There's no reason why the 17" combo model described shouldn't cost 999.
Sure there is. It's called profit. No one else is shipping a full system with Digital 17" LCD for $999. Apple's never been one to leave money on the table too often.
Quote:
1K is not a budget computer. The rest of the computing industry can manage to sell a 17" LCD equipped machine with a combo drive for that price. Not a loss leader by any stretch.
Yes with shared memory integrated graphics and analog 17" second tier quality displays. $1K is still budget I could give a flying *beep* about what's expensive to the Walmart crowd. If $1k is expensive to you for a decent computer then you're probably some backwoods inbread 'tard who damn sure doesn't need to be dumbing down Mac population.
Quote:
Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iMac combo-17 for 1299.
<time travel to the year 2000>
"Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iPod 5GB for $499."
Lol the more things change the more they stay the same.
The rules have always been different for iPods, for a host of reasons.
As far as computers go:
I picked up a DIGITAL & analogue 19" panel for 500USD. 700-1 contrast, very bright and fast.
Analogue panels aren't neccessarily bad, they're better than the CRT Apple gives you in the 999 eMac!
Besides, Apple's panels,while nice, are hardly beyond the quality of a good mid-range panel, and they're buying bare panels for assembly, CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Integrated, no analogue circuitry, CHEAP again.
Which is why I said that the CPU and GPU are fine. I've never been one to put too much stock in the last hz or fastest GPU. It's how they work. The mac stuff works well, but at 999, so does the PC stuff. To characterize it as Walmart specials is grossly misleading to everyone.
999 is about 1300-1350 Canadian. I know what that buys. It might be that Canadians are doing slightly better in the PC market than Americans, but frankly, I could care. Any system at that price will have adequate standard RAM and HDD allotments (not so with the iMac), a good 17" LCD display, and good CPU and GPU performance -- some are integrated, MANY are not. They perhaps don't specify more than GF4 level CPU, but at least in these parts, many of them feature more than Intel integrated Gfx.
I think we're close to having a capable $999 but I don't think we're there yet.
Apple will be there soon enough but $1299 for a 17" system ain't half bad, expecially if it's a looker. You know Apple isn't putting in a crappy LCD. I love the iMac G4 screens. I thought they were better than the cinema displays of the time.
Imagine the low footprint of this iMac coming. The easy setup and the decent performance. I think Apple may change their mind on the superdrive. Word is that Taiwan is blowing out the price of drives. Apple should be able to negotiate great pricing on DVD Burners because the market is so competitive.
[i]It seams unlikly to me that Apple would completly omit the optical drive on the education model, how else are you going to update or reinstall the sytem software and Apps? You may not have a network to net boot off of, and the applications may require a CD installed to load them. [/B]
By removing the CD you stop students from doing stupid things like trying to install windows on it. (I've seen this in my own school). For initial set up they boot on an external HD and make a clone of it on to the new Mac and the rest it taken care of by Remote Desktop.
and the prices? FUCK THAT I will buy a 12 inch powerbook and build a $700 pc, spending the same ammount and getting elegent portability in the powerbook, and, in the pc, the POWER that apple is too stingy with.
gee, it would be nice to have so much money that I could toss 2 grand down the shitter on the top end proposed imac.
If these stats are right, then it is official, the 'i' no longer means internet, it now means idiot, which describes the buyers properly.
So if I want a nice looking puter for all my daily needs, I want easy to use apps and don't need much power, then I'm an idiot? Is that what you're saying?
I' have a relatively powerful wintel machine here at home, only to see it rot in the corner as I never have the desire to use it. Look, I currently have 3 puters, iMac G4 800, 14" iBook and a decent 2,6 GHZ PC. Yes, the PC is the fastest of them, by a mile actually. Yet I find me self on the Mac 90% off the time! So what would be the better choice for me to make, the supposedly overpriced iMac or the cheap yet fast PC? For me personally the iMac makes more sense. I only have the PC for work related stuff anyway and occasionally use it for accessing websites that suck on the Mac.
Power is nice, sure. But computing isn't all about speed. It's about experience. I prefer the whole experience, the look, the feel, the practicality and ease of use of the Mac. Does this make me an idiot? I don't think so
How does Apple get this for sub $400 people. Once again your own personal RDF makes logic an unobtainable endeavor.
No one's RDF, Apple admitted that the iMac missed the "Sweet Spot" on price to investors. It is only logical that the replacement to the current iMac would strive to hit that "Sweet Spot", in fact they risk loosing investor confidence by not hitting their stated "Sweet Spot" with the next model, let's not forget that Apple is a publicly traded company and not everyone who invests in the company is a "Mac Head" or " Apple Appologist." I would even dare to say that based on their statments later this year regarding the price point of the iMac that if they are not able to hit that "Sweet Spot" with the successor to the iMac that they might be opening themselves up to litigation from investors, especially if the stock price falls dramatically.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
My how quickly expectations can get out of hand. A year ago a 2Ghz G5 was the fastest Mac you could buy and it was $3k sans monitor.
Before the G5 PowerMac was announced just over a year ago the PM was grosly underpowered for it's price point, and sales of that line were showing it. Even today there are those that are saying that the G5 PM does not live up to the hype, and they have bench marks to back them up. Add to that the fact that once again Apple was not able to deliver on "Promised" delivery of PM's, though not as bad as the last time when they had to downgrade the speed of the G4.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
The complaints are mainly coming from fanboys who want to brag to their PC using friends how fast their Macs are.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. In Jan 2001 the bottom end PM had a 466 mhz G4 and started at $1699. The bottom end imac had a 400 Mhz G3, which in most tests matched the G4 mhz for mhz if you didnt have Alti-vec optamized code, with a price of $899. The iMac had a 600 mhz G3 with a price starting at $1499. Apple's current market share reflects the slip in the value and increased price of their consumer oriented computer that not so long ago "Saved" the company.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
There is nothing in the TS article that leads me to believe you couldn't accomplish serious work on the iMac g5. Is that what it's all about...accomplishing "work"
See above, for Apple it hase nothing to do with bieng able to do work fast or slow, but bieng able to adequatly compete in the market place so that they can keep their profits large enough to continue to in business and research and develop more products to stay profitable and stay in buisness, all the while staying profitable enough to give investors some return on their investment. Doing work on computers is what Apple's customer's are interested in, and market share numbers indicate that Apple has not been keeping up with the reast of the industry.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
If $1k is expensive to you for a decent computer then you're probably some backwoods inbread 'tard who damn sure doesn't need to be dumbing down Mac population.
Thank you for the insult, I'm sure that many other's here appreciate it as well. I will refrain from slinging them back at you. The truth of the matter is that $1000 is a pretty big expense for most people who are middle class and have a family. You may be beyone that but myself, as a Deisgner (Apple's historic "core" market) cannont afford to replace a $1300 computer every other year.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sure there is. It's called profit. No one else is shipping a full system with Digital 17" LCD for $999. Apple's never been one to leave money on the table too often.
If Apple can't ship a profitable iMac for $999 with a 17" LCD then they need to look at a 15" one to meet the "Sweet Spot." No one expects Apple to release a computer that does not make a profit, but we do expect them to ship a computer that offers competative performance for the price and market that they are targeting. If Apple is unable to do this for the consumer market they they might want to look into abandoning it altogether, but then that would margenalse them as much as SGI is today.
By removing the CD you stop students from doing stupid things like trying to install windows on it. (I've seen this in my own school). For initial set up they boot on an external HD and make a clone of it on to the new Mac and the rest it taken care of by Remote Desktop.
Isn't the EDU iMac available to students and teachers as well as to the institutions?
Get it! Why wait? It's a G5 and it's going to look great and run your apps great. There comes a point in your life where you have to stop waiting and just hop in.
$1500 sounds like a lot of money but for a purchase that'll last 3 years it's nothing. $500 a year..just over $40 a month.
I used to work payroll. I'm telling some of you all that if you paid as much attention to how your paychecks are taxed and what you could do to save money you could pay for half your iMac G5 easy in 3 yrs based on tax savings alone. You have money and you don't even realize it.
Sorry to go off topic but the typical 2 income family that doesn't optimize their income/tax structure is likely to lose anywhere from 200-500 a year in taxes they don't have to pay. Folks that's an iMac G5 in 3 years.
1K is not a budget computer. The rest of the computing industry can manage to sell a 17" LCD equipped machine with a combo drive for that price. Not a loss leader by any stretch.
Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iMac combo-17 for 1299.
the 1299 iMac G4 didn't have a combo drive either. Things as usual. You'll still be getting a better machine, G5 iMac, for the same price as a low-end iMac G4, and with a larger screen.
Sweet Spot- It's already covered with the eMac. $999 gets you a 17" CRT and a decent G4 running at 1.25Ghz. Plus you have a Superdrive and a nice collection of software. There simply are no configurations for $999 with a 17" high quality LCD on any platform. Apple was giving the marketing BS. People with $999 budgets cannot be choosey.
Price/Value- Is undeniably good with this iMac G5 it looks like it may be the same price as the entry 15" iMac G4 but with a G5 and 17" monitor(ws). For those not up on current events 17" LCD monitors are still $350-450 easy retail. Value is a subjective thing but I'm sure consumer will appreciate the package regardless of the history of the PPC and its troubles.
Marketshare - yes Apple hasn't kept up with computer sales but that doesn't mean they aren't growing. Plus they have the run-a-way success of the iPod to buoy them for now. Apple is poised to continue to increase sales with a excellent Apple Retail strategy and further product evolution.
Backwood "tards - I meant no offense. However I am concerned that low cost machines will bring in undesirable people to the platform. Mac users have always been associated with creative types who's juices get flowing when thinking up new things. Those who's juices get flowing when they walk into a Walmart need not apply. But then again who am I to talk I just noticed I spelled "inbred" as "inbread" I guess I need to turn in my Mac...Walmart here I come
\
I see this iMac G5 as an important step. It brings the G5 processor down to as little as $1299 and that means more G5 optimized apps. It'll be a good computer that'll last. I don't understand why we all have to come down on Apple so hard the more we hold back the more likely the prices will stay high.
hmurchison: I'm absolutely shocked that you describe a 1.25 GHz G4 as being 'decent'. The correct term would be 'terrible'. It's not about getting work done, it's about what the competition offers.
Also, this elitist attitude of yours doesn't help anyone.
I think we're close to having a capable $999 but I don't think we're there yet.
Apple will be there soon enough but $1299 for a 17" system ain't half bad, expecially if it's a looker. You know Apple isn't putting in a crappy LCD. I love the iMac G4 screens. I thought they were better than the cinema displays of the time.
Imagine the low footprint of this iMac coming. The easy setup and the decent performance. I think Apple may change their mind on the superdrive. Word is that Taiwan is blowing out the price of drives. Apple should be able to negotiate great pricing on DVD Burners because the market is so competitive.
HM, my point has been ignored in the other thread, but I mentioned quite clearly that I believe the $1299 iMac will be the optical driveless education machine. I stated that I believe the low end iMac will have a retail price of $1599. I gave two very clear justifications for it. $1599 is $200 less than the G4 17 inch iMac now. Secondly $1599 is what Apple is charging for the headless 1.6 G5 Tower.
Will you defend the prices if the baseline iMac is the same specs and starts at $1599?
I'd buy the 17". The 5200 might not run Doom III but it'll run most other games at over 30fps
Have you tried using a machine with this card? It sucks major! It wouldnt be much of a hassle to use the radeon 9600XT instead, and its almost 2x as good!
At these specs I wouldnt buy it. If it had 512 Mb ram and a Radeon 9600+, then I would get one.
Its quite sad Apple still hasnt learned why they dont sell any iMacs anymore...
Sweet Spot- It's already covered with the eMac. $999 gets you a 17" CRT and a decent G4 running at 1.25Ghz. Plus you have a Superdrive and a nice collection of software. There simply are no configurations for $999 with a 17" high quality LCD on any platform. Apple was giving the marketing BS. People with $999 budgets cannot be choosey.
Apple stated that the iMac was not priced in the "Sweet Spot". Based on that statement they do not feel that the eMac, which is not their computer with the brand recognition and identity as a consumer computer, does not cover this "Sweet Spot" adequatly and the bottom end iMac should be priced in this range.
Quote:
Price/Value- Is undeniably good with this iMac G5 it looks like it may be the same price as the entry 15" iMac G4 but with a G5 and 17" monitor(ws). For those not up on current events 17" LCD monitors are still $350-450 easy retail. Value is a subjective thing but I'm sure consumer will appreciate the package regardless of the history of the PPC and its troubles.
I would say that this is yet to be seen. If they can come to market with a computer that offered the same price and performance value of the original iMac did then it will be a good value. However, based on the historic performance, say from 2001, the high end iMac should have a 2.0 Ghz processor and while the low end processor would be 1.6 Ghz it would also be down below the $1000 price range ( the 400 mhz G3 iMac was priced at $899 when the 466 mhz G4 PM was $1699). This is where Apple needs to price their consumer computers, at least on the low end. If that means keeping the 15" LCD around then that is what they need to do.
Quote:
Marketshare - yes Apple hasn't kept up with computer sales but that doesn't mean they aren't growing. Plus they have the run-a-way success of the iPod to buoy them for now. Apple is poised to continue to increase sales with a excellent Apple Retail strategy and further product evolution.
Apple is a pulicly traded company. As such they have a responsibility to their board and investors to show growth in the companies buisness year over year. If they cannot do this with their consumer level computers they have a responsibility to thier investors to correct the problem or abandont he market for one that they can compete and show growth in.
Quote:
Backwood "tards - I meant no offense. However I am concerned that low cost machines will bring in undesirable people to the platform. Mac users have always been associated with creative types who's juices get flowing when thinking up new things. Those who's juices get flowing when they walk into a Walmart need not apply. But then again who am I to talk I just noticed I spelled "inbred" as "inbread" I guess I need to turn in my Mac...Walmart here I come
\
Though you added the "Smilie" and joke the tone of your reply shows that you did mean to be offensive, weather concious of it or not.
Don't forget that the iMac was originally marketed as the "internet computer fo rthe rest of us" or something to that effect with it's 3 plugs and 5 minutes from box to internet. This is exactly the computer to sell to the non-tech savy crowd. For a company the size of Apple, and in a market as large as the computer market, it would be unwise to turn your nose up at the profits that those people could bring your company. Your eletist attitude would not help Apple's bottom line, rather it would push them further into the niches of the computer industry and margenalize the platofrm more than it is today. Apple needs to do just the oposite with their OS to grow their computer business and through attracting new markets such as IT, Scientific, and yes a broader consumer appeal. They have the OS to do this, it is left to be seen weather they can build the hardware at a price point that will keep up with the reast of the computer market.
Quote:
I see this iMac G5 as an important step. It brings the G5 processor down to as little as $1299 and that means more G5 optimized apps. It'll be a good computer that'll last. I don't understand why we all have to come down on Apple so hard the more we hold back the more likely the prices will stay high.
Moving the iMac to the G5 is a neccessary step to keep the computer competative. The G4 is a dead end, and has been for the last 24 months. This does not mean that it will be a good value or that it will meet it's "Sweet Spot", or that even if it does meet all Apple's goals that it will be a success in the market, and that is what Apple needs in the consumer market today.
I want to be able to play Doom 3. So I'll never buy anything at those specs.
If you want to play games get a PC. Since when has Apple been known for it's "Gaming Platform?" What really gets me is half the people that are complaining about the price. If you really need to have a faster CPU and a better GPU (and I mean really really need that) chances are you can afford to get a PowerMac G5. Let's face it Apple has not lead the computer industry in anything but the sheer style of computers. People that buy Apple's are not ones that go around boasting of how many FPS you can run on this game of how fast it is. Apple makes a great computer that actually works. When's the last time you had to run Adaware or SpyBot on your Mac?? These new iMac's are great. I know I spent over a month on a waiting list to get my iMac G4 800Mhz and I paid $1,700 for it (it had a Superdrive & 15" that's it). So in comparsion the new iMac G5's are amazing. I had never owned an Apple and the iMac was a great computer for me to learn on. I have since moved up to a PowerMac G5 Rev. B 2.0Ghz because I need more power. Long story short these iMac G5's are great considering who is going to be buying them. If you're complaining about the cost to what you get value, then why not save up and get a PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz for $1,999 and go out and get a crappy monitor from Wal-Mart. You are paying for the form factor of the G5 and to restate what several intelligent people on this thread has said "It's called profit." If you can't handle that then don't get an iMac G5 but I know for a fact a lot of people will.....
Look at the informal poll results. We're mac users. What does that tell you?
A G5 and a 17" LCD will not fix the problems inherent to the sunflower, it costs too much for a consumer desktop.
Nor is the eMac a viable alternative with its antiquated CRT.
iMac, G5 or not, should be
999 for a 17" combo version
and
1299 for a 17" superdrive version with a bigger HDD and 512MB of RAm as standard.
And $$$$ Should grow on trees right (then Apple wouldn't have to worry about paying for things like oh I dunno..... CPU's, GPU's, Mother Boards, Programmers, Tech Support........)? Microsoft should have a reliable product. I do agree with youur Informal poll results, yes we are all mac users here, and yes we will all continue to use macs. Why? Because we all love the way they work and they get what we need done. I find this trivial as to what the new specs will be. Who cares if we think it's too little for too much money. But like I said before people will buy it and to Apple that's all that matters.
Comments
There's no reason why the 17" combo model described shouldn't cost 999.
Sure there is. It's called profit. No one else is shipping a full system with Digital 17" LCD for $999. Apple's never been one to leave money on the table too often.
1K is not a budget computer. The rest of the computing industry can manage to sell a 17" LCD equipped machine with a combo drive for that price. Not a loss leader by any stretch.
Yes with shared memory integrated graphics and analog 17" second tier quality displays. $1K is still budget I could give a flying *beep* about what's expensive to the Walmart crowd. If $1k is expensive to you for a decent computer then you're probably some backwoods inbread 'tard who damn sure doesn't need to be dumbing down Mac population.
Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iMac combo-17 for 1299.
<time travel to the year 2000>
"Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iPod 5GB for $499."
Lol the more things change the more they stay the same.
As far as computers go:
I picked up a DIGITAL & analogue 19" panel for 500USD. 700-1 contrast, very bright and fast.
Analogue panels aren't neccessarily bad, they're better than the CRT Apple gives you in the 999 eMac!
Besides, Apple's panels,while nice, are hardly beyond the quality of a good mid-range panel, and they're buying bare panels for assembly, CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Integrated, no analogue circuitry, CHEAP again.
Which is why I said that the CPU and GPU are fine. I've never been one to put too much stock in the last hz or fastest GPU. It's how they work. The mac stuff works well, but at 999, so does the PC stuff. To characterize it as Walmart specials is grossly misleading to everyone.
999 is about 1300-1350 Canadian. I know what that buys. It might be that Canadians are doing slightly better in the PC market than Americans, but frankly, I could care. Any system at that price will have adequate standard RAM and HDD allotments (not so with the iMac), a good 17" LCD display, and good CPU and GPU performance -- some are integrated, MANY are not. They perhaps don't specify more than GF4 level CPU, but at least in these parts, many of them feature more than Intel integrated Gfx.
Apple will be there soon enough but $1299 for a 17" system ain't half bad, expecially if it's a looker. You know Apple isn't putting in a crappy LCD. I love the iMac G4 screens. I thought they were better than the cinema displays of the time.
Imagine the low footprint of this iMac coming. The easy setup and the decent performance. I think Apple may change their mind on the superdrive. Word is that Taiwan is blowing out the price of drives. Apple should be able to negotiate great pricing on DVD Burners because the market is so competitive.
[i]It seams unlikly to me that Apple would completly omit the optical drive on the education model, how else are you going to update or reinstall the sytem software and Apps? You may not have a network to net boot off of, and the applications may require a CD installed to load them. [/B]
By removing the CD you stop students from doing stupid things like trying to install windows on it. (I've seen this in my own school). For initial set up they boot on an external HD and make a clone of it on to the new Mac and the rest it taken care of by Remote Desktop.
I was..looking into getting an imac g5
Originally posted by a_greer
these specs are shit
and the prices? FUCK THAT I will buy a 12 inch powerbook and build a $700 pc, spending the same ammount and getting elegent portability in the powerbook, and, in the pc, the POWER that apple is too stingy with.
gee, it would be nice to have so much money that I could toss 2 grand down the shitter on the top end proposed imac.
If these stats are right, then it is official, the 'i' no longer means internet, it now means idiot, which describes the buyers properly.
So if I want a nice looking puter for all my daily needs, I want easy to use apps and don't need much power, then I'm an idiot? Is that what you're saying?
I' have a relatively powerful wintel machine here at home, only to see it rot in the corner as I never have the desire to use it. Look, I currently have 3 puters, iMac G4 800, 14" iBook and a decent 2,6 GHZ PC. Yes, the PC is the fastest of them, by a mile actually. Yet I find me self on the Mac 90% off the time! So what would be the better choice for me to make, the supposedly overpriced iMac or the cheap yet fast PC? For me personally the iMac makes more sense. I only have the PC for work related stuff anyway and occasionally use it for accessing websites that suck on the Mac.
Power is nice, sure. But computing isn't all about speed. It's about experience. I prefer the whole experience, the look, the feel, the practicality and ease of use of the Mac. Does this make me an idiot? I don't think so
Originally posted by hmurchison
How does Apple get this for sub $400 people. Once again your own personal RDF makes logic an unobtainable endeavor.
No one's RDF, Apple admitted that the iMac missed the "Sweet Spot" on price to investors. It is only logical that the replacement to the current iMac would strive to hit that "Sweet Spot", in fact they risk loosing investor confidence by not hitting their stated "Sweet Spot" with the next model, let's not forget that Apple is a publicly traded company and not everyone who invests in the company is a "Mac Head" or " Apple Appologist." I would even dare to say that based on their statments later this year regarding the price point of the iMac that if they are not able to hit that "Sweet Spot" with the successor to the iMac that they might be opening themselves up to litigation from investors, especially if the stock price falls dramatically.
Originally posted by hmurchison
My how quickly expectations can get out of hand. A year ago a 2Ghz G5 was the fastest Mac you could buy and it was $3k sans monitor.
Before the G5 PowerMac was announced just over a year ago the PM was grosly underpowered for it's price point, and sales of that line were showing it. Even today there are those that are saying that the G5 PM does not live up to the hype, and they have bench marks to back them up. Add to that the fact that once again Apple was not able to deliver on "Promised" delivery of PM's, though not as bad as the last time when they had to downgrade the speed of the G4.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The complaints are mainly coming from fanboys who want to brag to their PC using friends how fast their Macs are.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. In Jan 2001 the bottom end PM had a 466 mhz G4 and started at $1699. The bottom end imac had a 400 Mhz G3, which in most tests matched the G4 mhz for mhz if you didnt have Alti-vec optamized code, with a price of $899. The iMac had a 600 mhz G3 with a price starting at $1499. Apple's current market share reflects the slip in the value and increased price of their consumer oriented computer that not so long ago "Saved" the company.
Originally posted by hmurchison
There is nothing in the TS article that leads me to believe you couldn't accomplish serious work on the iMac g5. Is that what it's all about...accomplishing "work"
See above, for Apple it hase nothing to do with bieng able to do work fast or slow, but bieng able to adequatly compete in the market place so that they can keep their profits large enough to continue to in business and research and develop more products to stay profitable and stay in buisness, all the while staying profitable enough to give investors some return on their investment. Doing work on computers is what Apple's customer's are interested in, and market share numbers indicate that Apple has not been keeping up with the reast of the industry.
Originally posted by hmurchison
If $1k is expensive to you for a decent computer then you're probably some backwoods inbread 'tard who damn sure doesn't need to be dumbing down Mac population.
Thank you for the insult, I'm sure that many other's here appreciate it as well. I will refrain from slinging them back at you. The truth of the matter is that $1000 is a pretty big expense for most people who are middle class and have a family. You may be beyone that but myself, as a Deisgner (Apple's historic "core" market) cannont afford to replace a $1300 computer every other year.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sure there is. It's called profit. No one else is shipping a full system with Digital 17" LCD for $999. Apple's never been one to leave money on the table too often.
If Apple can't ship a profitable iMac for $999 with a 17" LCD then they need to look at a 15" one to meet the "Sweet Spot." No one expects Apple to release a computer that does not make a profit, but we do expect them to ship a computer that offers competative performance for the price and market that they are targeting. If Apple is unable to do this for the consumer market they they might want to look into abandoning it altogether, but then that would margenalse them as much as SGI is today.
Originally posted by jherrling
By removing the CD you stop students from doing stupid things like trying to install windows on it. (I've seen this in my own school). For initial set up they boot on an external HD and make a clone of it on to the new Mac and the rest it taken care of by Remote Desktop.
Isn't the EDU iMac available to students and teachers as well as to the institutions?
Originally posted by MajorMatt
I am saddened
I was..looking into getting an imac g5
Get it! Why wait? It's a G5 and it's going to look great and run your apps great. There comes a point in your life where you have to stop waiting and just hop in.
$1500 sounds like a lot of money but for a purchase that'll last 3 years it's nothing. $500 a year..just over $40 a month.
I used to work payroll. I'm telling some of you all that if you paid as much attention to how your paychecks are taxed and what you could do to save money you could pay for half your iMac G5 easy in 3 yrs based on tax savings alone. You have money and you don't even realize it.
Sorry to go off topic but the typical 2 income family that doesn't optimize their income/tax structure is likely to lose anywhere from 200-500 a year in taxes they don't have to pay. Folks that's an iMac G5 in 3 years.
Originally posted by Matsu
1K is not a budget computer. The rest of the computing industry can manage to sell a 17" LCD equipped machine with a combo drive for that price. Not a loss leader by any stretch.
Apple is dreaming if it thinks that anyone but an Apple diehard will buy that iMac combo-17 for 1299.
the 1299 iMac G4 didn't have a combo drive either. Things as usual. You'll still be getting a better machine, G5 iMac, for the same price as a low-end iMac G4, and with a larger screen.
Sweet Spot- It's already covered with the eMac. $999 gets you a 17" CRT and a decent G4 running at 1.25Ghz. Plus you have a Superdrive and a nice collection of software. There simply are no configurations for $999 with a 17" high quality LCD on any platform. Apple was giving the marketing BS. People with $999 budgets cannot be choosey.
Price/Value- Is undeniably good with this iMac G5 it looks like it may be the same price as the entry 15" iMac G4 but with a G5 and 17" monitor(ws). For those not up on current events 17" LCD monitors are still $350-450 easy retail. Value is a subjective thing but I'm sure consumer will appreciate the package regardless of the history of the PPC and its troubles.
Marketshare - yes Apple hasn't kept up with computer sales but that doesn't mean they aren't growing. Plus they have the run-a-way success of the iPod to buoy them for now. Apple is poised to continue to increase sales with a excellent Apple Retail strategy and further product evolution.
Backwood "tards - I meant no offense. However I am concerned that low cost machines will bring in undesirable people to the platform. Mac users have always been associated with creative types who's juices get flowing when thinking up new things. Those who's juices get flowing when they walk into a Walmart need not apply. But then again who am I to talk I just noticed I spelled "inbred" as "inbread" I guess I need to turn in my Mac...Walmart here I come
I see this iMac G5 as an important step. It brings the G5 processor down to as little as $1299 and that means more G5 optimized apps. It'll be a good computer that'll last. I don't understand why we all have to come down on Apple so hard the more we hold back the more likely the prices will stay high.
Also, this elitist attitude of yours doesn't help anyone.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think we're close to having a capable $999 but I don't think we're there yet.
Apple will be there soon enough but $1299 for a 17" system ain't half bad, expecially if it's a looker. You know Apple isn't putting in a crappy LCD. I love the iMac G4 screens. I thought they were better than the cinema displays of the time.
Imagine the low footprint of this iMac coming. The easy setup and the decent performance. I think Apple may change their mind on the superdrive. Word is that Taiwan is blowing out the price of drives. Apple should be able to negotiate great pricing on DVD Burners because the market is so competitive.
HM, my point has been ignored in the other thread, but I mentioned quite clearly that I believe the $1299 iMac will be the optical driveless education machine. I stated that I believe the low end iMac will have a retail price of $1599. I gave two very clear justifications for it. $1599 is $200 less than the G4 17 inch iMac now. Secondly $1599 is what Apple is charging for the headless 1.6 G5 Tower.
Will you defend the prices if the baseline iMac is the same specs and starts at $1599?
Nick
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'd buy the 17". The 5200 might not run Doom III but it'll run most other games at over 30fps
Have you tried using a machine with this card? It sucks major! It wouldnt be much of a hassle to use the radeon 9600XT instead, and its almost 2x as good!
At these specs I wouldnt buy it. If it had 512 Mb ram and a Radeon 9600+, then I would get one.
Its quite sad Apple still hasnt learned why they dont sell any iMacs anymore...
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sweet Spot- It's already covered with the eMac. $999 gets you a 17" CRT and a decent G4 running at 1.25Ghz. Plus you have a Superdrive and a nice collection of software. There simply are no configurations for $999 with a 17" high quality LCD on any platform. Apple was giving the marketing BS. People with $999 budgets cannot be choosey.
Apple stated that the iMac was not priced in the "Sweet Spot". Based on that statement they do not feel that the eMac, which is not their computer with the brand recognition and identity as a consumer computer, does not cover this "Sweet Spot" adequatly and the bottom end iMac should be priced in this range.
Price/Value- Is undeniably good with this iMac G5 it looks like it may be the same price as the entry 15" iMac G4 but with a G5 and 17" monitor(ws). For those not up on current events 17" LCD monitors are still $350-450 easy retail. Value is a subjective thing but I'm sure consumer will appreciate the package regardless of the history of the PPC and its troubles.
I would say that this is yet to be seen. If they can come to market with a computer that offered the same price and performance value of the original iMac did then it will be a good value. However, based on the historic performance, say from 2001, the high end iMac should have a 2.0 Ghz processor and while the low end processor would be 1.6 Ghz it would also be down below the $1000 price range ( the 400 mhz G3 iMac was priced at $899 when the 466 mhz G4 PM was $1699). This is where Apple needs to price their consumer computers, at least on the low end. If that means keeping the 15" LCD around then that is what they need to do.
Marketshare - yes Apple hasn't kept up with computer sales but that doesn't mean they aren't growing. Plus they have the run-a-way success of the iPod to buoy them for now. Apple is poised to continue to increase sales with a excellent Apple Retail strategy and further product evolution.
Apple is a pulicly traded company. As such they have a responsibility to their board and investors to show growth in the companies buisness year over year. If they cannot do this with their consumer level computers they have a responsibility to thier investors to correct the problem or abandont he market for one that they can compete and show growth in.
Backwood "tards - I meant no offense. However I am concerned that low cost machines will bring in undesirable people to the platform. Mac users have always been associated with creative types who's juices get flowing when thinking up new things. Those who's juices get flowing when they walk into a Walmart need not apply. But then again who am I to talk I just noticed I spelled "inbred" as "inbread" I guess I need to turn in my Mac...Walmart here I come
Though you added the "Smilie" and joke the tone of your reply shows that you did mean to be offensive, weather concious of it or not.
Don't forget that the iMac was originally marketed as the "internet computer fo rthe rest of us" or something to that effect with it's 3 plugs and 5 minutes from box to internet. This is exactly the computer to sell to the non-tech savy crowd. For a company the size of Apple, and in a market as large as the computer market, it would be unwise to turn your nose up at the profits that those people could bring your company. Your eletist attitude would not help Apple's bottom line, rather it would push them further into the niches of the computer industry and margenalize the platofrm more than it is today. Apple needs to do just the oposite with their OS to grow their computer business and through attracting new markets such as IT, Scientific, and yes a broader consumer appeal. They have the OS to do this, it is left to be seen weather they can build the hardware at a price point that will keep up with the reast of the computer market.
I see this iMac G5 as an important step. It brings the G5 processor down to as little as $1299 and that means more G5 optimized apps. It'll be a good computer that'll last. I don't understand why we all have to come down on Apple so hard the more we hold back the more likely the prices will stay high.
Moving the iMac to the G5 is a neccessary step to keep the computer competative. The G4 is a dead end, and has been for the last 24 months. This does not mean that it will be a good value or that it will meet it's "Sweet Spot", or that even if it does meet all Apple's goals that it will be a success in the market, and that is what Apple needs in the consumer market today.
Originally posted by Ra
I want to be able to play Doom 3. So I'll never buy anything at those specs.
If you want to play games get a PC. Since when has Apple been known for it's "Gaming Platform?" What really gets me is half the people that are complaining about the price. If you really need to have a faster CPU and a better GPU (and I mean really really need that) chances are you can afford to get a PowerMac G5. Let's face it Apple has not lead the computer industry in anything but the sheer style of computers. People that buy Apple's are not ones that go around boasting of how many FPS you can run on this game of how fast it is. Apple makes a great computer that actually works. When's the last time you had to run Adaware or SpyBot on your Mac?? These new iMac's are great. I know I spent over a month on a waiting list to get my iMac G4 800Mhz and I paid $1,700 for it (it had a Superdrive & 15" that's it). So in comparsion the new iMac G5's are amazing. I had never owned an Apple and the iMac was a great computer for me to learn on. I have since moved up to a PowerMac G5 Rev. B 2.0Ghz because I need more power. Long story short these iMac G5's are great considering who is going to be buying them. If you're complaining about the cost to what you get value, then why not save up and get a PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz for $1,999 and go out and get a crappy monitor from Wal-Mart. You are paying for the form factor of the G5 and to restate what several intelligent people on this thread has said "It's called profit." If you can't handle that then don't get an iMac G5 but I know for a fact a lot of people will.....
A G5 and a 17" LCD will not fix the problems inherent to the sunflower, it costs too much for a consumer desktop.
Nor is the eMac a viable alternative with its antiquated CRT.
iMac, G5 or not, should be
999 for a 17" combo version
and
1299 for a 17" superdrive version with a bigger HDD and 512MB of RAm as standard.
Originally posted by Matsu
Look at the informal poll results. We're mac users. What does that tell you?
A G5 and a 17" LCD will not fix the problems inherent to the sunflower, it costs too much for a consumer desktop.
Nor is the eMac a viable alternative with its antiquated CRT.
iMac, G5 or not, should be
999 for a 17" combo version
and
1299 for a 17" superdrive version with a bigger HDD and 512MB of RAm as standard.
And $$$$ Should grow on trees right (then Apple wouldn't have to worry about paying for things like oh I dunno..... CPU's, GPU's, Mother Boards, Programmers, Tech Support........)? Microsoft should have a reliable product. I do agree with youur Informal poll results, yes we are all mac users here, and yes we will all continue to use macs. Why? Because we all love the way they work and they get what we need done. I find this trivial as to what the new specs will be. Who cares if we think it's too little for too much money. But like I said before people will buy it and to Apple that's all that matters.