I am inclined to think similarly about this. I expect Apple to be rather conservative in the following months or year, in regard to updates in the consumer lines. Especially when there is no reason to not do so. The current (and even more so the next) iMac delivers more processing power than the average user needs today.
Apple needs to gain market share, right now they seem poised to do that in the consumer space, no the pro space. Their cross marketing with the iPod and laptops are pointing in this direction as well as their current focus in advertising. They are not going to grow market share unless they release computers that are competative in their target market. That is not to say that Apple cannot be the most expensive in that target market, but it cannot be so much that consumers won't switch. Don't forget that a they may have to replace a bit of software that will create a bit of an overhead in addition to the price of a computer. $100 more for an iMac over a similarly marketed and speced Dell will be OK, but $200-400 and people will be looking at Dell.
Now, I'm not saying they will use the 2.4 in the high end iMac, but component prices and similar models from Dell show that they can do so for the price that they are charging for the high end iMac. Now if they do not then the iMac should come down in price if they are going to release models that are competative in their target markets. Given the extra's for the Dell model above that Apple would not add to the imac will more than make up for the $50 difference in the faster processor, and that Apple is not likely to offer 1 GB RAM as standard then a "Fair" price for a 2.13 iMac would be no more than $1599, and a better price for it would be $1499. Given this the 17" should probably drop in price to $1199 or $1099. That leaves room for Apple to release a new "high end" model with a 2.4 in the $1899 or $1999 price range.
Came across this link where the conroe 2.9 ghz was trested against various machines. Oddly a dual 2.7 ghz g5 power mac was included in this mostly pc comparisson test. Anyway, the dual core Conroe outperformed the dual processor dual core Opteron systems in many tests. Unbelievable to me. A dual core conroe beating 4 core opteron systems. Link below
The rest of the Intel processor Mac's aren't just called Mac either:
- MacBook
- MacBook Pro
- Mac mini
- iMac
(and soon)
- Mac Pro
As you see they all have an appendix to their Mac.
Read this thread again for additional commentary on this great subject.
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
None of the latest Intel Mac's have a prefix like they use to:
PowerBook
PowerMac
iBook
iMac
Aside from Mac mini which is a new breed of computer in the product line and I think they already had the naming scheme thought up for the Intel based Mac's before this one came out.
Real question is will they drop the i and just call it Mac like the rest of the Intel processor Mac's.
If that were going to happen chances are that it would have been done back in January. Apple has a lot of time and money invested in the iMac brand, and it is a VERY recognizable name today. It also links the product with the iPod.
That being said, I realized while typing this that the new Mac commercials are not iMac commercials they are Mac commercials. The ones that show the iMac don't have the iMac name, just an apple with MAC next to it, so Maybe Apple is planning on getting rid of the "i" in Mac.
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
Look, we've been there. Logically, you're right: there's MacBook and MacBook Pro, so there should be Mac mini, Mac and Mac Pro. Unfortunately, there's two flaws with that:
1) iMac is a hugely established brand, much like iPod. They're not gonna kill it unless they come up with something better, and just "Mac" isn't better, because:
2) Having both a platform "Mac" and a computer "Mac" is greatly confusing. It's already confusing now in that many people I meet think that "iMac" is the new name for what used to be called "Macintosh": the platform. But naming the two exactly the same would be much worse.
2) Having both a platform "Mac" and a computer "Mac" is greatly confusing. It's already confusing now in that many people I meet think that "iMac" is the new name for what used to be called "Macintosh": the platform. But naming the two exactly the same would be much worse.
People put too much importance in this. On the other side of the isle they say they have a PC, and you assume that they are running Windows on it. Platform doesn't matter to most people in the way that you are suggesting. All they need to know is that they need to get a version that is OS X compatible, or Windows, or whatever.
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
None of the latest Intel Mac's have a prefix like they use to:
PowerBook
PowerMac
iBook
iMac
So?
The only consistency in Apples new naming scheme is that it has to have "Mac" in the name.
They did that, end of story.
If they need a product between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro they 'll come up with a creative solution as long as it isn't just "Mac".
Quote:
Aside from Mac mini which is a new breed of computer in the product line and I think they already had the naming scheme thought up for the Intel based Mac's before this one came out.
MacBook and MacBook Pro are newer breeds than your Mac mini.
This discussion doesn't make sense.
There are very good reasonable arguments in this thread why Apple shouldn't and wouldn't use a "Mac"only moniker for a product.
And some stupid lingual consistency reasons why the should.
For those looking for a new iMac, it seems that stock is running a bit tight. It was mentioned in an article I read earlier that the 17" model was a bit scarce, and at the UK store, the 20" model will now take five days to ship, even in standard spec. Update on Monday anyone?
That's a lot of odd sizes. Except for 20", and 24", the even size screens never seem to be popular, and have usually been replaced with one just 1" larger.
12 with 13, 14 with 15, 16 with 17, 18 was never popular at all,
I think that the 22" sounds good.. I'm sure taht there should be a big difference like the 17" vs 20" for Apple to go with the 22" instead of the 23" if in anycase they come up with it.. I don't see the current "chin" iMac fading away anytime soon, sure therea re lots of us that would love a 22" or 23" beefed up iMac but i guess that we'll settle for the 20" for now.. what i would like to see is more power on the iMacs: more ram @least up to 4GB and a more powerfull video card not just video ram but more powerfull one's.. this babies are for gaming too.. the black imac mockup looks very nice.. i guess we'll have to wait and see..
Comments
Originally posted by PB
I am inclined to think similarly about this. I expect Apple to be rather conservative in the following months or year, in regard to updates in the consumer lines. Especially when there is no reason to not do so. The current (and even more so the next) iMac delivers more processing power than the average user needs today.
Apple needs to gain market share, right now they seem poised to do that in the consumer space, no the pro space. Their cross marketing with the iPod and laptops are pointing in this direction as well as their current focus in advertising. They are not going to grow market share unless they release computers that are competative in their target market. That is not to say that Apple cannot be the most expensive in that target market, but it cannot be so much that consumers won't switch. Don't forget that a they may have to replace a bit of software that will create a bit of an overhead in addition to the price of a computer. $100 more for an iMac over a similarly marketed and speced Dell will be OK, but $200-400 and people will be looking at Dell.
Originally posted by @homenow
Now, I'm not saying they will use the 2.4 in the high end iMac, but component prices and similar models from Dell show that they can do so for the price that they are charging for the high end iMac. Now if they do not then the iMac should come down in price if they are going to release models that are competative in their target markets. Given the extra's for the Dell model above that Apple would not add to the imac will more than make up for the $50 difference in the faster processor, and that Apple is not likely to offer 1 GB RAM as standard then a "Fair" price for a 2.13 iMac would be no more than $1599, and a better price for it would be $1499. Given this the 17" should probably drop in price to $1199 or $1099. That leaves room for Apple to release a new "high end" model with a 2.4 in the $1899 or $1999 price range.
Agreed.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/a...jsp?id=53163-1
Originally posted by Feynman
Real question is will they drop the i and just call it Mac like the rest of the Intel processor Mac's.
uhm... no
The rest of the Intel processor Mac's aren't just called Mac either:
- MacBook
- MacBook Pro
- Mac mini
- iMac
(and soon)
- Mac Pro
As you see they all have an appendix to their Mac.
Read this thread again for additional commentary on this great subject.
Originally posted by gar
uhm... no
The rest of the Intel processor Mac's aren't just called Mac either:
- MacBook
- MacBook Pro
- Mac mini
- iMac
(and soon)
- Mac Pro
As you see they all have an appendix to their Mac.
Read this thread again for additional commentary on this great subject.
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
None of the latest Intel Mac's have a prefix like they use to:
PowerBook
PowerMac
iBook
iMac
Aside from Mac mini which is a new breed of computer in the product line and I think they already had the naming scheme thought up for the Intel based Mac's before this one came out.
Originally posted by Feynman
Real question is will they drop the i and just call it Mac like the rest of the Intel processor Mac's.
If that were going to happen chances are that it would have been done back in January. Apple has a lot of time and money invested in the iMac brand, and it is a VERY recognizable name today. It also links the product with the iPod.
That being said, I realized while typing this that the new Mac commercials are not iMac commercials they are Mac commercials. The ones that show the iMac don't have the iMac name, just an apple with MAC next to it, so Maybe Apple is planning on getting rid of the "i" in Mac.
Originally posted by Feynman
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
Look, we've been there. Logically, you're right: there's MacBook and MacBook Pro, so there should be Mac mini, Mac and Mac Pro. Unfortunately, there's two flaws with that:
1) iMac is a hugely established brand, much like iPod. They're not gonna kill it unless they come up with something better, and just "Mac" isn't better, because:
2) Having both a platform "Mac" and a computer "Mac" is greatly confusing. It's already confusing now in that many people I meet think that "iMac" is the new name for what used to be called "Macintosh": the platform. But naming the two exactly the same would be much worse.
Originally posted by Chucker
2) Having both a platform "Mac" and a computer "Mac" is greatly confusing. It's already confusing now in that many people I meet think that "iMac" is the new name for what used to be called "Macintosh": the platform. But naming the two exactly the same would be much worse.
People put too much importance in this. On the other side of the isle they say they have a PC, and you assume that they are running Windows on it. Platform doesn't matter to most people in the way that you are suggesting. All they need to know is that they need to get a version that is OS X compatible, or Windows, or whatever.
Originally posted by Feynman
As you can see though your list is consistent aside from the naming scheme of the iMac.
None of the latest Intel Mac's have a prefix like they use to:
PowerBook
PowerMac
iBook
iMac
So?
The only consistency in Apples new naming scheme is that it has to have "Mac" in the name.
They did that, end of story.
If they need a product between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro they 'll come up with a creative solution as long as it isn't just "Mac".
Aside from Mac mini which is a new breed of computer in the product line and I think they already had the naming scheme thought up for the Intel based Mac's before this one came out.
MacBook and MacBook Pro are newer breeds than your Mac mini.
This discussion doesn't make sense.
There are very good reasonable arguments in this thread why Apple shouldn't and wouldn't use a "Mac"only moniker for a product.
And some stupid lingual consistency reasons why the should.
I quit.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/01/fi...uo_benchmarks/
and 19", 22", 27" Cinema Displays with iSights.
I'm still hoping for 19" & 22" iMacs,
and 19", 22", 27" Cinema Displays with iSights.
That's a lot of odd sizes. Except for 20", and 24", the even size screens never seem to be popular, and have usually been replaced with one just 1" larger.
12 with 13, 14 with 15, 16 with 17, 18 was never popular at all,
Newegg has plenty of widescreen 19" displays:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...SubCategory=20
...whereas 22" is predicted as becoming poular:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/29/m...lcd-for-vista/
...and 27" will be offered soon by Dell:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1466
...18 was never popular at all,
I did not even know it existed.
I'm still hoping for 19" & 22" iMacs,
and 19", 22", 27" Cinema Displays with iSights.
I agree with you, the 19" has definitely taken over as the new 17" and the 22" is the new 20", so to speak.
Fow now my 20" will do it for me..!
I did not even know it existed.
You see?
———————————
This new forum software is really annoying.
I left the first two words as my reply, but it said that my message was too short!! What's up here?
I quess no more
Too bad.