That was well said kenaustus. For the target group, the iMac works well. I have an orginal 800 G4 iMac that has been used hard and that I love. I also have a 1.6 G5 at work and find that to be a nice machine. I would be very happy with a 1.6 G5 iMac.
I think what people are unhappy about is that Apple is positioning the iMac as a computer that becomes outdated 2-3 years after its introduction. This way, people have to replace it with a new machine. Most people keep their Powermacs for >5 years. That is too long for Apple. Thus the iMac is required. They sell like hotcakes early on and create a large user base that will, hopefully, be repeat customers 2-3 years down the line. I know I fall into this catagory.
I think that the iMac works well for its target group on all levels except price/performance. They need to get back to the same model that helped bring success to the original iMac. By Apple's own admission the starting price needs to come down for that to happen. At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.
As for your other point, planned obsolescense is a dicy business. The American car companies got a nice black eye in the 70's and 80's for experimenting with it. Apple has gotten into trouble for it in the past as well by not supporting hardware for a long enough time period with their software. The best way to ensure that people will replace a computer rather than upgrading it is not to hobble the system that you are selling today, or to stop supporting hardware that is 2-3 years old, but rather to have the hardware develop fast enough and keep the price down low enough that it becomes more cost effective and more attractive to replace the hardware rather than upgrade it. Who today takes a VCR or even a DVD player in to be repaired? It is less expensive to replace it in most cases so you just throw the old one out. This eleminates the complaints that tarnish an otherwise good reptation.
I voted no. I agree with Aurora, JCG and maffrew that there is not enough bang for the buck in this new iteration of the iMac. My 17" 1 GHz iMac will do me well. Why should I spend the money when the only upgrade in the new iMac is the G5 processor? My G4 does everything I want it to do and does it well. It is also plenty fast as far as I am concerned. Maybe I had my hopes set too high. I actually expected Apple to come through with a "killer" iMac replacement.
Your computer is relatively new, I don't see why you would upgrade so soon anyway. Wait for Rev B maybe.
By Apple's own admission the starting price needs to come down for that to happen. At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.
You make the mistake of actually "believing" in what Apple states. I respect Fred Anderson but the whole "we were $300 over the sweet spot with the iMac" is bollocks. Apple is a PR gasbag, they'll say anything within their legal rights to explain why Mac sales didn't skyrocket. I believe in the ole saying
"Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying"
Apple has stated many thing about increasing marketshare ie selling more boxes. Keeps the writers happy and Wallstreet at bay but look at Apples actions.
The iMac continues to be a boutique line made to generate "oohs and ahs" and priced accordingly. What Fred was trying to tell me was that the fact that an LCD system wasn't available for $999 was the primary factor in low iMac sales. eMacs occupied that $999 spot so I know this statement to be false. Consumers want LCD but the numbers that would purchase a PC or fail to purchase a Mac are small.
The truth is the desktop market is eroding in lieu of portables. PC desktops have to gut the price and engage in a spec pissing contest to sell nowadays. This was easy to see coming with all the MSN/ $400 rebates that happend a few years back. They saturated the market for desktops and for Apple selling boutique computers they didn't stand a chance. Sales would have still been "ok" even if Apple came close to the mythical "sweet spot".
The reality is Apple is frantically searching for something to draw people to Macs. At first they thought it was the iPod but then relented and made it cross platform along with iTunes to great success.
The Future is this.
Once Apple gets to around roughly 15 billion in revenue per year they will likely undergo a massive reconstruction. They will begin to operate as specialized divisions. Similar to the new iPod Division I could easily see a
Business Division- Responsible for promotion of Macintosh to a wide range of businesses from smallbiz to Enterprise with emphasis on newly formed Applebiz centers in select Apple Retail locations. Apple Techs and Consultants will play a larger role in supporting local areas. Apple has already instituted changes to the Consultants Network which require certifications but also beef up Consultant/Apple Retail communications(per locale)
Education Division - Focused on getting Macintosh iBooks, eMacs and iMacs into more schools and getting districts to sign on with Powerschool. This will likely be handled all internally by Apple.
iPod Division - iPod, homePod, licensing and whatever else comes from Apples Consumer Electronics push will be handled here. Pretty self evident.
Multimedia Division - The Pro Apps, Quicktime and other multimedia efforts will be concentrated on by this group. Certified Apple Pros would have improved communication with Apple becoming Apple's mercenaries.
There is no magic bullet for Apple to suddenly regain marketshare. It's going to require restructuring the company so that each division is accountable for improving performance in their areas. Apple's hardware will change to reflect this new focus. Low cost headless Macs could become availabe. a new Xserve model may come. New software etc.
Apple is making headway and will be much different in 5 years. It took them 7 years to get to where they are now. Another 7 will have even a larger difference than the previous. We enter into a new era where Apple is financially ready to make some good moves. They will play it cautious at first I look to see a more agressive Apple begin appear in 2005.
Your 1 Ghz 17" iMac is still a good computer - better than the 667 PB I started with and replaced with a 1.5 GB PB in April (replaced it to speed up VPC because the product I sell runs on PCs and I have to demo it on my PB.) The overall experience you get from it should last you a while - maybe until the G6 comes out with a dual core and everyone is raising hell because the GPU only has 256MB of memory. (My 667 still gets plenty of use and has more than a few years ahead of it.)
When you talk about planned obsolescence in the computer world you are not talking about intentionally making it a poor quality, or including a chip that will die in 2 years. You are talking about how fast this industry advances technology. I read that if aerospace technology advanced as fast as computer technology man would have landed on the moon 9 years after the Wright Brothers flew for the first time. The real kicker - I read that about 40 years ago!
Also, anyone who has a 2 year old Dull and has enjoyed it as much as I have ( ) understands planned obsolescence far better than any Mac user.
For me there is an art to designing an exceptional computer. It doesn't have to have the very best option for every component, but it does have to provide the majority of users with a superior level of ease, comfort (my favorite term after Dull), stability AND a superior "experience". The Mac is a product that exceeds all others when it comes to the art of design - not just the box, the entire package.
Those that have a fairly recent Mac probably won't rush out and buy the new iMac, regardless of the GPU. Unless. Years ago Jag released a new car - the XKE. I used to ride my bike to the dealer and just walk around it for an hour or so. One of the car mags (R&T I think) said that the design was so stunning that previous Jag owners who moaned and groaned about all the problems from oil leaks to horrible electrical systems would be waiting in line to get one. If the new iMac breaks ground as much as the XKE did then a lot of people are going to be eating their words on the graphics card.
Another vote for "none". For a single G5, 1.8 Ghz has to be the minimum, IMO. I prefer the faster dual G5 towers. However, an Imac 2Ghz with a fast 128 MB VRAM card, 1GB RAM and a 20 inch display would have been great.
I think that the iMac works well for its target group on all levels except price/performance.
It fails on a lot more levels than just price/performance. There are lots of people that want to use Macs but don't want to have the LCD permanently attached to the CPU, or the video card unupgradeable, among other things. And they sure as hell aren't spending $2000+ for a tower system for that flexability. The separation of the LCD and the minitower, with expansion options ALONG with a good price/performance ratio is a proven seller in the PC marketplace. LCD AIOs are a proven failure.
Quote:
They need to get back to the same model that helped bring success to the original iMac.
They can't, the original iMac was a CRT. eMac carries on this tradition. LCD AIO will never bring the same success as the original iMac, unless it is priced incredibly low.
Quote:
At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.[/B]
Once Apple gets to around roughly 15 billion in revenue per year they will likely undergo a massive reconstruction. They will begin to operate as specialized divisions. Similar to the new iPod Division I could easily see a
Business Division- Responsible for promotion of Macintosh to a wide range of businesses from smallbiz to Enterprise with emphasis on newly formed Applebiz centers in select Apple Retail locations. Apple Techs and Consultants will play a larger role in supporting local areas. Apple has already instituted changes to the Consultants Network which require certifications but also beef up Consultant/Apple Retail communications(per locale)
Education Division - Focused on getting Macintosh iBooks, eMacs and iMacs into more schools and getting districts to sign on with Powerschool. This will likely be handled all internally by Apple.
iPod Division - iPod, homePod, licensing and whatever else comes from Apples Consumer Electronics push will be handled here. Pretty self evident.
Multimedia Division - The Pro Apps, Quicktime and other multimedia efforts will be concentrated on by this group. Certified Apple Pros would have improved communication with Apple becoming Apple's mercenaries.
...
Apple is making headway and will be much different in 5 years. It took them 7 years to get to where they are now. Another 7 will have even a larger difference than the previous. We enter into a new era where Apple is financially ready to make some good moves. They will play it cautious at first I look to see a more agressive Apple begin appear in 2005. [/B]
Ok, Nostradamus. Sure looks like you've got it all figured it out. Perhaps we should "save this post" too?
Getting back on topic...
Quote:
There is no magic bullet for Apple to suddenly regain marketshare.
Sure they can, start selling better products. They showed this with the original iMac.
Sure they can, start selling better products. They showed this with the original iMac.
Agreed. The question is what's going to be the "next big thing" in computers? I totally disagree that people are sitting back waiting for a $999 iMac. Marketshare numbers show a large peak in 2000 because the initial iMacs were so popular but sales waned later. Unit sales have been consistent since then.
Currently the Mac has a finite amount of sales and Apple is going to be hard pressed to hit a bonanza like the original iMac. What a difference 4 years makes.
Personally I think they should be aiming for about 500 million a qtr in software within two years.
Music Store related sales should be 250 Million a qtr.
Apple is simply not adequately set up to profit from large unit sales unless they can fool people into buying 64MB cards and no DVD-R drives in $1299 computers.
Thankfully my Nostradamus like skills have let me peer into the future and I see something like this in one year.
eMac-
1.5Ghz G4- $699 on model only.
iMac 17" 2Ghz- $999 entry level $1299 step up
iMac 20"-2.2Ghz $1999
Powermac -
970MP 2.2Ghz $1599
970MP 2.4Ghz $1999
970MP 2.6Ghz $2499
970MP 2.8Ghz $2999 dual socket.
I don't know if Apple really will have 4 Powermac lines but they need to get back down to 1500-1600 dollars for the entry level Powermac.
When a decent 17" LCD display -- Apple doesn't use the crap you'll get for $399 (after $179 mail-in rebate!) -- would cost 2/3 of that $999, how do you figure $333 for the rest of a 1.6 GHz G5 system?
Now, if you've got a problem with this new iMac not being the long wished-for "headless Mac", or if you don't want to buy a bundled high quality 17" monitor either because you've already got a display you'd like to use, or because you'll settle for the $399 dreck, or because you can't use the iMac's display on a new computer later -- those are all separate issues.
But because a high-quality 17" LCD is part of what you'd be getting with the purported new G5 iMac, there's no way to reasonably expect the new 17" model to be priced at only $999. What sort of quality do you think you'd get for a PC "deal" for $999 that included a 17" LCD at that price?
Easy, I'd buy a 600 computer and a 400 dollar display. Done the PC would have a combodrive, about the same, or more standard base RAM and HDD than the iMac (rumored) and about the same level of CPU/GPU performance -- better in some areas, worse in others. But the catch is that, that equals the retail price.
The whole idea of offering a bundle, is that the company takes less of a margin on one of the two items, in order to sell you both. So when you buy a bundle, you get that display and a better machine for your 999.
The TS rumor says to me that Apple is forcing you to take the bundle, but isn't offering any price break on it. A bare 17" panel costs less than 200USD, BTW. That's why you can get a 17" LCD bundle for 999 -- because the manufacturer still made 200-300 on it -- though likely the retailer didn't make sht. Frankly, I don't care what the retailers make, it's their job to hustle and sell you extras -- like warrantees, and additional bundles, printers, scanners, memory cards, etc etc...
It is fun watching this debate though. Enough mac heads screaming at the top of thier lungs that this is a great deal, or if you read a little more carefully, that this is a great deal, for a mac. Or, if you read a little more carfully than that, it's as good a deal as Apple can do, so if you can't afford it, just shut up.
Haha, but the votes keep piling up, and those hardly matter. More people will quitely vote with their feet, which they'll use to walk themselves over to the PC aisles once they've had a look at the latest expensive piece of techno-furniture from cupertino.
3 months of strong sales out of the gate. Followed by 3 months of decent sales. Followed by a sales flatline. Just like the current iMac.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell us that you are kidding. there is no one in the world that can be that naive (but then again.....).
If I wanted cheap, I would buy an eMac. If I wanted a power horse, I would choose the PowerMac. iMac is supposed to an AIO solution that doesn't become obselete a few months after it is released. I don't see the video card in the rumoured specs handling any of the new games. The sunflower design is better than the pizza box design imo. The G5 is not a good enough reason to justify an upgrade for me. I use a 1.25GHz 17-inch iMac.
You need to realize that iMacs sell for the equivalent of US $2,500 and more in Asia. Apple can put in a better video card and increase the price by another 100$ or so, it won't make a difference with the premium prices being charged. However, if people perceive that the machine is not powerful enough, they will shy away from it.
Easy, I'd buy a 600 computer and a 400 dollar display. Done the PC would have a combodrive, about the same, or more standard base RAM and HDD than the iMac (rumored) and about the same level of CPU/GPU performance -- better in some areas, worse in others. But the catch is that, that equals the retail price.
My point is that, regardless of whether you'd take it or not, Apple will not sell that to you. Probably not in any product they are willing to put the Apple name on, and certainly not in an iMac, are you ever going to see the kind of crappy 17" LCD that you could get for $400.
It would be far better for Apple to sell a $600 headless Mac, and let you use an old display you already have or let you go buy the piece-of-crap cheapo LCD yourself, than it would be to saddle an AIO with a permanently-attached crappy LCD.
I just did some shopping around at Dell and Gateway for what you could get for around $999 with a 17" LCD in the PC World...
Start with the lowest-of-the low Celeron System at Dell. If you think 256 MB and no DVD burner is unacceptable in any system being sold these days, this has CD-ROM (that's Read Only -- no burner of any sort at all) and a skimpy 128 MB of RAM.
So let's boost the above all the way up to those lousy iMac specs of a mere 256 MB and a combo drive -- still no DVD burner, just CD-RW/DVD-ROM.
Select the cheapest 17" flatscreen Dell offers. This isn't widescreen, it's only 1280x1024 with NO DIGITAL input. Analog only in this price range.
Video card? Who knows. I couldn't find this spec anywhere, at least in plain sight, and as far as I can tell, it's probably just whatever comes built-in on the motherboard. The RAM on this system is referred to as "shared RAM" -- I think that means that there isn't any dedicated video RAM at all, in which case your video has to share the use of that piddling 256 MB with the rest of the system. I don't think anyone's going to be thrilled about playing Doom III on this box either.
What's the price? $997 before $50 mail-in rebate. You also get a cheap printer (bonus, dood!) but have to pay $25 extra for the USB cable to connect the printer up. Dell also wants another $99 for the cheapest shipping option (3-5 delivery), so you're up over $1000 at this point.
You really, really think Apple should -- rather than coming up with a completely different product -- turn the 17" iMac into something cheesey enough to compete with this schlock?
I think my thoughts are too scattered and my writing to weak, so maybe you misread.
What I hope I wrote:
I have no problems with the video cards (if they run all the new features out with Tiger, I could care what one card or another does on a DirectX benchmark that has no bearing on the mac at all.)
For 1299, we need to have a superdrive, more RAM, More HDD, and a 17" LCD.
For 999, we need only the 17" LCD and a combo-drive: this model can be expected to make do with less RAM, less HDD, and no Superdrive.
LCD retail prices DO NOT reflect the component costs. 17" bare panels are very cheap. The owness is on Apple to put together a compelling "bundle", especially because there is no possibility to change any of the hard marks on an AIO -- Display, CPU, GPU, internal storage (at least not easily).
What the iMac line should look like, wihout difficulty is
17" LCD combo 999
17" LCD super 1299
20" LCD super 1999
Between the 17 and 20" superdrive models you can spec some enticing BTO to boost the final price -- more RAM, VRAM options, more HDD options. Not to mention encentives like bundle deals on stuff like iPod and iSight, or even a 5.1 system -- now that more macs are rumored to have SPDIF output.
The point is to get them in the door with something and sell them something else.
Does eMac get them in the door? No -- a huge percentage of its sales are going to institutional buyers who get nice breaks on them, but consumers aren't biting.
Will a stripped down 1299 entry get consumers' attention? Not unless it offers a more complete machine.
[irony] Help me understand: you won't buy the iMac because it has a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one. Instead, you're going to get a new PowerBook, which features a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one to an even greater extent than the iMac (even the keyboard is built-in)?
And you're going to sell your upgradeable tower and separate monitor to buy this all-in-one, non-upgradeable video card PowerBook? [/irony]
Indeed, because it is a laptop. I wouldn't want a laptop to be in 2 pieces. EDIT: And I'm keeping my Sony 17" LCD monitor which was $300 cheaper than the apple 17" for spanning! Glad the powerbook has DVI.
If I want a desktop, I want a desktop. I would be very happy with only an upgradable video card, like in the cube. With Firewire, these days, many things do not require PCI cards anymore. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself (which I probably am), but I am a consumer who just can't wrap my head around an AIO desktop computer. Why not just get a laptop? AT least then, I could ADD any monitor I wanted to while at my desk, AND take it on the road with me.
I had one PCI card in my desktop up until about a month ago, which I switched from an IDE raid with internal drives to a Firewire RAID. I upgraded the processor from single 733 to Dual 1ghz. I have used the upgradability of the desktop. The cube had most of those things going for it. you could upgrade the processor, upgrade memory, upgrade video card. But because at the time it was introduced, firewire was not fully in the consumer and prosumer mind, it didn't take off. That and it was too expensive. With firewire 800 and 400 people do not need as many PCI slots as they once did. This is a good thing for both the iMac and the cube. But according to specs, the new iMac will not have firewire 800.
My basic problem, is that the iMac SHOULD be the consumer machine. People like me shouldn't even consider it. But consumers need a machine that starts under $999 even if they end up paying more.
But it shouldn't start at $1299. If the only way to get the price down to $999 is to lop of the head and charge $300 for it seperately, that's fine with me.
Think about it. I read an article about Massachusettes having a sales tax free day. Consumers were out in DROVES buying things and saving $20 here or $3 there. The cap was $2500 and stores reported a huge increase in $2500+ HDTVs and paid full tax on them.
The point is, not the reality, but the perception. And getting people in the door to buy a computer is the number one priority. They might come in to look at that $999 iMac, but leave with a $1500+ powerbook, or a $2000 PowerMac. or maybe that $999 iMac. But the point is, they came into the store.
For 999, we need only the 17" LCD and a combo-drive: this model can be expected to make do with less RAM, less HDD, and no Superdrive.
LCD retail prices DO NOT reflect the component costs. 17" bare panels are very cheap.
What kind of quality 17" bare panel? Commodity quality, commodity priced 1280x1024 non-widescreen LCD panels? The 17" iMac is going to have a high-quality 17" widescreen with bright, high-quality backlighting at a 1440x990 resolution -- that's what it should have -- and I don't think you're going to find that kind of 17" panel at the cheap commodity pricing you're imagining.
Quote:
What the iMac line should look like, wihout difficulty is
17" LCD combo 999...
Not without difficulty, not without compromises that I'm fairly sure Apple wouldn't make -- and I'm glad that Apple wouldn't. Sure, I'd like to see a compelling package from Apple at a sub-$1000 price point. I also think it's possible for Apple to do so, if they have the will to do it. My only argument with you is your expectation that the 17" iMac could be this product.
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
Edit: Further thoughts...
Think about the motherboard. I realize that a consumer doesn't give a damn about Apple's costs vs. Dell's costs, only what he or she can get for what price, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple's custom G5 motherboard for an iMac, meant to fit into a custom case and designed for a processor with a very small marketshare, can't possibly be as cheap for Apple as the mass-produced-for-a-standard-case commodity motherboard with a Celeron plugged in which Dell is going to use to get down to a sub-$1000 price on a system bundled with a 17" LCD.
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
I believe your right, so has anyone suggested that Apple remove the LCD and sell an upgradable headless iMac with a standard AGP slot and a PCI slot or two in a smallish mini tower form factor(says with tongue in cheek)?
So the rest of us poor ba*t@#ds could afford to buy an reasonably spec'd Apple computer with good price/performance and if so desired put a better video card in the machine for whatever valid or invalid reasons, without having to buy a full blown tower with money we don't have.
If, big if here, ThinkSecrets spec.'s are accurate, I will be looking at refurbs or used towers. I'll say it again, it is kind of sad that used Apple towers are competing with new Apple consumer desktops. One reason used Apple computers DO RETAIN resale value.
Personally I'm buying a dual 1.25 G4 tower this weekend for 1 grand.
I'd have gladly waited to buy a Mac from Apple, however I seriously doubt they care about the majority of consumers anymore, ie they'll put out yet another AIO desktop. They seem to have become as elitist as hmurchison wants them to be.
A few more years of this and I for one will be running Linux on a system I'll put together myself. It's sad to me because I look back at how the Mac OS won me over on an old 16mhz LCII when 66-100mhz was the norm for PCs and here I'm forced to buy used towers because Apple refuses to market a headless consumer system.
Do I want the fastest G5 for peanuts? Of course I do, but I'd gladly settle for a headless 1.8 ghz G5 w/ upgradeable video for $999 or even save up a few more weeks if it was $1199. Another AIO is just something for me to look at and say 'oooo pretty, too bad it's got that display glued to it'.
An AIO is only good if it's truly portable, ie you can have it on while carrying it around. I have yet to see anyone clamoring for headless laptops, hell even keyboardless laptops don't do so well (tablets). If they put a battery in these new iMacs and advertise them as luggables then I may give them a second look. As it stands they're just for show.
What kind of quality 17" bare panel? Commodity quality, commodity priced 1280x1024 non-widescreen LCD panels? The 17" iMac is going to have a high-quality 17" widescreen with bright, high-quality backlighting at a 1440x990 resolution -- that's what it should have -- and I don't think you're going to find that kind of 17" panel at the cheap commodity pricing you're imagining.
You might find it cheaper! Panels are paid by the square inch, not the resolution -- unless there are wild difference in overall screen realestate. YOu'll find that Apple's 17" widescreen has slightly less overall square footage, and slightly less overall resolution. And it's also far more standard than you think: used as it is in a wide variety of notebooks and Apple's own PB17.
The iMac has to be the centrepiece product. 1299 is a lot of money for a family computer. To even speak of such a price as if it were only for cheapskates and the working poor ignores the huge downward shift in computer prices that has taken place in the last 5 years. A 1299 product has to be complete in every way: good display, DVD-rw, ample RAM, ample storage... It doesn't need to chase the bleeding edge for CPU or GPU speed.
Quote:
Not without difficulty, not without compromises that I'm fairly sure Apple wouldn't make -- and I'm glad that Apple wouldn't. Sure, I'd like to see a compelling package from Apple at a sub-$1000 price point. I also think it's possible for Apple to do so, if they have the will to do it. My only argument with you is your expectation that the 17" iMac could be this product.
What's the difference between a TS rumor mac and an eMac?
For months everyone who understands chip fabrication has been telling us that G5's don't cost any more to make and implement than G4s do. So, one the cost isn't there.
Superdrives cost the same wherever you put them, so it's not there.
RAM costs for DDR will be the same, again, not there.
HDD's, we aren't seeing any big increases in capacity, can't be that either.
GPU's? Apple will spec an adequate solution for their consumer machines -- as they've always done, whining aside. Negligible.
I/O? Same, can't be that either.
Displays? Gee, do ya think? What's the cost of a CRT tube about 50-60 bucks? What's the cost of bare 17" panels? About 150-200.
Now add it all up. The only DIFFERENCE as far as component costs go is really in the display! There's a unit that might cost 150 more. And that does NOT account for the effect of a bulky CRT on shipping and handling charges. An LCD iMac could ship in a box no bigger than a powerbook box -- equals more units per palette. It adds up, ever shaved 3" off a minivan to save a car company?
I'm saying they could sell a 17" superdrive iMac G5 for 300 more than a Superdrive eMac, or 1299 vs 999. That's plenty of wiggle room, in terms of component cost, to account for one major change -- the display -- and one minor change -- the CPU.
Quote:
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
This is extremely overstated by Apple fans. Dell has a lot of costs too, it's been worked out many times, the difference shouldn't ever amount to more than 100 bucks on consumer gear.
Quote:
Edit: Further thoughts...
Think about the motherboard. I realize that a consumer doesn't give a damn about Apple's costs vs. Dell's costs, only what he or she can get for what price, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple's custom G5 motherboard for an iMac, meant to fit into a custom case and designed for a processor with a very small marketshare, can't possibly be as cheap for Apple as the mass-produced-for-a-standard-case commodity motherboard with a Celeron plugged in which Dell is going to use to get down to a sub-$1000 price on a system bundled with a 17" LCD.
The whole point of the AIO mobo, when you avoid double sided mobos and odd shapes, is that the integrated solution will be cheaper. Everything is scale to fit, just enough PS output, cheaper embedded GPU, one cicuit board, no daughtercards, no slots, less assembly steps. If the argument has suddenly become that the AIO is more expensive, please see the numerous headless Mac threads just build a mini-tower or cube, or whatever sell it from 799-1499 sans display, and let the end user think about that.
See the main page to put to rest some of the Apple LCD-quality myths.
"Other people buy the panels we reject." HA!
Looks like Apple will accept as many as 8 faulty pixels on iMac size displays, and as many as 15 (FIFTEEN!) on a 23"
Again, affordable digital/analogue 3rd party displays are of excellent quality. Formac guarantees no more than two faulty pixels, and I have personally seen DELL replace a display with as few as ONE!
No one can argue that Apple purchases more costly components, that line of apology should be discarded outright. The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Comments
Originally posted by anand
That was well said kenaustus. For the target group, the iMac works well. I have an orginal 800 G4 iMac that has been used hard and that I love. I also have a 1.6 G5 at work and find that to be a nice machine. I would be very happy with a 1.6 G5 iMac.
I think what people are unhappy about is that Apple is positioning the iMac as a computer that becomes outdated 2-3 years after its introduction. This way, people have to replace it with a new machine. Most people keep their Powermacs for >5 years. That is too long for Apple. Thus the iMac is required. They sell like hotcakes early on and create a large user base that will, hopefully, be repeat customers 2-3 years down the line. I know I fall into this catagory.
I think that the iMac works well for its target group on all levels except price/performance. They need to get back to the same model that helped bring success to the original iMac. By Apple's own admission the starting price needs to come down for that to happen. At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.
As for your other point, planned obsolescense is a dicy business. The American car companies got a nice black eye in the 70's and 80's for experimenting with it. Apple has gotten into trouble for it in the past as well by not supporting hardware for a long enough time period with their software. The best way to ensure that people will replace a computer rather than upgrading it is not to hobble the system that you are selling today, or to stop supporting hardware that is 2-3 years old, but rather to have the hardware develop fast enough and keep the price down low enough that it becomes more cost effective and more attractive to replace the hardware rather than upgrade it. Who today takes a VCR or even a DVD player in to be repaired? It is less expensive to replace it in most cases so you just throw the old one out. This eleminates the complaints that tarnish an otherwise good reptation.
Originally posted by chipz
I voted no. I agree with Aurora, JCG and maffrew that there is not enough bang for the buck in this new iteration of the iMac. My 17" 1 GHz iMac will do me well. Why should I spend the money when the only upgrade in the new iMac is the G5 processor? My G4 does everything I want it to do and does it well. It is also plenty fast as far as I am concerned. Maybe I had my hopes set too high. I actually expected Apple to come through with a "killer" iMac replacement.
Your computer is relatively new, I don't see why you would upgrade so soon anyway. Wait for Rev B maybe.
By Apple's own admission the starting price needs to come down for that to happen. At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.
You make the mistake of actually "believing" in what Apple states. I respect Fred Anderson but the whole "we were $300 over the sweet spot with the iMac" is bollocks. Apple is a PR gasbag, they'll say anything within their legal rights to explain why Mac sales didn't skyrocket. I believe in the ole saying
"Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying"
Apple has stated many thing about increasing marketshare ie selling more boxes. Keeps the writers happy and Wallstreet at bay but look at Apples actions.
The iMac continues to be a boutique line made to generate "oohs and ahs" and priced accordingly. What Fred was trying to tell me was that the fact that an LCD system wasn't available for $999 was the primary factor in low iMac sales. eMacs occupied that $999 spot so I know this statement to be false. Consumers want LCD but the numbers that would purchase a PC or fail to purchase a Mac are small.
The truth is the desktop market is eroding in lieu of portables. PC desktops have to gut the price and engage in a spec pissing contest to sell nowadays. This was easy to see coming with all the MSN/ $400 rebates that happend a few years back. They saturated the market for desktops and for Apple selling boutique computers they didn't stand a chance. Sales would have still been "ok" even if Apple came close to the mythical "sweet spot".
The reality is Apple is frantically searching for something to draw people to Macs. At first they thought it was the iPod but then relented and made it cross platform along with iTunes to great success.
The Future is this.
Once Apple gets to around roughly 15 billion in revenue per year they will likely undergo a massive reconstruction. They will begin to operate as specialized divisions. Similar to the new iPod Division I could easily see a
Business Division- Responsible for promotion of Macintosh to a wide range of businesses from smallbiz to Enterprise with emphasis on newly formed Applebiz centers in select Apple Retail locations. Apple Techs and Consultants will play a larger role in supporting local areas. Apple has already instituted changes to the Consultants Network which require certifications but also beef up Consultant/Apple Retail communications(per locale)
Education Division - Focused on getting Macintosh iBooks, eMacs and iMacs into more schools and getting districts to sign on with Powerschool. This will likely be handled all internally by Apple.
iPod Division - iPod, homePod, licensing and whatever else comes from Apples Consumer Electronics push will be handled here. Pretty self evident.
Multimedia Division - The Pro Apps, Quicktime and other multimedia efforts will be concentrated on by this group. Certified Apple Pros would have improved communication with Apple becoming Apple's mercenaries.
There is no magic bullet for Apple to suddenly regain marketshare. It's going to require restructuring the company so that each division is accountable for improving performance in their areas. Apple's hardware will change to reflect this new focus. Low cost headless Macs could become availabe. a new Xserve model may come. New software etc.
Apple is making headway and will be much different in 5 years. It took them 7 years to get to where they are now. Another 7 will have even a larger difference than the previous. We enter into a new era where Apple is financially ready to make some good moves. They will play it cautious at first I look to see a more agressive Apple begin appear in 2005.
When you talk about planned obsolescence in the computer world you are not talking about intentionally making it a poor quality, or including a chip that will die in 2 years. You are talking about how fast this industry advances technology. I read that if aerospace technology advanced as fast as computer technology man would have landed on the moon 9 years after the Wright Brothers flew for the first time. The real kicker - I read that about 40 years ago!
Also, anyone who has a 2 year old Dull and has enjoyed it as much as I have (
For me there is an art to designing an exceptional computer. It doesn't have to have the very best option for every component, but it does have to provide the majority of users with a superior level of ease, comfort (my favorite term after Dull), stability AND a superior "experience". The Mac is a product that exceeds all others when it comes to the art of design - not just the box, the entire package.
Those that have a fairly recent Mac probably won't rush out and buy the new iMac, regardless of the GPU. Unless. Years ago Jag released a new car - the XKE. I used to ride my bike to the dealer and just walk around it for an hour or so. One of the car mags (R&T I think) said that the design was so stunning that previous Jag owners who moaned and groaned about all the problems from oil leaks to horrible electrical systems would be waiting in line to get one. If the new iMac breaks ground as much as the XKE did then a lot of people are going to be eating their words on the graphics card.
We'll see in 2 weeks.
Originally posted by @homenow
I think that the iMac works well for its target group on all levels except price/performance.
It fails on a lot more levels than just price/performance. There are lots of people that want to use Macs but don't want to have the LCD permanently attached to the CPU, or the video card unupgradeable, among other things. And they sure as hell aren't spending $2000+ for a tower system for that flexability. The separation of the LCD and the minitower, with expansion options ALONG with a good price/performance ratio is a proven seller in the PC marketplace. LCD AIOs are a proven failure.
They need to get back to the same model that helped bring success to the original iMac.
They can't, the original iMac was a CRT. eMac carries on this tradition. LCD AIO will never bring the same success as the original iMac, unless it is priced incredibly low.
At the same time the iMac does not cover all the needs of the consumer market, so a new model would be welcome that does fit the needs of consumers that are not met by the iMac's AIO design.[/B]
Amen. Give me a PowerMac G5 Express.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The Future is this.
Once Apple gets to around roughly 15 billion in revenue per year they will likely undergo a massive reconstruction. They will begin to operate as specialized divisions. Similar to the new iPod Division I could easily see a
Business Division- Responsible for promotion of Macintosh to a wide range of businesses from smallbiz to Enterprise with emphasis on newly formed Applebiz centers in select Apple Retail locations. Apple Techs and Consultants will play a larger role in supporting local areas. Apple has already instituted changes to the Consultants Network which require certifications but also beef up Consultant/Apple Retail communications(per locale)
Education Division - Focused on getting Macintosh iBooks, eMacs and iMacs into more schools and getting districts to sign on with Powerschool. This will likely be handled all internally by Apple.
iPod Division - iPod, homePod, licensing and whatever else comes from Apples Consumer Electronics push will be handled here. Pretty self evident.
Multimedia Division - The Pro Apps, Quicktime and other multimedia efforts will be concentrated on by this group. Certified Apple Pros would have improved communication with Apple becoming Apple's mercenaries.
...
Apple is making headway and will be much different in 5 years. It took them 7 years to get to where they are now. Another 7 will have even a larger difference than the previous. We enter into a new era where Apple is financially ready to make some good moves. They will play it cautious at first I look to see a more agressive Apple begin appear in 2005. [/B]
Ok, Nostradamus. Sure looks like you've got it all figured it out. Perhaps we should "save this post" too?
Getting back on topic...
There is no magic bullet for Apple to suddenly regain marketshare.
Sure they can, start selling better products. They showed this with the original iMac.
Sure they can, start selling better products. They showed this with the original iMac.
Agreed. The question is what's going to be the "next big thing" in computers? I totally disagree that people are sitting back waiting for a $999 iMac. Marketshare numbers show a large peak in 2000 because the initial iMacs were so popular but sales waned later. Unit sales have been consistent since then.
Currently the Mac has a finite amount of sales and Apple is going to be hard pressed to hit a bonanza like the original iMac. What a difference 4 years makes.
Personally I think they should be aiming for about 500 million a qtr in software within two years.
Music Store related sales should be 250 Million a qtr.
Apple is simply not adequately set up to profit from large unit sales unless they can fool people into buying 64MB cards and no DVD-R drives in $1299 computers.
Thankfully my Nostradamus like skills have let me peer into the future and I see something like this in one year.
eMac-
1.5Ghz G4- $699 on model only.
iMac 17" 2Ghz- $999 entry level $1299 step up
iMac 20"-2.2Ghz $1999
Powermac -
970MP 2.2Ghz $1599
970MP 2.4Ghz $1999
970MP 2.6Ghz $2499
970MP 2.8Ghz $2999 dual socket.
I don't know if Apple really will have 4 Powermac lines but they need to get back down to 1500-1600 dollars for the entry level Powermac.
Originally posted by shetline
When a decent 17" LCD display -- Apple doesn't use the crap you'll get for $399 (after $179 mail-in rebate!) -- would cost 2/3 of that $999, how do you figure $333 for the rest of a 1.6 GHz G5 system?
Now, if you've got a problem with this new iMac not being the long wished-for "headless Mac", or if you don't want to buy a bundled high quality 17" monitor either because you've already got a display you'd like to use, or because you'll settle for the $399 dreck, or because you can't use the iMac's display on a new computer later -- those are all separate issues.
But because a high-quality 17" LCD is part of what you'd be getting with the purported new G5 iMac, there's no way to reasonably expect the new 17" model to be priced at only $999. What sort of quality do you think you'd get for a PC "deal" for $999 that included a 17" LCD at that price?
Easy, I'd buy a 600 computer and a 400 dollar display. Done the PC would have a combodrive, about the same, or more standard base RAM and HDD than the iMac (rumored) and about the same level of CPU/GPU performance -- better in some areas, worse in others. But the catch is that, that equals the retail price.
The whole idea of offering a bundle, is that the company takes less of a margin on one of the two items, in order to sell you both. So when you buy a bundle, you get that display and a better machine for your 999.
The TS rumor says to me that Apple is forcing you to take the bundle, but isn't offering any price break on it. A bare 17" panel costs less than 200USD, BTW. That's why you can get a 17" LCD bundle for 999 -- because the manufacturer still made 200-300 on it -- though likely the retailer didn't make sht. Frankly, I don't care what the retailers make, it's their job to hustle and sell you extras -- like warrantees, and additional bundles, printers, scanners, memory cards, etc etc...
It is fun watching this debate though. Enough mac heads screaming at the top of thier lungs that this is a great deal, or if you read a little more carefully, that this is a great deal, for a mac. Or, if you read a little more carfully than that, it's as good a deal as Apple can do, so if you can't afford it, just shut up.
Haha, but the votes keep piling up, and those hardly matter. More people will quitely vote with their feet, which they'll use to walk themselves over to the PC aisles once they've had a look at the latest expensive piece of techno-furniture from cupertino.
3 months of strong sales out of the gate. Followed by 3 months of decent sales. Followed by a sales flatline. Just like the current iMac.
Originally posted by O4BlackWRX
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell us that you are kidding. there is no one in the world that can be that naive (but then again.....).
If I wanted cheap, I would buy an eMac. If I wanted a power horse, I would choose the PowerMac. iMac is supposed to an AIO solution that doesn't become obselete a few months after it is released. I don't see the video card in the rumoured specs handling any of the new games. The sunflower design is better than the pizza box design imo. The G5 is not a good enough reason to justify an upgrade for me. I use a 1.25GHz 17-inch iMac.
You need to realize that iMacs sell for the equivalent of US $2,500 and more in Asia. Apple can put in a better video card and increase the price by another 100$ or so, it won't make a difference with the premium prices being charged. However, if people perceive that the machine is not powerful enough, they will shy away from it.
Originally posted by Matsu
Easy, I'd buy a 600 computer and a 400 dollar display. Done the PC would have a combodrive, about the same, or more standard base RAM and HDD than the iMac (rumored) and about the same level of CPU/GPU performance -- better in some areas, worse in others. But the catch is that, that equals the retail price.
My point is that, regardless of whether you'd take it or not, Apple will not sell that to you. Probably not in any product they are willing to put the Apple name on, and certainly not in an iMac, are you ever going to see the kind of crappy 17" LCD that you could get for $400.
It would be far better for Apple to sell a $600 headless Mac, and let you use an old display you already have or let you go buy the piece-of-crap cheapo LCD yourself, than it would be to saddle an AIO with a permanently-attached crappy LCD.
Start with the lowest-of-the low Celeron System at Dell. If you think 256 MB and no DVD burner is unacceptable in any system being sold these days, this has CD-ROM (that's Read Only -- no burner of any sort at all) and a skimpy 128 MB of RAM.
So let's boost the above all the way up to those lousy iMac specs of a mere 256 MB and a combo drive -- still no DVD burner, just CD-RW/DVD-ROM.
Select the cheapest 17" flatscreen Dell offers. This isn't widescreen, it's only 1280x1024 with NO DIGITAL input. Analog only in this price range.
Video card? Who knows. I couldn't find this spec anywhere, at least in plain sight, and as far as I can tell, it's probably just whatever comes built-in on the motherboard. The RAM on this system is referred to as "shared RAM" -- I think that means that there isn't any dedicated video RAM at all, in which case your video has to share the use of that piddling 256 MB with the rest of the system. I don't think anyone's going to be thrilled about playing Doom III on this box either.
What's the price? $997 before $50 mail-in rebate. You also get a cheap printer (bonus, dood!) but have to pay $25 extra for the USB cable to connect the printer up. Dell also wants another $99 for the cheapest shipping option (3-5 delivery), so you're up over $1000 at this point.
You really, really think Apple should -- rather than coming up with a completely different product -- turn the 17" iMac into something cheesey enough to compete with this schlock?
What I hope I wrote:
I have no problems with the video cards (if they run all the new features out with Tiger, I could care what one card or another does on a DirectX benchmark that has no bearing on the mac at all.)
For 1299, we need to have a superdrive, more RAM, More HDD, and a 17" LCD.
For 999, we need only the 17" LCD and a combo-drive: this model can be expected to make do with less RAM, less HDD, and no Superdrive.
LCD retail prices DO NOT reflect the component costs. 17" bare panels are very cheap. The owness is on Apple to put together a compelling "bundle", especially because there is no possibility to change any of the hard marks on an AIO -- Display, CPU, GPU, internal storage (at least not easily).
What the iMac line should look like, wihout difficulty is
17" LCD combo 999
17" LCD super 1299
20" LCD super 1999
Between the 17 and 20" superdrive models you can spec some enticing BTO to boost the final price -- more RAM, VRAM options, more HDD options. Not to mention encentives like bundle deals on stuff like iPod and iSight, or even a 5.1 system -- now that more macs are rumored to have SPDIF output.
The point is to get them in the door with something and sell them something else.
Does eMac get them in the door? No -- a huge percentage of its sales are going to institutional buyers who get nice breaks on them, but consumers aren't biting.
Will a stripped down 1299 entry get consumers' attention? Not unless it offers a more complete machine.
Originally posted by Voxapps
[irony] Help me understand: you won't buy the iMac because it has a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one. Instead, you're going to get a new PowerBook, which features a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one to an even greater extent than the iMac (even the keyboard is built-in)?
And you're going to sell your upgradeable tower and separate monitor to buy this all-in-one, non-upgradeable video card PowerBook? [/irony]
Indeed, because it is a laptop. I wouldn't want a laptop to be in 2 pieces.
If I want a desktop, I want a desktop. I would be very happy with only an upgradable video card, like in the cube. With Firewire, these days, many things do not require PCI cards anymore. I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself (which I probably am), but I am a consumer who just can't wrap my head around an AIO desktop computer. Why not just get a laptop? AT least then, I could ADD any monitor I wanted to while at my desk, AND take it on the road with me.
I had one PCI card in my desktop up until about a month ago, which I switched from an IDE raid with internal drives to a Firewire RAID. I upgraded the processor from single 733 to Dual 1ghz. I have used the upgradability of the desktop. The cube had most of those things going for it. you could upgrade the processor, upgrade memory, upgrade video card. But because at the time it was introduced, firewire was not fully in the consumer and prosumer mind, it didn't take off. That and it was too expensive. With firewire 800 and 400 people do not need as many PCI slots as they once did. This is a good thing for both the iMac and the cube. But according to specs, the new iMac will not have firewire 800.
My basic problem, is that the iMac SHOULD be the consumer machine. People like me shouldn't even consider it. But consumers need a machine that starts under $999 even if they end up paying more.
But it shouldn't start at $1299. If the only way to get the price down to $999 is to lop of the head and charge $300 for it seperately, that's fine with me.
Think about it. I read an article about Massachusettes having a sales tax free day. Consumers were out in DROVES buying things and saving $20 here or $3 there. The cap was $2500 and stores reported a huge increase in $2500+ HDTVs and paid full tax on them.
The point is, not the reality, but the perception. And getting people in the door to buy a computer is the number one priority. They might come in to look at that $999 iMac, but leave with a $1500+ powerbook, or a $2000 PowerMac. or maybe that $999 iMac. But the point is, they came into the store.
Originally posted by Matsu
For 999, we need only the 17" LCD and a combo-drive: this model can be expected to make do with less RAM, less HDD, and no Superdrive.
LCD retail prices DO NOT reflect the component costs. 17" bare panels are very cheap.
What kind of quality 17" bare panel? Commodity quality, commodity priced 1280x1024 non-widescreen LCD panels? The 17" iMac is going to have a high-quality 17" widescreen with bright, high-quality backlighting at a 1440x990 resolution -- that's what it should have -- and I don't think you're going to find that kind of 17" panel at the cheap commodity pricing you're imagining.
What the iMac line should look like, wihout difficulty is
17" LCD combo 999...
Not without difficulty, not without compromises that I'm fairly sure Apple wouldn't make -- and I'm glad that Apple wouldn't. Sure, I'd like to see a compelling package from Apple at a sub-$1000 price point. I also think it's possible for Apple to do so, if they have the will to do it. My only argument with you is your expectation that the 17" iMac could be this product.
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
Edit: Further thoughts...
Think about the motherboard. I realize that a consumer doesn't give a damn about Apple's costs vs. Dell's costs, only what he or she can get for what price, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple's custom G5 motherboard for an iMac, meant to fit into a custom case and designed for a processor with a very small marketshare, can't possibly be as cheap for Apple as the mass-produced-for-a-standard-case commodity motherboard with a Celeron plugged in which Dell is going to use to get down to a sub-$1000 price on a system bundled with a 17" LCD.
Originally posted by shetline
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
I believe your right, so has anyone suggested that Apple remove the LCD and sell an upgradable headless iMac with a standard AGP slot and a PCI slot or two in a smallish mini tower form factor(says with tongue in cheek)?
So the rest of us poor ba*t@#ds could afford to buy an reasonably spec'd Apple computer with good price/performance and if so desired put a better video card in the machine for whatever valid or invalid reasons, without having to buy a full blown tower with money we don't have.
If, big if here, ThinkSecrets spec.'s are accurate, I will be looking at refurbs or used towers. I'll say it again, it is kind of sad that used Apple towers are competing with new Apple consumer desktops. One reason used Apple computers DO RETAIN resale value.
Just my opinion, take with huge grain of salt.
I'd have gladly waited to buy a Mac from Apple, however I seriously doubt they care about the majority of consumers anymore, ie they'll put out yet another AIO desktop. They seem to have become as elitist as hmurchison wants them to be.
A few more years of this and I for one will be running Linux on a system I'll put together myself. It's sad to me because I look back at how the Mac OS won me over on an old 16mhz LCII when 66-100mhz was the norm for PCs and here I'm forced to buy used towers because Apple refuses to market a headless consumer system.
Do I want the fastest G5 for peanuts? Of course I do, but I'd gladly settle for a headless 1.8 ghz G5 w/ upgradeable video for $999 or even save up a few more weeks if it was $1199. Another AIO is just something for me to look at and say 'oooo pretty, too bad it's got that display glued to it'.
An AIO is only good if it's truly portable, ie you can have it on while carrying it around. I have yet to see anyone clamoring for headless laptops, hell even keyboardless laptops don't do so well (tablets). If they put a battery in these new iMacs and advertise them as luggables then I may give them a second look. As it stands they're just for show.
Originally posted by shetline
What kind of quality 17" bare panel? Commodity quality, commodity priced 1280x1024 non-widescreen LCD panels? The 17" iMac is going to have a high-quality 17" widescreen with bright, high-quality backlighting at a 1440x990 resolution -- that's what it should have -- and I don't think you're going to find that kind of 17" panel at the cheap commodity pricing you're imagining.
You might find it cheaper! Panels are paid by the square inch, not the resolution -- unless there are wild difference in overall screen realestate. YOu'll find that Apple's 17" widescreen has slightly less overall square footage, and slightly less overall resolution. And it's also far more standard than you think: used as it is in a wide variety of notebooks and Apple's own PB17.
The iMac has to be the centrepiece product. 1299 is a lot of money for a family computer. To even speak of such a price as if it were only for cheapskates and the working poor ignores the huge downward shift in computer prices that has taken place in the last 5 years. A 1299 product has to be complete in every way: good display, DVD-rw, ample RAM, ample storage... It doesn't need to chase the bleeding edge for CPU or GPU speed.
Not without difficulty, not without compromises that I'm fairly sure Apple wouldn't make -- and I'm glad that Apple wouldn't. Sure, I'd like to see a compelling package from Apple at a sub-$1000 price point. I also think it's possible for Apple to do so, if they have the will to do it. My only argument with you is your expectation that the 17" iMac could be this product.
What's the difference between a TS rumor mac and an eMac?
For months everyone who understands chip fabrication has been telling us that G5's don't cost any more to make and implement than G4s do. So, one the cost isn't there.
Superdrives cost the same wherever you put them, so it's not there.
RAM costs for DDR will be the same, again, not there.
HDD's, we aren't seeing any big increases in capacity, can't be that either.
GPU's? Apple will spec an adequate solution for their consumer machines -- as they've always done, whining aside. Negligible.
I/O? Same, can't be that either.
Displays? Gee, do ya think? What's the cost of a CRT tube about 50-60 bucks? What's the cost of bare 17" panels? About 150-200.
Now add it all up. The only DIFFERENCE as far as component costs go is really in the display! There's a unit that might cost 150 more. And that does NOT account for the effect of a bulky CRT on shipping and handling charges. An LCD iMac could ship in a box no bigger than a powerbook box -- equals more units per palette. It adds up, ever shaved 3" off a minivan to save a car company?
I'm saying they could sell a 17" superdrive iMac G5 for 300 more than a Superdrive eMac, or 1299 vs 999. That's plenty of wiggle room, in terms of component cost, to account for one major change -- the display -- and one minor change -- the CPU.
Quote:
Add in the fact that Apple simply can't achieve the economies of scale that Dell achieves moving huge quantities at razor-thin profit margins, and that only adds to the unreasonableness of expecting a 17" iMac at $999.
This is extremely overstated by Apple fans. Dell has a lot of costs too, it's been worked out many times, the difference shouldn't ever amount to more than 100 bucks on consumer gear.
Quote:
Edit: Further thoughts...
Think about the motherboard. I realize that a consumer doesn't give a damn about Apple's costs vs. Dell's costs, only what he or she can get for what price, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple's custom G5 motherboard for an iMac, meant to fit into a custom case and designed for a processor with a very small marketshare, can't possibly be as cheap for Apple as the mass-produced-for-a-standard-case commodity motherboard with a Celeron plugged in which Dell is going to use to get down to a sub-$1000 price on a system bundled with a 17" LCD.
The whole point of the AIO mobo, when you avoid double sided mobos and odd shapes, is that the integrated solution will be cheaper. Everything is scale to fit, just enough PS output, cheaper embedded GPU, one cicuit board, no daughtercards, no slots, less assembly steps. If the argument has suddenly become that the AIO is more expensive, please see the numerous headless Mac threads just build a mini-tower or cube, or whatever sell it from 799-1499 sans display, and let the end user think about that.
"Other people buy the panels we reject." HA!
Looks like Apple will accept as many as 8 faulty pixels on iMac size displays, and as many as 15 (FIFTEEN!) on a 23"
Again, affordable digital/analogue 3rd party displays are of excellent quality. Formac guarantees no more than two faulty pixels, and I have personally seen DELL replace a display with as few as ONE!
No one can argue that Apple purchases more costly components, that line of apology should be discarded outright. The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Originally posted by Matsu
See the main page to put to rest some of the Apple LCD-quality myths.
"Other people buy the panels we reject." HA!
Actually, Steve has said that during a speech. So it cant be totally bogus.