You're probably just used to some pretty bad LCDs then and it has everything to do with the nature of OLEDs. The reduction in their visibility in sunlight is due to how they actually operate. As I say the problems with OLEDs are pretty well known and not solved yet and I wouldn't be expecting a display based off them any time this year.
Samsung is the leader in the OLED market and only showed off their first 17" displays in May this year and aren't expecting to kick up manufacturing until the 2nd half of 2005 so products aren't going to arrive for computers this year for certain.
Just for reference though:
I have a Sanyo cellphone that happened to use an OLED screen too (I'm currently living in Japan, just like BeigeUser), and even though I have experienced some reduction of the visibility of the screen in DIRECT sunlight (that means : when I walk right under the sun at noon on a very bright day), the rest of the time, the quality of the screen is just excellent.
To sum it up value for the money. Personnally I have alot of demand on the dollars I make, there is no know form of logic that can justify the money Apple wants for the machine.
It is not like the design is objectionable, I actually like the form factor for my main desktop it would be hot. The problem is the performance just absolutly sucks and the configuration is just two generations behind where it should be. The biggest issue with the configuration is the memory installed and the sickly GPU.
Both the installed memory and the GPU directly impact the machines ability to work as a work station. It has everything else one would need. What is even worst is that niether of these are really easy to upgrade. Sure you can get to one of the memory modules but what do you do if you want to replace both of them?
Like I say I've always liked the iMac2's appearnace, but it only represented good value on the day the first revision was introduced. After that there has been a steady decline as a result of neglect.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by salmonstk
I don't think you guys know why the iMac is not selling. You ar ethinking 1998 iMac sales. That was years of pent up demand.
I love the current iMac form factor. Why change? Granted we can have more power, better graphics, and lower price. But whats wrong with the form?
Yes- I like the all in one. Apple is about simplicity.
I think the only problem with the current iMac is they proved expensive to manufacture. I think that is why Apple is moving to a new iMac.
You're probably just used to some pretty bad LCDs then and it has everything to do with the nature of OLEDs.
That may be so. But the OLED on my cel phone is not washed out in sunlight. It's hard to read but still legible, much like the LCDs in my last cel phone. You convinced me that there is a difference between OLEDs and LCDs but it's probably not as severe as you believe.
First off, sorry if anyone else posted something like this already.
What if the next iMac still had a G4. At the very worst a 1.5Ghz Motorola 7447A or something. At the very best some kind of Freescale e600 chip. Now imagine if it had dual processors... A dual 1.5 Ghz iMac is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe Apple is at the stage where dual processors in high-end consumer (not like low-end eMac) computers can be economically outfitted with these chips. Why not? They won't touch the new G5's but they will kill everything else. Isn't that how it should be? In anticipation of tiger what if they used the e600 chips, aren't they 32/64bit hybrids like the G5's? Imagine:
3 new models of the Imac let's say in AIO design for now.
low end:
1.4 Ghz new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
50GB HD
Combo Drive
15inch display
1199
Mid:
Dual 1.25 new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
60GB HD
AE optional, BT optional
ComboDrive
17inch display
1399
High end:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
512MB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB DDR VRAM
80GB HD
AE built in, BT optional
Superdrive
17inch display
1599
Ultra High End:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
1GB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600XT 128MB DDR VRAM
100GB HD
Airport Extreme/Bluetooth
Superdrive
20inch display
1899-1999
Maybe even substitute the FX 5500 for the Nvidia chips.
I think this is doable and would be more than acceptable performance-wise. What do you people think?
First off, sorry if anyone else posted something like this already.
What if the next iMac still had a G4. At the very worst a 1.5Ghz Motorola 7447A or something. At the very best some kind of Freescale e600 chip. Now imagine if it had dual processors... A dual 1.5 Ghz iMac is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe Apple is at the stage where dual processors in high-end consumer (not like low-end eMac) computers can be economically outfitted with these chips. Why not? They won't touch the new G5's but they will kill everything else. Isn't that how it should be? In anticipation of tiger what if they used the e600 chips, aren't they 32/64bit hybrids like the G5's? Imagine:
3 new models of the Imac let's say in AIO design for now.
low end:
1.4 Ghz new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
50GB HD
Combo Drive
15inch display
1199
Mid:
Dual 1.25 new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
60GB HD
AE optional, BT optional
ComboDrive
17inch display
1399
High end:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
512MB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB DDR VRAM
80GB HD
AE built in, BT optional
Superdrive
17inch display
1599
Ultra High End:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
1GB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600XT 128MB DDR VRAM
100GB HD
Airport Extreme/Bluetooth
Superdrive
20inch display
1899-1999
I think this is doable and would be more than acceptable performance-wise. What do you people think?
Commercially, that's not the best thing to do, since G4 = old generation, plus those configurations are not viable, commercially (a dual 1.25GHz is still 1.25GHz, and people would not understand why the single 1.4GHz is cheaper, etc...)
In terms of strategy, moving to Freescale for iMacs seems a little prematurate to me, since the company is all new and has not presented anything yet except roadmaps (I might be wrong here)... but why not!
"xserve" (or "Xserve G5") is not in any way built into Tiger. The Xserve is a piece of rackmount hardware. I think what you're trying to refer to is the Xgrid software that will be built in to Tiger, right?
That's a solution! Not showing anything related to the processor speed would be even smarter IMO...
yes, let's hide the real numbers and let apple's marketing team convince us that we're really buying a supercomputer that would destroy a pentium 4 (g4 era).... ummm, sorry but i dont think so.
i do agree with highlighting other points other than processor speed, but i also want them to be upfront about the specs. i want to get the most for my money... if it wasnt the case i'd be buying the current iMac, but we all know deep down inside, whoever does that is really making a bad buy.
Adding processors is going to increase the cost of the machine and make cooling even harder. Once yields are better on the 90nm 970FX, it should be cheaper than any existing G4 (until Freescale ships a 90nm G4, but given the problems everyone has had on 90nm I'm not holding my breath). The iMac will stay single processor until there are dual core chips available, and there is no sign that we're close to that yet.
I don't think you guys know why the iMac is not selling. You ar ethinking 1998 iMac sales. That was years of pent up demand.
I love the current iMac form factor. Why change? Granted we can have more power, better graphics, and lower price. But whats wrong with the form?
Yes- I like the all in one. Apple is about simplicity.
I think the only problem with the current iMac is they proved expensive to manufacture. I think that is why Apple is moving to a new iMac.
the current form factor is unappealing and bombing.
the original iMac was so cute that people who had no use for one wanted one. the iPod mini is the same way. The iMac LCD never had that effect on people. From the start it resembled a kitchen appliance. It was not cute, attractive or sexy...... design sells.....this design did not. time to go back to the drawing board.
the current form factor is unappealing and bombing.
the original iMac was so cute that people who had no use for one wanted one. the iPod mini is the same way. The iMac LCD never had that effect on people. From the start it resembled a kitchen appliance. It was not cute, attractive or sexy...... design sells.....this design did not. time to go back to the drawing board.
Yes white looks too much like an appliance. The iMacs is a nice computer but it just didn't have that appeal that makes you put up with it's faults like the original iMac. Bring back the speed or the design and price it right and the sales will return. The iMac like the Cube is our way of letting Apple know they cannot get away with any and everything. In both cases Apple got too cute and tried to price the product too high and it didn't work.
Let's get something cool. Give us a two piece with a widescreen 17" with built in speakers. Once cable from the computer to monitor should carry video, sound and USB. Make the base bigger and give us an AGP or PCI slot. Put digital audio out on it too.
On that note. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
Apple tried the headless Mac, and it didn't work out for them. I don't think they can offer a more powerful, and yet inexpensive Macintosh that is anything other than the eMac.
First, why would Apple only put dual G5s in the PM if they did not plan on having a single G5 platform? That points to iMacs.
Next, why spend a significant amount of money to redesign the iMac if you are not going to do the engineering necessary to make it viable for 3 or so years? That points to a G5.
The 90 nm fabrication cuts prices and cooling, both supporting a G5 iMac.
Apple NEEDS to release an iMac that will take the market by storm. Elegance in design is important to draw people in, but a G5 - with related high tech support (like fast FSB) is needed to close the sale.
While the current (now previous) iMacs did cost a bit they ended up being directed at a market that was willing to pay more to get more, in terms of simplicity and design. That market is not going to disappear. Neither is the market that wants a major drop in the price of an iMac.
My guess? The new iMac will be G5. Apple will get them at a price lower than the G4s and will cut other costs, such as that fantastic arm, but will bring out a design that catches our eye and make us want to buy one.
The importance of the G5, besides being cheaper than a G4, is that the 64 bit factor will go far into the future in terms of handling software - the only reason I didn't pull the trigger on a 20" iMac in January.
It is also important for Apple to have as many 64 bit chips in their consumer base as possible when trying to talk software companies into porting their offerings to 64 bit operations.
In terms of pricing, I can see a significant drop. There can be a low end, with Apple saving money using the G5 chips that "only" hit 1.6 gigs. The high end, with a 20" screen, however, needs to be 2.0 or 2.2 gigs to match the price Apple will want to put on it.
The only thing I don't understand is why Apple is not announcing it NOW. If they did that would have a significant backorder by the time the imac was ready for delivery. I would jump on one as fast as I ordered the Airport Express.
Though i agree with kenaustis on many points, Apple has shown almost a willingness to make sure its iMac/Emac dont have any performance. I also have waited about 10 months for a (better iMac) to show itself. Apple will make certain it is a underperforming low power machine. G4 needs to go, so does the stale mx/Fx5200. Apple will want to charge a high price and then offer stale hardware. they allways have. i will be very surprised to see more then a 1.6 G5 mated to a fx5200 garbage chip. its standard operating procedure due to its poor tier model of sacrificing everything to get 1 powermac sale. iMac & Emac if there is one will again be handicapped,crippled and turned down. dont expect a agp slot they will solder a chip to the board, and if there is anything to remove from a g5 they will remove it. just look at what they did to the G4 models removing L3. Original iMac was almost a powermac without expansion and this was another reason it was a hit. I dont see them doing it again.
Apple already do make a convenient, cheap AIO called the iBook.
To launch a new desktop computer with a nailed-on-display would be bonkers.
It compells consumers to buy the integrated display - something that consumers clearly do not like to do. It raises the base price of the unit which then drives up the price.
It also stops consumers from buying one of the new Apple cinema displays. Apple would make more money selling the CPU box AND a cinema display.
My take is Apple will launch a cool looking box which upgrades the display to something that feels a bit like an AIO.
Comments
Originally posted by Telomar
You're probably just used to some pretty bad LCDs then and it has everything to do with the nature of OLEDs. The reduction in their visibility in sunlight is due to how they actually operate. As I say the problems with OLEDs are pretty well known and not solved yet and I wouldn't be expecting a display based off them any time this year.
Samsung is the leader in the OLED market and only showed off their first 17" displays in May this year and aren't expecting to kick up manufacturing until the 2nd half of 2005 so products aren't going to arrive for computers this year for certain.
Just for reference though:
I have a Sanyo cellphone that happened to use an OLED screen too (I'm currently living in Japan, just like BeigeUser), and even though I have experienced some reduction of the visibility of the screen in DIRECT sunlight (that means : when I walk right under the sun at noon on a very bright day), the rest of the time, the quality of the screen is just excellent.
I love the current iMac form factor. Why change? Granted we can have more power, better graphics, and lower price. But whats wrong with the form?
Yes- I like the all in one. Apple is about simplicity.
I think the only problem with the current iMac is they proved expensive to manufacture. I think that is why Apple is moving to a new iMac.
It is not like the design is objectionable, I actually like the form factor for my main desktop it would be hot. The problem is the performance just absolutly sucks and the configuration is just two generations behind where it should be. The biggest issue with the configuration is the memory installed and the sickly GPU.
Both the installed memory and the GPU directly impact the machines ability to work as a work station. It has everything else one would need. What is even worst is that niether of these are really easy to upgrade. Sure you can get to one of the memory modules but what do you do if you want to replace both of them?
Like I say I've always liked the iMac2's appearnace, but it only represented good value on the day the first revision was introduced. After that there has been a steady decline as a result of neglect.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by salmonstk
I don't think you guys know why the iMac is not selling. You ar ethinking 1998 iMac sales. That was years of pent up demand.
I love the current iMac form factor. Why change? Granted we can have more power, better graphics, and lower price. But whats wrong with the form?
Yes- I like the all in one. Apple is about simplicity.
I think the only problem with the current iMac is they proved expensive to manufacture. I think that is why Apple is moving to a new iMac.
Originally posted by Telomar
You're probably just used to some pretty bad LCDs then and it has everything to do with the nature of OLEDs.
That may be so. But the OLED on my cel phone is not washed out in sunlight. It's hard to read but still legible, much like the LCDs in my last cel phone. You convinced me that there is a difference between OLEDs and LCDs but it's probably not as severe as you believe.
What if the next iMac still had a G4. At the very worst a 1.5Ghz Motorola 7447A or something. At the very best some kind of Freescale e600 chip. Now imagine if it had dual processors... A dual 1.5 Ghz iMac is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe Apple is at the stage where dual processors in high-end consumer (not like low-end eMac) computers can be economically outfitted with these chips. Why not? They won't touch the new G5's but they will kill everything else. Isn't that how it should be? In anticipation of tiger what if they used the e600 chips, aren't they 32/64bit hybrids like the G5's? Imagine:
3 new models of the Imac let's say in AIO design for now.
low end:
1.4 Ghz new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
50GB HD
Combo Drive
15inch display
1199
Mid:
Dual 1.25 new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
60GB HD
AE optional, BT optional
ComboDrive
17inch display
1399
High end:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
512MB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB DDR VRAM
80GB HD
AE built in, BT optional
Superdrive
17inch display
1599
Ultra High End:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
1GB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600XT 128MB DDR VRAM
100GB HD
Airport Extreme/Bluetooth
Superdrive
20inch display
1899-1999
Maybe even substitute the FX 5500 for the Nvidia chips.
I think this is doable and would be more than acceptable performance-wise. What do you people think?
Originally posted by macaddict74
First off, sorry if anyone else posted something like this already.
What if the next iMac still had a G4. At the very worst a 1.5Ghz Motorola 7447A or something. At the very best some kind of Freescale e600 chip. Now imagine if it had dual processors... A dual 1.5 Ghz iMac is nothing to sneeze at. Maybe Apple is at the stage where dual processors in high-end consumer (not like low-end eMac) computers can be economically outfitted with these chips. Why not? They won't touch the new G5's but they will kill everything else. Isn't that how it should be? In anticipation of tiger what if they used the e600 chips, aren't they 32/64bit hybrids like the G5's? Imagine:
3 new models of the Imac let's say in AIO design for now.
low end:
1.4 Ghz new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
50GB HD
Combo Drive
15inch display
1199
Mid:
Dual 1.25 new G4 with 512KB-1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
256MB of DDR RAM
GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR VRAM
60GB HD
AE optional, BT optional
ComboDrive
17inch display
1399
High end:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
512MB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600 PRO 128MB DDR VRAM
80GB HD
AE built in, BT optional
Superdrive
17inch display
1599
Ultra High End:
Dual 1.5Ghz new G4 with 512KB - 1MB L2 cache per processor
167Mhz - 400Mhz FSB
1GB of DDR RAM
Ati Radeon 9600XT 128MB DDR VRAM
100GB HD
Airport Extreme/Bluetooth
Superdrive
20inch display
1899-1999
I think this is doable and would be more than acceptable performance-wise. What do you people think?
Commercially, that's not the best thing to do, since G4 = old generation, plus those configurations are not viable, commercially (a dual 1.25GHz is still 1.25GHz, and people would not understand why the single 1.4GHz is cheaper, etc...)
In terms of strategy, moving to Freescale for iMacs seems a little prematurate to me, since the company is all new and has not presented anything yet except roadmaps (I might be wrong here)... but why not!
Anyway, my bet goes to low-frequency 970...
Originally posted by macaddict74
What about using AMD's stupid yet commercially successful ambiguous xxxx+ number scheme?
That's a solution! Not showing anything related to the processor speed would be even smarter IMO...
Originally posted by concentricity
"xserve" (or "Xserve G5") is not in any way built into Tiger. The Xserve is a piece of rackmount hardware. I think what you're trying to refer to is the Xgrid software that will be built in to Tiger, right?
Right, sorry, Brain fart on my part!
Originally posted by The One to Rescue
That's a solution! Not showing anything related to the processor speed would be even smarter IMO...
yes, let's hide the real numbers and let apple's marketing team convince us that we're really buying a supercomputer that would destroy a pentium 4 (g4 era).... ummm, sorry but i dont think so.
i do agree with highlighting other points other than processor speed, but i also want them to be upfront about the specs. i want to get the most for my money... if it wasnt the case i'd be buying the current iMac, but we all know deep down inside, whoever does that is really making a bad buy.
That way the processor speeds don't really matter in marketing. Just tell the consumer that it has 4 chips instead of just one fast one.
Originally posted by salmonstk
I don't think you guys know why the iMac is not selling. You ar ethinking 1998 iMac sales. That was years of pent up demand.
I love the current iMac form factor. Why change? Granted we can have more power, better graphics, and lower price. But whats wrong with the form?
Yes- I like the all in one. Apple is about simplicity.
I think the only problem with the current iMac is they proved expensive to manufacture. I think that is why Apple is moving to a new iMac.
the current form factor is unappealing and bombing.
the original iMac was so cute that people who had no use for one wanted one. the iPod mini is the same way. The iMac LCD never had that effect on people. From the start it resembled a kitchen appliance. It was not cute, attractive or sexy...... design sells.....this design did not. time to go back to the drawing board.
Originally posted by applenut
the current form factor is unappealing and bombing.
the original iMac was so cute that people who had no use for one wanted one. the iPod mini is the same way. The iMac LCD never had that effect on people. From the start it resembled a kitchen appliance. It was not cute, attractive or sexy...... design sells.....this design did not. time to go back to the drawing board.
Yes white looks too much like an appliance. The iMacs is a nice computer but it just didn't have that appeal that makes you put up with it's faults like the original iMac. Bring back the speed or the design and price it right and the sales will return. The iMac like the Cube is our way of letting Apple know they cannot get away with any and everything. In both cases Apple got too cute and tried to price the product too high and it didn't work.
Let's get something cool. Give us a two piece with a widescreen 17" with built in speakers. Once cable from the computer to monitor should carry video, sound and USB. Make the base bigger and give us an AGP or PCI slot. Put digital audio out on it too.
ALL IN ONE
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Apple tried the headless Mac, and it didn't work out for them. I don't think they can offer a more powerful, and yet inexpensive Macintosh that is anything other than the eMac.
Next, why spend a significant amount of money to redesign the iMac if you are not going to do the engineering necessary to make it viable for 3 or so years? That points to a G5.
The 90 nm fabrication cuts prices and cooling, both supporting a G5 iMac.
Apple NEEDS to release an iMac that will take the market by storm. Elegance in design is important to draw people in, but a G5 - with related high tech support (like fast FSB) is needed to close the sale.
While the current (now previous) iMacs did cost a bit they ended up being directed at a market that was willing to pay more to get more, in terms of simplicity and design. That market is not going to disappear. Neither is the market that wants a major drop in the price of an iMac.
My guess? The new iMac will be G5. Apple will get them at a price lower than the G4s and will cut other costs, such as that fantastic arm, but will bring out a design that catches our eye and make us want to buy one.
The importance of the G5, besides being cheaper than a G4, is that the 64 bit factor will go far into the future in terms of handling software - the only reason I didn't pull the trigger on a 20" iMac in January.
It is also important for Apple to have as many 64 bit chips in their consumer base as possible when trying to talk software companies into porting their offerings to 64 bit operations.
In terms of pricing, I can see a significant drop. There can be a low end, with Apple saving money using the G5 chips that "only" hit 1.6 gigs. The high end, with a 20" screen, however, needs to be 2.0 or 2.2 gigs to match the price Apple will want to put on it.
The only thing I don't understand is why Apple is not announcing it NOW. If they did that would have a significant backorder by the time the imac was ready for delivery. I would jump on one as fast as I ordered the Airport Express.
To launch a new desktop computer with a nailed-on-display would be bonkers.
It compells consumers to buy the integrated display - something that consumers clearly do not like to do. It raises the base price of the unit which then drives up the price.
It also stops consumers from buying one of the new Apple cinema displays. Apple would make more money selling the CPU box AND a cinema display.
My take is Apple will launch a cool looking box which upgrades the display to something that feels a bit like an AIO.
Something like this...
http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_p...87927&size=big
A G5 (where the cooling issues have been resolved) would be sensible - because any new line of products should be expected to last several years.
The thing is - as I have said before - I don't think such a machine has any right to the name iMac. Because an iMac should be cheap and cheerful.
Carni
How about:
(a) if it was white plastic
(b) if there was a smaller monitor in white plastic
(c) the monitor came with the machine (machine not sold separately)
(d) The monitor could be available separately but would include a stand.
Some folks have said that the famous "pizza box" LCs were not sold without a monitor.