I'm using a 23" display at the office (with a PB) and have a 20" G5 iMac at home. Basically the two computing experiences are very close - especially since they are not side by side.
I think that the cost of a 23" display would put the price of a 23" iMac too high. Apple is going to continue to get good margins on iMacs as they fund part of the half a billion dollars spent each year on R&D. I'm willing to pay that R&D tax when I buy Apple products as I believe it will help me in the future. (I also own a few shares in AAPL and the stock price increase has been greater than the R&D tax. )
I think that future revs of the iMac will be focused on the inside, largely based on IBM's efforts.
Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.
With that option - I would buy the 20" in a heartbeat. I agree with the other poster that displays obsclete at a different rate than CPU's, this would indeed attract the multi-computer family like mine.
Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.
I'd rather see that too. It takes some of the sting away from the un-upgradeability of the iMac. Is it feasible? Is there some sort of hack, like the spanning hack, that would make it possible? Or would it require low level hardware support that only Apple could implement?
I would forget HD on an iMac unless Apple reviews its policy of including old video cards in iMacs.
I think is very possible for the Imac (maybe the 20") to have HD resolution in the next upgrade. Apple seems to be incorporating HD support on the consumer software.(Imovie) so it would make sense to have the same support on the consumer hardware (Imac).
I don't think Apple will have a 23" iMac, at least not in the immediate future.
Space is a concern, mainly in that it's generally unfeasible to have a display that simultaneously handles 1080 HD, hits 100 dpi, and doesn't swallow up the average home user's desk.
However, I'd think the main reason is that it's simply not as important to deal with 1080 HD on a non-pro desktop yet. Let's say a home user buys a $3700 Sony HD camera. It can record 1080i, but most people buying iMacs aren't going to max out the hard drive option or get an external Firewire drive for the purpose. They probably won't also need to watch the video at a 1:1 scale on the computer, either.
And most important of all: if they can afford a $3700 HD camera, what the heck are they doing buying a computer that costs half as much to edit it on? They should be buying a PowerMac with a 23" display.
Large panel prices continue to freefall. Using competitors retail prices it would be possible to marry about 23" worth of display, and about 999 worth of iMac internals, and still spit out a machine in the 1999 range, the first 20" iMac cost $2199, and it sold well enough (compared to the other models).
By the end of this calendar year (x-mas '05) prices will be such that 23" panels are retailing for 999, and not cheapies either, but good quality units, from vendors like Dell.
Can you say MWSF '06 ?
PS. The size of tha machine is a non-issue. The current iMac 20" has a healthy bezel, and a leno-esque chin, all of which can absorb a 23" panel without adversely effecting the footprint of the machine.
Also, there is no "should" in Mac buying circles. A G5 with up to 2GB of RAM is more power than even the most advanced Final Cut jockeys were working with 2 years ago, a 970MP is imminent as well... You can't say what pros should be buying, I know of more than a few graphic designers that worked with original gumdrop iMacs, many for years afetr better equipment came out. The guy who puts together our web spots works with a 9600 beight tower (I think that's what it is) that he salvaged from a lab full of leftover equipment. I don't know, I think he'd be thrilled to get a 23" iMac and some big external drives... And even that assumes that people who bought the original 20" iMac wouldn't be lured by a much more powerful (now G5) 23" model. Of course they would.
It is debatable whether Apple really wants anyone to buy their towers for desktop use in lieu of another option. If they could take most 'pros' and get them to buy iMacs, I think they would.
It is debatable whether Apple really wants anyone to buy their towers for desktop use in lieu of another option. If they could take most 'pros' and get them to buy iMacs, I think they would.
I really don't see why they would insist on that.
The displays are little more than panels bought from someone else. They are turning into commodity, and you can't get good margins for a commodity. And computers age many times faster than displays, so in the timeframe of buying many AIO's you could buy one display and several, correspondingly more expensive, headless boxes.
Now, shouldn't Apple rather push the computers, which they get their profits from, than unproductive "extra" panels in AIOs?
Not to mention this would give better value for the customer and allow Apple to tighten the margin screws a little more.
edit: I just now noticed you were talking about towers, but there's nothing that prevents them from releasing a G5 mini.
The mini might change things, and I'm not even saying this is right, only that Apple prefers it, so let's look at the history.
Pros will either need flexibility, and/or display choice.
Apple, however, puts a high premium on flexibility, and there has been all sorts of overlap between the high-end iMac/Cube and low-end towers. The advantage of the iMac being that you get a display for your money, the advantage of the towers being that you get more options.
The built-in display is also a disadvantage from a pro point of view, but that's only when you can't get an adaquate screen size. 20"+ negates much of the need for more display options.
Next comes flexibility for things like drives, RAM, cards... Apple made a big deal about the user friendly internals of the new G5 Mac. As far as drives and I/O are concerned, a FW800 link would probably give the iMac all the I/O options that a pro is ever going to need. I say this because pros usually buy a machine with a specific use in mind, and rarely change to some other use along the way. New uses are typically not "upgrades" for these buyers, but rather downgrades to some other use as they move on to newer equipment -- that workstation becomes a file server, for instance, or dad's machine goes to the kids room, etc etc... Cards, well, you can't do that, but again, if the video card works well with the display, and they are sufficient for the current use at the time of purchase, then the parameters bewteen those two won't chnage, and so neither will there be too much need to ever change the card.
Remember, the original 20" G4 iMac cost 2199 at a time when G4 towers could be had for 1499. Top end G3 iBooks have sported faster CPU's than the G3 powerbooks... It's not about clear divisions between "consumer" and "pro" these categories are largely marketting illusions, it's about offering options to different target audiences.
A 23" iMac at 2199 initially, an 1899 after a few months... I wonder, I think a lot pros would bite...
Comments
Originally posted by PB
Heh, after the IBM bomb with the 970MP, what about a 23" dual-core iMac
In that case, bring it on!
I think that the cost of a 23" display would put the price of a 23" iMac too high. Apple is going to continue to get good margins on iMacs as they fund part of the half a billion dollars spent each year on R&D. I'm willing to pay that R&D tax when I buy Apple products as I believe it will help me in the future. (I also own a few shares in AAPL and the stock price increase has been greater than the R&D tax.
I think that future revs of the iMac will be focused on the inside, largely based on IBM's efforts.
Originally posted by Bancho
Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.
With that option - I would buy the 20" in a heartbeat. I agree with the other poster that displays obsclete at a different rate than CPU's, this would indeed attract the multi-computer family like mine.
Originally posted by Bancho
Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.
I'd rather see that too. It takes some of the sting away from the un-upgradeability of the iMac. Is it feasible? Is there some sort of hack, like the spanning hack, that would make it possible? Or would it require low level hardware support that only Apple could implement?
Originally posted by Addison
I would forget HD on an iMac unless Apple reviews its policy of including old video cards in iMacs.
I think is very possible for the Imac (maybe the 20") to have HD resolution in the next upgrade. Apple seems to be incorporating HD support on the consumer software.(Imovie) so it would make sense to have the same support on the consumer hardware (Imac).
Space is a concern, mainly in that it's generally unfeasible to have a display that simultaneously handles 1080 HD, hits 100 dpi, and doesn't swallow up the average home user's desk.
However, I'd think the main reason is that it's simply not as important to deal with 1080 HD on a non-pro desktop yet. Let's say a home user buys a $3700 Sony HD camera. It can record 1080i, but most people buying iMacs aren't going to max out the hard drive option or get an external Firewire drive for the purpose. They probably won't also need to watch the video at a 1:1 scale on the computer, either.
And most important of all: if they can afford a $3700 HD camera, what the heck are they doing buying a computer that costs half as much to edit it on? They should be buying a PowerMac with a 23" display.
By the end of this calendar year (x-mas '05) prices will be such that 23" panels are retailing for 999, and not cheapies either, but good quality units, from vendors like Dell.
Can you say MWSF '06 ?
PS. The size of tha machine is a non-issue. The current iMac 20" has a healthy bezel, and a leno-esque chin, all of which can absorb a 23" panel without adversely effecting the footprint of the machine.
Also, there is no "should" in Mac buying circles. A G5 with up to 2GB of RAM is more power than even the most advanced Final Cut jockeys were working with 2 years ago, a 970MP is imminent as well... You can't say what pros should be buying, I know of more than a few graphic designers that worked with original gumdrop iMacs, many for years afetr better equipment came out. The guy who puts together our web spots works with a 9600 beight tower (I think that's what it is) that he salvaged from a lab full of leftover equipment. I don't know, I think he'd be thrilled to get a 23" iMac and some big external drives... And even that assumes that people who bought the original 20" iMac wouldn't be lured by a much more powerful (now G5) 23" model. Of course they would.
It is debatable whether Apple really wants anyone to buy their towers for desktop use in lieu of another option. If they could take most 'pros' and get them to buy iMacs, I think they would.
Originally posted by Matsu
It is debatable whether Apple really wants anyone to buy their towers for desktop use in lieu of another option. If they could take most 'pros' and get them to buy iMacs, I think they would.
I really don't see why they would insist on that.
The displays are little more than panels bought from someone else. They are turning into commodity, and you can't get good margins for a commodity. And computers age many times faster than displays, so in the timeframe of buying many AIO's you could buy one display and several, correspondingly more expensive, headless boxes.
Now, shouldn't Apple rather push the computers, which they get their profits from, than unproductive "extra" panels in AIOs?
Not to mention this would give better value for the customer and allow Apple to tighten the margin screws a little more.
edit: I just now noticed you were talking about towers, but there's nothing that prevents them from releasing a G5 mini.
Pros will either need flexibility, and/or display choice.
Apple, however, puts a high premium on flexibility, and there has been all sorts of overlap between the high-end iMac/Cube and low-end towers. The advantage of the iMac being that you get a display for your money, the advantage of the towers being that you get more options.
The built-in display is also a disadvantage from a pro point of view, but that's only when you can't get an adaquate screen size. 20"+ negates much of the need for more display options.
Next comes flexibility for things like drives, RAM, cards... Apple made a big deal about the user friendly internals of the new G5 Mac. As far as drives and I/O are concerned, a FW800 link would probably give the iMac all the I/O options that a pro is ever going to need. I say this because pros usually buy a machine with a specific use in mind, and rarely change to some other use along the way. New uses are typically not "upgrades" for these buyers, but rather downgrades to some other use as they move on to newer equipment -- that workstation becomes a file server, for instance, or dad's machine goes to the kids room, etc etc... Cards, well, you can't do that, but again, if the video card works well with the display, and they are sufficient for the current use at the time of purchase, then the parameters bewteen those two won't chnage, and so neither will there be too much need to ever change the card.
Remember, the original 20" G4 iMac cost 2199 at a time when G4 towers could be had for 1499. Top end G3 iBooks have sported faster CPU's than the G3 powerbooks... It's not about clear divisions between "consumer" and "pro" these categories are largely marketting illusions, it's about offering options to different target audiences.
A 23" iMac at 2199 initially, an 1899 after a few months... I wonder, I think a lot pros would bite...
If a 23" iMac is released, I'll be picking one up for myself.