[Merged] Apple's missing 17" LCD and the future iMac
I'm sure Apple is fully aware of the huge price gap between the 20" and the old 17" Cinema Display ($1299 and $699 respectively).
The don't think the question is whether or not Apple will round out it's display line with a new 17" display, but rather how.
Given that the current aluminum displays are equipped with a VESA mount, I'd love to see Apple incorporate a new widescreen 17" model into their iMac.
In other words, repurpose the display and save on manufacturing costs. Perhaps make it an incentive to buy an iMac instead of just a 17" display.
For instance, the 17" display with stand would be priced at $1000, but for perhaps $600 more, you'd get the iMac ($1600) along with it.
And if it was a headless design, the box(dome or whatever) itself, would be $1200. Not quite the $1000 sweet spot, but somehow I don't think Apple actually want to go there.
The don't think the question is whether or not Apple will round out it's display line with a new 17" display, but rather how.
Given that the current aluminum displays are equipped with a VESA mount, I'd love to see Apple incorporate a new widescreen 17" model into their iMac.
In other words, repurpose the display and save on manufacturing costs. Perhaps make it an incentive to buy an iMac instead of just a 17" display.
For instance, the 17" display with stand would be priced at $1000, but for perhaps $600 more, you'd get the iMac ($1600) along with it.
And if it was a headless design, the box(dome or whatever) itself, would be $1200. Not quite the $1000 sweet spot, but somehow I don't think Apple actually want to go there.
Comments
Not to say they couldn't sell average displays... just that it would be unprecedented.
Originally posted by Aurora
apples old from the cube days 17" doesnt cut it speed wise or looks or ergonomics for me. Id rather have a crt then that thing.
Aw come on, it's not that bad.
It's funny how fickle we all are eh? That old 17" LCD was ooed and awed when it first came out. Two years from now, we'll be saying the same thing about these aluminum displays!
Originally posted by Aurora
Its still a mistake not to have a matching 17" display. millions of consumers dont need or want a 20 just as many consumers dont want a all in one. so here iam waiting on my 2.5 and looking for a decent 17" display. apples old from the cube days 17" doesnt cut it speed wise or looks or ergonomics for me. Id rather have a crt then that thing.
I think you might have your markets confused. Apple displays have nothing to do with consumers. The only desktops Apple sells are intended for pro users. Apple does not currently have a headless, consumer desktop system. Therefore, they don't need to have a consumer display. If you bought a 2.5 Gig system, then Apple does not consider you a consumer. They simply don't cater to that market. You need to buy a third party display. There is no reason to pay the Apple tax for something like a display. besides the logo and the 30", Apple adds nothing to the display market anyway IMO.
Originally posted by Novablas
...... Apple doesn't lose another sale, you never bought anything from them. They can't lose something from nothing. Oh and don't worry, my nice new display will make up for their "loss" of your money. If you aren't willing to pay for the best, at least don't whine about it.
Face it Apple lost a sale no matter how much you want to spin it , so they are going to sell the old from 1999 displays until they run out and then have as the smallest a 20" ??brilliant,genius,assanine stupid take your pick. the fact that im buying the 2.5 Powermac means iam getting the best my zealot friend, the fact that apple is still pushing a monitor from cube days with wide bezel slow response panel is thinking different. oh let me see if you dont need a 20" then this means you are a consumer and should be using a all in one 17" P.O.S with a 3 year old G4 in it and no video card. yeah apple is brilliant . just like not replacing the G4 iMac before running out. brilliant! lets all applaud Apple when they announce the new iMac in Aug and it ships in December.
Anyway, if not an Apple display, what kind will you be getting? For me, no other display would have done, style definitely matters for me so, does it for you?
If so, are there even any monitors out there that go well with the G5?
P.S. Apple has never been about cheapness and low prices, why do you expect them to be now?
Originally posted by Aurora
all they had to do is wrap a new fast 17" or 18" lcd panel in the same aluminum styling. so their base monitor has gone from $699 to now $1299? come on thats a little much. Im just saying 20" is to large to start your line. Hitachi has some very good panels and so does hydis hyundai boe dis or whatever their name is this week but they are going to look like crap next to a powermac not much we can do about that. So im doing a lot of research on my next panel that will be 3rd party all because apple thinks everyone wants a gigantic big screen with powermac or everyone wants all in ones with no substance. Apple is forgetting everyone inbetween. why they think in these extremes is beyond me. with most companies its about the customer. with Apple its something else and allways has been. this will probably be their way to Force customers into stale all in ones or buy way more then you ever need pro line.
Dont try to argue with Apple suckups here. They would buy a pile of turds if Mr. Turtleneck said it was good for them. Apple has always been clueless when it comes to building their market share by appealing to the majority of computer buyers. Theres simply no excuse for not having an affordable 17 inch LCD and absolutely no excuse for not having an affordable tower for the majority of people who dont want an all in one.
You are correct, you're just in the wrong place to get anyone to agree with you except the lonely folks with common sense such as me, you, and a few others here.
i mean, sheesh.
either you _need_ a 20" display, in which case you cough up the dough, or you don't, and so you can buy a 17" -- and Apple does not _need_ to chase that market, as some have said they do.
they also don't need to "increase marketshare" by going after the "average" consumer.
they make a frigging boatload of cash, and have a huge brand, and make a real difference in the computing world even with the 2.1% share they have.
i recently needed a display to hook up to my powerbook.
i "settled" for a nice viewsonic 17". $450 for DVI, 450:1 contrast, 25ms response, and it is *bright*.
it's a gorgeous display.
and, if you didn't catch that, it cost me $450
apple doesn't sell enough displays to make them cheaply enough to sell them that low -- so they make the "best" and charge a huge premium for them.
and good on em.
if you need a new display, and you can't affort the tweleve hundred bones, then you are simply not the person apple is selling to.
you're reading someone else's mail: of course it doesn't make sense
Originally posted by BerberCarpet
...and Apple does not _need_ to chase that market, as some have said they do.
Apple needs to offer products that fit the needs of the target market that they are going after or else that product will be as much a failure as "New Coke" or the Cube was.
Originally posted by BerberCarpet
...they also don't need to "increase market-share" by going after the "average" consumer.
Again, they need to build a computer that matches the needs for their target market. It only makes sense when your target market is as broad as the consumer market is that you should build a product with as wide an appeal as possible. The original iMac was such a product, and for those that it did not appeal to the PowerMac was still with reach at $1499-$1699. Apple does not cover the market as well as it did in those days with a beginning price of $1299 for an iMac and $1999 for the PowerMac. At a time when the rest of the market has decreased the price of their systems Apple's have actually increased while for the most part lagging behind the market in adoption of newer technology and in price/performance, and loosing ground in ease of use.
Originally posted by BerberCarpet
...they make a fringing boatload of cash, and have a huge brand, and make a real difference in the computing world even with the 2.1% share they have.
Next and BeOS both influenced the direction that computers have gone in the past few years. Both companies have been bought out, not having enough market saturation to sustain the market for the hardware or software for their systems. The big question for Apple is how small a market share will keep them afloat. Then they need to balance their desire for a large profit margin with the need to maintain or grow market share enough to attract developers and customers to their platform. The time may be coming when they need to sacrifice profit margin for a period of time to build up that market share. They are certainly getting ready for it, diversifying their product line with products like the iPod and bolstering their platforms appeal with products like iTunes, iPhoto, and Garage Band.
And who is that, rich yuppies? Operating systems need a large enough market share to give a reason for software developers to make product for the Mac. Apple is always teetering on the brink, ipod notwithstanding. If Apple wants to finally be healthy enough for people not to wonder about whether they can buy software, then they need to grow market share at a faster clip than they are now.
There is NO reason not to go after lower income consumers and consumers who know they are getting ripped off. Microsoft goes after everyone-its called success. Look it up.
Originally posted by BerberCarpet
they make a frigging boatload of cash, and have a huge brand, and make a real difference in the computing world even with the 2.1% share they have.
I just cant believe that people continue to think Apple make a 'boatload of cash'. Look at their last numbers.
They made 60 million.
They have 5 billion in the bank.
Interest on 5 billion is, say, 250 - 500 million.
That means Apple's _computer_ business is loosing at least 200 million. That is not a healthy way to run a company. Other manufacturers, who arent doing as well are failing pretty much to the tune of that amount. Apple was very lucky to hit a home run with the original iMac, and wise to bank that money. But it isnt a way to grow the company. From a shareholder point of view they would do better to jettison the computer arm and be an investment company.
Unless Apple can really pull up their sales numbers they can only be considered a failure as a profitable computer company. I do believe that they have a plan, and that they sure dont think they are in a sustainable position. The ipod is a tool in that process, and the powermac solidifies the top end as worthwhile. The consumer computers suck. Apple do need to satisfy this market, because they wont get growth out of the buyers of their professional products. It certainly isnt reasonable for them to ignore the consumer market as some have suggested. Wait and see, Im sure that the imac g5 will mark a strong return to the consumer market. Apple wont need a 17" monitor, it will be the imac g5.
Originally posted by mmmpie
I just cant believe that people continue to think Apple make a 'boatload of cash'. Look at their last numbers.
They made 60 million.
They have 5 billion in the bank.
Interest on 5 billion is, say, 250 - 500 million.
That means Apple's _computer_ business is loosing at least 200 million. That is not a healthy way to run a company.
Hi mmmpie.
I don't know what bank is giving you interest at a rate of 5%-10% per quarter but Apple is not getting that much.
Let's look at their quarterly results at http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/040714financials.pdf
They sell at 2 billion a quarter
Their profit is 85 million before tax (61 after)
of that 13 million (15%) is from interest.
So they're getting 13 million a quarter, or 52 per year on their cash. Since they have 3.1 billion in cash, they get about 1.6% interest rate, not the 40% that you imagine.