I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options. ......
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
What kind of twisted logic is this?
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice. check that, I 'm very satisfied with what's on the screen, but not satisfied with the Mac of ports of the fact that it takes me a half a hour to burn a DVD that would take 12 minutes on an actual desktop. Then again. I don't have $3000 to pay for under $2000 worth of capability. Instead I bought a jack of all trades, master of none type.
I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice.
But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.
Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."
Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.
True but all the iMac owners I know say the same things and I've seen a couple of other people here who would have bought a mid-tower over the iMac. Maybe it's not a lot of iMac users but then again maybe it is. We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.
People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money. For the Mac laptops and Mac Pro not so much as they follow the rest of the market but for the iMac and Mini, they are just not competitive with proper desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."
Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.
If you were reviewing a static caravan, you don't say you'd rather have a chalet because a static caravan is basically a caravan without the portability with all the problems of a caravan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Desktops vs laptop where is the market going?
Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."
That's great but that doesn't justify turning desktops into laptops. Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users. This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.
We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.
This thread is not at all representative of the general market.
Quote:
People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money.
That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.
And again if you are talking to someone about computer specs and they actually understand what you are saying. That is beyond what most of the general market knows or even cares about.
Quote:
Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.
If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.
Quote:
Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users.
This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.
The majority of HP and Dell desktops are sold to companies not consumers. Laptops sales are also expected to outpace desktop in business also.
Most people are not buying laptops because of power they are buying them for convenience.
Quote:
This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.
You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.
While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known. The notebooks are easy enough to spot because of the logo that is lit, but desktops are a bit trickier. The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view so clients, customers, patients, etc. will see a Mac, not a monitor. An xMac, while it would do the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share because most people don't look at screens so they would not see a Mac in use.
I really like the design of the iMac, but I would take an xMac over an iMac any day of the week. The only thing I would have to buy extra is a Mac ergonomic keyboard.
I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than a "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known.
. . . The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view. . . .An xMac, while it would [do] the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share. . .
That is an interesting theory. It also suggests a strategy Apple could use, should Steve decide to sell an xMac, mini tower or whatever you want to call it.
Raise the price of the xMac, say $150, over what the selling price would typically be. Then, offer Apple displays at a low price when purchased with an xMac. An Apple display could be offered at an extremely good price, since it is being subsidized from two sources -- the excess price of the xMac being purchased, plus the excess from xMacs sold without a display.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.
These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.
These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
End of Rant...
I'm with you, Onlooker. This bullshit that the iMac is the perfect place for Apple to express it's elegance and simplicity of design is a load of crap. With me, I'd end up with more peripheral wires hanging out of it than a telephone pole in a Third World slum. C'mon Steve, you can have your iTeam design up a cool mid-price mid tower for the mid users of us out here. Until then, I think I'm going to hang on to my boring beigh box and run Windows. I really want to switch to the Apple platform, but not an iMac and I can't justify paying for the Powermac.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
I think you just summed up the real issues at stake in Apple's desktop offerings!
Apple does not have much to talk about at MWSF2008 because we have the new Mac mini, iMac, iLife, iWork, iPods, iPhone, and updated (again) iTunes. I can only think of 5 items that Apple has that can get updates and they are:
Displays - these could get built-in iSight with the 23" getting replaced by a 24"
Mac Pro - new quad-core processors and graphics cards
MacBook - moves to the Santa Rosa platform and gets the aluminum treatment like the iPod classic.
MacBook Pro - gets the Penryn processor and maybe even quad-core CTO.
Apple TV - support for higher resolution video
These updates should take all of 15 minutes to announce, and that includes the sales reports, so unless Apple springs Aperture 2.0 on us, with a demo, Steve has plenty of time to fill. Maybe the Mac BU will give a nice demo of Office:mac 2008 to whet our appetite for the newest Microsoft offering. Whatever happens, Steve will need something to go into his "One more thing" category and there is no better way to start the new year off than with an xMac. The names I came up with are:
There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.
If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.
Quote:
It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.
Because you really have to have that desktop? Seriously...you refuse to by an iMac or spend a little extra dough for the Mac Pro new?
Quote:
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but what doesn't make sense is that you're saying it doesn't make sense. \ It's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. The reasons have been listed ad naseum.
Quote:
Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.
OK then. So they have some super secret reasons? They're a business. They're not going to ignore a big segment of the market.
I think I've figured out your reasoning here though. Then problem is you are looking at the midpro in the context of a vacuum. Sure, if you just look at the midpro and nothing else...if you pretend Apple sold no other machines....then I'm sure tons of people would buy it. It's the same principle that drives midpro sales on the Windows side...that's just what's offered by almost all wintel makers.
But when we take the xMac out of it's glass bottle and put it into the product matrix and the Apple universe, things change considerably. It's going to compete with the iMac and to some extent, the Mac Pro. So in a sense you're looking at it as a "gross market" instead of as a "net market...which is the one that matters. It's the number of people that will buy after comparing the midpro to the other offerings. That's the number that's the problem at present.
In that same vein, you're incorrect when you state that the xMac might hurt sales of the mini, iMac and Mac Pro. It's going to be the other way around, with the potential exception of the Mac Pro due to cost. You'll have consumers comparing this:
And herein lies the problem. The vast, huge, enormous majority of people are going to look at that comparison and buy the iMac. They can even upgrade it with enough goodies to make it somewhat future proof. For $1799 they can get a 500GB HDD, wireless keyboard and mouse, and 2GB of RAM pre-installed. That's a damn nice machine.
Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!!!! How many of those people are really out there AND how many will want the xMac? Let's look at the potential:
Laptop owners: Need a display anyway
Older G5/G4 owners: Generally need pro level replacement and likely a new panel at this point.
iMac owners: Self-explanatory.
So who buys this thing?
Quote:
I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.
Apple doesn't make anything that interest you? Is it possible our standards are just a tad bit high?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
The lack of a mid-priced, mid-range tower is a gaping hole in Apple's product lineup. Their only options right now are to buy top of the line, or buy a laptop. iMacs and Minis are just laptops that are chained to the desk. I don't want a laptop, I want a consumer desktop.
It's not a gaping hole. It's that parking space that is likely too small for your SUV to get into. There are plenty of options, certainly more than you present. They don't need to by the top of the line." That's simply false. They can buy a bottom end Mac Pro, iMac or possibly mini. And the iMac, for christ's sake, IS a consumer desktop. You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.
Quote:
I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.
Good for you. Your G4 was a pro machine, just like the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.
So you paid $1100 for your G4? No, you didn't. Not at all. And dude...for $2000 you could get a machine that would make your G4 go running to its mama. Hell, a Macbook Pro would do that. So would an iMac. And certainly a low end Mac Pro.
Quote:
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
Why, oh why, are you clamoring on about Real Desktop Parts (TM). The use of laptop components has worked out fine thus far in terms of price and performance. If you need the upgrade potential, you need a Pro machine LIKE YOU HAVE NOW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
No.
Quote:
I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.
Too expensive? A 20" ACD is $599. If you want cheaper, buy a fucking vizio for $200 and see how it works out. No offense.
Quote:
Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.
Duh. Also, irrelevant point. because it has nothing to do with this:
Quote:
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
Quote:
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.
How? It's not truncated at all.
Quote:
Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.
So they should offer a machine just to sell ACDs? How can you even be serious. They're not MISSING anything because the product doesn't fucking exist!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What kind of twisted logic is this?
See my above post....same questing came to my mind.
Quote:
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
To the xMac zealots, apparently.
Quote:
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
Exactly. It all boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't offer the product for a reason. One, there's little market when it's looked at against their product matrix. Two, they already have their bases covered for the most part. Three, they don't want to start making minitowers just because that's what wintel does. Apple doesn't follow wintel...it's not their style. Fourth and last....it might hurt Mac Pro and mini sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
You've hit that last part on the head, but you imply that he should want to enter the M$ box market. Has this ever worked for Apple before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in. Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.
That's because you're under the delusion that the other 96% agrees with you.
Quote:
They have a variety of options.
Three actually.
1 Mac Mini. It's for...I'm not exactly sure who. This is the ultimate example of Apple's design team getting in the way. The extra of inches shaved off by using a laptop hard drive makes this more expensive and less competitive than other SFF entr level desktops.
2. iMac. Designed for low to mid level consumers and families
3. Mac Pro Designed for high level professionals
High level consumers and low to mid level consumers are pretty SOL. Then again, Dell, HP, and the like are more than happy to take their money,
Quote:
Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in.
The thing you're assuming is that everybody on the Mac and pretty much all computer users agree with you. You are the exception, not the rule.= and Apple already serves you. The problem is that you and those like you apparently have no tolerance with anyone else being served.
Quote:
Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.
apple would have went bankrupt without them. They were incompetent under Spindler.
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! .........
Well they need to expand the system in areas that impress computer users as a whole, and not just niche markets.
This thread is not at all representative of the general market.
Of course not, the people who want an xMac aren't here because of this thread, it's the other way round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.
The gains exceed the losses. Anyway, no one is advocating getting rid of the iMac just adding a product that satisfies the majority of users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.
Not really, as I said it's a different product. Respectable reviews would be impartial in the same way a news reader would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.
Right so people want laptops, not desktops that are only as powerful as laptops. AIOs aren't outselling towers last time I checked and that's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.
But how can they possibly know how many of us there are when they don't make a product for us? The only option we have is to buy an iMac or get a PC. How do those opinions get back to Apple exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
iMac:
Price: $1499
and
xMac:
Price: $1299 2.0 GHZ, $1499 2.4 GHZ
Actually the xMac would be $4. Where do I get that number you ask? Out my ass, no doubt you got your figures out of yours. I don't know how this isn't getting through to you but I'll say it another 3 times.
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
The xMac would use desktop components therefore it is cheaper. It has no LCD therefore it is cheaper still. How you can know this and still say they'd come out the same price/spec is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!
It's not *just* about those people. All you opponents to the xMac keep doing this as though it's one silly little argument why we want this product when if you'd take into account all the reasons you'd see it's for a lot of reasons and a lot of users with varied needs.
In short, a mid-tower satisfies far more *needs* than an iMac ever could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
t's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. The reasons have been listed ad naseum.
There haven't been any reasons, you just keep saying it's not the same market when it is the same market. If it wasn't the same damn market then why do Apple even have a 'switch' campaign? How can PC users who own a mid-range tower switch if they aren't the target market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.
4th time:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
^ It's more than a sticker. The iMac is about image as others have correctly stated, the xMac is in opposition to this idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software.
Displays don't play a part in that whatsoever though. Apple have shown their display technology is overpriced and of poorer quality than the competition. They probably seal it in because they know you wouldn't buy their displays if you had the option. The display is what you look at most often and if you have a poor display then that reflects badly on your product. When I point out the iMac screen flaws to people they can see straight away how crap they are.
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
Comments
I fear that if people keep buying iMacs then Apple will instead consider that they've made the right choices when in fact they are just forcing people to buy the iMac model by having a lack of options. ......
I think that is where the real sales from the iMac comes from. I don't think it's from 100% of satisfied customers. Sure they are satisfied now because they have to be, but it's not what many would have chosen given a decent choice.
What kind of twisted logic is this?
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
What kind of twisted logic is this?
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice. check that, I 'm very satisfied with what's on the screen, but not satisfied with the Mac of ports of the fact that it takes me a half a hour to burn a DVD that would take 12 minutes on an actual desktop. Then again. I don't have $3000 to pay for under $2000 worth of capability. Instead I bought a jack of all trades, master of none type.
I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice.
But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.
Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."
Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.
True but all the iMac owners I know say the same things and I've seen a couple of other people here who would have bought a mid-tower over the iMac. Maybe it's not a lot of iMac users but then again maybe it is. We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.
People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money. For the Mac laptops and Mac Pro not so much as they follow the rest of the market but for the iMac and Mini, they are just not competitive with proper desktops.
Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."
Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.
If you were reviewing a static caravan, you don't say you'd rather have a chalet because a static caravan is basically a caravan without the portability with all the problems of a caravan.
Desktops vs laptop where is the market going?
Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."
That's great but that doesn't justify turning desktops into laptops. Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users. This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.
We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.
This thread is not at all representative of the general market.
People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money.
That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.
And again if you are talking to someone about computer specs and they actually understand what you are saying. That is beyond what most of the general market knows or even cares about.
Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.
If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.
Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users.
This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.
The majority of HP and Dell desktops are sold to companies not consumers. Laptops sales are also expected to outpace desktop in business also.
Most people are not buying laptops because of power they are buying them for convenience.
This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.
You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.
While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known. The notebooks are easy enough to spot because of the logo that is lit, but desktops are a bit trickier. The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view so clients, customers, patients, etc. will see a Mac, not a monitor. An xMac, while it would do the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share because most people don't look at screens so they would not see a Mac in use.
I really like the design of the iMac, but I would take an xMac over an iMac any day of the week. The only thing I would have to buy extra is a Mac ergonomic keyboard.
I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than a "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known.
. . . The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view. . . .An xMac, while it would [do] the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share. . .
That is an interesting theory. It also suggests a strategy Apple could use, should Steve decide to sell an xMac, mini tower or whatever you want to call it.
Raise the price of the xMac, say $150, over what the selling price would typically be. Then, offer Apple displays at a low price when purchased with an xMac. An Apple display could be offered at an extremely good price, since it is being subsidized from two sources -- the excess price of the xMac being purchased, plus the excess from xMacs sold without a display.
It might work.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.
These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
End of Rant...
I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.
These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
End of Rant...
I'm with you, Onlooker. This bullshit that the iMac is the perfect place for Apple to express it's elegance and simplicity of design is a load of crap. With me, I'd end up with more peripheral wires hanging out of it than a telephone pole in a Third World slum. C'mon Steve, you can have your iTeam design up a cool mid-price mid tower for the mid users of us out here. Until then, I think I'm going to hang on to my boring beigh box and run Windows. I really want to switch to the Apple platform, but not an iMac and I can't justify paying for the Powermac.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
I think you just summed up the real issues at stake in Apple's desktop offerings!
- Displays - these could get built-in iSight with the 23" getting replaced by a 24"
- Mac Pro - new quad-core processors and graphics cards
- MacBook - moves to the Santa Rosa platform and gets the aluminum treatment like the iPod classic.
- MacBook Pro - gets the Penryn processor and maybe even quad-core CTO.
- Apple TV - support for higher resolution video
These updates should take all of 15 minutes to announce, and that includes the sales reports, so unless Apple springs Aperture 2.0 on us, with a demo, Steve has plenty of time to fill. Maybe the Mac BU will give a nice demo of Office:mac 2008 to whet our appetite for the newest Microsoft offering. Whatever happens, Steve will need something to go into his "One more thing" category and there is no better way to start the new year off than with an xMac. The names I came up with are:Zero.
There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.
If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.
It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.
Because you really have to have that desktop? Seriously...you refuse to by an iMac or spend a little extra dough for the Mac Pro new?
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but what doesn't make sense is that you're saying it doesn't make sense.
Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.
I think I've figured out your reasoning here though. Then problem is you are looking at the midpro in the context of a vacuum. Sure, if you just look at the midpro and nothing else...if you pretend Apple sold no other machines....then I'm sure tons of people would buy it. It's the same principle that drives midpro sales on the Windows side...that's just what's offered by almost all wintel makers.
But when we take the xMac out of it's glass bottle and put it into the product matrix and the Apple universe, things change considerably. It's going to compete with the iMac and to some extent, the Mac Pro. So in a sense you're looking at it as a "gross market" instead of as a "net market...which is the one that matters. It's the number of people that will buy after comparing the midpro to the other offerings. That's the number that's the problem at present.
In that same vein, you're incorrect when you state that the xMac might hurt sales of the mini, iMac and Mac Pro. It's going to be the other way around, with the potential exception of the Mac Pro due to cost. You'll have consumers comparing this:
__________________________________________________ _
iMac:
20" LCD
2.4GHZ Core Duo
320GB HD
256MB graphics
8X Dual Layer SD
Mouse, Keyboard, Bluetooth
1GB Ram
Price: $1499
and
xMac:
No LCD
2.0 GHZ Core Duo or 2.4GHZ Core Duo
160GB Hard Drive, one open bay
8X Dual Layer SD, one open bay
Two PCI slots
Mouse, Keyboard, Bluetooth
Price: $1299 2.0 GHZ, $1499 2.4 GHZ
_____________________________________________
And herein lies the problem. The vast, huge, enormous majority of people are going to look at that comparison and buy the iMac. They can even upgrade it with enough goodies to make it somewhat future proof. For $1799 they can get a 500GB HDD, wireless keyboard and mouse, and 2GB of RAM pre-installed. That's a damn nice machine.
Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!!!! How many of those people are really out there AND how many will want the xMac? Let's look at the potential:
Laptop owners: Need a display anyway
Older G5/G4 owners: Generally need pro level replacement and likely a new panel at this point.
iMac owners: Self-explanatory.
So who buys this thing?
I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.
Apple doesn't make anything that interest you? Is it possible our standards are just a tad bit high?
The lack of a mid-priced, mid-range tower is a gaping hole in Apple's product lineup. Their only options right now are to buy top of the line, or buy a laptop. iMacs and Minis are just laptops that are chained to the desk. I don't want a laptop, I want a consumer desktop.
It's not a gaping hole. It's that parking space that is likely too small for your SUV to get into. There are plenty of options, certainly more than you present. They don't need to by the top of the line." That's simply false. They can buy a bottom end Mac Pro, iMac or possibly mini. And the iMac, for christ's sake, IS a consumer desktop. You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.
I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.
Good for you. Your G4 was a pro machine, just like the Mac Pro.
Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.
So you paid $1100 for your G4? No, you didn't. Not at all. And dude...for $2000 you could get a machine that would make your G4 go running to its mama. Hell, a Macbook Pro would do that. So would an iMac. And certainly a low end Mac Pro.
I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system
Why, oh why, are you clamoring on about Real Desktop Parts (TM). The use of laptop components has worked out fine thus far in terms of price and performance. If you need the upgrade potential, you need a Pro machine LIKE YOU HAVE NOW.
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
No.
I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.
Too expensive? A 20" ACD is $599. If you want cheaper, buy a fucking vizio for $200 and see how it works out. No offense.
Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.
Duh. Also, irrelevant point. because it has nothing to do with this:
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.
How? It's not truncated at all.
Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.
So they should offer a machine just to sell ACDs? How can you even be serious. They're not MISSING anything because the product doesn't fucking exist!
What kind of twisted logic is this?
See my above post....same questing came to my mind.
People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?
People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?
You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.
Exactly. It all boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't offer the product for a reason. One, there's little market when it's looked at against their product matrix. Two, they already have their bases covered for the most part. Three, they don't want to start making minitowers just because that's what wintel does. Apple doesn't follow wintel...it's not their style. Fourth and last....it might hurt Mac Pro and mini sales.
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
You've hit that last part on the head, but you imply that he should want to enter the M$ box market. Has this ever worked for Apple before?
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in. Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware.
That's because you're under the delusion that the other 96% agrees with you.
They have a variety of options.
Three actually.
1 Mac Mini. It's for...I'm not exactly sure who. This is the ultimate example of Apple's design team getting in the way. The extra of inches shaved off by using a laptop hard drive makes this more expensive and less competitive than other SFF entr level desktops.
2. iMac. Designed for low to mid level consumers and families
3. Mac Pro Designed for high level professionals
High level consumers and low to mid level consumers are pretty SOL. Then again, Dell, HP, and the like are more than happy to take their money,
Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in.
The thing you're assuming is that everybody on the Mac and pretty much all computer users agree with you. You are the exception, not the rule.= and Apple already serves you. The problem is that you and those like you apparently have no tolerance with anyone else being served.
Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.
apple would have went bankrupt without them. They were incompetent under Spindler.
..........
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! .........
Well they need to expand the system in areas that impress computer users as a whole, and not just niche markets.
This thread is not at all representative of the general market.
Of course not, the people who want an xMac aren't here because of this thread, it's the other way round.
That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.
The gains exceed the losses. Anyway, no one is advocating getting rid of the iMac just adding a product that satisfies the majority of users.
If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.
Not really, as I said it's a different product. Respectable reviews would be impartial in the same way a news reader would be.
This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.
Right so people want laptops, not desktops that are only as powerful as laptops. AIOs aren't outselling towers last time I checked and that's the point.
You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.
But how can they possibly know how many of us there are when they don't make a product for us? The only option we have is to buy an iMac or get a PC. How do those opinions get back to Apple exactly?
iMac:
Price: $1499
and
xMac:
Price: $1299 2.0 GHZ, $1499 2.4 GHZ
Actually the xMac would be $4. Where do I get that number you ask? Out my ass, no doubt you got your figures out of yours. I don't know how this isn't getting through to you but I'll say it another 3 times.
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
The xMac would use desktop components therefore it is cheaper. It has no LCD therefore it is cheaper still. How you can know this and still say they'd come out the same price/spec is beyond me.
Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!
It's not *just* about those people. All you opponents to the xMac keep doing this as though it's one silly little argument why we want this product when if you'd take into account all the reasons you'd see it's for a lot of reasons and a lot of users with varied needs.
In short, a mid-tower satisfies far more *needs* than an iMac ever could.
t's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. The reasons have been listed ad naseum.
You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.
4th time:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
^ It's more than a sticker. The iMac is about image as others have correctly stated, the xMac is in opposition to this idea.
Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software.
Displays don't play a part in that whatsoever though. Apple have shown their display technology is overpriced and of poorer quality than the competition. They probably seal it in because they know you wouldn't buy their displays if you had the option. The display is what you look at most often and if you have a poor display then that reflects badly on your product. When I point out the iMac screen flaws to people they can see straight away how crap they are.
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.
Mac Performance In The Raw - Wow! The Intel iMac Is Almost As Fast As The Quad Core Power Mac
We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.