I still see Apple in transistion mode. We're almost to the halfway point.
I see the relevant milestones being around
1. Actually developing a future OS roadmap with OSX finally.
2. Reducing the complexity by going to the 4 quadrant strategy.
3. Reaching a point where people could really leave OS9 and not pull their hair out(Panther).
4. Today we're coming close to the point where Apple can start pushing out in new areas and breaking their dependence on MS. First Outlook Express went..we survived..then IE went and we survived. I don't want MS Office to go but Apple has to risk losing it if they want to move ahead.
5. Next step is filling in some missing pieces to acessorize the Xserve/XRAID combos. And shore up the software for the Biz sector and edu.
We're still 2-3 years away from Apple gaining enough strength and clout to move from selling boutique computers to more rugged and utilitarian models.
I'm not happy about the sacrifices Apple had to make in the iMac but I'm just patient. I'm hoping that Apple continues to grow and branch out like a tree so that one branch breaking doesn't harm the overall structure.
4 quadrant crap is just that crap, it has killed off the consumer quadrant. what is apple offering there? nothing and sales prove it. what does this new machine offer over the last? G5 only everything else is the same or worse. iMac is made to fail with poor componets that are leftover or rejects from powermac. this mac offers little over imac G4. ergonomics will be worse and the specs suck. so we get last years G5 with nothing more. a more succesful model is one that allows the consumer to configure their machine for them not some G.D bean counter at apple who is used to raping its customer base. when will Apple figure out how to build for customers instead of building for Apple's art dept.?
4 quadrant crap is just that crap, it has killed off the consumer quadrant. what is apple offering there? nothing and sales prove it. what does this new machine offer over the last? G5 only everything else is the same or worse. iMac is made to fail with poor componets that are leftover or rejects from powermac. this mac offers little over imac G4. ergonomics will be worse and the specs suck. so we get last years G5 with nothing more. a more succesful model is one that allows the consumer to configure their machine for them not some G.D bean counter at apple who is used to raping its customer base. when will Apple figure out how to build for customers instead of building for Apple's art dept.?
The 4 Quadrant strategy was appropriate for the time. It no longer exists really because as Apple regained health they could afford to expand the lineup and hit new areas(read iPod) . As for the consumer lineup I think you'll find the sales to be stellar. To look at only the eMac and the iMac is far too myopic in scope. Look at the iBook and lowend Powerbook 12" sales and you'll see that consumers are flocking to portables. Apple has stated they don't mind if consumers buy portables or desktops. They're capturing what they can in this lucrative market.
Again I have to ask those so "caught up" on specs. What can't I do on these proposed Macs that is so vital? I can't play Doom decently I'll give you that but if I was to handle productivity applications or even base a business around my new iMac G5 what would be my obstacle to success? I'm a little unclear as to why I such take heed to such warnings. I'm told that I'll regret being locked out of future upgrades but doesn't that require me to have faith in something intangible? If I just focus on my needs today, what is wrong with a $12---1399 17" LCD iMac G5? Because quite honestly it's sounding like a good deal to me.
That's so over priced no one will buy the damn thing!
When will Apple learn?!?!?
This is so far behind the competition it is a JOKE!!!!!!
Gee, I haven't seen so much bashing since, well, since the iPod mini was announced . . .
Me, I'm ordering my G5 iMac within hours of it hitting the Apple Store.
Just like my new 15" PB I'm going to bump up everything but memory, which I'll get from a third party vendor. A few bucks for the fastest graphics option and for the hard drive and I'm happy.
What I hope for is a 2:1 FSB ratio, SATA HDs, fast memory. Technologies that were pulled from the PM. I'll take care of the graphics with the BTO. The other thing I am on my knees praying for is the display. I thought my new PB display was pretty nice until I had to order a 23" this week because of ahuge project at work. Side by side the 23" blows my mind. If the iMac's displays are as good as the 23" I'll be in hog heaven.
Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.
The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.
It really depends on what kind of LCD monitor. If it is an analog 17" LCD, the price should be in the $1000 to $1200 range. If it is a digital 17" LCD, than I don't see Apple, or any big manufacturer, selling it for less that $1300. If Apple is able to sell a digital 17" iMac for $1300, it'll be very impressive.
It really just comes down to price and the inflexibility of Apple's consumer systems. If the iMac starts at $1300, it won't be a big seller, and many people will have to settle with an eMac, with some chagrin probably. The other problem is inflexibility. People with less than $2000 to spend on a computer, virtually everybody, don't really have any options in the CPU, display, and graphics they can have. If Apple offered CPU and graphics options in the iMac, many of the complaints go away.
For instance, I'd like a large monitor, with a middle-of-road GPU and lower end processor. If Apple offered a 20" iMac with optional 1.6 GHz G5 and 64 MB GPU, instead of the standard 1.8 GHz G5 and 128 MB, with appropriate price reductions, the iMac could be a more attractive buy to me. Though I imagine a 17" one with faster CPU and GPU options would be more popular.
You sum up most of the problems with Apple (if these price rumors are true)
Most of the problem with inflexible options would be cured by offering a headless lineup with a range of displays that includes an affordable 17" display.
But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
So that leaves the iMac AIO.
Let's consider the rumor.
1299. This isn't an awful price, IF the machine is a complete. That includes adequate HDD space, adequate RAM, and a Superdrive. The overall CPU and GPU speed is not as important as the overall useability of the machine.
One buys an iMac for the integrated solution, something more useful than a frag-box for mal-adjusted teens.
But is the rumored 1299 iMac such a machine?
No.
Want to run iLife right?
You'll need more RAM -- 80 to a 100 bucks worth.
You'll need more HDD space -- depending on the Apple premium, 50-150 bucks worth for those big iMovie projects, iPhoto Albums fed by 5-8MP cameras and beyond, huge iTunes libraries, garageband projects, etc etc... and you'll need a Superdrive, period. Apple has made too much of iMovie, iDVD and the like (justifiably) to really sell the "Mac" experience without a DVD-burning machine.
You put all that in, and a 1299 price is no problem. And, given the very cheap prices of Superdrives, RAM, and HDD's these days, I find it hard to believe that Apple couldn't spec these at the 1299 price.
999 is the entry, that's a high entry, but it gets you a lot of the MacOS experience, sans DVD burning, and with some money to be spent to get you into the full potential of the machine (RAM plus HDD options)
Instead, there's a danger we may be getting the 999 worth of entry level machine for the 1299 full feature price. Eventually that just looks bad. You wanna charge, OK, but don't follow up by nickle and diming me on every single component that matters to the way the machine should be used.
When I first switched 2+ years ago I kept the specs on my first PB to a minimum to save money - it was for business and I run a SMALL one man company. In the 2 years since buying it I learned a lot about Macs, and how they compare to the Dulls that I had owned before. When I bought a new PB in April I did a BTO order, pushing everything but the memory.
They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.
R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.
Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.
I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .
Let's see what is announced.
Let's see what the initial reaction is.
Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.
I think that Apple will offer more in the way of boosting a G5 iMac because it will be the single G5 platform. Makes sense and not that difficult - plus it increases the gross margin dollars on each BTO iMac, which is important as they have announced a reduction in GM% due to the need to air freight the iMacs when they are introduced.
When I first switched 2+ years ago I kept the specs on my first PB to a minimum to save money - it was for business and I run a SMALL one man company. In the 2 years since buying it I learned a lot about Macs, and how they compare to the Dulls that I had owned before. When I bought a new PB in April I did a BTO order, pushing everything but the memory.
They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.
R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.
Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.
I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .
Let's see what is announced.
Let's see what the initial reaction is.
Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.
Thank you!
Steve compares Apple market share to BMW not only because they are similar numbers. What Apple does appeals to a fewer number. They turn out quality products for a slightly higher price. You get what you pay for. Buy a GM of the same quality as a BMW and it will cost you teh same or more. The same goes for a dell vs. Mac. But just like BMW, Apple does not make a Chevette.
Should they? Not sure- but they have chosen not to.
I also agree that there will be a big back order so no reason to lower price now. I predict they have designed a new iMac that can be made cheaply so that the price can fall as demand slacks off. That was the problem with the iMac(2) they couldn't get the price down on manufacturing the arm.
Ah, finally, one of these threads gets some perspective.
At least you're getting an FX 5200 standard in PCs now.
Well in a nut shell this is the big problem I have, it is last years standard. Considering the likely deliver dates on these machines this machine will most likely make the majority of its sales in 2005, the FX 5200 will very likely be seen as very outdated by then. Once the migration to PCI-Express takes place, the whole of the market will look vastly differrent. Now that migration may be takeing longer than expected but it will happen and PCI-Express will be significant in the low end.
Quote:
Intel integrated graphics used to be available well over $1K. Sure, you can get an AGP card (sometimes) and go into driver update hell if you want, but this is suboptimal. Why should you have to bring your PC back to the store (because Joe Consumer does not crack the case open and add cards) and spend a significant amount of money just to get basic functionality?
I'm not sure anybody here can appreciate driver update hell unless they happen to be running Linux. In any event keeping a machine updated is usually the smart way to maintain stability. The problem is, if these specs are accurate, people will be spending significant money and getting limited functionality. I hate to use the word basic because I'm not to sure that would be accurate in light of video advancements for the next major OS/X release.
Quote:
The FX 5200 is pretty much the worst case for the iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship something better, at least on the 20".
Considering Apples behaviour of late I'd be surprised if they shipped a better card. What bothers me is that the just don't seem to get it, it being what the consumers want and how to clench the sale. Having a Mac sit on display with everything else available in the PC world and justifing the lackluster specs of the machine must be awfully trying on sales people.
Quote:
But even if they don't, they're par for the course. If a significant percentage of PC buyers bought aftermarket cards, the industry would be wildly more profitable than it is. As it is, ATI and NVIDIA both still make most of their money from OEM sales, so most people must not upgrade the card that ships in their machine. Therefore, whatever Apple ships looks like it'll be at least par for the course. Some people won't be happy, but they're the sort of people to whom Apple's approach isn't appealing in the first place.
Many times the card sold for installation in OEM machines are going into business computers, at times the chips are soldered into the board. There is a ligitmate market for such machines and if the iMac was targetted squarely at this market then I would almost agree with the configuration. The problem is the computer is not marketed as a corporate network node nor are many of its sales in that category. So one has to look at the machine as a general purpose computer and this is where it falls flat. If nothing else the machine needs to have what would be considered middle of the road GPU performance if up gradability is out of the question. My suspicion is that upgradeability is out of the question.
Now I do hope that I'm wrong there and Apple does offer BTO options or other solutions for those expecting a little more from there machine. Most corporate installations have the individual PC's set up as compute nodes, where memory, video performance and CPU performance are important. Heck even many homes now have a server set up where the important element for the satilite machines is the GPU/CPU performance.
Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.
The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.
<RDF>You're so full of reason. Bubba will love the new iMac and will buy it because even if he got 3 eMachines or 2 Dells or 1 Sony, it won't be as cool as the new iMac 3. He'll give a rats ass if the video card is a RabbitMaster Nvidia Easterbunnier 3000. He'll love the dock and iLife and all that stuff. Sometimes, the numbers don't add up to the final sum. This machine will be more than its specs can tell you. More than the sum of its parts.</RDF>
So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.
Apple ain't in the business of making the iMac every geek's dream machine at a low, low, price.
The AIO is inevitable. The iMac is a very recognizable object. Very easy to spot on TV, in movies, ads, etc. A headless iMac would not offer this opportunity as a lot of people may use any monitor they choose.
Of course, most of this is in jest, but I think is part of the equation. The TV editors can scrub or fuzz out the Apple Logo on the back of a laptop but the shape of the iMac has always been very distinctive in it's own right. I think the new iMac will carry on this tradition.
If the iMac 4 is released with these specs it'll be a dead weight trying to float in water.
Why?
Because simply, it fails to capture the "Wow!" factor of people. The Bondi iMac relyed on appreances mostly to capture that "Wow" factor. Later....the slot-loaders used the price/performance ratio to capture that factor. iMac 3 did resort back to using appearances to capture people's attention...but the failure to update the internals on a timely basis killed that machine after the first 12months of its life.
IMO, people are now past the appearance thing. The average consumer now has only two questions when they walk into a store.
1. How fast is it.
2. What can I do with it.
Apple has question 2 down pat.
Question 1 is where they need help and a lot of it.
Going with TS's spec's here. I'm failing to understand why we need 4 models of the new iMac? two 17" and two 20"? WHY?
I would offer three models. Two for public, one for edu/bus.
17" iMac (Edu/Bus)
2.0Ghz G5
10/100/1000 Networking
no modem
60GB Hard drive
512MB RAM
no optical drive.
999.00 Individually...or 799.00 in lots of 50
The extra money saved by not using an optical drive is put toward more memory.
17" iMac
2GHz G5
10/100 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
256MB Ram
64MB Video
Superdrive
1,299.00
20" iMac
2.0GHz iMac
10/100/1000 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
512MB Ram
64MB Video (better chipset than 17")
Superdrive
1,699.00
A couple notes about the above.
You HAVE to have that 2.0GHz G5 there. That is part of the "Wow" factor. A 1.6GHz G5 in a 1,300.00 machine is just sad really.
The only difference in the two models is the screen size...memory...the gigabit port....and the video chipset. More than enough to justify the 400.00 price difference between the two.
This way you're only buying one CPU speed...which could save money and help margins...(economy of scales).
either way....you have to make the public look up and say "WHOA!!! I"ve gotta go check one of those out~!!!!"
I think it's gonna be impressive even with TS's specs. I'd take a 1.6 GHz G5 or a 1.8 GHz G5 over a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 anyday for one single reason: the Pentium won't run MacOS X (I keep trying to use Exposé on my mom's Dell. I'm so used to it.), iLife, Toast, Safari, etc.
And measuring GHz or MHz is just silly because each processor can perform a different amount of instructions in each clock cycle or something like that.
1. Apple doesn't include enough RAM. Since Apple is trying to sell an elegant user experience. An experience that tries to avoid the user tampering with the insides, I find this inexcusable. This can still be fixed before it goes on sale. Apple, are you listening?
2. The CPU speed is too low. I personally don't find any problem with this. This is a consumer machine after all.
3. The GPU sucks. Many people say that the iMac is fine without games. But you'd be stupid not to understand that the iMac will sell better if it can do games too. The last I checked Apple wanted to increase it's iMac sales, right? For those that say that serious gamers don't buy Macs, they might if Apple made a game-capable Mac. Developers will probably port more games if Apple had a serious game machine that sold in large quantities. PowerMacs don't sell enough to justify the porting of many games. The iMacs can make that happen.
4. Apple's price is too high. I don't think this is a problem as long they get the above requirements correct. If the most expensive iMac had to increase it's price by a $100 just to include a better GPU, I'd still buy it. The bottom of the line should stay the way it is. Not everyone is a gamer.
So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.
This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.
This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.
Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.
Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share
For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.
Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.
More revenue equals more potential for profit
The quarter?s results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Company?s net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.
Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.
Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.
?It was an outstanding quarter?our highest third quarter revenue in eight years,?
This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.
Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.
Comments
I don't think we'll ever agree on this.
I'm not "that" stubborn
I still see Apple in transistion mode. We're almost to the halfway point.
I see the relevant milestones being around
1. Actually developing a future OS roadmap with OSX finally.
2. Reducing the complexity by going to the 4 quadrant strategy.
3. Reaching a point where people could really leave OS9 and not pull their hair out(Panther).
4. Today we're coming close to the point where Apple can start pushing out in new areas and breaking their dependence on MS. First Outlook Express went..we survived..then IE went and we survived. I don't want MS Office to go but Apple has to risk losing it if they want to move ahead.
5. Next step is filling in some missing pieces to acessorize the Xserve/XRAID combos. And shore up the software for the Biz sector and edu.
We're still 2-3 years away from Apple gaining enough strength and clout to move from selling boutique computers to more rugged and utilitarian models.
I'm not happy about the sacrifices Apple had to make in the iMac but I'm just patient. I'm hoping that Apple continues to grow and branch out like a tree so that one branch breaking doesn't harm the overall structure.
I couldn't agree more about the RDF
Originally posted by Aurora
4 quadrant crap is just that crap, it has killed off the consumer quadrant. what is apple offering there? nothing and sales prove it. what does this new machine offer over the last? G5 only everything else is the same or worse. iMac is made to fail with poor componets that are leftover or rejects from powermac. this mac offers little over imac G4. ergonomics will be worse and the specs suck. so we get last years G5 with nothing more. a more succesful model is one that allows the consumer to configure their machine for them not some G.D bean counter at apple who is used to raping its customer base. when will Apple figure out how to build for customers instead of building for Apple's art dept.?
The 4 Quadrant strategy was appropriate for the time. It no longer exists really because as Apple regained health they could afford to expand the lineup and hit new areas(read iPod) . As for the consumer lineup I think you'll find the sales to be stellar. To look at only the eMac and the iMac is far too myopic in scope. Look at the iBook and lowend Powerbook 12" sales and you'll see that consumers are flocking to portables. Apple has stated they don't mind if consumers buy portables or desktops. They're capturing what they can in this lucrative market.
Again I have to ask those so "caught up" on specs. What can't I do on these proposed Macs that is so vital? I can't play Doom decently I'll give you that but if I was to handle productivity applications or even base a business around my new iMac G5 what would be my obstacle to success? I'm a little unclear as to why I such take heed to such warnings. I'm told that I'll regret being locked out of future upgrades but doesn't that require me to have faith in something intangible? If I just focus on my needs today, what is wrong with a $12---1399 17" LCD iMac G5? Because quite honestly it's sounding like a good deal to me.
I can't believe Apple is so DUMB!
That's so over priced no one will buy the damn thing!
When will Apple learn?!?!?
This is so far behind the competition it is a JOKE!!!!!!
Gee, I haven't seen so much bashing since, well, since the iPod mini was announced . . .
Me, I'm ordering my G5 iMac within hours of it hitting the Apple Store.
Just like my new 15" PB I'm going to bump up everything but memory, which I'll get from a third party vendor. A few bucks for the fastest graphics option and for the hard drive and I'm happy.
What I hope for is a 2:1 FSB ratio, SATA HDs, fast memory. Technologies that were pulled from the PM. I'll take care of the graphics with the BTO. The other thing I am on my knees praying for is the display. I thought my new PB display was pretty nice until I had to order a 23" this week because of ahuge project at work. Side by side the 23" blows my mind. If the iMac's displays are as good as the 23" I'll be in hog heaven.
Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.
The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Look at those specs - what a piece of crap!
I can't believe Apple is so DUMB!
That's so over priced no one will buy the damn thing!
When will Apple learn?!?!?
This is so far behind the competition it is a JOKE!!!!!!
Gee, I haven't seen so much bashing since, well, since the iPod mini was announced . . .
You knew how much the mini really failed in sales.
Originally posted by THT
It really depends on what kind of LCD monitor. If it is an analog 17" LCD, the price should be in the $1000 to $1200 range. If it is a digital 17" LCD, than I don't see Apple, or any big manufacturer, selling it for less that $1300. If Apple is able to sell a digital 17" iMac for $1300, it'll be very impressive.
It really just comes down to price and the inflexibility of Apple's consumer systems. If the iMac starts at $1300, it won't be a big seller, and many people will have to settle with an eMac, with some chagrin probably. The other problem is inflexibility. People with less than $2000 to spend on a computer, virtually everybody, don't really have any options in the CPU, display, and graphics they can have. If Apple offered CPU and graphics options in the iMac, many of the complaints go away.
For instance, I'd like a large monitor, with a middle-of-road GPU and lower end processor. If Apple offered a 20" iMac with optional 1.6 GHz G5 and 64 MB GPU, instead of the standard 1.8 GHz G5 and 128 MB, with appropriate price reductions, the iMac could be a more attractive buy to me. Though I imagine a 17" one with faster CPU and GPU options would be more popular.
You sum up most of the problems with Apple (if these price rumors are true)
Most of the problem with inflexible options would be cured by offering a headless lineup with a range of displays that includes an affordable 17" display.
But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
So that leaves the iMac AIO.
Let's consider the rumor.
1299. This isn't an awful price, IF the machine is a complete. That includes adequate HDD space, adequate RAM, and a Superdrive. The overall CPU and GPU speed is not as important as the overall useability of the machine.
One buys an iMac for the integrated solution, something more useful than a frag-box for mal-adjusted teens.
But is the rumored 1299 iMac such a machine?
No.
Want to run iLife right?
You'll need more RAM -- 80 to a 100 bucks worth.
You'll need more HDD space -- depending on the Apple premium, 50-150 bucks worth for those big iMovie projects, iPhoto Albums fed by 5-8MP cameras and beyond, huge iTunes libraries, garageband projects, etc etc... and you'll need a Superdrive, period. Apple has made too much of iMovie, iDVD and the like (justifiably) to really sell the "Mac" experience without a DVD-burning machine.
You put all that in, and a 1299 price is no problem. And, given the very cheap prices of Superdrives, RAM, and HDD's these days, I find it hard to believe that Apple couldn't spec these at the 1299 price.
999 is the entry, that's a high entry, but it gets you a lot of the MacOS experience, sans DVD burning, and with some money to be spent to get you into the full potential of the machine (RAM plus HDD options)
Instead, there's a danger we may be getting the 999 worth of entry level machine for the 1299 full feature price. Eventually that just looks bad. You wanna charge, OK, but don't follow up by nickle and diming me on every single component that matters to the way the machine should be used.
They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.
R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.
Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.
I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .
Let's see what is announced.
Let's see what the initial reaction is.
Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Never thought I'd be rooting for MOSR...
Yeah, I really want that quad-processor iPod.
Originally posted by kenaustus
A few bucks for the fastest graphics option and for the hard drive and I'm happy.
Assuming there is a fast graphics option. I don't recall Apple ever having iMac GPUs configurable on BTO.
Originally posted by kenaustus
When I first switched 2+ years ago I kept the specs on my first PB to a minimum to save money - it was for business and I run a SMALL one man company. In the 2 years since buying it I learned a lot about Macs, and how they compare to the Dulls that I had owned before. When I bought a new PB in April I did a BTO order, pushing everything but the memory.
They key thing I learned is that Macs are better and you have to pay for the difference. Customer service? You get an Apple employee who really cares about taking care of you - not someone in India working for a local company that wants you off the phone as fast as possible.
R&D? I've been fitted a lot from the work Apple has done and will pay extra for it AND for more neat stuff on the Mac I buy after the G5 iMac. Compare that to the buck-fifty (if that much) Dull allocates from each computer for R&D.
Design. Probably vanity or something equally bad, but i love good design and Apple is miles ahead of anyone else. And they keep pushing the envelope. You pay for that, or you end up with something pretty dull.
I know that I can't get a Mac for the same price as a Dull - and I really don't care. In the long run the Mac is far cheaper than any DUll I have owned - except of course when I bought the 23" screen to go with the PB . . .
Let's see what is announced.
Let's see what the initial reaction is.
Let's see how long it takes to build up a 4 week backorder.
Thank you!
Steve compares Apple market share to BMW not only because they are similar numbers. What Apple does appeals to a fewer number. They turn out quality products for a slightly higher price. You get what you pay for. Buy a GM of the same quality as a BMW and it will cost you teh same or more. The same goes for a dell vs. Mac. But just like BMW, Apple does not make a Chevette.
Should they? Not sure- but they have chosen not to.
I also agree that there will be a big back order so no reason to lower price now. I predict they have designed a new iMac that can be made cheaply so that the price can fall as demand slacks off. That was the problem with the iMac(2) they couldn't get the price down on manufacturing the arm.
Originally posted by Amorph
Ah, finally, one of these threads gets some perspective.
At least you're getting an FX 5200 standard in PCs now.
Well in a nut shell this is the big problem I have, it is last years standard. Considering the likely deliver dates on these machines this machine will most likely make the majority of its sales in 2005, the FX 5200 will very likely be seen as very outdated by then. Once the migration to PCI-Express takes place, the whole of the market will look vastly differrent. Now that migration may be takeing longer than expected but it will happen and PCI-Express will be significant in the low end.
Intel integrated graphics used to be available well over $1K. Sure, you can get an AGP card (sometimes) and go into driver update hell if you want, but this is suboptimal. Why should you have to bring your PC back to the store (because Joe Consumer does not crack the case open and add cards) and spend a significant amount of money just to get basic functionality?
I'm not sure anybody here can appreciate driver update hell unless they happen to be running Linux. In any event keeping a machine updated is usually the smart way to maintain stability. The problem is, if these specs are accurate, people will be spending significant money and getting limited functionality. I hate to use the word basic because I'm not to sure that would be accurate in light of video advancements for the next major OS/X release.
The FX 5200 is pretty much the worst case for the iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship something better, at least on the 20".
Considering Apples behaviour of late I'd be surprised if they shipped a better card. What bothers me is that the just don't seem to get it, it being what the consumers want and how to clench the sale. Having a Mac sit on display with everything else available in the PC world and justifing the lackluster specs of the machine must be awfully trying on sales people.
But even if they don't, they're par for the course. If a significant percentage of PC buyers bought aftermarket cards, the industry would be wildly more profitable than it is. As it is, ATI and NVIDIA both still make most of their money from OEM sales, so most people must not upgrade the card that ships in their machine. Therefore, whatever Apple ships looks like it'll be at least par for the course. Some people won't be happy, but they're the sort of people to whom Apple's approach isn't appealing in the first place.
Many times the card sold for installation in OEM machines are going into business computers, at times the chips are soldered into the board. There is a ligitmate market for such machines and if the iMac was targetted squarely at this market then I would almost agree with the configuration. The problem is the computer is not marketed as a corporate network node nor are many of its sales in that category. So one has to look at the machine as a general purpose computer and this is where it falls flat. If nothing else the machine needs to have what would be considered middle of the road GPU performance if up gradability is out of the question. My suspicion is that upgradeability is out of the question.
Now I do hope that I'm wrong there and Apple does offer BTO options or other solutions for those expecting a little more from there machine. Most corporate installations have the individual PC's set up as compute nodes, where memory, video performance and CPU performance are important. Heck even many homes now have a server set up where the important element for the satilite machines is the GPU/CPU performance.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Let's face it - the "opening" levels mentioned are for stores that carry basic stock. Bubba comes in and actually takes the time to LOOK at the new iMac. Him and Emy Lou like the look of it and are real pleased that it has a spell checker - Bubba hasn't had a spell checker since Granny died - and they can swing the $1,299.
The bright folks on this board are going to get their first look at it and DROOL. They know how to find the store on apple.com and how to put in a BTO order. No 5200 for them - and Bubba will never know and, anyway, he'll be too busy trying to figure out how to download his pictures from his Brownie into his new iMac.
<RDF>You're so full of reason. Bubba will love the new iMac and will buy it because even if he got 3 eMachines or 2 Dells or 1 Sony, it won't be as cool as the new iMac 3. He'll give a rats ass if the video card is a RabbitMaster Nvidia Easterbunnier 3000. He'll love the dock and iLife and all that stuff. Sometimes, the numbers don't add up to the final sum. This machine will be more than its specs can tell you. More than the sum of its parts.</RDF>
So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.
Apple ain't in the business of making the iMac every geek's dream machine at a low, low, price.
Of course, most of this is in jest, but I think is part of the equation. The TV editors can scrub or fuzz out the Apple Logo on the back of a laptop but the shape of the iMac has always been very distinctive in it's own right. I think the new iMac will carry on this tradition.
If the iMac 4 is released with these specs it'll be a dead weight trying to float in water.
Why?
Because simply, it fails to capture the "Wow!" factor of people. The Bondi iMac relyed on appreances mostly to capture that "Wow" factor. Later....the slot-loaders used the price/performance ratio to capture that factor. iMac 3 did resort back to using appearances to capture people's attention...but the failure to update the internals on a timely basis killed that machine after the first 12months of its life.
IMO, people are now past the appearance thing. The average consumer now has only two questions when they walk into a store.
1. How fast is it.
2. What can I do with it.
Apple has question 2 down pat.
Question 1 is where they need help and a lot of it.
Going with TS's spec's here. I'm failing to understand why we need 4 models of the new iMac? two 17" and two 20"? WHY?
I would offer three models. Two for public, one for edu/bus.
17" iMac (Edu/Bus)
2.0Ghz G5
10/100/1000 Networking
no modem
60GB Hard drive
512MB RAM
no optical drive.
999.00 Individually...or 799.00 in lots of 50
The extra money saved by not using an optical drive is put toward more memory.
17" iMac
2GHz G5
10/100 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
256MB Ram
64MB Video
Superdrive
1,299.00
20" iMac
2.0GHz iMac
10/100/1000 Ethernet
56k Modem
80GB Hard drive
512MB Ram
64MB Video (better chipset than 17")
Superdrive
1,699.00
A couple notes about the above.
You HAVE to have that 2.0GHz G5 there. That is part of the "Wow" factor. A 1.6GHz G5 in a 1,300.00 machine is just sad really.
The only difference in the two models is the screen size...memory...the gigabit port....and the video chipset. More than enough to justify the 400.00 price difference between the two.
This way you're only buying one CPU speed...which could save money and help margins...(economy of scales).
either way....you have to make the public look up and say "WHOA!!! I"ve gotta go check one of those out~!!!!"
TS's iMac will NOT do that.
And measuring GHz or MHz is just silly because each processor can perform a different amount of instructions in each clock cycle or something like that.
1. Apple doesn't include enough RAM. Since Apple is trying to sell an elegant user experience. An experience that tries to avoid the user tampering with the insides, I find this inexcusable. This can still be fixed before it goes on sale. Apple, are you listening?
2. The CPU speed is too low. I personally don't find any problem with this. This is a consumer machine after all.
3. The GPU sucks. Many people say that the iMac is fine without games. But you'd be stupid not to understand that the iMac will sell better if it can do games too. The last I checked Apple wanted to increase it's iMac sales, right? For those that say that serious gamers don't buy Macs, they might if Apple made a game-capable Mac. Developers will probably port more games if Apple had a serious game machine that sold in large quantities. PowerMacs don't sell enough to justify the porting of many games. The iMacs can make that happen.
4. Apple's price is too high. I don't think this is a problem as long they get the above requirements correct. If the most expensive iMac had to increase it's price by a $100 just to include a better GPU, I'd still buy it. The bottom of the line should stay the way it is. Not everyone is a gamer.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
So if you're the kind of folk that likes to decide what kind of graphic card to get, what kind of display is good for your little eyes, and all that... there's a machine for you! The PowerMac. They still sell PowerMacs G4 if the G5 is too expensive. Go get 'em.
This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.
This is the line of thinking that has Apple in the dismal situation they are in now. Consumers don't want to spend $2000 on a computer (sans monitor if they don't have one) for basic flexibility they can get on a PC for $500, and Apple's sales figures reflect that.
Apple's Q3 results
Emphasis added so that dumbasses can comprehend a bit easier.
Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2004 third quarter ended June 26, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million, or $.16 per diluted share
For the intellect challenged ..this means Apple "made" money last quarter.
Revenue for the quarter was $2.014 billion, up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter.
More revenue equals more potential for profit
The quarter?s results include an after-tax restructuring charge of $6 million. Excluding this charge, the Company?s net profit for the quarter would have been $67 million, or $.17 per diluted share.
Almost 70 million for the math challenged. That's a lot of money.
Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
Ok boys and girls this means sales have gone UP. We don't want to refer to them as "dismal" because then we look stupid to the sane people around us.
?It was an outstanding quarter?our highest third quarter revenue in eight years,?
This means the accounts are smiling people. Not frowning.
Hint to some of the people on the boards. Stop trying to convince people that somehow a 61 million dollar profit and a %19 increase in sales is Apple in trouble. God I'd expect that from PC users but the level of stupidity I see coming from Mac users nowadays is breathtaking. Y'all must be from the recent switchers or something. Nah ...anyone smart enough to get from under Billy's thumb would understand.