Was the LCD iMac an experiment?
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>
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>
Comments
Wow, aren't experiments cool!
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.