Methinks the redesigned MacBook, in say three versions, might reach down into the netbook market. The smallest could be the MacBook Nano. No major reinvestment required, just use the basic design of the existing MB and shrink it down with a 10 or 11 inch screen.
Apple can't just shrink down a product. If Intel could make the same chips 20% smaller at the same cost... they would do it in a heart beat. If the battery manufacturers could make their batteries 20% smaller for the same performance they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Of course, it is possible to make things smaller - but there's a cost associated, OR a loss in some other areas (eg: a slower system). It can be both (like the MBA).
BTW: The reverse isn't true in most situations. The chip makers etc abandon the old technology as they progress, so you can't just have a cheaper bigger laptop by providing more room inside - as you end up just leaving space inside the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Although I understand the $99 - 999 graphic, I view the mandatory voice/data plan as part of the purchase price so I see the iPhone 3G as a $1499 device rather than a $99 one. To me the low end offering is the $229 iPod touch.
Absolutely!
Apple displays the price of the 16GB iPhone 3GS in the fine print ($599), but it's not spoken about much, just the $199 subsidised price.
I think this presented 2 issues for Apple
1) How could the iPod Touch survive when it was perceived to be priced so badly in comparison to the iPhone? Apple had to cut the price (and their margins) hugely on the touch.
2) When the phone contract hides the cost so easily to the majority of people, can (and did) they bump up the price and rake in some extra $$$$?
If $599 is realistic for a 16GB iPhone (unsubsidised), what price should we expect for a 16GB 10" tablet with iPhone internals? I don't want another expensive contract to make a tablet price fit the $99-$999 graphic.
But I think it is possible for Apple to drop down the MacBook price. The C2D speeds haven't been skyrocketing and slightly slower chips can allow for some significant price cuts. Removing the DVD and restructuring the battery, without trying to squeeze the internal size smaller, can differentiate it further.
Apple can't just shrink down a product. If Intel could make the same chips 20% smaller at the same cost... they would do it in a heart beat. If the battery manufacturers could make their batteries 20% smaller for the same performance they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Actually that is as simple as pie. First Intel does shrink its products, you have heard of process shrinks haven't you. This leads to higher integration which further allows Apple to shrink its products. As for batteries they have been improving by about 8 % a year.
You don't have to believe me though as looking at the iPhone 3GS kinda proves the point. Here we have more than double the performance in the same package and it has a longer battery life.
Quote:
Of course, it is possible to make things smaller - but there's a cost associated, OR a loss in some other areas (eg: a slower system). It can be both (like the MBA).
Electronics generally gets faster with process shrinks given that power can be managed. Take any modern AMD or Intel CPU and over-clock it a bit, there is a lot of head room especially in Intel processors. Looking away at X86 to ARM on the iPhone proves the point and Samsung already has a process shrunk version of the processor in the 3GS out of the labs. So Apple could easily bump iPhone anytime it wanted to better performance and lower power drain.
Quote:
BTW: The reverse isn't true in most situations. The chip makers etc abandon the old technology as they progress, so you can't just have a cheaper bigger laptop by providing more room inside - as you end up just leaving space inside the case.
Not if you follow wise engineering practice. That space would be dedicated to something, very likely a larger battery as we have seen in the latest MBP.
Quote:
Absolutely!
Apple displays the price of the 16GB iPhone 3GS in the fine print ($599), but it's not spoken about much, just the $199 subsidised price.
I think this presented 2 issues for Apple
1) How could the iPod Touch survive when it was perceived to be priced so badly in comparison to the iPhone? Apple had to cut the price (and their margins) hugely on the touch.
The Touch is selling at a reasonable price and I''m sure Apples is maintaining reasonable margins on each sale. IPhone on the other hand has totally unreasonable margins, likely in excess of 60%. It is great for Apple that they can maintain the smoke and mirrors but eventually the competition will force lowered pricing on iPhone.
As to the rumored Mac Books and associated the rumored tablet, Apple has a lot of discretion with respect to pricing. I believe it is very possible for them to deliver a $600 NoteBook an maintain 30% margins. Unfortunately some may see such a low cost machine as a little to cheap, so maybe Apple readjusts its margins to 25%.
The trick to such a low cost device is to engineer simple PC boards with a minimal of I/O, get rid of space wasting devices like optical drives and 2.5" notebook drives. Apples biggest obstacle to being successful here is the reliance on Intel which really has mucked up the low power line up and Atom. Atom should have been delivered in an high integration version with everything but the GPU on board and they should have supported the use of dual core processors in laptops. The artificial constraints put on Atom have been a marketing boondoggle for Intel.
What Apple should have done was to bitch slapped Intel into a more reasonable attitude with respect to Atom as it would have been the perfect solution for a Snow Leopard based notebook. That is is Intel would have sold it in a dual core high integration solution. I can see MBA students reviewing Intel years from now due to the cock up.
Quote:
2) When the phone contract hides the cost so easily to the majority of people, can (and did) they bump up the price and rake in some extra $$$$?
It is common knowledge that Apple is making lots of money on each iPhone sale. In fact they are likely leading the industry right now. That is one of the reasons I think there will be a major refactoring of pricing if the rumored tablet actually debuts. The problem is clear, the tablet can't be to expensive because people won't see the value in the device over a laptop.
Of course I've pretty much come to the conclusion that marketing any ten inch tablet is going to be tough.
Quote:
If $599 is realistic for a 16GB iPhone (unsubsidised), what price should we expect for a 16GB 10" tablet with iPhone internals? I don't want another expensive contract to make a tablet price fit the $99-$999 graphic.
First the price of $599 isn't realistic at all. There simply isn't enough silicon in the device to justify the price point. I fully expect the unsubsidized price to drop a bit once Apple has a tablet on the market.
As to that expensive contract I'm with you, I want carrier choice. If IPhone has taught me anything it is that 3G is very very very nice to have in a tablet device. Faster than 3G would be nicer. But the issue with carrier tie ins is an abomination. Further I'm actually hoping for a WiFi only model just like we see with iPhone/Touch. It would be even nicer if the tablet was field upgradeable to the carrier interface of your choice. Oh an unlocked would be even nicer for travel.
Beyond all that 16GB is no where near enough memory. This thing needs 128GB to start off on the right foot. I'm not kidding here at all. If you are going to use it mobile, for travel and such, buffering media is going to be a huge application for the device. Plus the reality that there is no perfection with respect to carriers, all of them have dead spots, usually in places where you might want to sit down and actually use a tablet.
Quote:
But I think it is possible for Apple to drop down the MacBook price. The C2D speeds haven't been skyrocketing and slightly slower chips can allow for some significant price cuts. Removing the DVD and restructuring the battery, without trying to squeeze the internal size smaller, can differentiate it further.
Yes all this is true but on the other hand staying with Core 2 is death. It is simply out classed by recent Intel tech and even AMD stuff. What I see Apple doing is going Arrandale at the extreme low end, and using a custom I/O chip. This could lead to a very small and low cost motherboard. Yes I know Arrandale is seen as expensive but if it its the only major chip on the board it may be doable. The other option is to screw Intel and their high pricing and put an AMD chip in the box. Apparently Apples dropping of ATOM wasn't enough to cause Intel to wise up so why not start to phase the out even more.
if my desktop died today and i needed to buy a PC for my wife to sync her iphone to, i'd probably go for a dell. i can get a dell laptop that's about the size of a MBP with LED backlit screen, backlit keyboard, etc for like $700.
if there was a macbook with a 15" screen for $700 i'd look at it. don't see the point in paying for Garage Band if i'll never use it.
yea some great dell selling points that make real sence
you must love your wife to save $190 on not get a white mb
"I stand corrected- although I knew they offered one for the Mac Pro, which makes sense, given the Mac Pro is a full fledged tower and is spacious. I'm curious, however, if Apple has NVIDIA specially form the graphics card to fit inside the iMac... I mean, these are admittedly huge cards. But I wouldn't worry about going beyond the 4850 for some time- it's a very good card, and is comparable in performance to its two higher kin, the 4870 and 4890, although I believe the 4850 is DDR3, not DDR5 memory. I'd bet that in the next refresh, Apple would offer something like the NVIDIA GTS 240 or 250, or ATI's 4870/4890 card since there are GDDR5 and have superior cooling methods than NVIDIA's GTX 200 line. Of course, there are technical differences (and pros and cons) to how ATI and NIVIDIA each handle graphics processing, but either of the aforementioned cards would be a good match for the iMac's limited space and cooling capabilities.
My $.02"
Sorry to dissapoint you but Nvidia or ATI do not shrink full sized cards down especially for iMacs, iMacs use mobile video cards exactly the same as ones Alienware, Dell etc. use.
A fine example of you imagining how this could be done instead of looking at a teardown. Do you have any idea how much those custom cards would cost ? Apple cards use a custom BIOS to talk to Intel EFI but that is as custom as it gets.
Every Mac uses identical chipsets and boards to PCs. If anyone paid you $.02 for that they overpayed !
Do you have any idea how unnecessary your interjection was? He was positing a thought, whether it's right or not, it's just a thought. However, given your own information is patently wrong (there is no mobile 4850), your post served only to stroke your own ego.
The next time you decide to break in on a civil conversation with bullshit like that, do yourself a favor and go outside and find a girlfriend instead.
I didn't realize that connecting Macs to one another in the least painful manner was considered a high end legacy feature. Fact is Firewire, still is more feature packed then USB and the road map for development looks a lot better as well. That is why long time Mac users went nuts when Apple temporarily abandoned it. People will notice that Apple made a point of announcing it was back at it's last keynote.
USB and Ethernet do not let users manage various computers as well as Firewire. Firewire will not be sacrificed.
MANY apple reps have stated to me that fire wire will sooner or later be gone>
usb2/3 is just as fast rthey say and apple wants to make ports that fit with the component makers ports.
And the herd is slowly moving to usb 2/3 and mini usb for the many other things .
Apple wants to be mainstream and fire wire is slowing fading . IT may take 3 yrs or 5 but fire wire is dead.
if my desktop died today and i needed to buy a PC for my wife to sync her iphone to, i'd probably go for a dell. i can get a dell laptop that's about the size of a MBP with LED backlit screen, backlit keyboard, etc for like $700.
if there was a macbook with a 15" screen for $700 i'd look at it. don't see the point in paying for Garage Band if i'll never use it.
Al good luck with dealingwith all the viruses and spyware, the crappy interface, the illogical settings design, the inability to perform a drive clone and have a drive ready in case of disaster, let alone this piece of junk looking like crap having half the satisfaction rates of apple...and like another poster says all that free time that you can spend with wife/kids/buddies/mistress and what have you, going to finding work arounds for mending the unmendable pc instead of precious time for your life.
I know that man, cause I ve spent more than decade on the other side of the mac, and am still mourning my lost time...
Anyway, I'm expecting Apple to do something like this to its line-up:
iMacs
20" 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo- $1099
4GB DDR3 RAM
640GB HDD
Nvidia 9600m GT
24" 2.66GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1399
4GB DDR3 RAM
640GB HDD
Nvidia 9600m GT
24" 2.93GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1699
4GB DDR3 RAM
750GB HDD
ATI Radeon 4850
24" 3.06GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1999
4GB DDR3 RAM
1TB HDD
Nvidia GTX285.
Exactly where are you coming up with these mythical Core i7 Mobile processors? There won't be a 3GHz mobile version of the Core i7 for at least another year.
The current mobile chips range from 1.6-2.0 GHz and the top end chip has a list price that's double that of the current 3.06GHz Penryn.
I firmly believe there will never be a Nehalem processor in an iMac, that Apple will wait until Intel moves to the 32nm Westmere chips.
The only Nehalem chip suitable for the current iMac (power draw, cooling requirements) is the L series Xeon processor and the likelihood of Apple using a server chip in the iMac is very low.
Unless they do something completely different with the iMac I don't expect the forthcoming "compelling" features will convince me to buy. I absolutely won't spend money on an iMac that doesn't sport 4 cores, an anti-glare display with LED backlighting, and a user upgradeable hard drive.
I have the early 2008 MacBook Pro (aluminum, needless to say) which I carry around in a standard Targus computer bag.
I have ZERO dents, scratches, etc. It looks as cool and flawless as the day I bought it.
Little more care, perhaps? Some people are simply not careful with their toys.
I think the bag I bought is not up to the job. It's gotten damaged twice while inside that case. I have no idea how. The big dent happened on a trip to Toronto. I can't for the life of me think of how. Maybe the case got banging against a subway turnstile or something. I really don't know.
The point is... accidents DO happen... no matter how careful you are... and when they do... plastic is a million times more resilient than aluminum. The aluminum is so soft and it doesn't bounce back. One little accident and your baby is looking pretty ugly. I should point out that the damage is to the lid... not the body. The lid is very thin compared to the body. The dent (and scratch) are both on the side of the lid. Not impressed.
Also... in the school environment you can't really expect people to baby their notebook. Students are constantly on the move and the laptop probably ends up in book bags and you name it and gets banged around a lot. It make sense for Apple to keep a cheap, rugged option.
re: "a little more care"... yah... thanks for the tip dude. I also own a 10 year old car... and everyone thinks it's new when they see it. I don't appreciate being told that I don't take care of my stuff. I take great care. Again... accidents happen.
I'm really hoping that Apple realizes that some folks (such as myself) like netbooks not for the price but for the form factor. I have a Dell Mini 9, and would love it if I could get a "MacBook Mini" or "MacBook Lite" of around the same 9" or 10" form factor. I don't mind paying higher prices than a standard NetBook - (maybe $599 - $799) as long as the performance and design were worth it. Here's to hoping...
I always thought the white Macs were beautiful both in the iMac and the MacBook. I have one of each of the first intel iterations. I always liked the white offerings from Apple as opposed to the 'pall-bearer gray' and 'funeral black' offerings from HP and Dell. They just seemed fresher and more modern.
Compared to the new MacBooks and new iMacs the white does now look dated, to say the least and of course, there is the important recycling aspect too. The aluminum is my choice now because it is more earth friendly.
I am somewhat surprised Apple is staying with the plastic not only in the MacBook but other units too like their Time Capsules, Extreme routers and mice, for that matter.
I didn't realize that connecting Macs to one another in the least painful manner was considered a high end legacy feature. Fact is Firewire, still is more feature packed then USB and the road map for development looks a lot better as well. That is why long time Mac users went nuts when Apple temporarily abandoned it. People will notice that Apple made a point of announcing it was back at it's last keynote.
USB and Ethernet do not let users manage various computers as well as Firewire. Firewire will not be sacrificed.
Let us hope that FireWire port is included in the redesigned MacBook.
It is not just a 'high-end' feature. I don't know where 'Appleinsider' decides to pronounce Firewire as a dispensable feature. Sigh.
I've got quite a few FireWire external devices that I wish to continue to use on a (potential) new MacBook. As do many of the folks I work with.
On the positive side, now that availability is up, and (some of) prices have come down on the FireWire 400-to-800 adapters, it is not (to me) a problem to have only the FW 800 (1394b) port and no FW 400 on the computer. (Assuming the computer has the Firewire port).
Let us hope that FireWire port is included in the redesigned MacBook.
It is not just a 'high-end' feature. I don't know where 'Appleinsider' decides to pronounce Firewire as a dispensable feature. Sigh.
I've got quite a few FireWire external devices that I wish to continue to use on a (potential) new MacBook. As do many of the folks I work with.
On the positive side, now that availability is up, and (some of) prices have come down on the FireWire 400-to-800 adapters, it is not (to me) a problem to have only the FW 800 (1394b) port and no FW 400 on the computer. (Assuming the computer has the Firewire port).
What do you do that you don't think is high end? For seemingly everything outside of professional media, legacy or industrial devices, USB devices are easier to find than the Firewire equivalent.
yea some great dell selling points that make real sence
you must love your wife to save $190 on not get a white mb
ha ha charade you are
Exactly... A couple of years ago someone posted, 'if you want to make a 15 year old girl cry this Xmas, buy her an MP3 player that is something other than an iPod.' This said it all and it was funny too.
Soon it will be, 'if you buy your girlfriend/wife something other than an Apple product (iPhone, iPod, MacBook, iMac, etc., etc.) she will think she has a dolt for a boyfriend/husband!
This is another of those 'we are analysts who watch Apple but have no facts about what Apple will do so this is what we think they will do' rumors.
What I'd like to see them do is drop the price of the aluminum one and get rid of the white plastic ones. The build quality is so much better on the aluminum ones and Apple won't get people going back with cracked shells or worn out palm rests.
It's true that if they don't offer a lower priced model, some people will just go with a PC but if they make a touch tablet that is a full computer, people can hook it up to a big external screen when they want and get a cheap Mac portable.
Apple's online store indicates that the white MacBook is outselling all other Macs with the exception of the iMac, while similar rankings from high-volume resellers like MacMall also consistently place it in the top 10 best selling Apple-related products overall, ahead of all desktop-based Macs.
The snow white Mac's sell well because of their clean, smooth, white porcelain looks. Women and kids love them.
Johnathan Ive used to design toilets before becoming Steve jobs best friend and designer.
Comments
And yet you still have yet to explain your idea to replace it, strange that !
Perhaps even more ironic is didn't they need to type this statement for the post to be made?
Methinks the redesigned MacBook, in say three versions, might reach down into the netbook market. The smallest could be the MacBook Nano. No major reinvestment required, just use the basic design of the existing MB and shrink it down with a 10 or 11 inch screen.
Apple can't just shrink down a product. If Intel could make the same chips 20% smaller at the same cost... they would do it in a heart beat. If the battery manufacturers could make their batteries 20% smaller for the same performance they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Of course, it is possible to make things smaller - but there's a cost associated, OR a loss in some other areas (eg: a slower system). It can be both (like the MBA).
BTW: The reverse isn't true in most situations. The chip makers etc abandon the old technology as they progress, so you can't just have a cheaper bigger laptop by providing more room inside - as you end up just leaving space inside the case.
Although I understand the $99 - 999 graphic, I view the mandatory voice/data plan as part of the purchase price so I see the iPhone 3G as a $1499 device rather than a $99 one. To me the low end offering is the $229 iPod touch.
Absolutely!
Apple displays the price of the 16GB iPhone 3GS in the fine print ($599), but it's not spoken about much, just the $199 subsidised price.
I think this presented 2 issues for Apple
1) How could the iPod Touch survive when it was perceived to be priced so badly in comparison to the iPhone? Apple had to cut the price (and their margins) hugely on the touch.
2) When the phone contract hides the cost so easily to the majority of people, can (and did) they bump up the price and rake in some extra $$$$?
If $599 is realistic for a 16GB iPhone (unsubsidised), what price should we expect for a 16GB 10" tablet with iPhone internals? I don't want another expensive contract to make a tablet price fit the $99-$999 graphic.
But I think it is possible for Apple to drop down the MacBook price. The C2D speeds haven't been skyrocketing and slightly slower chips can allow for some significant price cuts. Removing the DVD and restructuring the battery, without trying to squeeze the internal size smaller, can differentiate it further.
Apple can't just shrink down a product. If Intel could make the same chips 20% smaller at the same cost... they would do it in a heart beat. If the battery manufacturers could make their batteries 20% smaller for the same performance they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Actually that is as simple as pie. First Intel does shrink its products, you have heard of process shrinks haven't you. This leads to higher integration which further allows Apple to shrink its products. As for batteries they have been improving by about 8 % a year.
You don't have to believe me though as looking at the iPhone 3GS kinda proves the point. Here we have more than double the performance in the same package and it has a longer battery life.
Of course, it is possible to make things smaller - but there's a cost associated, OR a loss in some other areas (eg: a slower system). It can be both (like the MBA).
Electronics generally gets faster with process shrinks given that power can be managed. Take any modern AMD or Intel CPU and over-clock it a bit, there is a lot of head room especially in Intel processors. Looking away at X86 to ARM on the iPhone proves the point and Samsung already has a process shrunk version of the processor in the 3GS out of the labs. So Apple could easily bump iPhone anytime it wanted to better performance and lower power drain.
BTW: The reverse isn't true in most situations. The chip makers etc abandon the old technology as they progress, so you can't just have a cheaper bigger laptop by providing more room inside - as you end up just leaving space inside the case.
Not if you follow wise engineering practice. That space would be dedicated to something, very likely a larger battery as we have seen in the latest MBP.
Absolutely!
Apple displays the price of the 16GB iPhone 3GS in the fine print ($599), but it's not spoken about much, just the $199 subsidised price.
I think this presented 2 issues for Apple
1) How could the iPod Touch survive when it was perceived to be priced so badly in comparison to the iPhone? Apple had to cut the price (and their margins) hugely on the touch.
The Touch is selling at a reasonable price and I''m sure Apples is maintaining reasonable margins on each sale. IPhone on the other hand has totally unreasonable margins, likely in excess of 60%. It is great for Apple that they can maintain the smoke and mirrors but eventually the competition will force lowered pricing on iPhone.
As to the rumored Mac Books and associated the rumored tablet, Apple has a lot of discretion with respect to pricing. I believe it is very possible for them to deliver a $600 NoteBook an maintain 30% margins. Unfortunately some may see such a low cost machine as a little to cheap, so maybe Apple readjusts its margins to 25%.
The trick to such a low cost device is to engineer simple PC boards with a minimal of I/O, get rid of space wasting devices like optical drives and 2.5" notebook drives. Apples biggest obstacle to being successful here is the reliance on Intel which really has mucked up the low power line up and Atom. Atom should have been delivered in an high integration version with everything but the GPU on board and they should have supported the use of dual core processors in laptops. The artificial constraints put on Atom have been a marketing boondoggle for Intel.
What Apple should have done was to bitch slapped Intel into a more reasonable attitude with respect to Atom as it would have been the perfect solution for a Snow Leopard based notebook. That is is Intel would have sold it in a dual core high integration solution. I can see MBA students reviewing Intel years from now due to the cock up.
2) When the phone contract hides the cost so easily to the majority of people, can (and did) they bump up the price and rake in some extra $$$$?
It is common knowledge that Apple is making lots of money on each iPhone sale. In fact they are likely leading the industry right now. That is one of the reasons I think there will be a major refactoring of pricing if the rumored tablet actually debuts. The problem is clear, the tablet can't be to expensive because people won't see the value in the device over a laptop.
Of course I've pretty much come to the conclusion that marketing any ten inch tablet is going to be tough.
If $599 is realistic for a 16GB iPhone (unsubsidised), what price should we expect for a 16GB 10" tablet with iPhone internals? I don't want another expensive contract to make a tablet price fit the $99-$999 graphic.
First the price of $599 isn't realistic at all. There simply isn't enough silicon in the device to justify the price point. I fully expect the unsubsidized price to drop a bit once Apple has a tablet on the market.
As to that expensive contract I'm with you, I want carrier choice. If IPhone has taught me anything it is that 3G is very very very nice to have in a tablet device. Faster than 3G would be nicer. But the issue with carrier tie ins is an abomination. Further I'm actually hoping for a WiFi only model just like we see with iPhone/Touch. It would be even nicer if the tablet was field upgradeable to the carrier interface of your choice. Oh an unlocked would be even nicer for travel.
Beyond all that 16GB is no where near enough memory. This thing needs 128GB to start off on the right foot. I'm not kidding here at all. If you are going to use it mobile, for travel and such, buffering media is going to be a huge application for the device. Plus the reality that there is no perfection with respect to carriers, all of them have dead spots, usually in places where you might want to sit down and actually use a tablet.
But I think it is possible for Apple to drop down the MacBook price. The C2D speeds haven't been skyrocketing and slightly slower chips can allow for some significant price cuts. Removing the DVD and restructuring the battery, without trying to squeeze the internal size smaller, can differentiate it further.
Yes all this is true but on the other hand staying with Core 2 is death. It is simply out classed by recent Intel tech and even AMD stuff. What I see Apple doing is going Arrandale at the extreme low end, and using a custom I/O chip. This could lead to a very small and low cost motherboard. Yes I know Arrandale is seen as expensive but if it its the only major chip on the board it may be doable. The other option is to screw Intel and their high pricing and put an AMD chip in the box. Apparently Apples dropping of ATOM wasn't enough to cause Intel to wise up so why not start to phase the out even more.
Dave
if my desktop died today and i needed to buy a PC for my wife to sync her iphone to, i'd probably go for a dell. i can get a dell laptop that's about the size of a MBP with LED backlit screen, backlit keyboard, etc for like $700.
if there was a macbook with a 15" screen for $700 i'd look at it. don't see the point in paying for Garage Band if i'll never use it.
yea some great dell selling points that make real sence
you must love your wife to save $190 on not get a white mb
ha ha charade you are
"I stand corrected- although I knew they offered one for the Mac Pro, which makes sense, given the Mac Pro is a full fledged tower and is spacious. I'm curious, however, if Apple has NVIDIA specially form the graphics card to fit inside the iMac... I mean, these are admittedly huge cards. But I wouldn't worry about going beyond the 4850 for some time- it's a very good card, and is comparable in performance to its two higher kin, the 4870 and 4890, although I believe the 4850 is DDR3, not DDR5 memory. I'd bet that in the next refresh, Apple would offer something like the NVIDIA GTS 240 or 250, or ATI's 4870/4890 card since there are GDDR5 and have superior cooling methods than NVIDIA's GTX 200 line. Of course, there are technical differences (and pros and cons) to how ATI and NIVIDIA each handle graphics processing, but either of the aforementioned cards would be a good match for the iMac's limited space and cooling capabilities.
My $.02"
Sorry to dissapoint you but Nvidia or ATI do not shrink full sized cards down especially for iMacs, iMacs use mobile video cards exactly the same as ones Alienware, Dell etc. use.
A fine example of you imagining how this could be done instead of looking at a teardown. Do you have any idea how much those custom cards would cost ? Apple cards use a custom BIOS to talk to Intel EFI but that is as custom as it gets.
Every Mac uses identical chipsets and boards to PCs. If anyone paid you $.02 for that they overpayed !
Do you have any idea how unnecessary your interjection was? He was positing a thought, whether it's right or not, it's just a thought. However, given your own information is patently wrong (there is no mobile 4850), your post served only to stroke your own ego.
The next time you decide to break in on a civil conversation with bullshit like that, do yourself a favor and go outside and find a girlfriend instead.
I didn't realize that connecting Macs to one another in the least painful manner was considered a high end legacy feature. Fact is Firewire, still is more feature packed then USB and the road map for development looks a lot better as well. That is why long time Mac users went nuts when Apple temporarily abandoned it. People will notice that Apple made a point of announcing it was back at it's last keynote.
USB and Ethernet do not let users manage various computers as well as Firewire. Firewire will not be sacrificed.
MANY apple reps have stated to me that fire wire will sooner or later be gone>
usb2/3 is just as fast rthey say and apple wants to make ports that fit with the component makers ports.
And the herd is slowly moving to usb 2/3 and mini usb for the many other things .
Apple wants to be mainstream and fire wire is slowing fading . IT may take 3 yrs or 5 but fire wire is dead.
if my desktop died today and i needed to buy a PC for my wife to sync her iphone to, i'd probably go for a dell. i can get a dell laptop that's about the size of a MBP with LED backlit screen, backlit keyboard, etc for like $700.
if there was a macbook with a 15" screen for $700 i'd look at it. don't see the point in paying for Garage Band if i'll never use it.
Al good luck with dealingwith all the viruses and spyware, the crappy interface, the illogical settings design, the inability to perform a drive clone and have a drive ready in case of disaster, let alone this piece of junk looking like crap having half the satisfaction rates of apple...and like another poster says all that free time that you can spend with wife/kids/buddies/mistress and what have you, going to finding work arounds for mending the unmendable pc instead of precious time for your life.
I know that man, cause I ve spent more than decade on the other side of the mac, and am still mourning my lost time...
Anyway, I'm expecting Apple to do something like this to its line-up:
iMacs
20" 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo- $1099
4GB DDR3 RAM
640GB HDD
Nvidia 9600m GT
24" 2.66GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1399
4GB DDR3 RAM
640GB HDD
Nvidia 9600m GT
24" 2.93GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1699
4GB DDR3 RAM
750GB HDD
ATI Radeon 4850
24" 3.06GHz Core i7 Mobile- $1999
4GB DDR3 RAM
1TB HDD
Nvidia GTX285.
Exactly where are you coming up with these mythical Core i7 Mobile processors? There won't be a 3GHz mobile version of the Core i7 for at least another year.
The current mobile chips range from 1.6-2.0 GHz and the top end chip has a list price that's double that of the current 3.06GHz Penryn.
I firmly believe there will never be a Nehalem processor in an iMac, that Apple will wait until Intel moves to the 32nm Westmere chips.
The only Nehalem chip suitable for the current iMac (power draw, cooling requirements) is the L series Xeon processor and the likelihood of Apple using a server chip in the iMac is very low.
Unless they do something completely different with the iMac I don't expect the forthcoming "compelling" features will convince me to buy. I absolutely won't spend money on an iMac that doesn't sport 4 cores, an anti-glare display with LED backlighting, and a user upgradeable hard drive.
Colours!
That would be great!
I have the early 2008 MacBook Pro (aluminum, needless to say) which I carry around in a standard Targus computer bag.
I have ZERO dents, scratches, etc. It looks as cool and flawless as the day I bought it.
Little more care, perhaps? Some people are simply not careful with their toys.
I think the bag I bought is not up to the job. It's gotten damaged twice while inside that case. I have no idea how. The big dent happened on a trip to Toronto. I can't for the life of me think of how. Maybe the case got banging against a subway turnstile or something. I really don't know.
The point is... accidents DO happen... no matter how careful you are... and when they do... plastic is a million times more resilient than aluminum. The aluminum is so soft and it doesn't bounce back. One little accident and your baby is looking pretty ugly. I should point out that the damage is to the lid... not the body. The lid is very thin compared to the body. The dent (and scratch) are both on the side of the lid. Not impressed.
Also... in the school environment you can't really expect people to baby their notebook. Students are constantly on the move and the laptop probably ends up in book bags and you name it and gets banged around a lot. It make sense for Apple to keep a cheap, rugged option.
re: "a little more care"... yah... thanks for the tip dude. I also own a 10 year old car... and everyone thinks it's new when they see it. I don't appreciate being told that I don't take care of my stuff. I take great care. Again... accidents happen.
Compared to the new MacBooks and new iMacs the white does now look dated, to say the least and of course, there is the important recycling aspect too. The aluminum is my choice now because it is more earth friendly.
I am somewhat surprised Apple is staying with the plastic not only in the MacBook but other units too like their Time Capsules, Extreme routers and mice, for that matter.
I didn't realize that connecting Macs to one another in the least painful manner was considered a high end legacy feature. Fact is Firewire, still is more feature packed then USB and the road map for development looks a lot better as well. That is why long time Mac users went nuts when Apple temporarily abandoned it. People will notice that Apple made a point of announcing it was back at it's last keynote.
USB and Ethernet do not let users manage various computers as well as Firewire. Firewire will not be sacrificed.
Let us hope that FireWire port is included in the redesigned MacBook.
It is not just a 'high-end' feature. I don't know where 'Appleinsider' decides to pronounce Firewire as a dispensable feature. Sigh.
I've got quite a few FireWire external devices that I wish to continue to use on a (potential) new MacBook. As do many of the folks I work with.
On the positive side, now that availability is up, and (some of) prices have come down on the FireWire 400-to-800 adapters, it is not (to me) a problem to have only the FW 800 (1394b) port and no FW 400 on the computer. (Assuming the computer has the Firewire port).
Let us hope that FireWire port is included in the redesigned MacBook.
It is not just a 'high-end' feature. I don't know where 'Appleinsider' decides to pronounce Firewire as a dispensable feature. Sigh.
I've got quite a few FireWire external devices that I wish to continue to use on a (potential) new MacBook. As do many of the folks I work with.
On the positive side, now that availability is up, and (some of) prices have come down on the FireWire 400-to-800 adapters, it is not (to me) a problem to have only the FW 800 (1394b) port and no FW 400 on the computer. (Assuming the computer has the Firewire port).
What do you do that you don't think is high end? For seemingly everything outside of professional media, legacy or industrial devices, USB devices are easier to find than the Firewire equivalent.
yea some great dell selling points that make real sence
you must love your wife to save $190 on not get a white mb
ha ha charade you are
Soon it will be, 'if you buy your girlfriend/wife something other than an Apple product (iPhone, iPod, MacBook, iMac, etc., etc.) she will think she has a dolt for a boyfriend/husband!
What I'd like to see them do is drop the price of the aluminum one and get rid of the white plastic ones. The build quality is so much better on the aluminum ones and Apple won't get people going back with cracked shells or worn out palm rests.
It's true that if they don't offer a lower priced model, some people will just go with a PC but if they make a touch tablet that is a full computer, people can hook it up to a big external screen when they want and get a cheap Mac portable.
Apple's online store indicates that the white MacBook is outselling all other Macs with the exception of the iMac, while similar rankings from high-volume resellers like MacMall also consistently place it in the top 10 best selling Apple-related products overall, ahead of all desktop-based Macs.
The snow white Mac's sell well because of their clean, smooth, white porcelain looks. Women and kids love them.
Johnathan Ive used to design toilets before becoming Steve jobs best friend and designer.