They don't cost much - you can have a reasonable premium price that doesn't break the bank if you had 512Mb as a starting RAM level, 120Gig HDD, Bluetooth, FW800 etc.
Not too premium, you can already get 512MB, 120GB+ drives and 17" LCD's in computers costing 999-1299. iMac needs to be there, mebbe not with the CPU, but with the features and the price. An iMac is supposed to be affordable. 1000 USD is already HIGH.
Moreover, they need to keep the conversion rates in the realm of reality.
A 1000USD machine can't be more than 1500 Canadian, and that's already too high, since 1000USD is about 1420 Canadian.
It'll be interesting to see what Apple does with the price points of this update. If they cut them then they'll have a problem with current machines stuck in inventory. I suspect they might cut the prices of existing machines, intro these new ones at the current price points, wait for the old ones to drain away, and then drop the prices on the new models... if their build costs are low enough to be able to do that.
The G5 iMac cannot materialize until the 970 is available at 90nm. That should happen in Q1 '04. Some time after that we may see an iMac update. Alternative the 7457 could show up and allow Apple to push upward to 1.6 GHz at a lower price, and take advantage of a 200 MHz MPX bus. These would be reasonably fast machines -- good enough for the consumer market. Price point will be the main issue.
I think one has to look toward the future of the iMac. Could this style computer go belly-up? I mean sales of this sucker are flatter than flat. I know the performance has kind of rained on the design's parade. It would take a G5 to perk it up, but do you honestly think an early 2004 G5+ will do the trick? It may be too late.
I think one has to look toward the future of the iMac. Could this style computer go belly-up? I mean sales of this sucker are flatter than flat. I know the performance has kind of rained on the design's parade. It would take a G5 to perk it up, but do you honestly think an early 2004 G5+ will do the trick? It may be too late.
The iMac's problem is its $1300 to $1800 price point. Like the Cube, this machine is priced in the wrong range to sell a lot. Apple should push the eMac down to $700 to $1000 while the iMac should occupy the $1000 to $1500 price range. I originally thought 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970, but now I think dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz 7457 should be the way to go.
Alternative the 7457 could show up and allow Apple to push upward to 1.6 GHz at a lower price, and take advantage of a 200 MHz MPX bus. These would be reasonably fast machines -- good enough for the consumer market. Price point will be the main issue.
Only if Moronola delivers. Look at what they have done to Apple (they almost made Apple disappear) I really doubt we are gonna see anything higher than 1.5GHz from them in the next 90 months.
I'm trying really hard to switch to Macs. If true, the USB 2.0 is nice. I would have liked more RAM or bigger hard drive more. I'm waiting to see the price too. This could be a good upgrade depending on price. I've seen enough rumors to not put too much stock in any. Haven't the Powerbooks been rumored to be updated for several months now. Apple - help me out - I want to switch!
The iMac's problem is its $1300 to $1800 price point. Like the Cube, this machine is priced in the wrong range to sell a lot. Apple should push the eMac down to $700 to $1000 while the iMac should occupy the $1000 to $1500 price range. I originally thought 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970, but now I think dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz 7457 should be the way to go.
Dual processor 1 GHz iMacs would be sweet. Although I doubt Apple has the balls to actually do this. Obviously supply of fast chips from Motorola plays a major part, but Apple seems to be content on milking a product for as long as it can.
And I suppose minor incremental upgrades every 9 months or so also won't upset someone who has recently just purchased a CPU.
Am I the only one that sees the discrepancy here? Look at the price and then compare the specs. HELLO?! The first one is the only one I'm not insulted with. How can you charge $1,999.00 for a SINGLE 1.6GHz G5 and $2,999.00 for a D-U-A-L 2GHz G5? With a new chip out that blows anything within it's vicinity to kingdom come, how can you... how can you expect a half intelligent consumer to pay $1,799.00 for a 1 GHz G4 dinosaur???!!!!!!
Why, why, why, why is Apple *ucking around with this opportunity to completely stomp the competition?
Why aren't we seeing a 1.2 Ghz G5 iMac now? Why aren't we seeing a headless G5 iMac?
Craziness, craziness, that's why.
I don't need a Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5, but I'm also unwilling to pay that much for a G4. That's from one extreme to the other. Get a clue already Apple.
I think the notion about a huge gap in performance between PCs and Macs in relation to price is ubsurd. Let's look, shall we?
As mentioned, Dell has a $499 PC running @ 2.2GHZ. This machine features a Celeron processor and a 400MHZ FSB. It comes with 128MB of shared DDR RAM that is utilized at 266MHz in this model. Integrated audio, etc and a crappy LCD 15" display. For anyone who hasn't experienced it, shared RAM bites the big one. It greatly drains the system, in my experience. The same with integrated audio. This machine has an advantage int he FSB category and the fact that it has a dual data rate bus, but the LCD is crappy and so is the design and technology. You get the cheapest HDD, cheapest memory, cheapest video for a dirt cheap price. So, you basically get a machine that'll last you a year and not be great for any professional apps whatsoever. You also get a machine that realistically underperforms a G4 @ 1 GHZ even with the G4 FSB problems. If the G4 supported true DDR and had a 200MHz FSB then there would be no contest. Oh yeah, and only a CD-ROM here.
For $1199 you still get integrated audio, shared RAM, etc, a 533MHZ bus and a P4 @ 2.4GHZ. Is this machine faster than a 1.25 G4? In real world tests, not really. The G4 still has an independent video processor and a much better display. @ $749 you can get a P4 with an Nvidia chipset with more RAM than the iMac (but older GeForce than the new iMac would have). You still wouldn't have a combo or superdrive.
Is the iMac really overpriced or underpowered? Not really when you consider the quality of components. Is it as good of a value as the eMac? Not really to that too - but the iMac has a vivid LCD, an unique design, and an all-in-one package that no one besides Apple has ever been able to master. I would love to see more power and a lower price. What I would really like is true DDR support in the iMac and the eMac including at least a 200MHZ FSB. Dual channel support would be even better, but it's not Apple's fault here. Motorola has not been a good partner for chips. It's going to take another year before IBM really starts helping Apple out, so they'll have to make due.
I think a 1GHZ and 1.25GHZ iMac would be of better value with a $100 price cut on the low-end 15" (brings it to $1199) and a $200 price cut ont he 17" (to $1599).
Yes I know. Still not interested. It's a cheap (Washed-out) LCD.
There's no excuse why Apple can't offer a G5 in the $1,400 range for consumers who do not need a Dual 2 GHz G5. I don't care it it was a 1.2 GHZ G5. That still would blow away any single G4. Apple COULD offer such a system, the price of the DUAL 2 GHz G5 proves that, they just don't want to so as to make a few more bucks, or so they think. How many consumers want a G5 system but don't need nor can afford a DUAL 2 GHz G5? I'll bet my balls the numbers of that category exceed the pro shops by a l-o-n-g shot. That's what infuriates me. I'm ready to upgrade my 350 G4 and I'm sure a G5 at around $1,400 would make potential switchers switch. No? But not at those prices, Sorry. If Apple is really serious about increasing their market share, they would take this opportunity and run with it. Thus far they are catering to the "few" pros and ignoring the consumer. As always, FOOLS!!! Sorry, I love Apple but this issue really burns me up.
I think the notion about a huge gap in performance between PCs and Macs in relation to price is ubsurd. Let's look, shall we?
--Snip--
For $1199 you still get integrated audio, shared RAM, etc, a 533MHZ bus and a P4 @ 2.4GHZ. Is this machine faster than a 1.25 G4? In real world tests, not really. The G4 still has an independent video processor and a much better display. @ $749 you can get a P4 with an Nvidia chipset with more RAM than the iMac (but older GeForce than the new iMac would have). You still wouldn't have a combo or superdrive.
--Snip--
Integrated audio and shared RAM? Uh, at Dell for $1196 dollars you can get that 2.4GHz P4 with a SoundBlaster card, a 128MB Radeon 9800 video card, a Combo (DVD/CD-RW) drive, and a 19" monitor.
For the current price of the 17' iMac you can get a 3GHz p4 with800Mhz FSB, 512megs of ram, a 128MB Radeon 9800, a DVD+RW/+R drive, soundblaster card and a 19" monitor.
Unfortunately it is not a notion that there is a huge gap in the price and performance between Macs and windows PCs, it is an undeniable fact. Motorola's failure to match Intel and AMD's progress has put Apple in this position -- IBM's G5 is the the chip that will pull them out of it.
These specs are most certainly disappointing. With the PowerMacs now starting at 1.6Ghz G5's, I had anticipated this would allow Apple to use the once "high end" 1.42Ghz G4 chips in their iMacs, allowing the two iMac models to be 1.25Ghz and 1.42Ghz G4's. So what if they're a higher clock speed than the PowerBooks. On the PC side, the expensive notebooks have clockspeeds similar to lowend PC desktops. There's no reason Apple should hold back it's consumer desktops for the sake of the PowerBook. If people need a powerful portable, the performance of the iMac isn't going to change their buying decision - it only hurts iMac sales.
As many have stated, the eMacs should take care of the $500-$1000 price range, put the iMacs in the $1000 - $1300 price range, and keep those old G4 towers for the $1300 - $2000 price range. Apple needs to stop pretending that 17" display perched on the iMac costs $700. Apple's prices, more than anything right now, is what's turning would-be consumers away.
I am confident Apple could make money at these prices. Look at it this way:
A year ago, a Dual 1.25Ghz Powermac cost $3299 from Apple. Today at the Apple store a Dual 1.25Ghz G4 Powermac costs $1,599 - Less than half the price. A year ago, the 17" iMac cost $1999. The only notable change since then has been an additional 200Mhz, and it's only $200 cheaper today. Display prices may have not fallen much in the past year, but the soon-to-be 17" iMac should sell for no more than $1,299 given the PowerMac's dramatic annual price drop. I'll give them the extra $300 over "half last year's price" because of the LCD display. Now go forth and do, Apple.
What they need to do is stop CRIPPLEWARE. They crippled SuperDrives. Now they are crippling iBooks because poor baby Motorola can't make fast G4s for PowerBooks and iMacs. I say **** Moto. Make iBooks and iMacs as fast as you can make them you morons! More sales is GOOD, right? I'm not a business major but that seems to make sense. Apple has more of a history with crippleware and intra competition then any other company I've heard of.
Is that what you get if you combine Leonis and Lemon Bon Bon?
iPeon. I agree with your comments. (Reminds me of the 'Sound and the Fury' that was Matsu in his Prime! )
Speaking of being optimistic (hey, I'm glad somebody missed me! I love you too!)
If these 'Thinksecret' specs are true. Er. What can you say? 'Place holder'? Waiting to drop Motorola?
Take SH**, you don't stamp up and down on it to punish it...you just walk away. Unfortunately for Apple, they and the iMac 2 can't 'walk away' from Motorola's 'G4'.
It's been obvious for some time that the iMac 2's price range has stopped it being the winner the first iMac was. You can only blame so much on the 'laptop trend' and the 'economy' (the same economy Dell, Sony and others are outselling Apple in regards to desktop pcs...and outselling their laptops...) The iMac2s are a couple of hundred over priced. It's a 'more successful' Cube. Nuff sad.
0.09 G5s can't come quick enough for Apple's consumer range...
I'm optimistic about the G5 tower. The dual 2 gigger and Panther. Stunning. Though by the time they ship...I'm more inclining to go RevB, right Leonis?
A year from now PM's at 3 Ghz, low end Wintel computers approaching 2.4 to 2.8 Ghz (currently Dells $499 desktop is using a 2.2) and the iMac is stuck at 1.6 Ghz? G5 or not that will be just as hard to sell in the consumer arena as a 1Ghz iMac is today. Apple needs a computer that is more attractive to consumers, not less. This means more competative speed, competative speed, and good software/services. Your conservative roadmap makes the iMac about half the speed of the high end PM, and does nothing to close the mhz gap that currently exists with Dell and other consumer computer manufacturers, which I'm sure is hurting Apple iMac sales today.
Apple would be better served to move to a dual=pro/single=consumer model for their computer, especially with the apparent low cost of the 970 processors. That would make the consumer computers competative iin their market and the PM's more than competative in theirs.
First when you use Dell as comparison you state that currently Dells $499 desktop is using a 2.2. Well the 2.2 system is a dimension 2400 with a 2.2 celeron, 128Mb SDRAM, 40GB value drive, 48X Cd-rom, 17" CRT and intergrated intel graphics.
Look at a Dell system that configured like the 17" iMac:
The system is a dimension 4600 with a 2.4 P4, 256Mb SDRAM, 80GB Hard drive, 4X DVD+RW/+R, 17" Flat panel and 64MB Geforce 4Mx. After rebate the system is 1393 (from 1543)& this does not include Firewire.
Look at a Dell system that configured like the 17" eMac:
The system is a dimension 4600 with a 2.4 P4, 256Mb SDRAM, 80GB Hard drive, Combo drive, 17" CRT and 64MB Geforce 4Mx. After rebate the system is 922(from 1072)& this does not include Firewire.
I would add that OSX and the software Apple includes is so much better than what comes on the dell systems. Also if if you order the places like Macwarehouse and the others, the usually will have deal for free memeory upgrades etc...
Now I agree with you that apple should not use a conservative roadmap with the imac or any product line. I am not sure apple will do that. I think Apple conservative roadmap for all product line in the past was Moto inability
to deliver faster G4 chips. Look how Moto has failed again on their promises for the 7447/57 which is hurting the Powerbooks upgrades.
I would not be suprised if by this time next year that we may have all Dual G5 Powermacs topping out at 3Ghz and the iMac using G5 over 2Ghz. G5 powerbooks & the ibooks??
It's time to take back the consumer market by, uh, giving consumers what they want and need.
Apple's been gaining market share in consumer sales (up to 6% now). It's their professional sales that have been taking one hit after another; and, of course, their pummeling in education and their non-presence in corporate IT have kept their overall market share at around 2%.
Given that, I don't see how shocking it is that Apple's consumer offerings are not being drastically overhauled, while their professional offerings (and specifically the PowerMacs, whose sales were in free fall) are.
Granted, the iMac itself isn't selling as well as it could be, but all the same people around here tend to act as if the G5 were the only Apple worth buying, and the numbers don't back that up.
I'm confident that Apple is eager to stuff the 97x family into any product that'll take them. But there's only one member of the family right now, and if it's not appearing in the next iMac and PowerBook updates, it's probably because engineering can't shoehorn them in; or because they can, but not at an acceptable price.
As AirSluf has pointed out, the die shrink from 130nm to 90nm will buy very little in the way of power reduction because of increased current leakage. It will bring the usual reduction in area (lowering the cost, or allowing a substantially larger number of transistors at the same cost). I'd say that Apple's best bet is a low voltage 970 variant with a memory controller on die and excellent power management, and we might not see that until Fishkill goes 90nm (although we might see it when the 130nm node matures, and high-clocking CPUs are common enough to make the low voltage versions affordable and available in sufficient quantities).
Comments
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I don't know what you guys are complaining about...it looks like a fantastic update to the imac2!
Heck, and it even came around faster than the last update did!
Lemon Bon Bon
My God. Is that the same Leomon that we know?
Originally posted by kumrabai
They don't cost much - you can have a reasonable premium price that doesn't break the bank if you had 512Mb as a starting RAM level, 120Gig HDD, Bluetooth, FW800 etc.
Not too premium, you can already get 512MB, 120GB+ drives and 17" LCD's in computers costing 999-1299. iMac needs to be there, mebbe not with the CPU, but with the features and the price. An iMac is supposed to be affordable. 1000 USD is already HIGH.
Moreover, they need to keep the conversion rates in the realm of reality.
A 1000USD machine can't be more than 1500 Canadian, and that's already too high, since 1000USD is about 1420 Canadian.
The G5 iMac cannot materialize until the 970 is available at 90nm. That should happen in Q1 '04. Some time after that we may see an iMac update. Alternative the 7457 could show up and allow Apple to push upward to 1.6 GHz at a lower price, and take advantage of a 200 MHz MPX bus. These would be reasonably fast machines -- good enough for the consumer market. Price point will be the main issue.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I think one has to look toward the future of the iMac. Could this style computer go belly-up? I mean sales of this sucker are flatter than flat. I know the performance has kind of rained on the design's parade. It would take a G5 to perk it up, but do you honestly think an early 2004 G5+ will do the trick? It may be too late.
The iMac's problem is its $1300 to $1800 price point. Like the Cube, this machine is priced in the wrong range to sell a lot. Apple should push the eMac down to $700 to $1000 while the iMac should occupy the $1000 to $1500 price range. I originally thought 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970, but now I think dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz 7457 should be the way to go.
Originally posted by Programmer
Alternative the 7457 could show up and allow Apple to push upward to 1.6 GHz at a lower price, and take advantage of a 200 MHz MPX bus. These would be reasonably fast machines -- good enough for the consumer market. Price point will be the main issue.
Only if Moronola delivers. Look at what they have done to Apple (they almost made Apple disappear) I really doubt we are gonna see anything higher than 1.5GHz from them in the next 90 months.
Originally posted by THT
The iMac's problem is its $1300 to $1800 price point. Like the Cube, this machine is priced in the wrong range to sell a lot. Apple should push the eMac down to $700 to $1000 while the iMac should occupy the $1000 to $1500 price range. I originally thought 1.2 to 1.4 GHz 970, but now I think dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz 7457 should be the way to go.
Dual processor 1 GHz iMacs would be sweet. Although I doubt Apple has the balls to actually do this. Obviously supply of fast chips from Motorola plays a major part, but Apple seems to be content on milking a product for as long as it can.
And I suppose minor incremental upgrades every 9 months or so also won't upset someone who has recently just purchased a CPU.
Let's see.
$2,999.00 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 1GHz frontside bus...
$1,999.00 1.6GHz PowerPC G5 800MHz frontside bus...
$1,799.00 1 GHz PowerPC G4 (iMac)
Am I the only one that sees the discrepancy here? Look at the price and then compare the specs. HELLO?! The first one is the only one I'm not insulted with. How can you charge $1,999.00 for a SINGLE 1.6GHz G5 and $2,999.00 for a D-U-A-L 2GHz G5? With a new chip out that blows anything within it's vicinity to kingdom come, how can you... how can you expect a half intelligent consumer to pay $1,799.00 for a 1 GHz G4 dinosaur???!!!!!!
Why, why, why, why is Apple *ucking around with this opportunity to completely stomp the competition?
Why aren't we seeing a 1.2 Ghz G5 iMac now? Why aren't we seeing a headless G5 iMac?
Craziness, craziness, that's why.
I don't need a Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5, but I'm also unwilling to pay that much for a G4. That's from one extreme to the other. Get a clue already Apple.
As mentioned, Dell has a $499 PC running @ 2.2GHZ. This machine features a Celeron processor and a 400MHZ FSB. It comes with 128MB of shared DDR RAM that is utilized at 266MHz in this model. Integrated audio, etc and a crappy LCD 15" display. For anyone who hasn't experienced it, shared RAM bites the big one. It greatly drains the system, in my experience. The same with integrated audio. This machine has an advantage int he FSB category and the fact that it has a dual data rate bus, but the LCD is crappy and so is the design and technology. You get the cheapest HDD, cheapest memory, cheapest video for a dirt cheap price. So, you basically get a machine that'll last you a year and not be great for any professional apps whatsoever. You also get a machine that realistically underperforms a G4 @ 1 GHZ even with the G4 FSB problems. If the G4 supported true DDR and had a 200MHz FSB then there would be no contest. Oh yeah, and only a CD-ROM here.
For $1199 you still get integrated audio, shared RAM, etc, a 533MHZ bus and a P4 @ 2.4GHZ. Is this machine faster than a 1.25 G4? In real world tests, not really. The G4 still has an independent video processor and a much better display. @ $749 you can get a P4 with an Nvidia chipset with more RAM than the iMac (but older GeForce than the new iMac would have). You still wouldn't have a combo or superdrive.
Is the iMac really overpriced or underpowered? Not really when you consider the quality of components. Is it as good of a value as the eMac? Not really to that too - but the iMac has a vivid LCD, an unique design, and an all-in-one package that no one besides Apple has ever been able to master. I would love to see more power and a lower price. What I would really like is true DDR support in the iMac and the eMac including at least a 200MHZ FSB. Dual channel support would be even better, but it's not Apple's fault here. Motorola has not been a good partner for chips. It's going to take another year before IBM really starts helping Apple out, so they'll have to make due.
I think a 1GHZ and 1.25GHZ iMac would be of better value with a $100 price cut on the low-end 15" (brings it to $1199) and a $200 price cut ont he 17" (to $1599).
Originally posted by iPeon
Craziness, craziness I tell you...
Let's see.
$2,999.00 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5 1GHz frontside bus...
$1,999.00 1.6GHz PowerPC G5 800MHz frontside bus...
$1,799.00 1 GHz PowerPC G4 (iMac)
well you get a monitor with the iMac....
Originally posted by burningwheel
well you get a monitor with the iMac....
Yes I know. Still not interested. It's a cheap (Washed-out) LCD.
There's no excuse why Apple can't offer a G5 in the $1,400 range for consumers who do not need a Dual 2 GHz G5. I don't care it it was a 1.2 GHZ G5. That still would blow away any single G4. Apple COULD offer such a system, the price of the DUAL 2 GHz G5 proves that, they just don't want to so as to make a few more bucks, or so they think. How many consumers want a G5 system but don't need nor can afford a DUAL 2 GHz G5? I'll bet my balls the numbers of that category exceed the pro shops by a l-o-n-g shot. That's what infuriates me. I'm ready to upgrade my 350 G4 and I'm sure a G5 at around $1,400 would make potential switchers switch. No? But not at those prices, Sorry. If Apple is really serious about increasing their market share, they would take this opportunity and run with it. Thus far they are catering to the "few" pros and ignoring the consumer. As always, FOOLS!!! Sorry, I love Apple but this issue really burns me up.
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I think the notion about a huge gap in performance between PCs and Macs in relation to price is ubsurd. Let's look, shall we?
--Snip--
For $1199 you still get integrated audio, shared RAM, etc, a 533MHZ bus and a P4 @ 2.4GHZ. Is this machine faster than a 1.25 G4? In real world tests, not really. The G4 still has an independent video processor and a much better display. @ $749 you can get a P4 with an Nvidia chipset with more RAM than the iMac (but older GeForce than the new iMac would have). You still wouldn't have a combo or superdrive.
--Snip--
Integrated audio and shared RAM? Uh, at Dell for $1196 dollars you can get that 2.4GHz P4 with a SoundBlaster card, a 128MB Radeon 9800 video card, a Combo (DVD/CD-RW) drive, and a 19" monitor.
For the current price of the 17' iMac you can get a 3GHz p4 with800Mhz FSB, 512megs of ram, a 128MB Radeon 9800, a DVD+RW/+R drive, soundblaster card and a 19" monitor.
Unfortunately it is not a notion that there is a huge gap in the price and performance between Macs and windows PCs, it is an undeniable fact. Motorola's failure to match Intel and AMD's progress has put Apple in this position -- IBM's G5 is the the chip that will pull them out of it.
As many have stated, the eMacs should take care of the $500-$1000 price range, put the iMacs in the $1000 - $1300 price range, and keep those old G4 towers for the $1300 - $2000 price range. Apple needs to stop pretending that 17" display perched on the iMac costs $700. Apple's prices, more than anything right now, is what's turning would-be consumers away.
I am confident Apple could make money at these prices. Look at it this way:
A year ago, a Dual 1.25Ghz Powermac cost $3299 from Apple. Today at the Apple store a Dual 1.25Ghz G4 Powermac costs $1,599 - Less than half the price. A year ago, the 17" iMac cost $1999. The only notable change since then has been an additional 200Mhz, and it's only $200 cheaper today. Display prices may have not fallen much in the past year, but the soon-to-be 17" iMac should sell for no more than $1,299 given the PowerMac's dramatic annual price drop. I'll give them the extra $300 over "half last year's price" because of the LCD display. Now go forth and do, Apple.
Leomon
Is that what you get if you combine Leonis and Lemon Bon Bon?
iPeon. I agree with your comments. (Reminds me of the 'Sound and the Fury' that was Matsu in his Prime!
Speaking of being optimistic (hey, I'm glad somebody missed me! I love you too!)
If these 'Thinksecret' specs are true. Er. What can you say? 'Place holder'? Waiting to drop Motorola?
Take SH**, you don't stamp up and down on it to punish it...you just walk away. Unfortunately for Apple, they and the iMac 2 can't 'walk away' from Motorola's 'G4'.
It's been obvious for some time that the iMac 2's price range has stopped it being the winner the first iMac was. You can only blame so much on the 'laptop trend' and the 'economy' (the same economy Dell, Sony and others are outselling Apple in regards to desktop pcs...and outselling their laptops...) The iMac2s are a couple of hundred over priced. It's a 'more successful' Cube. Nuff sad.
0.09 G5s can't come quick enough for Apple's consumer range...
I'm optimistic about the G5 tower. The dual 2 gigger and Panther. Stunning. Though by the time they ship...I'm more inclining to go RevB, right Leonis?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by JCG
A year from now PM's at 3 Ghz, low end Wintel computers approaching 2.4 to 2.8 Ghz (currently Dells $499 desktop is using a 2.2) and the iMac is stuck at 1.6 Ghz? G5 or not that will be just as hard to sell in the consumer arena as a 1Ghz iMac is today. Apple needs a computer that is more attractive to consumers, not less. This means more competative speed, competative speed, and good software/services. Your conservative roadmap makes the iMac about half the speed of the high end PM, and does nothing to close the mhz gap that currently exists with Dell and other consumer computer manufacturers, which I'm sure is hurting Apple iMac sales today.
Apple would be better served to move to a dual=pro/single=consumer model for their computer, especially with the apparent low cost of the 970 processors. That would make the consumer computers competative iin their market and the PM's more than competative in theirs.
First when you use Dell as comparison you state that currently Dells $499 desktop is using a 2.2. Well the 2.2 system is a dimension 2400 with a 2.2 celeron, 128Mb SDRAM, 40GB value drive, 48X Cd-rom, 17" CRT and intergrated intel graphics.
Look at a Dell system that configured like the 17" iMac:
The system is a dimension 4600 with a 2.4 P4, 256Mb SDRAM, 80GB Hard drive, 4X DVD+RW/+R, 17" Flat panel and 64MB Geforce 4Mx. After rebate the system is 1393 (from 1543)& this does not include Firewire.
Look at a Dell system that configured like the 17" eMac:
The system is a dimension 4600 with a 2.4 P4, 256Mb SDRAM, 80GB Hard drive, Combo drive, 17" CRT and 64MB Geforce 4Mx. After rebate the system is 922(from 1072)& this does not include Firewire.
I would add that OSX and the software Apple includes is so much better than what comes on the dell systems. Also if if you order the places like Macwarehouse and the others, the usually will have deal for free memeory upgrades etc...
Now I agree with you that apple should not use a conservative roadmap with the imac or any product line. I am not sure apple will do that. I think Apple conservative roadmap for all product line in the past was Moto inability
to deliver faster G4 chips. Look how Moto has failed again on their promises for the 7447/57 which is hurting the Powerbooks upgrades.
I would not be suprised if by this time next year that we may have all Dual G5 Powermacs topping out at 3Ghz and the iMac using G5 over 2Ghz. G5 powerbooks & the ibooks??
Originally posted by kumrabai
It's time to take back the consumer market by, uh, giving consumers what they want and need.
Apple's been gaining market share in consumer sales (up to 6% now). It's their professional sales that have been taking one hit after another; and, of course, their pummeling in education and their non-presence in corporate IT have kept their overall market share at around 2%.
Given that, I don't see how shocking it is that Apple's consumer offerings are not being drastically overhauled, while their professional offerings (and specifically the PowerMacs, whose sales were in free fall) are.
Granted, the iMac itself isn't selling as well as it could be, but all the same people around here tend to act as if the G5 were the only Apple worth buying, and the numbers don't back that up.
I'm confident that Apple is eager to stuff the 97x family into any product that'll take them. But there's only one member of the family right now, and if it's not appearing in the next iMac and PowerBook updates, it's probably because engineering can't shoehorn them in; or because they can, but not at an acceptable price.
As AirSluf has pointed out, the die shrink from 130nm to 90nm will buy very little in the way of power reduction because of increased current leakage. It will bring the usual reduction in area (lowering the cost, or allowing a substantially larger number of transistors at the same cost). I'd say that Apple's best bet is a low voltage 970 variant with a memory controller on die and excellent power management, and we might not see that until Fishkill goes 90nm (although we might see it when the 130nm node matures, and high-clocking CPUs are common enough to make the low voltage versions affordable and available in sufficient quantities).