From most the messages here, I don't really understand the fevor to soup up eMacs to "PowerMac" levels (why hitch an "ideal" PC-rival low price?), especially since most purchasers will scarcely notice any performance difference. Arizona MUG plays it dispassionately straight:
Is that article good for the eMac, or bad for the Dual-G5 PowerMac???
I'm being partially sarcastic, but if this is the case why are people so excited about gettting their 'supercomputer' g5 iMac?
Also, judging from the posts here the G5 isn't much (if at all) more expensive than the outgoing G4. So a eMac rev makes sense when G5 supply problems go away (Apple predicts this quarter.)
This product, according to sources, has been under development at Apple for nearly 10 months and features slight external and major internal modifications to one of the company's current offerings.
Would it take 10 months of work to swap in a G5 for a G4 in the eMac (or include other incremental hardware improvements)?
I am still guessing that the new product is a G5 eMac, but that 10 month thing seems strange. "Slight external" modifications would seem to indicate it's still basically the same AIO format.
I think Steven Jobs would detest your Toyota comparison though- do you think he'd drive a Camry in a million years??? [/B]
Not but I bet he is not entirely disapointed by the design and quality of the Lexus SC430, it's a beautiful machine.
Compare that to the amazing engineering in the LS430 and you start to get the picture.
I would say Toyota is the eMac while Lexus is more comparable to the Power Mac.
I think the iMac would be the IS300 with all the options. Nah, let's make it the RH330, the new hybrid SUV that is coming out soon, just cause it is going to set a new standard for luxury SUVs.
What they share in common though is that there is attention to quality and design at every level, but you can't expect to have it all at the eMac level. Though it still beats the crap out of a Wal Mart PC.
I think that BMW and Honda are still independant of other car companies. With the exception of who BMW has bought, they are still family owned aren't they?
I will say this. It seems a travesty to take a modern G5 architecture and marry it to a boat anchor of a CRT.
In that case, the eMac would certainly be a better machine for most consumers, if Apple merely sealed the "guts" in a nice small headless enclosure and left the display up to you/me/us...
Very true, however what I typically hear from PC enthusiasts is, "well, I'd buy a Mac if they weren't so expensive". Which, in my opinion is silly because the eMac starts at $799 (and has educational/gov discounts available). My point is that they'll probably never end up buying one because they look at it on a hardware level. "For $799 I can get a PC with components X and Y". They're ignoring the most important part, which is the OS and accompanied software. So why would Apple try to cater to this group on a hardware level (i.e. headless eMac), when they probably won't end up buying one anyways? This is evident by the "Switch" ads. They were an attempt to get people to switch over by interesting them in the OS and software, not the hardware.
Very true, however what I typically hear from PC enthusiasts is, "well, I'd buy a Mac if they weren't so expensive".
Well that is pretty accurate.
Quote:
Which, in my opinion is silly because the eMac starts at $799 (and has educational/gov discounts available). My point is that they'll probably never end up buying one because they look at it on a hardware level.
Well hardware is really the only thing that matters. Go with Linux and software costs drop close to zero. But Linux is software there is a very real coocern on the part of many that they are getting screw by buying Apple hardware. It is a matter so summing up the numbers and seeing what you get. Invariable Apple hardware is thin on features and the configurations are totally unreasonable considering the state of the technology. In other words one looks at the price asked and then talleys up the supplied disk space, the installed RAM, Video card features and whatever else is of interest and then says HELL NO!
Quote:
"For $799 I can get a PC with components X and Y". They're ignoring the most important part, which is the OS and accompanied software.
The OS means absolutely nothing, especially when Apple charges annually for each major upgrade. In the case of Apple hardware the OS becomes an annual expense. Not that this is completely bad just that Apple charges way to much for those annual upgrades. The OS is decoupled from the hardware it is silly to associate the two.
The most important part is what you can get for $799 or $1299 if you are living large. Beyond that the is little incentive to invest extra money unless you have specific needs. I would have to say that $1299 gets you a hell of a lot more hardware when buying PC components relative to Apple hardware. This is very important because people have to go out, sometimes immediately, and buy additional items to get the Mac to a usable level.
At this moment in tiem there is not an Apple product with any sort of built in memory card reader. Now a good one isn't that expensive that is a given, the problem is that it becoems and extra item that dangles from the machine. Considering Apples former interest in Graphics and Photography it is rather stupid on their part not to atleast support compact flash for the professional market. Pretty much a clear example of Apple ignoring the market and its needs.
Quote:
So why would Apple try to cater to this group on a hardware level (i.e. headless eMac), when they probably won't end up buying one anyways? This is evident by the "Switch" ads. They were an attempt to get people to switch over by interesting them in the OS and software, not the hardware.
There wasn't alot of success with the "switch" ads. The focus on the OS was probally one of the big mistakes there. But then again when your hardware offers nothing of value that can't be had much cheaper in the PC world then I geuss you focus on software. So what do we get with Apple and OS/X; an annual expense and no compatability with the PC world. Granted it isn't all that bad but that is what many see first with Apple.
Quote:
Whew.. ok, a bit off topic. Sorry about that.
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
how 'bout this... give the new iMac G5 a little more than a friggin' month, 'kay?
I'm not saying hte iMac isn't a great machine... it is!! I love all of apple's products... but AIO isn't the answer for growing market share.
And yes, you're right.... apple has been "going out of business" for 20 years... and I think its so awesome that they keep at it and keep making profits. I just don't see it staying static like this. 3 years ago market share was 5% (again this is sales, NOT CURRENT USER BASE like everyone gets mixed up). Now they are around 2.5%. Its sad... but if it keeps going down ... what will apple have to do to stay alive then? Jack prices up?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Apple ALWAYS made an AIO? Orignal Mac, the fat Mac, Classic, SE, etc, various Performas, 5xxx series, AIO G3, iMac, eMac? 20 years is a looong trend in the computer world! Granted some of these are/were education-only market, but that's a market nonetheless, and they did sell in large numbers.
I've seen past and current PC's that are AIO, as well, so it's not an Apple-only trend.
I wasn't clear, I meant the trend will only last so long for adopting new users. Apple has a very loyal customer base. Probably more loyal than any other company has. I don't have statistics but I would be willing to bet most of the users who buy AIO are repeat customers... OR your beginning users. Its time to find a machine that will convert users from PC->Mac.
I'm sorry to get off topic. I love the eMac... have one at work. My boss actually let me borrow it when I didn't have a mac until I bought my rev b g5.
The eMac is a great machine AS IS. I think they should bump up the graphics card and perhaps a faster hard drive (7200 instead of 5400) and finally a faster bus and cpu. That machine would get a lot of attention.
For a long time I cursed the people who wanted a headless iMac... I see the light now... that is what PC users would desire to switch...being that the price on powermacs is WAY too much. How about a dual 1.6 mini tower... for 1400. MMMMM I know many pc users that would switch!!!
The most important part is what you can get for $799 or $1299 if you are living large. Beyond that the is little incentive to invest extra money unless you have specific needs. I would have to say that $1299 gets you a hell of a lot more hardware when buying PC components relative to Apple hardware. This is very important because people have to go out, sometimes immediately, and buy additional items to get the Mac to a usable level.
At this moment in tiem there is not an Apple product with any sort of built in memory card reader. Now a good one isn't that expensive that is a given, the problem is that it becoems and extra item that dangles from the machine. Considering Apples former interest in Graphics and Photography it is rather stupid on their part not to atleast support compact flash for the professional market. Pretty much a clear example of Apple ignoring the market and its needs.
It's another example of Apple's form over function policy as well. There's simply no place to put one in Apple's current designs. Then again, Lian-Li managed to squeeze 7 expansion slots, 5 5.25" bays, 6 hard drive bays in a box similar in size and styling to the G5 tower.
Quote:
There wasn't alot of success with the "switch" ads. The focus on the OS was probally one of the big mistakes there. But then again when your hardware offers nothing of value that can't be had much cheaper in the PC world then I geuss you focus on software. So what do we get with Apple and OS/X; an annual expense and no compatability with the PC world. Granted it isn't all that bad but that is what many see first with Apple.
Plus the hardware they'd want starts at two grand. You're not going to win to many over when they have to buy a professional workstation just to get a tower.
Quote:
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
Of course, the eMac is the ultimate novice machine. I hope they don't make the same mistake they made with the iMac G4 and can the cheap all in one in order to sell more iMacs. We all know how well that worked.
In the case of Apple hardware the OS becomes an annual expense. Not that this is completely bad just that Apple charges way to much for those annual upgrades.
After Tiger, this is a non-issue. Apple has said that after Tiger, they are going to tone back on major ("point") OS updates.
The point I'm trying to make is that OS X is still a relatively new OS, and with new OS's, you are going to get a lot of updates until they get it to where they are comfortable with it. The updates on the 'classic' OS slowed down considerably once we got to System 6. They went from OS 1 to OS 6 in four years ( 1984-1988 ); that's two more updates than OS X in the same four-year time span.
I just think that the 'need' to upgrade will be much less now that Panther (& soon Tiger) are out. Much the same way that MANY home users (mom & pop & granny & etc) are still running Win 95 & 98. I know that my mother (who is of retirement age) is still doing her work on my father's old Quadra 650 (running 7.1), and checking her email on his old P133 Dell running Win 98 (both castoffs from his employment). I think that these are the kind of folks that Apple is largely trying to target with their eMac's and iMac's...and I KNOW my mother doesn't care how much VRAM a computer has, much less what a video card even is.
Even better, my boss's wife still uses an SE for her correspondence, and won't trade it for anything.
Most folks just want a computer that works without ANY user intervention, because they don't want to learn how to be a tech, they just want to check email and look at pictures of Jimmy and Johnny. And an eMac or iMac & Panther does this, and does it very, very well. If my father wasn't so damn cheap, my mother would have a new Mac now, and I could send her photos & movies more often (which, like any mother, she greatly enjoys), since I only see them once or twice a year anymore. As it is, she waits to see them on my father's laptop.
Sorry so long-winded, my $0.01, 'cause my opinion ain't worth much.
You can bump it up another 0.01 cent here. We appreciate opinions .
You're right about hte eMac and iMac working fine for people like the home user group. But the iMac and eMac do LOTS more. In fact, the eMac is an AWESOME programming machine. During my adv. Unix C Programming class I used an eMac 700. I was completely content with this machine. It did everything I needed it to. Keep in mind we did piping, threading, etc. All the cool unix stuff. I suppose the only thing it can't really do / test is 64 bit libraries. But thats ok!! You buy a g5 for that stuff anyways.
My point is the eMac is an awesome machine in more ways than one. Add a little bit of ram to that guy and it will stay good to your for the next year or so... as long as you aren't doing anything processor intense... IE Movie Editing, 3D graphics, and GAmes. If I had a lab for programming... it would probably be all eMacs and a few iMacs/Powermacs for 64bit stuff. The eMacs would definitely be sufficient.
Well hardware is really the only thing that matters. Go with Linux and software costs drop close to zero. But Linux is software there is a very real coocern on the part of many that they are getting screw by buying Apple hardware. It is a matter so summing up the numbers and seeing what you get. Invariable Apple hardware is thin on features and the configurations are totally unreasonable considering the state of the technology. In other words one looks at the price asked and then talleys up the supplied disk space, the installed RAM, Video card features and whatever else is of interest and then says HELL NO!
Ok, but to me (and I realize it may be very different for other people), I want something that runs OS X. You can give me all the bus speed, and ghz's as you want, but if it doesn't run OS X, I have very little use for it. Hardware is not irrelivant to me, but it needs to be able to support the programs I use.
Moving on to the point of having to pay for OS upgrades; that's nothing new to the world. The only case where that's not true in today is with Linux/BSD/Solaris(sort of). Paying for commercial software is just a fact of life. True, I would be a happy camper if it were free, but then again I like most free stuff. By comparison to most commercial OS's, the $129 ($69 edu, $107 gov) for a new OS is pretty cheap.
Anyway, I agree with you that people will compare numbers and figures, and realize that on a hardware level, they aren't getting much by comparison. They're missing the bigger point by doing that. People typically buy Macs because they like the OS, and the programs associated, not because they run at x.xghz, and come with a 17" throwaway Dell flatscreen.
Like I said before, that's my opinion on the situation. Going back to the new eMac now... a new, high clocked, expandable (possibly headless) G4 eMac wouldn't fit into Apple's current line. Depending on the price, it could easily undermine the Powermac and iMac. Assuming they would want broad appeal to it, the price would be competitive and profits would be low.
In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.
If this was the case a headless eMac wouldn't cut into sales that much. iMac and a headless unit would be considered completely different computers. Apple sold TONS of computers when they were headless desktops. I know they could do it again if they offered it.
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.
As PM sales decline — and they inevitably will — the price will go up, not down. The same trend that allowed PC towers to kill the real workstations will eventually kill the PC towers, at least in the professional market.
Bluntly: If you can do your work on a PowerBook, why bother with a PowerMac? At a certain point, the advantages of a tower are outweighed by the disadvantages, or mooted by technological trends. In 1997, 80% of all PowerMac 8600 owners had no PCI cards in their machines. That was before AGP. Now, think about how much less common PCI cards are.
Quote:
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
It does what it's designed to do very well.
I don't think emig647 said this, but I'll respond to it here: "the AIO trend?" Who here remembers how Compaq got their name? AIOs have been a "trend" for as long as personal computers have been a "trend," because they make sense. The tower format is a lazy transposition of an old enterprise-friendly format to the consumer market, nothing more. If anything, you'll see fewer towers, not more, moving forward.
Ahh, yes, the Compaq luggable. Now that was a beast of a computer. Beware of any "portable" computer that uses a CRT and takes up more room & weighs more than your other luggage.
I think I saw one in Goodwill for $10 the other day. I was going to buy it if it came down to $5, but someone beat me to it.
Actually I did say AIO trend... and I addressed this already.
However, just because AIO != Towers... doesn't mean AIO != desktops.
Desktops will always be needed, no matter what format / design they are in. Yes AIO has been around forever, but it never picked up speed or had as much speed during the original and DV iMacs.
Laptops aren't practical for everyone. I doubt they ever will be. I know for me they aren't. I can't stand those keyboards. Yes I know I can dock it etc...
Long story short... I was on a powerbook two days ago (1.5 with 128mb vram). And I didn't like it at all. IMO it was a POS for Photoshop, Motion, and Cinema. Perhaps I'm spoiled on a dual 2.0 but I couldn't stand those extra seconds. It was driving me mad. For a machine that costs 2k-2.5k I think it was a rip off.
And when I said AIO trend I was referring directly to macs... not pcs. When I was referring to AIO (I already stated this above), I was referring to switching PC users. AIO will not switch a pc user forever. A 2k-3k desktop won't switch them either.
Actually I did say AIO trend... and I addressed this already.
However, just because AIO != Towers... doesn't mean AIO != desktops.
I wouldn't classify the original Compaqs or Kaypros as portables in the modern sense. They weighed at least 40 pounds—which makes the CRT iMac and the eMac their modern successors. They were luggable desktops.
Quote:
Yes AIO has been around forever, but it never picked up speed or had as much speed during the original and DV iMacs.
Um, the original Macintosh line (through the SE/30)? Also a luggable desktop, but at a svelte 8 pounds, it was pretty luggable.
And AIO desktops don't have laptop keyboards, trackpads, or (if their done right) ergonomics, so that's not an issue either. Actually, since my brother got an iCurve and a wireless keyboard and mouse for his PowerBook....
Quote:
Long story short... I was on a powerbook two days ago (1.5 with 128mb vram). And I didn't like it at all. IMO it was a POS for Photoshop, Motion, and Cinema. Perhaps I'm spoiled on a dual 2.0 but I couldn't stand those extra seconds. It was driving me mad. For a machine that costs 2k-2.5k I think it was a rip off.
That's why Apple's still selling PowerMacs. What happens when the PowerBook goes dual core? Or G5? Or both?
Apple sold over 600,000 PowerMacs a quarter once, when there were no real alternatives. Since then, as fewer of its features are needed, its market has shrunk accordingly. It's still indisputably useful to some people. But it's receding from the mainstream.
MacWeek UK is produced on eMacs.
Quote:
And when I said AIO trend I was referring directly to macs... not pcs. When I was referring to AIO (I already stated this above), I was referring to switching PC users. AIO will not switch a pc user forever. A 2k-3k desktop won't switch them either.
The only way to prove or disprove that assertion is to watch how the numbers fall out. I disagree with your assertion, but my opinion carries as much weight as yours here.
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify. Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
Apple sold over 600,000 PowerMacs a quarter once, when there were no real alternatives. Since then, as fewer of its features are needed, its market has shrunk accordingly. It's still indisputably useful to some people. But it's receding from the mainstream.
I don't for a minute believe that Apples current sales problems with the PowerMac are due to the market shrinking. It is still a question of not having a machine the market NEEDS at a price point most people are willing to pay.
Frankly I suspect that Apple would have trouble selling the PowerMac for $1000 in its current configuration! It offers to little for those that are informed. The market will simply leave Apple behind and head to where the future is hardware wise.
Quote:
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify.
I would have to object to the idea that the current iMac exemplifies simplicity. It simply doesn't. When it comes time to use technology beyond what Apple supplied in the iMac simplicity will go out the window. Along with simplicity, attractiveness of the installation will pretty much go out the window also.
Quote:
Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
The market will send very clear messages about what people think. Apple's job is to take these messages and deliver products that address the content of those messages. With tespect to the Towers I'm expecting a major overhaul that demonstrates that Apple does have the capacity to listen to its customers. Otherwise my interest level in Apple hardware will probally erode just like everybody elses.
It is a fundamental mistake on Apples part to ignore hardware in favor of software. It is something that I learned the hardway on on my old MacPlus and to be honest have not seen Apple address completely since. I'm not one to get to concerned about absolute speed of the hardware but lack of expandability can be crippling to sales. Addressing a customers future needs by selling them new PC's just doesn't cut it in the real market.
In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.
If this was the case a headless eMac wouldn't cut into sales that much. iMac and a headless unit would be considered completely different computers. Apple sold TONS of computers when they were headless desktops. I know they could do it again if they offered it.
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
The PowerMac is very competitive price wise in it's market segment. It's actually a bit cheaper than similar xenon and opteron personal workstations. The problem is that Apple does not have a true destop tower.
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify. Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
I must respectfully disagree. If hassle-free simplicity is what PC users were after, they would have switched to the Mac a long time ago. Believe it or not, emailing, playing games, Web surfing, and writing letters and reports in Word is pretty hassle-free and simple on a PC. As for spyware, most people don't even know they have it until some guru tells them. PCs are so fast these days that slow downs caused by too much spyware and too little ram are hardly noticed by most.
The eMac will never be the answer because at $800, the CRT is a screaming testament to how out of step it is with the mainstream. LCDs are here to stay and at $800, pretty much every PC comes with one. The eMac is permanently limited to CRTdom. Then there's the iMac. At $1300 just to enter the game, it alienates the vast majority of the market. If I didn't know any better, I would think that Apple is only interested in selling computers to its loyal fan base. If they were interested in the rest of the market, they would either build them differently or price them differently or market them differently.
Comments
Originally posted by jimwg
Greetings:
From most the messages here, I don't really understand the fevor to soup up eMacs to "PowerMac" levels (why hitch an "ideal" PC-rival low price?), especially since most purchasers will scarcely notice any performance difference. Arizona MUG plays it dispassionately straight:
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/am...icles/emac125/
James Greenidge
Is that article good for the eMac, or bad for the Dual-G5 PowerMac???
I'm being partially sarcastic, but if this is the case why are people so excited about gettting their 'supercomputer' g5 iMac?
Also, judging from the posts here the G5 isn't much (if at all) more expensive than the outgoing G4. So a eMac rev makes sense when G5 supply problems go away (Apple predicts this quarter.)
This product, according to sources, has been under development at Apple for nearly 10 months and features slight external and major internal modifications to one of the company's current offerings.
Would it take 10 months of work to swap in a G5 for a G4 in the eMac (or include other incremental hardware improvements)?
I am still guessing that the new product is a G5 eMac, but that 10 month thing seems strange. "Slight external" modifications would seem to indicate it's still basically the same AIO format.
I think Steven Jobs would detest your Toyota comparison though- do you think he'd drive a Camry in a million years???
Not but I bet he is not entirely disapointed by the design and quality of the Lexus SC430, it's a beautiful machine.
Compare that to the amazing engineering in the LS430 and you start to get the picture.
I would say Toyota is the eMac while Lexus is more comparable to the Power Mac.
I think the iMac would be the IS300 with all the options. Nah, let's make it the RH330, the new hybrid SUV that is coming out soon, just cause it is going to set a new standard for luxury SUVs.
What they share in common though is that there is attention to quality and design at every level, but you can't expect to have it all at the eMac level. Though it still beats the crap out of a Wal Mart PC.
I think that BMW and Honda are still independant of other car companies. With the exception of who BMW has bought, they are still family owned aren't they?
Back on track.
Some have mentioned the possibility of a G5?
Who knows...
I will say this. It seems a travesty to take a modern G5 architecture and marry it to a boat anchor of a CRT.
In that case, the eMac would certainly be a better machine for most consumers, if Apple merely sealed the "guts" in a nice small headless enclosure and left the display up to you/me/us...
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Who out number us ninteen to one by the way.
Very true, however what I typically hear from PC enthusiasts is, "well, I'd buy a Mac if they weren't so expensive". Which, in my opinion is silly because the eMac starts at $799 (and has educational/gov discounts available). My point is that they'll probably never end up buying one because they look at it on a hardware level. "For $799 I can get a PC with components X and Y". They're ignoring the most important part, which is the OS and accompanied software. So why would Apple try to cater to this group on a hardware level (i.e. headless eMac), when they probably won't end up buying one anyways? This is evident by the "Switch" ads. They were an attempt to get people to switch over by interesting them in the OS and software, not the hardware.
Whew.. ok, a bit off topic. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by bucci
Very true, however what I typically hear from PC enthusiasts is, "well, I'd buy a Mac if they weren't so expensive".
Well that is pretty accurate.
Which, in my opinion is silly because the eMac starts at $799 (and has educational/gov discounts available). My point is that they'll probably never end up buying one because they look at it on a hardware level.
Well hardware is really the only thing that matters. Go with Linux and software costs drop close to zero. But Linux is software there is a very real coocern on the part of many that they are getting screw by buying Apple hardware. It is a matter so summing up the numbers and seeing what you get. Invariable Apple hardware is thin on features and the configurations are totally unreasonable considering the state of the technology. In other words one looks at the price asked and then talleys up the supplied disk space, the installed RAM, Video card features and whatever else is of interest and then says HELL NO!
"For $799 I can get a PC with components X and Y". They're ignoring the most important part, which is the OS and accompanied software.
The OS means absolutely nothing, especially when Apple charges annually for each major upgrade. In the case of Apple hardware the OS becomes an annual expense. Not that this is completely bad just that Apple charges way to much for those annual upgrades. The OS is decoupled from the hardware it is silly to associate the two.
The most important part is what you can get for $799 or $1299 if you are living large. Beyond that the is little incentive to invest extra money unless you have specific needs. I would have to say that $1299 gets you a hell of a lot more hardware when buying PC components relative to Apple hardware. This is very important because people have to go out, sometimes immediately, and buy additional items to get the Mac to a usable level.
At this moment in tiem there is not an Apple product with any sort of built in memory card reader. Now a good one isn't that expensive that is a given, the problem is that it becoems and extra item that dangles from the machine. Considering Apples former interest in Graphics and Photography it is rather stupid on their part not to atleast support compact flash for the professional market. Pretty much a clear example of Apple ignoring the market and its needs.
So why would Apple try to cater to this group on a hardware level (i.e. headless eMac), when they probably won't end up buying one anyways? This is evident by the "Switch" ads. They were an attempt to get people to switch over by interesting them in the OS and software, not the hardware.
There wasn't alot of success with the "switch" ads. The focus on the OS was probally one of the big mistakes there. But then again when your hardware offers nothing of value that can't be had much cheaper in the PC world then I geuss you focus on software. So what do we get with Apple and OS/X; an annual expense and no compatability with the PC world. Granted it isn't all that bad but that is what many see first with Apple.
Whew.. ok, a bit off topic. Sorry about that.
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
Dave
Originally posted by rok
how 'bout this... give the new iMac G5 a little more than a friggin' month, 'kay?
I'm not saying hte iMac isn't a great machine... it is!! I love all of apple's products... but AIO isn't the answer for growing market share.
And yes, you're right.... apple has been "going out of business" for 20 years... and I think its so awesome that they keep at it and keep making profits. I just don't see it staying static like this. 3 years ago market share was 5% (again this is sales, NOT CURRENT USER BASE like everyone gets mixed up). Now they are around 2.5%. Its sad... but if it keeps going down ... what will apple have to do to stay alive then? Jack prices up?
Originally posted by Uberspleef
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Apple ALWAYS made an AIO? Orignal Mac, the fat Mac, Classic, SE, etc, various Performas, 5xxx series, AIO G3, iMac, eMac? 20 years is a looong trend in the computer world!
I've seen past and current PC's that are AIO, as well, so it's not an Apple-only trend.
I wasn't clear, I meant the trend will only last so long for adopting new users. Apple has a very loyal customer base. Probably more loyal than any other company has. I don't have statistics but I would be willing to bet most of the users who buy AIO are repeat customers... OR your beginning users. Its time to find a machine that will convert users from PC->Mac.
I'm sorry to get off topic. I love the eMac... have one at work. My boss actually let me borrow it when I didn't have a mac until I bought my rev b g5.
The eMac is a great machine AS IS. I think they should bump up the graphics card and perhaps a faster hard drive (7200 instead of 5400) and finally a faster bus and cpu. That machine would get a lot of attention.
For a long time I cursed the people who wanted a headless iMac... I see the light now... that is what PC users would desire to switch...being that the price on powermacs is WAY too much. How about a dual 1.6 mini tower... for 1400. MMMMM I know many pc users that would switch!!!
Originally posted by wizard69
[B]
The most important part is what you can get for $799 or $1299 if you are living large. Beyond that the is little incentive to invest extra money unless you have specific needs. I would have to say that $1299 gets you a hell of a lot more hardware when buying PC components relative to Apple hardware. This is very important because people have to go out, sometimes immediately, and buy additional items to get the Mac to a usable level.
At this moment in tiem there is not an Apple product with any sort of built in memory card reader. Now a good one isn't that expensive that is a given, the problem is that it becoems and extra item that dangles from the machine. Considering Apples former interest in Graphics and Photography it is rather stupid on their part not to atleast support compact flash for the professional market. Pretty much a clear example of Apple ignoring the market and its needs.
It's another example of Apple's form over function policy as well. There's simply no place to put one in Apple's current designs. Then again, Lian-Li managed to squeeze 7 expansion slots, 5 5.25" bays, 6 hard drive bays in a box similar in size and styling to the G5 tower.
There wasn't alot of success with the "switch" ads. The focus on the OS was probally one of the big mistakes there. But then again when your hardware offers nothing of value that can't be had much cheaper in the PC world then I geuss you focus on software. So what do we get with Apple and OS/X; an annual expense and no compatability with the PC world. Granted it isn't all that bad but that is what many see first with Apple.
Plus the hardware they'd want starts at two grand. You're not going to win to many over when they have to buy a professional workstation just to get a tower.
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
Of course, the eMac is the ultimate novice machine. I hope they don't make the same mistake they made with the iMac G4 and can the cheap all in one in order to sell more iMacs. We all know how well that worked.
Originally posted by wizard69
In the case of Apple hardware the OS becomes an annual expense. Not that this is completely bad just that Apple charges way to much for those annual upgrades.
After Tiger, this is a non-issue. Apple has said that after Tiger, they are going to tone back on major ("point") OS updates.
The point I'm trying to make is that OS X is still a relatively new OS, and with new OS's, you are going to get a lot of updates until they get it to where they are comfortable with it. The updates on the 'classic' OS slowed down considerably once we got to System 6. They went from OS 1 to OS 6 in four years ( 1984-1988 ); that's two more updates than OS X in the same four-year time span.
I just think that the 'need' to upgrade will be much less now that Panther (& soon Tiger) are out. Much the same way that MANY home users (mom & pop & granny & etc) are still running Win 95 & 98. I know that my mother (who is of retirement age) is still doing her work on my father's old Quadra 650 (running 7.1), and checking her email on his old P133 Dell running Win 98 (both castoffs from his employment). I think that these are the kind of folks that Apple is largely trying to target with their eMac's and iMac's...and I KNOW my mother doesn't care how much VRAM a computer has, much less what a video card even is.
Even better, my boss's wife still uses an SE for her correspondence, and won't trade it for anything.
Most folks just want a computer that works without ANY user intervention, because they don't want to learn how to be a tech, they just want to check email and look at pictures of Jimmy and Johnny. And an eMac or iMac & Panther does this, and does it very, very well. If my father wasn't so damn cheap, my mother would have a new Mac now, and I could send her photos & movies more often (which, like any mother, she greatly enjoys), since I only see them once or twice a year anymore. As it is, she waits to see them on my father's laptop.
Sorry so long-winded, my $0.01, 'cause my opinion ain't worth much.
You're right about hte eMac and iMac working fine for people like the home user group. But the iMac and eMac do LOTS more. In fact, the eMac is an AWESOME programming machine. During my adv. Unix C Programming class I used an eMac 700. I was completely content with this machine. It did everything I needed it to. Keep in mind we did piping, threading, etc. All the cool unix stuff. I suppose the only thing it can't really do / test is 64 bit libraries. But thats ok!! You buy a g5 for that stuff anyways.
My point is the eMac is an awesome machine in more ways than one. Add a little bit of ram to that guy and it will stay good to your for the next year or so... as long as you aren't doing anything processor intense... IE Movie Editing, 3D graphics, and GAmes. If I had a lab for programming... it would probably be all eMacs and a few iMacs/Powermacs for 64bit stuff. The eMacs would definitely be sufficient.
Originally posted by wizard69
Well that is pretty accurate.
Well hardware is really the only thing that matters. Go with Linux and software costs drop close to zero. But Linux is software there is a very real coocern on the part of many that they are getting screw by buying Apple hardware. It is a matter so summing up the numbers and seeing what you get. Invariable Apple hardware is thin on features and the configurations are totally unreasonable considering the state of the technology. In other words one looks at the price asked and then talleys up the supplied disk space, the installed RAM, Video card features and whatever else is of interest and then says HELL NO!
Ok, but to me (and I realize it may be very different for other people), I want something that runs OS X. You can give me all the bus speed, and ghz's as you want, but if it doesn't run OS X, I have very little use for it. Hardware is not irrelivant to me, but it needs to be able to support the programs I use.
Moving on to the point of having to pay for OS upgrades; that's nothing new to the world. The only case where that's not true in today is with Linux/BSD/Solaris(sort of). Paying for commercial software is just a fact of life. True, I would be a happy camper if it were free, but then again I like most free stuff. By comparison to most commercial OS's, the $129 ($69 edu, $107 gov) for a new OS is pretty cheap.
Anyway, I agree with you that people will compare numbers and figures, and realize that on a hardware level, they aren't getting much by comparison. They're missing the bigger point by doing that. People typically buy Macs because they like the OS, and the programs associated, not because they run at x.xghz, and come with a 17" throwaway Dell flatscreen.
Like I said before, that's my opinion on the situation. Going back to the new eMac now... a new, high clocked, expandable (possibly headless) G4 eMac wouldn't fit into Apple's current line. Depending on the price, it could easily undermine the Powermac and iMac. Assuming they would want broad appeal to it, the price would be competitive and profits would be low.
If this was the case a headless eMac wouldn't cut into sales that much. iMac and a headless unit would be considered completely different computers. Apple sold TONS of computers when they were headless desktops. I know they could do it again if they offered it.
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
Originally posted by emig647
In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.
As PM sales decline — and they inevitably will — the price will go up, not down. The same trend that allowed PC towers to kill the real workstations will eventually kill the PC towers, at least in the professional market.
Bluntly: If you can do your work on a PowerBook, why bother with a PowerMac? At a certain point, the advantages of a tower are outweighed by the disadvantages, or mooted by technological trends. In 1997, 80% of all PowerMac 8600 owners had no PCI cards in their machines. That was before AGP. Now, think about how much less common PCI cards are.
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
It does what it's designed to do very well.
I don't think emig647 said this, but I'll respond to it here: "the AIO trend?" Who here remembers how Compaq got their name? AIOs have been a "trend" for as long as personal computers have been a "trend," because they make sense. The tower format is a lazy transposition of an old enterprise-friendly format to the consumer market, nothing more. If anything, you'll see fewer towers, not more, moving forward.
Originally posted by Amorph
Who here remembers how Compaq got their name?
Ahh, yes, the Compaq luggable. Now that was a beast of a computer. Beware of any "portable" computer that uses a CRT and takes up more room & weighs more than your other luggage.
I think I saw one in Goodwill for $10 the other day. I was going to buy it if it came down to $5, but someone beat me to it.
However, just because AIO != Towers... doesn't mean AIO != desktops.
Desktops will always be needed, no matter what format / design they are in. Yes AIO has been around forever, but it never picked up speed or had as much speed during the original and DV iMacs.
Laptops aren't practical for everyone. I doubt they ever will be. I know for me they aren't. I can't stand those keyboards. Yes I know I can dock it etc...
Long story short... I was on a powerbook two days ago (1.5 with 128mb vram). And I didn't like it at all. IMO it was a POS for Photoshop, Motion, and Cinema. Perhaps I'm spoiled on a dual 2.0 but I couldn't stand those extra seconds. It was driving me mad. For a machine that costs 2k-2.5k I think it was a rip off.
And when I said AIO trend I was referring directly to macs... not pcs. When I was referring to AIO (I already stated this above), I was referring to switching PC users. AIO will not switch a pc user forever. A 2k-3k desktop won't switch them either.
Originally posted by emig647
Actually I did say AIO trend... and I addressed this already.
However, just because AIO != Towers... doesn't mean AIO != desktops.
I wouldn't classify the original Compaqs or Kaypros as portables in the modern sense. They weighed at least 40 pounds—which makes the CRT iMac and the eMac their modern successors. They were luggable desktops.
Yes AIO has been around forever, but it never picked up speed or had as much speed during the original and DV iMacs.
Um, the original Macintosh line (through the SE/30)? Also a luggable desktop, but at a svelte 8 pounds, it was pretty luggable.
And AIO desktops don't have laptop keyboards, trackpads, or (if their done right) ergonomics, so that's not an issue either. Actually, since my brother got an iCurve and a wireless keyboard and mouse for his PowerBook....
Long story short... I was on a powerbook two days ago (1.5 with 128mb vram). And I didn't like it at all. IMO it was a POS for Photoshop, Motion, and Cinema. Perhaps I'm spoiled on a dual 2.0 but I couldn't stand those extra seconds. It was driving me mad. For a machine that costs 2k-2.5k I think it was a rip off.
That's why Apple's still selling PowerMacs.
Apple sold over 600,000 PowerMacs a quarter once, when there were no real alternatives. Since then, as fewer of its features are needed, its market has shrunk accordingly. It's still indisputably useful to some people. But it's receding from the mainstream.
MacWeek UK is produced on eMacs.
And when I said AIO trend I was referring directly to macs... not pcs. When I was referring to AIO (I already stated this above), I was referring to switching PC users. AIO will not switch a pc user forever. A 2k-3k desktop won't switch them either.
The only way to prove or disprove that assertion is to watch how the numbers fall out. I disagree with your assertion, but my opinion carries as much weight as yours here.
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify. Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple sold over 600,000 PowerMacs a quarter once, when there were no real alternatives. Since then, as fewer of its features are needed, its market has shrunk accordingly. It's still indisputably useful to some people. But it's receding from the mainstream.
I don't for a minute believe that Apples current sales problems with the PowerMac are due to the market shrinking. It is still a question of not having a machine the market NEEDS at a price point most people are willing to pay.
Frankly I suspect that Apple would have trouble selling the PowerMac for $1000 in its current configuration! It offers to little for those that are informed. The market will simply leave Apple behind and head to where the future is hardware wise.
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify.
I would have to object to the idea that the current iMac exemplifies simplicity. It simply doesn't. When it comes time to use technology beyond what Apple supplied in the iMac simplicity will go out the window. Along with simplicity, attractiveness of the installation will pretty much go out the window also.
Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
The market will send very clear messages about what people think. Apple's job is to take these messages and deliver products that address the content of those messages. With tespect to the Towers I'm expecting a major overhaul that demonstrates that Apple does have the capacity to listen to its customers. Otherwise my interest level in Apple hardware will probally erode just like everybody elses.
It is a fundamental mistake on Apples part to ignore hardware in favor of software. It is something that I learned the hardway on on my old MacPlus and to be honest have not seen Apple address completely since. I'm not one to get to concerned about absolute speed of the hardware but lack of expandability can be crippling to sales. Addressing a customers future needs by selling them new PC's just doesn't cut it in the real market.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by emig647
In all honesty they need to bring the PowerMac price waaaaaaay down. 2k starting for the powermac is way too steep.
If this was the case a headless eMac wouldn't cut into sales that much. iMac and a headless unit would be considered completely different computers. Apple sold TONS of computers when they were headless desktops. I know they could do it again if they offered it.
But the eMac is fine where it is. There isn't anything wrong with this system. I say bump the clock speed, the video card, and you're all set.
The PowerMac is very competitive price wise in it's market segment. It's actually a bit cheaper than similar xenon and opteron personal workstations. The problem is that Apple does not have a true destop tower.
Originally posted by Amorph
For what it's worth, my reasoning is that PC users are looking to Macs for hassle-free simplicity, which the eMac and (especially) the new iMac exemplify. Obviously, there are going to be individual people landing all over the spectrum. What matters is the statistical spread: How many people think a certain way? And I'd venture a guess that nobody really knows that yet.
I must respectfully disagree. If hassle-free simplicity is what PC users were after, they would have switched to the Mac a long time ago. Believe it or not, emailing, playing games, Web surfing, and writing letters and reports in Word is pretty hassle-free and simple on a PC. As for spyware, most people don't even know they have it until some guru tells them. PCs are so fast these days that slow downs caused by too much spyware and too little ram are hardly noticed by most.
The eMac will never be the answer because at $800, the CRT is a screaming testament to how out of step it is with the mainstream. LCDs are here to stay and at $800, pretty much every PC comes with one. The eMac is permanently limited to CRTdom. Then there's the iMac. At $1300 just to enter the game, it alienates the vast majority of the market. If I didn't know any better, I would think that Apple is only interested in selling computers to its loyal fan base. If they were interested in the rest of the market, they would either build them differently or price them differently or market them differently.