHAT they're doing...
My gawd, the voice of reason! Given the popularity of Shuttle PCs then G5 Minis would go down very well.
Shuttle's are quite popular with DIY'ers but not really among the general population.
Quote:
Can't Apple take the hint? Nobody (not many) wants an overpriced B*st**d Son of Cube with lame specs that echo the lame specs of the original Cube?
The specs on the Cube weren't lame at all when it came out, at least compared to the PowerMac of the time. Just the price was lame.
You're basically saying you want a Cube, with modern specs and components, but you don't want it to be called the Cube?
I don't get why people are so down on the Cube. It's exactly what everyone in the "headless" iMac crowd is always asking for. A new version based off the the current PowerMac line and priced like the original Cube was at the end of it's run, not the beginning, would be pretty sweet.
It seems you're assuming that a Cube 2 would be just a rerelease of the orig. Cube. I would think it would be like the G5 mini you're talking about. Aluminum case, easily accessible ports, advanced cooling system (if they can't make a fanless one), 8x AGP (or maybe PCI-Express).
What jerkwad coined the phrase "spec whore" anyway?
That would be me, far as I know. Ask around.
Jerkwad or not, it's an apt description and everyone knows exactly what it means. Why, it's demonstrated here at AI on a half-hourly basis, pretty much.
Bon Bon boy, I'd bet a 1.5 GHz G4 iMac - properly advertised/promoted - would outsell a 1.6 G5 iMac that is given Apple's traditional marketing "attention".
Now, of course, maybe not by us "in the know" Mac-heads, but just among the general population of casual users, switchers, on-the-fencers, etc. Do you think they know? Or care? I don't.
Should Apple make affordable, more-than-capable machines for everyone, or cater to the small - but vocal - army of Mac-heads bitching and whining about the lack of G5s in everything but the iPod, when maybe those people should buy a G5 tower in the first place.
No one seems to know - or care - much about the things you guys wring your hands about, until you constantly throw them in their face. Then Joe Student with a Digital Camera starts to doubt and second-guess himself and goes into massive debt, paying for a tricked-out G5 tower, when we all know damn well an eMac or iMac at 1/3 or 1/2 the price will more than suffice.
Some of you kinda create your own whirlpools and troublespots.
I'd sure like to find something I'm NOT able to do with my PowerBook. I get dinged for saying "spec whore", but then you and others simply only wail about the chip, bus, etc. of where something is stalled, honestly making it sound like NOTHING is able to be done with the current offering.
Drama.
Don't get me wrong...I'd like to see a new iMac more than anyone, but I care less about what's under the hood - knowing what I know - than about it being a quality product, shipping in sufficient quantities AND marketed/advertised/promoted properly.
Not saying the two things (kick ass G5-based iMac and proper marketing) are mutually exclusive, but, again, going on Apple's track record...
pscates, I have plenty of things that I can't do with my PowerBook, and it really is quite frustrating. My PowerBook overloads all the time while doing audio work, to the point where I can't do much of what I want to live. Even the newly released PBs hit the wall rather quickly.
I think a lot of people who comment here use the power they have and they understandably want as much as they can get. Looking over to the PC side of things where you can build a very, very capable machine for under $1000 makes people want that kind of performance to price ration with mac. you can't really fault them for that.
Sure, for the email, web, and, family newsletter types just about any computer is fine, but do they make up as much of the market as you think? People now are doing video, audio, and image work just for the fun of it who never did that stuff before. This group isn't small, and don't forget about gamers.
So be careful with labeling someone a spec whore, because I bet more often than not that person is gonna use all the power they can get, and who's to blame them for wanting it cheap?
Shuttle's (sic) are quite popular with DIY'ers but not really among the general population.
All the more reason for Apple to adopt the shuttle concept for a "marketshare Mac": most people would view it as an Apple "breakthrough". The only cool PCs I've ever seen are the shuttle cases down at Fry's and it's always astonished me that HP or Sony have never taken this form factor mainstream. Apple could easily make the first mass market shuttle, and claim it as its own "revolution".
The other huge advantage of a horizontal shuttle enclosure vs. a vertical Cube enclosure would be a full size, user replaceable/upgradeable AGP slot and a single, full size, user replaceable/upgradeable S-ATA hard drive.
Enterprise and EDU admins will insist on these last two features, which is crucial for the G5 mini to pull double duty for these markets. For noobs and Mac purists who want the "sealed box" concept preserved, I'm sure Jonathan Ive's design would all but hide the seams necessary for the replaceable GPU and HD. If you have no interest in (or knowledge of) upgrading, you still get the pristine aesthetics of the Cube.
Quote:
You're basically saying you want a Cube, with modern specs and components, but you don't want it to be called the Cube?
Yes. The Cube concept is fine, but the name is tainted. The name G5 mini however, capitalizes on the existing iPod/iPod mini branding and instantly communicates benefit to consumers in an impressively high tech, yet friendly way.
"Oh, I get it. It's a smaller, more manageable and more affordable version of the Power Mac G5. That sounds perfect for me."
So here's what needs to happen at WWDC next month:
The iMac is publicly and unapologetically retired by Steve himself. "It served its purpose, but now it's time for the next revolution. Four desktops total: two G5 minis and two Power Mac G5s. Something for everyone and every need."
Desktops
1.8GHz 970fx G5 mini 256/80/Superdrive/AGP Radeon 9600 64MB $999
2.0GHz 970fx G5 mini 512/120/Superdrive/AGP Radeon 9800 128MB $1299
Dual 2.5GHz 975 Power Mac G5 512/120/Superdrive/PCIe Radeon x800 128MB $1999
Dual 3.0GHz 975 Power Mac G5 1GB/180/Superdrive/PCIe Radeon x800 256MB $2999 (shipping Aug/Sept)
Displays (all new, all aluminum enclosure)
17" ACD 1440x900 $499
20" ACD 1650x1050 $999
23" ACD 1920x1200 $1499
Yes there's a big price gap between the high end mini and the low end tower, but that's very intentional. It's about time Apple positioned expandability and upgradeability as the premium features they are. My proposed $1999 dual G5 PowerMac runs circles around the $1299 G5 mini in every respect. Any real pro would still buy the dual in a second. Everyone else (graphic artists, prosumers, switchers, even soccer moms) gets the G5 mini. Win - Win.
The real key, however, is the display lineup. With only four CPU SKUs and three display SKUs to manage, Apple greatly simplifies its desktop offerings while actually increasing customer choice. Just as there will be many that wish to run the 23" ACD with the low end mini, there will be others who run the 17" ACD with the Dual 3.0. Again, everyone gets what they want.
I hear what you're saying, but your plan gets rid of the best computer case ever. Say what you will about the iMacs performance, or that it looks aren't edgy enough, from a functionality and simplicity point of view it's damn near perfect. I have notebooks and desktops, and every time I use my girlfriends iMac I'm amazed by how much nicer it is to use.
The iMac isn't going anywhere. It saved Apple and has incredible name recognition. It needs serious help, but I just can't understand ditching it altogether. Sure, you don't want one, but plenty of other people would want a properly updated iMac. Like it or not, I see the iMac being around for as long as the Mac is (which might be as long as Apple is).
I don't think the Cube name is tainted either. It bombed because it was priced out of it's market. People loved it though, and there are still people who are absolutely fanatical about it. I don't really know anyone who didn't like the Cube, just those who didn't want to pay that much for it. The Cube was big news when it came out, and it'll be big news again if it's reintroduced.
That would be my guess, but not until mid summer when IBM gets caught up. Meanwhile, there aught to be a G4 speed bump on the current line, this Tuesday.
And pscates, I agree on the marketing thing. It's unbelievable that Apple markets the hell out the iPod, which generates only about 10% of their income, while Macs get little in the way of marketing. (I have seen some print advertising. I guess Macs don't deserve TV.)
I hear what you're saying, but your plan gets rid of the best computer case ever. Say what you will about the iMacs performance, or that it looks aren't edgy enough, from a functionality and simplicity point of view it's damn near perfect.
I agree, but the average consumer does not. I think it's finally time that Apple stop giving people what the need, and start giving them what they want.
Quote:
Originally posted by spankalee
I don't think the Cube name is tainted either. It bombed because it was priced out of it's market. People loved it though, and there are still people who are absolutely fanatical about it. I don't really know anyone who didn't like the Cube, just those who didn't want to pay that much for it. The Cube was big news when it came out, and it'll be big news again if it's reintroduced.
I don't think it's horribly tainted, but the G5/G5 mini iPod/iPod mini tie in is just too tempting to pass up. It communicates the consumer value instantly and effectively. Besides, if it's a shuttle case it technically isn't a cube anymore anyway.
I agree, but the average consumer does not [think the iMac design is perfect]. I think it's finally time that Apple stop giving people what the need, and start giving them what they want.
I recently liquidated my business (a store). I had six used Macs for sale including three towers, two old-style iMacs, and one flat panel iMac. Lots of people who came in the store and had never considered a Mac before looked at all of them. Most were only interested in the flat panel iMac. I coulda sold several if I had them.
Comments
Originally posted by spankalee
I think you're right about the competing "facts," but I have to disagree with you on your conclusion. ...
Why would Apple redesign the iMac just to throw a G4 in it?
The reason Apple would do that is because they will not have enough G5 parts in time. Therefore, they can redesign the case for the upcoming G5 and just drop it in on a future update. The high end G5 iMac is just the sort of thing they would do so they could market the new iMac G5 and still get top dollar for it. I bet it would sell better than the low end model. I don't believe the eMac will be on a G4 for the next two years so its specs tell me that at least one model of the next iMac is due for a G4.
By limiting the eMac to 1.25 GHz and giving the iMac a 1.5 GHz CPU, they will be able to keep the same price points or lower them only a little a suggest that the iMac is a better value. "See how much faster they are over the eMac."
Isn't there precedence for Apple to create a transition machine? That would be a machine that is designed to take the next generation tech before they could actually transition to that tech. That is the only explanation I can think of to account for the competing facts. I am fully prepared to be 100% wrong on this one.
Originally posted by Esteban
I like being able to upgrade by way of pci slots, and don't think that one slot is too much to ask. Back to the car analogies... Most people don't run out of gas very often, but it's good to have that gas can in your trunk when you need it. A pci slot is one way that Apple can ensure a long useful life for their products. I do realize that Apple wants users to uprgrade to the latest/greatest, but they also want happy customers to spread the gospel. The 8600/300 that I type this on while waiting for the next rev, is sporting both firewire and usb cards. 8)
Really though, if you need a PCI slot you should just get a PowerMac. There's not much you would normally do with a PCI slot that you can't do with USB and FireWire.
Yes, I have a USB/FireWire card in my beige G3, but that's all I need anymore. I sold my PCI based MOTU 2408 and now have a FireWire 828. Pre USB/FireWire, I would agree that a PCI slot was import, but not anymore. I've been using a PowerBook as my main computer for almost 3 years now, and I don't even use the PCMCIA slot.
For the Cube a PCI slot would make the case a whole lot bigger, and you still wouldn't even have a full size slot.
Originally posted by pscates
-snip-
I'd wager my left lung that most everyone, minus the most demanding 3D/animation/video-based professional, would be completely served by a 1.5-2.0GHz G4 for all the things MOST people (consumers, students, newbies, hobbyists, digital camcorder/camera owners, soccer moms, grannies, etc.) do with their computers.
-snip-
Don't make that bet -- you should really try to keep both lungs.
iMovie can be frustratingly slow on a dual 2GHz G5, so can iPhoto and photo shop express (especially since 4 - 6 megapixels are becoming the norm). And let's not forget games, which are a consumer product.
You must remember: no computer currently made is powerful enough, and nothing on the drawing boards for the next 5 years is powerful enough. We are all just making do with the current technology. In a few years we will all be joking about how primitive and slow the computers were back in '04.
The separation between consumer and pro is not the power of the computer (there is no computer powerful enough for either of them). It is simply price that divides the categories - since pros use their computers to earn money, they are usually willing to spend more for bleeding edge technology.
The iMac should have had a 2GHz G5 in it late last year. To keep current with similar priced consumer models on the PC side it should really be, at least, a 2.4 GHz G5 right now.
Of course, I really doubt that Apple will bring to market a competitive iMac with this revision, not with the problems IBM has had fabricating faster G5s.
Gee, looks like somebody really gave it to the 'spec whore' whiner...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Ouch.
Gee, looks like somebody really gave it to the 'spec whore' whiner...
Lemon Bon Bon
What jerkwad coined the phrase "spec whore" anyway? It must have been Apples minister of propaganda because I have access to a secret internal apple memo that lists the definitions of "spec whore" as follows:
1)Anyone who refuses to leave his brain at the door of the apple store.
2)An apple user who thinks its a disgrace apple dumps 2 year old tech leavings on the consumer market and prices it like it was made of gold.
3) A mac user who nontheless refuses to be apples beeyach!
Originally posted by Res
To keep current with similar priced consumer models on the PC side it should really be, at least, a 2.4 GHz G5 right now.
Now wait a minute,thats going way too far!
Seems to me the G4 keeps skootching up 200MHz or so at a time, making it nice for a consumer type machine(s), so all but the most idiot, pain-in-butt Spec Whore types will be happy with G4-based iMacs because it totally handles the iApps, iLife, surfing, mailing, DTP, etc
And the iMac 2 sales keep dropping by 200mhz each time. Carefully blended with cheapo eMacs to disguise what lacklustre, Spielberg-Tarty but underpowered machines they are.
Even Apple themselves admit the iMac 2 doesn't meet the 'sweet spot'. So, most consumers have left it behind. It simply doesn't over value for money. It's hard to find a Wintel machine that doesn't blow it out the water on specs and value.
'Spec Whore' indeed. Laughable when only the delusional would be happy with a nearly five year old processor with a limp bus. Only Apple's rigid market grid could have a computer from their own line, laptops from their own line beating the crap out of an overpriced 'consumer' desktop.
The iMac 2 suffers from the same level of pretension that the original Cube did. Sure, they are reaching for the stars...but they crashed and burned because they didn't apply a bit of common sense.
Nearly £2000 quid for a snail and no option for a recent and decent Ati card?!? The iMac 2 is a cheescake computer.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
1. Slight spec bump, same form factor, lower prices?
If this were the case, they would have done it already.
2. Slight spec bump, different form factor that would accommodate a future G5, lower prices?
Um, no. Apple's not going to re-engineer the case for the G5 and then put a G4 in it. Silly.
3. G5 1.6/1.8, new form factor, same prices?
Probably what will happen, but if it's <2.0 GHz, it will do nothing for marketshare so what's the point?
4. Funeral and introduction of something completely different?
God, I hope so. Kill the iMac and replace it with:
Dual processor Power Mac G5s
+
single processor G5 Minis
+
one line of affordable aluminum Cinema Displays
=
marketshare
Apples minister of propaganda
or...
4. Some Luddite for sure...
(Obviously they'd be happy with Motorola's risc based hamster running clock cycles to power Garageband by the sounds of it...)
Lemon Bon Bon
God, I hope so. Kill the iMac and replace it with:
Dual processor Power Mac G5s
+
single processor G5 Minis
+
one line of affordable aluminum Cinema Displays
=
marketshare
My gawd, the voice of reason! Given the popularity of Shuttle PCs then G5 Minis would go down very well.
Get one or two below the £1,000 mark with an affordable Cinema display and you'd have a nice switcher machine. Attractive in Aluminium or Enamel white or a range of colours.
Can't Apple take the hint? Nobody (not many) wants an overpriced B*st**d Son of Cube with lame specs that echo the lame specs of the original Cube?
Desktops are still selling a plenty despite the trend towards laptops. Only Apple can't get any serious traction in the desktop market because...
...well, can somebody explain it to me, because I have no idea WHAT they're doing...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
My gawd, the voice of reason! Given the popularity of Shuttle PCs then G5 Minis would go down very well.
Shuttle's are quite popular with DIY'ers but not really among the general population.
Can't Apple take the hint? Nobody (not many) wants an overpriced B*st**d Son of Cube with lame specs that echo the lame specs of the original Cube?
The specs on the Cube weren't lame at all when it came out, at least compared to the PowerMac of the time. Just the price was lame.
You're basically saying you want a Cube, with modern specs and components, but you don't want it to be called the Cube?
I don't get why people are so down on the Cube. It's exactly what everyone in the "headless" iMac crowd is always asking for. A new version based off the the current PowerMac line and priced like the original Cube was at the end of it's run, not the beginning, would be pretty sweet.
It seems you're assuming that a Cube 2 would be just a rerelease of the orig. Cube. I would think it would be like the G5 mini you're talking about. Aluminum case, easily accessible ports, advanced cooling system (if they can't make a fanless one), 8x AGP (or maybe PCI-Express).
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Ouch.
Gee, looks like somebody really gave it to the 'spec whore' whiner...
Lemon Bon Bon
Yeah, I'm crushed. He really got me good.
Oops...cuss filter doesn't work!
Originally posted by cuneglasus
What jerkwad coined the phrase "spec whore" anyway?
That would be me, far as I know. Ask around.
Jerkwad or not, it's an apt description and everyone knows exactly what it means. Why, it's demonstrated here at AI on a half-hourly basis, pretty much.
Now, of course, maybe not by us "in the know" Mac-heads, but just among the general population of casual users, switchers, on-the-fencers, etc. Do you think they know? Or care? I don't.
Should Apple make affordable, more-than-capable machines for everyone, or cater to the small - but vocal - army of Mac-heads bitching and whining about the lack of G5s in everything but the iPod, when maybe those people should buy a G5 tower in the first place.
No one seems to know - or care - much about the things you guys wring your hands about, until you constantly throw them in their face. Then Joe Student with a Digital Camera starts to doubt and second-guess himself and goes into massive debt, paying for a tricked-out G5 tower, when we all know damn well an eMac or iMac at 1/3 or 1/2 the price will more than suffice.
Some of you kinda create your own whirlpools and troublespots.
I'd sure like to find something I'm NOT able to do with my PowerBook. I get dinged for saying "spec whore", but then you and others simply only wail about the chip, bus, etc. of where something is stalled, honestly making it sound like NOTHING is able to be done with the current offering.
Drama.
Don't get me wrong...I'd like to see a new iMac more than anyone, but I care less about what's under the hood - knowing what I know - than about it being a quality product, shipping in sufficient quantities AND marketed/advertised/promoted properly.
Not saying the two things (kick ass G5-based iMac and proper marketing) are mutually exclusive, but, again, going on Apple's track record...
I think a lot of people who comment here use the power they have and they understandably want as much as they can get. Looking over to the PC side of things where you can build a very, very capable machine for under $1000 makes people want that kind of performance to price ration with mac. you can't really fault them for that.
Sure, for the email, web, and, family newsletter types just about any computer is fine, but do they make up as much of the market as you think? People now are doing video, audio, and image work just for the fun of it who never did that stuff before. This group isn't small, and don't forget about gamers.
So be careful with labeling someone a spec whore, because I bet more often than not that person is gonna use all the power they can get, and who's to blame them for wanting it cheap?
Originally posted by spankalee
Shuttle's (sic) are quite popular with DIY'ers but not really among the general population.
All the more reason for Apple to adopt the shuttle concept for a "marketshare Mac": most people would view it as an Apple "breakthrough". The only cool PCs I've ever seen are the shuttle cases down at Fry's and it's always astonished me that HP or Sony have never taken this form factor mainstream. Apple could easily make the first mass market shuttle, and claim it as its own "revolution".
The other huge advantage of a horizontal shuttle enclosure vs. a vertical Cube enclosure would be a full size, user replaceable/upgradeable AGP slot and a single, full size, user replaceable/upgradeable S-ATA hard drive.
Enterprise and EDU admins will insist on these last two features, which is crucial for the G5 mini to pull double duty for these markets. For noobs and Mac purists who want the "sealed box" concept preserved, I'm sure Jonathan Ive's design would all but hide the seams necessary for the replaceable GPU and HD. If you have no interest in (or knowledge of) upgrading, you still get the pristine aesthetics of the Cube.
You're basically saying you want a Cube, with modern specs and components, but you don't want it to be called the Cube?
Yes. The Cube concept is fine, but the name is tainted. The name G5 mini however, capitalizes on the existing iPod/iPod mini branding and instantly communicates benefit to consumers in an impressively high tech, yet friendly way.
"Oh, I get it. It's a smaller, more manageable and more affordable version of the Power Mac G5. That sounds perfect for me."
So here's what needs to happen at WWDC next month:
The iMac is publicly and unapologetically retired by Steve himself. "It served its purpose, but now it's time for the next revolution. Four desktops total: two G5 minis and two Power Mac G5s. Something for everyone and every need."
Desktops
1.8GHz 970fx G5 mini 256/80/Superdrive/AGP Radeon 9600 64MB $999
2.0GHz 970fx G5 mini 512/120/Superdrive/AGP Radeon 9800 128MB $1299
Dual 2.5GHz 975 Power Mac G5 512/120/Superdrive/PCIe Radeon x800 128MB $1999
Dual 3.0GHz 975 Power Mac G5 1GB/180/Superdrive/PCIe Radeon x800 256MB $2999 (shipping Aug/Sept)
Displays (all new, all aluminum enclosure)
17" ACD 1440x900 $499
20" ACD 1650x1050 $999
23" ACD 1920x1200 $1499
Yes there's a big price gap between the high end mini and the low end tower, but that's very intentional. It's about time Apple positioned expandability and upgradeability as the premium features they are. My proposed $1999 dual G5 PowerMac runs circles around the $1299 G5 mini in every respect. Any real pro would still buy the dual in a second. Everyone else (graphic artists, prosumers, switchers, even soccer moms) gets the G5 mini. Win - Win.
The real key, however, is the display lineup. With only four CPU SKUs and three display SKUs to manage, Apple greatly simplifies its desktop offerings while actually increasing customer choice. Just as there will be many that wish to run the 23" ACD with the low end mini, there will be others who run the 17" ACD with the Dual 3.0. Again, everyone gets what they want.
The iMac isn't going anywhere. It saved Apple and has incredible name recognition. It needs serious help, but I just can't understand ditching it altogether. Sure, you don't want one, but plenty of other people would want a properly updated iMac. Like it or not, I see the iMac being around for as long as the Mac is (which might be as long as Apple is).
I don't think the Cube name is tainted either. It bombed because it was priced out of it's market. People loved it though, and there are still people who are absolutely fanatical about it. I don't really know anyone who didn't like the Cube, just those who didn't want to pay that much for it. The Cube was big news when it came out, and it'll be big news again if it's reintroduced.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
3. G5 1.6/1.8, new form factor, same prices?
That would be my guess, but not until mid summer when IBM gets caught up. Meanwhile, there aught to be a G4 speed bump on the current line, this Tuesday.
And pscates, I agree on the marketing thing. It's unbelievable that Apple markets the hell out the iPod, which generates only about 10% of their income, while Macs get little in the way of marketing. (I have seen some print advertising. I guess Macs don't deserve TV.)
Originally posted by spankalee
I hear what you're saying, but your plan gets rid of the best computer case ever. Say what you will about the iMacs performance, or that it looks aren't edgy enough, from a functionality and simplicity point of view it's damn near perfect.
I agree, but the average consumer does not. I think it's finally time that Apple stop giving people what the need, and start giving them what they want.
Originally posted by spankalee
I don't think the Cube name is tainted either. It bombed because it was priced out of it's market. People loved it though, and there are still people who are absolutely fanatical about it. I don't really know anyone who didn't like the Cube, just those who didn't want to pay that much for it. The Cube was big news when it came out, and it'll be big news again if it's reintroduced.
I don't think it's horribly tainted, but the G5/G5 mini iPod/iPod mini tie in is just too tempting to pass up. It communicates the consumer value instantly and effectively. Besides, if it's a shuttle case it technically isn't a cube anymore anyway.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I agree, but the average consumer does not [think the iMac design is perfect]. I think it's finally time that Apple stop giving people what the need, and start giving them what they want.
I recently liquidated my business (a store). I had six used Macs for sale including three towers, two old-style iMacs, and one flat panel iMac. Lots of people who came in the store and had never considered a Mac before looked at all of them. Most were only interested in the flat panel iMac. I coulda sold several if I had them.