As opposed to expensive Macs with underperforming laptop components? Or even more expensive Macs with laptop components?
Mehhhhhhhhhhhh.
Melgross complaining that the PC market doesn't offer choice? Well, on my Apple Mac planet...we have...a Mac Mini biscuit tin. A laptop in a biscuit tin. £500. No k/b or mouse or Monitor. Or a...a laptop on a stick! £995 to start with. For even more more than a laptop! Or...laptops. But these really are laptops. Or a thinner laptop called an 'air'. Ok. All expensive...*peruses. Ok. What about an Apple 'PC' that does anything remotely similar to the PC market? oh? The Pro? Ah. That will cost you £1800 for the entry model Sir. WHAT? Yes. £1000 more than the cheapest PC quadcore. Are you insane? Nope. Are you saying we really don't have a 'cheap' quadcore for less than £1800?
Yes. We only do expensive.
Oh.
That's your choice Sir.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Improve your reading skills. I said the choice is between bad and worse, not that they don't HAVE a choice.
As opposed to expensive Macs with underperforming laptop components? Or even more expensive Macs with laptop components?
Mehhhhhhhhhhhh.
Melgross complaining that the PC market doesn't offer choice? Well, on my Apple Mac planet...we have...a Mac Mini biscuit tin. A laptop in a biscuit tin. £500. No k/b or mouse or Monitor. Or a...a laptop on a stick! £995 to start with. For even more more than a laptop! Or...laptops. But these really are laptops. Or a thinner laptop called an 'air'. Ok. All expensive...*peruses. Ok. What about an Apple 'PC' that does anything remotely similar to the PC market? oh? The Pro? Ah. That will cost you £1800 for the entry model Sir. WHAT? Yes. £1000 more than the cheapest PC quadcore. Are you insane? Nope. Are you saying we really don't have a 'cheap' quadcore for less than £1800?
Yes. We only do expensive.
Oh.
That's your choice Sir.
Lemon Bon Bon.
What you write is true. To add onto it, I currently believe that this mentality alright considering Apple's goals, though.
Apple doesn't want the most high powered device; it wants a device that can do a lot. As underpowered as their selection may seem compared to current offerings, their current component upgrade track makes more sense considering their goals. Despite better, more powerful components available, i7 PC's provide little added benefit to the average consumer while using more energy and taking up more space.
Apple's offerings have plenty of power for average usage of their target audience, but they also look nicer, have an arguably better overall usage experience, and look cool.
People feel good using their products, get their needs met, and feel happy with the overall product.
Allow me to say that again: People's needs are met, and people feel happy because of the product. That's where they excel, and sell.
In a world where nobody cares to learn what the hell an i7 is because their Mac does everything they want and more, Apple rules.
All you people who keep yelling for quad core, keep in mind that most of the current quad core choices that don't put out 130 watts are $500 or more, which is twice what Apple is currently paying for the processor. So guess where the price point is going to go with quad core? UP UP and AWAY! But you are also complaining about Apple's prices. You can't have it both ways. Given the product designs Apple is happy with, they need to minimize wattage, chip count and price while getting all the performance they can. That is a hard mix to get. Quad core is only going to make sense when the wattage, cihp count and price come down to a range that fits with Apple's product mix.
All you people who keep yelling for quad core, keep in mind that most of the current quad core choices that don't put out 130 watts are $500 or more, which is twice what Apple is currently paying for the processor. So guess where the price point is going to go with quad core? UP UP and AWAY! But you are also complaining about Apple's prices. You can't have it both ways. Given the product designs Apple is happy with, they need to minimize wattage, chip count and price while getting all the performance they can. That is a hard mix to get. Quad core is only going to make sense when the wattage, cihp count and price come down to a range that fits with Apple's product mix.
Core i7 is the answer... price and wattage is GOOD, heat GOOD, performance SWEET and quite honestly at the price thay are charging for the 24" at the moment there loads and loads of margin to put this baby in.
Core i7 is the answer... price and wattage is GOOD, heat GOOD, performance SWEET and quite honestly at the price thay are charging for the 24" at the moment there loads and loads of margin to put this baby in.
Umm not the price mate. Now inhale away from the bong for a while. LOL just kidding. Seriously though, Apple could work a Core i7 into the top-end 24"... It's a matter of willpower, or will-not.
...maybe to be as close as possible to the Windows 7 release.
i like this thought. when is that again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Seriously though, Apple could work a Core i7 into the top-end 24"... It's a matter of willpower, or will-not.
without quad-core i won't buy :-) that easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Guys, these ARE just rumors.
Apple doesn't have to live up to a rumored schedule.
if i remember correctly, october has always been a month for new products from apple (mac). just like we have september for iPods... could be wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
More expensive and underperforming laptop parts?
Lemon Bon Bon.
i don't care about the $100 plus i'd have to pay. i don't want to buy a mac pro and i don't want dual core. a $1500 quad-core+24" mac should be possible and fit with the needs of many people. core2duo with 2-3GHz was yesterday.
Well I hope Apple pull something out the bag soon. My iBook's on its last legs and there's nothing in the current Macbook/iMac line-up that appeals to me at all.
I was talking about the manufacturers of PCs. The subject was the lack of choice for Macs, vs the broad choice for PCs.
You've got cheaply made PCs, and even more cheaply made PCs. To me, that's not much of a choice.
There are plenty of PCs that aren't cheaply made, you know. Apple does not have a monopoly on quality. In fact Apple's focus isn't on quality at all, but on industrial design and customer service, which are both important, too.
Actually industrial design does focus on quality in a big way.
i don't want to buy a mac pro and i don't want dual core. a $1500 quad-core+24" mac should be possible and fit with the needs of many people.
If the quad core processor is $500 or more as most of them are, you are not going to get a 24 inch iMac for $1500. Perhaps a high end $2,300 maybe. In any case I don't think those options will be announced in this update; more probably they will be part of early 2010 update when the Mac Pro is rumored to get a top of the line quad upgrade.
If the quad core processor is $500 or more as most of them are, you are not going to get a 24 inch iMac for $1500. Perhaps a high end $2,300 maybe. In any case I don't think those options will be announced in this update; more probably they will be part of early 2010 update when the Mac Pro is rumored to get a top of the line quad upgrade.
Well the lower-end Quad-core i7 is $360, the medium one is $550 and I bet that Apple can easily get another 20% off that price so having a $300 or $450 processor in a $1600+ mid and higher end iMac... I don't think it's too much to ask for. The question is when...
Well the lower-end Quad-core i7 is $360, the medium one is $550 and I bet that Apple can easily get another 20% off that price so having a $300 or $450 processor in a $1600+ mid and higher end iMac... I don't think it's too much to ask for. The question is when...
Apple can't charge what they pay for a part. It's the practice in all industries to charge between 1.5 to 3 times what was paid for the part, depending on various reasons.
Apple can't charge what they pay for a part. It's the practice in all industries to charge between 1.5 to 3 times what was paid for the part, depending on various reasons.
Of course they wouldn't "sell" it to you or me for the purchase price... what I was trying to say was that the mobile i7 processor is not that ridiculously out of place for the future iMac. It's not that much more expensive than the current Core2Duo they use and with most other iMac components being a LOT cheaper than 2 years ago (RAM, HDD, screen...) there is plenty of margin to work with. And if HP, Sony and many, many others can stuff the mobile i7 into sub $2000 notebooks and $1500 all-in-one desktops then why not the iMac? I might be too optimistic but I'm still hoping that after 2 years of luke-warm upgrades for the iMac line this one will be a BIG one.
Of course they wouldn't "sell" it to you or me for the purchase price... what I was trying to say was that the mobile i7 processor is not that ridiculously out of place for the future iMac. It's not that much more expensive than the current Core2Duo they use and with most other iMac components being a LOT cheaper than 2 years ago (RAM, HDD, screen...) there is plenty of margin to work with. And if HP, Sony and many, many others can stuff the mobile i7 into sub $2000 notebooks and $1500 all-in-one desktops then why not the iMac? I might be too optimistic but I'm still hoping that after 2 years of luke-warm upgrades for the iMac line this one will be a BIG one.
I wish it were true.
But I'm willing to bet that Apple's cases cost several times as much as a PC case. Apple also spends far more on service, etc.
PC vendors make little on even a $1,000+ PC. I don't want to see Apple getting into that low margin spiral.
I also think Apples cases cost most as the bulk of the PC cases you can buy is cheap templated rubbish that is designed to fit a plethora of various motherboards, drives CD Bays.
Saying that it means I can put together a low cost system for $500 and run some linux/unix derivative to avoid the Microsucks license cost and additional cost for anti virus etc ware.
The Mini is great but its still pretty $$$ for what it is, the small form factor will always means it will be a poor performer (comparatively) as heat will always be an issue.
Comments
what are they waiting for!?
More expensive and underperforming laptop parts?
Lemon Bon Bon.
My guess now is new iMacs, Mac mini and MacBooks just to liven up the consumer markets.
I'm sure MS will be appreciative.
Mehhhhhhh.
As opposed to expensive Macs with underperforming laptop components? Or even more expensive Macs with laptop components?
Mehhhhhhhhhhhh.
Melgross complaining that the PC market doesn't offer choice? Well, on my Apple Mac planet...we have...a Mac Mini biscuit tin. A laptop in a biscuit tin. £500. No k/b or mouse or Monitor. Or a...a laptop on a stick! £995 to start with. For even more more than a laptop! Or...laptops. But these really are laptops. Or a thinner laptop called an 'air'. Ok. All expensive...*peruses. Ok. What about an Apple 'PC' that does anything remotely similar to the PC market? oh? The Pro? Ah. That will cost you £1800 for the entry model Sir. WHAT? Yes. £1000 more than the cheapest PC quadcore. Are you insane? Nope. Are you saying we really don't have a 'cheap' quadcore for less than £1800?
Yes. We only do expensive.
Oh.
That's your choice Sir.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Improve your reading skills. I said the choice is between bad and worse, not that they don't HAVE a choice.
Mehhhhhhh.
As opposed to expensive Macs with underperforming laptop components? Or even more expensive Macs with laptop components?
Mehhhhhhhhhhhh.
Melgross complaining that the PC market doesn't offer choice? Well, on my Apple Mac planet...we have...a Mac Mini biscuit tin. A laptop in a biscuit tin. £500. No k/b or mouse or Monitor. Or a...a laptop on a stick! £995 to start with. For even more more than a laptop! Or...laptops. But these really are laptops. Or a thinner laptop called an 'air'. Ok. All expensive...*peruses. Ok. What about an Apple 'PC' that does anything remotely similar to the PC market? oh? The Pro? Ah. That will cost you £1800 for the entry model Sir. WHAT? Yes. £1000 more than the cheapest PC quadcore. Are you insane? Nope. Are you saying we really don't have a 'cheap' quadcore for less than £1800?
Yes. We only do expensive.
Oh.
That's your choice Sir.
Lemon Bon Bon.
What you write is true. To add onto it, I currently believe that this mentality alright considering Apple's goals, though.
Apple doesn't want the most high powered device; it wants a device that can do a lot. As underpowered as their selection may seem compared to current offerings, their current component upgrade track makes more sense considering their goals. Despite better, more powerful components available, i7 PC's provide little added benefit to the average consumer while using more energy and taking up more space.
Apple's offerings have plenty of power for average usage of their target audience, but they also look nicer, have an arguably better overall usage experience, and look cool.
People feel good using their products, get their needs met, and feel happy with the overall product.
Allow me to say that again: People's needs are met, and people feel happy because of the product. That's where they excel, and sell.
In a world where nobody cares to learn what the hell an i7 is because their Mac does everything they want and more, Apple rules.
All you people who keep yelling for quad core, keep in mind that most of the current quad core choices that don't put out 130 watts are $500 or more, which is twice what Apple is currently paying for the processor. So guess where the price point is going to go with quad core? UP UP and AWAY! But you are also complaining about Apple's prices. You can't have it both ways. Given the product designs Apple is happy with, they need to minimize wattage, chip count and price while getting all the performance they can. That is a hard mix to get. Quad core is only going to make sense when the wattage, cihp count and price come down to a range that fits with Apple's product mix.
Core i7 is the answer... price and wattage is GOOD, heat GOOD, performance SWEET and quite honestly at the price thay are charging for the 24" at the moment there loads and loads of margin to put this baby in.
Well....
what are they waiting for!?
...maybe to be as close as possible to the Windows 7 release.
More expensive and underperforming laptop parts?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Nvidia chipset.
Core i7 is the answer... price and wattage is GOOD, heat GOOD, performance SWEET and quite honestly at the price thay are charging for the 24" at the moment there loads and loads of margin to put this baby in.
Umm not the price mate. Now inhale away from the bong for a while. LOL just kidding. Seriously though, Apple could work a Core i7 into the top-end 24"... It's a matter of willpower, or will-not.
...maybe to be as close as possible to the Windows 7 release.
i like this thought. when is that again?
Seriously though, Apple could work a Core i7 into the top-end 24"... It's a matter of willpower, or will-not.
without quad-core i won't buy :-) that easy.
Guys, these ARE just rumors.
Apple doesn't have to live up to a rumored schedule.
if i remember correctly, october has always been a month for new products from apple (mac). just like we have september for iPods... could be wrong though.
More expensive and underperforming laptop parts?
Lemon Bon Bon.
i don't care about the $100 plus i'd have to pay. i don't want to buy a mac pro and i don't want dual core. a $1500 quad-core+24" mac should be possible and fit with the needs of many people. core2duo with 2-3GHz was yesterday.
i like this thought. when is that again?
Thursday Oct 22nd.
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
I was talking about the manufacturers of PCs. The subject was the lack of choice for Macs, vs the broad choice for PCs.
You've got cheaply made PCs, and even more cheaply made PCs. To me, that's not much of a choice.
There are plenty of PCs that aren't cheaply made, you know. Apple does not have a monopoly on quality. In fact Apple's focus isn't on quality at all, but on industrial design and customer service, which are both important, too.
Actually industrial design does focus on quality in a big way.
Maybe the 3:1 stock split. and $5 Billion stock buyback and quarterly div coming!
Stay long, the new iMacs will take care of sales for X-mass!
My old iBook G4's HD is almost full, waiting rather impatiently to see specs on new iMac, if sufficiently updated will spring.
Very curious what "new audio component" will be. So many new advancements just around the horizon.
Wonder if they're waiting for the new Mouse?
without quad-core i won't buy :-) that easy.
i don't want to buy a mac pro and i don't want dual core. a $1500 quad-core+24" mac should be possible and fit with the needs of many people.
If the quad core processor is $500 or more as most of them are, you are not going to get a 24 inch iMac for $1500. Perhaps a high end $2,300 maybe. In any case I don't think those options will be announced in this update; more probably they will be part of early 2010 update when the Mac Pro is rumored to get a top of the line quad upgrade.
If the quad core processor is $500 or more as most of them are, you are not going to get a 24 inch iMac for $1500. Perhaps a high end $2,300 maybe. In any case I don't think those options will be announced in this update; more probably they will be part of early 2010 update when the Mac Pro is rumored to get a top of the line quad upgrade.
Well the lower-end Quad-core i7 is $360, the medium one is $550 and I bet that Apple can easily get another 20% off that price so having a $300 or $450 processor in a $1600+ mid and higher end iMac... I don't think it's too much to ask for. The question is when...
Well the lower-end Quad-core i7 is $360, the medium one is $550 and I bet that Apple can easily get another 20% off that price so having a $300 or $450 processor in a $1600+ mid and higher end iMac... I don't think it's too much to ask for. The question is when...
Apple can't charge what they pay for a part. It's the practice in all industries to charge between 1.5 to 3 times what was paid for the part, depending on various reasons.
Apple can't charge what they pay for a part. It's the practice in all industries to charge between 1.5 to 3 times what was paid for the part, depending on various reasons.
Of course they wouldn't "sell" it to you or me for the purchase price... what I was trying to say was that the mobile i7 processor is not that ridiculously out of place for the future iMac. It's not that much more expensive than the current Core2Duo they use and with most other iMac components being a LOT cheaper than 2 years ago (RAM, HDD, screen...) there is plenty of margin to work with. And if HP, Sony and many, many others can stuff the mobile i7 into sub $2000 notebooks and $1500 all-in-one desktops then why not the iMac? I might be too optimistic but I'm still hoping that after 2 years of luke-warm upgrades for the iMac line this one will be a BIG one.
Of course they wouldn't "sell" it to you or me for the purchase price... what I was trying to say was that the mobile i7 processor is not that ridiculously out of place for the future iMac. It's not that much more expensive than the current Core2Duo they use and with most other iMac components being a LOT cheaper than 2 years ago (RAM, HDD, screen...) there is plenty of margin to work with. And if HP, Sony and many, many others can stuff the mobile i7 into sub $2000 notebooks and $1500 all-in-one desktops then why not the iMac? I might be too optimistic but I'm still hoping that after 2 years of luke-warm upgrades for the iMac line this one will be a BIG one.
I wish it were true.
But I'm willing to bet that Apple's cases cost several times as much as a PC case. Apple also spends far more on service, etc.
PC vendors make little on even a $1,000+ PC. I don't want to see Apple getting into that low margin spiral.
Saying that it means I can put together a low cost system for $500 and run some linux/unix derivative to avoid the Microsucks license cost and additional cost for anti virus etc ware.
The Mini is great but its still pretty $$$ for what it is, the small form factor will always means it will be a poor performer (comparatively) as heat will always be an issue.
Dobby