a_greer, did you really mean less than $500? That will never happen. Apple has said repeatedly that there's no point in selling computers that cheaply because there's no margin. Usually, PCs that are priced that low actually cost more. Sometimes because of those sh1tty rebates and sometimes because the manufacturer is taking a loss.
I want Apple to gain share as much as anyone, but not at the expense of profit. Without profitability, they lose investors who make possible much of the R&D.
If you want an Apple for less than $500 buy an iPod.
Side note: This is a pretty long thread. Can this really keep going until September? What's the AI record holder for longest thread?
My TAM (Twentieth Anniversary Mac) seems to fit this futuristic "pizza box" description rather well. Bought it new in 1997 and it's still viable. It has an LCD display, cpu mounted in back, floppy drive slot is on the right side and the CD-ROM drive is mounted vertically on the front. It has a TV tuner and an FM radio built-in. I still think it's one of the best looking computers Apple made. If the new Twentieth Anniversary Mac(new imac) looks anything like the old one I'll buy one!
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
The Register's Tony Smith seems to think it is new marketing ploy to add extra 'buzz' to the marketing of the new machine. This suggests a radical new form factor to me.
I think the whole 'flat mac' concept is a goer. AIO 17" LCD with a G5 motherboard slapped on the back. VESA style mounting so you can stick it the wall or the desktop stand of your choice. Bluetooth Keyboard and mouse...touchscreen even? Apple doesn't want to sell you an iMac for the dining room table but for the kitchen, bedroom and living room as well!
Slot-in TV tuners for cable, satellite, digital free-to-air, US , Yurp etc?
Toaster slot in the top? Liquid cooled G5 also makes tea?
First, your manual transmission analogy is bad: A manual transmission is a significant change to the hardware interface to the machine. A GPU isn't.
Thanks for responding for me, Amorph.
Believe it or not, when buying a car most people don't look at the horsepower, displacement, compression ratios, boost levels, etc. Sure some of us car geeks to, but to a big part of the rest of the world these numbers are irrelevent. When it comes to computers they are primarily a general purpose tool, and what the typical user should really care about is what they can do with it.
Quote:
Despite the howling on this board and elsewhere, a GPU that is not the absolute latest-and-greatest is neither obsolete nor disgraceful nor incapable of running future systems and applications — including many games — well enough. The iMac does not have to include twin dual-dual-link DVI X800s with 512GB of video RAM, connected via PCIe in order to remain marginally competitive with last year's PCs, or even to do a good job running Core Image and Core Video.
For that matter go look what typically ships in more low end PCs -- it is not the high end uber cards that you guys are lusting after, it is the same low and mid range chips from nVidia and ATI that Apple is using -- or worse, they don't have one and are stuck with the integrated Intel crap. Yes, the current (or perhaps I should say former since they've run out) iMac is a little long in the tool, but that's why they've stopped making them. You can still get PCs with the 5200 as well, or the latest low end chips (X300 and whatever the current nVidia equivalent is) which are not huge improvements in an easily perceptable way (other than games which, as we all know, the Mac is not about).
There is a lot of GPU obsession going on, and while the top end units are very cool (urr, well actually they're really really hot) they aren't for everyone. In fact they aren't for most. The majority of the iMac target audience do not care that they have the 5200 and not the 6800 ... in fact if you took their current machine and swapped in one with a 6800 they would complain that it was bigger, uglier, noiser, drove up their power bill, required them to have air conditioning, cost them $500 more, and did not help their computing experience one little bit.
As for CoreImage, I think most tend to be looking at it the wrong way. It provides a mechanism for developers to take maximum advantage of whatever hardware you have without having to do huge amounts of work to support each and every kind of hardware. Instead of coding for AltiVec or coding for the GPU, or just plain PowerPC, or trying to code a fancy system that uses both across multiple processors, the developers instead code for CoreImage. The result runs as fast as your hardware can do it. If this enables you to do something in real-time then hooray, and if it doesn't you probably couldn't have managed it before anyhow so no loss. This is the same as Quartz Extreme, except that the unaccelerated Quartz came along first. When QE arrived, everyone with the right hardware suddenly benefited but the people without didn't suffer (at least not anymore than they were).
a_greer, did you really mean less than $500? That will never happen. Apple has said repeatedly that there's no point in selling computers that cheaply because there's no margin. Usually, PCs that are priced that low actually cost more. Sometimes because of those sh1tty rebates and sometimes because the manufacturer is taking a loss.
I want Apple to gain share as much as anyone, but not at the expense of profit. Without profitability, they lose investors who make possible much of the R&D.
Apple has been consistently profitable for a few years now with their resurgence under Steven Jobs (correct me if I'm wrong.) They've come out with some smashing designs, expanded with the wildy popular iPod, and have even started selling online music.
The only thing they haven't done is improve market share. Could now be a right time to try again? At some point I think Apple has to address this, or at least make another strong attempt to.
I completely agree that profitability is critical. But if it's the higher margin stuff (PowerBooks and PowerMacs) that really drive profits, then a great new iMac at a very attractive price point just might improve market share and increase future sales of the higher margin stuff. I don't mean cheap like an eMachine, but much better than current iMac pricing.
Give up (some) profits short-term, in order to gain more in the long-term. If the new iMac is successful then it could generate just as much profits as the last one (since it wasn't a big seller anyway.)
The original iMac was cheap, but I think the new 'digital lifestyle' thing and the iLife suite gives Apple a greater edge over PC than before. Add in the popularity of the iPod and Apple's profile is as great as it's been for a long time. So I think now would be a great time to really try to make a move, and I think they would have a great chance of success.
Is there any logic to this? I'm only an interested outsider, but waiting for the new iMac and should eventually 'switch'.
While Apple has been profitable in recent years, much of it is simply interest on the huge pile of cash they have.
Part of the problem is that recent iMacs have been too expensive to build, with the stainless steel arm and LCDs, among other expensive parts. Hopefully with LCD costs coming down a bit, if Apple redesigns the iMac they can get it back into the ballpark that consumers will consider.
While Apple has been profitable in recent years, much of it is simply interest on the huge pile of cash they have.
Part of the problem is that recent iMacs have been too expensive to build, with the stainless steel arm and LCDs, among other expensive parts. Hopefully with LCD costs coming down a bit, if Apple redesigns the iMac they can get it back into the ballpark that consumers will consider.
Thanks for the reply. It was this Businessweek article that got me thinking about profits-
The company has less margin for error than meets the eye. Analysts expect Apple to rack up $235 million in net earnings this year, double last year's tally. But Apple relies more on interest from its $4.6 billion cash horde than do rivals. Backing out its expected after-tax $34 million in investment income, Apple's net would fall to $201 million on expected sales of $8 billion, says Albert Meyer, a general partner with 2nd Opinion Research. What's more, if the company were forced to expense options, as expected, that number would fall at least 50%, to just $100.5 million, says Meyer.
So while there are concerns, I figured they are still doing pretty good making money off sales.
Part of coming out with a great low-cost iMac would be going with that approach from the very beginning when considering design concepts. I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs here, but if they start with low cost in mind they will eliminate the more costly design ideas. It limits their options, but I think Apple's designers are still good enough to come up with something great and meet a low price point. With design it's sometimes these sorts of challenges that can inspire a real home run (more companies can create a great $100,000 car than can create a great $20,000 car.)
I think and hope Apple has the $999 target in mind. As others have said, that's not really competitive in today's consumer computer market, but it's at least something "consumers" will consider unlike $1299 or $1799. I'd really really like to see Apple hit that target with a new low-end iMac. If they would release some kind of low end computer without a display, I'd like to see such a thing at $799. Unfortunately I doubt that'll happen. If Apple ever releases another headless computer other than the Power Mac, it'll probably be mid-range in the $1300 ballpark, which wouldn't be all that bad, depending on specs.
a_greer, did you really mean less than $500? That will never happen. Apple has said repeatedly that there's no point in selling computers that cheaply because there's no margin. Usually, PCs that are priced that low actually cost more. . . .
I see this is still causing confusion. I'm pretty sure the "less than $500" refers to the flat panel monitors. If you look earlier in the posting from a_greer, PCs in the $1000 to $1700 range are mentioned.
Currently configuring a Dell Dimension 8400. Base price $989 with 15" LCD.
Added Firewire
Added DVD Burner
Added Speakers
Added 17" "digital" LCD because Apple doesn't do analog.
New price $1368.
It's the same ole scenario. PCs look cheap because they're stripped in key ways that Apples are not. I'd be fine seeing a 17" iMac with 128MB of graphics for $1499. I'd like it even more if it was 2 piece.
hmurchison, I agree that people tend to make things out worse than they are but in this instance I think your comparison is a little unfair - the 8400 is a pretty high end machine to be comparing to an iMac.
We're talking a 3 Ghz P4, PCI-E Graphics, dual channel DDR, 128MB X300 Vid card, and so on. This box would run rings around an iMac.
hmurchison, I agree that people tend to make things out worse than they are but in this instance I think your comparison is a little unfair - the 8400 is a pretty high end machine to be comparing to an iMac.
We're talking a 3 Ghz P4, PCI-E Graphics, dual channel DDR, 128MB X300 Vid card, and so on. This box would run rings around an iMac.
Just my 2 bits,
C.
I'd expect the iMac at $1499 to have at least a 1.6Ghz G5. Preferrably 1.8Ghz. For consumers that would be competitive enough versus a P4 3ghz IMO.
PCI Express = no speed advantage over AGP 8x real world.
DDR- I'd expect Apple to keep DDR dc in any G5 system.
Gimme this
iMac 1.8Ghz G5
128MB 9600XT
DVDR
80GB HD
17" LCD widescreen
Gigabit ethernet
Digi I/O
for 1499 and I like my chances against the boring Dull 8400 and even more when Tiger ships.
I'd expect the iMac at $1499 to have at least a 1.6Ghz G5. Preferrably 1.8Ghz. For consumers that would be competitive enough versus a P4 3ghz IMO.
Y'know, from the reviews I've read you need at least a dual 1.8 G5 to be competitive on that level.
Quote:
PCI Express = no speed advantage over AGP 8x real world.
True, however PCI-E is the future and it is upgradable...
Quote:
DDR- I'd expect Apple to keep DDR dc in any G5 system.
Gimme this
iMac 1.8Ghz G5
128MB 9600XT
DVDR
80GB HD
17" LCD widescreen
Gigabit ethernet
Digi I/O
for 1499 and I like my chances against the boring Dull 8400 and even more when Tiger ships.
I hope Apple gets a G5 in there and breaks the trend of meeting my "worst case scenerios"...
Unfortunately, I think that unless Apple does something significantly more *wow* with the new iMac we'll watch as it has one good quarter in sales and peter out quickly after that.
When Tiger ships and Apple announces iLife 5 if Apple puts decent GPUs in the nest iMac not even a P4 3.6Ghz will be able to keep up with some of the things the iMac will be able to do in Tiger.
There's a new AI article that says heat is the problem with the G5 iMacs. It also sounds like it'll be another AIO.
I certainly hope that heat isn't affecting the LCD. I mean, perhaps the heat issue isn't with the CPU itself but that it had unintended consequences with the LCD due to its proximity.
I think $999 would be an excellent price point to shoot for, especially with a DVDR.
I think that's an important psychological price point, regardless of PC pricing (which goes all over the map anyways.) If someone is looking for a $500 system then they're probably not ever going to consider a Mac anyway. OTOH if someone is considering between a $999 iMac and a $799 PC, well I think they'll strongly consider the iMac.
I think $999 is the absolute lowest Apple could shoot for without making serious compromises like inferior displays, materials, etc. (if not already too low.)
If Apple can roll out a $999 system with Safari, new iLife, and DVDR I think they could significantly expand the user base, which again will lead to further higher margin sales down the road.
The eMac is coincidentally that exact price right now with SuperDrive, but it seems like almost the red-headed stepchild of the Apple line (since they would rather sell iMacs.) But the specs (G4, CRT) of that machine leads me to doubt whether they can have a new $999 iMac (maybe only if it was headless.)
I certainly hope that heat isn't affecting the LCD. I mean, perhaps the heat issue isn't with the CPU itself but that it had unintended consequences with the LCD due to its proximity.
God, I hope so. Maybe they will scratch that whole AIO crap design and go with a small tower like they should.
There's a new AI article that says heat is the problem with the G5 iMacs. It also sounds like it'll be another AIO.
Just because they are having heat problems does not mean it is going to be an AIO. Remember the problems they had getting a G5 into a full size tower. Even if it was a mini tower they would still have heat issues.
That aside I think it will probably be another AIO because that is what the iMac is- an AIO. Hopefully Apple will prove me wrong though.
Comments
Take the eMac, redesign it with an LCD, and it's the new iMac. (consumer AIO)
Deliver a new product, the headless xMac for $1099, available with a 17" cinema display for an additional $500.
I want Apple to gain share as much as anyone, but not at the expense of profit. Without profitability, they lose investors who make possible much of the R&D.
If you want an Apple for less than $500 buy an iPod.
Side note: This is a pretty long thread. Can this really keep going until September? What's the AI record holder for longest thread?
Originally posted by vinney57
The Register's Tony Smith seems to think it is new marketing ploy to add extra 'buzz' to the marketing of the new machine. This suggests a radical new form factor to me.
I think the whole 'flat mac' concept is a goer. AIO 17" LCD with a G5 motherboard slapped on the back. VESA style mounting so you can stick it the wall or the desktop stand of your choice. Bluetooth Keyboard and mouse...touchscreen even? Apple doesn't want to sell you an iMac for the dining room table but for the kitchen, bedroom and living room as well!
Slot-in TV tuners for cable, satellite, digital free-to-air, US , Yurp etc?
Toaster slot in the top? Liquid cooled G5 also makes tea?
(OK I'll lie down now...)
Originally posted by Amorph
The car analogy lives!
First, your manual transmission analogy is bad: A manual transmission is a significant change to the hardware interface to the machine. A GPU isn't.
Thanks for responding for me, Amorph.
Believe it or not, when buying a car most people don't look at the horsepower, displacement, compression ratios, boost levels, etc. Sure some of us car geeks to, but to a big part of the rest of the world these numbers are irrelevent. When it comes to computers they are primarily a general purpose tool, and what the typical user should really care about is what they can do with it.
Despite the howling on this board and elsewhere, a GPU that is not the absolute latest-and-greatest is neither obsolete nor disgraceful nor incapable of running future systems and applications — including many games — well enough. The iMac does not have to include twin dual-dual-link DVI X800s with 512GB of video RAM, connected via PCIe in order to remain marginally competitive with last year's PCs, or even to do a good job running Core Image and Core Video.
For that matter go look what typically ships in more low end PCs -- it is not the high end uber cards that you guys are lusting after, it is the same low and mid range chips from nVidia and ATI that Apple is using -- or worse, they don't have one and are stuck with the integrated Intel crap. Yes, the current (or perhaps I should say former since they've run out) iMac is a little long in the tool, but that's why they've stopped making them. You can still get PCs with the 5200 as well, or the latest low end chips (X300 and whatever the current nVidia equivalent is) which are not huge improvements in an easily perceptable way (other than games which, as we all know, the Mac is not about).
There is a lot of GPU obsession going on, and while the top end units are very cool (urr, well actually they're really really hot) they aren't for everyone. In fact they aren't for most. The majority of the iMac target audience do not care that they have the 5200 and not the 6800 ... in fact if you took their current machine and swapped in one with a 6800 they would complain that it was bigger, uglier, noiser, drove up their power bill, required them to have air conditioning, cost them $500 more, and did not help their computing experience one little bit.
As for CoreImage, I think most tend to be looking at it the wrong way. It provides a mechanism for developers to take maximum advantage of whatever hardware you have without having to do huge amounts of work to support each and every kind of hardware. Instead of coding for AltiVec or coding for the GPU, or just plain PowerPC, or trying to code a fancy system that uses both across multiple processors, the developers instead code for CoreImage. The result runs as fast as your hardware can do it. If this enables you to do something in real-time then hooray, and if it doesn't you probably couldn't have managed it before anyhow so no loss. This is the same as Quartz Extreme, except that the unaccelerated Quartz came along first. When QE arrived, everyone with the right hardware suddenly benefited but the people without didn't suffer (at least not anymore than they were).
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
a_greer, did you really mean less than $500? That will never happen. Apple has said repeatedly that there's no point in selling computers that cheaply because there's no margin. Usually, PCs that are priced that low actually cost more. Sometimes because of those sh1tty rebates and sometimes because the manufacturer is taking a loss.
I want Apple to gain share as much as anyone, but not at the expense of profit. Without profitability, they lose investors who make possible much of the R&D.
Apple has been consistently profitable for a few years now with their resurgence under Steven Jobs (correct me if I'm wrong.) They've come out with some smashing designs, expanded with the wildy popular iPod, and have even started selling online music.
The only thing they haven't done is improve market share. Could now be a right time to try again? At some point I think Apple has to address this, or at least make another strong attempt to.
I completely agree that profitability is critical. But if it's the higher margin stuff (PowerBooks and PowerMacs) that really drive profits, then a great new iMac at a very attractive price point just might improve market share and increase future sales of the higher margin stuff. I don't mean cheap like an eMachine, but much better than current iMac pricing.
Give up (some) profits short-term, in order to gain more in the long-term. If the new iMac is successful then it could generate just as much profits as the last one (since it wasn't a big seller anyway.)
The original iMac was cheap, but I think the new 'digital lifestyle' thing and the iLife suite gives Apple a greater edge over PC than before. Add in the popularity of the iPod and Apple's profile is as great as it's been for a long time. So I think now would be a great time to really try to make a move, and I think they would have a great chance of success.
Is there any logic to this? I'm only an interested outsider, but waiting for the new iMac and should eventually 'switch'.
Thanks
Part of the problem is that recent iMacs have been too expensive to build, with the stainless steel arm and LCDs, among other expensive parts. Hopefully with LCD costs coming down a bit, if Apple redesigns the iMac they can get it back into the ballpark that consumers will consider.
Originally posted by iDave
While Apple has been profitable in recent years, much of it is simply interest on the huge pile of cash they have.
Part of the problem is that recent iMacs have been too expensive to build, with the stainless steel arm and LCDs, among other expensive parts. Hopefully with LCD costs coming down a bit, if Apple redesigns the iMac they can get it back into the ballpark that consumers will consider.
Thanks for the reply. It was this Businessweek article that got me thinking about profits-
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2073_mz011.htm
The company has less margin for error than meets the eye. Analysts expect Apple to rack up $235 million in net earnings this year, double last year's tally. But Apple relies more on interest from its $4.6 billion cash horde than do rivals. Backing out its expected after-tax $34 million in investment income, Apple's net would fall to $201 million on expected sales of $8 billion, says Albert Meyer, a general partner with 2nd Opinion Research. What's more, if the company were forced to expense options, as expected, that number would fall at least 50%, to just $100.5 million, says Meyer.
So while there are concerns, I figured they are still doing pretty good making money off sales.
Part of coming out with a great low-cost iMac would be going with that approach from the very beginning when considering design concepts. I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs here, but if they start with low cost in mind they will eliminate the more costly design ideas. It limits their options, but I think Apple's designers are still good enough to come up with something great and meet a low price point. With design it's sometimes these sorts of challenges that can inspire a real home run (more companies can create a great $100,000 car than can create a great $20,000 car.)
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
a_greer, did you really mean less than $500? That will never happen. Apple has said repeatedly that there's no point in selling computers that cheaply because there's no margin. Usually, PCs that are priced that low actually cost more. . . .
I see this is still causing confusion. I'm pretty sure the "less than $500" refers to the flat panel monitors. If you look earlier in the posting from a_greer, PCs in the $1000 to $1700 range are mentioned.
Added Firewire
Added DVD Burner
Added Speakers
Added 17" "digital" LCD because Apple doesn't do analog.
New price $1368.
It's the same ole scenario. PCs look cheap because they're stripped in key ways that Apples are not. I'd be fine seeing a 17" iMac with 128MB of graphics for $1499. I'd like it even more if it was 2 piece.
We're talking a 3 Ghz P4, PCI-E Graphics, dual channel DDR, 128MB X300 Vid card, and so on. This box would run rings around an iMac.
Just my 2 bits,
C.
Originally posted by Concord
hmurchison, I agree that people tend to make things out worse than they are but in this instance I think your comparison is a little unfair - the 8400 is a pretty high end machine to be comparing to an iMac.
We're talking a 3 Ghz P4, PCI-E Graphics, dual channel DDR, 128MB X300 Vid card, and so on. This box would run rings around an iMac.
Just my 2 bits,
C.
I'd expect the iMac at $1499 to have at least a 1.6Ghz G5. Preferrably 1.8Ghz. For consumers that would be competitive enough versus a P4 3ghz IMO.
PCI Express = no speed advantage over AGP 8x real world.
DDR- I'd expect Apple to keep DDR dc in any G5 system.
Gimme this
iMac 1.8Ghz G5
128MB 9600XT
DVDR
80GB HD
17" LCD widescreen
Gigabit ethernet
Digi I/O
for 1499 and I like my chances against the boring Dull 8400 and even more when Tiger ships.
Originally posted by hmurchison:
I'd expect the iMac at $1499 to have at least a 1.6Ghz G5. Preferrably 1.8Ghz. For consumers that would be competitive enough versus a P4 3ghz IMO.
Y'know, from the reviews I've read you need at least a dual 1.8 G5 to be competitive on that level.
PCI Express = no speed advantage over AGP 8x real world.
True, however PCI-E is the future and it is upgradable...
DDR- I'd expect Apple to keep DDR dc in any G5 system.
Gimme this
iMac 1.8Ghz G5
128MB 9600XT
DVDR
80GB HD
17" LCD widescreen
Gigabit ethernet
Digi I/O
for 1499 and I like my chances against the boring Dull 8400 and even more when Tiger ships.
I hope Apple gets a G5 in there and breaks the trend of meeting my "worst case scenerios"...
Unfortunately, I think that unless Apple does something significantly more *wow* with the new iMac we'll watch as it has one good quarter in sales and peter out quickly after that.
C.
"It's not magic..it's architecture"
That's going to be the new motto
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
There's a new AI article that says heat is the problem with the G5 iMacs. It also sounds like it'll be another AIO.
I certainly hope that heat isn't affecting the LCD. I mean, perhaps the heat issue isn't with the CPU itself but that it had unintended consequences with the LCD due to its proximity.
I think that's an important psychological price point, regardless of PC pricing (which goes all over the map anyways.) If someone is looking for a $500 system then they're probably not ever going to consider a Mac anyway. OTOH if someone is considering between a $999 iMac and a $799 PC, well I think they'll strongly consider the iMac.
I think $999 is the absolute lowest Apple could shoot for without making serious compromises like inferior displays, materials, etc. (if not already too low.)
If Apple can roll out a $999 system with Safari, new iLife, and DVDR I think they could significantly expand the user base, which again will lead to further higher margin sales down the road.
The eMac is coincidentally that exact price right now with SuperDrive, but it seems like almost the red-headed stepchild of the Apple line (since they would rather sell iMacs.) But the specs (G4, CRT) of that machine leads me to doubt whether they can have a new $999 iMac (maybe only if it was headless.)
Originally posted by johnq
I certainly hope that heat isn't affecting the LCD. I mean, perhaps the heat issue isn't with the CPU itself but that it had unintended consequences with the LCD due to its proximity.
God, I hope so. Maybe they will scratch that whole AIO crap design and go with a small tower like they should.
God, I hope so. Maybe they will scratch that whole AIO crap design and go with a small tower like they should.
Don't tease me...it's cruel...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
There's a new AI article that says heat is the problem with the G5 iMacs. It also sounds like it'll be another AIO.
Just because they are having heat problems does not mean it is going to be an AIO. Remember the problems they had getting a G5 into a full size tower. Even if it was a mini tower they would still have heat issues.
That aside I think it will probably be another AIO because that is what the iMac is- an AIO. Hopefully Apple will prove me wrong though.
Macaddict16