iMac 3
Let me precede this post with this disclaimer: I generally do not post in FH but I'm stuck at work today so...
It is generally agreed that the iMac will see a small bump on or around the Paris Expo but bumping it to a 1.25 G4 can't breath that much life into the iMac.
So, is this just enough to tide us over until the G5 gets plunked into the iMac?
Is it possible we'll see a redesigned iMac in early 2004 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh?
And what pray tell would this new G5 iMac look like?
C'Mon everybody! I'm really bored. Help me out.
It is generally agreed that the iMac will see a small bump on or around the Paris Expo but bumping it to a 1.25 G4 can't breath that much life into the iMac.
So, is this just enough to tide us over until the G5 gets plunked into the iMac?
Is it possible we'll see a redesigned iMac in early 2004 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh?
And what pray tell would this new G5 iMac look like?
C'Mon everybody! I'm really bored. Help me out.
Comments
Originally posted by InactionMan
Let me precede this post with this disclaimer: I generally do not post in FH but I'm stuck at work today so...
Ditto here
Quote:
It is generally agreed that the iMac will see a small bump on or around the Paris Expo but bumping it to a 1.25 G4 can't breath that much life into the iMac.
I agree
Quote:
So, is this just enough to tide us over until the G5 gets plunked into the iMac?
Is it possible we'll see a redesigned iMac in early 2004 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh?
Is it possible? I would say yes. is it likely? Hmmm probably..
Will it happen? Now, where's my cristal ball
Quote:
And what pray tell would this new G5 iMac look like?
I would hope it would become something Cube-like, which remains IMHO the most cool looking Mac out there.
Although I am typing this on my G4 iMac, which I'm very happy with
Quote:
C'Mon everybody! I'm really bored. Help me out.
You're welcome
Originally posted by InactionMan
Is it possible we'll see a redesigned iMac in early 2004 to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh?
And what pray tell would this new G5 iMac look like?
CUBE!!!!! CUBE!!!!!! CUBE!!!!!! BRING BACK THE CUBE!!!! Searously though...the G4 Cube was one of the most genius and beautiful computer designs ever. Nothing else compares. If Apple really wants to make people remember Mac's big 20th, they will build the worlds smallest supercomputer...again.
As for what it would look like? it would be chrome, slightly bigger to allow for further customizability, CYLINDRICAL! And house built-in speakers, with? neon lights that say Make Mine Mac!
On top of that, I don't know if the current design can drop in price as easily as the gumdrop did, unless Apple finds a way to reengineer that arm. So I can see at least a revisiting of the design before very long.
It's such a singular piece of equipment - even if it's not as visually arresting as the gumdrop iMac - that it's really hard to see where Apple would go with it. But I'm sure Ives can come up with something that seems obvious in retrospect.
Originally posted by Dog Almighty
Why mess with a great design so soon? The CRT lasted, what, 1998-2002 (correct me if I'm wrong)?
You are correct. The iMac was introduced in 1998, but it's hard to give a figure for when it was "replaced". Early 2002 or early 2003, one or the other. The problem is Apple changing the iMacs positioning with the iMac 2, Cube, eMac etc.
Anyway, the 2000 edition iMacs were a huge change from the 1998 iMacs. They had a similar form factor, but the insides, and the details (slot-loading drives etc), were totally different. And much, much better. Like comparing the QuickSilver to the ShinyFront G4s. Lots of new technology (FireWire, AirPort) to boot. And VGA mirroring.
I wouldn't be suprised to see a re-engineered iMac sometime in the first half of next year.
Barto
Originally posted by Amorph
Well, as much as I like the current design, it simply hasn't resonated or sold like the gumdrop did.
Price. The iMac 2 has never competed on price like the Bondi or any other iMac.
Which you expect after 5 years... after all, Pro, Go, Whoa was a step up from '93, huh?
Anyway, the desktop line-up is basically:
eMac
iMac 17"
Power Mac G5
The iMac 15" has negligable sales. Apple must have ordered WAY to many 15" LCDs back in '02.
The eMac is targeted at about 50% of users. First time buyers, Wintel switchers, education & business and non-power Mac users.
The iMac 17" has the pricing and the features of a Mac targeted at power users and creative pros without the need for PCI expansion.
The majority of sales of G5s are to people who actually need the power (or have special expansion needs - avid cards, fiber storage etc). Production houses, Universities, developers etc. Only a small minority of sales are to people with wallets as big as their geek-ness.
--------------
The 17" iMac was never designed or intended to have the huge sales of the original iMac. It occupies a smaller, but important, market position. After stuffing up the line-up with the Cube, Apple has got it right again.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
The 17" iMac was never designed or intended to have the huge sales of the original iMac. It occupies a smaller, but important, market position. After stuffing up the line-up with the Cube, Apple has got it right again.
I tend to agree. If we look at eMac and iMac sales, how do they compare with original iMac sales? Probably fairly well.
Time for another Cube. Well, when the G5 cools down enough.
Seems likely.
Any chance Apple could make the iMac headless and bundle it with either a 15" or 17" LCD they way they use to with the LC series? They could also make it an online only option to sell without a monitor to make those hoping for a headless mac happy. But make all retail sales bundled so consumers don't have to worry about picking a monitor to go with it.
Probably not.
I like Dog Almighty's idea of a cylindrical design. Though that would be pricey to design/manufacture.
Or maybe a TAM Redux. I always liked that design.
The problem for the e/iMac range is that they're much too expensive relative to the wintel competition. Consumers look at the wintel aisle and they see, for the price of a CRT eMac w/combo-drive, a 17" LCD (1280x1024) Combodrive PC Tower package with at least 512MB of RAM, 120GB HDD, and minimum 64MB 8X AGP graphics (at least GF4MX, but also GF5200 on different models) To say nothing of the CPU/FSB numbers. It looks bad; it is bad. The CPU situation is one thing, but the RAM/HDD/CPU/display issue is even worse. These are things the consumer notices and have a big impact on the way the system is used. More RAM makes the system more responsive straight out of the box, and more HDD space means you can store a lot more stuff before you ever need to add another drive. Both good things. Ironically, the towers which are easier to access also have the good sense to have that 512MB on one stick so that you can add another without throwing out the an old one. The iMac, which has a ridiculous RAM slot arrangement, forces you to pay more to get all your RAM internally, just to keep the one user accessible slot open.
The iMac is just too expensive for what you get.
The eMac is just too expensive for what you get.
That's the problem. They use dirt cheap bottom of the barrel components and price them as if they were a cracking leading edge spec. Hell, I can buy a 4X superdrive for 230 Canadian now, (about 160USD) and that's retail, what's the component cost to some like Apple?
Originally posted by Matsu
17" LCD are NOT a niche specification. They're fast becoming the consumer desktop baseline for anything in the 1000+ USD range.
The problem for the e/iMac range is that they're much too expensive relative to the wintel competition. Consumers look at the wintel aisle and they see, for the price of a CRT eMac w/combo-drive, a 17" LCD (1280x1024) Combodrive PC Tower package with at least 512MB of RAM, 120GB HDD, and minimum 64MB 8X AGP graphics (at least GF4MX, but also GF5200 on different models) ...
Matsu - I hope you're a journalist, because you have the qualifications to work for the NY Times or Boston Globe. You write well and are convincing, and you don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. (Wink, wink,
(I don't disagree that the iMac price seems like it ought to be able to go down. I expect reductions - ~$200 - soon.)
When people buy a dell or cheap PC they are not looking at the other things. Just like when people buy a cheap GM or Ford vehicle- they are not really looking at the performance/style/experience- they want the rebates/cheap financing/etc.
Sit in and drive a BMW/Audi/Mercedes/VW and then sit in a GM or Ford- you'll notice a huge difference that's worth the extra price for the German car...
Now
Setup/un-package/use an Apple and then setup/un-package/use a Dell or cheap PC- you'll notice a huge difference that's worth the extra price for the Apple computer...
As far as what I would like to see in the Gen3 iMac?
I wouldn?t mind seeing DVR software built in. If Apple really wants the iMac to become the center for the digital lifestyle they must start to bring the iMac into the living room. The composite video out on this generation is a good start.
I can use an eyeTV to record my shows and then pump them out to the TV when I want to watch them. Then if I want to burn them to a DVD I have that option also. They need to add Dolby digital out for 5.1 sound so I can use this as the center of my home theater.
Maybe not so much bring the actual iMac into the living room, but bringing its services to the living room. Maybe Apple could design a receiver with Airport Extreme and remote control. Somehow controlling the iMac remotely from your TV seamlessly with Apple design and functionality. It would have to be very simple.
Plug the power into the Apple iHub and with Rendezvous it automatically discovers all of the Macs on the wired/wireless home network and makes all of your media available via the television. Searches all of the users Home directories for pictures, videos, and audio files. You could even use the TV to browse the iTunes Music Store.
All I know is Apple must do something extreme with the next generation iMac for it to gain press/public recognition. Who needs just a computer now? It?s the center of our digital lifestyle that Apple is pushing.
As far as design goes I really like this one:
iMac G5 Render
Originally posted by tacojohn
iMac G5 Render
"Enjoy the beast inside the beauty"?
That's an awful line
Originally posted by tacojohn
Now
As far as what I would like to see in the Gen3 iMac?
I wouldn?t mind seeing DVR software built in. If Apple really wants the iMac to become the center for the digital lifestyle they must start to bring the iMac into the living room. The composite video out on this generation is a good start.
I can use an eyeTV to record my shows and then pump them out to the TV when I want to watch them. Then if I want to burn them to a DVD I have that option also. They need to add Dolby digital out for 5.1 sound so I can use this as the center of my home theater.
Maybe not so much bring the actual iMac into the living room, but bringing its services to the living room. Maybe Apple could design a receiver with Airport Extreme and remote control. Somehow controlling the iMac remotely from your TV seamlessly with Apple design and functionality. It would have to be very simple.
Plug the power into the Apple iHub and with Rendezvous it automatically discovers all of the Macs on the wired/wireless home network and makes all of your media available via the television. Searches all of the users Home directories for pictures, videos, and audio files. You could even use the TV to browse the iTunes Music Store.
As far as design goes I really like this one:
iMac G5 Render [/B]
I really think you have hit the mark, with a digital hub and extreme use a remote to control your imac upstairs and send what ever to your entertainment center. By using apples simple and intuitive construct this would much more seemless then anyone else, people then would appreciate the additional elegance of mac. gateway hp and intel are trying to do this but i think only apple can really entire a home with true usability, wintel has a 25% non usability return rate--why because they are not APPLE. People wouldn't want to hook up there laptop or buy a cheap desktop to hook directly into entertainment system, use extreme. and people will PAY THE $$$$ for a seemless integration of computer (better storage and remembers better than I can) and home entertainment. imagine an apple tivo, with extreme, itunes with extreme, ipod base seemless intergration, i'd been hopilng just for this. you can store your stuff centrally and download it to your center---BRILLIANT, AND APPLE IS JUST THE COMPANY TO do this and bring more families to the mac/apple alliance. this is the "killer ap" many technews and analysts are hoping for. i don't see wintel units doing this seemlessly. that would bring computers out of the commoditiy level. centrino is not "g" its slow and since it's not a card can't be ungraded. WOW THIS WOULD BE AWESOME
Originally posted by Matsu
Taco, you cannot compare cars and computers in that way, even though cars are almost as bad an investment as computers.
Alright- why do people buy jackets from North Face or other more expensive companies? You buy them for quality/expierence/performance/etc.
You can use this for everthing- bikes/TVs/DVD players/Cameras/etc.
Generally if you pay more you get somethng better than if you paid less.
Originally posted by tacojohn
Alright- why do people buy jackets from North Face or other more expensive companies? You buy them for quality/expierence/performance/etc.
You can use this for everthing- bikes/TVs/DVD players/Cameras/etc.
Generally if you pay more you get somethng better than if you paid less.
To a point. The value system that makes "quality" worth more doesn't extend to computers in the same way because computers are really more disposable, but more importantly because not many computers can get you laid!
Originally posted by Matsu
To a point. The value system that makes "quality" worth more doesn't extend to computers in the same way because computers are really more disposable, but more importantly because not many computers can get you laid!
I don't know about you but my computer isn't very "disposable". Its more of an investment- as are the other higher quality/priced things that I buy.