My instinct is that Apple wants to drop the 17" from Edu even, to go to a one-to-one laptop program and have the 20" iMacs for creative learning stuff in "labs". I can't elaborate more, just firing out some ideas now.
I do have great eyes. But still, just because you can see tiny text doesn't mean you want to read it all the time. I'm waiting for the 27" displays to fall in price. They're just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. 30s are nice and big, but the resolution is too high, at least until Leopard's resolution independence can change things. Too bad the 27s are so stinking expensive right now. For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
The larger the screen, and the higher the pixel count, the fewer screens get through the testing. While it isn't geometric, it becomes increasingly difficult to get good yields on these displays. That's why the prices are so much higher.
Apple mentioned a product transformation as a reason for slightly lower earnings estimate for next quarter (they always low ball it anyhow). But maybe that transformation is the new iMacs coming out at lower prices. An effort for increase the already blistering rate at which the Macintosh is gaining market share.
Think of it, a beautiful, very affordable iMac that sells out the door as fast a iPhones on opening weekend.
it's funny that the post says that 19 in. and 22 in. are the most popular...last year i bought a 19" monitor that broke last week, and just today my new monitor came in; a 22 in.!!! weird
I think Apple ought to just keep the panel sizes they have going now, and if anything changes, make it 17-20-20-24, as opposed to the current 17-17-20-24 scheme.
The 17" iMac is a great seller, and I've seen many people choose it over the 20" thanks to it's reduced price, easier portability for summer vacations (I live in a tourism town), and it's tendency not to overwhelm some people. For every person that swears 20" is as small as they want, I see someone that says 20" is too big. Make an affordable 20, sure, but don't cut the choice for a 17" when there is still a considerable market for it.
As for the 19, 22, and 23-inch ideas, Apple tends to use the same internal design for each model. Hell, the iMac G5 (iSight) has nearly the same design as the current models. No reason to overwork the designers when they are most likely busy designing the Mac mini's successor.
For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
3x price? Are you sure your comparing like for like? What models are you comparing?
I think Apple ought to just keep the panel sizes they have going now, and if anything changes, make it 17-20-20-24, as opposed to the current 17-17-20-24 scheme.
The 17" iMac is a great seller, and I've seen many people choose it over the 20" thanks to it's reduced price, easier portability for summer vacations (I live in a tourism town), and it's tendency not to overwhelm some people. For every person that swears 20" is as small as they want, I see someone that says 20" is too big. Make an affordable 20, sure, but don't cut the choice for a 17" when there is still a considerable market for it.
Portability? = Macbook
Price? = 20" at 17" price
Overwhelm? = wtf?
In short, I believe Apple will decide on the sizes based on availability oand price of the panels from the manufacturers. If manufacturers no longer make 17" quality panels or 20" panels are only slightly more expensive, then Apple simply won't use 17" versions in the new iMacs. I think you overestimate the market for 17".
Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen.
In all reality, for the user that only checks e-mails, browses photos, surfs the web, and plays the occasional game, my 800MHz G4 iMac would be ample. That being said, of course a Mac Pro with a 30" screen is overkill. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gar
I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag.
Of course not. However a user that knows he or she doesn't need (or maybe doesn't have space for) a 20" display but still wants the power and performance of today's average consumer machines "wouldn't mind" an even lower price tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gar
If Apple drops the 17" version, they'll also drop the price of the current 20" model to $1,299, which is the standard starting price of the iMac since its introduction back in 1998
Apple doesn't bind itself to price points often. Seeing that the iMac has gone a year without an update, I predict Apple may put an "entry-level" iMac in that $1300 USD range, but also have a budget-priced 17" unit at $999 or lower.
Especially if they kill the Mac Mini, it will hurt Apple if they don't offer a desktop for less than $1300. I know Apple wants to stray from offering budget units, but if they want to increase their market share (what wall street-traded company doesn't?) they are going to have to. Somewhere, deep down inside, even Steve Jobs knows this.
Some people actually transport their iMacs. Somebody makes a backpack for this purpose. I can't find the link. If you need a computer for a trade show they're pretty easy to transport and setup.
I'd like to see the 17" kept in the product line up as well. the lower the price the better, so as to appeal to as large a market as possible.
If the iMac genuinely does get cut to 20" and 24" only, I can virtually guarantee you that both displays will be capable of 1080p or greater resolution. The fact that extra 20 inch panels have been ordered only cements my belief - the 24" panels are already capable of this but Apple will need new, higher-res 20" panels to be capable of 1900x1200.
I doubt there will be a 20" capable of 1920x1200 for the Mac - the dot pitch would be extremely small and push the price up too close to the cost of the 24" at the same resolution and a cheaper dot pitch.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
If Apple reduces the type of panels they buy at a high enough volume, perhaps they can lower the prices wholesale, more bang for the buck and continue to *smash the myth* that Apple products are not expensive (to murder a phrase used by Mr Shiller)
I doubt there will be a 20" capable of 1920x1200 for the Mac - the dot pitch would be extremely small and push the price up too close to the cost of the 24" at the same resolution and a cheaper dot pitch.
Small yes, extremely small no. There are for years now 15" displays at 1920 x 1600! Only in PC land. Now this is what I would call extremely small.
In all reality, for the user that only checks e-mails, browses photos, surfs the web, and plays the occasional game, my 800MHz G4 iMac would be ample. That being said, of course a Mac Pro with a 30" screen is overkill. What's your point?
My point is: 20" is not overkill.
Quote:
Of course not. However a user that knows he or she doesn't need (or maybe doesn't have space for) a 20" display but still wants the power and performance of today's average consumer machines "wouldn't mind" an even lower price tag.
In this case it's not about need, but what this user wants. I don't know any Mac user who would prefer the 17"iMac over the 20"iMac.
If 2.6" extra width and 1.7" extra height is to much, I think the user is better served with a MacBook.
Quote:
Apple doesn't bind itself to price points often. Seeing that the iMac has gone a year without an update, I predict Apple may put an "entry-level" iMac in that $1300 USD range, but also have a budget-priced 17" unit at $999 or lower.
Actually, every new version of the iMac started at $1,299. The original 1998 bondyblue iMac G3/233, the 2002 flatpanel iMac G4/700Mhz and the 2004 17" iMac G5/1.6Ghz.
Even most revisions kept this pricetag as starting price for the iMac.
Quote:
Especially if they kill the Mac Mini, it will hurt Apple if they don't offer a desktop for less than $1300. I know Apple wants to stray from offering budget units, but if they want to increase their market share (what wall street-traded company doesn't?) they are going to have to. Somewhere, deep down inside, even Steve Jobs knows this.
-Clive
Like PC said: "Touché"
I don't expect Apple to introduce a next gen 17" iMac, though.
That doesn't mean they couldn't sell the current generation 17" iMac for less.
Apple kept the CRT iMac G3 for sale after they announced the iMacG4. I thought until the eMac became available for consumers.
Also, I don't expect Apple to kill the Mac mini in a very near future, like Appleinsider suggests, without a good alternative.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
A toteable "desktop" computer use to not be an option. A thinner iMac, a smaller keyboard. I mean where is Apple going with this? I can see some choosing a cheaper iMac over a laptop.
A toteable "desktop" computer use to not be an option. A thinner iMac, a smaller keyboard. I mean where is Apple going with this? I can see some choosing a cheaper iMac over a laptop.
I've been using two notebooks for 3 years now, and I'm moving to an iMac as soon as the new ones are out. Like you said, they're getting so small, and the price advantage is quite something.
The only things I ever used my notebooks for on the road are email, music/movies, and light web surfing. I can do all that with my iPhone now.
If I ever need to take my iMac somewhere, there's always iMac bags...
Comments
I do have great eyes. But still, just because you can see tiny text doesn't mean you want to read it all the time. I'm waiting for the 27" displays to fall in price. They're just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. 30s are nice and big, but the resolution is too high, at least until Leopard's resolution independence can change things. Too bad the 27s are so stinking expensive right now. For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
The larger the screen, and the higher the pixel count, the fewer screens get through the testing. While it isn't geometric, it becomes increasingly difficult to get good yields on these displays. That's why the prices are so much higher.
After a while, yields go up, and the prices drop.
I'd like a 15" for my kitchen....
I guess it's too bad the 16's never made it to LCD, and the 18's never caught on.
i take it resolution independence is a given now for leopard?
That's how it looks (oh no, an unintentional pun!).
Think of it, a beautiful, very affordable iMac that sells out the door as fast a iPhones on opening weekend.
I'll be in line for mine!
The 17" iMac is a great seller, and I've seen many people choose it over the 20" thanks to it's reduced price, easier portability for summer vacations (I live in a tourism town), and it's tendency not to overwhelm some people. For every person that swears 20" is as small as they want, I see someone that says 20" is too big. Make an affordable 20, sure, but don't cut the choice for a 17" when there is still a considerable market for it.
As for the 19, 22, and 23-inch ideas, Apple tends to use the same internal design for each model. Hell, the iMac G5 (iSight) has nearly the same design as the current models. No reason to overwork the designers when they are most likely busy designing the Mac mini's successor.
...but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.
Fear not. It is not overkill if it does not over-kill your wallet.
For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
3x price? Are you sure your comparing like for like? What models are you comparing?
I think Apple ought to just keep the panel sizes they have going now, and if anything changes, make it 17-20-20-24, as opposed to the current 17-17-20-24 scheme.
The 17" iMac is a great seller, and I've seen many people choose it over the 20" thanks to it's reduced price, easier portability for summer vacations (I live in a tourism town), and it's tendency not to overwhelm some people. For every person that swears 20" is as small as they want, I see someone that says 20" is too big. Make an affordable 20, sure, but don't cut the choice for a 17" when there is still a considerable market for it.
Portability? = Macbook
Price? = 20" at 17" price
Overwhelm? = wtf?
In short, I believe Apple will decide on the sizes based on availability oand price of the panels from the manufacturers. If manufacturers no longer make 17" quality panels or 20" panels are only slightly more expensive, then Apple simply won't use 17" versions in the new iMacs. I think you overestimate the market for 17".
Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen.
In all reality, for the user that only checks e-mails, browses photos, surfs the web, and plays the occasional game, my 800MHz G4 iMac would be ample. That being said, of course a Mac Pro with a 30" screen is overkill. What's your point?
I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag.
Of course not. However a user that knows he or she doesn't need (or maybe doesn't have space for) a 20" display but still wants the power and performance of today's average consumer machines "wouldn't mind" an even lower price tag.
If Apple drops the 17" version, they'll also drop the price of the current 20" model to $1,299, which is the standard starting price of the iMac since its introduction back in 1998
Apple doesn't bind itself to price points often. Seeing that the iMac has gone a year without an update, I predict Apple may put an "entry-level" iMac in that $1300 USD range, but also have a budget-priced 17" unit at $999 or lower.
Especially if they kill the Mac Mini, it will hurt Apple if they don't offer a desktop for less than $1300. I know Apple wants to stray from offering budget units, but if they want to increase their market share (what wall street-traded company doesn't?) they are going to have to. Somewhere, deep down inside, even Steve Jobs knows this.
-Clive
Portability? = Macbook
Some people actually transport their iMacs. Somebody makes a backpack for this purpose. I can't find the link. If you need a computer for a trade show they're pretty easy to transport and setup.
I'd like to see the 17" kept in the product line up as well. the lower the price the better, so as to appeal to as large a market as possible.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
If Apple reduces the type of panels they buy at a high enough volume, perhaps they can lower the prices wholesale, more bang for the buck and continue to *smash the myth* that Apple products are not expensive (to murder a phrase used by Mr Shiller)
I doubt there will be a 20" capable of 1920x1200 for the Mac - the dot pitch would be extremely small and push the price up too close to the cost of the 24" at the same resolution and a cheaper dot pitch.
Small yes, extremely small no. There are for years now 15" displays at 1920 x 1600! Only in PC land.
In all reality, for the user that only checks e-mails, browses photos, surfs the web, and plays the occasional game, my 800MHz G4 iMac would be ample. That being said, of course a Mac Pro with a 30" screen is overkill. What's your point?
My point is: 20" is not overkill.
Of course not. However a user that knows he or she doesn't need (or maybe doesn't have space for) a 20" display but still wants the power and performance of today's average consumer machines "wouldn't mind" an even lower price tag.
In this case it's not about need, but what this user wants. I don't know any Mac user who would prefer the 17"iMac over the 20"iMac.
If 2.6" extra width and 1.7" extra height is to much, I think the user is better served with a MacBook.
Apple doesn't bind itself to price points often. Seeing that the iMac has gone a year without an update, I predict Apple may put an "entry-level" iMac in that $1300 USD range, but also have a budget-priced 17" unit at $999 or lower.
Actually, every new version of the iMac started at $1,299. The original 1998 bondyblue iMac G3/233, the 2002 flatpanel iMac G4/700Mhz and the 2004 17" iMac G5/1.6Ghz.
Even most revisions kept this pricetag as starting price for the iMac.
Especially if they kill the Mac Mini, it will hurt Apple if they don't offer a desktop for less than $1300. I know Apple wants to stray from offering budget units, but if they want to increase their market share (what wall street-traded company doesn't?) they are going to have to. Somewhere, deep down inside, even Steve Jobs knows this.
-Clive
Like PC said: "Touché"
I don't expect Apple to introduce a next gen 17" iMac, though.
That doesn't mean they couldn't sell the current generation 17" iMac for less.
Apple kept the CRT iMac G3 for sale after they announced the iMacG4. I thought until the eMac became available for consumers.
Also, I don't expect Apple to kill the Mac mini in a very near future, like Appleinsider suggests, without a good alternative.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
A toteable "desktop" computer use to not be an option. A thinner iMac, a smaller keyboard. I mean where is Apple going with this? I can see some choosing a cheaper iMac over a laptop.
A toteable "desktop" computer use to not be an option. A thinner iMac, a smaller keyboard. I mean where is Apple going with this? I can see some choosing a cheaper iMac over a laptop.
I've been using two notebooks for 3 years now, and I'm moving to an iMac as soon as the new ones are out. Like you said, they're getting so small, and the price advantage is quite something.
The only things I ever used my notebooks for on the road are email, music/movies, and light web surfing. I can do all that with my iPhone now.
If I ever need to take my iMac somewhere, there's always iMac bags...