Was the LCD iMac an experiment?

in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hey, all.

Just brainstorming here. I wonder if the new iMac was an experiment from Apple; one that would have each product last one year from introduction (or upgrading), and be replaced on a yearly basis.

I wonder if they thought it would work. Hell, it probably looks great on paper - Apple's products usually stay "in style" for a very long time (thus no further design R&D needed for at least a year), they would keep value over time by gradually reducing the price (i.e. $1399 to $1299 to $1199, thus no further engineering R&D needed for at least a year), and sales/margins would remain steady as the production costs went down while sales simultaneously dwindled.

The question though is: does this work?

That's very touchy. I can see both sides, as I am still selling 17" iMacs (though almost no 15" models), and I sold Quicksilvers right up through (and after) the MDD announcement. And the new, just-released Sony W10 all-in-one is about the same as the iMac Combo Drive (remember, it's almost a year old), only the VAIO is $100 more. But on the other hand, frequent insignificant updates are expected (even assumed) to be the norm - look at printers. How much have printers changed in the last, say, 24 months? Not much, right, in terms of actual printing technology (printed output of today vs. 2000)? But I see new models of printers released almost monthly. And Sony is a huge one for updating a product's look rather than its substance (i.e. same guts, new case). But what's better? For you, for Apple, for everyone? What criteria do you buy on?

Now that "the next big things" are several months to a year apart, should Apple & PC makers consolidate into a yearly update program? Should they conform closer to the auto industry?

[steps to the side as flood gates open]

- Johnny Dangerously

[ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: Johnny Dangerously ]</p>


  • Reply 1 of 2
    Yes, it was an experiment... an experiment to see just how ****ing cool of a computer they can build, and they pulled it off!

    Wow, aren't experiments cool!

  • Reply 2 of 2
    mcqmcq Posts: 1,543member
    If Apple went to a yearly update cycle, they'd just shoot themselves in the foot. As I see it right now, they need to do some catching up to PCs in terms of speed (not necessarily get all the way up to Intel's speeds, but maybe get it to 2 GHz) soon, and a yearly update cycle would certainly slow down that process. Assuming they switch to that IBM processor next year (GPUL or whatever it is), hopefully the scaling on it will be good enough that they could actually have more update cycles (or same cycles as it is now, but better bumps in speed).

    This would never happen... processors (graphics, hd, etc.) get incrementally faster/bigger just a little too quick for computer makers not to not have updates every several months.
Sign In or Register to comment.