The truth about computer buyers - the average non-geek ones, is that they rarely "upgrade" their CPUs after purchasing. In 4 years or so they buy a completely new computer. Best Buy and CompUSA aren't interested in simply selling graphic card upgrades anymore. Apple single handidly made computers easy to use and to own. No amount of trolling by fowl-mouthed teenagers is going to change history. The new iMac will appeal to the demographic that wants to send eMail, surf the net, assemble personal photos and do things other then sit in front of the damn thing and play video games.
. . . The point is that you don't have to configure a Mac to make it a worthy machine. . . Apple believes that there is a minimum level of quality that should be expected of every computer . . . It means that the Macintosh will never be the cheapest platform, or. . . fastest or the best for games, . . . but will always be the most integrated, most elegant, and highest quality platform.
I doubt that Apple has this opinion of the Mac platform; I certainly hope not. However, I think what you say might apply to one model of the Mac, like the future iMac. The concept of the iMac is good. Take all the features that some large market segment wants in a computer, and integrate these features together in the most cost-effective way. So the iMac might target the consumer digital hub market, for example, and for this particular application it should represent one of the best values. This is the concept at least, and hopefully Apple will pull it off better this time around.
Where I really disagree with you is trying to apply this principal to the entire Mac platform. The entire computer market has very diverse needs. An iMac might represent good value in its main market segment, but it cannot be expected to be a good value in many others. If Apple expects to increase market share, Apple needs more diversity in the type of Macs offered.
No amount of trolling by fowl-mouthed teenagers is going to change history. The new iMac will appeal to the demographic that wants to send eMail, surf the net, assemble personal photos and do things other then sit in front of the damn thing and play video games.
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
I don't buy this one bit. It flys in the face of reality. Do you think that the big box stores run all those adds on Sunday for nothing?
I actually think reality is the other way around. Few if any computers survive to their replacement date without an upgrade of some sort.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
The truth about computer buyers - the average non-geek ones, is that they rarely "upgrade" their CPUs after purchasing. In 4 years or so they buy a completely new computer. Best Buy and CompUSA aren't interested in simply selling graphic card upgrades anymore. Apple single handidly made computers easy to use and to own. No amount of trolling by fowl-mouthed teenagers is going to change history. The new iMac will appeal to the demographic that wants to send eMail, surf the net, assemble personal photos and do things other then sit in front of the damn thing and play video games.
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
I can only speak to the windows side but the GPU is for a lot moree than gameing, for example, on low-end GPUs today, I find it hard to play full screen video at any res. higher than 800*600, and some of them cant even handle 32 bit color, but only 24.
Where I really disagree with you is trying to apply this principal to the entire Mac platform. The entire computer market has very diverse needs. An iMac might represent good value in its main market segment, but it cannot be expected to be a good value in many others. If Apple expects to increase market share, Apple needs more diversity in the type of Macs offered.
like a sub pwrmac tower with one g5 cpu 256 mb upgradeable to 4 gigs ram, 60 gig hdd(optional upgrades 80, 120, 180), 1 agp(ships with a stock nvidea 5?00 or radion.), 1 pci, 1pcix, and standard I/O and a combo drive for $1100 base...any takers?
One thing that you underestimate is the people ouside the gaming community that can benefit from a good graphics card. An iMac type machine, with good graphics, could be a boon to researchers who just want to attach to a compute server for example.
The bigger problem is the demands of future software. More and more operations are being done on the GPU simply because they out perform the CPU. It is a trend that won't stop on the Mac platform and will soon get started on the i86 platforms. The performance advantage is so clear that competition will drive the use of the GPU into more and more of the OS. A fast GPU card may very well be required to get the level of performance we have today.
It really isn't whining as you state it is a reality! Even Apples top of the line hardware is wanting in that respect. I think everyone would be willing to let the GPU in the eMac slide, it is when you start paying top dollar for what should be performance machines that things get a bit unbearable.
As to the iMac if Apple wants to keep the price high on the machine like they have in the past then yeah I expect a decent graphics card. On the new machine I expect that card to meet the demands that have been outlined at WWDC for the next OS revision. This is not a lot to ask for a new machine, that is that it is capable of running the new software that will be coming out withing a few months of its debut. At the same time I don't expect Apple to give up its quality, a tweaky GPU run at the limits of its performance has no place in Apple hardware. Many of us are not looking for game playing overclocking video cards, we are simply asking for hardware that is contemporary.
Thanks
dave
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
...It really isn't whining as you state it is a reality! Even Apples top of the line hardware is wanting in that respect. I think everyone would be willing to let the GPU in the eMac slide, it is when you start paying top dollar for what should be performance machines that things get a bit unbearable...
Apple sells premium hardware, the specs that they have should reflect that. A 2 year old graphics chip on a premium computer is not a good value. Also, with Tiger Apple is going to rely even more on the GPU for total system performance.
The best plan Apple, or any other computer manufacturer, can have to combat upgrading over replacing a computer is to make the specs advance fast enough and make the computer cheap enough to be cost prohibative for upgrading. As as example, right now it would cost me about $500 to put a 1.2 Ghz processor and a "flashed" Radeon 7000 in my Cube. Even though most of the specs have imporved on the iMac, I do not see any compelling reason to replace my Cube with a new iMac for home use. If the iMac were at 1.6 Ghz, and $300 less then this would be different.
The best path that Apple could take to increase market share, in the consumer market, is to make a computer that competes better on the surface in it's market. That is what they did when the original iMac was put out, and part of it's success was due to this. That would mean a 1.6 Ghz iMac with a GPU that is comperable to those sold in the same price range and getting the system's price down below the $1000 psychological barrier, again something that they did better at with the original iMac than they have been able to do with the current one. I think that the reason that we do not have a competative iMac today has a lot to do with Apple taking a buisness strategy of increased profits over that of increasing market share.
That would mean a 1.6 Ghz iMac with a GPU that is comperable to those sold in the same price range and getting the system's price down below the $1000 psychological barrier, again something that they did better at with the original iMac than they have been able to do with the current one. I think that the reason that we do not have a competative iMac today has a lot to do with Apple taking a buisness strategy of increased profits over that of increasing market share.
i think apple tried to make a beautifull computer and enough profit, the computer however turned out to be to expensive to build.
something i geuss apple will try to handle with the next generation imacs.
Everybody seems to be expecting the impossible here. First off, Dell uses integrated graphics in their machines well into the iMac's price range. The GeForce 4 may not be the best card around for games, it sure as hell beats the pants off an integrated chip that shares system memory.
They ship CD-ROMS and 40GB drives in that range as well. And of course they use "crippled" processors in that price range. Everybody does that. In fact, most of Dell's cheap boxes don't even allow you to upgrade to the latest processors...they're stuck in the 2.4-2.8GHZ range.
Take a look at this side-by-side. Do you really think the Dell is a better value?
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
Sooo..let me get this straight. When the new webbrowser or program comes out that requires more RAM...you're just gonna go out and buy a new computer? Real smart. Good consumer.
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
You mean the 2-3% of the consumer market that you are a part of, not the other 97-8% who obviously have no difficulty w/ a few extra wires.
Why don't we get it? It's very simple really, sales. Whether or not you or anyone else will ever upgrade your computer people want that option, this is borne out by the fact that 97%+ of all consumers buy computers that at least appear to be upgradeable. Or maybe your argument is that windoze is so much better than the Mac OS that people are willing to go through more work to set up their computers.
You mean the 2-3% of the consumer market that you are a part of, not the other 97-8% who obviously have no difficulty w/ a few extra wires.
Why don't we get it? It's very simple really, sales. Whether or not you or anyone else will ever upgrade your computer people want that option, this is borne out by the fact that 97%+ of all consumers buy computers that at least appear to be upgradeable. Or maybe your argument is that windoze is so much better than the Mac OS that people are willing to go through more work to set up their computers.
Interesting argument. 97 percent of computer buyers use Window PCs, which are mostly some type of tower with PCI expansion slots. However, I'd bet that half of the home consumers buy it the way they want it and never intend to open it up. I think a large segment of the market, but way under 50 percent, would find an iMac to be an ideal computer, if it had an appropriate price tag and the right features. Yet, for one reason or another, most of this market segment will not buy a Macintosh. If Apple does it right this time around, maybe more will switch.
Having said that, I believe Apple has been neglecting the majority of the market, which does not want a professional Power Mac or an iMac/eMac thing.
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
This debate has been going on for years - my view is that the very fact that there is so much polarity in view between (1) a simple AIO solution on the one hand and (2) a consumer headless solution on the other, indicates that Apple has taken an oversimplistic view of its consumer market. It should probably discontinue the eMac and iMac and instead offer a new AIO solution and a headless model and recognise that the consumer market needs both. This is not a mutually exclusive decision and Apple might be in a far better position if it were to recognise that this market is segmented. Also, it would be better for Apple to cannabalise its own sales with two offerings rather than lose these sales to PC-land.
Well they still have their old OS 9 boot systems but at a starting price of $1299 for a headless mac it's ridiculous. If they just took that system and updated it they'd fill a headless void below the current Powermacs.
I just don't think Windows users buy Windows Boxes because of expansion. I think it comes to down to lingering misconceptions about the Mac. I think people feel intimidated to learn a new platform, even though it would probably be easier for most to learn Mac OS X than to continue aimlessly poking around with Windows. I don't think most consumers have much of an investment in software either. Basically, most consumers don't even consider the Mac because they aren't aware of the advantages.
With regards to the iMac, I think a lower price and more retail exposure would have a very positive impact, regardless of expandability or an AIO design. Perhaps a mail-order campaign like Dell's would make a difference. A PC trade-in program may also help.
Maybe we're all wrong. Maybe 97% of people have some sort of genetic make-up that makes them immune to the RDF.
I can only speak to the windows side but the GPU is for a lot moree than gameing, for example, on low-end GPUs today, I find it hard to play full screen video at any res. higher than 800*600, and some of them cant even handle 32 bit color, but only 24.
32 bit color is 24 bits of actual color (8 bits each of red, green and blue) and 8 bits of transparency. Since monitors can't display actual transparency, 32 bit color is computed down to 24 bit color in the GPU (layers of semitransparent pixels are rendered down to one pixel with one 24-bit color) and then the final result is sent off to the display.
The highest display quality is "millions of colors." 2^24 is 16,777,216. 2^32 is 4,294,967,296. if you see a display supporting "billions of colors" let me know.
In response to later posts: As for the fact that the PC buying public takes home non-AIO PCs, what choice have they ever had? Towers are so ubiquitous that most PC users, confronted with an iMac of any vintage, wonder aloud where the computer is. I know one PC user who thought her mother's iMac was a terminal, that she had to connect to a remote machine to be able to use it at all!
Granted, you can find the occasional PC AIO, but they suck so roundly that it's small wonder that people keep buying the familiarly cumbersome minitowers (and calling people like me to set them up). That doesn't mean that a good AIO won't sell. If anything, the iMac is the first real choice in the form factor of a consumer PC that the consumer has been given. Take that away, and the iMac is one important step closer to just being like everything else on the shelves.
I don't see an Apple G5 tower being any more 'cumbersome' than an AIO iMac 2.
(Ironically, the iMac 2 has been very 'cumbersome' for Apple... Cumbersome design to update, to manufacture, to meet price points...cumbersome to switchers who failed to walk out with an iMac 2 from Apple Stores...)
Your AIO arguments could be applied to what I'm saying..., Apple 'could' this and 'could' that.
Fact is: towers sell more than AIOs. AIOs suck. Apple's AIOs look sexy but suck and their sales figures suck.
Maybe it's the built in obselete-ism that gnarks me most.
If you could make an AIO with the benefits of a tower then...
Apple does this to force feed an upgrade to the the Mac user base. Fine.
But I think this strategy gives them a smaller and smaller pool to make hardware sales from.
There was a recent report that said of 100% of PC buyers who had been exposed to the Mac, 50% still went ahead and bought the Dell. That's pretty damning. Not of Apple's great software...but of its pretty poor AIO range.
Apple's implementation of AIO limits choice. I think the new iMac 3G should be about choice.
That means choosing the graphic card I want. That means choosing the cpu I want. That means choosing the monitor I want. I shouldn't (and PC switchers...) shouldn't have to pay £1395 to begin to get that choice.
A 20% premium is one thing. But 50-100% premium over a PC that can offer that choice for far less is taking the p*ss. What's more, Apple store foot patrol, switchers and computer buyers alike know it.
That doesn't mean that a good AIO won't sell. If anything, the iMac is the first real choice in the form factor of a consumer PC that the consumer has been given. Take that away, and the iMac is one important step closer to just being like everything else on the shelves.
It doesn't mean that a mini-tower won't sell. Especially with Ives soothing styling.
That real choice stopped selling. The iMac 2 didn't sell that well.
Take it away and what? 100,000 iMac 2s don't get sold. None are being sold now. Nobody is really noticing or crying that much.
Yet, when the original iMac got pulled editorials mourned its passing.
If it's one step closer to being like everything else on the shelves then more people might buy it.
You can be too different and too AIO. See Cube, see iMac 2.
Apple haven't bought the clue yet.
A slimline mini-tower version of the G5 tower. RnD is done. Design tweak. AGP slot. A few memory slots. Single G5. Same Alu. Job done.
I haven't a problem with Apple offering an AIO range that sells 200k tops.
I have a problem with the fact that they don't offer an alternative when clearing two AIOs ranges right up to £1395 and higher!
I wouldn't mind them offering a tower range that went from £545 and higher!
It's the lack of choice. The G4 towers vanish and so does the £999 tower. Why not a G5 tower with a single 2 gig for £999?
I hope the new iMac offers some benefits of a tower.
Apple's best AIOs are their laptops. They are true AIOs because they integrate keyboard and mouse controller. Makes sense. Portable.
Desktop AIOs are a misnomer. That's why it hasn't worked in PC land. That's why it isn't really working in Mac land. It inhibits choice.
Comments
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
. . . The point is that you don't have to configure a Mac to make it a worthy machine. . . Apple believes that there is a minimum level of quality that should be expected of every computer . . . It means that the Macintosh will never be the cheapest platform, or. . . fastest or the best for games, . . . but will always be the most integrated, most elegant, and highest quality platform.
I doubt that Apple has this opinion of the Mac platform; I certainly hope not. However, I think what you say might apply to one model of the Mac, like the future iMac. The concept of the iMac is good. Take all the features that some large market segment wants in a computer, and integrate these features together in the most cost-effective way. So the iMac might target the consumer digital hub market, for example, and for this particular application it should represent one of the best values. This is the concept at least, and hopefully Apple will pull it off better this time around.
Where I really disagree with you is trying to apply this principal to the entire Mac platform. The entire computer market has very diverse needs. An iMac might represent good value in its main market segment, but it cannot be expected to be a good value in many others. If Apple expects to increase market share, Apple needs more diversity in the type of Macs offered.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
No amount of trolling by fowl-mouthed teenagers is going to change history. The new iMac will appeal to the demographic that wants to send eMail, surf the net, assemble personal photos and do things other then sit in front of the damn thing and play video games.
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
I actually think reality is the other way around. Few if any computers survive to their replacement date without an upgrade of some sort.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
The truth about computer buyers - the average non-geek ones, is that they rarely "upgrade" their CPUs after purchasing. In 4 years or so they buy a completely new computer. Best Buy and CompUSA aren't interested in simply selling graphic card upgrades anymore. Apple single handidly made computers easy to use and to own. No amount of trolling by fowl-mouthed teenagers is going to change history. The new iMac will appeal to the demographic that wants to send eMail, surf the net, assemble personal photos and do things other then sit in front of the damn thing and play video games.
Originally posted by iDave
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
I can only speak to the windows side but the GPU is for a lot moree than gameing, for example, on low-end GPUs today, I find it hard to play full screen video at any res. higher than 800*600, and some of them cant even handle 32 bit color, but only 24.
Originally posted by snoopy
Where I really disagree with you is trying to apply this principal to the entire Mac platform. The entire computer market has very diverse needs. An iMac might represent good value in its main market segment, but it cannot be expected to be a good value in many others. If Apple expects to increase market share, Apple needs more diversity in the type of Macs offered.
like a sub pwrmac tower with one g5 cpu 256 mb upgradeable to 4 gigs ram, 60 gig hdd(optional upgrades 80, 120, 180), 1 agp(ships with a stock nvidea 5?00 or radion.), 1 pci, 1pcix, and standard I/O and a combo drive for $1100 base...any takers?
The bigger problem is the demands of future software. More and more operations are being done on the GPU simply because they out perform the CPU. It is a trend that won't stop on the Mac platform and will soon get started on the i86 platforms. The performance advantage is so clear that competition will drive the use of the GPU into more and more of the OS. A fast GPU card may very well be required to get the level of performance we have today.
It really isn't whining as you state it is a reality! Even Apples top of the line hardware is wanting in that respect. I think everyone would be willing to let the GPU in the eMac slide, it is when you start paying top dollar for what should be performance machines that things get a bit unbearable.
As to the iMac if Apple wants to keep the price high on the machine like they have in the past then yeah I expect a decent graphics card. On the new machine I expect that card to meet the demands that have been outlined at WWDC for the next OS revision. This is not a lot to ask for a new machine, that is that it is capable of running the new software that will be coming out withing a few months of its debut. At the same time I don't expect Apple to give up its quality, a tweaky GPU run at the limits of its performance has no place in Apple hardware. Many of us are not looking for game playing overclocking video cards, we are simply asking for hardware that is contemporary.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by iDave
I've often wondered how many people actually need super fast graphics cards because they play games. They're (mostly) the only ones who need fast GPUs yet we hear an awful lot of whining about how Apple's computers don't have good cards. Is it 10% of all computer users, maybe? I kind of doubt if the percentage is even that high.
Originally posted by wizard69
...It really isn't whining as you state it is a reality! Even Apples top of the line hardware is wanting in that respect. I think everyone would be willing to let the GPU in the eMac slide, it is when you start paying top dollar for what should be performance machines that things get a bit unbearable...
Apple sells premium hardware, the specs that they have should reflect that. A 2 year old graphics chip on a premium computer is not a good value. Also, with Tiger Apple is going to rely even more on the GPU for total system performance.
The best plan Apple, or any other computer manufacturer, can have to combat upgrading over replacing a computer is to make the specs advance fast enough and make the computer cheap enough to be cost prohibative for upgrading. As as example, right now it would cost me about $500 to put a 1.2 Ghz processor and a "flashed" Radeon 7000 in my Cube. Even though most of the specs have imporved on the iMac, I do not see any compelling reason to replace my Cube with a new iMac for home use. If the iMac were at 1.6 Ghz, and $300 less then this would be different.
The best path that Apple could take to increase market share, in the consumer market, is to make a computer that competes better on the surface in it's market. That is what they did when the original iMac was put out, and part of it's success was due to this. That would mean a 1.6 Ghz iMac with a GPU that is comperable to those sold in the same price range and getting the system's price down below the $1000 psychological barrier, again something that they did better at with the original iMac than they have been able to do with the current one. I think that the reason that we do not have a competative iMac today has a lot to do with Apple taking a buisness strategy of increased profits over that of increasing market share.
Originally posted by @homenow
That would mean a 1.6 Ghz iMac with a GPU that is comperable to those sold in the same price range and getting the system's price down below the $1000 psychological barrier, again something that they did better at with the original iMac than they have been able to do with the current one. I think that the reason that we do not have a competative iMac today has a lot to do with Apple taking a buisness strategy of increased profits over that of increasing market share.
i think apple tried to make a beautifull computer and enough profit, the computer however turned out to be to expensive to build.
something i geuss apple will try to handle with the next generation imacs.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
Everybody seems to be expecting the impossible here. First off, Dell uses integrated graphics in their machines well into the iMac's price range. The GeForce 4 may not be the best card around for games, it sure as hell beats the pants off an integrated chip that shares system memory.
They ship CD-ROMS and 40GB drives in that range as well. And of course they use "crippled" processors in that price range. Everybody does that. In fact, most of Dell's cheap boxes don't even allow you to upgrade to the latest processors...they're stuck in the 2.4-2.8GHZ range.
Take a look at this side-by-side. Do you really think the Dell is a better value?
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
Originally posted by gensor
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
Sooo..let me get this straight. When the new webbrowser or program comes out that requires more RAM...you're just gonna go out and buy a new computer? Real smart. Good consumer.
Originally posted by gensor
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
You mean the 2-3% of the consumer market that you are a part of, not the other 97-8% who obviously have no difficulty w/ a few extra wires.
Why don't we get it? It's very simple really, sales. Whether or not you or anyone else will ever upgrade your computer people want that option, this is borne out by the fact that 97%+ of all consumers buy computers that at least appear to be upgradeable. Or maybe your argument is that windoze is so much better than the Mac OS that people are willing to go through more work to set up their computers.
Originally posted by Dazaran
You mean the 2-3% of the consumer market that you are a part of, not the other 97-8% who obviously have no difficulty w/ a few extra wires.
Why don't we get it? It's very simple really, sales. Whether or not you or anyone else will ever upgrade your computer people want that option, this is borne out by the fact that 97%+ of all consumers buy computers that at least appear to be upgradeable. Or maybe your argument is that windoze is so much better than the Mac OS that people are willing to go through more work to set up their computers.
Interesting argument. 97 percent of computer buyers use Window PCs, which are mostly some type of tower with PCI expansion slots. However, I'd bet that half of the home consumers buy it the way they want it and never intend to open it up. I think a large segment of the market, but way under 50 percent, would find an iMac to be an ideal computer, if it had an appropriate price tag and the right features. Yet, for one reason or another, most of this market segment will not buy a Macintosh. If Apple does it right this time around, maybe more will switch.
Having said that, I believe Apple has been neglecting the majority of the market, which does not want a professional Power Mac or an iMac/eMac thing.
Originally posted by gensor
Wrong. Most of us consumers just want to pop it out of the box and do one thing and one thing only. Turn it on and it works. No hooking up and cords anywhere. I am really getting pissed that the power mac users seem to think that I and the majority of consumers had this deep down desire to open the hood of the car and put on headers and a blower. I never want to upgrade my iMac. I just bought one. Serves me perfect. No, I do not need or want to ad more memory, or graphics card. Why don't you all get it. The iMac is for a different market. I think I need to tell Apple to change the PowerMacs so that upgrades are impossible on the basis I don't wish to ever upgrade. How do you feel about that!
This debate has been going on for years - my view is that the very fact that there is so much polarity in view between (1) a simple AIO solution on the one hand and (2) a consumer headless solution on the other, indicates that Apple has taken an oversimplistic view of its consumer market. It should probably discontinue the eMac and iMac and instead offer a new AIO solution and a headless model and recognise that the consumer market needs both. This is not a mutually exclusive decision and Apple might be in a far better position if it were to recognise that this market is segmented. Also, it would be better for Apple to cannabalise its own sales with two offerings rather than lose these sales to PC-land.
With regards to the iMac, I think a lower price and more retail exposure would have a very positive impact, regardless of expandability or an AIO design. Perhaps a mail-order campaign like Dell's would make a difference. A PC trade-in program may also help.
Maybe we're all wrong. Maybe 97% of people have some sort of genetic make-up that makes them immune to the RDF.
Originally posted by a_greer
I can only speak to the windows side but the GPU is for a lot moree than gameing, for example, on low-end GPUs today, I find it hard to play full screen video at any res. higher than 800*600, and some of them cant even handle 32 bit color, but only 24.
32 bit color is 24 bits of actual color (8 bits each of red, green and blue) and 8 bits of transparency. Since monitors can't display actual transparency, 32 bit color is computed down to 24 bit color in the GPU (layers of semitransparent pixels are rendered down to one pixel with one 24-bit color) and then the final result is sent off to the display.
The highest display quality is "millions of colors." 2^24 is 16,777,216. 2^32 is 4,294,967,296. if you see a display supporting "billions of colors" let me know.
In response to later posts: As for the fact that the PC buying public takes home non-AIO PCs, what choice have they ever had? Towers are so ubiquitous that most PC users, confronted with an iMac of any vintage, wonder aloud where the computer is. I know one PC user who thought her mother's iMac was a terminal, that she had to connect to a remote machine to be able to use it at all!
Granted, you can find the occasional PC AIO, but they suck so roundly that it's small wonder that people keep buying the familiarly cumbersome minitowers (and calling people like me to set them up). That doesn't mean that a good AIO won't sell. If anything, the iMac is the first real choice in the form factor of a consumer PC that the consumer has been given. Take that away, and the iMac is one important step closer to just being like everything else on the shelves.
Towers are so ubiquitous
...and why might that be?
I don't see an Apple G5 tower being any more 'cumbersome' than an AIO iMac 2.
(Ironically, the iMac 2 has been very 'cumbersome' for Apple...
Your AIO arguments could be applied to what I'm saying..., Apple 'could' this and 'could' that.
Fact is: towers sell more than AIOs. AIOs suck. Apple's AIOs look sexy but suck and their sales figures suck.
Maybe it's the built in obselete-ism that gnarks me most.
If you could make an AIO with the benefits of a tower then...
Apple does this to force feed an upgrade to the the Mac user base. Fine.
But I think this strategy gives them a smaller and smaller pool to make hardware sales from.
There was a recent report that said of 100% of PC buyers who had been exposed to the Mac, 50% still went ahead and bought the Dell. That's pretty damning. Not of Apple's great software...but of its pretty poor AIO range.
Apple's implementation of AIO limits choice. I think the new iMac 3G should be about choice.
That means choosing the graphic card I want. That means choosing the cpu I want. That means choosing the monitor I want. I shouldn't (and PC switchers...) shouldn't have to pay £1395 to begin to get that choice.
A 20% premium is one thing. But 50-100% premium over a PC that can offer that choice for far less is taking the p*ss. What's more, Apple store foot patrol, switchers and computer buyers alike know it.
Lemon Bon Bon
That doesn't mean that a good AIO won't sell. If anything, the iMac is the first real choice in the form factor of a consumer PC that the consumer has been given. Take that away, and the iMac is one important step closer to just being like everything else on the shelves.
It doesn't mean that a mini-tower won't sell. Especially with Ives soothing styling.
That real choice stopped selling. The iMac 2 didn't sell that well.
Take it away and what? 100,000 iMac 2s don't get sold. None are being sold now. Nobody is really noticing or crying that much.
Yet, when the original iMac got pulled editorials mourned its passing.
If it's one step closer to being like everything else on the shelves then more people might buy it.
You can be too different and too AIO. See Cube, see iMac 2.
Apple haven't bought the clue yet.
A slimline mini-tower version of the G5 tower. RnD is done. Design tweak. AGP slot. A few memory slots. Single G5. Same Alu. Job done.
I haven't a problem with Apple offering an AIO range that sells 200k tops.
I have a problem with the fact that they don't offer an alternative when clearing two AIOs ranges right up to £1395 and higher!
I wouldn't mind them offering a tower range that went from £545 and higher!
It's the lack of choice. The G4 towers vanish and so does the £999 tower. Why not a G5 tower with a single 2 gig for £999?
I hope the new iMac offers some benefits of a tower.
Apple's best AIOs are their laptops. They are true AIOs because they integrate keyboard and mouse controller. Makes sense. Portable.
Desktop AIOs are a misnomer. That's why it hasn't worked in PC land. That's why it isn't really working in Mac land. It inhibits choice.
Lemon Bon Bon
what choice have they ever had?
Lemon Bon Bon