Have you considered using Outlook Web Access? We have some users who prefer it to Outlook itself. It works very well, thanks to some clever client-side Javascript. On the Mac you'll have to use Netscape 7 or perhaps Mozilla or Firefox. It crashes far less than Outlook does.
I agree with your point regarding marketshare. An SFF machine is the way to get corporate marketshare, and unless Apple goes after a broader customer base, there won't be any point in developing software for it - a "negative network effect" will ensue. And this is the time to do it - the Linux tidal wave is about to wash over the computing world.
We're forced to use OWA to edit Public Folders and set your out of office assistant. Have you seen the difference between OWA on IE 6 for the PC and IE for the Mac (or any other browser)? It's bad. The PC OWA is so much better. Because of ActiveX. People use OWA on the Mac, especially from home but at the work place they prefer a real mail client. Entourage 2004 is a little better.
First, the consumer market is still largely untapped, so Apple can expand their userbase considerably without even looking at enterprise.
Second, the new iMac is a brilliant enterprise machine. It's ergonomic (not so much as the previous iMac, but still head and shoulders above other options), it has a big screen but a tiny footprint, it can be mounted on VESA mounts, and if anything it's easier to service than most SFF or tower PCs. However, Apple can't push anything into the enterprise market for as long as MS is trying to push them out. The Xserve is a clever backdoor strategy to warm IT up to the Apple brand, but until IT decides to move the back room to Mac- or UNIX-friendly protocols, the most Apple can do on the desktop front is make their desktops as attractive as possible and hope that they're noticed. Even if a SFF Mac was a better solution for enterprise in a vacuum, it wouldn't change the lack of Access, or a good Exchange server, etc. And those are the real obstacles.
We want to roll out the 20" iMacs as freelance machines. They are almost perfect. Almost. The drawback is lack of Gb Ethernet. Our workflow is all network based; people don't save locally so having a fast network connection would make the imacs that much better. The graphics card isn't even a problem. For Illustrator and PS they are perfect IMO.
2) A seldom mentioned thing about AIOs is the very obvious thing that you are going to have to like it's design to really concider it. A case you can put away from the reach of your eyes, but a screen is allmost allways there. This is one of three reasons why I wouldn't not concider an iMac if I was after a new desktop. The eMac is to deep for my desk and too weak preformace whise.
Huh? People are used to factoring out computer design altogether, simply because computers are almost all hideously ugly. The iMac is an exception, and it would remain an exception if it were headless (I know: There's a Cube on my desk at home.)
Quote:
Is it really reasonable to force people who want a desktop Mac to buy a Power Mac (or nothing at all) based on something as silly as space needs or design preferences?
As opposed to buying a tower no matter what your space needs or design preferences are?
Quote:
3) About a month ago someone stated here in the forums that a recent survey in Germany showed that a larger percentage of people bought there machines without a monitor then bundled (iirc they stated that they used there old one).
Good for Germany. I didn't see that posted myself, but I'm speaking mostly about the US market, which has overwhelmingly purchased and changed systems as if they were units.
Quote:
4) The iMac isn't the perfect consumer desctop, mainly because IMO you can't use such a word meaningfully.
That's not what I said. I said that the iMac was the perfect solution for people sick of the trouble and complexity and unreliability of contemporary Windows PCs, and I explained my reasoning: The iMac eschews complexity to the extent possible. If you're sick of being an overworked and unpaid IT worker and just want to buy a computer and use it, you literally cannot find a more suitable machine on the market.
If you're more of a tinkerer, or if you'd gladly trade some additional trouble and complexity for options, then it's not the perfect machine for you. That seemed to me obvious enough that I felt no need to state it the first time.
Quote:
To be that it'd have to satisfy all the needs that a consumer might have, and the iMac doesn't. Though it do is a very nice small formfactor machine that a larger portion of the "consumer" market should look at.
Where do you get the assumption that the consumer market would prefer that, given their anemic adoption of towers on the PC side (and their enthusiastic adoption of desknotes and laptops, more recently)? And why is the word consumer in quotes?
In my opinion, no. The iMac is, in my eyes, quite ugly. As opposed to the rest of the current Apple lineup.
Quote:
As opposed to buying a tower no matter what your space needs or design preferences are?
Why a tower? And why would a tower neccesarely be large? And my floorspace isn't what's lacking, it's the space from the edge of my desk to the wall that is.
Quote:
That's not what I said. I said that the iMac was the perfect solution for people sick of the trouble and complexity and unreliability of contemporary Windows PCs, and I explained my reasoning: The iMac eschews complexity to the extent possible. If you're sick of being an overworked and unpaid IT worker and just want to buy a computer and use it, you literally cannot find a more suitable machine on the market.
Oh and there are these things called an iBook and a PowerBook
Quote:
If you're more of a tinkerer, or if you'd gladly trade some additional trouble and complexity for options, then it's not the perfect machine for you. That seemed to me obvious enough that I felt no need to state it the first time.
You don't need to tinker with the hw, except plugging two extra cables in. Takes months to do, promise.
Quote:
Where do you get the assumption that the consumer market would prefer that, given their anemic adoption of towers on the PC side (and their enthusiastic adoption of desknotes and laptops, more recently)? And why is the word consumer in quotes?
You could allso note the growing success of the small formfactor computers, like the Shuttle XPCs for instance.
For your last question, the truth is out there (in print no less)
Small Form Factors are where the industry should be heading in the consumer realm. For too long consumers have equated BIG with value. That's not the case.
The iMac G5 will do very well even as an AIO..which Ironically it's always been despite the geek chant for headless Macs.
A Cube like computer will come when the market is ready. Right now the market just isn't there. Consumers are still caught up on dual optical drives and other space inefficiencies that are a bit dangerous to try and overcome.
Isn't it interesting how general opnion can vary depending on who you talk to...?
Quote:
What else is there for desktops? SFF PCs are still pricey geek toys.
Slimline mATX towers for example (yes I do make a distinction between them and regular towers). And the premium isn't all that big for sff boxes.
Quote:
In case you forgot, I have a Cube at home.
But you're still dodging the question.
Mind if you restate it your question that you wanted answering? [I'll try and answer it in the morning, it's getting to late for forum postin' here in Sweden]
Quote:
Relative to what? The portable is the new consumer computer. The success of portables dwarfs SFF desktops utterly, and "portables" include desknotes.
Yay, lets scrap consumer sales of the iMac and eMac! (well that do is the logical consequense of your reasoning)
Quote:
Link or concede. I haven't seen it.
Fair enough, re-read my second post here in this page.
What else is there for desktops? SFF PCs are still pricey geek toys.
Hmm, I'd say the AIO market (not counting just Macs) are the pricey geek toys if there has to be such a thing. For $350 you get a case, motherboard, and power supply in your general SFF Shuttle setup. Thats not too shabby.
But the smaller you go, yes, the pricey and more "status" they are. The HUSH line for instance. Very small, thin, silent and expensive. Your general SFF Shuttle-style cases though? I've seen people blow more on a mid-tower case and good power supply.
Well either way you have to concede that having a SFF Mac can only be good for their bottom line. It offers more choice, it's easier to engineer than an AIO since there is one less heat source you have to factor in, If it takes sales from another line (namely iMac or eMacs) then you have an indication of where you should be heading and you pump up production on a certain line or not. Now for this to be successful you have to learn from the lessons from the cube:
Make it affordable. Needs to be in the $800-1000 range.
Don't skimp on the essential upgradability. Take away my PCI slots but keep my 2-4 DIMM slots, give me some sort of upgradable graphics card and don't skimp on the i/o! ATI just came out with a new grahics bus that makes speedy use of the on board RAM. Making a graphics chip on a ZIF a reality.
Give it Gb ethernet! May not be a deal breaker in the consumer space but in the corporate and graphics environment it may very well be.
Take the same spec.s as the AIO iMac remove the LCD monitor add a standard AGP 8x slot and charge $799 - $899 depending how much profit you need.
The eMac already fills that price range, so that would have to be significantly reduced in price so as it wouldnt compete with the cube - if Apple did release another cube. You would be able to charge $999 I think, but not $799, not with the eMac, unless that was brought down to $599 or so. I know I'm not getting into performance here, but based on price, I don't think a new cube would sell well in that range, $999 - $1199 would be okay, but not sub $999 because that would hurt eMac sales. The SFF market is a difficult one for Apple to fill due to it's all-in-one consumer desktops. If they could geta 2Ghz G5 and upgradable graphics into a cube and charge $999 maybe, add a 20-inch Cinema display though and it adds up to over $2000, which is the entry level PowerMac's price range, so that would hurt sales of the G5 for sure. I don't think Apple can do another headless SFF, the price ranges are too close together for it I think.
The eMac already fills that price range, so that would have to be significantly reduced in price so as it wouldnt compete with the cube - if Apple did release another cube. You would be able to charge $999 I think, but not $799, not with the eMac, unless that was brought down to $599 or so. I know I'm not getting into performance here, but based on price, I don't think a new cube would sell well in that range, $999 - $1199 would be okay, but not sub $999 because that would hurt eMac sales. The SFF market is a difficult one for Apple to fill due to it's all-in-one consumer desktops. If they could geta 2Ghz G5 and upgradable graphics into a cube and charge $999 maybe, add a 20-inch Cinema display though and it adds up to over $2000, which is the entry level PowerMac's price range, so that would hurt sales of the G5 for sure. I don't think Apple can do another headless SFF, the price ranges are too close together for it I think.
I don't really see the problem with having some competition between product lines. Who cares if the eMac competes slightly with the new cube (or whatever a form a new SFF Mac comes in)? Plus, since the cube would probably have slightly higher margins than the eMac, it would actually be good if it stole sales from the eMac... there's nothing wrong with upselling, is there?
As for competing with the PowerMacs... taking a $999 cube, and throwing a 20-inch display on it brings the price into the same range as a low-end PowerMac... without a display!!! Throwing a display on that very same PowerMac takes its price up another grand or so, and there's no price competition whatsoever. And once again, if someone decides they'd rather go with a PowerMac than a cube, all the better. It's another case of upselling to a higher-margin product.
I think most Mac users would gladly stick with the AIOs. If I had a choice between an iMac and a similarly specced and priced cube-plus-display, I'd probably go for the iMac because of the slickness of the whole solution. However, most PC users are used to the separate computer and display thing, and have been told repeatedly to avoid AIOs, partly because PC AIOs suck so bad. The cube would be a more familiar form factor for switchers to buy at first. Once they're bona fide Mac users, their next purchase will be whatever computer best suits their needs.
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
Have you considered using Outlook Web Access? We have some users who prefer it to Outlook itself. It works very well, thanks to some clever client-side Javascript. On the Mac you'll have to use Netscape 7 or perhaps Mozilla or Firefox. It crashes far less than Outlook does.
I agree with your point regarding marketshare. An SFF machine is the way to get corporate marketshare, and unless Apple goes after a broader customer base, there won't be any point in developing software for it - a "negative network effect" will ensue. And this is the time to do it - the Linux tidal wave is about to wash over the computing world.
We're forced to use OWA to edit Public Folders and set your out of office assistant. Have you seen the difference between OWA on IE 6 for the PC and IE for the Mac (or any other browser)? It's bad. The PC OWA is so much better. Because of ActiveX. People use OWA on the Mac, especially from home but at the work place they prefer a real mail client. Entourage 2004 is a little better.
Originally posted by Amorph
First, the consumer market is still largely untapped, so Apple can expand their userbase considerably without even looking at enterprise.
Second, the new iMac is a brilliant enterprise machine. It's ergonomic (not so much as the previous iMac, but still head and shoulders above other options), it has a big screen but a tiny footprint, it can be mounted on VESA mounts, and if anything it's easier to service than most SFF or tower PCs. However, Apple can't push anything into the enterprise market for as long as MS is trying to push them out. The Xserve is a clever backdoor strategy to warm IT up to the Apple brand, but until IT decides to move the back room to Mac- or UNIX-friendly protocols, the most Apple can do on the desktop front is make their desktops as attractive as possible and hope that they're noticed. Even if a SFF Mac was a better solution for enterprise in a vacuum, it wouldn't change the lack of Access, or a good Exchange server, etc. And those are the real obstacles.
We want to roll out the 20" iMacs as freelance machines. They are almost perfect. Almost. The drawback is lack of Gb Ethernet. Our workflow is all network based; people don't save locally so having a fast network connection would make the imacs that much better. The graphics card isn't even a problem. For Illustrator and PS they are perfect IMO.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
2) A seldom mentioned thing about AIOs is the very obvious thing that you are going to have to like it's design to really concider it. A case you can put away from the reach of your eyes, but a screen is allmost allways there. This is one of three reasons why I wouldn't not concider an iMac if I was after a new desktop. The eMac is to deep for my desk and too weak preformace whise.
Huh? People are used to factoring out computer design altogether, simply because computers are almost all hideously ugly. The iMac is an exception, and it would remain an exception if it were headless (I know: There's a Cube on my desk at home.)
Is it really reasonable to force people who want a desktop Mac to buy a Power Mac (or nothing at all) based on something as silly as space needs or design preferences?
As opposed to buying a tower no matter what your space needs or design preferences are?
3) About a month ago someone stated here in the forums that a recent survey in Germany showed that a larger percentage of people bought there machines without a monitor then bundled (iirc they stated that they used there old one).
Good for Germany. I didn't see that posted myself, but I'm speaking mostly about the US market, which has overwhelmingly purchased and changed systems as if they were units.
4) The iMac isn't the perfect consumer desctop, mainly because IMO you can't use such a word meaningfully.
That's not what I said. I said that the iMac was the perfect solution for people sick of the trouble and complexity and unreliability of contemporary Windows PCs, and I explained my reasoning: The iMac eschews complexity to the extent possible. If you're sick of being an overworked and unpaid IT worker and just want to buy a computer and use it, you literally cannot find a more suitable machine on the market.
If you're more of a tinkerer, or if you'd gladly trade some additional trouble and complexity for options, then it's not the perfect machine for you. That seemed to me obvious enough that I felt no need to state it the first time.
To be that it'd have to satisfy all the needs that a consumer might have, and the iMac doesn't. Though it do is a very nice small formfactor machine that a larger portion of the "consumer" market should look at.
Where do you get the assumption that the consumer market would prefer that, given their anemic adoption of towers on the PC side (and their enthusiastic adoption of desknotes and laptops, more recently)? And why is the word consumer in quotes?
Originally posted by Amorph
The iMac is an exception
In my opinion, no. The iMac is, in my eyes, quite ugly. As opposed to the rest of the current Apple lineup.
As opposed to buying a tower no matter what your space needs or design preferences are?
Why a tower? And why would a tower neccesarely be large? And my floorspace isn't what's lacking, it's the space from the edge of my desk to the wall that is.
That's not what I said. I said that the iMac was the perfect solution for people sick of the trouble and complexity and unreliability of contemporary Windows PCs, and I explained my reasoning: The iMac eschews complexity to the extent possible. If you're sick of being an overworked and unpaid IT worker and just want to buy a computer and use it, you literally cannot find a more suitable machine on the market.
Did you see an @Amorph in my post.
Oh and there are these things called an iBook and a PowerBook
If you're more of a tinkerer, or if you'd gladly trade some additional trouble and complexity for options, then it's not the perfect machine for you. That seemed to me obvious enough that I felt no need to state it the first time.
You don't need to tinker with the hw, except plugging two extra cables in. Takes months to do, promise.
Where do you get the assumption that the consumer market would prefer that, given their anemic adoption of towers on the PC side (and their enthusiastic adoption of desknotes and laptops, more recently)? And why is the word consumer in quotes?
You could allso note the growing success of the small formfactor computers, like the Shuttle XPCs for instance.
For your last question, the truth is out there (in print no less)
The iMac G5 will do very well even as an AIO..which Ironically it's always been despite the geek chant for headless Macs.
A Cube like computer will come when the market is ready. Right now the market just isn't there. Consumers are still caught up on dual optical drives and other space inefficiencies that are a bit dangerous to try and overcome.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
In my opinion, no. The iMac is, in my eyes, quite ugly. As opposed to the rest of the current Apple lineup.
Fine. I'm going by general opinion.
Why a tower?
What else is there for desktops? SFF PCs are still pricey geek toys.
You don't need to tinker with the hw, except plugging two extra cables in. Takes months to do, promise.
In case you forgot, I have a Cube at home.
But you're still dodging the question.
You could allso note the growing success of the small formfactor computers, like the Shuttle XPCs for instance.
Relative to what? The portable is the new consumer computer. The success of portables dwarfs SFF desktops utterly, and "portables" include desknotes.
For your last question, the truth is out there (in print no less)
Link or concede. I haven't seen it.
Originally posted by Amorph
Fine. I'm going by general opinion.
Isn't it interesting how general opnion can vary depending on who you talk to...?
Quote:
What else is there for desktops? SFF PCs are still pricey geek toys.
Slimline mATX towers for example (yes I do make a distinction between them and regular towers). And the premium isn't all that big for sff boxes.
Quote:
In case you forgot, I have a Cube at home.
But you're still dodging the question.
Mind if you restate it your question that you wanted answering?
Quote:
Relative to what? The portable is the new consumer computer. The success of portables dwarfs SFF desktops utterly, and "portables" include desknotes.
Yay, lets scrap consumer sales of the iMac and eMac!
Quote:
Link or concede. I haven't seen it.
Fair enough, re-read my second post here in this page.
Originally posted by Amorph
What else is there for desktops? SFF PCs are still pricey geek toys.
Hmm, I'd say the AIO market (not counting just Macs) are the pricey geek toys if there has to be such a thing. For $350 you get a case, motherboard, and power supply in your general SFF Shuttle setup. Thats not too shabby.
But the smaller you go, yes, the pricey and more "status" they are. The HUSH line for instance. Very small, thin, silent and expensive. Your general SFF Shuttle-style cases though? I've seen people blow more on a mid-tower case and good power supply.
Make it affordable. Needs to be in the $800-1000 range.
Don't skimp on the essential upgradability. Take away my PCI slots but keep my 2-4 DIMM slots, give me some sort of upgradable graphics card and don't skimp on the i/o! ATI just came out with a new grahics bus that makes speedy use of the on board RAM. Making a graphics chip on a ZIF a reality.
Give it Gb ethernet! May not be a deal breaker in the consumer space but in the corporate and graphics environment it may very well be.
Originally posted by rickag
Take the same spec.s as the AIO iMac remove the LCD monitor add a standard AGP 8x slot and charge $799 - $899 depending how much profit you need.
The eMac already fills that price range, so that would have to be significantly reduced in price so as it wouldnt compete with the cube - if Apple did release another cube. You would be able to charge $999 I think, but not $799, not with the eMac, unless that was brought down to $599 or so. I know I'm not getting into performance here, but based on price, I don't think a new cube would sell well in that range, $999 - $1199 would be okay, but not sub $999 because that would hurt eMac sales. The SFF market is a difficult one for Apple to fill due to it's all-in-one consumer desktops. If they could geta 2Ghz G5 and upgradable graphics into a cube and charge $999 maybe, add a 20-inch Cinema display though and it adds up to over $2000, which is the entry level PowerMac's price range, so that would hurt sales of the G5 for sure. I don't think Apple can do another headless SFF, the price ranges are too close together for it I think.
The eMac already fills that price range, so that would have to be significantly reduced in price so as it wouldnt compete with the cube - if Apple did release another cube. You would be able to charge $999 I think, but not $799, not with the eMac, unless that was brought down to $599 or so. I know I'm not getting into performance here, but based on price, I don't think a new cube would sell well in that range, $999 - $1199 would be okay, but not sub $999 because that would hurt eMac sales. The SFF market is a difficult one for Apple to fill due to it's all-in-one consumer desktops. If they could geta 2Ghz G5 and upgradable graphics into a cube and charge $999 maybe, add a 20-inch Cinema display though and it adds up to over $2000, which is the entry level PowerMac's price range, so that would hurt sales of the G5 for sure. I don't think Apple can do another headless SFF, the price ranges are too close together for it I think.
I don't really see the problem with having some competition between product lines. Who cares if the eMac competes slightly with the new cube (or whatever a form a new SFF Mac comes in)? Plus, since the cube would probably have slightly higher margins than the eMac, it would actually be good if it stole sales from the eMac... there's nothing wrong with upselling, is there?
As for competing with the PowerMacs... taking a $999 cube, and throwing a 20-inch display on it brings the price into the same range as a low-end PowerMac... without a display!!! Throwing a display on that very same PowerMac takes its price up another grand or so, and there's no price competition whatsoever. And once again, if someone decides they'd rather go with a PowerMac than a cube, all the better. It's another case of upselling to a higher-margin product.
I think most Mac users would gladly stick with the AIOs. If I had a choice between an iMac and a similarly specced and priced cube-plus-display, I'd probably go for the iMac because of the slickness of the whole solution. However, most PC users are used to the separate computer and display thing, and have been told repeatedly to avoid AIOs, partly because PC AIOs suck so bad. The cube would be a more familiar form factor for switchers to buy at first. Once they're bona fide Mac users, their next purchase will be whatever computer best suits their needs.