Apple, always very conservative in guidance, has projected increased revenues this quarter in a slowing economy with no new products (yet). Could Apple use the 25th MAC anniversary as a catalyst for a REALLY new Imac. The only other time I remember announced channel reduction was for the Iphone 3g and the last time the Imac had a big redo.
Today I went shopping for an 8GB iPod Touch in John Lewis (a UK department store that was one of the few places you could buy a Mac in the bad old days) as it tends to offer better warranties than the Apple standard.
Now it turns out that they don't offer a longer warranty on the iPods for free, but that didn't matter as they didn't have any 8GB iPod Touches, or the 16 GB model, or even the 32 GB. I was quite surprised as they are generally kept well stocked with Apple kit.
I found a member of staff who looked like they knew what's what, they told me the store had no stock and were only taking orders, but that if I did order I might have to wait a fortnight. I asked why this was and they said they'd received an email from Apple, Apple not head office, saying that there were supply issues and it would be a couple of weeks before they became available again.
The report did not specify in which models Mac maker would employ the parts, however. But short of Apple introducing a completely new breed of Mac desktop, it would appear the only likely candidates for such chips would be the iMac and Mac mini, with the former being a safer bet from both a strategic and historic standpoint.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
4. The chin is necessary unless you want a fat Mac. Other than that I think they look great with silver and black. Looks very professional.
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
Finally someone who agrees with me!! The problem with the original cube was that it was a more expensive, less upgradable powermac. It was priced for power users who had a much more attractive power user model to choose. I still say that if they had put a g3 in and priced it <$1,200 from day 1 they would have sold like hotcakes. But even so, the situation today is different. The powermac is dead, and the mac pro is a surprisingly different machine. The powermac was a prosumer computer, while the mac pro is clearly a professional workstation. The huge gap between it and the mac mini needs to be filled by something more powerful and expandable than the mac mini, but smaller and cheaper than the mac pro. The cube is a perfectly sized form-factor for what this computer needs to be.
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
Excellent- well put. How much thicker would it need to be anyway? Desktops are meant to stay put anyway not be mobile. It could also probably then be kept cooler as well.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
The Cube is out of step with Apple's current thiness obsession unless it's morphed into a Chicklet.
I'm eager to see new iMacs. My minimum requirements are: IPS display (like the current 24"), quad core processor, OpenCL compatible graphics (minimum 9600), FireWire 800 port(s), ability to upgrade the hard drive myself.
My parents are waiting for the new Mac mini. They've been making do with a 533MHz G4 since their iMac died and ask me every time we talk if Apple has released the new model yet.
I'm eager to see new iMacs. My minimum requirements are: IPS display (like the current 24"), quad core processor, OpenCL compatible graphics (minimum 9600), FireWire 800 port(s), ability to upgrade the hard drive myself.
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
I have never understood why people dislike the chin. I love the chin! I think it makes the iMac look distinguished, to say nothing of the fact that it's really good for post-its.
Winter: No, Snow Leopard is a evolutionary update geared towards refinement of the underpinnings instead of being a 'feature' release. You can find a nice little synapse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.6
I have never understood why people dislike the chin. I love the chin! I think it makes the iMac look distinguished, to say nothing of the fact that it's really good for post-its.
AND people seem to forget that from the 17" to the 24" it has SHRUNK.
Comments
Me too. I have the original iMacIntel and I'm just waiting to upgrade.
Me too (I don't have any iMac, but i've got my cash money ready
Today I went shopping for an 8GB iPod Touch in John Lewis (a UK department store that was one of the few places you could buy a Mac in the bad old days) as it tends to offer better warranties than the Apple standard.
Now it turns out that they don't offer a longer warranty on the iPods for free, but that didn't matter as they didn't have any 8GB iPod Touches, or the 16 GB model, or even the 32 GB. I was quite surprised as they are generally kept well stocked with Apple kit.
I found a member of staff who looked like they knew what's what, they told me the store had no stock and were only taking orders, but that if I did order I might have to wait a fortnight. I asked why this was and they said they'd received an email from Apple, Apple not head office, saying that there were supply issues and it would be a couple of weeks before they became available again.
Anyway my spidey senses said wait a week.
Fingers crossed the Mac mini is updated ASAP.
The report did not specify in which models Mac maker would employ the parts, however. But short of Apple introducing a completely new breed of Mac desktop, it would appear the only likely candidates for such chips would be the iMac and Mac mini, with the former being a safer bet from both a strategic and historic standpoint.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
Apple has to update all computers before Snow Leopard, that's their usual deal. MacBooks are ready, next is iMac, yet Mini remains in the cave.
But I'd rather get snow leopard WITH a new computer - not have to buy and install an OS 2-3 months after a new computer purchase...
But I'd rather get snow leopard WITH a new computer - not have to buy and install an OS 2-3 months after a new computer purchase...
Why not? You will be able to compare the before-after in that computer.
Despite of that, i want it nowwwwwwwwwwwww
4. The chin is necessary unless you want a fat Mac. Other than that I think they look great with silver and black. Looks very professional.
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
Finally someone who agrees with me!! The problem with the original cube was that it was a more expensive, less upgradable powermac. It was priced for power users who had a much more attractive power user model to choose. I still say that if they had put a g3 in and priced it <$1,200 from day 1 they would have sold like hotcakes. But even so, the situation today is different. The powermac is dead, and the mac pro is a surprisingly different machine. The powermac was a prosumer computer, while the mac pro is clearly a professional workstation. The huge gap between it and the mac mini needs to be filled by something more powerful and expandable than the mac mini, but smaller and cheaper than the mac pro. The cube is a perfectly sized form-factor for what this computer needs to be.
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
Excellent- well put. How much thicker would it need to be anyway? Desktops are meant to stay put anyway not be mobile. It could also probably then be kept cooler as well.
I should be able to access the iMacs RAM and drive storage in a matter of
minutes. I care not that it's unbelievably thin when I can't do basic upgrades
myself.
The iMac is a classy system but dammit if you're gonna crame the whole widget
down my gullet give me sensible design.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
The Cube is out of step with Apple's current thiness obsession unless it's morphed into a Chicklet.
For the love of God will you please just put the Quad Core chips in the iMac already!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Mac Pro is just a floating Ghost Ship now with no crew so you might as well make the iMac the pro machine.
Get real.... an iMac with 4 internal drives and 4 ram slots!!
You know the iMac in its current form factor is a no go.
I should be able to access the iMacs RAM and drive storage in a matter of
minutes. I care not that it's unbelievably thin when I can't do basic upgrades
myself.
The iMac is a classy system but dammit if you're gonna crame the whole widget
down my gullet give me sensible design.
Well Steve has an obsession for thin products. So thin it will be no matter what the sacrifice is.
My parents are waiting for the new Mac mini. They've been making do with a 533MHz G4 since their iMac died and ask me every time we talk if Apple has released the new model yet.
The Cube is out of step with Apple's current thiness obsession unless it's morphed into a Chicklet.
Wishes for an Intel Mac Cube....
*prays to the Mac gods for one*
I'm eager to see new iMacs. My minimum requirements are: IPS display (like the current 24"), quad core processor, OpenCL compatible graphics (minimum 9600), FireWire 800 port(s), ability to upgrade the hard drive myself.
+1
I'll add Mini-DisplayPort.
SSD options
$1299 2.33 Ghz Quad Core
$1549 2.66 Ghz Quad Core
$1899 2.83 Quad Core
price point will be sweet (stole the idea from refurbished mac section) but not sure whether LED display will allow these price point
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...deals/mac/imac
Interested
-----------
Quad Core CPU
Desktop componenet
Better and latest GPU
LED backlit Display
DVI and Mini Display Port
2GB RAM standard
Not interested
------------------
Blu Ray
inventory low is the first sign of new iMac, hopefully with in few weeks ...
I'd trade thickness for getting rid of the chin. I don't for a second understand the obsession with making a desktop computer thin. How many people look at their displays from the side? That's right zero. If you lose the chin then even a thicker machine would be the same weight and same total amount of material. Probably the only thing that would change is the shipping box would have to be a bit bigger. All that extra engineering to fit and cool components in a tiny space just to save a few trees hardly seems worth it.
I have never understood why people dislike the chin. I love the chin! I think it makes the iMac look distinguished, to say nothing of the fact that it's really good for post-its.
Winter: No, Snow Leopard is a evolutionary update geared towards refinement of the underpinnings instead of being a 'feature' release. You can find a nice little synapse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.6
Fair enough... I just thought it was a typo.
I have never understood why people dislike the chin. I love the chin! I think it makes the iMac look distinguished, to say nothing of the fact that it's really good for post-its.
AND people seem to forget that from the 17" to the 24" it has SHRUNK.