I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
The iMac could be thicker behind the screen to provide enough space for a better ventilation which would allow Apple to use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop components not only for the CPU, but also the graphic card and the RAM.
Decision making at Apple has always been a problem with Steve Jobs second guessing everything and everyone, insisting that he is the inventor of everything made by Apple. Under such a tyrany, most companies go from being competitive and innovative to being out of touch with reality and slow to respond to new competitive challenges.
With the illness of Steve Jobs which meant continuous exams, surgeries, secrecy and, finally, a 6 month leave of absence, Apple has just become more irrelevant as its competitors created better and better computers at an ever cheaper price. Netbooks are just one example. Blu-Ray and quad-core CPUs are another example.
What is wrong with higher prices and higher profit margins? Most people prefer a good deal when they can find one. Windows computers are 40% cheaper than Macs. If you are a school board, are you going to pay 40% more for classroom computers? If you are a company, are you going to pay 40% more for 200 or 2,000 computers? The answer is a resounding NO!
When you compare features like Blu-Ray drives, quad-core desktop CPUs, user repleacable desktop graphic cards, iMacs just don't cut it.
And what is wrong with buyers choosing a brand new desktop tower with a Blu-Ray drive, a quad-core desktop CPU, a larger hard drive, 4 GB of RAM standard, a faster desktop graphic card, Windows 7 and a 40% lower price than a slower, dual core mobile CPU iMac?
A 4% world market share would be half of the problem it is for Apple if Macs used a standard operating system (Windows) with applications written in a standard computer language, i.e. C++, instead of a specific Objective C language which is not used by most programmers.
An ever smaller world market share, persistent higher prices, higher profit margins, poor features reflecting last year's technology all conspire towards one inevitable conclusion: Apple is fast becoming irrelevant for most people, a boutique company with niche products which are overpriced and underwhelming. The problem has taken years to mature, but accelerated with the health problems of Steve Jobs.
Squeezing the lemon for every last drop just doesn't make sense anymore. Ignoring competitors and belittling Windows won't bring buyers back to Apple.
Why not a desktop XMac or iMac?
Steve Jobs is the problem. Some people say that he is delusional, others believe that he is just a tyrant. Could he be just wrong? Stubborn and slowing down Apple?
For background info on Steve Jobs, see the Fortune Magazine editorial:
I don't know if this was already answered, but if Apple does attempt to move to some variant of Nehalem with the next refresh (either i7 or i5), doesn't that necessarily mean the disappearance of an nVidia chipset? As far as I know, all the nVidia based MacBooks and current line of Mac Mini and iMac not only use nVidia's integrated GPUs, but also their chipsets as well. But there is the whole big fiasco going on with Intel suing nVidia, claiming that nVidia's license does not allow them to make chipsets for the new Nehalem processors. Since that dispute is still ongoing, wouldn't that force Apple to choose Intel's own chipsets over nVidia's? Not that it's necessarily a big deal, as Apple could use an Intel chipset while still having a pick of nVidia, ATI, or Intel graphics, but I can't recall hearing about any i7 or i5 chipsets designed for notebooks out of Intel, at least none that are already on the market or ready for market. So where does that leave Apple, nVidia, Intel, and us?!
I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
The iMac could be thicker behind the screen to provide enough space for a better ventilation which would allow Apple to use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop components not only for the CPU, but also the graphic card and the RAM.
Decision making at Apple has always been a problem with Steve Jobs second guessing everything and everyone, insisting that he is the inventor of everything made by Apple. Under such a tyrany, most companies go from being competitive and innovative to being out of touch with reality and slow to respond to new competitive challenges.
With the illness of Steve Jobs which meant continuous exams, surgeries, secrecy and, finally, a 6 month leave of absence, Apple has just become more irrelevant as its competitors created better and better computers at an ever cheaper price. Netbooks are just one example. Blu-Ray and quad-core CPUs are another example.
What is wrong with higher prices and higher profit margins? Most people prefer a good deal when they can find one. Windows computers are 40% cheaper than Macs. If you are a school board, are you going to pay 40% more for classroom computers? If you are a company, are you going to pay 40% more for 200 or 2,000 computers? The answer is a resounding NO!
When you compare features like Blu-Ray drives, quad-core desktop CPUs, user repleacable desktop graphic cards, iMacs just don't cut it.
And what is wrong with buyers choosing a brand new desktop tower with a Blu-Ray drive, a quad-core desktop CPU, a larger hard drive, 4 GB of RAM standard, a faster desktop graphic card, Windows 7 and a 40% lower price than a slower, dual core mobile CPU iMac?
A 4% world market share would be half of the problem it is for Apple if Macs used a standard operating system (Windows) with applications written in a standard computer language, i.e. C++, instead of a specific Objective C language which is not used by most programmers.
An ever smaller world market share, persistent higher prices, higher profit margins, poor features reflecting last year's technology all conspire towards one inevitable conclusion: Apple is fast becoming irrelevant for most people, a boutique company with niche products which are overpriced and underwhelming. The problem has taken years to mature, but accelerated with the health problems of Steve Jobs.
Squeezing the lemon for every last drop just doesn't make sense anymore. Ignoring competitors and belittling Windows won't bring buyers back to Apple.
Why not a desktop XMac or iMac?
Steve Jobs is the problem. Some people say that he is delusional, others believe that he is just a tyrant. Could he be just wrong? Stubborn and slowing down Apple?
For background info on Steve Jobs, see the Fortune Magazine editorial:
P.S.: Sorry for the long answer which shows only one thing: it doesn't make any business sense for Apple to sell no desktop computer, no desktop tower.
I would love to see a computer which knows when I am in front of it via the built in camera. It should not have to wait 15min or so to go into energy save mode. As soon as I leave it should know and turn off the screen and vice versa. Since the new iPhoto has face recognition it shouldn't be to hard to activate my account as well.
As to a touch screen, I agree with KingKuei it may get strenuous, a mousepad size multi touch pad would be an alternative.
I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
My fellow quebecois, you have your history wrong.
1- the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor in 2004 and was using G5 cpus at the time, something that Apple couldn't use in the notebooks (PowerBooks at the time).
2- When Intel introduced the new Core cpus, they were only mobile ones (Core solo and duo, Yonah, at 29W) so if Apple wanted to release Intel iMacs early 2006, they had to use Yonah. Anyway at that time Yonah was faster than any G5 in the iMac. Desktop and Xeon versions of the original Core cpu came much later: 6 to 9 months later.
3- Only between early 2006 and late-2007, the iMac used the same cpus as the MB/MBP.
4- the aluminium iMacs were launched in august 2007 and Apple started to use the mobile extreme edition cpus (2.8GHz). Then early 2008 they started the use of custom cpus in the iMacs (Intel's E8x35 series). It is still the case today.
So between august 2004 and august 2009, 5 years, the iMac used the same cpus as Apple's notebooks for just 2 years (2006-2007). They changed the form factor not to use the same cpus as the notebooks, but because they chose to. Today they are not using the same cpus as the notebooks.
Could they have done better, I think so. Late 2008, when Intel launched the desktop S series (quad-core cpus with a 65W TDP), I thought that they would fit well in the aluminium iMac since it was just 10W higher than the current E8x35 series cpus. And those cpus were cheaper than anything mobile. Well, it didn't happen and now mainstream nehalem cpus are around the corner...
The iMac probably represents 90% of Apple's desktop sales, that still a lot of money. I am eager to see what Apple will do with the line to make it more attractive. If they continue using dual-core cpus (even nehalem ones), I think that they should cut the prices. If they move to quad-core cpus, it will probably be custom ones since the mobile ones are way too slow+expensive (1.60-2.00GHz, $350-$1,050) and the desktop ones are way too hot (82W for the S series, 95W for the regular series). Maybe a custom version of the nehalem Xeon L55xx series at 60W, 2.13-2.40GHz ($423-$744), but without the "server" class services: DMI instead of 2xQPI, dual-channel memory instead of triple-channel, PCIe on die + P55 southbridge instead of the X58-class chipset, etc...
Blu-Ray would certainly be a nice optional addition, as well as LED-BL display(s). The SD slot will probably also appear in the next revision.
... I am eager to see what Apple will do with the line to make it more attractive. If they continue using dual-core cpus (even nehalem ones), I think that they should cut the prices.....
I agree. And I suspect they will use Arrandale cpus (dual core nehalem chips) when available. Especially when I hear that the next iMac will be 'thinner and sleeker'. That says to me that TDP can't be greater than what it is now. Perhaps if they use Arrandale cpus they can get a special overclocked version with enhanced performance.
I just hope Apple moves beyond the brushed-metal look and goes back to white for the iMacs, along with black. The brushed-metal look doesn't fit with anything else Apple makes anymore, even the interface has moved on to a smooth gray. I want my iMac to match my white iPhone, dammit.
I just hope Apple moves beyond the brushed-metal look and goes back to white for the iMacs, along with black. The brushed-metal look doesn't fit with anything else Apple makes anymore, even the interface has moved on to a smooth gray. I want my iMac to match my white iPhone, dammit.
They only had this look for two years, they usually keep a look on their computers running for 3-5 years. The iMacs aren't brush finish either. I don't know where you say the look isn't used anywhere else by Apple, haven't you seen their notebooks? That's the exact same finish. The Mac Pro and mini also have metal with the same finish. The Cinema display is the same.
They only had this look for two years, they usually keep a look on their computers running for 3-5 years. The iMacs aren't brush finish either. I don't know where you say the look isn't used anywhere else by Apple, haven't you seen their notebooks? That's the exact same finish. The Mac Pro and mini also have metal with the same finish. The Cinema display is the same.
What do you mean "The iMacs aren't brush finish," yes they are. Not all the notebooks have this same finish, you can still buy a white MacBook. You are right, the mini is also metal, but, the entire top of it is white. But all the peripherals and other devices are white or black.
I never liked the look of the metal finish iMacs with black accents and a white mouse. It looks like a hodge podge of different styles from the past thrown together. I have a white 24" iMac, white MacBook, white iPod and a white iPhone. So, I bought into the white scheme and was hoping that Apple would continue to offer their devices in white. It would be great if they offered white, black and metallic for everything, but, I'm sure Apple will never give us that much design choice.
I'd like to see the white iMacs return, I think they looked nicer than the current model, and i've been holding off on buying a new iMac until they do. But, I could be waiting a long time.
What do you mean "The iMacs aren't brush finish," yes they are.
Brush finish at least needs to have streaks, Apple's products don't have that. It is probably a bead blasted surface, but it certainly isn't brush.
Quote:
Not all the notebooks have this same finish, you can still buy a white MacBook. You are right, the mini is also metal, but, the entire top of it is white. But all the peripherals and other devices are white or black.
Brush finish at least needs to have streaks, Apple's products don't have that. It is probably a bead blasted surface, but it certainly isn't brush.
The keyboards are bead blasted aluminum too.
Bead, brushed, it's very similar. And I hate those keyboards with the black keys. They look cheap and flimsy. I don't think this is one of Apple's greatest design achievements in computers. They look a bit too industrial, which I like, but, doesn't fit well with their other products. It would look good next to my kitchen appliances, but, I don't keep my iMac in the kitchen.
It doesn't hurt to know the difference, it's not at all hard and it's not confusing when you know what you're talking about.
Quote:
And I hate those keyboards with the black keys. They look cheap and flimsy. I don't think this is one of Apple's greatest design achievements in computers. They look a bit too industrial, which I like, but, doesn't fit well with their other products. It would look good next to my kitchen appliances, but, I don't keep my iMac in the kitchen.
I suppose you mean the notebook built-in keyboards. I was meaning the separate peripherals, I was referring to are these.
I'm not a fan of them, but not a lot of people seem to complain about them. I didn't like the feel of the new style keyboards either, which was why I bought a refurbished MBP. I can see black being better for usability though, when combined with the backlighting.
The only place I see for an AIO desktop is the kitchen computer, and that has to be dirt cheap.
Ouch.
I like the iMac I have very much. It is 'last years' top end model that I bought in a sale this year due to my disgust at the UK price jack.
Dual core.
8800 GS
4 gigs of ram,
500 gig HD.
It does what I want it to.
But is it competitive to Wintel desktops in the mid-range?
No. It's competitive with other AIOs. But it's just a laptop on a stand in my view.
It's a very nice 'laptop' on a stand. And it is a work of art...from it's packaging to the computer to the software itself.
However, it is not competitive against mid-tower competition. No quad core and the gpu is feeble compared to the opposition.
The iMac is a solution for a great many people who are undemanding of their computers. But that's alot to pay for a computer that is undemanding. It's no slouch. But start playing a game and the fans work overtime...and it gets very hot on the left side...!
If I could have bought a mid-tower nehalem for the same price? I would have. But Apple didn't offer one...despite the fact that the cpu prices are much cheaper.
'Choice'. Apple's desktop is plain wrong in my book. A mini that is overpriced and limited. An iMac that is over priced and limited. And the Mac Pro outrageously priced for a 'quad' entry model that is 'unlimited' (unless you count the crappy choice of GPUs...oh...then suddenly it looks limited...) No quad core under £1800. What a disgrace. And no sign of sorting it any time soon...
I like the iMac I have very much. It is 'last years' top end model that I bought in a sale this year due to my disgust at the UK price jack.
That was a VERY smart move, in my book. The discounted outgoing models are always where the best value for money can be found.
I just picked up a £1,599 MacBook Pro for £1,149. Cheaper than the incoming base 15.4" model, and with a 9600M to boot.
But back to the sentiment of your post.
It is beyond me that Apple continue to put laptop components into a desktop computer that is constantly plugged into the wall. The whole premise of laptop components is to trade performance for battery life. To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag, for a desktop computer which has no real need for low power components ? simply so that you can make the design slimmer and quieter ? is beyond me.
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The iMac is a corporate statement. A design statement. It says 'this is a little slice of the future'. It appeals to people who have an eye for beautiful things and who don't mind paying a premium for such objects of desire. For these customers, the performance of the computer doesn't matter as much as having something beautiful on their desktop that people will complement them on. And that's fine, it's their money, and Apple is simply catering to that market.
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
'I don't really care if the £899 entry level MacBook offers better value for money than the £299 P.O.S. that Tesco are selling ? I may not have a job in 6 months time'.
Perhaps function over form is the order of the day? It certainly wouldn't hurt Apple to open up a new product family and test the water?
So if you were to start with a blank sheet of paper, and pick the components which offered the best back-per-puck (within the consumer marketspace) what would you end up with?
? a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
You can be damn sure that Apple has costed and built prototypes of this machine. And then the accountant pointed out that there was no margin in the product and that Apple would be slitting its own throat. Not only that, but that Apple would be supplying a product that customers would be able to freely upgrade for years to come without any of that revenue stream coming Apple's way.
And you realise that it's perhaps not a reluctancy on Apple's part to compete in the 'xMac' space, but rather a mechanism of survival. Apple know that they can't afford to compete with the cheap HP machines that are everywhere ? there's simply no margin. So all they can do is build beautiful products that convince those with the means to part with the extra cash in order to experience 'a little slice of the future'.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us. So with this in mind, the next iMac won't offer rational benefits like the best performing components for the job, but rather the components that will allow Apple to build a system that will appeal to the emotions. That means thin, desirable, hardware porn.
That means LED panels and 2.5" HDDs that will allow Apple to build a super-thin enclosure. Hell drop the optical drive completely and offer an optional external unit ? it almost worked with the MacBook Air?
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag...
With Apple selling around 90% of ALL their computers containing laptop components... are you certain these components come with a higher price tag?
Quote:
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The whole industry is seeing the same shift! And more so on the consumer side of things.
Quote:
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
ALL computer customers are thinner on the ground. In the last 9 months (the period when this recession actually made a dent in sales), PC sales are down a little over 3%, yet Apple, the company with the expensive laptop component computers, still managed to grow their sales. How do you explain that?
Look you are not the first guy to say that Apple's sales were going to be hit harder than their competitors during this downturn. We were hearing this last year from the financial and tech pundits... some of whom should have known better. With only a slight alteration to costs (MacBooks) Apple seems to have proved them all wrong.
Quote:
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
And like all the xMac arguments, you have conveniently forgotten to mention that most people DO NOT upgrade their computers (and never have) and that most people (especially consumers) are buying laptops.
You also fail to mention probably the largest market for desktop towers... the enterprise market... which Apple rarely competes in.
Quote:
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
I think your financial and business reasons are spot on.
Your 'little slice of the future' comment is a little misguided. That 'future' is already here.
And the argument that you have, once again, omitted is that this potential xMac market is getting smaller as each quarter passes by.
Quote:
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us.
With respect, I would suggest that your reasons for the xMac are 'emotional'. It seems to be based on your desire for such a product and your belief that their are many more people (than there actually is) that share your desire.
Apple's reasons for denying you this product .... like refusing to join the 'race to the bottom'...like maximising their profits... like not targeting a shrinking market...seem to be the most obvious and 'rational' reasons out there.
And like all the xMac arguments, you have conveniently forgotten to mention that most people DO NOT upgrade their computers (and never have) and that most people (especially consumers) are buying laptops.
You also fail to mention probably the largest market for desktop towers... the enterprise market... which Apple rarely competes in.
But the people who DO NOT upgrade their computers still UPGRADE THERE SCREEN (and don't want to buy a full new system at the same time) as well wanting THE BTO choice that you can't get the with imac. Also you can't get quad cores or good vidoe cards with the imacs.
For the enterprise market a bigger mini with a easy to get to HD and more in line with other pcs pricing will work good for most of there.
But the people who DO NOT upgrade their computers still UPGRADE THERE SCREEN (and don't want to buy a full new system at the same time) as well wanting THE BTO choice that you can't get the with imac. Also you can't get quad cores or good vidoe cards with the imacs.
Do you actually know what people are actually buying, or are you just guessing?
Most of the desktops over at Best Buy come with a monitor. It's the same at Dell's web site. Dell used to have an option to save a few bucks and NOT buy a screen. That option seems to have, largely, disappeared. It's easier to sell (or pass on to friends and family!) a computer AND a screen. NPD stated that US retail desktop sales have dropped to 20%. Just a couple of years ago that figure was 50% ! I don't think the 80% buying laptops will be upgrading their screens, processors or graphic cards any time soon.
Quote:
For the enterprise market a bigger mini with a easy to get to HD and more in line with other pcs pricing will work good for most of there.
Most of the enterprise have locked themselves into the Windows/Exchange ecosystem and many use proprietary custom software. I don't think the size of Apple's desktop computers is what is preventing them from buying Macs.
Look there will always be a market for an economical, upgradable desktop computer. But that market has been shrinking and provides some of the lowest margins in the business. I just cannot see why some people are so surprised that Apple currently has no interest in it.
Apple may 'innovate' and introduce an iMac with a matte display
My biggest regret in buying my Mac Book Pro was "upgrading" to the matte screen. Side by side with the iMac, I still prefer the glossy. Buy the end of the day I am 1 foot away from the matte screen. Never really noticed that until some coworkers pointed it out.
Comments
I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
The iMac could be thicker behind the screen to provide enough space for a better ventilation which would allow Apple to use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop components not only for the CPU, but also the graphic card and the RAM.
Decision making at Apple has always been a problem with Steve Jobs second guessing everything and everyone, insisting that he is the inventor of everything made by Apple. Under such a tyrany, most companies go from being competitive and innovative to being out of touch with reality and slow to respond to new competitive challenges.
With the illness of Steve Jobs which meant continuous exams, surgeries, secrecy and, finally, a 6 month leave of absence, Apple has just become more irrelevant as its competitors created better and better computers at an ever cheaper price. Netbooks are just one example. Blu-Ray and quad-core CPUs are another example.
What is wrong with higher prices and higher profit margins? Most people prefer a good deal when they can find one. Windows computers are 40% cheaper than Macs. If you are a school board, are you going to pay 40% more for classroom computers? If you are a company, are you going to pay 40% more for 200 or 2,000 computers? The answer is a resounding NO!
When you compare features like Blu-Ray drives, quad-core desktop CPUs, user repleacable desktop graphic cards, iMacs just don't cut it.
And what is wrong with buyers choosing a brand new desktop tower with a Blu-Ray drive, a quad-core desktop CPU, a larger hard drive, 4 GB of RAM standard, a faster desktop graphic card, Windows 7 and a 40% lower price than a slower, dual core mobile CPU iMac?
A 4% world market share would be half of the problem it is for Apple if Macs used a standard operating system (Windows) with applications written in a standard computer language, i.e. C++, instead of a specific Objective C language which is not used by most programmers.
An ever smaller world market share, persistent higher prices, higher profit margins, poor features reflecting last year's technology all conspire towards one inevitable conclusion: Apple is fast becoming irrelevant for most people, a boutique company with niche products which are overpriced and underwhelming. The problem has taken years to mature, but accelerated with the health problems of Steve Jobs.
Squeezing the lemon for every last drop just doesn't make sense anymore. Ignoring competitors and belittling Windows won't bring buyers back to Apple.
Why not a desktop XMac or iMac?
Steve Jobs is the problem. Some people say that he is delusional, others believe that he is just a tyrant. Could he be just wrong? Stubborn and slowing down Apple?
For background info on Steve Jobs, see the Fortune Magazine editorial:
The trouble with Steve Jobs @ http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
Right so I guess the short answer would be : "Because Apple are jerks and they are high on pot"
I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
The iMac could be thicker behind the screen to provide enough space for a better ventilation which would allow Apple to use cheaper, faster, hotter desktop components not only for the CPU, but also the graphic card and the RAM.
Decision making at Apple has always been a problem with Steve Jobs second guessing everything and everyone, insisting that he is the inventor of everything made by Apple. Under such a tyrany, most companies go from being competitive and innovative to being out of touch with reality and slow to respond to new competitive challenges.
With the illness of Steve Jobs which meant continuous exams, surgeries, secrecy and, finally, a 6 month leave of absence, Apple has just become more irrelevant as its competitors created better and better computers at an ever cheaper price. Netbooks are just one example. Blu-Ray and quad-core CPUs are another example.
What is wrong with higher prices and higher profit margins? Most people prefer a good deal when they can find one. Windows computers are 40% cheaper than Macs. If you are a school board, are you going to pay 40% more for classroom computers? If you are a company, are you going to pay 40% more for 200 or 2,000 computers? The answer is a resounding NO!
When you compare features like Blu-Ray drives, quad-core desktop CPUs, user repleacable desktop graphic cards, iMacs just don't cut it.
And what is wrong with buyers choosing a brand new desktop tower with a Blu-Ray drive, a quad-core desktop CPU, a larger hard drive, 4 GB of RAM standard, a faster desktop graphic card, Windows 7 and a 40% lower price than a slower, dual core mobile CPU iMac?
A 4% world market share would be half of the problem it is for Apple if Macs used a standard operating system (Windows) with applications written in a standard computer language, i.e. C++, instead of a specific Objective C language which is not used by most programmers.
An ever smaller world market share, persistent higher prices, higher profit margins, poor features reflecting last year's technology all conspire towards one inevitable conclusion: Apple is fast becoming irrelevant for most people, a boutique company with niche products which are overpriced and underwhelming. The problem has taken years to mature, but accelerated with the health problems of Steve Jobs.
Squeezing the lemon for every last drop just doesn't make sense anymore. Ignoring competitors and belittling Windows won't bring buyers back to Apple.
Why not a desktop XMac or iMac?
Steve Jobs is the problem. Some people say that he is delusional, others believe that he is just a tyrant. Could he be just wrong? Stubborn and slowing down Apple?
For background info on Steve Jobs, see the Fortune Magazine editorial:
The trouble with Steve Jobs @ http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news...tune/index.htm
P.S.: Sorry for the long answer which shows only one thing: it doesn't make any business sense for Apple to sell no desktop computer, no desktop tower.
I feel that the iMac is more for gamers though..
As to a touch screen, I agree with KingKuei it may get strenuous, a mousepad size multi touch pad would be an alternative.
I'll give it a try. The iMac has always been an all-in-one computer aimed at students, home users, professionnals and small companies. When the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor, Apple placed the logic board behind the screen and adopted a slower, cooler, portable CPU for 2 reasons:
a) to save money by placing one large order for portable CPUs used in both MacBooks and iMacs;
b) to reduce the heat produced by the CPU and allow for thinner, quieter iMacs with reduced or no added ventilation.
My fellow quebecois, you have your history wrong.
1- the iMac morphed into the current LCD monitor form factor in 2004 and was using G5 cpus at the time, something that Apple couldn't use in the notebooks (PowerBooks at the time).
2- When Intel introduced the new Core cpus, they were only mobile ones (Core solo and duo, Yonah, at 29W) so if Apple wanted to release Intel iMacs early 2006, they had to use Yonah. Anyway at that time Yonah was faster than any G5 in the iMac. Desktop and Xeon versions of the original Core cpu came much later: 6 to 9 months later.
3- Only between early 2006 and late-2007, the iMac used the same cpus as the MB/MBP.
4- the aluminium iMacs were launched in august 2007 and Apple started to use the mobile extreme edition cpus (2.8GHz). Then early 2008 they started the use of custom cpus in the iMacs (Intel's E8x35 series). It is still the case today.
So between august 2004 and august 2009, 5 years, the iMac used the same cpus as Apple's notebooks for just 2 years (2006-2007). They changed the form factor not to use the same cpus as the notebooks, but because they chose to. Today they are not using the same cpus as the notebooks.
Could they have done better, I think so. Late 2008, when Intel launched the desktop S series (quad-core cpus with a 65W TDP), I thought that they would fit well in the aluminium iMac since it was just 10W higher than the current E8x35 series cpus. And those cpus were cheaper than anything mobile. Well, it didn't happen and now mainstream nehalem cpus are around the corner...
The iMac probably represents 90% of Apple's desktop sales, that still a lot of money. I am eager to see what Apple will do with the line to make it more attractive. If they continue using dual-core cpus (even nehalem ones), I think that they should cut the prices. If they move to quad-core cpus, it will probably be custom ones since the mobile ones are way too slow+expensive (1.60-2.00GHz, $350-$1,050) and the desktop ones are way too hot (82W for the S series, 95W for the regular series). Maybe a custom version of the nehalem Xeon L55xx series at 60W, 2.13-2.40GHz ($423-$744), but without the "server" class services: DMI instead of 2xQPI, dual-channel memory instead of triple-channel, PCIe on die + P55 southbridge instead of the X58-class chipset, etc...
Blu-Ray would certainly be a nice optional addition, as well as LED-BL display(s). The SD slot will probably also appear in the next revision.
... I am eager to see what Apple will do with the line to make it more attractive. If they continue using dual-core cpus (even nehalem ones), I think that they should cut the prices.....
I agree. And I suspect they will use Arrandale cpus (dual core nehalem chips) when available. Especially when I hear that the next iMac will be 'thinner and sleeker'. That says to me that TDP can't be greater than what it is now. Perhaps if they use Arrandale cpus they can get a special overclocked version with enhanced performance.
"Indications would point to slimmer, sleeker designs akin to the company's relatively new 24-inch LED-lit Cinema Display. "
As an owner of an iMac, I don't think the next iMac needs to be any thinner or sleeker. Its thin and sleek enough.
Give it more/better features, ie nehalem processors and blue ray. That would be a good start.
Full agree. I own a 24" current gen iMac - don't think it needs to be slimmer. More RAM capacity and more cores would do it nicely.
I just hope Apple moves beyond the brushed-metal look and goes back to white for the iMacs, along with black. The brushed-metal look doesn't fit with anything else Apple makes anymore, even the interface has moved on to a smooth gray. I want my iMac to match my white iPhone, dammit.
They only had this look for two years, they usually keep a look on their computers running for 3-5 years. The iMacs aren't brush finish either. I don't know where you say the look isn't used anywhere else by Apple, haven't you seen their notebooks? That's the exact same finish. The Mac Pro and mini also have metal with the same finish. The Cinema display is the same.
They only had this look for two years, they usually keep a look on their computers running for 3-5 years. The iMacs aren't brush finish either. I don't know where you say the look isn't used anywhere else by Apple, haven't you seen their notebooks? That's the exact same finish. The Mac Pro and mini also have metal with the same finish. The Cinema display is the same.
What do you mean "The iMacs aren't brush finish," yes they are. Not all the notebooks have this same finish, you can still buy a white MacBook. You are right, the mini is also metal, but, the entire top of it is white. But all the peripherals and other devices are white or black.
I never liked the look of the metal finish iMacs with black accents and a white mouse. It looks like a hodge podge of different styles from the past thrown together. I have a white 24" iMac, white MacBook, white iPod and a white iPhone. So, I bought into the white scheme and was hoping that Apple would continue to offer their devices in white. It would be great if they offered white, black and metallic for everything, but, I'm sure Apple will never give us that much design choice.
I'd like to see the white iMacs return, I think they looked nicer than the current model, and i've been holding off on buying a new iMac until they do. But, I could be waiting a long time.
What do you mean "The iMacs aren't brush finish," yes they are.
Brush finish at least needs to have streaks, Apple's products don't have that. It is probably a bead blasted surface, but it certainly isn't brush.
Not all the notebooks have this same finish, you can still buy a white MacBook. You are right, the mini is also metal, but, the entire top of it is white. But all the peripherals and other devices are white or black.
Sorry, I forgot that white straggler.
The keyboards are bead blasted aluminum too.
Brush finish at least needs to have streaks, Apple's products don't have that. It is probably a bead blasted surface, but it certainly isn't brush.
The keyboards are bead blasted aluminum too.
Bead, brushed, it's very similar. And I hate those keyboards with the black keys. They look cheap and flimsy. I don't think this is one of Apple's greatest design achievements in computers. They look a bit too industrial, which I like, but, doesn't fit well with their other products. It would look good next to my kitchen appliances, but, I don't keep my iMac in the kitchen.
Bead, brushed, it's very similar.
It doesn't hurt to know the difference, it's not at all hard and it's not confusing when you know what you're talking about.
And I hate those keyboards with the black keys. They look cheap and flimsy. I don't think this is one of Apple's greatest design achievements in computers. They look a bit too industrial, which I like, but, doesn't fit well with their other products. It would look good next to my kitchen appliances, but, I don't keep my iMac in the kitchen.
I suppose you mean the notebook built-in keyboards. I was meaning the separate peripherals, I was referring to are these.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=NDc1MTM1OQ
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=NDY5OTg0Mw
I'm not a fan of them, but not a lot of people seem to complain about them. I didn't like the feel of the new style keyboards either, which was why I bought a refurbished MBP. I can see black being better for usability though, when combined with the backlighting.
The only place I see for an AIO desktop is the kitchen computer, and that has to be dirt cheap.
Ouch.
I like the iMac I have very much. It is 'last years' top end model that I bought in a sale this year due to my disgust at the UK price jack.
Dual core.
8800 GS
4 gigs of ram,
500 gig HD.
It does what I want it to.
But is it competitive to Wintel desktops in the mid-range?
No. It's competitive with other AIOs. But it's just a laptop on a stand in my view.
It's a very nice 'laptop' on a stand. And it is a work of art...from it's packaging to the computer to the software itself.
However, it is not competitive against mid-tower competition. No quad core and the gpu is feeble compared to the opposition.
The iMac is a solution for a great many people who are undemanding of their computers. But that's alot to pay for a computer that is undemanding. It's no slouch. But start playing a game and the fans work overtime...and it gets very hot on the left side...!
If I could have bought a mid-tower nehalem for the same price? I would have. But Apple didn't offer one...despite the fact that the cpu prices are much cheaper.
'Choice'. Apple's desktop is plain wrong in my book. A mini that is overpriced and limited. An iMac that is over priced and limited. And the Mac Pro outrageously priced for a 'quad' entry model that is 'unlimited' (unless you count the crappy choice of GPUs...oh...then suddenly it looks limited...) No quad core under £1800. What a disgrace. And no sign of sorting it any time soon...
Feel better now I've had my little moan...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple may 'innovate' and introduce an iMac with a matte display
I like the iMac I have very much. It is 'last years' top end model that I bought in a sale this year due to my disgust at the UK price jack.
That was a VERY smart move, in my book. The discounted outgoing models are always where the best value for money can be found.
I just picked up a £1,599 MacBook Pro for £1,149. Cheaper than the incoming base 15.4" model, and with a 9600M to boot.
But back to the sentiment of your post.
It is beyond me that Apple continue to put laptop components into a desktop computer that is constantly plugged into the wall. The whole premise of laptop components is to trade performance for battery life. To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag, for a desktop computer which has no real need for low power components ? simply so that you can make the design slimmer and quieter ? is beyond me.
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The iMac is a corporate statement. A design statement. It says 'this is a little slice of the future'. It appeals to people who have an eye for beautiful things and who don't mind paying a premium for such objects of desire. For these customers, the performance of the computer doesn't matter as much as having something beautiful on their desktop that people will complement them on. And that's fine, it's their money, and Apple is simply catering to that market.
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
'I don't really care if the £899 entry level MacBook offers better value for money than the £299 P.O.S. that Tesco are selling ? I may not have a job in 6 months time'.
Perhaps function over form is the order of the day? It certainly wouldn't hurt Apple to open up a new product family and test the water?
So if you were to start with a blank sheet of paper, and pick the components which offered the best back-per-puck (within the consumer marketspace) what would you end up with?
? a mainstream desktop CPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream discreet GPU that can be upgraded
? a mainstream memory standard with support for large capacities
? a desktop 3.5" hard disk drive that can be upgraded
? perhaps space for a second hard disk drive
? a mainstream optical drive
And that would be a great machine. It might not look as great as the iMac or be as thin, but it would certainly offer more bang-per-buck and allow Apple to compete.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
You can be damn sure that Apple has costed and built prototypes of this machine. And then the accountant pointed out that there was no margin in the product and that Apple would be slitting its own throat. Not only that, but that Apple would be supplying a product that customers would be able to freely upgrade for years to come without any of that revenue stream coming Apple's way.
And you realise that it's perhaps not a reluctancy on Apple's part to compete in the 'xMac' space, but rather a mechanism of survival. Apple know that they can't afford to compete with the cheap HP machines that are everywhere ? there's simply no margin. So all they can do is build beautiful products that convince those with the means to part with the extra cash in order to experience 'a little slice of the future'.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us. So with this in mind, the next iMac won't offer rational benefits like the best performing components for the job, but rather the components that will allow Apple to build a system that will appeal to the emotions. That means thin, desirable, hardware porn.
That means LED panels and 2.5" HDDs that will allow Apple to build a super-thin enclosure. Hell drop the optical drive completely and offer an optional external unit ? it almost worked with the MacBook Air?
So here's the new iMac ? it's got a beautiful 24" LED backlit display, two spindle RAID via 2.5" hard disk drives, an SD card slot and a 0.75" thick enclosure. It comes with a webcam that anybody can phone and video conference with. It starts at £399, with a £99 per month O2 contract for 24 months. Or there is the 30" model that starts at £499, with a £149 per month contract.
That's compelling. That's the future. That's where the money is. That's where the long term revenue stream is. That's why the iPhone has been so successful for Apple - build compelling hardware porn, let O2 worry about the billing and the credit scoring, and simply take a cut of the profits.
Apple will try it with the tablet first, because it's more socially acceptable (at the moment) to pay a monthly contract for a mobile device.
To repeatedly knowingly select laptop components, which offer lower performance at a higher price tag...
With Apple selling around 90% of ALL their computers containing laptop components... are you certain these components come with a higher price tag?
It's little wonder that Apple is seeing a shift away from desktop computers to notebook computers.
The whole industry is seeing the same shift! And more so on the consumer side of things.
But given the state of the worldwide economy, these customers are thinner on the ground, and I get the impression that customers are more interested in an item's price tag than the value for money that it offers.
ALL computer customers are thinner on the ground. In the last 9 months (the period when this recession actually made a dent in sales), PC sales are down a little over 3%, yet Apple, the company with the expensive laptop component computers, still managed to grow their sales. How do you explain that?
Look you are not the first guy to say that Apple's sales were going to be hit harder than their competitors during this downturn. We were hearing this last year from the financial and tech pundits... some of whom should have known better. With only a slight alteration to costs (MacBooks) Apple seems to have proved them all wrong.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for the headless 'xMac'.
And like all the xMac arguments, you have conveniently forgotten to mention that most people DO NOT upgrade their computers (and never have) and that most people (especially consumers) are buying laptops.
You also fail to mention probably the largest market for desktop towers... the enterprise market... which Apple rarely competes in.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument against the 'xMac'.
I think your financial and business reasons are spot on.
Your 'little slice of the future' comment is a little misguided. That 'future' is already here.
And the argument that you have, once again, omitted is that this potential xMac market is getting smaller as each quarter passes by.
And so we've come 180º, and I realise now that the iMac may not be the best computer that it can be, but rather it's a result of strategy to fish-in the punters. It appeals to the emotional, rather than rational, animal within us.
With respect, I would suggest that your reasons for the xMac are 'emotional'. It seems to be based on your desire for such a product and your belief that their are many more people (than there actually is) that share your desire.
Apple's reasons for denying you this product .... like refusing to join the 'race to the bottom'...like maximising their profits... like not targeting a shrinking market...seem to be the most obvious and 'rational' reasons out there.
And like all the xMac arguments, you have conveniently forgotten to mention that most people DO NOT upgrade their computers (and never have) and that most people (especially consumers) are buying laptops.
You also fail to mention probably the largest market for desktop towers... the enterprise market... which Apple rarely competes in.
But the people who DO NOT upgrade their computers still UPGRADE THERE SCREEN (and don't want to buy a full new system at the same time) as well wanting THE BTO choice that you can't get the with imac. Also you can't get quad cores or good vidoe cards with the imacs.
For the enterprise market a bigger mini with a easy to get to HD and more in line with other pcs pricing will work good for most of there.
Mini needs 2-4gb ram min and a desktop HD.
But the people who DO NOT upgrade their computers still UPGRADE THERE SCREEN (and don't want to buy a full new system at the same time) as well wanting THE BTO choice that you can't get the with imac. Also you can't get quad cores or good vidoe cards with the imacs.
Do you actually know what people are actually buying, or are you just guessing?
Most of the desktops over at Best Buy come with a monitor. It's the same at Dell's web site. Dell used to have an option to save a few bucks and NOT buy a screen. That option seems to have, largely, disappeared. It's easier to sell (or pass on to friends and family!) a computer AND a screen. NPD stated that US retail desktop sales have dropped to 20%. Just a couple of years ago that figure was 50% ! I don't think the 80% buying laptops will be upgrading their screens, processors or graphic cards any time soon.
For the enterprise market a bigger mini with a easy to get to HD and more in line with other pcs pricing will work good for most of there.
Most of the enterprise have locked themselves into the Windows/Exchange ecosystem and many use proprietary custom software. I don't think the size of Apple's desktop computers is what is preventing them from buying Macs.
Look there will always be a market for an economical, upgradable desktop computer. But that market has been shrinking and provides some of the lowest margins in the business. I just cannot see why some people are so surprised that Apple currently has no interest in it.
Apple may 'innovate' and introduce an iMac with a matte display
My biggest regret in buying my Mac Book Pro was "upgrading" to the matte screen. Side by side with the iMac, I still prefer the glossy. Buy the end of the day I am 1 foot away from the matte screen. Never really noticed that until some coworkers pointed it out.