I would love those price points. But 2 17" would be cheaper than 1 20". Those prices seem too low, very UnApple like.
Jack the 17" up to Apple's twice as much as everyone else pricing and Apple isn't going to sell too many. You have to be pretty fanatical to spring $700 for Apple's 20". The buyers who would want the 17 inch are not very likely to spend $400-500 on a $200 display to get the Apple logo.
I was making the point that Apple start with higher quality components with higher specifications usually but that doesn't mean they are immune to problems. Dell starts with lower quality components which may be equally prone to problems, or more, or less.
In the bicycle world we have the phrase "Cheap, Light, Reliable - Pick two" cf Keith Bontrager and it holds true for computers too mostly.
Often the most reliable products are also dirt cheap, but rarely are they high specification. In the same vein, buying on high specification doesn't guarantee reliability if it's also cheap.
In some cases they do. Unfortunately, that won't always result in a better product. The biggest problem, and not only for Apple (look at Sony this year), is manufacturing defects.
In my company, we were able to test every component we used, and discarded the ones that didn't meet the requirements (or sent them back). We also stress tested certain components, and the finished products, severely.
But, we were making commercial grade products, and charged for them.
Companies who are making products not aimed at commercial, or industrial customers, can't do that. We also didn't sell anywhere near the same amount of product.
These companies rely on the part suppliers for qualifying the parts. They may test a few, but that's all.
For example, Barco's 24" medical monitors cost over $6,000, and some cost over $10,000. The quality control, as you would expect, is very high.
6 bit panels are the most popular. But not much longer. With panel prices dropping rapidly, despite manufactures cutting down on production, the price of 6 bit panels will be too low for them to make much profit. The we'll see 8 bit panels as the standard. With 10 and higher bit panels coming out, things will be getting better at all levels.
And with LEDs about to become fairly prevalent as backlights, their prices will drop. There are now two LED lit DLP Tv monitors at the 42" size for between $3,800 and $4,000. This is a good sign.
hmm, perhaps apple has something else in mind for a 17" panel. I don't see them selling one unless its a 'bundle' with a mini or for some entirely different purpose.
What if they built some kind of gidget whistle...has a small wireless controller and all it does is show widgets....i've always wanted to get some old imac (gooseneck model) and just have it run weather, news etc in widgets, always on. My wife always says, hey, whats the weather going to be like in morenci or san diego and instead of going to weather.com i could just point at the fart whistle that just shows widget gunk.
why not something like that, just a flat panel you put anywhere, with an ipod like brain and wireless connection to something in your home (other mac) and it just displays whoosiwhatsits, $299, available in pastel monkey butt.
The only item Apple ever brought back from cancellation is Steve Jobs. I doubt that changes. No standalone 17" display is coming back...not with an Apple logo on it.
For those who say that a mini and a 17" display under $1000 is a perfect combination...it's called an iMac.
The only item Apple ever brought back from cancellation is Steve Jobs. I doubt that changes. No standalone 17" display is coming back...not with an Apple logo on it.
One could argue that the eMac was the second coming of the CRT iMac. That came about because they figured out they were losing money to Dell and HP having only the LCD iMacs.
Quote:
For those who say that a mini and a 17" display under $1000 is a perfect combination...it's called an iMac.
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
Some people don't like it because it restricts their buying patterns.
What about hard drive expansion? Have you ever bought a hard drive thinking that you'd never fill it up and found out a year later that you were wrong? Having an all-in-one that saves cable clutter is counterproductive if you have to have an external hard drive to supplement it. I sure as heck don't want to pay Apple's steep hard drive prices to get the biggest one in the first place. That would not have been a problem except when Apple changed it so that it's needlessly hard to get inside the case.
No, actually, I haven't. I did fill up one that's 1 month shy of 5 years old, though, but then I bought a laptop for college.
But again, that was after 4.5 years or so; an average life span (in my opinion) of a decent computer, in the sense that it is still good enough four years from production.
Still, I would think if you're making a large purchase, you would make an educated choice so that you wouldn't make that sort of mistake a year later.
And if someone is buying an external hard drive for the purpose of having an external hard drive, then neither an all-in-one / regular computer + monitor would make a difference.
When I/My family buys computers, they tend to last a while. Now, you pay for what you get. So for those that like to spend less per machine but more overall, then I guess yeah it would crap out early. My family has always bought a nice computer for more money, and we've kept them all for at least several years. (The most recent PC will be five at the beginning of Feb. '07; My Dad's laptop already is). So when I bought my MBP 17", I expected it to last all four years of college, and still do.
Like I said above, if you're buying something that wouldn't last two years it wouldn't be from Apple, would it? (OK, so Apple doesn't make hard drives. But you should get my point).
Still, I would think if you're making a large purchase, you would make an educated choice so that you wouldn't make that sort of mistake a year later.
I don't think it's nearly that simple, I think it's short-sighted to say that. There's always unforseen variables, changes in the usage pattern after purchase. You've never done this? Even if you knew that you'd need a big drive two years from now, it may be better to put off that purchase until it's needed because the big drive might be less than half the price by then. Buying it now, when it's not needed yet, would be a waste of money.
I bought a pair of 400's three months ago, a PVR stick last month and I'm filling the drives up a lot more quickly than I expected to when I bought the drives.
One could argue that the eMac was the second coming of the CRT iMac. That came about because they figured out they were losing money to Dell and HP having only the LCD iMacs.
Believe or not, not everyone wants an all in one.
1. I don't believe the iMac was cancelled. Nor has the eMac come back. Your point?
2. The phrase 'two great tastes that taste great together' comes to mind. After all, someone did mention a 17 being a perfect compliment to the mini.
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
-=|Mgkwho
One main reason it that the monitor is part of the unit.
After all, the monitor is likely to outlast the rest of the machine in usefullness, but would be impossible to use after you want to junk the rest of the machine.
Also, regarding the monitor, Many people start with a smaller model for various reasons, and then step up to a larger one, handing the smaller one down to someone else. An all in one makes this impractical.
Well, Macworld has come and gone and no 17" display. I -- for one -- am not surprised.
Just another instance of DigiTimes making sh*t up.
It would be in AppleInsider's best interest to ignore DigiTimes (or to post a massive disclaimer about their unreliability).
Don't rush to judgement so quickly. Apple didn't announce ANYTHING other than the iPhone, and the AppleTv, and came out with, but didn't announce, the new Airport Express.
I'm waiting on a refreshed Mac Pro, and nothing was said there either.
DigiTimes does suck, but any other announcements of relatively boring products probably would have been ignored or forgotten. From a PR perspective, Apple is better off announcing an updated product every month than they are updating too many products in one shot. Apple gets plenty of ink every time they make an announcement, and I think they get more if they spread out their announcements. That's basically free advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
We are talking about the Macworld without Macs here.
They had Macs there, just no new Macs were announced.
Comments
I would love those price points. But 2 17" would be cheaper than 1 20". Those prices seem too low, very UnApple like.
Jack the 17" up to Apple's twice as much as everyone else pricing and Apple isn't going to sell too many. You have to be pretty fanatical to spring $700 for Apple's 20". The buyers who would want the 17 inch are not very likely to spend $400-500 on a $200 display to get the Apple logo.
Was it?
I was making the point that Apple start with higher quality components with higher specifications usually but that doesn't mean they are immune to problems. Dell starts with lower quality components which may be equally prone to problems, or more, or less.
In the bicycle world we have the phrase "Cheap, Light, Reliable - Pick two" cf Keith Bontrager and it holds true for computers too mostly.
Often the most reliable products are also dirt cheap, but rarely are they high specification. In the same vein, buying on high specification doesn't guarantee reliability if it's also cheap.
In some cases they do. Unfortunately, that won't always result in a better product. The biggest problem, and not only for Apple (look at Sony this year), is manufacturing defects.
In my company, we were able to test every component we used, and discarded the ones that didn't meet the requirements (or sent them back). We also stress tested certain components, and the finished products, severely.
But, we were making commercial grade products, and charged for them.
Companies who are making products not aimed at commercial, or industrial customers, can't do that. We also didn't sell anywhere near the same amount of product.
These companies rely on the part suppliers for qualifying the parts. They may test a few, but that's all.
For example, Barco's 24" medical monitors cost over $6,000, and some cost over $10,000. The quality control, as you would expect, is very high.
It uses the same 6bit panel. Lots of monitors use that panel...
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=1958386
6 bit panels are the most popular. But not much longer. With panel prices dropping rapidly, despite manufactures cutting down on production, the price of 6 bit panels will be too low for them to make much profit. The we'll see 8 bit panels as the standard. With 10 and higher bit panels coming out, things will be getting better at all levels.
And with LEDs about to become fairly prevalent as backlights, their prices will drop. There are now two LED lit DLP Tv monitors at the 42" size for between $3,800 and $4,000. This is a good sign.
Even front projectors are getting LED lights.
What if they built some kind of gidget whistle...has a small wireless controller and all it does is show widgets....i've always wanted to get some old imac (gooseneck model) and just have it run weather, news etc in widgets, always on. My wife always says, hey, whats the weather going to be like in morenci or san diego and instead of going to weather.com i could just point at the fart whistle that just shows widget gunk.
why not something like that, just a flat panel you put anywhere, with an ipod like brain and wireless connection to something in your home (other mac) and it just displays whoosiwhatsits, $299, available in pastel monkey butt.
it could be for itv and still need the price down.
For those who say that a mini and a 17" display under $1000 is a perfect combination...it's called an iMac.
The only item Apple ever brought back from cancellation is Steve Jobs. I doubt that changes. No standalone 17" display is coming back...not with an Apple logo on it.
One could argue that the eMac was the second coming of the CRT iMac. That came about because they figured out they were losing money to Dell and HP having only the LCD iMacs.
For those who say that a mini and a 17" display under $1000 is a perfect combination...it's called an iMac.
Believe or not, not everyone wants an all in one.
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
-=|Mgkwho
Why wouldn't you want an all in one?
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
Some people don't like it because it restricts their buying patterns.
What about hard drive expansion? Have you ever bought a hard drive thinking that you'd never fill it up and found out a year later that you were wrong? Having an all-in-one that saves cable clutter is counterproductive if you have to have an external hard drive to supplement it. I sure as heck don't want to pay Apple's steep hard drive prices to get the biggest one in the first place. That would not have been a problem except when Apple changed it so that it's needlessly hard to get inside the case.
But again, that was after 4.5 years or so; an average life span (in my opinion) of a decent computer, in the sense that it is still good enough four years from production.
Still, I would think if you're making a large purchase, you would make an educated choice so that you wouldn't make that sort of mistake a year later.
And if someone is buying an external hard drive for the purpose of having an external hard drive, then neither an all-in-one / regular computer + monitor would make a difference.
When I/My family buys computers, they tend to last a while. Now, you pay for what you get. So for those that like to spend less per machine but more overall, then I guess yeah it would crap out early. My family has always bought a nice computer for more money, and we've kept them all for at least several years. (The most recent PC will be five at the beginning of Feb. '07; My Dad's laptop already is). So when I bought my MBP 17", I expected it to last all four years of college, and still do.
Like I said above, if you're buying something that wouldn't last two years it wouldn't be from Apple, would it? (OK, so Apple doesn't make hard drives. But you should get my point).
-=|Mgkwho
Still, I would think if you're making a large purchase, you would make an educated choice so that you wouldn't make that sort of mistake a year later.
I don't think it's nearly that simple, I think it's short-sighted to say that. There's always unforseen variables, changes in the usage pattern after purchase. You've never done this? Even if you knew that you'd need a big drive two years from now, it may be better to put off that purchase until it's needed because the big drive might be less than half the price by then. Buying it now, when it's not needed yet, would be a waste of money.
I bought a pair of 400's three months ago, a PVR stick last month and I'm filling the drives up a lot more quickly than I expected to when I bought the drives.
One could argue that the eMac was the second coming of the CRT iMac. That came about because they figured out they were losing money to Dell and HP having only the LCD iMacs.
Believe or not, not everyone wants an all in one.
1. I don't believe the iMac was cancelled. Nor has the eMac come back. Your point?
2. The phrase 'two great tastes that taste great together' comes to mind. After all, someone did mention a 17 being a perfect compliment to the mini.
Why wouldn't you want an all in one?
I could see if user-replacament becomes an issue, but so what? Big deal if you can't add ram within 10 minutes the one time you want to over 4 years.
And if upgrades are an issue, well, if you buy something that isn't worth it anything 2 years then you wouldn't be buying anything Apple now, would you?
But beyond that, why wouldn't you want everything together? I don't see any other negative reasons!
-=|Mgkwho
One main reason it that the monitor is part of the unit.
After all, the monitor is likely to outlast the rest of the machine in usefullness, but would be impossible to use after you want to junk the rest of the machine.
Also, regarding the monitor, Many people start with a smaller model for various reasons, and then step up to a larger one, handing the smaller one down to someone else. An all in one makes this impractical.
Just another instance of DigiTimes making sh*t up.
It would be in AppleInsider's best interest to ignore DigiTimes (or to post a massive disclaimer about their unreliability).
Well, Macworld has come and gone and no 17" display. I -- for one -- am not surprised.
Just another instance of DigiTimes making sh*t up.
It would be in AppleInsider's best interest to ignore DigiTimes (or to post a massive disclaimer about their unreliability).
Don't rush to judgement so quickly. Apple didn't announce ANYTHING other than the iPhone, and the AppleTv, and came out with, but didn't announce, the new Airport Express.
I'm waiting on a refreshed Mac Pro, and nothing was said there either.
Well, Macworld has come and gone and no 17" display. I -- for one -- am not surprised.
Just another instance of DigiTimes making sh*t up.
It would be in AppleInsider's best interest to ignore DigiTimes (or to post a massive disclaimer about their unreliability).
We are talking about the Macworld without Macs here.
Well, Macworld has come and gone and no 17" display. I -- for one -- am not surprised.
Just another instance of DigiTimes making sh*t up.
It would be in AppleInsider's best interest to ignore DigiTimes (or to post a massive disclaimer about their unreliability).
Not really. Steve wanted the iPhone to the the belle of the ball. I wouldn't be surprised to see macs/displays released along with Leopard.
We are talking about the Macworld without Macs here.
They had Macs there, just no new Macs were announced.
I'm waiting on a refreshed Mac Pro, and nothing was said there either.
I would put my bet on April 16.
I would put my bet on April 16.
I know what you're thinking, but that's a long away away.