I'm hoping that Jobs does care about processors and rated MHz. I know he does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm, kinda hard to express what I really meant.
Sure he does take care of it since it´s part of his job, but what really gets him personally excited is those little iThings. iDVD e.g. must be his favourite toy, the whole Digital Hub thing, his vision beyond just computers, that´s what I meant (yet failed to explain, hopefully not this time).
Adding $300 for a 15" LCD ain't half bad. The deal will be even sweeter if better optical drives (Combo) come standard and the graphics cards get a nice kick in the pants (Radeon/GeForce 2MX 200).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not be bad if you're looking at a balance sheet, but you can buy ... christ, do I really have to trot out the same price comparisons? The point is the consumer doesn't give a damn if he's actually getting a decent deal when the computer he's looking at is running a sub-Ghz processor, has a smaller (albeit cooler) screen, and boasts no functional advantage over competing products that sell for half the price. I reiterate: an $1800 iMac that doesn't have a DVD-writing drive (and a G4, since the G3 can't encode DVD) is going to sink like a rock.
$1800 imac? BS... plain and simple. Economic suicide. It's pretty simple, if Apple continues to alienate the consumer market by releasing non-pro machines for high prices, they will see another sales year similar to 2001.
[quote] Flat-panel iMac, revised iBook, iPhoto due at Macworld Expo
January 3 - 12:30 ET: Apple next week will announce a new flat-panel iMac, a revised iBook, and iPhoto software, MacMinute sources have confirmed. The new iMac will feature a 15-inch LCD display with a G3 processor at speeds of up to 750MHz, if not faster. Sources suggest that pricing for the flat-panel iMac will top out at roughly US$1,800, with Apple offering at least one traditional iMac configuration to keep the entry-level cost below $1,000. There will also be additional speed bumps on the low-end iMacs. Details on the iBook revision are scarce, although sources indicate it will likely include a speed-bump and possibly the availability of multiple colors. Finally, iPhoto will extend the ease of use and functionality of Apple's i-line of software titles to image manipulation. Sources note that additional announcements will also be made.
<hr></blockquote>
Probably the same source for both MacMinute and ThinkSecret.
I sincerely hope this rumor way off. A new G3 iMac w/ 15" LCD at $1800 would be another cube. Even $1500 is too much for the iMac. This $1800 iMac will be competing against $999 Wintel systems with more features! No, this wouldn't be another cube fiasco...it would be worse. The iMac has always been about value, and to price it at $1800 would go against everything the original iMac stood for, and everything that put Apple back in the black.
I'm hopeful that Apple has learned something from the success of the iBook. Value sells.
Another consideration is that traditionally, laptops have always been more expensive than comparable desktops. If Apple prices the iBook cheaper than the iMac, that simply would not make sense! Wouldn't more people just buy the iBook instead?
An $1800 iMac would also show that Apple has all but given up on increasing market share, by aiming at high margins, low volume sales.
All I can say is that with all those 15" LCDs that Apple reportedly ordered, they are going to have a giant surplus, because they sure as hell won't be selling them all in $1800 iMacs!
Whew, end of rant!
The ONLY way this price could make sense is if:
1. The 1800 model actually has a larger display.
2. The 1800 model has a superdrive.
A G4 processor wouldn't explain it...A G4 processor does NOT cost $500 more than a G3!!
Hell, I'd pay up to $2000 for an iMac if it had a widescreen display, G4 and Superdrive. It would have to have all of those things though, not just one or two of them. I think ThinkSecret/MacMinute is full of it. Again, it bears repeating, Apple has trademarked iPicture not iPhoto so can we really believe the rest of what they are saying?
I'm seriously pis sed at apple if these specs are to be believed. How can they think to offer anything less than 1GHz on their "professional" G4 system. AMD systems are around 1.33GHz at this point and Intel systems are around the 2.0GHz mark. Now i know i can get my work done alot faster in OS9 than windows of any kind, and my work will actually work, but I need speed.
And why arent they making DVD drives standard on ALL machines? Theyre pushing the superdrives, they should also push drives that can read the dang stuff. All iMacs and PowerBooks should have at least combo drives, with the option for a superdrive iBooks at least a DVD drive, with option for superdrive at very high end and all PowerMacs should have Superdrives. Just because theyve been lagging behind for so long doesnt mean that they need to keep continuing on the pace. I mean werent they actually in the performance lead when the G3 came out, and im not talking effing PS tests, im talking real world.
What really pisses me off is that i have no choice, (yes i know i can use windows and i do at home along with a BW G3), but at work(prepress) the ONLY option is to use Mac, unless you wanna do everything in MS Word and Publisher.
Macs ARE superior in almost everyway, especially now with OSX. But they ARE NOT ahead in any kind of raw processor performance. The industry leader in desktop publishing and design offers some of the slowest most expensive hardware available. Talk about being fu cked up.
Sorry for the rant.
What i would like to see is the cube reintroduced. 1GHz, 256MB DDR ram , Combo Drive, 40GB hard drive, ATi Radeon 8500(or matrox as an alternative). $1299. This is what should be EXPECTED of apple, or at least something similar. If apple offered this maybe they would gain a little market share.
Apple would get slammed hard for an $1800 flat panel iMac. Unless the machine has something else killer with it that justifies the price.
Gateway (crap I know) has a 1.1 Ghz system with a flat panel 15" monitor, CD-burner, Windows XP for $999. Joe Consumer sees lots of Gateway ads on TV. Why should a iMac at a slower spead (from what Joe sees) be worth almost twice as much?
Flat Screens are the future. Apple NEEDS to get a flat screen iMac out at under $1000!
I'm personally inclined to think that the entirety of what was posted on thinksecret and macminute today is complete and utter bunk. On the iMac front, as has been stated, $1800 for a flat panel and a G3 is absurd, especially when $2299 can get you an LCD, a G4, and a combo drive in a PORTABLE, where every component, from RAM to hard drive to optical drive is significantly more expensive, and that the same $2299 currently gets you a 733 G4 tower and a 15 inch LCD (and will more likely get you a 867 G4 and a 17 inch LCD after Macworld), you begin to realize how absurdly high the $1800 dollar claim is.
\tOn the "mystery" of the 1 GHZ processor, I nearly laughed my ass off. While I hate to use the word in this forum, we have confirmed evidence of 1 GHZ processors. First, IBM officially announced that the 750fx would run up to 1 GHZ (yes, I know it's only a G3). Secondly, shortly after MWNY, that one Japanese guy successfully overclocked an 867 MHZ MPC 7450 (G4) to a 1 GHZ. That means that Apple could theoretically have had a 1 GHZ G4 in July. Third, Motorola has officially announced the MPC 7460 (Apollo). Apollo will break 1 GHZ, because the 7460 is the EXACT same chip as the 7450, it just uses an improved manufacturing technique and (I think) includes 512k of L2 cache. This means that at the same clock speed, Apollo will use less power than the 7450, and at higher clock speeds, Apollo will use the same amount of power as a lower clocked 7450.
\tLook, I just used publicly available evidence from press releases to logically debunk these rumors. People, stop being sheep to the rumor sites, and think for yourself. Thank you, and enjoy yourself next Monday.
Can anyone think of even a single instance where ThinkSecret published anything truly secret? Screen captures of OS or other software betas don't come close to counting.
Businessweek has just put their two cents in and I put more fate in them than anyone else. They talk about new 1Ghz G3's (750fx) and 15 inch screens. Remember, the 750fx is 25% faster than the old G3 at the same clock speed. A 1 Ghx 750fx might not be all that bad!
<strong>Businessweek has just put their two cents in and I put more fate in them than anyone else. They talk about new 1Ghz G3's (750fx) and 15 inch screens. Remember, the 750fx is 25% faster than the old G3 at the same clock speed. A 1 Ghx 750fx might not be all that bad!
Comments
<strong>
I'm hoping that Jobs does care about processors and rated MHz. I know he does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm, kinda hard to express what I really meant.
Sure he does take care of it since it´s part of his job, but what really gets him personally excited is those little iThings. iDVD e.g. must be his favourite toy, the whole Digital Hub thing, his vision beyond just computers, that´s what I meant (yet failed to explain, hopefully not this time).
bye.
<strong>
Adding $300 for a 15" LCD ain't half bad. The deal will be even sweeter if better optical drives (Combo) come standard and the graphics cards get a nice kick in the pants (Radeon/GeForce 2MX 200).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not be bad if you're looking at a balance sheet, but you can buy ... christ, do I really have to trot out the same price comparisons? The point is the consumer doesn't give a damn if he's actually getting a decent deal when the computer he's looking at is running a sub-Ghz processor, has a smaller (albeit cooler) screen, and boasts no functional advantage over competing products that sell for half the price. I reiterate: an $1800 iMac that doesn't have a DVD-writing drive (and a G4, since the G3 can't encode DVD) is going to sink like a rock.
If the LCD iMac also has *new* functionality, maybe the $1800 pricetag aint so much at all...
Think beyond the rumor sites, eh... Well what did we recently see on rumor sites? :cool:
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</p>
<strong>Everyone here is missing the point:
If the LCD iMac also has *new* functionality, maybe the $1800 pricetag aint so much at all...
Think beyond the rumor sites, eh... Well what did we recently see on rumor sites? :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah? No. They got the point. It was stated that if for $1800 you got a G4 iMac w/ Superdrive than yea that's great. G3 anything for $1800 is a Cube.
[quote] Flat-panel iMac, revised iBook, iPhoto due at Macworld Expo
January 3 - 12:30 ET: Apple next week will announce a new flat-panel iMac, a revised iBook, and iPhoto software, MacMinute sources have confirmed. The new iMac will feature a 15-inch LCD display with a G3 processor at speeds of up to 750MHz, if not faster. Sources suggest that pricing for the flat-panel iMac will top out at roughly US$1,800, with Apple offering at least one traditional iMac configuration to keep the entry-level cost below $1,000. There will also be additional speed bumps on the low-end iMacs. Details on the iBook revision are scarce, although sources indicate it will likely include a speed-bump and possibly the availability of multiple colors. Finally, iPhoto will extend the ease of use and functionality of Apple's i-line of software titles to image manipulation. Sources note that additional announcements will also be made.
<hr></blockquote>
Probably the same source for both MacMinute and ThinkSecret.
I sincerely hope this rumor way off. A new G3 iMac w/ 15" LCD at $1800 would be another cube. Even $1500 is too much for the iMac. This $1800 iMac will be competing against $999 Wintel systems with more features! No, this wouldn't be another cube fiasco...it would be worse. The iMac has always been about value, and to price it at $1800 would go against everything the original iMac stood for, and everything that put Apple back in the black.
I'm hopeful that Apple has learned something from the success of the iBook. Value sells.
Another consideration is that traditionally, laptops have always been more expensive than comparable desktops. If Apple prices the iBook cheaper than the iMac, that simply would not make sense! Wouldn't more people just buy the iBook instead?
An $1800 iMac would also show that Apple has all but given up on increasing market share, by aiming at high margins, low volume sales.
All I can say is that with all those 15" LCDs that Apple reportedly ordered, they are going to have a giant surplus, because they sure as hell won't be selling them all in $1800 iMacs!
Whew, end of rant!
The ONLY way this price could make sense is if:
1. The 1800 model actually has a larger display.
2. The 1800 model has a superdrive.
A G4 processor wouldn't explain it...A G4 processor does NOT cost $500 more than a G3!!
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
But this is probably all bogus anyways. Right?
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Mac The Fork ]</p>
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
And why arent they making DVD drives standard on ALL machines? Theyre pushing the superdrives, they should also push drives that can read the dang stuff. All iMacs and PowerBooks should have at least combo drives, with the option for a superdrive iBooks at least a DVD drive, with option for superdrive at very high end and all PowerMacs should have Superdrives. Just because theyve been lagging behind for so long doesnt mean that they need to keep continuing on the pace. I mean werent they actually in the performance lead when the G3 came out, and im not talking effing PS tests, im talking real world.
What really pisses me off is that i have no choice, (yes i know i can use windows and i do at home along with a BW G3), but at work(prepress) the ONLY option is to use Mac, unless you wanna do everything in MS Word and Publisher.
Macs ARE superior in almost everyway, especially now with OSX. But they ARE NOT ahead in any kind of raw processor performance. The industry leader in desktop publishing and design offers some of the slowest most expensive hardware available. Talk about being fu cked up.
Sorry for the rant.
What i would like to see is the cube reintroduced. 1GHz, 256MB DDR ram , Combo Drive, 40GB hard drive, ATi Radeon 8500(or matrox as an alternative). $1299. This is what should be EXPECTED of apple, or at least something similar. If apple offered this maybe they would gain a little market share.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: dartblazer ]</p>
-S
Gateway (crap I know) has a 1.1 Ghz system with a flat panel 15" monitor, CD-burner, Windows XP for $999. Joe Consumer sees lots of Gateway ads on TV. Why should a iMac at a slower spead (from what Joe sees) be worth almost twice as much?
Flat Screens are the future. Apple NEEDS to get a flat screen iMac out at under $1000!
\tOn the "mystery" of the 1 GHZ processor, I nearly laughed my ass off. While I hate to use the word in this forum, we have confirmed evidence of 1 GHZ processors. First, IBM officially announced that the 750fx would run up to 1 GHZ (yes, I know it's only a G3). Secondly, shortly after MWNY, that one Japanese guy successfully overclocked an 867 MHZ MPC 7450 (G4) to a 1 GHZ. That means that Apple could theoretically have had a 1 GHZ G4 in July. Third, Motorola has officially announced the MPC 7460 (Apollo). Apollo will break 1 GHZ, because the 7460 is the EXACT same chip as the 7450, it just uses an improved manufacturing technique and (I think) includes 512k of L2 cache. This means that at the same clock speed, Apollo will use less power than the 7450, and at higher clock speeds, Apollo will use the same amount of power as a lower clocked 7450.
\tLook, I just used publicly available evidence from press releases to logically debunk these rumors. People, stop being sheep to the rumor sites, and think for yourself. Thank you, and enjoy yourself next Monday.
[edit: just fixing the spacing on the post]
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf2002013_4857.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf2002013_4857.htm</a>;
<strong>Businessweek has just put their two cents in and I put more fate in them than anyone else. They talk about new 1Ghz G3's (750fx) and 15 inch screens. Remember, the 750fx is 25% faster than the old G3 at the same clock speed. A 1 Ghx 750fx might not be all that bad!
<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf2002013_4857.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf2002013_48 57.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
G3's suck. I would only buy a G3 in a portable. Anything else and you're running on 3 year old tired technology.
<strong>
G3's suck. I would only buy a G3 in a portable. Anything else and you're running on 3 year old tired technology.</strong><hr></blockquote>
5 year old but who's counting
<strong>
G3's suck. I would only buy a G3 in a portable. Anything else and you're running on 3 year old tired technology.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that's ok in a portable?