1. 5 billion is a lot of money but Apple would be lucky to pull a million dollars in interest in a qtr. The numbers just aren't high enough to really factor into the 67 million profit.
2. Custom design. If Apple used ATX cases and licensed chipsets from Intel they'd obtain a higher ration of revenue/profit. They won't sacrifice their looks though and I'm glad for that at this time and date.
3.Yes and that's not a bad thing. All companies face times when their products plateau. The quickest way to revive is to generate new income. The iPod/iTMS is doing what the newton could never do. Bring in money.
4. 3 million for a company isn't big. It's a POV thing. To you 3 million would look great in your bank account. To Apple who had restructering cost of 6 million alone in the qtr 3 mill isn't a huge number.
5. I'm not suprised at all. Consumers have plenty of choices for low cost PCs now. The consumer "Gold Rush" is over. No amount of GPU or CPU improvements is going to double any Macintosh sales. Apple needs to diversify because the sales really are going to remain static or improve slightly.
6. No Apple doesn't group the iMac and eMac sales. Look at the 10k you'll see 60k iMac sales(pitiful) and 180k eMac sales. The eMac outsold the iMac 3:1 but yet you wouldn't know it because everyone on these boards gets amnesia where the eMac is concerned(I guess it's snobbery).
The iMac G5 will do fine. Listening to the neurotic rantings from some of the people on this board will not change the fact that a G5 and 5200fx GPU is faster than ANY Mac of 3 years ago which means that for those in the market for a new Mac they will see improvement in every area and that is all that matters.
$999 computers are NOT Apples savior people..it's your own personal savior and strawman. Many of you are bitching about Apple's iMac because YOU don't wanna pay more money.
Decking out iMacs and PowerMacs with 256 megs of ram is obscene considering the price premium.
Crap graphics cards in a PowerMac top of the line. £2,100 and no monitor. A budget graphics card.
It's clearly Apple sticking it to their 'fans' in the ass because they know they can. Apple wouldn't survive two minutes in the PC market. They had their ass handed to them when they tried cloning their Mac.
I'm a consumer Programmer and I expect better from Apple who are clearly smokin' their own brand of crack. BMW comparisons by Apple? Then why no use quality components?
If they're going to charge crack-pipe prices then it's okay for consumers to expect crack-pipe specks.
We'll see if the 'new' iMacs sell any better than the old ones after the 1st two quarters before certain people blame slack sales on laptops...
Yawn..... what are you a Professional Messageboard poster?
Go freakin do something!!!
Make yourself useful. For Chrissakes you guys whine like a goddamn bunch of bitches. Are your gonads still intact? Buy what you need and stop crying.
Yawn..... what are you a Professional Messageboard poster?
Go freakin do something!!!
Make yourself useful. For Chrissakes you guys whine like a goddamn bunch of bitches. Are your gonads still intact? Buy what you need and stop crying.
Hey, chill down pal. It's just a discussion after all. Everyone can have his own opinion. I think. You know very well you gain nothing by insulting people like that.
By the way, although I am in the camp of people that don't like the new iMac, as TS describe it, I try to see the reason in your arguments. And understand things that perhaps I missed in the first place.
1. 5 billion is a lot of money but Apple would be lucky to pull a million dollars in interest in a qtr. The numbers just aren't high enough to really factor into the 67 million profit.
2. Custom design. If Apple used ATX cases and licensed chipsets from Intel they'd obtain a higher ration of revenue/profit. They won't sacrifice their looks though and I'm glad for that at this time and date.
3.Yes and that's not a bad thing. All companies face times when their products plateau. The quickest way to revive is to generate new income. The iPod/iTMS is doing what the newton could never do. Bring in money.
4. 3 million for a company isn't big. It's a POV thing. To you 3 million would look great in your bank account. To Apple who had restructering cost of 6 million alone in the qtr 3 mill isn't a huge number.
5. I'm not suprised at all. Consumers have plenty of choices for low cost PCs now. The consumer "Gold Rush" is over. No amount of GPU or CPU improvements is going to double any Macintosh sales. Apple needs to diversify because the sales really are going to remain static or improve slightly.
6. No Apple doesn't group the iMac and eMac sales. Look at the 10k you'll see 60k iMac sales(pitiful) and 180k eMac sales. The eMac outsold the iMac 3:1 but yet you wouldn't know it because everyone on these boards gets amnesia where the eMac is concerned(I guess it's snobbery).
The iMac G5 will do fine. Listening to the neurotic rantings from some of the people on this board will not change the fact that a G5 and 5200fx GPU is faster than ANY Mac of 3 years ago which means that for those in the market for a new Mac they will see improvement in every area and that is all that matters.
$999 computers are NOT Apples savior people..it's your own personal savior and strawman. Many of you are bitching about Apple's iMac because YOU don't wanna pay more money.
1. for several quarters apple had an operating lost and their interest from their cash reserves was the only thing that allowed them to post a profit. interest on 5 billion dollars is a lot more than you seem to think
3. we were never talking iPod. we were talking poor iMac and mac sales and lack of growth...... and you brought up increased revenue to prove people wrong. but that revenue is mostly because of the iPod
4. 3 million is quite large anyway you put it, but even if they were 70 million in profit that wouldn't mean anything to this discussion that iMac sales have sucked and these rumored specs do little to fix anything
5. apple needs to listen to customers.
6. i see they group iMacs and eMacs and then break the two down after reading further.
If $999 would not help Apple why have they said it would on several occassions. You are completely ignoring that. They openly say they are not offering what consumers want and are buying. That they are overpriced and not competitive in that market. As a shareholder that is troubling. Especially if they don't fix it. You're comments about the eMac's mild success only strengthen support that machines under 1000 are selling better than ones above.
Apple execs have repeatedly said at recent quarterly conference calls that the day of the desktop is over as far as leading the sales mix at the company. People are moving towards portables. Apple has adjusted to this fact and sells more laptops as a percentage of their sales then other companies. You might even say they are on the leading edge in this regards. Apple cannot and will not put out commodity boxes with off the shelf parts (easily gotten from any number of vendors). What has always made the product unique has been the integration of hardware and software, as you know. This couldn't be done without total control of all aspects of the product. They have done a sensational job in this respect. Are any other iApp similar products as good in their category as Apple? Has the PC press ever said they were? (The answer is no to both). Until the new iMac is actually introduced and the specs are officially announced all this hand-wringing is a bit premature. Unfortunately, no matter what Apple does there will always be negative response from the "faithful". You are not going to get an iMac equivalent to a PowerMac for $1000.
I love Apple, but if this information is true, its going to hurt apple, what about new users that compare a bottom-line iMac vs a PC Desktop
Dont get me wrong, Id love to see Apple claim a much bigger market share, but for people who know nothing about computers and compare a new iMac and these cheap PCs, and see the HUGE price gap might not care that much how a computer looks.
I might get flamed, but I still think Apple should bring in another line of computers, between the iMac and the PowerMac lines.
I agree, many people would like the fastest single cpu and the ability to have a pci slot or two and a slot for the video card. The hole between massive has everything including 2 cpu's that no consumer needs Powermac and all in one crippled held back in expansion& video iMac is enormous.
For those FX5200 lovers nvidea has 5700,5900,6600,6800,....FX5200 is the bottom step. in otherwords its as cheap as you go unless you go back years to mx. I bet apple doesnt pay $30 for that crap and they use it in powermac. Fx5200 drops frames right away from 640 x 480. anybody use that resolution? a decent card should be able to handle 1024 x 768 with out drops. FX5200 can not do that. A 9600 or 5700 can with the newer titles. so if you want to game on your brang spanking new ives design you are looking at 640 x 480 on a new machine? this is unacceptable even to the casual gamer. Consumers game and fx5200 isnt a consumer chip. Hence anyone who may like Medal of Honor,UT2004,Doom3,Nascar2003................list is growing daily...........looks at this machine and says it cant do it. So its powermac or off to PC land. Apple refuses to fix this market loosing way. on one hand they want developers like Aspyr,Feral,Macsoft,id to make Mac products and then they build a consumer line that cant or just barely can run these 1 year old PC programs. if i was a developer i would be giving them my 2 cents just as if i was ati who has only 1 model to make video cards. Ati should tell Apple we want another model to market the cards we make for you or we are out of here. Apple needs Ati more then Ati needs Apple, sorry marketshare with only 1 product that has cards.This would force Apple to a nvidea only scheme and apple would then have to get busy on cards again. let the Flames ignite.
News flash. The only people who care about high-performance with their games are... gamers.
Most people, the vast majority of people, really don't care. They buy computers to work, not to play games. For games, get a PS2 or XBox. Really. You'll be ahead of the game.
The iMac is for the majority of people who... you guessed it... don't care about frame rate on the latest FPS. They don't get their egos wrapped up in it, they just want to do work.
Oh, and the optical-free, low-GPU lowest end iMac? Perfect for education and businesses... that's a whole new market area for Apple, and one that... wait for it... couldn't give a rat's ass about games.
Sounds like what you want is a top-end gaming platform for a budget price. You don't get that from Dell, why do you expect it from Apple?
Now, you can argue that Dell offers you the ability to upgrade that lowend GPU to something of your choice, and you'd be right. BTO on the graphics card would be nice, but again, no one but a small segment of the population really truly cares. Most folks will be more than happy with the low end... because it's all they need. There are only two things most people ever upgrade on their systems, no matter how much internal expansion there is: hard drives, and memory. That's it. That's what the market has shown time and time again. Uber-expandable units just aren't worth the engineering effort for most consumers, but those same consumers buy into the concept that they need the extra expansion because the 'experts' tell them they do. Who are the experts? Spec whores. It's like taking car purchasing advice from street racers.
1. That explains a little bit of cash but cannot account for more than 10 million. Which still means Apple made a 57 million profit despite having a sucktastic iMac and losing more ground in edu. Creative accounting is always fun but a profit is a profit.
3. What does it matter. I don't where Apple gets the money I just care that they turn a profit. That means R&D is funded and people are paid so they stay. A far cry from the pre Jobs days when Apple had no talent and billions in losses no matter how you "accounted"
4. I only brought up the 3 million due to it's proximity to 70 million. It makes for a trivial arguement. iMac sales have indeed sucked. Some people took to the iLamp shape while others did not. Personally I wasn't a fan of the white color. Too much like an appliance.
5. Customers are wholly uneducated to know the market dynamics of this industry. They will merely say they want x featues for x price without knowing the logistics of creating such a device. Customer requests should always be balanced with what is actually feasible.
6. Yes they list something like 240k+ for both so neither of us where wrong really.
$999 Macs are available. The eMac yet people ignore it because it has a CRT? Makes no sense because the average CRT looks better than the average LCD IMO. The dreams of a iMac LCD at $999 being some hot seller is fallacious. The eMac pretty much proves that at that level, the so called sweet spot, sales are ok but not gang busters. Yes computers under $999 sell more because edu will not pay more for computers. Apple cannot get agressive on the low end until they improve their licensing revenues. No company exists to soley sell sub $799 computers ..there's no money in it. To have a loss leader you have to have the potential for a big payoff. Where is Apple's potential? Final Cut Pro? Nyet. OSX? Nada.
Remember people 80% of Microsofts revenue/profits come from two product lines. Windows and Office. Apple by not serializing OSX loses thousands. Makes you wonder how many people complaining about GPUs in iMacs have multiple machines running OSX from one purchased copy.
the art of the Mac whine is that you focus on where you're unhappy and fail to give any respect to where Apple does well. THAT is the nature of the consumer. To consume.
Hmmm, what do we have here? A 64 bit '3 gig' performer with 512 megs of ram, a decent graphics card and a Samsung monitor (17 inch flat or 19 inch CRT, take yer pick...).
Hope on over 'smack talkers' and get educated with what the iMac will be competing with. Value. Power. A decent graphics card for half the price of a high end iMac.
If $999 would not help Apple why have they said it would on several occassions. You are completely ignoring that. They openly say they are not offering what consumers want and are buying. That they are overpriced and not competitive in that market. As a shareholder that is troubling. Especially if they don't fix it. You're comments about the eMac's mild success only strengthen support that machines under 1000 are selling better than ones above.
This is the point right here, Apple knows that the iMac is not selling due to a high price point and outdated/underpowered processor. They have said as much to their stock holders. They need to get a product out under the "i" brand that they spent so much time and money building up brand recognition with that meets the market demands as far as price and performance so that they can efectively compete in that market. Their current offerings do not do that by their own admission. If they do not come out with a product that does address these market demands which they have recognized to their investors they are not only risking continued decline of their sales but also major slides in their stock prices and potential investor litigation.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Apple execs have repeatedly said at recent quarterly conference calls that the day of the desktop is over as far as leading the sales mix at the company. People are moving towards portables. Apple has adjusted to this fact and sells more laptops as a percentage of their sales then other companies. You might even say they are on the leading edge in this regards. Apple cannot and will not put out commodity boxes with off the shelf parts (easily gotten from any number of vendors). What has always made the product unique has been the integration of hardware and software, as you know. This couldn't be done without total control of all aspects of the product. They have done a sensational job in this respect. Are any other iApp similar products as good in their category as Apple? Has the PC press ever said they were? (The answer is no to both). Until the new iMac is actually introduced and the specs are officially announced all this hand-wringing is a bit premature. Unfortunately, no matter what Apple does there will always be negative response from the "faithful". You are not going to get an iMac equivalent to a PowerMac for $1000.
The day of the desktop may be over to a degree, but the whole "Hub" strategy that Apple is working on with the iPod, Airport Xpress and Xtream, Tiger and XGrid point to a continued market for every houshold for a centrial, non-portable computer to serve as the central storage and synching hub to that digital life. There may be some other device that will come out that will fill this requirement at a more consumer friendly price, but there is not one today and there is no indication that Apple has one in the works or what form it would take. I think that a more realistic view would be that the market for a single household would be one desktop/hub computer and 1-3 portables, as long as those portables offer near desktop performance. One caveat to this is that with the G5 we are once again seeing that it may be neccessary to "split" the processor types from protabe and desktop computers due to heat and energy demands of modern top of the line processors. This will help to build demand for higher performance desktops to run the ever increasing demands that software has on the processor and other subsystems of the computer.
wrong harold, people buy their Macs to do everything,business,photo's movies and even games like me.Im not going to plop down a bunch of cah for machine that cant do it all. fo christs sake just use a 9600 or 5700 as a option. Apple continues the tripping over itself,stumbling along........ go to apple.com/games for more info on mac gaming. Make no mistake FX5200 is cheap crap to build,cheap crap to make and cheap crap to buy. i thought apple wasnt about commodity boxes
All I can say is that the fact that TS reports the new iMac is like the Sony Vaio, is unquestionably confirmation that the screen pops out to a tablet computer.
These is NO WAY IN HELL Apple would make such an ugly compromise in design unless it had a real revolutionary aspect to it.
wrong harold, people buy their Macs to do everything,business,photo's movies and even games like me.Im not going to plop down a bunch of cah for machine that cant do it all.
For *YOU*, 'can't do it all' includes games.
For *ME*, 'can't do it all' includes high-end software development tools.
For *SOMEONE ELSE*, 'can't do it all' includes dual G5s at the maximum clockrate for weather simulations.
Point: your worldview of what a machine *HAS* to have is very narrow, and you're in the minority of computer consumers. Get over it.
1) The machine hasn't shipped.
2) We don't know for sure what the specs will be.
3) Most people *really* don't care about the l33tness of the GPU. Really.
4) This entire argument is pretty pointless and silly until we know precisely what is in the machines, and even then it will depend on the price points involved.
Comments
1. 5 billion is a lot of money but Apple would be lucky to pull a million dollars in interest in a qtr. The numbers just aren't high enough to really factor into the 67 million profit.
2. Custom design. If Apple used ATX cases and licensed chipsets from Intel they'd obtain a higher ration of revenue/profit. They won't sacrifice their looks though and I'm glad for that at this time and date.
3.Yes and that's not a bad thing. All companies face times when their products plateau. The quickest way to revive is to generate new income. The iPod/iTMS is doing what the newton could never do. Bring in money.
4. 3 million for a company isn't big. It's a POV thing. To you 3 million would look great in your bank account. To Apple who had restructering cost of 6 million alone in the qtr 3 mill isn't a huge number.
5. I'm not suprised at all. Consumers have plenty of choices for low cost PCs now. The consumer "Gold Rush" is over. No amount of GPU or CPU improvements is going to double any Macintosh sales. Apple needs to diversify because the sales really are going to remain static or improve slightly.
6. No Apple doesn't group the iMac and eMac sales. Look at the 10k you'll see 60k iMac sales(pitiful) and 180k eMac sales. The eMac outsold the iMac 3:1 but yet you wouldn't know it because everyone on these boards gets amnesia where the eMac is concerned(I guess it's snobbery).
The iMac G5 will do fine. Listening to the neurotic rantings from some of the people on this board will not change the fact that a G5 and 5200fx GPU is faster than ANY Mac of 3 years ago which means that for those in the market for a new Mac they will see improvement in every area and that is all that matters.
$999 computers are NOT Apples savior people..it's your own personal savior and strawman. Many of you are bitching about Apple's iMac because YOU don't wanna pay more money.
Decking out iMacs and PowerMacs with 256 megs of ram is obscene considering the price premium.
Crap graphics cards in a PowerMac top of the line. £2,100 and no monitor. A budget graphics card.
It's clearly Apple sticking it to their 'fans' in the ass because they know they can. Apple wouldn't survive two minutes in the PC market. They had their ass handed to them when they tried cloning their Mac.
I'm a consumer Programmer and I expect better from Apple who are clearly smokin' their own brand of crack. BMW comparisons by Apple? Then why no use quality components?
If they're going to charge crack-pipe prices then it's okay for consumers to expect crack-pipe specks.
We'll see if the 'new' iMacs sell any better than the old ones after the 1st two quarters before certain people blame slack sales on laptops...
Yawn..... what are you a Professional Messageboard poster?
Go freakin do something!!!
Make yourself useful. For Chrissakes you guys whine like a goddamn bunch of bitches. Are your gonads still intact? Buy what you need and stop crying.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yawn..... what are you a Professional Messageboard poster?
Go freakin do something!!!
Make yourself useful. For Chrissakes you guys whine like a goddamn bunch of bitches. Are your gonads still intact? Buy what you need and stop crying.
Hey, chill down pal. It's just a discussion after all. Everyone can have his own opinion. I think. You know very well you gain nothing by insulting people like that.
By the way, although I am in the camp of people that don't like the new iMac, as TS describe it, I try to see the reason in your arguments. And understand things that perhaps I missed in the first place.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Applenut
1. 5 billion is a lot of money but Apple would be lucky to pull a million dollars in interest in a qtr. The numbers just aren't high enough to really factor into the 67 million profit.
2. Custom design. If Apple used ATX cases and licensed chipsets from Intel they'd obtain a higher ration of revenue/profit. They won't sacrifice their looks though and I'm glad for that at this time and date.
3.Yes and that's not a bad thing. All companies face times when their products plateau. The quickest way to revive is to generate new income. The iPod/iTMS is doing what the newton could never do. Bring in money.
4. 3 million for a company isn't big. It's a POV thing. To you 3 million would look great in your bank account. To Apple who had restructering cost of 6 million alone in the qtr 3 mill isn't a huge number.
5. I'm not suprised at all. Consumers have plenty of choices for low cost PCs now. The consumer "Gold Rush" is over. No amount of GPU or CPU improvements is going to double any Macintosh sales. Apple needs to diversify because the sales really are going to remain static or improve slightly.
6. No Apple doesn't group the iMac and eMac sales. Look at the 10k you'll see 60k iMac sales(pitiful) and 180k eMac sales. The eMac outsold the iMac 3:1 but yet you wouldn't know it because everyone on these boards gets amnesia where the eMac is concerned(I guess it's snobbery).
The iMac G5 will do fine. Listening to the neurotic rantings from some of the people on this board will not change the fact that a G5 and 5200fx GPU is faster than ANY Mac of 3 years ago which means that for those in the market for a new Mac they will see improvement in every area and that is all that matters.
$999 computers are NOT Apples savior people..it's your own personal savior and strawman. Many of you are bitching about Apple's iMac because YOU don't wanna pay more money.
1. for several quarters apple had an operating lost and their interest from their cash reserves was the only thing that allowed them to post a profit. interest on 5 billion dollars is a lot more than you seem to think
3. we were never talking iPod. we were talking poor iMac and mac sales and lack of growth...... and you brought up increased revenue to prove people wrong. but that revenue is mostly because of the iPod
4. 3 million is quite large anyway you put it, but even if they were 70 million in profit that wouldn't mean anything to this discussion that iMac sales have sucked and these rumored specs do little to fix anything
5. apple needs to listen to customers.
6. i see they group iMacs and eMacs and then break the two down after reading further.
If $999 would not help Apple why have they said it would on several occassions. You are completely ignoring that. They openly say they are not offering what consumers want and are buying. That they are overpriced and not competitive in that market. As a shareholder that is troubling. Especially if they don't fix it. You're comments about the eMac's mild success only strengthen support that machines under 1000 are selling better than ones above.
Originally posted by jaegermann
I love Apple, but if this information is true, its going to hurt apple, what about new users that compare a bottom-line iMac vs a PC Desktop
Dont get me wrong, Id love to see Apple claim a much bigger market share, but for people who know nothing about computers and compare a new iMac and these cheap PCs, and see the HUGE price gap might not care that much how a computer looks.
I might get flamed, but I still think Apple should bring in another line of computers, between the iMac and the PowerMac lines.
I agree, many people would like the fastest single cpu and the ability to have a pci slot or two and a slot for the video card. The hole between massive has everything including 2 cpu's that no consumer needs Powermac and all in one crippled held back in expansion& video iMac is enormous.
For those FX5200 lovers nvidea has 5700,5900,6600,6800,....FX5200 is the bottom step. in otherwords its as cheap as you go unless you go back years to mx. I bet apple doesnt pay $30 for that crap and they use it in powermac. Fx5200 drops frames right away from 640 x 480. anybody use that resolution? a decent card should be able to handle 1024 x 768 with out drops. FX5200 can not do that. A 9600 or 5700 can with the newer titles. so if you want to game on your brang spanking new ives design you are looking at 640 x 480 on a new machine? this is unacceptable even to the casual gamer. Consumers game and fx5200 isnt a consumer chip. Hence anyone who may like Medal of Honor,UT2004,Doom3,Nascar2003................list is growing daily...........looks at this machine and says it cant do it. So its powermac or off to PC land. Apple refuses to fix this market loosing way. on one hand they want developers like Aspyr,Feral,Macsoft,id to make Mac products and then they build a consumer line that cant or just barely can run these 1 year old PC programs.
Go freakin do something!!!
...what, so you can congratulate yourself on being right..?
It's my day off.
Say, don't you post here way more than I do Mr. 'Howmuch'?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I thought my points were valid...for a little more £ Apple can make the iMac 3 alot more appealing at the mid and hi price points.
Most people, the vast majority of people, really don't care. They buy computers to work, not to play games. For games, get a PS2 or XBox. Really. You'll be ahead of the game.
The iMac is for the majority of people who... you guessed it... don't care about frame rate on the latest FPS. They don't get their egos wrapped up in it, they just want to do work.
Oh, and the optical-free, low-GPU lowest end iMac? Perfect for education and businesses... that's a whole new market area for Apple, and one that... wait for it... couldn't give a rat's ass about games.
Sounds like what you want is a top-end gaming platform for a budget price. You don't get that from Dell, why do you expect it from Apple?
Now, you can argue that Dell offers you the ability to upgrade that lowend GPU to something of your choice, and you'd be right. BTO on the graphics card would be nice, but again, no one but a small segment of the population really truly cares. Most folks will be more than happy with the low end... because it's all they need. There are only two things most people ever upgrade on their systems, no matter how much internal expansion there is: hard drives, and memory. That's it. That's what the market has shown time and time again. Uber-expandable units just aren't worth the engineering effort for most consumers, but those same consumers buy into the concept that they need the extra expansion because the 'experts' tell them they do. Who are the experts? Spec whores. It's like taking car purchasing advice from street racers.
3. What does it matter. I don't where Apple gets the money I just care that they turn a profit. That means R&D is funded and people are paid so they stay. A far cry from the pre Jobs days when Apple had no talent and billions in losses no matter how you "accounted"
4. I only brought up the 3 million due to it's proximity to 70 million. It makes for a trivial arguement. iMac sales have indeed sucked. Some people took to the iLamp shape while others did not. Personally I wasn't a fan of the white color. Too much like an appliance.
5. Customers are wholly uneducated to know the market dynamics of this industry. They will merely say they want x featues for x price without knowing the logistics of creating such a device. Customer requests should always be balanced with what is actually feasible.
6. Yes they list something like 240k+ for both so neither of us where wrong really.
$999 Macs are available. The eMac yet people ignore it because it has a CRT? Makes no sense because the average CRT looks better than the average LCD IMO. The dreams of a iMac LCD at $999 being some hot seller is fallacious. The eMac pretty much proves that at that level, the so called sweet spot, sales are ok but not gang busters. Yes computers under $999 sell more because edu will not pay more for computers. Apple cannot get agressive on the low end until they improve their licensing revenues. No company exists to soley sell sub $799 computers ..there's no money in it. To have a loss leader you have to have the potential for a big payoff. Where is Apple's potential? Final Cut Pro? Nyet. OSX? Nada.
Remember people 80% of Microsofts revenue/profits come from two product lines. Windows and Office. Apple by not serializing OSX loses thousands. Makes you wonder how many people complaining about GPUs in iMacs have multiple machines running OSX from one purchased copy.
the art of the Mac whine is that you focus on where you're unhappy and fail to give any respect to where Apple does well. THAT is the nature of the consumer. To consume.
Price Roundup
AMD Athlon XP System
Case: Aspire X-Dreamer II (with 350W PSU) - $54
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Retail - $165
Cooling: included Retail HSF - $0
Motherboard: MSI K8T Neo-FSR - $83
Memory: 512-MB Corsair Value PC3200 DDR - $82
Hard Drive: 80GB Western Digital SE (8-MB) - $64
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon 9800 128-MB OEM (128-bit DDR) - $160
Monitor: Samsung 955DF - $185
Sound Card: 6-Channel Integrated - $0
Speakers: Logitech Z640 6-Piece Speaker System - $49
CD/DVD-ROM: AOpen COM5232 Combo Drive - $43
Communications: Onboard LAN - $0
Mouse: Microsoft Intellimouse Optical - $15
Keyboard: Microsoft Multimedia Keyboard - $15
Operating System: Windows XP Home - $84
Total: $999
Intel Pentium 4 System
Case: Aspire X-Dreamer II (with 350W PSU) - $54
CPU: Pentium 4-2.8E GHz Prescott (800) Retail - $177
Cooling: included Retail HSF - $0
Motherboard: MSI 865PE NEO2-PFS Platinum - $80
Memory: 2 x 256-MB PC3200 DDR - $82
Hard Drive: 80GB Western Digital - $56
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon 9800 128-MB OEM (128-bit DDR) - $160
Monitor: Samsung 955DF - $185
Sound Card: 6-Channel Integrated - $0
Speakers: Logitech Z640 6-Piece Speaker System - $49
CD/DVD-ROM: AOpen COM5232 Combo Drive - $43
Communications: Onboard LAN - $0
Mouse: Microsoft Intellimouse Optical - $15
Keyboard: Microsoft Multimedia Keyboard - $15
Operating System: Windows XP Home - $84
Total: $1,000
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/...le.php/3394901
Hope on over 'smack talkers' and get educated with what the iMac will be competing with. Value. Power. A decent graphics card for half the price of a high end iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon (Your friendly neighbourhood 'professional poster'...)
8)
Originally posted by applenut
If $999 would not help Apple why have they said it would on several occassions. You are completely ignoring that. They openly say they are not offering what consumers want and are buying. That they are overpriced and not competitive in that market. As a shareholder that is troubling. Especially if they don't fix it. You're comments about the eMac's mild success only strengthen support that machines under 1000 are selling better than ones above.
This is the point right here, Apple knows that the iMac is not selling due to a high price point and outdated/underpowered processor. They have said as much to their stock holders. They need to get a product out under the "i" brand that they spent so much time and money building up brand recognition with that meets the market demands as far as price and performance so that they can efectively compete in that market. Their current offerings do not do that by their own admission. If they do not come out with a product that does address these market demands which they have recognized to their investors they are not only risking continued decline of their sales but also major slides in their stock prices and potential investor litigation.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Apple execs have repeatedly said at recent quarterly conference calls that the day of the desktop is over as far as leading the sales mix at the company. People are moving towards portables. Apple has adjusted to this fact and sells more laptops as a percentage of their sales then other companies. You might even say they are on the leading edge in this regards. Apple cannot and will not put out commodity boxes with off the shelf parts (easily gotten from any number of vendors). What has always made the product unique has been the integration of hardware and software, as you know. This couldn't be done without total control of all aspects of the product. They have done a sensational job in this respect. Are any other iApp similar products as good in their category as Apple? Has the PC press ever said they were? (The answer is no to both). Until the new iMac is actually introduced and the specs are officially announced all this hand-wringing is a bit premature. Unfortunately, no matter what Apple does there will always be negative response from the "faithful". You are not going to get an iMac equivalent to a PowerMac for $1000.
The day of the desktop may be over to a degree, but the whole "Hub" strategy that Apple is working on with the iPod, Airport Xpress and Xtream, Tiger and XGrid point to a continued market for every houshold for a centrial, non-portable computer to serve as the central storage and synching hub to that digital life. There may be some other device that will come out that will fill this requirement at a more consumer friendly price, but there is not one today and there is no indication that Apple has one in the works or what form it would take. I think that a more realistic view would be that the market for a single household would be one desktop/hub computer and 1-3 portables, as long as those portables offer near desktop performance. One caveat to this is that with the G5 we are once again seeing that it may be neccessary to "split" the processor types from protabe and desktop computers due to heat and energy demands of modern top of the line processors. This will help to build demand for higher performance desktops to run the ever increasing demands that software has on the processor and other subsystems of the computer.
ATI Video Card Price List
Memory Type
Price
Change
Vendor
ATI Radeon 9000 64MB OEM
$50
$1
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9000 128MB OEM
$69
$7
Allstarshop.com
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9000 128MB
$81
$0
Upgrade Nation
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB OEM
$47
-$4
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 128MB OEM
$79
-$4
Allstarshop.com
ATI AiW Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB
$125
$0
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9200SE 64MB OEM
$41
-$3
Xtreme Gear
ATI Radeon 9200 64MB OEM
$44
$4
NewEgg
ATI Radeon 9200SE 128MB OEM
$45
-$1
GameVE.com
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE 128MB
$59
$14
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9200 128MB OEM
$65
$0
NewEgg
ATI Radeon 9200 256MB OEM
$75
$0
Allstarshop.com
ATI X300 SE 128MB OEM (PCIe)
$99
n/a
Ajump.com
ATI Radeon 9500 64MB OEM
$95
$0
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9500 128MB OEM
$125
$16
Allstarshop.com
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9500 128MB
$157
$0
Upgrade Nation
ATI X300 128MB OEM (PCIe)
$129
n/a
Ajump.com
ATI Radeon 9600SE 128MB OEM
$64
$0
Xtreme Gear
ATI Radeon 9550 128MB OEM
$74
$0
GameVE.com
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB OEM
$94
$0
NewEgg
ATI Radeon 9600 256MB OEM
$103
$0
NewEgg
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9600 "EZ" 128MB
$124
$10
NewEgg
ATI AiW Radeon 9600 128MB
$140
-$31
NewEgg
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB
$124
-$3
NewEgg
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB
$131
-$2
ZipZoomFly
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9600 Pro "EZ" 256MB
$127
-$16
GameVE.com
ATI Radeon 9600XT 128MB OEM
$136
-$7
NewEgg
Gigabyte ATI Radeon 9600XT 128MB
$149
$0
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9600XT 256MB OEM
$152
-$7
GameVE.com
ATI AiW Radeon 9600XT 128MB
$193
-$27
GameVE.com
ATI X600 Pro 128MB (PCIe)
$168
n/a
Monarch Computer
ATI X600 XT 128MB (PCIe)
$224
n/a
Monarch Computer
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB OEM
$189
$10
Allstarshop.com
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB
$219
$0
ZipZoomFly
ATI AiW Radeon 9700 128MB OEM
$199
-$10
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9800SE 128MB OEM
$130
-$4
NewEgg
Sapphire Radeon 9800 (128-bit) 128MB
$166
-$8
Allstarshop.com
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB OEM
$196
-$3
GameVE.com
MSI ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
$198
-$11
ZipZoomFly
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
$219
$5
Allstarshop.com
ATI AiW Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB OEM
$271
-$48
Allstarshop.com
ATI AiW Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
$272
-$60
Xtreme Gear
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB
$259
-$9
Xtreme Gear
ATI Radeon 9800XT 256MB OEM
$350
-$48
GameVE.com
PowerColor ATI Radeon 9800XT 256MB
$350
-$49
Xtreme Gear
ATI Radeon X800 Pro 256MB
$410
-$10
Xtreme Gear
Celestica Radeon X800 Pro 256MB
$409
-$10
Xtreme Gear
Gigabyte Radeon X800 Pro 256MB
$413
-$8
GameVE.com
Gigabyte Radeon X800 XT 256MB
$545
$0
Xtreme Gear
Visiontek Radeon X800 XT 256MB
$583
n/a
GameVE.com
ASUS Radeon X800 XT 256MB
$586
$0
Ajump.com
Lemon Bon Bon
wrong harold
Who's 'harold'?
Lemon Bon Bon
These is NO WAY IN HELL Apple would make such an ugly compromise in design unless it had a real revolutionary aspect to it.
And THAT is the truth !!!
Originally posted by Aurora
wrong harold, people buy their Macs to do everything,business,photo's movies and even games like me.Im not going to plop down a bunch of cah for machine that cant do it all.
For *YOU*, 'can't do it all' includes games.
For *ME*, 'can't do it all' includes high-end software development tools.
For *SOMEONE ELSE*, 'can't do it all' includes dual G5s at the maximum clockrate for weather simulations.
Point: your worldview of what a machine *HAS* to have is very narrow, and you're in the minority of computer consumers. Get over it.
1) The machine hasn't shipped.
2) We don't know for sure what the specs will be.
3) Most people *really* don't care about the l33tness of the GPU. Really.
4) This entire argument is pretty pointless and silly until we know precisely what is in the machines, and even then it will depend on the price points involved.
5) Have fun kiddies.
hought apple wasnt about commodity boxes
So why do they use the worst possible commodity crap in the sexiest cases?
Gold ring in pig snout.
Lemon Bon Bon
NVIDIA Video Card Price List
Memory Type
Price
Change
Vendor
Apollo GeForce4 MX440-8X 64MB
$38
-$2
GameVE.com
eVGA GeForce4 MX440-8X 64MB
$41
$2
Xtreme Gear
Apollo GeForce4 MX440-8X 128MB
$58
-$1
NewEgg
Gigabyte GeForce FX 5200 128MB
$63
$0
Allstarshop.com
MSI GeForce FX 5200 128MB
$62
-$3
GameVE.com
Apollo GeForce FX 5200 256MB
$81
n/a
GameVE.com
Albatron GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB
$129
n/a
Xtreme Gear
XFX GeForce FX 5500 256MB
$95
-$1
Xtreme Gear
XFX GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB
$86
n/a
GameVE.com
Albatron GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB
$89
-$3
NewEgg
XFX GeForce PCX 5300 128MB
$91
n/a
Xtreme Gear
Gainward GeForce FX 5600 256MB
$98
n/a
Allstarshop.com
AOpen GeForce FX 5700LE 128MB
$101
n/a
GameVE.com
eVGA GeForce FX 5700 128MB
$120
-$7
Xtreme Gear
MSI GeForce FX 5700 128MB
$135
-$5
GameVE.com
AOpen GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$129
$0
Ajump.com
XFX GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$145
$0
Xtreme Gear
XFX GeForce PCX 5750 256MB
$157
n/a
GameVE.com
eVGA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB
$173
$0
GameVE.com
Albatron GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB
$184
n/a
GameVE.com
eVGA GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB
$170
-$16
Monarch Computer
ChainTech GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB
$173
-$1
GameVE.com
MSI GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB
$186
$0
Xtreme Gear
Albatron GeForce PCX 5900 128MB
$229
n/a
Ajump.com
eVGA GeForce FX 5900 128MB
$259
$0
ZipZoomFly
eVGA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB
$410
-$7
Z-buy.com
ASUS GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB
$395
$27
Computer3G
Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
$347
-$13
GameVE.com
XFX GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
$369
-$2
Xtreme Gear
Leadtek GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
$381
$0
Computer3G
PNY GeForce 6800 128MB
$280
-$17
GameVE.com
eVGA GeForce 6800 128MB
$282
-$17
Xtreme Gear
Leadtek GeForce 6800 128MB
$299
-$5
NewEgg
MSI GeForce 6800 128MB
$289
n/a
Xtreme Gear
XFX GeForce 6800 128MB
$287
n/a
ZipZoomFly
AOpen GeForce 6800GT 256MB
$454
-$1
GameVE.com
Gigabyte GeForce 6800GT 256MB
$418
$0
Xtreme Gear
PNY GeForce 6800GT 256MB
$408
$13
GameVE.com
XFX GeForce 6800GT 256MB
$405
$10
GameVE.com
AOpen GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
$545
$0
Ajump.com
ASUS GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
$599
$0
Ajump.com
EVGA GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
$547
$2
GameVE.com
Gigabyte GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
$539
$0
GameVE.com
MSI GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB
$598
n/a
Xtreme Gear
Say, aint those FX 52 cards real dirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt cheap?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I wonder how much $38 is in £?