Right. You're right. But since then, the iMac has moved away from that. It's handled very differently and marketed very differently than when it first appeared. People that want to upgrade are better suited with a PM to get their choice of video cards, displays, etc.
That is a short sighted view of the consumer computer market, and it limits Apple's appeal to a very large and diverse set of customers. The G5 PM is in no way a consumer computer, and is a good $500 more than the lowest entry price that Apple offered for a newly released PM. Maybe Apple needs to take their own advice and "Think Different" or better yet Burger Kings "Have it your way", if they did then they might actually grow market share.
Yes the consumer market place is a lot different than it was in 2000, we have seen a recession come and go. However there has been little job growth in that time and the average income in the US is not even up a full percentage point from where it was when the recession ended. That equates to less disposible income in the average household, especially when you factor in inflation and higher fuel costs.
Back when the iMac first appeared, and for the first few revs, $1000 was a low price for any computer. When we first started seeing systems reach the $500 range it was not due to the lower price of the computer, it was rebates that were given out by ISP's to sign up customers to their service uner multi-year contracts. Today those $500 computers are a reality on the PC side, and they come bundled with a processor that is faster than Apple's $1300 computer. Today $1300 will get you a computer that is equil to or better than an iMac in all respects, including a processor that is close to twice the speed of the rumored entry G5 iMac. Even if the G5 performs 175% more efffeciantly than a P4 in real world tests that only makes it equivelent to a 2.8 Ghz P4.
As far as the PM goes there is currently a $700 premium for an upgradable system (The G4 PM that is offered by Apple is not a current system, and is no longer in production and is as under powered as the eMac is). For you to seriously consider this as an alternate consumer computer indicates that you are out of touch with the realities of the consumer market in the US, and likely in Europe and Japan as well. We are loosing high paying jobs to India and China, and these are not being replaced. Our consumer market is going to shrink if this trend is not curtailed.
Now in the PM's intended market, as stated earlier the G5 PM's starting price is quite a bit higher than historic levels for this model. While this may be good for Apple's bottom line today, it won't be for long. The sectors of the publishing industry that were holding off on OS upgrades due to a dependence on Quark are making that transition today. This means OS upgrades in the short run, and hardware upgrades to come, the question is how fast and in what quantity. It is easier to justify the expense of upgrading 10 computers at $1600 than at $2000, especially in light of these challenging economic times where companies in the US are competing more and more with the low cost labor in India. What is more likely to happen is that only 8 will be purchased (or less) and they will be used for a longer period of time. This means fewer hardware sales for Apple both in the short term and in the long term.
As far as the PM goes there is currently a $700 premium for an upgradable system (The G4 PM that is offered by Apple is not a current system, and is no longer in production and is as under powered as the eMac is). For you to seriously consider this as an alternate consumer computer indicates that you are out of touch with the realities of the consumer market in the US, and likely in Europe and Japan as well. We are loosing high paying jobs to India and China, and these are not being replaced. Our consumer market is going to shrink if this trend is not curtailed.
I think it comes down to simpler things: some people want the iMac to be fully upgradable like a PowerMac, to that extent, but want to do it at price points Apple can't meet right now. Sometimes things can't cost what you want them to cost. They need to make profits and such things.
The iMac has changed a lot, and serves a very different market than the PM and it's indeed an expensive machine, and not as upgradable as some might want, but that's the price structure Apple has chosen. What are you gonna do about it?
Edit: I think Apple does a heck of a job offering machines that tend to appeal to many different kind of users, but they can't please everyone. If none of the iMacs are appealing to you, or to a hundred others in these forums, etc then you might not be in the consumer market the iMac is after. You could be on a prosumer or professional market that clearly the iMac will never fulfill, and nor it should.
The 5200 is *FINE* for the *LOW-END* iMac, aimed at the budget consumer, enterprise desks, and educational labs.
The 5200 is a perfectly adequete chip ( particularly the ultra version ). Its nothing special, but most cheap PCs are shipping intel extreme graphics, and for my work PC I find them to be fine.
My question is: "Who is supposed to buy the iMac?"
The iMac II compares very poorly with the powerbooks and emac, and its sales reflect this.
The iMac III will be 64bit, and a G5, but the G5 1.6 just isnt that much faster than a G4 1.4. The emac and powerbooks will soon catch up, and once again the imac will be like your funny looking cousin from the country.
There is a huge gap on the desktop between the emac and the powermac, and a good imac release could fill that. But how would you go about it? The following features have failed to set the market a fire with the imac II:
Looks funky
Ergonomic screen
LCD monitor
Compare with the imac I, which the following features did set the market on fire:
Looks funky
Easy to set up
SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE POWERMAC
For the imac III to be successful they should return to this formula, same speed cpus as the powermac ( but we'll only use one in the iMac ). Low and mid range video cards. A great industrial design that people love. People will buy AIOs, the imac proved it, but it has to walk the walk.
Quote:
Actually, I do. I just don't expect to be able to play Unreal Tournament at highest resolution on a low-end iMac any more than I expect to be able to compete in an F1 race in a Honda Accord.
But your typical driver doesnt drive in formula 1 races at all ( even if they owned an F1 car ). Your typical home computer user does play games.
Quote:
Gamers drive the hardware on the PC, to be sure. But they're still a niche market *there*, compared to the masses of PCs sold to businesses and such. Because of this, there is still a low-end market for enterprise and educational labs... with low end graphics hardware.
I love my emac,
it works all day.
Computing spreadsheets,
'mailing away.
It browses web sites,
and writes reports,
it does ev'rything
that a biz'ness wants.
and even plays a little starcraft on the side.
The emac is a great low end machine for Apple.
If the new imac is going to replace the emac then it is certainly fair to talk about giving it low end graphics, and no optical. The emac already has low end graphics, and you could take out the optical easily. But Apple dont talk about hitting 999 for business sales. They talk about it as the sweet spot for _consumer_ sales. No consumer will buy a machine without optical.
I dont believe that TS has the specs correctly priced. Apple are going to be pushing really hard to hit 999 with a viable machine. And that means an optical drive, at least a combo. 5200 will be fine at that price.
Look at it this way, for 999 you can choose an iMac or an iBook. It is a really easy purchasing decision. Do you want a laptop or a desktop. They are the same price ( presuming an ibook price cut of 100 - reasonable I think ), but one is faster ( the imac ). "In fact, it plays a pretty good game of doom III, which has just been released and is the hottest thing on the market, your average PC cant do that." Apple store employee then provides a side by side comparison with a 999 Dell. I just priced a Dell, and for 1097 you get the bottom of the line Dell 4600, with XP professional, and a 15" lcd monitor, and intel extreme graphics. It will choke and burn on Doom III. It would be a great demo.
One thing I've never understood is this "cost of expandability". It seems to me that it would be cheaper to design and manufacture an attractive but traditional minitower than a crazy shape like the current iMac. When people talk about this expansion cost is this just in reference to protecting the Powermac sales, or is there something I'm missing?
I think it comes down to simpler things: some people want the iMac to be fully upgradable like a PowerMac, to that extent, but want to do it at price points Apple can't meet right now. Sometimes things can't cost what you want them to cost. They need to make profits and such things.
The iMac has changed a lot, and serves a very different market than the PM and it's indeed an expensive machine, and not as upgradable as some might want, but that's the price structure Apple has chosen. What are you gonna do about it?
You don't get my point, guess I was rambling too much. There is a market for a consumer level computer with some degree of upgradability. This is evident in the number of consumer oriented video cards for PC's available at your local Best Buy. The iMac does indeed serve a different market, but it does not cover the full spectrum of requirements of the consumer market, and it would be in Apple's interest to address the needs of this market that are not covered by the iMac with an alternate so that they can attract more customers that would otherwise but a PC because Apple does not offer an alternative.
Note I never said that Apple should sell a dual 1.8 Ghz G5 PowerMac for $1000, or even for $1599. I did compare current pricing to some historic lows for the PowerMac. I feel that Apple would be better served with a single 1.8 Ghz G5 at $1599 or $1699 for an entry to the PM line than they are with starting it out at $1999. A single 1.6 Ghz would even be attractive at $1499 and would have cross-over appeal to the consumer market.
I am a Mac fan, use them at home and at work and would enver willingly consider replacing it with a PC. The real disapointing thing in all of this is the lost opportunity that Apple has in making some real headway in the market. OS X has gained some real respect in the industry, and so did the G5 with the "super computer" cluster. There is a major concern with security, as well as the cost of future Microsoft OS update/subscription prices with the next major OS upgrade that they make. Apple is poised to take real advantage of this and potentially make inroads into markets that the couldnt have hade a chance in 4 years ago. However, if they do not have the hardware to compete in these markets at a price point that they need to be cometative in them then the opportunity is probably lost for a long time to come.
You don't get my point, guess I was rambling too much. There is a market for a consumer level computer with some degree of upgradability. This is evident in the number of consumer oriented video cards for PC's available at your local Best Buy. The iMac does indeed serve a different market, but it does not cover the full spectrum of requirements of the consumer market, and it would be in Apple's interest to address the needs of this market that are not covered by the iMac with an alternate so that they can attract more customers that would otherwise but a PC because Apple does not offer an alternative.
I think I get your point, and it's true. I'm just not sure how the iMac is going to fit into that consumer type of machine that allows some degree of upgradability. I think Apple has been more concerned with making it pretty and unique in design, but having those qualities and upgradability sometimes don't go hand in hand too well. Let's hope the G5 iMac allows for a certain degree on upgradability that part of the consumer market demands.
I think I get your point, and it's true. I'm just not sure how the iMac is going to fit into that consumer type of machine that allows some degree of upgradability. I think Apple has been more concerned with making it pretty and unique in design, but having those qualities and upgradability sometimes don't go hand in hand too well. Let's hope the G5 iMac allows for a certain degree on upgradability that part of the consumer market demands.
The iMac is best left as it is, or rather as it will be if it once again returnes to the same value dollar for dollar as it was in 2000. What Apple really needs is a consumer level headless computer that can address the needs of the market that are not and will not be meet by an AIO design, weather it has an upgradable video card or not. That is not saying that an upgradable video card would not be welcome as insurence against future OS requirements and to take advantage of new features such as Core Video. An added benefit to adding upgradable video to Apple's consumer line is that it would increase the market for video card upgrades from ATI and their competators. This would help to bring down the cost of the cards as the market for them increases and the R&D cost is spread over a larger market. It could also help bring down the cost of putting these cards into Apple's OEM cards as well, which would increase Apple's profitability or allow them to pass that savings on to the consumer.
The rev a imacs will be delivered with processors that IBM is able to deliver, or has been able to deliver as the iMacs are probably in production right now. If that means the 1.6 and 1.8 then so be it. When IBM is going full speed and boosting the performance of the G5 (and G6 is that is what the duals are called) you will see the iMac move right along with the speed bumps.
Right now Apple is restricting their offerings because their components are restricted. There will not be a true headless imac if there are not enough chips to product it. I would not be surprised, however, that one is released when there is an abundant supply of G5 chips - but built as a PM mini - and the pricing -vs- a comparable iMac will have the PM mini at a higher price point. I would also bet that the PM mini will only have the fastest Gx processor.
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
I don't see the eMac hitting EOL very soon. The comparably priced iMac for education and business will not have optical for a lot of very good reasons. That leaves the eMac platform as the lowest priced "usable" home computer. I do believe that there might be some nice surprises in store for the eMac and iBook - with IBM or Freescale delivering some impressive 32 bit chips. When the iMac hits 2.0 with a G4 there is not reason why the eMac and iBook can't hit 2.0 with a 32 bit Gx. The eMac is, I believe, safe until the cost of flat panels is the same as a CRT.
Yes, the economy has suffered. But when you look at it the iPod mini has a huge backorder with demand so far ahead of possible supply that you need to order soon if you want one for Christmas. PM's have sold well, except for the lull when everyone was waiting for the 970FX, and there is now a long line waiting for the 30" displays. (My 23" to use with my PB arrived this week!) In addition, the average price of a computer sold by Dell (with over 50% of the market) is $1,500+. People go into the sight looking for a $500 computer and end up spending $1,500 and that pretty well sums up the $500 computer business. Buying a $500 will end up costing you three times that much, one way or another.
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
Thats easy. Laptops have traditionally been more expensive than desktops, and hence the realm of specialists ( people who can sacrifice power for portability ). Game players, video editors, artists were never the market for laptops.
That is changing, but the technology changes faster than people stereotypes. People understand that a laptop cant be portable and have the same power as a desktop, with out being as big as a desktop and getting no battery life to speak of.
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
The difference is in laptops you are trading off for portability. Most people don't expect the same things or processing power from a laptop because you simply do different stuff with it. For instance reports I can write on the road but the real work gets done back home on the desktop. Sometimes when I'm at home I like to open a game and distract myself for an hour and it's good to have a system capable of it. I don't mind paying but it has to be reasonable.
The problem with an iMac is they are essentially selling a laptop in a desktop case. To make matters worse the specs offer basically no customisation at all and Apple's one shoe fits all in the consumer market is a poor approach. Simple fact is some consumers want to play games but to do so they either need to buy a non-Apple product, not what Apple should be aiming for, or buy a $1999 PowerMac, which just won't happen for most family computers.
I don't mind anemic RAM so they can improve margins but some people want better graphics cards or a larger HD or to be able to use iDVD yet don't necessarily want to upgrade the whole comp. The 5200 is poor choice on a PowerMac but at least you can upgrade it. On an iMac you're locked in. It's even worse when they force you into features you don't want to upgrade, like a larger monitor size, should you choose to try and upgrade things. Apple's restrictive attitude to the consumer market is flawed but that's just my view.
As for the attached monitor that's a whole other story. I could live with it even if I don't like it.
One thing I've never understood is this "cost of expandability". It seems to me that it would be cheaper to design and manufacture an attractive but traditional minitower than a crazy shape like the current iMac. When people talk about this expansion cost is this just in reference to protecting the Powermac sales, or is there something I'm missing?
There are probably five different issues to consider with expandability:
1. Additional power is required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
2. Additional cooling (fans) are required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
3. 1 and 2 can add to the indirect costs of shipping and storage.
4. Additional slots makes a product much closer to a PowerMac.
5. What does a consumer need additional slots for?
When the answer to #5 comes up as "probably nothing" and #4 is considered, then doing #1 and #2 doesn't seem to make much sense.
There are two different things to think about, one is "expandability" and the other is "upgradeability".
What does the consumer need/use expandability for these days?
Slots for expandability made a lot more sense back in the day when you needed to add cards for a mouse, sound, video, networking, etc. Not applicable today.
Upgradeability is another issue. What do people want to upgrade or replace on their machines? Even consumers? I can think of three primary things:
1. Hard drive - This can generally be done even on a laptop.
2. Memory - Apple has always allowed this on the AIO Macs.
3. Video chip/card - This is the one thing they have not.
While it is true that some will wish to upgrade CPU and monitors, there are two problems here:
1. CPU upgrades can muck with the motherboard design and the power supply design too.
2. Most consumers wait so long to upgrade machines that by the time they do...it it time to get rid of that crappy old 14" monitor anyway.
In the end, it seems to me that most people on these boards seem to want a PowerMac only cheaper.
Dodging it or saying "well *WE* don't know!" will be taken as acknowledgment that you don't have an answer to it, and are sticking to the FUD. If you do, I'd love to hear it, because I can't think of anything from my years of graphics research.
Like I said, religious warfare is all this is.
My bad, I'm merely taking 18 years of Mac experience in and out of the Mac retail business and Apple's long history and inferring from the countless times Apple has screwed its customers in a bid to purposely make their machines obsolete and force them to upgrade to use the latest machines.
So, your claim that its "religious warfare" is straight old bullshit. Your responses are straight old "Apple apologist." Only the courts don't seem to agree with you. Using OLD technology and blocking upgradeability is a move by Apple to turn over its machines more quickly. And its why I'll never buy another AIO or laptop Mac. So keep saying an FX5200 is "fine" for a "low end consumer machine." Fact is, the majority of people don't see $2200 as "low end." And they'll be mighty pissed when they buy Halo 2 for their kid and then ask why he isn't playing it and the kid responds "cuz it runs like crap" 3 months after they droped $2g's on what the salesman told them was a great machine.
I've seen it. Its the best advertising Dell could get.
So, keep your head in those APIs. Be astounded at Apple's software tech. It is beautiful. Then, when you get back to the real world you can gnash your teeth because the GPU Apple sold you with your Mac like a Radeon 9000 won't do the job. At least I can upgrade mine. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could? Seems I recall ATI and Nvidia both offering a new socket for laptops and small enclosures. Wonder why Apple WON'T use it? Must be for religious reasons.
In my opinion all this bickering about the video card is just missing the fundamental flaws of the current and now apparently next generation iMac. It seems like if Apple throws in a slightly better video card, you all will be content.
NOT ME!
Attached screen, no upgradeability is just killing. I think Apple only has a real chance to sell to consumers who want to >do stuff< with their computers. But they just don't have any hardware for that market. At least not on the desktop.
Well, if they want to release such a computer in a new lineup, that would be fine with me too. But they would just be inviting another eMac style embarrassment.
BIngo.
The iMac is supposed to be the centre piece of the digital hub, but G5 or not, 17" screen or not, it is a machine that is fundamentally unprepared for that role.
If TS is right. At 1299 it costs too much for a machine with the following inadequacies:
Doesn't have a minimum of 512MB of RAM
Doesn't have at least 120GB, but preferrably 160GB of HDD space standard.
Doesn't have a Superdrive!
If the machine were 999, you could call it an entry, that delivers much of the iLife experience, but not the full use of iMovie/iDVD, and say that's OK. But the machine is priced like a full featured machine, without the full features.
Without the superdrive you can use iMovie, but most won't, 'cause it's rather pointless; without adequate HDD space, you'll never work comfortably with many clips, or soundtracks either. Which also affects iTunes and iPhoto libraries. There may be a limit to iTunes libraries (at least legal ones), but with 7MP compact cameras becoming standard in compacts, and 8 and beyond coming to consumer cams, you're going to need a lot of HDD space just to look at all your pics.
Want to really manipulate multi-MP images easily, 256MB won't be enough, and you can forget about working iMovie right.
No superdrive means no iDVD, so now you've got a three legged iLife, but it also makes backing-up digital photos harder than it needs to be. Yes CDRs are cheap, but DVD's are too, and big RAW files or TIFFS require a bigger storage media. Would you rather have 50-100 CDs full of pics, or 10-20 DVDs?
This rumored iMac price/spec misses the mark. In the quantities Apple buys, a Superdrive, extra 256MB of RAM, and a larger HDD could add as little as 50-60 bucks to the cost of the machine. Certainly within the realm of profitability. Instead we get short changed. Very poor.
You'll have to spend an extra 200 bucks on RAM and HDD space alone at retail (or Apple upgrade rates), and you still won't have a superdrive, or way to use iDVD even if you get an external.
It's a 1299 entry level/family machine, and that is completely ridiculous to all but the most hardcore mac users.
Yes, it will sell well, for a quarter, and into a second, but it will not carry any significant sales numbers in the consumer-retail channel unless big changes are made fast. Ironically, a 999 driveless model may sell well to schools and colleges that need semi-cheap G5 terminals.
But the question rears it's ungly head again.
Not much difference between the cost of 40GB and 80GB, combo-drives can be had for 20-30 bucks from the right supplier.
There are probably five different issues to consider with expandability:
1. Additional power is required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
2. Additional cooling (fans) are required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
3. 1 and 2 can add to the indirect costs of shipping and storage.
...
In the end, it seems to me that most people on these boards seem to want a PowerMac only cheaper.
Interesting that some of the main reasons for creating an AIO and locking it down have to do with cost. However, Apple fails to pass any of that savings on to the consumer when they have a combodrive 17" LCD starting at 1299 with inadequate RAM and HDD allotments, and a Drive that doesn't let you use their core consumer application suite to its fullest -- shutting you out of iDVD and making iMovie almost pointless in the process.
hi, i'm a newbie so i'm wrong , but i've been lurking here for a while, so.. err.. yeah.
some thoughts on the iMac past and present:
when apple first introduced the colored iMac, they were very competitive hardware- and price-wise. the base model was $999 (sorry to bring up that number again..lol). it was friendly and inviting. it was new and radical without being offensive or daunting or too 'weird'. it let you do everything a consumer could want, and it carried some of that apple prestige, that reputation of high-performance, for those who were in the know. just prior to this point, the world of apple was strictly for professionals, at a desk or on the go. at least, as a know-nothing consumer, that's how i saw things.
if you wanted real muscle in the digital art world (i'm a musician) and didnt want things crashing and breaking down, you got a powermac- it was the only sane choice at that time, largely because of lingering notions of where the PC world was at before win98SE. and now if you wanted a no-hassles simple computer, now you could get an iMac. it had everything the powermacs had except the expandability. at first, anyway. and in some ways, it had even more.
really, how could apple have gone wrong with this new personal computer? well, they really didn't go wrong and sold a bajillion of them. all of a sudden, apple was no longer an "oh, yeah, apple makes computers for ordinary folks, but why would i buy one?" company, but a "hmm, maybe i should check out these colorful lil' things. i heard they do internet good" company. they gave it all to you for $999 (sorry). at one point you could buy a new one (well actually it was an old one bumped down the line...) for $799. and this was when PC's were more expensive in general than they are today (i might be wrong about that).
so the result of all this is that suddenly there were two choices for the average new-computer buyer: PC and iMac. not powermac, iMac. that, to a lessor degree, is the same choice new buyers have today. PC or iMac.
i have some friends that still think that i use an iMac. i have both a g4 tower and powerbook. they think iMac. iMac. nobody knows what an eMac is (except for educatio0n people or mac fans in general) and even if they did, they wouldn't buy it because it is somehow 'less' than an iMac.
the iMac is the gravitational center, like it or not, apple, of what the apple computer experience is. it is a big part of the reason we can still buy a mac at all.
it needs to represent the same things that it used to with its first colored introduction. simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful (but not too Power-ful) and.... affordable, given the apple tax. currently, none of apple's computers are this. sure the eMac is cute, but nobody knows what it is, and apple barely wants the thing around, it seems. it can be argued that the current iMac is NONE of those things, and that's a real big problem.
in my opinion, apple will never enjoy success like they did the original colored iMac. they can't, because, conceptually speaking, they split it in two- the eMac now takes the place where the iMac should be in terms of price and simplicity (what happened to near-processor parity??), and the iMac now takes the place of, well, what is it good for? the ergonomically challenged? people obsessed with the color white? sure i'd buy one if i was rich. how many would they sell if the eMac was spec'd and promoted just as high as the iMac? close to zero, i bet.
so.... here's hoping apple finds that killer conceptual combination and markets it appropriately. because if apple can't make their iMac, the paradigm of the apple experience, a winner on all these points (simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful and affordable), they they might as well throw in the marketshare towel. and the only way that i can see for them to do that is for them to kill the eMac, and put the iMac in its conceptual place.
apple thinks that people bought the iMacs cause they were revolutionary, and so are trying to keep revolutionizing the computer experience. i think that's great, but it should NOT be the iMac doing that. it should be another model altogether that pushes those conceptual boundaries. the iMac needs to be a stable machine in that respect. they should not be experimenting so radically and so expensively with their consumer model, period.
hope that made sense to the 4 of you that read the whole thing, hehe.
hi, i'm a newbie so i'm wrong , but i've been lurking here for a while, so.. err.. yeah.
some thoughts on the iMac past and present:
when apple first introduced the colored iMac, they were very competitive hardware- and price-wise. the base model was $999 (sorry to bring up that number again..lol). it was friendly and inviting. it was new and radical without being offensive or daunting or too 'weird'. it let you do everything a consumer could want, and it carried some of that apple prestige, that reputation of high-performance, for those who were in the know. just prior to this point, the world of apple was strictly for professionals, at a desk or on the go. at least, as a know-nothing consumer, that's how i saw things.
if you wanted real muscle in the digital art world (i'm a musician) and didnt want things crashing and breaking down, you got a powermac- it was the only sane choice at that time, largely because of lingering notions of where the PC world was at before win98SE. and now if you wanted a no-hassles simple computer, now you could get an iMac. it had everything the powermacs had except the expandability. at first, anyway. and in some ways, it had even more.
really, how could apple have gone wrong with this new personal computer? well, they really didn't go wrong and sold a bajillion of them. all of a sudden, apple was no longer an "oh, yeah, apple makes computers for ordinary folks, but why would i buy one?" company, but a "hmm, maybe i should check out these colorful lil' things. i heard they do internet good" company. they gave it all to you for $999 (sorry). at one point you could buy a new one (well actually it was an old one bumped down the line...) for $799. and this was when PC's were more expensive in general than they are today (i might be wrong about that).
so the result of all this is that suddenly there were two choices for the average new-computer buyer: PC and iMac. not powermac, iMac. that, to a lessor degree, is the same choice new buyers have today. PC or iMac.
i have some friends that still think that i use an iMac. i have both a g4 tower and powerbook. they think iMac. iMac. nobody knows what an eMac is (except for educatio0n people or mac fans in general) and even if they did, they wouldn't buy it because it is somehow 'less' than an iMac.
the iMac is the gravitational center, like it or not, apple, of what the apple computer experience is. it is a big part of the reason we can still buy a mac at all.
it needs to represent the same things that it used to with its first colored introduction. simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful (but not too Power-ful) and.... affordable, given the apple tax. currently, none of apple's computers are this. sure the eMac is cute, but nobody knows what it is, and apple barely wants the thing around, it seems. it can be argued that the current iMac is NONE of those things, and that's a real big problem.
in my opinion, apple will never enjoy success like they did the original colored iMac. they can't, because, conceptually speaking, they split it in two- the eMac now takes the place where the iMac should be in terms of price and simplicity (what happened to near-processor parity??), and the iMac now takes the place of, well, what is it good for? the ergonomically challenged? people obsessed with the color white? sure i'd buy one if i was rich. how many would they sell if the eMac was spec'd and promoted just as high as the iMac? close to zero, i bet.
so.... here's hoping apple finds that killer conceptual combination and markets it appropriately. because if apple can't make their iMac, the paradigm of the apple experience, a winner on all these points (simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful and affordable), they they might as well throw in the marketshare towel. and the only way that i can see for them to do that is for them to kill the eMac, and put the iMac in its conceptual place.
apple thinks that people bought the iMacs cause they were revolutionary, and so are trying to keep revolutionizing the computer experience. i think that's great, but it should NOT be the iMac doing that. it should be another model altogether that pushes those conceptual boundaries. the iMac needs to be a stable machine in that respect. they should not be experimenting so radically and so expensively with their consumer model, period.
hope that made sense to the 4 of you that read the whole thing, hehe.
Great post hivemind. My only complaint about my old Rev. A is the graphics card. Other than that, it's been a great machine. And yes, at the time is was competitive.
i suppose apple then got greedy after selling so many and added $200. tsk, tsk. it's not like it went to r&d: "hey bob, what's your favorite color?" lol .
i suppose apple then got greedy after selling so many and added $200. tsk, tsk. it's not like it went to r&d: "hey bob, what's your favorite color?" lol .
With the slot-loading iMacs ther was a lot more price diversity. Still, Apple did have a good thing going with the jellybeans.
I still love my Rev. A. My son uses it now to play his games. He's 3 1/2 so he's not quite into teh latest FPS games. It runs anything he likes really well though and the thing is rugged as all hell.
Comments
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
Right. You're right. But since then, the iMac has moved away from that. It's handled very differently and marketed very differently than when it first appeared. People that want to upgrade are better suited with a PM to get their choice of video cards, displays, etc.
That is a short sighted view of the consumer computer market, and it limits Apple's appeal to a very large and diverse set of customers. The G5 PM is in no way a consumer computer, and is a good $500 more than the lowest entry price that Apple offered for a newly released PM. Maybe Apple needs to take their own advice and "Think Different" or better yet Burger Kings "Have it your way", if they did then they might actually grow market share.
Yes the consumer market place is a lot different than it was in 2000, we have seen a recession come and go. However there has been little job growth in that time and the average income in the US is not even up a full percentage point from where it was when the recession ended. That equates to less disposible income in the average household, especially when you factor in inflation and higher fuel costs.
Back when the iMac first appeared, and for the first few revs, $1000 was a low price for any computer. When we first started seeing systems reach the $500 range it was not due to the lower price of the computer, it was rebates that were given out by ISP's to sign up customers to their service uner multi-year contracts. Today those $500 computers are a reality on the PC side, and they come bundled with a processor that is faster than Apple's $1300 computer. Today $1300 will get you a computer that is equil to or better than an iMac in all respects, including a processor that is close to twice the speed of the rumored entry G5 iMac. Even if the G5 performs 175% more efffeciantly than a P4 in real world tests that only makes it equivelent to a 2.8 Ghz P4.
As far as the PM goes there is currently a $700 premium for an upgradable system (The G4 PM that is offered by Apple is not a current system, and is no longer in production and is as under powered as the eMac is). For you to seriously consider this as an alternate consumer computer indicates that you are out of touch with the realities of the consumer market in the US, and likely in Europe and Japan as well. We are loosing high paying jobs to India and China, and these are not being replaced. Our consumer market is going to shrink if this trend is not curtailed.
Now in the PM's intended market, as stated earlier the G5 PM's starting price is quite a bit higher than historic levels for this model. While this may be good for Apple's bottom line today, it won't be for long. The sectors of the publishing industry that were holding off on OS upgrades due to a dependence on Quark are making that transition today. This means OS upgrades in the short run, and hardware upgrades to come, the question is how fast and in what quantity. It is easier to justify the expense of upgrading 10 computers at $1600 than at $2000, especially in light of these challenging economic times where companies in the US are competing more and more with the low cost labor in India. What is more likely to happen is that only 8 will be purchased (or less) and they will be used for a longer period of time. This means fewer hardware sales for Apple both in the short term and in the long term.
Originally posted by @homenow
As far as the PM goes there is currently a $700 premium for an upgradable system (The G4 PM that is offered by Apple is not a current system, and is no longer in production and is as under powered as the eMac is). For you to seriously consider this as an alternate consumer computer indicates that you are out of touch with the realities of the consumer market in the US, and likely in Europe and Japan as well. We are loosing high paying jobs to India and China, and these are not being replaced. Our consumer market is going to shrink if this trend is not curtailed.
I think it comes down to simpler things: some people want the iMac to be fully upgradable like a PowerMac, to that extent, but want to do it at price points Apple can't meet right now. Sometimes things can't cost what you want them to cost. They need to make profits and such things.
The iMac has changed a lot, and serves a very different market than the PM and it's indeed an expensive machine, and not as upgradable as some might want, but that's the price structure Apple has chosen. What are you gonna do about it?
Edit: I think Apple does a heck of a job offering machines that tend to appeal to many different kind of users, but they can't please everyone. If none of the iMacs are appealing to you, or to a hundred others in these forums, etc then you might not be in the consumer market the iMac is after. You could be on a prosumer or professional market that clearly the iMac will never fulfill, and nor it should.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The 5200 is *FINE* for the *LOW-END* iMac, aimed at the budget consumer, enterprise desks, and educational labs.
The 5200 is a perfectly adequete chip ( particularly the ultra version ). Its nothing special, but most cheap PCs are shipping intel extreme graphics, and for my work PC I find them to be fine.
My question is: "Who is supposed to buy the iMac?"
The iMac II compares very poorly with the powerbooks and emac, and its sales reflect this.
The iMac III will be 64bit, and a G5, but the G5 1.6 just isnt that much faster than a G4 1.4. The emac and powerbooks will soon catch up, and once again the imac will be like your funny looking cousin from the country.
There is a huge gap on the desktop between the emac and the powermac, and a good imac release could fill that. But how would you go about it? The following features have failed to set the market a fire with the imac II:
Looks funky
Ergonomic screen
LCD monitor
Compare with the imac I, which the following features did set the market on fire:
Looks funky
Easy to set up
SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE POWERMAC
For the imac III to be successful they should return to this formula, same speed cpus as the powermac ( but we'll only use one in the iMac ). Low and mid range video cards. A great industrial design that people love. People will buy AIOs, the imac proved it, but it has to walk the walk.
Actually, I do. I just don't expect to be able to play Unreal Tournament at highest resolution on a low-end iMac any more than I expect to be able to compete in an F1 race in a Honda Accord.
But your typical driver doesnt drive in formula 1 races at all ( even if they owned an F1 car ). Your typical home computer user does play games.
Gamers drive the hardware on the PC, to be sure. But they're still a niche market *there*, compared to the masses of PCs sold to businesses and such. Because of this, there is still a low-end market for enterprise and educational labs... with low end graphics hardware.
I love my emac,
it works all day.
Computing spreadsheets,
'mailing away.
It browses web sites,
and writes reports,
it does ev'rything
that a biz'ness wants.
and even plays a little starcraft on the side.
The emac is a great low end machine for Apple.
If the new imac is going to replace the emac then it is certainly fair to talk about giving it low end graphics, and no optical. The emac already has low end graphics, and you could take out the optical easily. But Apple dont talk about hitting 999 for business sales. They talk about it as the sweet spot for _consumer_ sales. No consumer will buy a machine without optical.
I dont believe that TS has the specs correctly priced. Apple are going to be pushing really hard to hit 999 with a viable machine. And that means an optical drive, at least a combo. 5200 will be fine at that price.
Look at it this way, for 999 you can choose an iMac or an iBook. It is a really easy purchasing decision. Do you want a laptop or a desktop. They are the same price ( presuming an ibook price cut of 100 - reasonable I think ), but one is faster ( the imac ). "In fact, it plays a pretty good game of doom III, which has just been released and is the hottest thing on the market, your average PC cant do that." Apple store employee then provides a side by side comparison with a 999 Dell. I just priced a Dell, and for 1097 you get the bottom of the line Dell 4600, with XP professional, and a 15" lcd monitor, and intel extreme graphics. It will choke and burn on Doom III. It would be a great demo.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
I think it comes down to simpler things: some people want the iMac to be fully upgradable like a PowerMac, to that extent, but want to do it at price points Apple can't meet right now. Sometimes things can't cost what you want them to cost. They need to make profits and such things.
The iMac has changed a lot, and serves a very different market than the PM and it's indeed an expensive machine, and not as upgradable as some might want, but that's the price structure Apple has chosen. What are you gonna do about it?
You don't get my point, guess I was rambling too much. There is a market for a consumer level computer with some degree of upgradability. This is evident in the number of consumer oriented video cards for PC's available at your local Best Buy. The iMac does indeed serve a different market, but it does not cover the full spectrum of requirements of the consumer market, and it would be in Apple's interest to address the needs of this market that are not covered by the iMac with an alternate so that they can attract more customers that would otherwise but a PC because Apple does not offer an alternative.
Note I never said that Apple should sell a dual 1.8 Ghz G5 PowerMac for $1000, or even for $1599. I did compare current pricing to some historic lows for the PowerMac. I feel that Apple would be better served with a single 1.8 Ghz G5 at $1599 or $1699 for an entry to the PM line than they are with starting it out at $1999. A single 1.6 Ghz would even be attractive at $1499 and would have cross-over appeal to the consumer market.
I am a Mac fan, use them at home and at work and would enver willingly consider replacing it with a PC. The real disapointing thing in all of this is the lost opportunity that Apple has in making some real headway in the market. OS X has gained some real respect in the industry, and so did the G5 with the "super computer" cluster. There is a major concern with security, as well as the cost of future Microsoft OS update/subscription prices with the next major OS upgrade that they make. Apple is poised to take real advantage of this and potentially make inroads into markets that the couldnt have hade a chance in 4 years ago. However, if they do not have the hardware to compete in these markets at a price point that they need to be cometative in them then the opportunity is probably lost for a long time to come.
Originally posted by @homenow
You don't get my point, guess I was rambling too much. There is a market for a consumer level computer with some degree of upgradability. This is evident in the number of consumer oriented video cards for PC's available at your local Best Buy. The iMac does indeed serve a different market, but it does not cover the full spectrum of requirements of the consumer market, and it would be in Apple's interest to address the needs of this market that are not covered by the iMac with an alternate so that they can attract more customers that would otherwise but a PC because Apple does not offer an alternative.
I think I get your point, and it's true. I'm just not sure how the iMac is going to fit into that consumer type of machine that allows some degree of upgradability. I think Apple has been more concerned with making it pretty and unique in design, but having those qualities and upgradability sometimes don't go hand in hand too well. Let's hope the G5 iMac allows for a certain degree on upgradability that part of the consumer market demands.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
I think I get your point, and it's true. I'm just not sure how the iMac is going to fit into that consumer type of machine that allows some degree of upgradability. I think Apple has been more concerned with making it pretty and unique in design, but having those qualities and upgradability sometimes don't go hand in hand too well. Let's hope the G5 iMac allows for a certain degree on upgradability that part of the consumer market demands.
The iMac is best left as it is, or rather as it will be if it once again returnes to the same value dollar for dollar as it was in 2000. What Apple really needs is a consumer level headless computer that can address the needs of the market that are not and will not be meet by an AIO design, weather it has an upgradable video card or not. That is not saying that an upgradable video card would not be welcome as insurence against future OS requirements and to take advantage of new features such as Core Video. An added benefit to adding upgradable video to Apple's consumer line is that it would increase the market for video card upgrades from ATI and their competators. This would help to bring down the cost of the cards as the market for them increases and the R&D cost is spread over a larger market. It could also help bring down the cost of putting these cards into Apple's OEM cards as well, which would increase Apple's profitability or allow them to pass that savings on to the consumer.
Right now Apple is restricting their offerings because their components are restricted. There will not be a true headless imac if there are not enough chips to product it. I would not be surprised, however, that one is released when there is an abundant supply of G5 chips - but built as a PM mini - and the pricing -vs- a comparable iMac will have the PM mini at a higher price point. I would also bet that the PM mini will only have the fastest Gx processor.
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
I don't see the eMac hitting EOL very soon. The comparably priced iMac for education and business will not have optical for a lot of very good reasons. That leaves the eMac platform as the lowest priced "usable" home computer. I do believe that there might be some nice surprises in store for the eMac and iBook - with IBM or Freescale delivering some impressive 32 bit chips. When the iMac hits 2.0 with a G4 there is not reason why the eMac and iBook can't hit 2.0 with a 32 bit Gx. The eMac is, I believe, safe until the cost of flat panels is the same as a CRT.
Yes, the economy has suffered. But when you look at it the iPod mini has a huge backorder with demand so far ahead of possible supply that you need to order soon if you want one for Christmas. PM's have sold well, except for the lull when everyone was waiting for the 970FX, and there is now a long line waiting for the 30" displays. (My 23" to use with my PB arrived this week!) In addition, the average price of a computer sold by Dell (with over 50% of the market) is $1,500+. People go into the sight looking for a $500 computer and end up spending $1,500 and that pretty well sums up the $500 computer business. Buying a $500 will end up costing you three times that much, one way or another.
Originally posted by kenaustus
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
Thats easy. Laptops have traditionally been more expensive than desktops, and hence the realm of specialists ( people who can sacrifice power for portability ). Game players, video editors, artists were never the market for laptops.
That is changing, but the technology changes faster than people stereotypes. People understand that a laptop cant be portable and have the same power as a desktop, with out being as big as a desktop and getting no battery life to speak of.
Originally posted by kenaustus
I look at the iMac the same way I look at the 2 PBs I have bought. Spec it with a BTO and then use it till time to replace it. Why do people get so upset with an iMac specs and not the notebooks? it is basically the same concept for the desktop.
The difference is in laptops you are trading off for portability. Most people don't expect the same things or processing power from a laptop because you simply do different stuff with it. For instance reports I can write on the road but the real work gets done back home on the desktop. Sometimes when I'm at home I like to open a game and distract myself for an hour and it's good to have a system capable of it. I don't mind paying but it has to be reasonable.
The problem with an iMac is they are essentially selling a laptop in a desktop case. To make matters worse the specs offer basically no customisation at all and Apple's one shoe fits all in the consumer market is a poor approach. Simple fact is some consumers want to play games but to do so they either need to buy a non-Apple product, not what Apple should be aiming for, or buy a $1999 PowerMac, which just won't happen for most family computers.
I don't mind anemic RAM so they can improve margins but some people want better graphics cards or a larger HD or to be able to use iDVD yet don't necessarily want to upgrade the whole comp. The 5200 is poor choice on a PowerMac but at least you can upgrade it. On an iMac you're locked in. It's even worse when they force you into features you don't want to upgrade, like a larger monitor size, should you choose to try and upgrade things. Apple's restrictive attitude to the consumer market is flawed but that's just my view.
As for the attached monitor that's a whole other story. I could live with it even if I don't like it.
Originally posted by failedmathematician
One thing I've never understood is this "cost of expandability". It seems to me that it would be cheaper to design and manufacture an attractive but traditional minitower than a crazy shape like the current iMac. When people talk about this expansion cost is this just in reference to protecting the Powermac sales, or is there something I'm missing?
There are probably five different issues to consider with expandability:
1. Additional power is required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
2. Additional cooling (fans) are required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
3. 1 and 2 can add to the indirect costs of shipping and storage.
4. Additional slots makes a product much closer to a PowerMac.
5. What does a consumer need additional slots for?
When the answer to #5 comes up as "probably nothing" and #4 is considered, then doing #1 and #2 doesn't seem to make much sense.
There are two different things to think about, one is "expandability" and the other is "upgradeability".
What does the consumer need/use expandability for these days?
Slots for expandability made a lot more sense back in the day when you needed to add cards for a mouse, sound, video, networking, etc. Not applicable today.
Upgradeability is another issue. What do people want to upgrade or replace on their machines? Even consumers? I can think of three primary things:
1. Hard drive - This can generally be done even on a laptop.
2. Memory - Apple has always allowed this on the AIO Macs.
3. Video chip/card - This is the one thing they have not.
While it is true that some will wish to upgrade CPU and monitors, there are two problems here:
1. CPU upgrades can muck with the motherboard design and the power supply design too.
2. Most consumers wait so long to upgrade machines that by the time they do...it it time to get rid of that crappy old 14" monitor anyway.
In the end, it seems to me that most people on these boards seem to want a PowerMac only cheaper.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Dodging it or saying "well *WE* don't know!" will be taken as acknowledgment that you don't have an answer to it, and are sticking to the FUD. If you do, I'd love to hear it, because I can't think of anything from my years of graphics research.
Like I said, religious warfare is all this is.
My bad, I'm merely taking 18 years of Mac experience in and out of the Mac retail business and Apple's long history and inferring from the countless times Apple has screwed its customers in a bid to purposely make their machines obsolete and force them to upgrade to use the latest machines.
Seems I remember some lawsuits over that. Ohh yeah, specifically over specifically over software processor support, and specifically over promises of upgrades "PowerPC ready". Sometimes they intentionally blocked people's ability to do it just to be assholes.
So, your claim that its "religious warfare" is straight old bullshit. Your responses are straight old "Apple apologist." Only the courts don't seem to agree with you. Using OLD technology and blocking upgradeability is a move by Apple to turn over its machines more quickly. And its why I'll never buy another AIO or laptop Mac. So keep saying an FX5200 is "fine" for a "low end consumer machine." Fact is, the majority of people don't see $2200 as "low end." And they'll be mighty pissed when they buy Halo 2 for their kid and then ask why he isn't playing it and the kid responds "cuz it runs like crap" 3 months after they droped $2g's on what the salesman told them was a great machine.
I've seen it. Its the best advertising Dell could get.
So, keep your head in those APIs. Be astounded at Apple's software tech. It is beautiful. Then, when you get back to the real world you can gnash your teeth because the GPU Apple sold you with your Mac like a Radeon 9000 won't do the job. At least I can upgrade mine. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could? Seems I recall ATI and Nvidia both offering a new socket for laptops and small enclosures. Wonder why Apple WON'T use it? Must be for religious reasons.
Originally posted by failedmathematician
In my opinion all this bickering about the video card is just missing the fundamental flaws of the current and now apparently next generation iMac. It seems like if Apple throws in a slightly better video card, you all will be content.
NOT ME!
Attached screen, no upgradeability is just killing. I think Apple only has a real chance to sell to consumers who want to >do stuff< with their computers. But they just don't have any hardware for that market. At least not on the desktop.
Well, if they want to release such a computer in a new lineup, that would be fine with me too. But they would just be inviting another eMac style embarrassment.
BIngo.
The iMac is supposed to be the centre piece of the digital hub, but G5 or not, 17" screen or not, it is a machine that is fundamentally unprepared for that role.
If TS is right. At 1299 it costs too much for a machine with the following inadequacies:
Doesn't have a minimum of 512MB of RAM
Doesn't have at least 120GB, but preferrably 160GB of HDD space standard.
Doesn't have a Superdrive!
If the machine were 999, you could call it an entry, that delivers much of the iLife experience, but not the full use of iMovie/iDVD, and say that's OK. But the machine is priced like a full featured machine, without the full features.
Without the superdrive you can use iMovie, but most won't, 'cause it's rather pointless; without adequate HDD space, you'll never work comfortably with many clips, or soundtracks either. Which also affects iTunes and iPhoto libraries. There may be a limit to iTunes libraries (at least legal ones), but with 7MP compact cameras becoming standard in compacts, and 8 and beyond coming to consumer cams, you're going to need a lot of HDD space just to look at all your pics.
Want to really manipulate multi-MP images easily, 256MB won't be enough, and you can forget about working iMovie right.
No superdrive means no iDVD, so now you've got a three legged iLife, but it also makes backing-up digital photos harder than it needs to be. Yes CDRs are cheap, but DVD's are too, and big RAW files or TIFFS require a bigger storage media. Would you rather have 50-100 CDs full of pics, or 10-20 DVDs?
This rumored iMac price/spec misses the mark. In the quantities Apple buys, a Superdrive, extra 256MB of RAM, and a larger HDD could add as little as 50-60 bucks to the cost of the machine. Certainly within the realm of profitability. Instead we get short changed. Very poor.
You'll have to spend an extra 200 bucks on RAM and HDD space alone at retail (or Apple upgrade rates), and you still won't have a superdrive, or way to use iDVD even if you get an external.
It's a 1299 entry level/family machine, and that is completely ridiculous to all but the most hardcore mac users.
Yes, it will sell well, for a quarter, and into a second, but it will not carry any significant sales numbers in the consumer-retail channel unless big changes are made fast. Ironically, a 999 driveless model may sell well to schools and colleges that need semi-cheap G5 terminals.
But the question rears it's ungly head again.
Not much difference between the cost of 40GB and 80GB, combo-drives can be had for 20-30 bucks from the right supplier.
Why isn't a combo 17" being offered for 999 ???
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There are probably five different issues to consider with expandability:
1. Additional power is required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
2. Additional cooling (fans) are required to support additional slots. This costs more in terms of money, size and weight.
3. 1 and 2 can add to the indirect costs of shipping and storage.
...
In the end, it seems to me that most people on these boards seem to want a PowerMac only cheaper.
Interesting that some of the main reasons for creating an AIO and locking it down have to do with cost. However, Apple fails to pass any of that savings on to the consumer when they have a combodrive 17" LCD starting at 1299 with inadequate RAM and HDD allotments, and a Drive that doesn't let you use their core consumer application suite to its fullest -- shutting you out of iDVD and making iMovie almost pointless in the process.
some thoughts on the iMac past and present:
when apple first introduced the colored iMac, they were very competitive hardware- and price-wise. the base model was $999 (sorry to bring up that number again..lol). it was friendly and inviting. it was new and radical without being offensive or daunting or too 'weird'. it let you do everything a consumer could want, and it carried some of that apple prestige, that reputation of high-performance, for those who were in the know. just prior to this point, the world of apple was strictly for professionals, at a desk or on the go. at least, as a know-nothing consumer, that's how i saw things.
if you wanted real muscle in the digital art world (i'm a musician) and didnt want things crashing and breaking down, you got a powermac- it was the only sane choice at that time, largely because of lingering notions of where the PC world was at before win98SE. and now if you wanted a no-hassles simple computer, now you could get an iMac. it had everything the powermacs had except the expandability. at first, anyway. and in some ways, it had even more.
really, how could apple have gone wrong with this new personal computer? well, they really didn't go wrong and sold a bajillion of them. all of a sudden, apple was no longer an "oh, yeah, apple makes computers for ordinary folks, but why would i buy one?" company, but a "hmm, maybe i should check out these colorful lil' things. i heard they do internet good" company. they gave it all to you for $999 (sorry). at one point you could buy a new one (well actually it was an old one bumped down the line...) for $799. and this was when PC's were more expensive in general than they are today (i might be wrong about that).
so the result of all this is that suddenly there were two choices for the average new-computer buyer: PC and iMac. not powermac, iMac. that, to a lessor degree, is the same choice new buyers have today. PC or iMac.
i have some friends that still think that i use an iMac. i have both a g4 tower and powerbook. they think iMac. iMac. nobody knows what an eMac is (except for educatio0n people or mac fans in general) and even if they did, they wouldn't buy it because it is somehow 'less' than an iMac.
the iMac is the gravitational center, like it or not, apple, of what the apple computer experience is. it is a big part of the reason we can still buy a mac at all.
it needs to represent the same things that it used to with its first colored introduction. simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful (but not too Power-ful) and.... affordable, given the apple tax. currently, none of apple's computers are this. sure the eMac is cute, but nobody knows what it is, and apple barely wants the thing around, it seems. it can be argued that the current iMac is NONE of those things, and that's a real big problem.
in my opinion, apple will never enjoy success like they did the original colored iMac. they can't, because, conceptually speaking, they split it in two- the eMac now takes the place where the iMac should be in terms of price and simplicity (what happened to near-processor parity??), and the iMac now takes the place of, well, what is it good for? the ergonomically challenged? people obsessed with the color white? sure i'd buy one if i was rich. how many would they sell if the eMac was spec'd and promoted just as high as the iMac? close to zero, i bet.
so.... here's hoping apple finds that killer conceptual combination and markets it appropriately. because if apple can't make their iMac, the paradigm of the apple experience, a winner on all these points (simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful and affordable), they they might as well throw in the marketshare towel. and the only way that i can see for them to do that is for them to kill the eMac, and put the iMac in its conceptual place.
apple thinks that people bought the iMacs cause they were revolutionary, and so are trying to keep revolutionizing the computer experience. i think that's great, but it should NOT be the iMac doing that. it should be another model altogether that pushes those conceptual boundaries. the iMac needs to be a stable machine in that respect. they should not be experimenting so radically and so expensively with their consumer model, period.
hope that made sense to the 4 of you that read the whole thing, hehe.
Originally posted by hivemind
hi, i'm a newbie so i'm wrong
some thoughts on the iMac past and present:
when apple first introduced the colored iMac, they were very competitive hardware- and price-wise. the base model was $999 (sorry to bring up that number again..lol). it was friendly and inviting. it was new and radical without being offensive or daunting or too 'weird'. it let you do everything a consumer could want, and it carried some of that apple prestige, that reputation of high-performance, for those who were in the know. just prior to this point, the world of apple was strictly for professionals, at a desk or on the go. at least, as a know-nothing consumer, that's how i saw things.
if you wanted real muscle in the digital art world (i'm a musician) and didnt want things crashing and breaking down, you got a powermac- it was the only sane choice at that time, largely because of lingering notions of where the PC world was at before win98SE. and now if you wanted a no-hassles simple computer, now you could get an iMac. it had everything the powermacs had except the expandability. at first, anyway. and in some ways, it had even more.
really, how could apple have gone wrong with this new personal computer? well, they really didn't go wrong and sold a bajillion of them. all of a sudden, apple was no longer an "oh, yeah, apple makes computers for ordinary folks, but why would i buy one?" company, but a "hmm, maybe i should check out these colorful lil' things. i heard they do internet good" company. they gave it all to you for $999 (sorry). at one point you could buy a new one (well actually it was an old one bumped down the line...) for $799. and this was when PC's were more expensive in general than they are today (i might be wrong about that).
so the result of all this is that suddenly there were two choices for the average new-computer buyer: PC and iMac. not powermac, iMac. that, to a lessor degree, is the same choice new buyers have today. PC or iMac.
i have some friends that still think that i use an iMac. i have both a g4 tower and powerbook. they think iMac. iMac. nobody knows what an eMac is (except for educatio0n people or mac fans in general) and even if they did, they wouldn't buy it because it is somehow 'less' than an iMac.
the iMac is the gravitational center, like it or not, apple, of what the apple computer experience is. it is a big part of the reason we can still buy a mac at all.
it needs to represent the same things that it used to with its first colored introduction. simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful (but not too Power-ful) and.... affordable, given the apple tax. currently, none of apple's computers are this. sure the eMac is cute, but nobody knows what it is, and apple barely wants the thing around, it seems. it can be argued that the current iMac is NONE of those things, and that's a real big problem.
in my opinion, apple will never enjoy success like they did the original colored iMac. they can't, because, conceptually speaking, they split it in two- the eMac now takes the place where the iMac should be in terms of price and simplicity (what happened to near-processor parity??), and the iMac now takes the place of, well, what is it good for? the ergonomically challenged? people obsessed with the color white? sure i'd buy one if i was rich. how many would they sell if the eMac was spec'd and promoted just as high as the iMac? close to zero, i bet.
so.... here's hoping apple finds that killer conceptual combination and markets it appropriately. because if apple can't make their iMac, the paradigm of the apple experience, a winner on all these points (simple, clean, cute, capable, powerful and affordable), they they might as well throw in the marketshare towel. and the only way that i can see for them to do that is for them to kill the eMac, and put the iMac in its conceptual place.
apple thinks that people bought the iMacs cause they were revolutionary, and so are trying to keep revolutionizing the computer experience. i think that's great, but it should NOT be the iMac doing that. it should be another model altogether that pushes those conceptual boundaries. the iMac needs to be a stable machine in that respect. they should not be experimenting so radically and so expensively with their consumer model, period.
hope that made sense to the 4 of you that read the whole thing, hehe.
http://lowendmac.com/imacs/imac-c.shtml
The 5 flavor iMacs were priced at $1199.
Originally posted by Bancho
http://lowendmac.com/imacs/imac-c.shtml
The 5 flavor iMacs were priced at $1199.
hehe, that's the site i went to to confirm the price!
i guess i was only looking at the blue one.
http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/blue.shtml
i suppose apple then got greedy after selling so many and added $200. tsk, tsk. it's not like it went to r&d: "hey bob, what's your favorite color?" lol
although I suppose it could be a lackluster bump to 1.33 though. The $200 premium for 40gb and a superdrive is not longer acceptable.
Originally posted by hivemind
hehe, that's the site i went to to confirm the price!
i guess i was only looking at the blue one.
http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/blue.shtml
i suppose apple then got greedy after selling so many and added $200. tsk, tsk. it's not like it went to r&d: "hey bob, what's your favorite color?" lol
With the slot-loading iMacs ther was a lot more price diversity. Still, Apple did have a good thing going with the jellybeans.
I still love my Rev. A. My son uses it now to play his games. He's 3 1/2 so he's not quite into teh latest FPS games. It runs anything he likes really well though and the thing is rugged as all hell.