Amorph: I know I constantly disagree with you over whether monitors and computers go together. I agree, before monitors changed so much between computer replacements, thhat you bought a new one everytime. But not any more. If you bought a 19" LCD 2 years ago, there is no reason for you to replace it this year when you purchase a new computer. If you bought a 22" CD, you aren't going to drop it for a new 23" to match your powermac.
If you bought either of these, you probably aren't a consumer. Consumer systems have 17" CRTs at the low end, or 15" or 17" LCDs. (And I'm not talking about Apple's line here.)
How much did a 19" LCD cost two years ago?
Besides, if anything, your argument that people used to buy monitors before they changed so much is backward. Apple LCDs improve every time they're updated, even if the size and pixel count doesn't change. The panels are better, the contrast is better, the color accuracy is better, etc. If anything, there's much more reason to update your display. The panels out now make my 3 1/2 year old 15" Studio Display look like crap.
If you bought a 22" CD with your PMG4, and you want a G5, you'll get an easier sale of the CD + PMG4 because it's a complete system with a gorgeous monitor, and then you'll have more money to spring for the 23" (and if you're buying pro hardware, it pays for itself, so the difference in price is negligible over the useful life of the product).
Besides, all the graphics cards in PMs support dual monitors. What I'd do is buy the 23" and use two Cinema Displays with my new G5. But again, we're a long, long way from the consumer world here. Consumers generally don't buy Cinema Displays.
Quote:
If you by a 20" imac today, and use it for 3 years, you can almost guarentee that the 20" LCD is perfectly useful, but you will need/want 64 bit power. But you gotta go out and spend an extra $700 on a new display.
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
Quote:
So the time has come for a headless consumer computer.
Headless consumer computers are the rule. My experience with the way consumers deal with computers necessarily involves headless systems, because that's what consumer PCs all are. Guess what? AIO is an obvious optimization, and it makes a lot more sense in the consumer space.
The only thing that's ever really got me about my AIO eMac (i.e. what I could afford ) is not the fact that I can't change the monitor - it's a really nice monitor, as far as I'm concerned. What kills me is that it's got a geForce2MX soldered to the motherboard, and there's *nothing* I can do about that. In order to get a mac with an upgradeable graphics card, you have to spring for a shiny new G5 + a monitor, which is well outside my price range
I don't have any pressing *need* for a graphics card, but it does limit the technologies I can play with (open source 3D engines etc.) as well as games (even though I'm not much of a gamer...)
For me, at least, the lack of upgradeability really decreases the value of the system.
The only thing that's ever really got me about my AIO eMac (i.e. what I could afford ) is not the fact that I can't change the monitor - it's a really nice monitor, as far as I'm concerned. What kills me is that it's got a geForce2MX soldered to the motherboard, and there's *nothing* I can do about that. In order to get a mac with an upgradeable graphics card, you have to spring for a shiny new G5 + a monitor, which is well outside my price range
I don't have any pressing *need* for a graphics card, but it does limit the technologies I can play with (open source 3D engines etc.) as well as games (even though I'm not much of a gamer...)
For me, at least, the lack of upgradeability really decreases the value of the system.
I agree totally. That's why a PowerMac G5 Express would be ideal; it would have a low price yet still offer a little flexibility for its users, like a removable graphics card in an AGP slot and an open PCI slot, for example.
Quote:
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
There is no way that getting rid of a complete PC is easier than just getting rid of the computer and keeping the screen. You will pay more in the end. LCDs are still not as cheap as CRTs nor as ubiquitous. There is no reason to have to throw it away when you can just keep it and plug it in to a new computer, especially a nice one like a 17" or 20". Besides, you'd probably make more money for computer and screen independently than selling them as an AIO unit.
The original iMac had a basic 15" CRT that was cheap and ubiquitous, so it didn't matter if you chucked the whole thing because it wasn't like you needed another 15" lying around. The LCD iMacs are different because: the bundled screens are much bigger and nicer than the 15" CRT, so people want to keep them for another generation, and they are much more expensive (still) than comparable CRTs.
Just un-bundle the LCD from the computer and it'd fix one of many inherent problems in the iMac.
There is no way that getting rid of a complete PC is easier than just getting rid of the computer and keeping the screen.
There's this way: If you sell the complete PC, someone can buy a complete PC. If you sell the box, someone has to have a monitor lying around.
In my experience, people just don't have monitors lying around. Geeks might, but not ordinary people.
Quote:
You will pay more in the end.
But you'll get more. And, again, this is something that I see all the time: People figure that if the computer's old, everything else is too. Besides, it's much easier to hand down a complete system, because it's a complete system. It's immediately useful with no further hassle.
Quote:
LCDs are still not as cheap as CRTs nor as ubiquitous. There is no reason to have to throw it away when you can just keep it and plug it in to a new computer, especially a nice one like a 17" or 20". Besides, you'd probably make more money for computer and screen independently than selling them as an AIO unit.
Maybe, but you're not talking about that. You're talking about keeping the monitor.
Quote:
The original iMac had a basic 15" CRT that was cheap and ubiquitous, so it didn't matter if you chucked the whole thing because it wasn't like you needed another 15" lying around. The LCD iMacs are different because: the bundled screens are much bigger and nicer than the 15" CRT, so people want to keep them for another generation, and they are much more expensive (still) than comparable CRTs.
And therefore, they'll command a much higher resale price than the original iMac, which actually held value pretty well.
Quote:
Just un-bundle the LCD from the computer and it'd fix one of many inherent problems in the iMac.
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
Obviously, the iMac 2 isn't as well designed as we all thought. It's pricey and even Apple have a problem with updating the specs in a rather awkward 'pudding' shape. And the whispers of the 'arm' being too pricey to produce suggest another reason why Apple can't get the iMac to its predecessor's sweet spot.
Most computer 'literate' people I know don't have problems with a tower, a sep' monitor. Sure, they don't necessarily upgrade. But they like the choice to. And, more and more DO!
A Dell with 19 inch LCD and a tower and a sound system? Most people seem to cope with it. More than cope with the iMac 2.
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
Like what? Decreasing unit sales and diminishing marketshare? Seriously, the iMac has been pretty much a stagnate product sale-wise ever since it when to LCD. There are many factors to this (which a PowerMac G5 Express would address), one is that people want to use their nice, big, expensive LCDs with different computers when the computer's life cycle runs out. And if they don't, then they can just sell the LCD with the old computer and buy a new one with a newer computer.
Like what? Decreasing unit sales and diminishing marketshare? Seriously, the iMac has been pretty much a stagnate product sale-wise ever since it when to LCD. There are many factors to this (which a PowerMac G5 Express would address), one is that people want to use their nice, big, expensive LCDs with different computers when the computer's life cycle runs out. And if they don't, then they can just sell the LCD with the old computer and buy a new one with a newer computer.
If you bought either of these, you probably aren't a consumer. Consumer systems have 17" CRTs at the low end, or 15" or 17" LCDs. (And I'm not talking about Apple's line here.)
How much did a 19" LCD cost two years ago?
Besides, if anything, your argument that people used to buy monitors before they changed so much is backward. Apple LCDs improve every time they're updated, even if the size and pixel count doesn't change. The panels are better, the contrast is better, the color accuracy is better, etc. If anything, there's much more reason to update your display. The panels out now make my 3 1/2 year old 15" Studio Display look like crap.
If you bought a 22" CD with your PMG4, and you want a G5, you'll get an easier sale of the CD + PMG4 because it's a complete system with a gorgeous monitor, and then you'll have more money to spring for the 23" (and if you're buying pro hardware, it pays for itself, so the difference in price is negligible over the useful life of the product).
Besides, all the graphics cards in PMs support dual monitors. What I'd do is buy the 23" and use two Cinema Displays with my new G5. But again, we're a long, long way from the consumer world here. Consumers generally don't buy Cinema Displays.
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
Headless consumer computers are the rule. My experience with the way consumers deal with computers necessarily involves headless systems, because that's what consumer PCs all are. Guess what? AIO is an obvious optimization, and it makes a lot more sense in the consumer space.
In my 20 years of computer using expereince, we have never sold or handed down a computer system. Not once....and my infomral poll of my friends...same story. We stash the old one for backup, and get a new one. Depending on the screen, it was reused or trashed. During the past 5 years, we have been through 2 computers, and 3 displays. (the computers were upgraded) Next rev will most like ly be 1 computer, no screen...or 2 computers and 1 LCD.
But I hate to say it, if you bought a 22" CD and you are upgraded to a g5 you will eithe keep the screen, or use 2...so there will be one spare headless computer
And these other guys have a point:
imac 1 monitor was max $250 of the price
emac: monitor is worth about $150
imac2 15: monitor is work $350 now
imac 17: monitor is worth $650
imac 20: monitor iw work $1100
Sorry, but no one is buying, because no one wants to leave that cash on the table...when in all honesty that imac 1 gets retired to the kids.
And b: do you really trust a uses LCD. Come on, who wants to buy one on ebay...please.
A CRT: there isn't much someone can do to it that a spritz of windex won't fix.
Old LCD: dead pixels, diminished brightness, pen marks, white spots....and so one. That smells of buyer beware to me...and this will effect imac2 resale value in 2006.
It's simply time for a headless machine. People demand it, not geeks, just regular consumers. We have monitors left over, we sometimes want to upgrade the display and use the same old box, screens sometimes fail. With an AIO, we're out of luck.
Every person I know has at least once bought their computer and display on seperate buying cycles, either they have a good display, or a good box. So long as that option is negated by the AIO, they will stay away.
The other factor is psychological. We know a superdrive box is doable for 799. That's a lovely low entry point, that's much easier to package than a 1299 Machine that's stuck to a smallish LCD. The more exensive iMacs are even harder to rationalize. They're basically 799 computers attached to expensive displays. Hard to get that low advertised entry price.
Better to make a small box and bundle it. You might lose a few LCD sales (integral to the AIO) but you'll pick up a lot more box sales.
Apple really needs to bite the bullet and admit that the AIO form factor with LCD's are impractical. How can you justify the display costing more that the computer it's running on ? I personally like the asthetics of the new iMac, but i'm not shelling out $1300-2200 for a computer that was outdated 2 years ago, and is un-upgradable.
Problem?
Form kills function!
Solution?
No AIO, Cube, or any Small Form Factor.
Make a smaller than PowerMac tower that encloses a Single G5 with an AGP & PCI slot.
In essence the iMac would be a stripped down PowerMac. But if Apple keeps the PowerMac much more powerfull and full featured, it would not cannibalize sales.
Better to make a small box and bundle it. You might lose a few LCD sales (integral to the AIO) but you'll pick up a lot more box sales.
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
You have some of the possibilities covered, but there is also the possibility that Apple will just give up on the consumer space. Worst things have been known to happen. It would not surprise me at all to see Apple market themselves out of existance just like Appollo and DEC.
Apple needs hardware that will increase market share, it is as simple as that. That means low cost AND high performance machines. Apple literally has to try harder now, actually deliver machines that perform better than the PC counter part in the consumer space. If they can't deliver that sort of machine they might as well punt. The game is all over if they don't move the ball in some manner.
The reality is that 17" LCD's are cheap now adays. If the hardware cost more that $200 wholesale to Apple I'd be surprised. AIO or headless does't even matter if the out the door cost is to high. It is possible for Apple to make either machine cheap and still make a profit. The problem is that Apple has to become more responsive to a smarter and more demanding consumer. Many of these consumers demand expandability and low repair costs, thus the requirement that Apple deliver a low cost machine that is headless and easy to service.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
I agree too. But Apple does change and adapt. They confronted the ADC problem. They may have to confront the AIO orthodoxy too.
Right now displays are 1299-1999-3299.
The 23 and 30 are blinding good deals actually, especially now that they're furnished with DVI. But they are outside consumer territory.
The 20" is still a good deal too, but competing product will rein it in ere long. It seems primed to drop to 999-1099.
And why not have a 499 17" widescreen DVI panel in the new Aluminium mold? I can think of a LOT of PC customer who would buy it on sight over other 499 17" screens, if it existed.
Now you have your modest, but robust 799 box, and the option of a 17" screen for 499 or a 20" for 999.
1298 for a 17" iMac bundle
1898 for a 20" iMac bundle, in the case of the larger monitor you consider selling it for 999 ONLY in conjunction with a consumer purchase.
For 1900, I would buy a headless iMac with 20" studio display. But I WOULD NOT buy them as an AIO unit. That display is simply too much to discard.
Breaking them up and introducing a widescreen 17" model makes all sorts of marketting sense.
The budget conscious will buy just the box and attach a previous display. Some people will buy just displays, some will buy bundles.
It won't affect pro box sales in the least. The only net affect will be that the units themselves are cheaper to build, and that streamlined product offering actually appeals to a wider segment.
Much more than any one Apple product, Apple needs to seriously re-vamp its business model.
Now that it has real servers it should have a line of very basic PPC 'office' boxes (headless of course) to hang off of them. No whiz-bang expensive cases, no DVD recorder, no modem, no audio in/out etc but with enough autonomy to function as small office workstations. Good network options (both wired and wireless).
It should make a harder push for business. Many people are prepared to use the same type of computer (mac or PC) that they use at work. If more macs found themselves into the workplace, more real macs would be considered for home use by employess and by extension, family and friends.
Real Product Marketing
The notion of comsumer horsepower vs pro horsepower needs to be laid to rest. This model is no longer valid. In the age of the LCs and Performas it could be argued that bleeding edge horsepower wasn't needed for consumer macs.
This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time. Everybody and their granny is now dabbling with processes that require very serious horsepower. Those processes might come candy coated with iDVD or iMovie simple GUIs but now everybody in the consumer arena needs access to the heavy loading gear. This means that even the cheapest Mac models should come with BTO processor options that reach the very top end. Of course the top end chips will be much more expensive and not everyone will BTO to that level but the option should exist. And that also means that the architecture must be good enough to support those chips in the consumer range.
Real Product Marketing
The only way to expand the user base is to have low cost macs that are upgradeable. Unless you get people into your great restaurant you won't be able to sell them your great cuisine and service.
Low cost BTO macs first, accessories, software, service and support later. The important thing is that users have the opportunity to keep updating their macs after purchase. The design should make upgrading easy. The unupgradeable graphics cards have to go. Pricing of upgrades should be reasonable (attractive enough to actually tempt users.
By all means have a pro base model but make sure that it has real pro features.
Real Product Marketing
If Apple wants to sell software then great, but let's do it responsibly. No retail app should be left to rot without the user being informed. Absolutely nobody has any idea of what's happening to AppleWorks or Keynote to name just two. This is unnacceptable.
Oh yes, Real Product Marketing. How about actually pushing the products they sell? Mac OS X needs to be pushed into people's mindsets. Marketing outside the US needs a HUGE push.
It's such an obvious optimisation that consumers are flocking to the iMac 2 in droves...
I think the AIO as you see it makes LESS sense going forwards.
Apple can't shift them.
And the only reason you can think of is because it's an AIO? Please. Try harder.
bborofka: In my 25 years of using computers (boo-YAH! ) I've seen plenty of my own friends cobble things together out of bits and pieces, but my friends were (and to some extent, are) geeks. The ordinary people I know do in fact pass computers along wholesale, LCD and all. If they don't, they trash them wholesale, or keep them around wholesale as backups (rarely). As much as I like them, the geeks I know who hand-build radio antennas and try to bounce signals off Mars and catch them (I'm not making that up) do not reflect the habits or desires of the broader consumer population.
And if you wouldn't trust a used LCD for the reasons you give, why wouldn't you buy a new LCD after you'd used one for the same period of time? Your logic doesn't hold up. If LCDs are fragile, if they don't last long, if the available panels improve by leaps and bounds over time, then they're obvious candidates for replacement when you replace a machine.
I've heard the cry for headless iMacs for as long as the iMac has existed. The argument has literally never changed, despite the fact that the iMac's sales have been all over the map over that time (the argument didn't change in 2000, either, when the iMac owned the market). I don't believe that the current iMac is selling poorly because it's an AIO, and I can't imagine how a headless iMac would do anything significant for Apple's market share, or to help its (currently expanding) user and developer bases. It would trade user friendliness for geek appeal, and that's not a recipe for success.
The obvious problem here is price. I would NEVER buy a PowerMac G5. You want to know why? Because for less than $2000 I can buy a top of the line (or pretty damn close to it) PC.
For $1851 on newegg look what I get:
A quality all aluminum case (that looks like the G5's) -Lian-Li v-1000
An Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 Ghz)
1 gb of ram (1x1024)(400mhz) Corsair
Radeon X800 Pro (256mb) video card
2x 74gb Western Digital Raptor hard drives (10000 rpms, 8mb cache)
An 8x (single layer) and 2.4x (dual layer) DVD writer/CD writer
A chaintech motherboard (N-force 3-250 chipset)
and a 470 watt power supply (enermax noisetaker)
The closest thing that apple offers is the $1999 powermac G5 which has the specs:
Dual 1.8ghz G5's
256mb ram
80gb hard drive (7200 rpms I assume)
8x single layer dvd writer
and a geforce 5200 ultra (with a whole 64mb of video memory)
Besides the fact that it runs OSX why would anyone want to buy that compared to what you can get in a PC for just as much!
you get 1/4 the ram
about 1/2 the hard drive space (with MUCH slower drives)
and a video card that competes with what most PC users had 3 generations ago
Its all about price. Apple needs something that can compete with a PC of the same price. I realize that you cannot directly compare the speeds of PC components to mac components for the most part (particularly processors) but there are equivilants.
Powermac g5s match up very well with equivalent high-end machines...and they are priced fairly for what they are...but here is what you can get from HP for the price of a 15" imac
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+ operating at 2.0GHz
Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional Edition
256 MB DDR / PC3200 (1 DIMM)
160 GB 7200 rpm Ultra DMA Hard Drive
8X DVD+RW/+R drive (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
1 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, 9-in-1 card reader + WinDVD (in the front)
128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX(TM) 5200XT, TV-Out
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS with front audio ports
HP pavilion VF15 15" flat panel display
HP Internet Keyboard, HP Optical Mouse
Harman-Kardon 2-Piece Active Speakers
Microsoft(R) Works 7.0/Money 2004/MSN Encarta Plus
edit
Norton Antivirus 2004 (1 yr subscription)
For a mere $15 more than the imac. And about 5 more minutes of set up time. Which one to pick????
Comments
Frankly, both look out of date. Stale.
Both need scrapping and replacing with something more radical.
A nice i-Serve consumer computer that can be used in the room, office etc.
X-serve/Powerbook cross minus LCD of course.
On top of TV. Keyboard/mouse wireless. Serve to Hi-Fi/TV via Airport express.
Now we have Airport Express...these things are not THAT hard to imagine.
It would be nice to have a consumer alu headless that can go with a 17 inch Alu screen or upgrade to any of aforementioned Mega displays.
Somehow think Apple won't do with. But I saw 'why not'.
But I do think the next 'PowerMac Express' won't be like the iMac 2. It got caught short.
Which meant it was hard for even Apple to upgrade the awkward dome. Hey look, even Apple went to DVI on the Monitors. Sometimes they get it wrong.
It wouldn't have taken much to get the Cube right and then they take a step 'backwards' with imac2. Stunning. BIG BUT!
Maybe...with motherboard built into 17 inch monitor the 'base station' can be much smaller? Or keyboard built into the base station ala C64?
A deeper Powerbook minus LCD?
It will be different to how we imagine it, I'm sure.
I'd settle for a mini-G5 Express. But it's too simple and straightforward for Apple to do.
Tne clincal consumer white is getting old on the consumer desktop line. iPod mini style colours would be a start.
Annodize me, BABY!!!
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by jade
Amorph: I know I constantly disagree with you over whether monitors and computers go together. I agree, before monitors changed so much between computer replacements, thhat you bought a new one everytime. But not any more. If you bought a 19" LCD 2 years ago, there is no reason for you to replace it this year when you purchase a new computer. If you bought a 22" CD, you aren't going to drop it for a new 23" to match your powermac.
If you bought either of these, you probably aren't a consumer. Consumer systems have 17" CRTs at the low end, or 15" or 17" LCDs. (And I'm not talking about Apple's line here.)
How much did a 19" LCD cost two years ago?
Besides, if anything, your argument that people used to buy monitors before they changed so much is backward. Apple LCDs improve every time they're updated, even if the size and pixel count doesn't change. The panels are better, the contrast is better, the color accuracy is better, etc. If anything, there's much more reason to update your display. The panels out now make my 3 1/2 year old 15" Studio Display look like crap.
If you bought a 22" CD with your PMG4, and you want a G5, you'll get an easier sale of the CD + PMG4 because it's a complete system with a gorgeous monitor, and then you'll have more money to spring for the 23" (and if you're buying pro hardware, it pays for itself, so the difference in price is negligible over the useful life of the product).
Besides, all the graphics cards in PMs support dual monitors. What I'd do is buy the 23" and use two Cinema Displays with my new G5.
If you by a 20" imac today, and use it for 3 years, you can almost guarentee that the 20" LCD is perfectly useful, but you will need/want 64 bit power. But you gotta go out and spend an extra $700 on a new display.
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
So the time has come for a headless consumer computer.
Headless consumer computers are the rule. My experience with the way consumers deal with computers necessarily involves headless systems, because that's what consumer PCs all are. Guess what? AIO is an obvious optimization, and it makes a lot more sense in the consumer space.
I don't have any pressing *need* for a graphics card, but it does limit the technologies I can play with (open source 3D engines etc.) as well as games (even though I'm not much of a gamer...)
For me, at least, the lack of upgradeability really decreases the value of the system.
Originally posted by dfryer
The only thing that's ever really got me about my AIO eMac (i.e. what I could afford
I don't have any pressing *need* for a graphics card, but it does limit the technologies I can play with (open source 3D engines etc.) as well as games (even though I'm not much of a gamer...)
For me, at least, the lack of upgradeability really decreases the value of the system.
I agree totally. That's why a PowerMac G5 Express would be ideal; it would have a low price yet still offer a little flexibility for its users, like a removable graphics card in an AGP slot and an open PCI slot, for example.
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
There is no way that getting rid of a complete PC is easier than just getting rid of the computer and keeping the screen. You will pay more in the end. LCDs are still not as cheap as CRTs nor as ubiquitous. There is no reason to have to throw it away when you can just keep it and plug it in to a new computer, especially a nice one like a 17" or 20". Besides, you'd probably make more money for computer and screen independently than selling them as an AIO unit.
The original iMac had a basic 15" CRT that was cheap and ubiquitous, so it didn't matter if you chucked the whole thing because it wasn't like you needed another 15" lying around. The LCD iMacs are different because: the bundled screens are much bigger and nicer than the 15" CRT, so people want to keep them for another generation, and they are much more expensive (still) than comparable CRTs.
Just un-bundle the LCD from the computer and it'd fix one of many inherent problems in the iMac.
Originally posted by bborofka
There is no way that getting rid of a complete PC is easier than just getting rid of the computer and keeping the screen.
There's this way: If you sell the complete PC, someone can buy a complete PC. If you sell the box, someone has to have a monitor lying around.
In my experience, people just don't have monitors lying around. Geeks might, but not ordinary people.
You will pay more in the end.
But you'll get more. And, again, this is something that I see all the time: People figure that if the computer's old, everything else is too. Besides, it's much easier to hand down a complete system, because it's a complete system. It's immediately useful with no further hassle.
LCDs are still not as cheap as CRTs nor as ubiquitous. There is no reason to have to throw it away when you can just keep it and plug it in to a new computer, especially a nice one like a 17" or 20". Besides, you'd probably make more money for computer and screen independently than selling them as an AIO unit.
Maybe, but you're not talking about that. You're talking about keeping the monitor.
The original iMac had a basic 15" CRT that was cheap and ubiquitous, so it didn't matter if you chucked the whole thing because it wasn't like you needed another 15" lying around. The LCD iMacs are different because: the bundled screens are much bigger and nicer than the 15" CRT, so people want to keep them for another generation, and they are much more expensive (still) than comparable CRTs.
And therefore, they'll command a much higher resale price than the original iMac, which actually held value pretty well.
Just un-bundle the LCD from the computer and it'd fix one of many inherent problems in the iMac.
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
Guess what? AIO is an obvious optimization, and it makes a lot more sense in the consumer space.
It's such an obvious optimisation that consumers are flocking to the iMac 2 in droves...
I think the AIO as you see it makes LESS sense going forwards.
Apple can't shift them.
Lemon Bon Bon
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
Obviously, the iMac 2 isn't as well designed as we all thought. It's pricey and even Apple have a problem with updating the specs in a rather awkward 'pudding' shape. And the whispers of the 'arm' being too pricey to produce suggest another reason why Apple can't get the iMac to its predecessor's sweet spot.
Most computer 'literate' people I know don't have problems with a tower, a sep' monitor. Sure, they don't necessarily upgrade. But they like the choice to. And, more and more DO!
A Dell with 19 inch LCD and a tower and a sound system? Most people seem to cope with it. More than cope with the iMac 2.
So?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
And reintroduce a whole bunch of problems that the iMac solves.
Like what? Decreasing unit sales and diminishing marketshare? Seriously, the iMac has been pretty much a stagnate product sale-wise ever since it when to LCD. There are many factors to this (which a PowerMac G5 Express would address), one is that people want to use their nice, big, expensive LCDs with different computers when the computer's life cycle runs out. And if they don't, then they can just sell the LCD with the old computer and buy a new one with a newer computer.
Like what? Decreasing unit sales and diminishing marketshare? Seriously, the iMac has been pretty much a stagnate product sale-wise ever since it when to LCD. There are many factors to this (which a PowerMac G5 Express would address), one is that people want to use their nice, big, expensive LCDs with different computers when the computer's life cycle runs out. And if they don't, then they can just sell the LCD with the old computer and buy a new one with a newer computer.
Amen.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
If you bought either of these, you probably aren't a consumer. Consumer systems have 17" CRTs at the low end, or 15" or 17" LCDs. (And I'm not talking about Apple's line here.)
How much did a 19" LCD cost two years ago?
Besides, if anything, your argument that people used to buy monitors before they changed so much is backward. Apple LCDs improve every time they're updated, even if the size and pixel count doesn't change. The panels are better, the contrast is better, the color accuracy is better, etc. If anything, there's much more reason to update your display. The panels out now make my 3 1/2 year old 15" Studio Display look like crap.
If you bought a 22" CD with your PMG4, and you want a G5, you'll get an easier sale of the CD + PMG4 because it's a complete system with a gorgeous monitor, and then you'll have more money to spring for the 23" (and if you're buying pro hardware, it pays for itself, so the difference in price is negligible over the useful life of the product).
Besides, all the graphics cards in PMs support dual monitors. What I'd do is buy the 23" and use two Cinema Displays with my new G5.
This still fails to consider what people do with computers when they're done with them. If you're done with an iMac, you sell it or hand it down, which is much easier to do with a complete PC than just a box. And guess what? You'd get a lot more money for a 20" iMac than you would for a headless box with equivalent horsepower, and you can put that toward your next monitor - which will be clearly superior anyway.
Headless consumer computers are the rule. My experience with the way consumers deal with computers necessarily involves headless systems, because that's what consumer PCs all are. Guess what? AIO is an obvious optimization, and it makes a lot more sense in the consumer space.
In my 20 years of computer using expereince, we have never sold or handed down a computer system. Not once....and my infomral poll of my friends...same story. We stash the old one for backup, and get a new one. Depending on the screen, it was reused or trashed. During the past 5 years, we have been through 2 computers, and 3 displays. (the computers were upgraded) Next rev will most like ly be 1 computer, no screen...or 2 computers and 1 LCD.
But I hate to say it, if you bought a 22" CD and you are upgraded to a g5 you will eithe keep the screen, or use 2...so there will be one spare headless computer
And these other guys have a point:
imac 1 monitor was max $250 of the price
emac: monitor is worth about $150
imac2 15: monitor is work $350 now
imac 17: monitor is worth $650
imac 20: monitor iw work $1100
Sorry, but no one is buying, because no one wants to leave that cash on the table...when in all honesty that imac 1 gets retired to the kids.
And b: do you really trust a uses LCD. Come on, who wants to buy one on ebay...please.
A CRT: there isn't much someone can do to it that a spritz of windex won't fix.
Old LCD: dead pixels, diminished brightness, pen marks, white spots....and so one. That smells of buyer beware to me...and this will effect imac2 resale value in 2006.
Every person I know has at least once bought their computer and display on seperate buying cycles, either they have a good display, or a good box. So long as that option is negated by the AIO, they will stay away.
The other factor is psychological. We know a superdrive box is doable for 799. That's a lovely low entry point, that's much easier to package than a 1299 Machine that's stuck to a smallish LCD. The more exensive iMacs are even harder to rationalize. They're basically 799 computers attached to expensive displays. Hard to get that low advertised entry price.
Better to make a small box and bundle it. You might lose a few LCD sales (integral to the AIO) but you'll pick up a lot more box sales.
Problem?
Form kills function!
Solution?
No AIO, Cube, or any Small Form Factor.
Make a smaller than PowerMac tower that encloses a Single G5 with an AGP & PCI slot.
In essence the iMac would be a stripped down PowerMac. But if Apple keeps the PowerMac much more powerfull and full featured, it would not cannibalize sales.
Originally posted by Matsu
Better to make a small box and bundle it. You might lose a few LCD sales (integral to the AIO) but you'll pick up a lot more box sales.
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
Apple needs hardware that will increase market share, it is as simple as that. That means low cost AND high performance machines. Apple literally has to try harder now, actually deliver machines that perform better than the PC counter part in the consumer space. If they can't deliver that sort of machine they might as well punt. The game is all over if they don't move the ball in some manner.
The reality is that 17" LCD's are cheap now adays. If the hardware cost more that $200 wholesale to Apple I'd be surprised. AIO or headless does't even matter if the out the door cost is to high. It is possible for Apple to make either machine cheap and still make a profit. The problem is that Apple has to become more responsive to a smarter and more demanding consumer. Many of these consumers demand expandability and low repair costs, thus the requirement that Apple deliver a low cost machine that is headless and easy to service.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I agree with most of what you mentioned except this rationale. I would love to see a small box with mid range specs (to get the price down obviously), but why then is Apple going with DVI-only displays at 20" on up? $1299 for an entry level display is kinda ludicrous if they plan on releasing a non-AIO. I think this almost cements the notion that Apple will be continuing with the AIO. Can you imagine a $799, heck even a $599, machine when your entry level monitor is $1299 more. That is $1999 to start out. Just doesn't make sense.
Even if they keep the 17" with (outdated?) ADC it is still $699 and way too expensive compared to the rest of the industry. I think a 17"/18" LCD should be in their lineup with DVI at $499/$599.
Maybe they are waiting for the iMac update to release this? And they better do something soon as mid-to-late summer is the buying season for schools (where they target the eMac/iMac).
I agree too. But Apple does change and adapt. They confronted the ADC problem. They may have to confront the AIO orthodoxy too.
Right now displays are 1299-1999-3299.
The 23 and 30 are blinding good deals actually, especially now that they're furnished with DVI. But they are outside consumer territory.
The 20" is still a good deal too, but competing product will rein it in ere long. It seems primed to drop to 999-1099.
And why not have a 499 17" widescreen DVI panel in the new Aluminium mold? I can think of a LOT of PC customer who would buy it on sight over other 499 17" screens, if it existed.
Now you have your modest, but robust 799 box, and the option of a 17" screen for 499 or a 20" for 999.
1298 for a 17" iMac bundle
1898 for a 20" iMac bundle, in the case of the larger monitor you consider selling it for 999 ONLY in conjunction with a consumer purchase.
For 1900, I would buy a headless iMac with 20" studio display. But I WOULD NOT buy them as an AIO unit. That display is simply too much to discard.
Breaking them up and introducing a widescreen 17" model makes all sorts of marketting sense.
The budget conscious will buy just the box and attach a previous display. Some people will buy just displays, some will buy bundles.
It won't affect pro box sales in the least. The only net affect will be that the units themselves are cheaper to build, and that streamlined product offering actually appeals to a wider segment.
Now that it has real servers it should have a line of very basic PPC 'office' boxes (headless of course) to hang off of them. No whiz-bang expensive cases, no DVD recorder, no modem, no audio in/out etc but with enough autonomy to function as small office workstations. Good network options (both wired and wireless).
It should make a harder push for business. Many people are prepared to use the same type of computer (mac or PC) that they use at work. If more macs found themselves into the workplace, more real macs would be considered for home use by employess and by extension, family and friends.
Real Product Marketing
The notion of comsumer horsepower vs pro horsepower needs to be laid to rest. This model is no longer valid. In the age of the LCs and Performas it could be argued that bleeding edge horsepower wasn't needed for consumer macs.
This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time. Everybody and their granny is now dabbling with processes that require very serious horsepower. Those processes might come candy coated with iDVD or iMovie simple GUIs but now everybody in the consumer arena needs access to the heavy loading gear. This means that even the cheapest Mac models should come with BTO processor options that reach the very top end. Of course the top end chips will be much more expensive and not everyone will BTO to that level but the option should exist. And that also means that the architecture must be good enough to support those chips in the consumer range.
Real Product Marketing
The only way to expand the user base is to have low cost macs that are upgradeable. Unless you get people into your great restaurant you won't be able to sell them your great cuisine and service.
Low cost BTO macs first, accessories, software, service and support later. The important thing is that users have the opportunity to keep updating their macs after purchase. The design should make upgrading easy. The unupgradeable graphics cards have to go. Pricing of upgrades should be reasonable (attractive enough to actually tempt users.
By all means have a pro base model but make sure that it has real pro features.
Real Product Marketing
If Apple wants to sell software then great, but let's do it responsibly. No retail app should be left to rot without the user being informed. Absolutely nobody has any idea of what's happening to AppleWorks or Keynote to name just two. This is unnacceptable.
Oh yes, Real Product Marketing. How about actually pushing the products they sell? Mac OS X needs to be pushed into people's mindsets. Marketing outside the US needs a HUGE push.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
It's such an obvious optimisation that consumers are flocking to the iMac 2 in droves...
I think the AIO as you see it makes LESS sense going forwards.
Apple can't shift them.
And the only reason you can think of is because it's an AIO? Please. Try harder.
bborofka: In my 25 years of using computers (boo-YAH!
And if you wouldn't trust a used LCD for the reasons you give, why wouldn't you buy a new LCD after you'd used one for the same period of time? Your logic doesn't hold up. If LCDs are fragile, if they don't last long, if the available panels improve by leaps and bounds over time, then they're obvious candidates for replacement when you replace a machine.
I've heard the cry for headless iMacs for as long as the iMac has existed. The argument has literally never changed, despite the fact that the iMac's sales have been all over the map over that time (the argument didn't change in 2000, either, when the iMac owned the market). I don't believe that the current iMac is selling poorly because it's an AIO, and I can't imagine how a headless iMac would do anything significant for Apple's market share, or to help its (currently expanding) user and developer bases. It would trade user friendliness for geek appeal, and that's not a recipe for success.
For $1851 on newegg look what I get:
A quality all aluminum case (that looks like the G5's) -Lian-Li v-1000
An Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 Ghz)
1 gb of ram (1x1024)(400mhz) Corsair
Radeon X800 Pro (256mb) video card
2x 74gb Western Digital Raptor hard drives (10000 rpms, 8mb cache)
An 8x (single layer) and 2.4x (dual layer) DVD writer/CD writer
A chaintech motherboard (N-force 3-250 chipset)
and a 470 watt power supply (enermax noisetaker)
The closest thing that apple offers is the $1999 powermac G5 which has the specs:
Dual 1.8ghz G5's
256mb ram
80gb hard drive (7200 rpms I assume)
8x single layer dvd writer
and a geforce 5200 ultra (with a whole 64mb of video memory)
Besides the fact that it runs OSX why would anyone want to buy that compared to what you can get in a PC for just as much!
you get 1/4 the ram
about 1/2 the hard drive space (with MUCH slower drives)
and a video card that competes with what most PC users had 3 generations ago
Its all about price. Apple needs something that can compete with a PC of the same price. I realize that you cannot directly compare the speeds of PC components to mac components for the most part (particularly processors) but there are equivilants.
Originally posted by zpapasmurf
Its all about price. Apple needs something that can compete with a PC of the same price.
Not gonna happen. Never has. Apple attempts to compete with quality, design and better software, not price.
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+ operating at 2.0GHz
Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional Edition
256 MB DDR / PC3200 (1 DIMM)
160 GB 7200 rpm Ultra DMA Hard Drive
8X DVD+RW/+R drive (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
1 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, 9-in-1 card reader + WinDVD (in the front)
128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX(TM) 5200XT, TV-Out
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS with front audio ports
HP pavilion VF15 15" flat panel display
HP Internet Keyboard, HP Optical Mouse
Harman-Kardon 2-Piece Active Speakers
Microsoft(R) Works 7.0/Money 2004/MSN Encarta Plus
edit
Norton Antivirus 2004 (1 yr subscription)
For a mere $15 more than the imac. And about 5 more minutes of set up time. Which one to pick????