That is patentably false. Apple always ranks extremely high in brand-awareness. I bet they'll do even better since the iPod blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
That is patentably false. Apple always ranks extremely high in brand-awareness. I bet they'll do even better since the iPod blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
Apple's logo is the second most recognizeable in the known universe, McDonalds' Arch beats Apple's Apple.
Why in the hell would Apple include outdated video cards in a brand new machine? I know the PowerMac didn't get a refresh on the standard models, but at least you have the option to buy the 6800. And the Radeon 9800 has been around for what over a year?
I hope Matsu gets his wish for the iMac. It is what Apple needs, but I'm concerned that we will get something designed to be spectacular and attention getting. It may be a G5 iMac with high performance graphics.
Now if Apple is also planning a separate G5 consumer Mac, something to replace the Cube, then maybe a practical iMac is possible.
. . . And for everybody's sake, commoditize the low end iMac and sell it in bulk to Walmart and Costco. The dealers will hate you for it initially, but they'll thank you for it in two years.
Sell at Walmart and Costco? Not necessary for success. Dell is a reasonably successful and profitable PC maker, and I don't think Dell sells at these outlets.
For the really low end, I wish Apple had a small utility Mac without CRT, so it could be put on a shelf. People could afford to have several of these, some dedicated to special tasks. I'd like to have one just for internet access, for times when everyone wants to be on line at the same time.
You know, I'm coming around to this AIO concept, but baby steps, I'm not going to just submitt to the RDF, even as administered by one of Apple's best embedded marketeers, haha!
Ok, really, a digital panel is cheaper to produce than an analogue unit, less circuitry. We both know that. There are very good analogue panels, and very average analogue panels. Even an average panel is worlds better for most uses. No flicker, that's the number one benefit, and less radiation -- something which more and more schools take seriously.
I haven't noticed much of a premium, if any, on digital panels. Most panels in stores now feature both DVI and VGA connections. If digital panels carry a premium, it's becasue of marketting, not production costs. This is moot, in Apple's case, since they're building an AIO -- they will connect the panel internally in the cheapest way possible -- digital -- no expensive and unreliable analogue boards, less power to run.
Seriously now. I've used Compaq, Dell, and HP 15 and 17" panels on PC systems from those vendors, all analogue, all better than the 17" CRT in the eMac. The CRT is not without it's advantages, but I think that when departments are buying seats for 600-700 USD, all with 15" panels included, it isn't too much to ask to see Apple in the game with a 15" LCD model instead of a dinosaur 17" CRT for 800USD.
There's plenty of room there.
I'm not arguing for G5's and whiz-bang GPU's. If G5's are cheaper to use, fine, I know we hear that the chip itself doesn't cost much, but I don't know how true it is.
Let's be honest, you can't speak of an 800 computer as bargain basement. In some markets it's entry level, sure. In Canada it's $1049, plenty of systems with 15" LCD's exist for that money. CRT based machines are being blown out for 500-600 Canadian, with similar 40GB HDD's and 256MB base RAM.
Ok, really, a digital panel is cheaper to produce than an analogue unit, less circuitry. We both know that.
No, actually, I don't know that. If that were true, who'd bother selling analog panels anymore?
My bet is that analog allows the vendor to get away with lower-quality panels — they aren't all created equal — because there's no point using a top tier panel to display a fuzzy image.
Then, of course, there's the case and the backlight, the viewing angle, and the response time...
Quote:
There are very good analogue panels, and very average analogue panels. Even an average panel is worlds better for most uses. No flicker, that's the number one benefit, and less radiation -- something which more and more schools take seriously.
Well, if Apple offers the new iMac, and continues to sell the eMac, they can let the schools decide that on their own time.
Quote:
Seriously now. I've used Compaq, Dell, and HP 15 and 17" panels on PC systems from those vendors, all analogue, all better than the 17" CRT in the eMac.
Oh, you won't get any argument from me on that point. I could never go back to a CRT, and my LCD (a 15" Apple Studio Display) is no great shakes by today's standards.
Quote:
Let's be honest, you can't speak of an 800 computer as bargain basement.
Well, that was the price of the HP's offered as a bundle in one great big box, without so much as a demo model set up on the shop floor, so I guess I don't see that. The eMachines/Viewsonic PC that a couple I know was closer to $1000, and that wasn't extravagant (the Viewsonic LCD is a 15"). I don't know what "bargain basement" means, but $800 strikes me as a fairly low entry level price for a system, based on what I see around. You could probably find something cheaper lying on a pallet in Costco, but that's a special case.
i like this idea. I would buy such a computer immediately. Formfactor: similar to a small suitcase ala rimova. Like i saw it several times in some james bond movies. Imagine a reasonablly sized suitcase like an iBook 14" (yes white plastic) and 12 cm in high. hm yumyum with all the i/o port back, one usb and one firewire in front - and also in front the combo drive. My next dream machine!!!
What does the 15" LCD on those $799 machines look like? Analog crap? If so, no sale.
Apple's great claim to fame is interface, and there's hardly a more important part of the interface than the display.
I'd expect Apple to use the PowerBook's panel, with a brighter backlight, for the same volume purchase advantage they use with by sharing the 17"'s screen.
As for the eMac, it'll exist for as long as Apple's educational customers insist on it. Apple would be foolish to announce its cancellation with the next iMac's introduction, because if education rejects the next iMac as well then they'll just have to bring the eMac back — after spending the considerable amounts of money to do so, and waiting months for the lines to open up, be retooled, and start running. If education embraces the iMac, then Apple can retire the eMac.
I dont think you will see the edu market embrace todays lcd pannels, even the ultra high end, go to a local high school, watch what kids do to monitors, setting drinks next to them, touching the screen and leaving finger prints when trying to point to something on the screen and so on, CRTs still have a place in the market, good quality crts are availible super cheap and they can take quite a beating, not to mention, a crt can last 2 or 3 upgrade cycles, the things rarely die before they are 6 or more years old.
What if, at some point between now and September, Apple also retired the eMac.
This would make a lot of sense. However, Apple needs to segment the consumer/edu end of the range differently. At present Apple has two AIO offerings - the eMac and the iMac. This was largely a quirk of history in that apparently Edu buyers did not want the iMac (perhaps it was considered too fragile, too expensive - who knows?), instead opting for the CRT eMac.
Things have moved on. It would make a lot of sense to continue with two different offerings at the low-mid end but with quite different customers in mind: the AIO (some sort of Ives-genius' designed box with an arm attached with VESA mount, letting the consumer choose between a [15"?] 17" or 20" panel [this would necessitate that Apple introduces a new 17" panel with VESA mount]); and a headless box (with limited expansion, AGP etc). Both the AIO and headless box would have basically the same G5 configuration, but the headless version would offer slightly more flexibility in its expansion options.
So, who are the target audiences for these low-mid range offerings:
- AIO - the traditional Apple AIO consumer, looking for a simple, elegant solution ("there is no fifth step") and Edu customers
- headless Mac - designed for the consumer who perceives (rightly or wrongly) that options regarding future expansion are important, higher education (universities) and importantly, enterprise. Here the customer buys the panel once, and leaves it in place to while upgrading the box subsequently.
Both the AIO and headless Mac should use anodized aluminum, so that the new VESA-mount flat panels can be used across the entire Apple range (giving maximum economies of scale).
A decision to offer both AIO and headless Macs within a $799-$1,799 price range should not be a mutually exclusive, either-or decision, which unfortunately seems to be the case. This market needs to be segmented further - Apple might be in a far better position if it were to recognise this. It would be better for Apple to cannabalise some of its own sales with two offerings at the low/mid end rather than lose sales to PC-land.
Interesting read so far. Let me clarify a couple of things. The eMac was not rejected by schools because of the LCD or because the iMac was too fragile. Schools have been moving to LCDs in droves and Apple's #1 education model is the fragile, LCD iBook. The iMac is a lot of things, but it is definitely not fragile. Furthermore, I doubt that any educator ever requested the eMac or anything like it. Too many people accept Apple spin as gospel. The iMac failed in education for one reason, price. Schools don't buy $1300 to $2000 systems. With that in mind, there should be no fear that schools will reject the new offering if it starts at a price that schools are willing to pay. The only reason SJ fed us that line of BS about why the eMac was introduced is so that he wouldn't have to admit that they screwed up on the iMac by pricing it out of the market. He did not want to face the fact that he had created another cube. Anything that is intended for schools and consumers alike needs to start at around $600. Consumers will accept an LCD system from Apple at $800, maybe even $900. Killing the eMac is unnecessary. It just needs to go to the $500 to $700 range. The iMac can then take over the $800 to $1400 territory. At the high end of the range, the system can be modular. The monitor can be removed and replaced with a bigger or better monitor down the road. It would still come with a 17" monitor, just removable. The biggest thing Apple has to do is to recognize the fact that the price for computers has moved downward. Last year's target price is now too high. I guarantee these improvements to the line that I suggest would do more to boost sales and increase market share than a G5.
Why in the hell would Apple include outdated video cards in a brand new machine? I know the PowerMac didn't get a refresh on the standard models, but at least you have the option to buy the 6800. And the Radeon 9800 has been around for what over a year?
Oh give me a break!! The 6800 and 9800 are never going into low end machines with small form factors. Those monsters put out tons of power/heat, have big fans, and contain all sorts of really expensive components. It doesn't matter how long they've been around. And the target market for these machines doesn't need such high end graphics power, so they sure as heck aren't going to pay for it. The nVidia and ATI chips for the low end and mid range market are exactly what Apple is and should be using.
I could easily see the eMac being updated to use an LCD form factor, a "fast" G4, and a 5200-class GPU. If FreeScale really is going to make a go of it, the first thing we're likely to see is a 90 nm G4, which would fit nicely into the eMac, iBook and PowerBook. Its cost would be low and clock rates approaching 2 GHz feasible. The design would be simple, cheap, and functional like the current eMac is -- perhaps they put the LCD behind glass to protect it (if that's really an issue). Keep the components as simple as possible which means using existing chipsets. Given the LCD prices these days, and the possiblity of a cheap 90nm G4, this machine could approach the original iMac's late-in-life price points.
Doing this would allow the iMac to go G5, maintan its current price point, and continue in the role of techno-lust inducer that SJ obviously wants to use it for. The thing ought to look good on your desktop, but retain the extremely simple AIO package appeal. This is not the headless mini-tower or slab design, that is yet another target market. Apple could end up with 4 machines if they think they can sell enough to justify it -- low end AIO, mid range AIO, low-to-mid range headless, and PowerMac. I don't know if/when they'll try the low-to-mid range headless machine again.
Take an eMac and LCD it. Durability was never a concern, only price, and 15" panels are more than cheap enough in these days when I can walk out of the store with a 15" LCD under my arm for 350 Canadian, 300, tax-in, if I accept a lesser brand.
Which brings us to the AIO. Small, affordable, full featured, simple. I doesn't have to be a speed demon.
You could argue, though, that Apple never tried the low to mid range headless in the first place.
The Cube was a high end piece.
At 1299, they should be able to market and sell a fast single processor machine with good expansion/upgradability.
There's that G4 tower still in the line-up. Updated with a single G5, I'd imagine quite a few people willing to go for it.
Take an eMac and LCD it. Durability was never a concern, only price, and 15" panels are more than cheap enough in these days when I can walk out of the store with a 15" LCD under my arm for 350 Canadian, 300, tax-in, if I accept a lesser brand.
Sorry, but I'm still going to have to scoff at the claim here that "durability was never a concern." That's spin, especially if you look at the eMac: The CRT is just one nod in the direction of durability in that design. It's the latest in a line of big, heavy monoliths that Apple has successfully targeted toward education for a solid decade — how is it in the least bit difficult to imagine that education would want another one? The idea that it was rushed out to address a price problem is ridiculous: Upon release, it only cost $100 less than the iMac!
Quote:
The Cube was a high end piece.
At 1299, they should be able to market and sell a fast single processor machine with good expansion/upgradability.
You mean, the Cube? That was its entry level price toward the end, and it sold something like 10,000 units in a quarter.
LCD's are still expensive, I just don't see how apple could profit off of a 800 dollar LCD AIO machine... (that's 17" and bigger).
I think 700-900 is a great price for the eMac, the eMac has a huge demand for it from schools, why? Because its CHEAP and Durable. Yes the iMac is durable but come on with the price. 1700 for a 1.25ghz g4 17" is beyond expensive. I do understand this machine is 9+ months old, but it was overpriced from the beginning... because lcd's are expensive. In my mind it was Jobs thinking that the lcds would have dropped in price significantly by now.
If apple can find a way to put in a LCD (good quality) into the eMac and keep prices 700-900, then more power to them. I don't see this happening with apple hardware though. Perhaps in a few more years. I still prefer CRT's. I have a 22" ViewSonic professional series, I love it compared to my co-workers 23" cinema display. I love it because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR... the LCDs still aren't as clear. I was impressed with the 30" at WWDC and would probably buy one if they were cheaper, but I still love my 22". CRTs will be around a little while longer.
I'm not quite so daft to think that Apple could profit selling a 17" LCD machine for 800. But I do see 15" LCD based machines selling in that range.
Amorph, you're cheating now. The cheapest eMac was 300 USD cheaper than the cheapest iMac, notwithstanding the price bump that plagued the first year of the iMac's existence. To further that, the eMac was widely reported to have been on offer at generous edu only discounts -- more than the 100 USD to general edu customers. Bulk buyers got that and more. What I heard, form pretty reliable sources -- ie, actual buyers, not online personas -- back in those days, was that you could get 4 eMacs for the price of 3 iMacs, and depending on the quantity, 3 eMacs to every 2 iMacs, all said and done. Price was the only reason the eMac was made.
40 computers instead of 30, or 60 computers instead of 40. Those are significant numbers.
If LCD durability was such an issue, no schools would have ever bought iBooks, but buy iBooks they did, even though they don't feature the "durability" of a CRT.
Comments
Originally posted by Aurora
many people dont even know Apple exist.
That is patentably false. Apple always ranks extremely high in brand-awareness. I bet they'll do even better since the iPod blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
Originally posted by discstickers
That is patentably false. Apple always ranks extremely high in brand-awareness. I bet they'll do even better since the iPod blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
Apple's logo is the second most recognizeable in the known universe, McDonalds' Arch beats Apple's Apple.
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
Apple's logo is the second most recognizeable in the known universe, McDonalds' Arch beats Apple's Apple.
The Nike "swoosh" is up there too. But my point was that for the amount of marketshare, Apple has a disproportionate amount of mindshare.
Originally posted by TofuTodd
I think these would be nice:
15" LCD iMac3
Geforce 4mx
...
17" LCD iMac3
Geforce 5200 ultra or whatever
...
20" LCD iMac3
radeon 9600
...
Why in the hell would Apple include outdated video cards in a brand new machine? I know the PowerMac didn't get a refresh on the standard models, but at least you have the option to buy the 6800. And the Radeon 9800 has been around for what over a year?
Now if Apple is also planning a separate G5 consumer Mac, something to replace the Cube, then maybe a practical iMac is possible.
Originally posted by Frank777
. . . And for everybody's sake, commoditize the low end iMac and sell it in bulk to Walmart and Costco. The dealers will hate you for it initially, but they'll thank you for it in two years.
Sell at Walmart and Costco? Not necessary for success. Dell is a reasonably successful and profitable PC maker, and I don't think Dell sells at these outlets.
For the really low end, I wish Apple had a small utility Mac without CRT, so it could be put on a shelf. People could afford to have several of these, some dedicated to special tasks. I'd like to have one just for internet access, for times when everyone wants to be on line at the same time.
You know, I'm coming around to this AIO concept, but baby steps, I'm not going to just submitt to the RDF, even as administered by one of Apple's best embedded marketeers, haha!
Ok, really, a digital panel is cheaper to produce than an analogue unit, less circuitry. We both know that. There are very good analogue panels, and very average analogue panels. Even an average panel is worlds better for most uses. No flicker, that's the number one benefit, and less radiation -- something which more and more schools take seriously.
I haven't noticed much of a premium, if any, on digital panels. Most panels in stores now feature both DVI and VGA connections. If digital panels carry a premium, it's becasue of marketting, not production costs. This is moot, in Apple's case, since they're building an AIO -- they will connect the panel internally in the cheapest way possible -- digital -- no expensive and unreliable analogue boards, less power to run.
Seriously now. I've used Compaq, Dell, and HP 15 and 17" panels on PC systems from those vendors, all analogue, all better than the 17" CRT in the eMac. The CRT is not without it's advantages, but I think that when departments are buying seats for 600-700 USD, all with 15" panels included, it isn't too much to ask to see Apple in the game with a 15" LCD model instead of a dinosaur 17" CRT for 800USD.
There's plenty of room there.
I'm not arguing for G5's and whiz-bang GPU's. If G5's are cheaper to use, fine, I know we hear that the chip itself doesn't cost much, but I don't know how true it is.
Let's be honest, you can't speak of an 800 computer as bargain basement. In some markets it's entry level, sure. In Canada it's $1049, plenty of systems with 15" LCD's exist for that money. CRT based machines are being blown out for 500-600 Canadian, with similar 40GB HDD's and 256MB base RAM.
Originally posted by Matsu
Ok, really, a digital panel is cheaper to produce than an analogue unit, less circuitry. We both know that.
No, actually, I don't know that. If that were true, who'd bother selling analog panels anymore?
My bet is that analog allows the vendor to get away with lower-quality panels — they aren't all created equal — because there's no point using a top tier panel to display a fuzzy image.
Then, of course, there's the case and the backlight, the viewing angle, and the response time...
There are very good analogue panels, and very average analogue panels. Even an average panel is worlds better for most uses. No flicker, that's the number one benefit, and less radiation -- something which more and more schools take seriously.
Well, if Apple offers the new iMac, and continues to sell the eMac, they can let the schools decide that on their own time.
Seriously now. I've used Compaq, Dell, and HP 15 and 17" panels on PC systems from those vendors, all analogue, all better than the 17" CRT in the eMac.
Oh, you won't get any argument from me on that point. I could never go back to a CRT, and my LCD (a 15" Apple Studio Display) is no great shakes by today's standards.
Let's be honest, you can't speak of an 800 computer as bargain basement.
Well, that was the price of the HP's offered as a bundle in one great big box, without so much as a demo model set up on the shop floor, so I guess I don't see that. The eMachines/Viewsonic PC that a couple I know was closer to $1000, and that wasn't extravagant (the Viewsonic LCD is a 15"). I don't know what "bargain basement" means, but $800 strikes me as a fairly low entry level price for a system, based on what I see around. You could probably find something cheaper lying on a pallet in Costco, but that's a special case.
Originally posted by Matsu
...a cheaper, desktop Powerbook...
i like this idea. I would buy such a computer immediately. Formfactor: similar to a small suitcase ala rimova. Like i saw it several times in some james bond movies. Imagine a reasonablly sized suitcase like an iBook 14" (yes white plastic) and 12 cm in high. hm yumyum
Originally posted by Amorph
What does the 15" LCD on those $799 machines look like? Analog crap? If so, no sale.
Apple's great claim to fame is interface, and there's hardly a more important part of the interface than the display.
I'd expect Apple to use the PowerBook's panel, with a brighter backlight, for the same volume purchase advantage they use with by sharing the 17"'s screen.
As for the eMac, it'll exist for as long as Apple's educational customers insist on it. Apple would be foolish to announce its cancellation with the next iMac's introduction, because if education rejects the next iMac as well then they'll just have to bring the eMac back — after spending the considerable amounts of money to do so, and waiting months for the lines to open up, be retooled, and start running. If education embraces the iMac, then Apple can retire the eMac.
I dont think you will see the edu market embrace todays lcd pannels, even the ultra high end, go to a local high school, watch what kids do to monitors, setting drinks next to them, touching the screen and leaving finger prints when trying to point to something on the screen and so on, CRTs still have a place in the market, good quality crts are availible super cheap and they can take quite a beating, not to mention, a crt can last 2 or 3 upgrade cycles, the things rarely die before they are 6 or more years old.
Originally posted by Matsu
What if, at some point between now and September, Apple also retired the eMac.
This would make a lot of sense. However, Apple needs to segment the consumer/edu end of the range differently. At present Apple has two AIO offerings - the eMac and the iMac. This was largely a quirk of history in that apparently Edu buyers did not want the iMac (perhaps it was considered too fragile, too expensive - who knows?), instead opting for the CRT eMac.
Things have moved on. It would make a lot of sense to continue with two different offerings at the low-mid end but with quite different customers in mind: the AIO (some sort of Ives-genius' designed box with an arm attached with VESA mount, letting the consumer choose between a [15"?] 17" or 20" panel [this would necessitate that Apple introduces a new 17" panel with VESA mount]); and a headless box (with limited expansion, AGP etc). Both the AIO and headless box would have basically the same G5 configuration, but the headless version would offer slightly more flexibility in its expansion options.
So, who are the target audiences for these low-mid range offerings:
- AIO - the traditional Apple AIO consumer, looking for a simple, elegant solution ("there is no fifth step") and Edu customers
- headless Mac - designed for the consumer who perceives (rightly or wrongly) that options regarding future expansion are important, higher education (universities) and importantly, enterprise. Here the customer buys the panel once, and leaves it in place to while upgrading the box subsequently.
Both the AIO and headless Mac should use anodized aluminum, so that the new VESA-mount flat panels can be used across the entire Apple range (giving maximum economies of scale).
A decision to offer both AIO and headless Macs within a $799-$1,799 price range should not be a mutually exclusive, either-or decision, which unfortunately seems to be the case. This market needs to be segmented further - Apple might be in a far better position if it were to recognise this. It would be better for Apple to cannabalise some of its own sales with two offerings at the low/mid end rather than lose sales to PC-land.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Why in the hell would Apple include outdated video cards in a brand new machine? I know the PowerMac didn't get a refresh on the standard models, but at least you have the option to buy the 6800. And the Radeon 9800 has been around for what over a year?
Oh give me a break!! The 6800 and 9800 are never going into low end machines with small form factors. Those monsters put out tons of power/heat, have big fans, and contain all sorts of really expensive components. It doesn't matter how long they've been around. And the target market for these machines doesn't need such high end graphics power, so they sure as heck aren't going to pay for it. The nVidia and ATI chips for the low end and mid range market are exactly what Apple is and should be using.
I could easily see the eMac being updated to use an LCD form factor, a "fast" G4, and a 5200-class GPU. If FreeScale really is going to make a go of it, the first thing we're likely to see is a 90 nm G4, which would fit nicely into the eMac, iBook and PowerBook. Its cost would be low and clock rates approaching 2 GHz feasible. The design would be simple, cheap, and functional like the current eMac is -- perhaps they put the LCD behind glass to protect it (if that's really an issue). Keep the components as simple as possible which means using existing chipsets. Given the LCD prices these days, and the possiblity of a cheap 90nm G4, this machine could approach the original iMac's late-in-life price points.
Doing this would allow the iMac to go G5, maintan its current price point, and continue in the role of techno-lust inducer that SJ obviously wants to use it for. The thing ought to look good on your desktop, but retain the extremely simple AIO package appeal. This is not the headless mini-tower or slab design, that is yet another target market. Apple could end up with 4 machines if they think they can sell enough to justify it -- low end AIO, mid range AIO, low-to-mid range headless, and PowerMac. I don't know if/when they'll try the low-to-mid range headless machine again.
Take an eMac and LCD it. Durability was never a concern, only price, and 15" panels are more than cheap enough in these days when I can walk out of the store with a 15" LCD under my arm for 350 Canadian, 300, tax-in, if I accept a lesser brand.
Which brings us to the AIO. Small, affordable, full featured, simple. I doesn't have to be a speed demon.
You could argue, though, that Apple never tried the low to mid range headless in the first place.
The Cube was a high end piece.
At 1299, they should be able to market and sell a fast single processor machine with good expansion/upgradability.
There's that G4 tower still in the line-up. Updated with a single G5, I'd imagine quite a few people willing to go for it.
Originally posted by Matsu
Thank you Programmer.
Take an eMac and LCD it. Durability was never a concern, only price, and 15" panels are more than cheap enough in these days when I can walk out of the store with a 15" LCD under my arm for 350 Canadian, 300, tax-in, if I accept a lesser brand.
Sorry, but I'm still going to have to scoff at the claim here that "durability was never a concern." That's spin, especially if you look at the eMac: The CRT is just one nod in the direction of durability in that design. It's the latest in a line of big, heavy monoliths that Apple has successfully targeted toward education for a solid decade — how is it in the least bit difficult to imagine that education would want another one? The idea that it was rushed out to address a price problem is ridiculous: Upon release, it only cost $100 less than the iMac!
The Cube was a high end piece.
At 1299, they should be able to market and sell a fast single processor machine with good expansion/upgradability.
You mean, the Cube? That was its entry level price toward the end, and it sold something like 10,000 units in a quarter.
I think 700-900 is a great price for the eMac, the eMac has a huge demand for it from schools, why? Because its CHEAP and Durable. Yes the iMac is durable but come on with the price. 1700 for a 1.25ghz g4 17" is beyond expensive. I do understand this machine is 9+ months old, but it was overpriced from the beginning... because lcd's are expensive. In my mind it was Jobs thinking that the lcds would have dropped in price significantly by now.
If apple can find a way to put in a LCD (good quality) into the eMac and keep prices 700-900, then more power to them. I don't see this happening with apple hardware though. Perhaps in a few more years. I still prefer CRT's. I have a 22" ViewSonic professional series, I love it compared to my co-workers 23" cinema display. I love it because it is CRYSTAL CLEAR... the LCDs still aren't as clear. I was impressed with the 30" at WWDC and would probably buy one if they were cheaper, but I still love my 22". CRTs will be around a little while longer.
Amorph, you're cheating now. The cheapest eMac was 300 USD cheaper than the cheapest iMac, notwithstanding the price bump that plagued the first year of the iMac's existence. To further that, the eMac was widely reported to have been on offer at generous edu only discounts -- more than the 100 USD to general edu customers. Bulk buyers got that and more. What I heard, form pretty reliable sources -- ie, actual buyers, not online personas -- back in those days, was that you could get 4 eMacs for the price of 3 iMacs, and depending on the quantity, 3 eMacs to every 2 iMacs, all said and done. Price was the only reason the eMac was made.
40 computers instead of 30, or 60 computers instead of 40. Those are significant numbers.
If LCD durability was such an issue, no schools would have ever bought iBooks, but buy iBooks they did, even though they don't feature the "durability" of a CRT.
With Apple having revealed that the next iMac is a G5, and also having stated that 999 is their target price one now has to ask...
If we have a G5 powered iMac, in any form, for 999, then who, in their right mind is going to buy a bulky CRT, G4 eMac?
The eMac may have to come down to 599 to get anyone to look at it.
Originally posted by Matsu
With Apple having revealed that the next iMac is a G5, and also having stated that 999 is their target price one now has to ask...
Eh? Did I miss something? When did Apple say their target is $999?
-M