At $800, every PC comes with a LCD monitor (that isn't crappy)? Care to show us one of these deals? I observe low-end PC towers + 17" LCDs going for around $1000, w/o any "extras" (real graphic card, iLife suite) and nary a smidgen of equivalent Apple style.
I don't want to digress too much, but most people are completely ignorant of how much more manageable a Mac is compared to a PC, and assume that malware is a fact of life. It's not that they wouldn't prefer something else, it's that the situation has always been presented to them as inevitable. Those reasons, and that Macs have no software and can't run the internet. (Yes, I've really heard that last one, even recently!)
Um, the original Macintosh line (through the SE/30)? Also a luggable desktop, but at a svelte 8 pounds, it was pretty luggable.
Still wasn't as popular as the original iMac... great machine but the #'s were never close to the iMacs.
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. 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.
Yah, it does depend on the spectrum of people that are going to be purchasing... the majority's class. When I visualize PC switchers I picture "Ma and Pa", "the college student", "Video Peeps", and "gamers".
Ma and Pa will switch for simplicity. But I don't think they make up that much of the market share because most of them are still on windows 98. They don't see a need to upgrade because it fits their normal life. I'm talking about a majority. But they would likely buy an eMac or iMac if they were shown the "mac way".
The college Student almost falls in the same category but knows a little more about computers. Needs something faster and more efficient then the 98 machine. Possible they would buy an iBook or iMac... definitely not an eMac. Even though my gf just bought an eMac for 300 for college.
Video people will definitely buy an iMac if they were shown the "Mac way". I think a lot of pc users would switch from this category if they knew how well the mac could easily destroy the PC in this field... with simplicity.
And gamers we know that story.
So basically switchers could desire the iMac... but as much as the original? I guess we will see a year from now. I hope you're right... but if I was a PC user who knows how to build my own pc (and there are a lot of them, and I am one), I wouldn't settle for anything less than a dual 2.0 tower.
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.
The fact is that most consumers, the ones that the iMac & eMac specifically target, NEVER upgrade their machines beyond RAM or a HD. I know people still using bone-stock SE's, and are perfectly happy with them.
Besides which, most consumers DO NOT WANT to learn about the hardware. They would just assume completely forget it was there. Most people don't know the diffenence between a HD & an Airport card, and they DON'T want to learn!!! The software is what they see and what controls their experience.
And in corporate America, it is cheaper to simply dump the computer and get a new one rather than upgrade. I have gotten a TON of off-lease computers, and NOT ONE has had any kind of upgrade beyond RAM & HD. No PCI slots filled, no processor upgrade, etc.
The iMac's & eMac's are NOT for die-hard gamers and gurus. They are for Mom & Pop & kids who are fed up with spyware, viruses, and having to be their own tech support line.
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.
If this were the case, Apple's overall sales would have shrunk along with their PowerMac sales. They haven't.
You just can't accept that the machine the market "NEEDS" isn't one machine, and it isn't necessarily a tower either.
Quote:
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.
That's only because you're trying to shoehorn the PowerMac into a market it doesn't belong in.
Quote:
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.
That day will never come for most consumers. Only enthusiasts upgrade, as a general rule.
Besides, the current iMac is easier to upgrade in several respects (HDD, RAM, optical) and maintain (midplane, backplane, screen) than most PC towers, if it comes to that. Three little screws, and everything's laid out right there, as neat as you could want.
As for the clutter of external expansion: If you start with less clutter, you'll end up with less clutter. Only enthusiasts do internal upgrades. Most people are scared enough of computers (not from ignorance of them; from experience with them) to be wary of messing with their innards.
Quote:
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.
Ah, yes, the fallacy of the silent majority. A simple way to ignore the possibility that Apple, which has better numbers than anyone here, actually is listening to its customers.
Quote:
It is a fundamental mistake on Apples part to ignore hardware in favor of software.
If they ignored hardware, they'd just slap together the same commodity parts that everyone else does, and kick them out the door.
Lack of internal expandability simply is not an issue. The market is speaking. Set your own desires aside for a minute and listen.
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.
A long time ago, the PC and the Mac both looked a lot different.
Quote:
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.
Are you Paul Thurrott? Seriously.
End users call gurus because their PCs slow down to molasses, or crash constantly, or even die completely, because of all that crap. Besides, some of the spyware and adware makes itself known in other irritating ways that might not slow down the machine perceptibly, but which are no less irritating for that.
Quote:
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.
For something so far out of step with the mainstream, it seems to be doing OK.
Besides, it's targeted primarily at K-12 schools, which to date have been slow to adopt LCDs.
Quote:
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.
You're free to assume that, but it's clear to me that what they're doing is hewing to profitable markets in order to get themselves over $10b in sales, when their finances hit an inflection point and they have a lot more room to maneuver. There are a lot of "soft" reasons why people don't buy Macs, which Apple can erode over time simply by being successful at what they do over time. IBM willing, I don't think Apple will have much of a problem reaching their goals at this point. When they're not running at breakeven operationally, we'll see what they can really do (historically, they'll get arrogant and lose the plot, but we can always hope that Steve remains more focused than Apple was without him). In the meantime, they're not building the PC of your dreams at the pricepoint of your dreams for the simple reason that they don't see any sense in doing so.
Besides, it's targeted primarily at K-12 schools, which to date have been slow to adopt LCDs.
As I recall, a CRT was overwhelmingly requested by educators for its ruggedness. The LCD will live longer if treated well, but lab computers are not historically treated well. Kids love to poke screens when they're pointing and glass is so much easier to clean. Plus the fact that when little Johnny discovers all the pretty colors when he pushes on his LCD, that screen quickly becomes a pretty paper-weight.
True, you can slap a piece of glass in front of the screen, but the LCD as a whole is still less rugged. It's easier to knock over for one thing.. etc etc..
As I recall, a CRT was overwhelmingly requested by educators for its ruggedness.
Are these the same educators who are buying iBooks for k-12? I never believed that to be the reason for the eMac. That was bull then and it is bull now. Schools didn't buy FP iMacs because they were priced out of range. If they doubted anything about its durability, it was the neck, not the screen. The iMac 2 looked like a toy. The eMac looked a lot more sturdy and familiar and fit within the budget. When iBooks came down in price, schools turned to them. Dell does not have a problem placing LCDs in schools. Apple just had to say something to justify the eMac other than "Oops, we goofed up big time with this new iMac."
Actually dell does have problems placing lcds in schools. About a 3:1 problem. I've been to 4 Oregon Colleges (OIT, PSU, PCC, OSU)... all of which you will see more CRTs (FROM DELL) than lcds. There are reasons for this... CRTs and cheaper... more durable... which in turn last longer.
If I was educating and had the choice between CRT eMac or the LCD iMac... I would choose the eMac for durability. Just like was said above... kids have a tendency to touch the screen and draw with their finger... which burns pixels out...
Its a known fact that CRT's are more rugged and durable than lcds... its just the way it is.
You can' compare iBooks to eMacs... completely different scenerio. Just like you can't compare iMacs to iBooks. One is a portable one is a desktop.
The fact is that most consumers, the ones that the iMac & eMac specifically target, NEVER upgrade their machines beyond RAM or a HD. I know people still using bone-stock SE's, and are perfectly happy with them.
There are people that are very happy with the Model T sitting in the garage also. The upgrades you mentioned though are significant just by themselves. The problem is that Apple produces machines with artificial expansion limits. The iMac is a perfect Example here, does it make sense to limit a 64 bit processor to 2GB or RAM?
Quote:
Besides which, most consumers DO NOT WANT to learn about the hardware. They would just assume completely forget it was there. Most people don't know the diffenence between a HD & an Airport card, and they DON'T want to learn!!! The software is what they see and what controls their experience.
It is fine that Apple wants to exploit the stupid but that really shouldn't keep them from producing hardware the mainstream user would want. The results speak for themselves, I've yet to see Apple desktop hardware that people want to buy in significant quanities to make a difference as far as Apple's bottom line goes.
Quote:
And in corporate America, it is cheaper to simply dump the computer and get a new one rather than upgrade. I have gotten a TON of off-lease computers, and NOT ONE has had any kind of upgrade beyond RAM & HD. No PCI slots filled, no processor upgrade, etc.
That may be the case some places but I'm actively involved in a project at a large corporation that recyles PC's into installations where there age and performance doesn't matter.
Quote:
The iMac's & eMac's are NOT for die-hard gamers and gurus. They are for Mom & Pop & kids who are fed up with spyware, viruses, and having to be their own tech support line.
That is the most interesting twist that I've seen on the market for the iMac and eMac that I've seen of late. If people were really fed up with those afflictions they would just switch over to Linux and not buy any new hardware.
That is the most interesting twist that I've seen on the market for the iMac and eMac that I've seen of late. If people were really fed up with those afflictions they would just switch over to Linux and not buy any new hardware.
Dave
Ma and Pa don't understand what linux is. They don't really understand what Windows is. Its just how the computer is built. I have a hard enough time installing linux distros and I install linux on a weekly basis. What makes you think that Ma and Pa will know enough to be able to configure modules and drivers... build drivers from source... etc. Not going to happen... Suse 9.1 is the closest thing I've seen to a smooth installation and I've seen that hiccup a hundred times also. But much better than the rest.
Sometimes $$ buys convenience. To me if I were in their shoes, buying a new mac would be much easier than switching to linux.
But I agreed with everything else you wrote above that.
If this were the case, Apple's overall sales would have shrunk along with their PowerMac sales. They haven't.
You really seem to be having a hard time with this. Apple has done well with the portables and the eMac because they meet market needs. For the eMac it may be the fact that it is a rugged all in one. The portables have their own attractivness. On the otherhand the PowerMacs barely lite a fire in any market - high, middle or low end desktop.
The PowerMacs for the low end are simply overpriced. For the middle end they lack what many now precieve to be required feature. At the high end they simply don't deliver the expandability that is expected of a workstation.
Quote:
You just can't accept that the machine the market "NEEDS" isn't one machine, and it isn't necessarily a tower either.
Accept? No I'm specifically saying that the PowerMac does not meet market requirements. The obvious deduction one can make from the position is that Apple either needs reconfigured PowerMacs or a supplemental machine for the desktop. Considering Apple recent desktop efforts I'm pretty much convinced that they won't get it right even if they do deliver a new machine.
Now I want it to be know that I'd love to be shown that I'm wrong here. I honestly believe that the engineering displayed in Apple hardware is top notch for what is delivered. It is simply a matter of Apple working with the market to produce a machine that the market wants.
Probally not much of a chance of that happening.
Quote:
That's only because you're trying to shoehorn the PowerMac into a market it doesn't belong in.
Agian you miss the point of the discussion. The problem with the PowerMac is that is a solution for problems nobody has. Lets face it the PowerMac is well engineered, that people would have a hard time denying, so the sales problems must be something else.
Quote:
That day will never come for most consumers. Only enthusiasts upgrade, as a general rule.
That is the biggest bunch of baloney I've heard recently. there isn't even a clean way to install a card reader on the iMac. That has got to be extremely short sightedness on Apples part. Sure one can throw on a USB tied device but that sort of does away with the clean desktop this machine exemplifies.
A USB reader is only one of a number of items that a iMac user might want to use with his machine. Dangling them all off the machine with USB cored isn't going to look to sweet.
Quote:
Besides, the current iMac is easier to upgrade in several respects (HDD, RAM, optical) and maintain (midplane, backplane, screen) than most PC towers, if it comes to that. Three little screws, and everything's laid out right there, as neat as you could want.
As for the clutter of external expansion: If you start with less clutter, you'll end up with less clutter. Only enthusiasts do internal upgrades. Most people are scared enough of computers (not from ignorance of them; from experience with them) to be wary of messing with their innards.
What you are missing here is those that don't like to do an upgrade themselve often take their PC to a dealer or have a friend install said upgrade.
Quote:
Ah, yes, the fallacy of the silent majority. A simple way to ignore the possibility that Apple, which has better numbers than anyone here, actually is listening to its customers.
I've yet to see that Apple has acted agressively to address PowerMac sales. In fact the only place where there seems to be clear evidence that Apple addresses the needs of users is with education. Apple only went about addressing educations needs after getting slapped around in that market pretty bad.
If anybody in this forum has clear evidence that Apple has attempted to address the needs of the users I'd like to see it. I'm still of the opinion that they build desktop machines that have as little hardware as possible in them, with the goal of selling the hardware at the highest possible prices they can get. What the user needs or wants has little to do with this process.
Quote:
If they ignored hardware, they'd just slap together the same commodity parts that everyone else does, and kick them out the door.
The reality is that the majority of the parts in an Apple machine are commodity parts. The major differences are the processor and the non standard motherboards.
Quote:
Lack of internal expandability simply is not an issue.
Well I have to disagree here. Apple missed the boat completely with the machine that should have been their expandable machine (PowerMac) and sales show it.
Quote:
The market is speaking. Set your own desires aside for a minute and listen.
Yes the market is speaking, all the various components of the market. Apple is only doing well where they have machines that meet specific market requirements. This would be education with the eMac and portables. Apple has not done so well at all on the desktop outside of education, and I have alot of reservations about the success of the iMac3.
The iMac3 is alot like the MacPlus I had many years ago. Innovative, even stylish for its time but in the end extremely limited. The difference is that I learned my lesson with the MacPlus and won't be so willing to repeat it with another Apple. Now one has to wonder how many new users will be suckered in with the iMac and learn the hard lessons the same way I did.
The iMac3 has some of the same historical problems as the old MacPlus. One of these was an extremely limited memory expansion capability given the addressing range of the processor in the unit. Another is nothing in the way of an externally accessible expansion bay of any size. Lets not forget limited graphics capability for its time. It didn't take long for the MacPlus to push the artificial addressing limits of the machine and it won't take long on the iMac3. Both seemed to be adequate at the time of introduction but each was overcome by the technological evolution in software.
Ma and Pa don't understand what linux is. They don't really understand what Windows is. Its just how the computer is built. I have a hard enough time installing linux distros and I install linux on a weekly basis. What makes you think that Ma and Pa will know enough to be able to configure modules and drivers... build drivers from source... etc. Not going to happen... Suse 9.1 is the closest thing I've seen to a smooth installation and I've seen that hiccup a hundred times also. But much better than the rest.
I've seen the issues you speak of here. To be honest people like that are far better off with a machine that they can get support for through friends, nieghbors or near by trusted dealers. It is a lot like buying a car some people really don't know what is going on inside.
On the other hand if I where to build a computer for sombody (generally I won't) I'd go with a Linux distro. With Linux I'm confident that I can install and configure a machine that would be fairly secure and give then a good user experience.
Quote:
Sometimes $$ buys convenience. To me if I were in their shoes, buying a new mac would be much easier than switching to linux.
Well some people have been known to go the route of a new machine. What would be interesting is if you would suggest that with a machine with Linux preinstalled. The reason I ask is that Mac OS/X is a UNIX of sort itself, once you wander from mainstream software (shrinked wrapped) it can actually be a difficult environment.
For a Ma or a Pa that just needs a machine to word process and cruise the web I don't see a big difference between the two. Yeah you need the most recent Linux distros but then agian one isn't likely to stick with an old version of OS/X either.
Dave
Quote:
But I agreed with everything else you wrote above that.
The supply of CPUs has great influence on the demographics targeted by Apple's various product lines.
It is my opinion that Apple has somewhat purposefully neglected the low end tower market recently. With a short supply of G5s, it makes sense to put the CPUs into machines which generate the most profit.
If Apple consumes G5s as fast as IBM can produce them, this would be the only logical course of action. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Is IBM running at 100% capacity on this line of chips?
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
Um, the original Macintosh line (through the SE/30)? Also a luggable desktop, but at a svelte 8 pounds, it was pretty luggable.
Still wasn't as popular as the original iMac... great machine but the #'s were never close to the iMacs.
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.
Yah, it does depend on the spectrum of people that are going to be purchasing... the majority's class. When I visualize PC switchers I picture "Ma and Pa", "the college student", "Video Peeps", and "gamers".
Ma and Pa will switch for simplicity. But I don't think they make up that much of the market share because most of them are still on windows 98. They don't see a need to upgrade because it fits their normal life. I'm talking about a majority. But they would likely buy an eMac or iMac if they were shown the "mac way".
The college Student almost falls in the same category but knows a little more about computers. Needs something faster and more efficient then the 98 machine. Possible they would buy an iBook or iMac... definitely not an eMac. Even though my gf just bought an eMac for 300 for college.
Video people will definitely buy an iMac if they were shown the "Mac way". I think a lot of pc users would switch from this category if they knew how well the mac could easily destroy the PC in this field... with simplicity.
And gamers we know that story.
So basically switchers could desire the iMac... but as much as the original? I guess we will see a year from now. I hope you're right... but if I was a PC user who knows how to build my own pc (and there are a lot of them, and I am one), I wouldn't settle for anything less than a dual 2.0 tower.
Originally posted by wizard69
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.
The fact is that most consumers, the ones that the iMac & eMac specifically target, NEVER upgrade their machines beyond RAM or a HD. I know people still using bone-stock SE's, and are perfectly happy with them.
Besides which, most consumers DO NOT WANT to learn about the hardware. They would just assume completely forget it was there. Most people don't know the diffenence between a HD & an Airport card, and they DON'T want to learn!!! The software is what they see and what controls their experience.
And in corporate America, it is cheaper to simply dump the computer and get a new one rather than upgrade. I have gotten a TON of off-lease computers, and NOT ONE has had any kind of upgrade beyond RAM & HD. No PCI slots filled, no processor upgrade, etc.
The iMac's & eMac's are NOT for die-hard gamers and gurus. They are for Mom & Pop & kids who are fed up with spyware, viruses, and having to be their own tech support line.
Originally posted by wizard69
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.
If this were the case, Apple's overall sales would have shrunk along with their PowerMac sales. They haven't.
You just can't accept that the machine the market "NEEDS" isn't one machine, and it isn't necessarily a tower either.
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.
That's only because you're trying to shoehorn the PowerMac into a market it doesn't belong in.
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.
That day will never come for most consumers. Only enthusiasts upgrade, as a general rule.
Besides, the current iMac is easier to upgrade in several respects (HDD, RAM, optical) and maintain (midplane, backplane, screen) than most PC towers, if it comes to that. Three little screws, and everything's laid out right there, as neat as you could want.
As for the clutter of external expansion: If you start with less clutter, you'll end up with less clutter. Only enthusiasts do internal upgrades. Most people are scared enough of computers (not from ignorance of them; from experience with them) to be wary of messing with their innards.
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.
Ah, yes, the fallacy of the silent majority. A simple way to ignore the possibility that Apple, which has better numbers than anyone here, actually is listening to its customers.
It is a fundamental mistake on Apples part to ignore hardware in favor of software.
If they ignored hardware, they'd just slap together the same commodity parts that everyone else does, and kick them out the door.
Lack of internal expandability simply is not an issue. The market is speaking. Set your own desires aside for a minute and listen.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
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.
A long time ago, the PC and the Mac both looked a lot different.
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.
Are you Paul Thurrott? Seriously.
End users call gurus because their PCs slow down to molasses, or crash constantly, or even die completely, because of all that crap. Besides, some of the spyware and adware makes itself known in other irritating ways that might not slow down the machine perceptibly, but which are no less irritating for that.
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.
For something so far out of step with the mainstream, it seems to be doing OK.
Besides, it's targeted primarily at K-12 schools, which to date have been slow to adopt LCDs.
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.
You're free to assume that, but it's clear to me that what they're doing is hewing to profitable markets in order to get themselves over $10b in sales, when their finances hit an inflection point and they have a lot more room to maneuver. There are a lot of "soft" reasons why people don't buy Macs, which Apple can erode over time simply by being successful at what they do over time. IBM willing, I don't think Apple will have much of a problem reaching their goals at this point. When they're not running at breakeven operationally, we'll see what they can really do (historically, they'll get arrogant and lose the plot, but we can always hope that Steve remains more focused than Apple was without him). In the meantime, they're not building the PC of your dreams at the pricepoint of your dreams for the simple reason that they don't see any sense in doing so.
Originally posted by Amorph
Besides, it's targeted primarily at K-12 schools, which to date have been slow to adopt LCDs.
As I recall, a CRT was overwhelmingly requested by educators for its ruggedness. The LCD will live longer if treated well, but lab computers are not historically treated well. Kids love to poke screens when they're pointing and glass is so much easier to clean. Plus the fact that when little Johnny discovers all the pretty colors when he pushes on his LCD, that screen quickly becomes a pretty paper-weight.
True, you can slap a piece of glass in front of the screen, but the LCD as a whole is still less rugged. It's easier to knock over for one thing.. etc etc..
Like I said earlier... if I had a lab for programming... it would consists of all eMacs. JUST FIX THE CD *SLAP* sound!!!
Originally posted by Guartho
As I recall, a CRT was overwhelmingly requested by educators for its ruggedness.
Are these the same educators who are buying iBooks for k-12? I never believed that to be the reason for the eMac. That was bull then and it is bull now. Schools didn't buy FP iMacs because they were priced out of range. If they doubted anything about its durability, it was the neck, not the screen. The iMac 2 looked like a toy. The eMac looked a lot more sturdy and familiar and fit within the budget. When iBooks came down in price, schools turned to them. Dell does not have a problem placing LCDs in schools. Apple just had to say something to justify the eMac other than "Oops, we goofed up big time with this new iMac."
If I was educating and had the choice between CRT eMac or the LCD iMac... I would choose the eMac for durability. Just like was said above... kids have a tendency to touch the screen and draw with their finger... which burns pixels out...
Its a known fact that CRT's are more rugged and durable than lcds... its just the way it is.
You can' compare iBooks to eMacs... completely different scenerio. Just like you can't compare iMacs to iBooks. One is a portable one is a desktop.
G4 1.5 Ghz
256 MB 333mhz ram
80 GB HD
ATI Radeon 9200 with 64 MB Vram
Combo Drive
$799
G4 1.5 Ghz
256 MB 333mhz ram
120 GB HD
ATI Radeon 9200 with 64 MB Vram
Superdrive
$999
I'm either dead on or close. Get used to it, no G5 until next update!
Originally posted by hegor
I'm either dead on or close. Get used to it, no G5 until next update!
At least.
Originally posted by hegor
ATI Radeon 9200 with 64 MB Vram
Why do you think there will be a bump to 64MB?
I'm hoping for a CoreVideo capable GPU at least... but maybe not until Tiger starts shipping (i.e. the eMac rev after this next one)
Originally posted by Uberspleef
The fact is that most consumers, the ones that the iMac & eMac specifically target, NEVER upgrade their machines beyond RAM or a HD. I know people still using bone-stock SE's, and are perfectly happy with them.
There are people that are very happy with the Model T sitting in the garage also. The upgrades you mentioned though are significant just by themselves. The problem is that Apple produces machines with artificial expansion limits. The iMac is a perfect Example here, does it make sense to limit a 64 bit processor to 2GB or RAM?
Besides which, most consumers DO NOT WANT to learn about the hardware. They would just assume completely forget it was there. Most people don't know the diffenence between a HD & an Airport card, and they DON'T want to learn!!! The software is what they see and what controls their experience.
It is fine that Apple wants to exploit the stupid but that really shouldn't keep them from producing hardware the mainstream user would want. The results speak for themselves, I've yet to see Apple desktop hardware that people want to buy in significant quanities to make a difference as far as Apple's bottom line goes.
And in corporate America, it is cheaper to simply dump the computer and get a new one rather than upgrade. I have gotten a TON of off-lease computers, and NOT ONE has had any kind of upgrade beyond RAM & HD. No PCI slots filled, no processor upgrade, etc.
That may be the case some places but I'm actively involved in a project at a large corporation that recyles PC's into installations where there age and performance doesn't matter.
The iMac's & eMac's are NOT for die-hard gamers and gurus. They are for Mom & Pop & kids who are fed up with spyware, viruses, and having to be their own tech support line.
That is the most interesting twist that I've seen on the market for the iMac and eMac that I've seen of late. If people were really fed up with those afflictions they would just switch over to Linux and not buy any new hardware.
Dave
Originally posted by Borborygmi
Why do you think there will be a bump to 64MB?
I'm hoping for a CoreVideo capable GPU at least... but maybe not until Tiger starts shipping (i.e. the eMac rev after this next one)
64mb would be required for CoreImage / CoreVideo requirements.
Originally posted by wizard69
That is the most interesting twist that I've seen on the market for the iMac and eMac that I've seen of late. If people were really fed up with those afflictions they would just switch over to Linux and not buy any new hardware.
Dave
Ma and Pa don't understand what linux is. They don't really understand what Windows is. Its just how the computer is built. I have a hard enough time installing linux distros and I install linux on a weekly basis. What makes you think that Ma and Pa will know enough to be able to configure modules and drivers... build drivers from source... etc. Not going to happen... Suse 9.1 is the closest thing I've seen to a smooth installation and I've seen that hiccup a hundred times also. But much better than the rest.
Sometimes $$ buys convenience. To me if I were in their shoes, buying a new mac would be much easier than switching to linux.
But I agreed with everything else you wrote above that.
Originally posted by Amorph
If this were the case, Apple's overall sales would have shrunk along with their PowerMac sales. They haven't.
You really seem to be having a hard time with this. Apple has done well with the portables and the eMac because they meet market needs. For the eMac it may be the fact that it is a rugged all in one. The portables have their own attractivness. On the otherhand the PowerMacs barely lite a fire in any market - high, middle or low end desktop.
The PowerMacs for the low end are simply overpriced. For the middle end they lack what many now precieve to be required feature. At the high end they simply don't deliver the expandability that is expected of a workstation.
You just can't accept that the machine the market "NEEDS" isn't one machine, and it isn't necessarily a tower either.
Accept? No I'm specifically saying that the PowerMac does not meet market requirements. The obvious deduction one can make from the position is that Apple either needs reconfigured PowerMacs or a supplemental machine for the desktop. Considering Apple recent desktop efforts I'm pretty much convinced that they won't get it right even if they do deliver a new machine.
Now I want it to be know that I'd love to be shown that I'm wrong here. I honestly believe that the engineering displayed in Apple hardware is top notch for what is delivered. It is simply a matter of Apple working with the market to produce a machine that the market wants.
Probally not much of a chance of that happening.
That's only because you're trying to shoehorn the PowerMac into a market it doesn't belong in.
Agian you miss the point of the discussion. The problem with the PowerMac is that is a solution for problems nobody has. Lets face it the PowerMac is well engineered, that people would have a hard time denying, so the sales problems must be something else.
That day will never come for most consumers. Only enthusiasts upgrade, as a general rule.
That is the biggest bunch of baloney I've heard recently. there isn't even a clean way to install a card reader on the iMac. That has got to be extremely short sightedness on Apples part. Sure one can throw on a USB tied device but that sort of does away with the clean desktop this machine exemplifies.
A USB reader is only one of a number of items that a iMac user might want to use with his machine. Dangling them all off the machine with USB cored isn't going to look to sweet.
Besides, the current iMac is easier to upgrade in several respects (HDD, RAM, optical) and maintain (midplane, backplane, screen) than most PC towers, if it comes to that. Three little screws, and everything's laid out right there, as neat as you could want.
As for the clutter of external expansion: If you start with less clutter, you'll end up with less clutter. Only enthusiasts do internal upgrades. Most people are scared enough of computers (not from ignorance of them; from experience with them) to be wary of messing with their innards.
What you are missing here is those that don't like to do an upgrade themselve often take their PC to a dealer or have a friend install said upgrade.
Ah, yes, the fallacy of the silent majority. A simple way to ignore the possibility that Apple, which has better numbers than anyone here, actually is listening to its customers.
I've yet to see that Apple has acted agressively to address PowerMac sales. In fact the only place where there seems to be clear evidence that Apple addresses the needs of users is with education. Apple only went about addressing educations needs after getting slapped around in that market pretty bad.
If anybody in this forum has clear evidence that Apple has attempted to address the needs of the users I'd like to see it. I'm still of the opinion that they build desktop machines that have as little hardware as possible in them, with the goal of selling the hardware at the highest possible prices they can get. What the user needs or wants has little to do with this process.
If they ignored hardware, they'd just slap together the same commodity parts that everyone else does, and kick them out the door.
The reality is that the majority of the parts in an Apple machine are commodity parts. The major differences are the processor and the non standard motherboards.
Lack of internal expandability simply is not an issue.
Well I have to disagree here. Apple missed the boat completely with the machine that should have been their expandable machine (PowerMac) and sales show it.
The market is speaking. Set your own desires aside for a minute and listen.
Yes the market is speaking, all the various components of the market. Apple is only doing well where they have machines that meet specific market requirements. This would be education with the eMac and portables. Apple has not done so well at all on the desktop outside of education, and I have alot of reservations about the success of the iMac3.
The iMac3 is alot like the MacPlus I had many years ago. Innovative, even stylish for its time but in the end extremely limited. The difference is that I learned my lesson with the MacPlus and won't be so willing to repeat it with another Apple. Now one has to wonder how many new users will be suckered in with the iMac and learn the hard lessons the same way I did.
The iMac3 has some of the same historical problems as the old MacPlus. One of these was an extremely limited memory expansion capability given the addressing range of the processor in the unit. Another is nothing in the way of an externally accessible expansion bay of any size. Lets not forget limited graphics capability for its time. It didn't take long for the MacPlus to push the artificial addressing limits of the machine and it won't take long on the iMac3. Both seemed to be adequate at the time of introduction but each was overcome by the technological evolution in software.
Dave
Originally posted by emig647
Ma and Pa don't understand what linux is. They don't really understand what Windows is. Its just how the computer is built. I have a hard enough time installing linux distros and I install linux on a weekly basis. What makes you think that Ma and Pa will know enough to be able to configure modules and drivers... build drivers from source... etc. Not going to happen... Suse 9.1 is the closest thing I've seen to a smooth installation and I've seen that hiccup a hundred times also. But much better than the rest.
I've seen the issues you speak of here. To be honest people like that are far better off with a machine that they can get support for through friends, nieghbors or near by trusted dealers. It is a lot like buying a car some people really don't know what is going on inside.
On the other hand if I where to build a computer for sombody (generally I won't) I'd go with a Linux distro. With Linux I'm confident that I can install and configure a machine that would be fairly secure and give then a good user experience.
Quote:
Sometimes $$ buys convenience. To me if I were in their shoes, buying a new mac would be much easier than switching to linux.
Well some people have been known to go the route of a new machine. What would be interesting is if you would suggest that with a machine with Linux preinstalled. The reason I ask is that Mac OS/X is a UNIX of sort itself, once you wander from mainstream software (shrinked wrapped) it can actually be a difficult environment.
For a Ma or a Pa that just needs a machine to word process and cruise the web I don't see a big difference between the two. Yeah you need the most recent Linux distros but then agian one isn't likely to stick with an old version of OS/X either.
Dave
Quote:
But I agreed with everything else you wrote above that.
It is my opinion that Apple has somewhat purposefully neglected the low end tower market recently. With a short supply of G5s, it makes sense to put the CPUs into machines which generate the most profit.
If Apple consumes G5s as fast as IBM can produce them, this would be the only logical course of action. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Is IBM running at 100% capacity on this line of chips?