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??
I stand corrected on the processor in the DELL...However my point is stronger by my mistake. I took a quick look on DELL's web site at the slowest configuration that they have, and it is over 1 Ghz faster than the iMac's current offerings. My quick look is what a lot of "non-Geek" consumers will take when they are shopping for a computer, and the mhz myth message/propaganda will never make it to them, and the iMac will look more overpriced and underperfored than it really is. For marketing value Apple needs as large of a boost in their iMac line as they can make, which currently is 1.4 Ghz with the 7455, soon 1.6 Ghz with the 7457. They also need to get the entry line iMac under $1000 USD.
Now let me state my comments on DELL's offerings were made out of utter ignorance. I have used a PC less than half a dozen times in the last 10 years. I have no desire to use one, my 450 Cube is fine for home, and I can upgrade that to a 1.2 Ghz for an ever decreasing cost, which makes it harder for Apple to sell me an iMac. I am an informed Mac consumer, and know the mhz myth, I also know that the G4 processor costs less than a P4, as well as other economics that make Macs cost what they do. I also see lost opportunity in the one to two updates the Apple and rigid pricing scheme has limited itself to in the past 4 years, it has limited them to reacting to the realities of the market. Look at the price of the 17" monitor at twice the cost of the lowest price 17's today. The same could be said about DVD-R's, though I would hesitate to make that argument on RAM due to the price fluctuations that it experiences throughout the year.
As an interesting statistic, most of the popular Mac magazines have seen reductions in their circulation over the last five years. Which seems more worrying than market share figurers as it suggests that the numbers of users is falling.
okay, at the risk of flowing more off-topic, have you seen the subscription rates of ALL tech magazines over the last five years? They are ALL suffering, because, as penny-arcade once pointed out, it's almost impossible for a magazine that is printed every one or two months, and usually one-to-two months ahead-of-time, to offer anything we haven't already read about thoroughly on the internet. i mean, i still buy macworld and macaddict, but now i simply skim their pages, as most of their articles are rehashes from their own websites or others. the tech crowd that buys those magazines are a savvy lot, and they realize "why spend close to $10 for info. i knew about three weeks ago?" hell, you want an awful market? try gaming magazines... all gamers want to see and read about are prices, screenshots, walkthroughs and reviews -- which are ALL available online sometimes months before a magazine hits the racks, AND is usually searchable from the website to boot.
i would not want to be in tech magazine publishing right now. you're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. you can't restrict all content off your website into the print material, because people will just drift to those free avenues of info. available on the 'net. but if you offer too much on your website, you cause people to wonder why they should be buying their magazines when all the basic stuff (like reviews) are free.
if i were some of these magazines, i would cut costs by stopping production of CD's to include with the magazine anymore. in the days when 56k or isdn were the fastest available, they made sense. but i'd wager almost all of the content on a cd could be moved to the magazines' respective websites, and your subscription gives you a randomized access code to get to all the content online. it's not a perfect solution, but i have ten spindles of shareware CD's, demos and quicktime movies that aren't very useful.
anyway, that's my ten cents... the first two cents are free.
I always enjoy reading the latest issue of Wired and would never deny my self the pleasure by going to their website and reading all the articles ahead of time.
Actually I also enjoy just walking around with it too, people think your somehow "wired" (j/k).
Dell frequently has many instant and mail-in rebate deals. A few weeks ago I was a mouse click away from getting a Dell 4600 w/ 2.4GHz P4, 800MHz bus, 256MB DDR, 128MB nVidia 5600(IIRC), etc.
For $350
Don't spew this BS about how Dell's have comparable price/performance to Macs. It just isn't true
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).
Sorry, but iMac is no longer really cutting the mustard at the consumer level. It's overpriced and under-featured, even if it is gorgeous to look at. Not to mention the non-geek view of the Mhz differential.
Irrespective of what's been happening to the PowerMacs, I wouldn't buy an iMac right now, nor would I get one with what is likely to be an upgrade in the near future. Yet I'm desperate for an excuse to buy a desktop to supplement my Powerbook. . . . .
Point well taken on the chip problems - I guess my argument would be twofold.
1) Give the iMac the greatest possible bump-up right now that's possible, and cut prices to the $1,000 - $1,500 level.
2) Come hell or high water, get G5s into iMacs asap. I wouldn't care if it didn't fit into the current iMac footprint - in the end, the most important thing is what you get to see and do on the screen. . . .
F***ing Apple. The 15" iMac G4 has NEVER been a popular model. The only time there was significant demand for it was before the eMac came out, and even then Apple couldn't supply much iMacs to sell!
It didn't sell in 2002, it isn't selling in 2003 and it won't sell in 2004.
EDIT: After reading the thread...
Apple has intro'ed a new iMac roughly once every two years. Which means we are due for a new one in the first half of 2004. If it doesn't include a G5, I will not do a JYD, but I'll still be very, very surprised.
The delays in PowerBooks and iMacs have obviously been the result of yet another Motorola f***-up. Supply has been fluctuating since before WWDC. And now we still have 7455s in the new iMacs! Bad Motorola, BAD.
This thread has devolved to rants about G4 performance relative to higher MHz PCs. What you forget is OS X's secret advantage, which is also its barrier of entry... its NOT windows.
Today my Boss switched. He's replacing a 1.5 year old Dell with a 17" iMac. (Keep in mind that my same-aged PowerMac G4 is going strong.) He's tired of Windows Hell and is attracted to the Mac's ease-of-use and stability. This will be his first Mac and he's never considered it before. He comes from a fairly technical, even PC-Macho background and is switching just so his computer doesn't prohibit him from getting work done!
Anyhow, performance is only one aspect of the equation. OS X is great now, and Panther is gonna kick some major butt! Think about how good iTunes really is!
Ok, so this post didn't really go anywhere. Apple really needs to come out with some new WOW marketing to really motivate the switchers. The G5 ad is a basic start... lets just wait and see what happens. Besides, we haven't seen all the good press Panther will receive. AAPL has gotta break $25 a share.
I've been saying that pretty much all along, Xool. Some people look ONLY at the numbers and specs and TOTALLY shortchange or neglect the OS and the whole integrated, solid and beautiful "one-ness" of it all.
I was messing around with Backup tonight and, you know, you can really see and feel the thought and attention put into EVERYTHING Apple does, on so many levels. It's a total pleasure to sit down at my Mac, regardless of what I'm doing: surfing, retouching, writing, organizing, updating, etc.
By all means, get a 3.4GHz PC with the latest, bitchinest graphics card and optical drive if that's what is most important to you.
But it won't be the same and it won't be as cool. And you know it. And in the back of your mind, that little nagging gremlin in your brain is just going to eat away at you for as long as you own it, taunting you at every turn. And you'll now he's right. Oh, you won't admit it out loud of course (pride and all). But you'll know. When you lie down in bed at night...
I totally agree Xool and pscates. However, the 15" iMac G4 still sucks compared to the 17" iMac and eMac SuperDrive.
Customers will continue to choose those two Macs over the 15" iMac G4.
As far as raw performance in the 17" goes, it is important as to a large extent it has replaced Power Mac G3s and early G4s in video and audio, because for smaller outfits it is generally just as capable. A faster processor would mucho help in those cases, as with gaming. As always, Motorola sucks.
It's not a big issue though, sales have always been very strong of the 17" and I wouldn't be unhappy in the slightest if I bought a 17".
"Sucks" is a relative term. I'VE got a "lowly" 800MHz 15" G5 iMac (SuperDrive model) and it's been a rock-solid, more-than-capable performer for 18 months now.
And I'd like to think that I'm putting it through its paces a bit more than your typical consumer/hobbyist/student/granny/soccer mom, so...
I've never noticed any suckitude oozing from it...
However, the 15" iMac G4 still sucks compared to the 17" iMac and eMac SuperDrive.
Very relative terms, I would say
I am speaking from a sales perspective. The user would still be happy with a 15", but they will still buy a 17" or an eMac because they are the better option. 90% of the time anyway.
I think Apple's consumer desktops are way overdue for an overhaul.
Maybe next year the eMac, iMac2 and iBook will get a redesign. A design tweak at the least.
Still waiting for that headless, cheap Mac. I believe there is a demand for it. I believe. I sound like Jimmy Carter...
G5 gives much room for optimism. The 1.6 G5 is beating the dual G4s and it's unoptimised.
Maybe we'll see low power versions of these speed grades make their way into iMac2s/eMacs first half 2004. Apple needs to be as aggressive
as possible with the G5 if they're to stand any chance of growth.
Apple's losing money on its desktop consumer range. I can see why. Overpriced and underspecced...and inflexible. You're either an eMac or an iMac2. What if you want something 'headless' for under a grand? (Buy a G4 Low end tower...). Aha! Could do. But I'm sure pleny of consumers will pick up a 'headless' PC product for much less than that.
It's time Apple to perhaps redefine the consumer computer market underneath the 1K barrier and perhaps try and emulate the iPod's success...
The way I see it, the board in genral have been suffering (enjoying?) a little G5 afterglow. But so far the G5 only fixes one problem, the pro desktop. If they can sell them at the prices they have, then for the first time I'm going to argue that they leave PMG5 prices as they are.
The problem is they rest of the line up. iMacs ought to sport eMac prices by now. Some people blame the arm, others blame the constraints of the enclosure, I don't know what/who exactly to blame, but the machine costs WAY TOO MUCH for a consumer machine. The eMac is so bad a deal right now, that few consumers can see it for the what goodnesses it has. 17"CRT AIO selling for the same price as a 17" LCD plus tower bundles? EEEK! And those aren't white box strippers, but loaded systems with plenty of RAM (512MB) the aforementioned LCD, drives of at least 120GB, and minimum 64MB graphics. For the same price as the top eMac, HP will sell you 160-180GB HDD and a superdrive, Gateway will add 128MB video on top of that. Apple chintzes on the extras big time, not to mention the advantages of a tower's modularity. All consumer desktop machines ought to come with 512MB base, especially at todays ridiculously low RAM prices -- however we're talking about a company that tried to argue a price spike during a time when the rest of the industry actually lowered prices and retail RAM and LCD prices fell during that time. But let's not relive the infamous price bump of signatures past. Moving on.
A conflicted identity has been choking Apple's AIO consumer machines for some time now. iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines. They use older system technology that they have a lot of experience with an is thoroughly sussed by now. My PB uses that technology and it's the most reliable computer I've ever used. OK, it's less grating because G4's pose relatively less of a penalty in the notebook realm, but this can be a good thing for consumer desktops too. High prices, however, cannot!
A look at just how much 1st tier PC makers offer in the 750-1500 range tells you all you need to know about Apple's problems. Virtually ALL machines in this range offer at least a 15" LCD., if hey do not, they offer bigger CRT's and loads of other extras. I realize iApps can be seen as an extra, but the competition is gettig there too.
eMac exists only because Apple is unwilling to price the iMac right.
How should it look.
We only need one budget eMac model. A Combo drive eMac for 750. The iMac just has to get into the 999-1299 range. Superdrive and TFT prices continue to plummet and these options have sprung up in spades all over this 999-1299 range. As it stands now, the iMacs cost 300-500 USD too much.
Apple tries to upsell you, but, IMHO, they go about it all the wrong way.
eMac 750 combo drive. One and only one model (and for Gawd sakes make the tube a trinitron, the moire on that display is horrible.)
iMac 999 - 1299 ALL 17", combo, super. Not quiet ATM, but soon, the way superdrive prices are plummeting, this will be possible by Xmas. The competition is already there (1299) but I'll spot Apple a 100 bucks for design goodness, and so Steve can go on stealing profits from shareholders with his insane compensation package.
SOMETHING HEADLESS in the spirit of the CUBE. PMG4 is a step in the right direction, but too small a step. OK, but this machine should offer an OPTION to reach more consumers. For those who would rather have a box (a small one) than an AIO. Have it overlap the iMac slightly: 999-1599, but in place of the display give it a single G5 and limited internal expansion. A pro machine light! Cannibalization, oh how I hate that armchair CEO excuse, is NOT an issue. People always complain about he iMac's margins. If the machine is simpler to make -- no arm, no display, larger components -- and you sell it for the same or more money, then you shouldn't care whether epopel buy it over an iMac or not, in fact, you should want them to buy it over an iMac, they might add a display from you line-up, and even if they don't, you scooped a similar or better margin anyway!
The key to upselling people is to provide lots of small steps so that they can jump up one model and not wince too much. Not to castrate lower models so people lust after high end machines that they'll never afford anyway. That's exactly how I got this little 12" Didn't/wouldn't refused to get a G3. The PB's were way too much money. There was nothing in the middle. As soon as Apple filled that gap, BINGO, "you've got sale!"
Pricing the 17" iMac to the moon, does not a middle tier make, it just stretches the eMac up into price territories it ought never to visit. YOu make a middle tier with product, not inflated prices.
Apple,
Keep the PMG5 prices where they are. Drop the eMac and iMac to legit consumer prices, and put in a proper middle tier. People WILL buy it. They did under the exact same circumstances of the PB12 intro.
OK, well, the slowest card of the bunch was a GF4MX 440 with 64MB. Gateway will sell you faster cards for the same money -- proper GF4's, and 8X agp and up versions.
Good rant Matsu. I've also been pushing down the cost of midrange Macs down as much as possible with my lineups too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
A conflicted identity has been choking Apple's AIO consumer machines for some time now. iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines.
The iMac moreso than the eMac, but yes, much concurrence.
Quote:
SOMETHING HEADLESS in the spirit of the CUBE. PMG4 is a step in the right direction, but too small a step. OK, but this machine should offer an OPTION to reach more consumers.
...
The key to upselling people is to provide lots of small steps so that they can jump up one model and not wince too much. Not to castrate lower models so people lust after high end machines that they'll never afford anyway.
Yup. The performance/price ratio must be constant or slightly sloping positive. Positive meaning more money offers slightly more performance per dollar. The assumption is that people will buy the machines with most bang for the buck, higher end machines have the most bang for the buck, by a slight margin, therefore Apple will sell more high end machines and have higher margins. But the performance/price ratio has to be near constant. The ratio can't be sloping up all that much.
Quote:
That's exactly how I got this little 12" Didn't/wouldn't refused to get a G3. The PB's were way too much money. There was nothing in the middle. As soon as Apple filled that gap, BINGO, "you've got sale!"
See my Apple notebook lineup thread. I've got a midrange PowerBook!
Quote:
Keep the PMG5 prices where they are. Drop the eMac and iMac to legit consumer prices, and put in a proper middle tier. People WILL buy it. They did under the exact same circumstances of the PB12 intro.
One thing Apple can do with the iMac is make it a boutique product. It already is, and if there are low end and midrange headless machines, it is going to be a boutique product of sorts anyways. Apple can keep the current prices on the iMac, they just need to offer commiserate performance. If they make the iMac a dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz G4 machines, I think that would do it.
Good rant Matsu. I've also been pushing down the cost of midrange Macs down as much as possible with my lineups too.
Except that Matsu forgot, again, that the eMac exists because a number of large school districts took one look at the iMac and said "No."
Quote:
One thing Apple can do with the iMac is make it a boutique product. It already is, and if there are low end and midrange headless machines, it is going to be a boutique product of sorts anyways. Apple can keep the current prices on the iMac, they just need to offer commiserate performance. If they make the iMac a dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz G4 machines, I think that would do it.
And the assumption that everyone in the world wants fiddly prosumer machines continues. I agree that Apple should either drop the price or raise the performance on the iMac, because it just hasn't been selling like it ought to. But I don't see low-end headless machines as the answer to that. Apple just has to make the iMac more attractive than it has been since it went to an LCD.
However, the 15" iMac G4 still sucks compared to the 17" iMac and eMac SuperDrive.
Very relative terms, I would say
I am speaking from a sales perspective. The user would still be happy with a 15", but they will still buy a 17" or an eMac because they are the better option. 90% of the time anyway.
Barto
I must concur. My even lowlier 15" FP iMac 700 combo really shows it's age against the 1 GHz 17" model.
I keep telling myself "but I have the original classic FPiMac"
If I wasn't in the market for a laptop, I'd certainly still go for a 17" iMac especially if it had dual processors!
As others have said, it's not a bad machine, it's just trying to find a home in today's financially savvy buyer.
...iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines....
A point that Apple should keep, and appologists, should keep in mind. The original iMac started out at $1299, and subsequent entry level iMacs made it down to $799. Now the iMac is back up to $1299, while the entry level consumer level computer for the rest of the industry has droped to $499. Sure you get a bit more with the iMac (maybe it shouldnt), but it does not compete well on its own, and in todays market one might consider it priced out of the consumer computer market altogether. The eMac was a consession to schools, and later opened up to consumers. The original target market for the iMac is where it should be today, which would put its starting price down below $1000, preferably in the $799 range, though one could argu that due to bundeled consumer apps $899 or $999 is a value price. At the same time, it should have a processor that is competative, and marketable agenst Windows computers, becouse that is where market share will be gained not in selling computers to current Mac users.
I wont say Apple should kill it as long as it is selling within their expectations. However, it would sell better if it was more up to date with current technology. This means USB 2, faster processor, gaster FSB, etc, etc...
Except that Matsu forgot, again, that the eMac exists because a number of large school districts took one look at the iMac and said "No."
The eMac thing is 95% pure spin with a grain of truth. Much more likely, the School boards looked at the iMac's PRICES and said, "No thank you." Some might have rationalized the CRT vs TFT/arm durability question, but that's really a side issue. If durability was the real sticking point, Apple could easily chuck a less mobile arm on the iMac (lift/tilt only) and call it a day. In the university's new labs, there's no debate, LCD's win out over CRT's. It's rather obvious why, put 300 LCD's in a gymnasium sized room vs 300 CRT's and see which one is more pleasant. The newest lab at my northern campus has 300 PC's each with a minimum 15" LCD, and a few 17" LCD models for accessibility concerns, and 70 eMacs. The PC with LCD was cheaper, the eMac sit virtually unused, and they are rather sore on the eyes compared to better trinitron tubes, and certainly compared to even an average LCD. Cheap. But universities and schools are two differnt beasts. Yes, public school runts will destroy anything, but that includes an eMac. I know someone who consults for TO area technology in the classroom. Smart guy, people listen to him, very pro mac, and he tells me that even public schools are being encouraged to adopt LCD screens because of health concerns/standards. Ironic isn't it, that something that Apple helped push -- ***the death of the CRT*** -- is now advanced more convincingly by PC vendors than by Apple itself? And just when School boards are set to embrace the LCD, Apple has nothing for them>
And whatever else Apple may tell you, they DO want LCD's in the classroom, they even buy laptops for all but primary grades (K-3) !!!
The durability excuse is just that, an excuse, almost pure hogwash with just a hint of truth. I beleive they call that PR, or marketting, or something like that.
As for the fiddly prosumer machine? Not at all what I propose, rather to have a legit middle tier so that each of the iMac and Powermac can be what they're supposed to be without any line juggling antics from Apple.
The iMac can be cheap, simple, full featured, and powerful without being either expandable or extremely fast, just pleasant and worry free (on the credit bill aswell!)
The powermac can be expensive, expandable and FAST AS HECK!
And the middle tier can be a little of both for the buyer that wants a little more flexibility and power.
It happened to the laptop line with the intro of the PB12, time to make it happen in desktops too.
Comments
Originally posted by BostonMH
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??
I stand corrected on the processor in the DELL...However my point is stronger by my mistake. I took a quick look on DELL's web site at the slowest configuration that they have, and it is over 1 Ghz faster than the iMac's current offerings. My quick look is what a lot of "non-Geek" consumers will take when they are shopping for a computer, and the mhz myth message/propaganda will never make it to them, and the iMac will look more overpriced and underperfored than it really is. For marketing value Apple needs as large of a boost in their iMac line as they can make, which currently is 1.4 Ghz with the 7455, soon 1.6 Ghz with the 7457. They also need to get the entry line iMac under $1000 USD.
Now let me state my comments on DELL's offerings were made out of utter ignorance. I have used a PC less than half a dozen times in the last 10 years. I have no desire to use one, my 450 Cube is fine for home, and I can upgrade that to a 1.2 Ghz for an ever decreasing cost, which makes it harder for Apple to sell me an iMac. I am an informed Mac consumer, and know the mhz myth, I also know that the G4 processor costs less than a P4, as well as other economics that make Macs cost what they do. I also see lost opportunity in the one to two updates the Apple and rigid pricing scheme has limited itself to in the past 4 years, it has limited them to reacting to the realities of the market. Look at the price of the 17" monitor at twice the cost of the lowest price 17's today. The same could be said about DVD-R's, though I would hesitate to make that argument on RAM due to the price fluctuations that it experiences throughout the year.
Originally posted by Addison
As an interesting statistic, most of the popular Mac magazines have seen reductions in their circulation over the last five years. Which seems more worrying than market share figurers as it suggests that the numbers of users is falling.
okay, at the risk of flowing more off-topic, have you seen the subscription rates of ALL tech magazines over the last five years? They are ALL suffering, because, as penny-arcade once pointed out, it's almost impossible for a magazine that is printed every one or two months, and usually one-to-two months ahead-of-time, to offer anything we haven't already read about thoroughly on the internet. i mean, i still buy macworld and macaddict, but now i simply skim their pages, as most of their articles are rehashes from their own websites or others. the tech crowd that buys those magazines are a savvy lot, and they realize "why spend close to $10 for info. i knew about three weeks ago?" hell, you want an awful market? try gaming magazines... all gamers want to see and read about are prices, screenshots, walkthroughs and reviews -- which are ALL available online sometimes months before a magazine hits the racks, AND is usually searchable from the website to boot.
i would not want to be in tech magazine publishing right now. you're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. you can't restrict all content off your website into the print material, because people will just drift to those free avenues of info. available on the 'net. but if you offer too much on your website, you cause people to wonder why they should be buying their magazines when all the basic stuff (like reviews) are free.
if i were some of these magazines, i would cut costs by stopping production of CD's to include with the magazine anymore. in the days when 56k or isdn were the fastest available, they made sense. but i'd wager almost all of the content on a cd could be moved to the magazines' respective websites, and your subscription gives you a randomized access code to get to all the content online. it's not a perfect solution, but i have ten spindles of shareware CD's, demos and quicktime movies that aren't very useful.
anyway, that's my ten cents... the first two cents are free.
Actually I also enjoy just walking around with it too, people think your somehow "wired" (j/k).
For $350
Don't spew this BS about how Dell's have comparable price/performance to Macs. It just isn't true
Originally posted by Amorph
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).
Sorry, but iMac is no longer really cutting the mustard at the consumer level. It's overpriced and under-featured, even if it is gorgeous to look at. Not to mention the non-geek view of the Mhz differential.
Irrespective of what's been happening to the PowerMacs, I wouldn't buy an iMac right now, nor would I get one with what is likely to be an upgrade in the near future. Yet I'm desperate for an excuse to buy a desktop to supplement my Powerbook. . . . .
Point well taken on the chip problems - I guess my argument would be twofold.
1) Give the iMac the greatest possible bump-up right now that's possible, and cut prices to the $1,000 - $1,500 level.
2) Come hell or high water, get G5s into iMacs asap. I wouldn't care if it didn't fit into the current iMac footprint - in the end, the most important thing is what you get to see and do on the screen. . . .
Cheers
It didn't sell in 2002, it isn't selling in 2003 and it won't sell in 2004.
EDIT: After reading the thread...
Apple has intro'ed a new iMac roughly once every two years. Which means we are due for a new one in the first half of 2004. If it doesn't include a G5, I will not do a JYD, but I'll still be very, very surprised.
The delays in PowerBooks and iMacs have obviously been the result of yet another Motorola f***-up. Supply has been fluctuating since before WWDC. And now we still have 7455s in the new iMacs! Bad Motorola, BAD.
Barto
Today my Boss switched. He's replacing a 1.5 year old Dell with a 17" iMac. (Keep in mind that my same-aged PowerMac G4 is going strong.) He's tired of Windows Hell and is attracted to the Mac's ease-of-use and stability. This will be his first Mac and he's never considered it before. He comes from a fairly technical, even PC-Macho background and is switching just so his computer doesn't prohibit him from getting work done!
Anyhow, performance is only one aspect of the equation. OS X is great now, and Panther is gonna kick some major butt! Think about how good iTunes really is!
Ok, so this post didn't really go anywhere. Apple really needs to come out with some new WOW marketing to really motivate the switchers. The G5 ad is a basic start... lets just wait and see what happens. Besides, we haven't seen all the good press Panther will receive. AAPL has gotta break $25 a share.
I was messing around with Backup tonight and, you know, you can really see and feel the thought and attention put into EVERYTHING Apple does, on so many levels. It's a total pleasure to sit down at my Mac, regardless of what I'm doing: surfing, retouching, writing, organizing, updating, etc.
By all means, get a 3.4GHz PC with the latest, bitchinest graphics card and optical drive if that's what is most important to you.
But it won't be the same and it won't be as cool. And you know it. And in the back of your mind, that little nagging gremlin in your brain is just going to eat away at you for as long as you own it, taunting you at every turn. And you'll now he's right. Oh, you won't admit it out loud of course (pride and all). But you'll know. When you lie down in bed at night...
Customers will continue to choose those two Macs over the 15" iMac G4.
As far as raw performance in the 17" goes, it is important as to a large extent it has replaced Power Mac G3s and early G4s in video and audio, because for smaller outfits it is generally just as capable. A faster processor would mucho help in those cases, as with gaming. As always, Motorola sucks.
It's not a big issue though, sales have always been very strong of the 17" and I wouldn't be unhappy in the slightest if I bought a 17".
Barto
And I'd like to think that I'm putting it through its paces a bit more than your typical consumer/hobbyist/student/granny/soccer mom, so...
I've never noticed any suckitude oozing from it...
Very relative terms, I would say
I am speaking from a sales perspective. The user would still be happy with a 15", but they will still buy a 17" or an eMac because they are the better option. 90% of the time anyway.
Barto
Maybe next year the eMac, iMac2 and iBook will get a redesign. A design tweak at the least.
Still waiting for that headless, cheap Mac. I believe there is a demand for it. I believe. I sound like Jimmy Carter...
G5 gives much room for optimism. The 1.6 G5 is beating the dual G4s and it's unoptimised.
Maybe we'll see low power versions of these speed grades make their way into iMac2s/eMacs first half 2004. Apple needs to be as aggressive
as possible with the G5 if they're to stand any chance of growth.
Apple's losing money on its desktop consumer range. I can see why. Overpriced and underspecced...and inflexible. You're either an eMac or an iMac2. What if you want something 'headless' for under a grand? (Buy a G4 Low end tower...). Aha! Could do.
It's time Apple to perhaps redefine the consumer computer market underneath the 1K barrier and perhaps try and emulate the iPod's success...
The iMac2 and eMac aren't it.
Lemon Bon Bon
The problem is they rest of the line up. iMacs ought to sport eMac prices by now. Some people blame the arm, others blame the constraints of the enclosure, I don't know what/who exactly to blame, but the machine costs WAY TOO MUCH for a consumer machine. The eMac is so bad a deal right now, that few consumers can see it for the what goodnesses it has. 17"CRT AIO selling for the same price as a 17" LCD plus tower bundles? EEEK! And those aren't white box strippers, but loaded systems with plenty of RAM (512MB) the aforementioned LCD, drives of at least 120GB, and minimum 64MB graphics. For the same price as the top eMac, HP will sell you 160-180GB HDD and a superdrive, Gateway will add 128MB video on top of that. Apple chintzes on the extras big time, not to mention the advantages of a tower's modularity. All consumer desktop machines ought to come with 512MB base, especially at todays ridiculously low RAM prices -- however we're talking about a company that tried to argue a price spike during a time when the rest of the industry actually lowered prices and retail RAM and LCD prices fell during that time. But let's not relive the infamous price bump of signatures past. Moving on.
A conflicted identity has been choking Apple's AIO consumer machines for some time now. iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines. They use older system technology that they have a lot of experience with an is thoroughly sussed by now. My PB uses that technology and it's the most reliable computer I've ever used. OK, it's less grating because G4's pose relatively less of a penalty in the notebook realm, but this can be a good thing for consumer desktops too. High prices, however, cannot!
A look at just how much 1st tier PC makers offer in the 750-1500 range tells you all you need to know about Apple's problems. Virtually ALL machines in this range offer at least a 15" LCD., if hey do not, they offer bigger CRT's and loads of other extras. I realize iApps can be seen as an extra, but the competition is gettig there too.
eMac exists only because Apple is unwilling to price the iMac right.
How should it look.
We only need one budget eMac model. A Combo drive eMac for 750. The iMac just has to get into the 999-1299 range. Superdrive and TFT prices continue to plummet and these options have sprung up in spades all over this 999-1299 range. As it stands now, the iMacs cost 300-500 USD too much.
Apple tries to upsell you, but, IMHO, they go about it all the wrong way.
eMac 750 combo drive. One and only one model (and for Gawd sakes make the tube a trinitron, the moire on that display is horrible.)
iMac 999 - 1299 ALL 17", combo, super. Not quiet ATM, but soon, the way superdrive prices are plummeting, this will be possible by Xmas. The competition is already there (1299) but I'll spot Apple a 100 bucks for design goodness, and so Steve can go on stealing profits from shareholders with his insane compensation package.
SOMETHING HEADLESS in the spirit of the CUBE. PMG4 is a step in the right direction, but too small a step. OK, but this machine should offer an OPTION to reach more consumers. For those who would rather have a box (a small one) than an AIO. Have it overlap the iMac slightly: 999-1599, but in place of the display give it a single G5 and limited internal expansion. A pro machine light! Cannibalization, oh how I hate that armchair CEO excuse, is NOT an issue. People always complain about he iMac's margins. If the machine is simpler to make -- no arm, no display, larger components -- and you sell it for the same or more money, then you shouldn't care whether epopel buy it over an iMac or not, in fact, you should want them to buy it over an iMac, they might add a display from you line-up, and even if they don't, you scooped a similar or better margin anyway!
The key to upselling people is to provide lots of small steps so that they can jump up one model and not wince too much. Not to castrate lower models so people lust after high end machines that they'll never afford anyway. That's exactly how I got this little 12" Didn't/wouldn't refused to get a G3. The PB's were way too much money. There was nothing in the middle. As soon as Apple filled that gap, BINGO, "you've got sale!"
Pricing the 17" iMac to the moon, does not a middle tier make, it just stretches the eMac up into price territories it ought never to visit. YOu make a middle tier with product, not inflated prices.
Apple,
Keep the PMG5 prices where they are. Drop the eMac and iMac to legit consumer prices, and put in a proper middle tier. People WILL buy it. They did under the exact same circumstances of the PB12 intro.
I'd never thought a more misleading benchmark than megahertz could be developed. Once again, the computer industry proves me wrong.
Barto
EDIT: Or is this one of your har har funny trolls? I can't tell anymore...
Originally posted by Matsu
A conflicted identity has been choking Apple's AIO consumer machines for some time now. iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines.
The iMac moreso than the eMac, but yes, much concurrence.
SOMETHING HEADLESS in the spirit of the CUBE. PMG4 is a step in the right direction, but too small a step. OK, but this machine should offer an OPTION to reach more consumers.
...
The key to upselling people is to provide lots of small steps so that they can jump up one model and not wince too much. Not to castrate lower models so people lust after high end machines that they'll never afford anyway.
Yup. The performance/price ratio must be constant or slightly sloping positive. Positive meaning more money offers slightly more performance per dollar. The assumption is that people will buy the machines with most bang for the buck, higher end machines have the most bang for the buck, by a slight margin, therefore Apple will sell more high end machines and have higher margins. But the performance/price ratio has to be near constant. The ratio can't be sloping up all that much.
That's exactly how I got this little 12" Didn't/wouldn't refused to get a G3. The PB's were way too much money. There was nothing in the middle. As soon as Apple filled that gap, BINGO, "you've got sale!"
See my Apple notebook lineup thread. I've got a midrange PowerBook!
Keep the PMG5 prices where they are. Drop the eMac and iMac to legit consumer prices, and put in a proper middle tier. People WILL buy it. They did under the exact same circumstances of the PB12 intro.
One thing Apple can do with the iMac is make it a boutique product. It already is, and if there are low end and midrange headless machines, it is going to be a boutique product of sorts anyways. Apple can keep the current prices on the iMac, they just need to offer commiserate performance. If they make the iMac a dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz G4 machines, I think that would do it.
Originally posted by THT
Good rant Matsu. I've also been pushing down the cost of midrange Macs down as much as possible with my lineups too.
Except that Matsu forgot, again, that the eMac exists because a number of large school districts took one look at the iMac and said "No."
One thing Apple can do with the iMac is make it a boutique product. It already is, and if there are low end and midrange headless machines, it is going to be a boutique product of sorts anyways. Apple can keep the current prices on the iMac, they just need to offer commiserate performance. If they make the iMac a dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz G4 machines, I think that would do it.
And the assumption that everyone in the world wants fiddly prosumer machines continues. I agree that Apple should either drop the price or raise the performance on the iMac, because it just hasn't been selling like it ought to. But I don't see low-end headless machines as the answer to that. Apple just has to make the iMac more attractive than it has been since it went to an LCD.
Originally posted by Barto
However, the 15" iMac G4 still sucks compared to the 17" iMac and eMac SuperDrive.
Very relative terms, I would say
I am speaking from a sales perspective. The user would still be happy with a 15", but they will still buy a 17" or an eMac because they are the better option. 90% of the time anyway.
Barto
I must concur. My even lowlier 15" FP iMac 700 combo really shows it's age against the 1 GHz 17" model.
I keep telling myself "but I have the original classic FPiMac"
If I wasn't in the market for a laptop, I'd certainly still go for a 17" iMac especially if it had dual processors!
As others have said, it's not a bad machine, it's just trying to find a home in today's financially savvy buyer.
Originally posted by Matsu
...iMacs/eMacs are supposed to be consumer machines....
A point that Apple should keep, and appologists, should keep in mind. The original iMac started out at $1299, and subsequent entry level iMacs made it down to $799. Now the iMac is back up to $1299, while the entry level consumer level computer for the rest of the industry has droped to $499. Sure you get a bit more with the iMac (maybe it shouldnt), but it does not compete well on its own, and in todays market one might consider it priced out of the consumer computer market altogether. The eMac was a consession to schools, and later opened up to consumers. The original target market for the iMac is where it should be today, which would put its starting price down below $1000, preferably in the $799 range, though one could argu that due to bundeled consumer apps $899 or $999 is a value price. At the same time, it should have a processor that is competative, and marketable agenst Windows computers, becouse that is where market share will be gained not in selling computers to current Mac users.
I wont say Apple should kill it as long as it is selling within their expectations. However, it would sell better if it was more up to date with current technology. This means USB 2, faster processor, gaster FSB, etc, etc...
Originally posted by Amorph
Except that Matsu forgot, again, that the eMac exists because a number of large school districts took one look at the iMac and said "No."
The eMac thing is 95% pure spin with a grain of truth. Much more likely, the School boards looked at the iMac's PRICES and said, "No thank you." Some might have rationalized the CRT vs TFT/arm durability question, but that's really a side issue. If durability was the real sticking point, Apple could easily chuck a less mobile arm on the iMac (lift/tilt only) and call it a day. In the university's new labs, there's no debate, LCD's win out over CRT's. It's rather obvious why, put 300 LCD's in a gymnasium sized room vs 300 CRT's and see which one is more pleasant. The newest lab at my northern campus has 300 PC's each with a minimum 15" LCD, and a few 17" LCD models for accessibility concerns, and 70 eMacs. The PC with LCD was cheaper, the eMac sit virtually unused, and they are rather sore on the eyes compared to better trinitron tubes, and certainly compared to even an average LCD. Cheap. But universities and schools are two differnt beasts. Yes, public school runts will destroy anything, but that includes an eMac. I know someone who consults for TO area technology in the classroom. Smart guy, people listen to him, very pro mac, and he tells me that even public schools are being encouraged to adopt LCD screens because of health concerns/standards. Ironic isn't it, that something that Apple helped push -- ***the death of the CRT*** -- is now advanced more convincingly by PC vendors than by Apple itself? And just when School boards are set to embrace the LCD, Apple has nothing for them>
And whatever else Apple may tell you, they DO want LCD's in the classroom, they even buy laptops for all but primary grades (K-3) !!!
The durability excuse is just that, an excuse, almost pure hogwash with just a hint of truth. I beleive they call that PR, or marketting, or something like that.
As for the fiddly prosumer machine? Not at all what I propose, rather to have a legit middle tier so that each of the iMac and Powermac can be what they're supposed to be without any line juggling antics from Apple.
The iMac can be cheap, simple, full featured, and powerful without being either expandable or extremely fast, just pleasant and worry free (on the credit bill aswell!)
The powermac can be expensive, expandable and FAST AS HECK!
And the middle tier can be a little of both for the buyer that wants a little more flexibility and power.
It happened to the laptop line with the intro of the PB12, time to make it happen in desktops too.