I remember seeing the cube once at a store. I thought it was the coolest thing ever, and still think it is awesome, however, I heard that it had some problems; what they were, I don't remember, but I think those "problems" were why it didn't do well? Anyway, I would second a new Cube. Also, when I first saw the Flatpanel iMac, I was completely blown away at the design. I wanted one soooo bad, (now I have a 17"), and couldn't be happier. My goal now is to get a powerbook. That is my 2 cents for now.
Frankly Apple really is not in a position to manufacture computers that don't sell well. The development costs are to high.
You are making a mistake relative to the reason the current iMacs do not sell, at least for this individual. That is simply the lack of power in a contemporary sense. By that I mean the processor and memory design along with the I/O ports. There is little sense in buying a PC from the top shelf if it is behind in implementing the features that keep it current. This is where the iMac fails badly.
If the iMac is to keep the smae price point it will need several enhancements, most important would be a 50% cpu speed increase and a corresponding improvement in the memory subsystem. Unfortunately the only way Apple is likely to get this is through implementation of a 970, though there is always the possibility of a surprise from Moto. All of this should be driving an improved display processor. To finish the machine off up to date ports should be added.
DAVe
You're such a kidder! No really, you should do stand-up!
The iMac 17" is APPLE'S BIGGEST SELLING MODEL. There isn't a problem with power from the customer's perspective anyway. And the iMac, indeed ALL Macs, have always been superior at integration (part of which is implementation) of their features. And they have the latest goddamned useless crap (I know, useful in the future) like FireWire 800. Seriously, PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN.
How about all sells Jagilohertz G5 iMacs? Or I just pull an iMac replacement out of my arse? I'd prefer the former, the latter might hertz. hurt. whatever.
As far as the Cube goes (which others of you have mentioned), Apple has GOT IT RIGHT. Everything (except the 15" iMac, I don't know why the fück that's still around) is selling extremely well. Education, Business, Consumers, Power Users, Creative Pros, Science and Internet sectors are all served well (pardon the pun) with Apple's current line-up.
Now all they need is an Enterprise Sales Group to sell their wares to business. Oh wait, THEY DO!
You're such a kidder! No really, you should do stand-up!
The iMac 17" is APPLE'S BIGGEST SELLING MODEL. There isn't a problem with power from the customer's perspective anyway. And the iMac, indeed ALL Macs, have always been superior at integration (part of which is implementation) of their features. And they have the latest goddamned useless crap (I know, useful in the future) like FireWire 800. Seriously, PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN.
How about all sells Jagilohertz G5 iMacs? Or I just pull an iMac replacement out of my arse? I'd prefer the former, the latter might hertz. hurt. whatever.
As far as the Cube goes (which others of you have mentioned), Apple has GOT IT RIGHT. Everything (except the 15" iMac, I don't know why the fück that's still around) is selling extremely well. Education, Business, Consumers, Power Users, Creative Pros, Science and Internet sectors are all served well (pardon the pun) with Apple's current line-up.
Now all they need is an Enterprise Sales Group to sell their wares to business. Oh wait, THEY DO!
Good to meet you!
- Barto "Maddog" Flamethrower
I know why the *beep* they need the 15" iMac... not a ton of people can afford the 17 incher. They could even make a $1,049 low end model, making the eMac quite a bit less popular. And, they could have a $1,439 model with all the features of the 17" other than the display and SuperDrive.
Some have said they want to see the eMac return to the education-only space. That's a strange request. If it's profitable for Apple to make the eMac available to regular consumers (as it seems to be), then there's no reason to limit consumer choice. The failure of the Cube had nothing at all to do with it being a superfluous wheel of the "Pro, Go, Whoa" matrix. People liked the Cube's design a lot, and it would have been a real hit except for one factor: price. When the machine was announced, I instantly knew it was far too expensive and had no market. Apple targeted pros instead of consumers, forgetting that pros like expandable machines. The consumer likes things small and cheap. Apple admitted that plainly when they axed the system. So if the Cube had been an iTower, it would have been a hit.
The iMac, although more successful than the Cube, is in a similar position. It is a great looking computer. Unfortunately, pricing pressure is even stronger on the iMac than it was on the Cube because of the Wintel price wars. Those who are expecting the iMac to get a G5 anytime soon aren't going to be happy as the months roll on. Nor is the iMac due for a major chasis redesign. The problem with pricing is that Apple won't give up its good margins in order to compete with Wintel. But we can't survive indefinitely as a platform with such low market share. The Mac pricing premium, which is necessary to maintain profitability, prevents many from making the switch. I believe it would be a really good long term investment to substantially lower prices across the board for a couple of quarters and amortize the losses. Once people come to the Mac, they won't go back to Windows. But Apple likely wouldn't consider such a plan.
Quote:
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.
You're right about DVR functionality, but we're not likely to see that either. SJ has repeatedly decried TV watching, and we can't even get ATi to give us All-in-Wonder cards. Apple's probably also concerned that PVR technology will make the MPAA come-a-knocking.
I know why the *beep* they need the 15" iMac... not a ton of people can afford the 17 incher. They could even make a $1,049 low end model, making the eMac quite a bit less popular. And, they could have a $1,439 model with all the features of the 17" other than the display and SuperDrive.
That's all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN. The 15" has negligable sales, even when it had the same feature set as the 17". People buy eMacs because they prefer the cheaper eMacs to the more expensive 15" iMac. People would probably still buy the eMac if the 15" was the same price for features.
People buy eMacs because eMacs are targeted at novice users, education, business and switchers. The 17" iMac is targeted at power users, rich people and creative pros. There is no space for the 15" iMac. It is Apple's current Cube.
The Mac pricing premium, which is necessary to maintain profitability, prevents many from making the switch. I believe it would be a really good long term investment to substantially lower prices across the board for a couple of quarters and amortize the losses. Once people come to the Mac, they won't go back to Windows. But Apple likely wouldn't consider such a plan.
Well, they actually tried this road several times:
- the LC 475
- the Performas 5500 and later
- the 4400
- and partly the original iMac
Results were mixed. The iMac was a real hit, because it looked great and was at the price/performance sweet spot. The LC offered nothing groundbreaking, but was cheap enough, but the 4400 was cheap and a flop nevertheless. So, low price alone is not the answer.
Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity. The flair of the iMac G3 was Ived in an attempt to be even more brilliant.
Apple could have a winner with the Powerbook 12" if they market it as the iBook G4, or with a much cheaper iMac.
Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity.
Hmm your right. We don´t have any huggable computers like the original iMac or iBook anymore. This is not good.
Currently I don't see why the current iMac is bad. Nobody can't compete with them. Nobody. Why ? Because Apple is selling a complete solution for the lambda user. The value in the iMac is :
The Design, Mac OS X, iLife and others iApps... (the Digital Hub)
Nothing can compete with that. They try. Dell can't, Gateway can't.
One or two things that I would like to see from a geek perspective, in the next revision, is at least 1 MB L3 cache, the option to have a good graphic card like the Radeon 9600.
But I really think what Apple will do is a lot of bundle.
Like with an iPod, iSight, .Mac, Voucher for iTunes Music Store, etc.
For the future, I would like to see - like Matsu - a nice little tower like the Cube but with at least one upgradeable AGP slot and without display.
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Why do you guys use an Apple and not a cheap PC?
If I could only get the BMW that ran of hydrogen, and I didnt have a regional source for fuel grade hydrogen to refuel the BMW then there is no way I would buy the BMW. In all honesty, I wouldnt buy a BMW anyway becouse I feel that the quality of the cars is not reflected in their price, but that isnt the point.
Apple needs a certain level of developer support, and viable programs to be a viable alternative platform. To maintain that they need a large enough install base to maintain a profitable market for developers products. This means that Apple needs to maintain or grow their market share. To do this they need to keep up with the market on price/performance as well as offer something unique to make their product more attractive. This does not mean that Apple computers need to be as cheap as thier Wintel competators, but they do need to compete in the same market.
To achieve this they can do better at reacting to "current market value" of certain products, such as the price of LCD's, DVD and Hard Drive, and chip prices. In the time since the introduction of the 15" iMac 2 LCD the price for these 4 items has dropped, in some cases dramatically. In this same time period the iMac 2 has maintained its entry price point, with only 1 minor speed bump (in what, 18 months?). LCD prices for 15" screens are dropping below $300, and 17" below $400. Both Sonnet and PowerLogix have dropped prices on their G4 upgrades, the 800 kits are now $210, and 1.2Ghz $369 (the 1.4's are now at the price the 1.2's were just a few months ago. DVD R/RW drives are breaking the $300 mark, they were close to twice that 18 months ago if I recall. Last, 120 GB HD's are approaching the price that 60 GB drives were when the iMac 2 was introduced. There is plenty of room just in reduction of price components for Apple to reduce the cost of the iMac 2. Add to this a "phasing out" of development costs that should be, and usually are, realized over the life of a product and I would think that an entry level 15" 1 Ghz iMac could be sold today at $999 with a profit margin that is close to the margin that Apple had at its introduction.
Now, as to why I care about this at all? Well the obvious reason is that I would like a new Mac, and would like to spend as little as possible for it. But it is more than that, as a Mac user I have a personal interest in the long term viability of the product that I use in both profesional and private life. I do not want to use a Windows computer, be it Dell, Sony, or HP. I want software developed for the Mac to keep it a viable product, so that it is around when I replace my Cube, and so that there is good software available for it to do the tasks that I use a computer for.
...Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity. The flair of the iMac G3 was Ived in an attempt to be even more brilliant...
A gum drop is a lot more attractive than a desk light....It would be nice to see that more "human" aproach make its way back into Apples designs. I personally think that the Pismo laptop was much nicer than the flat metalic ones that they are currently making. In fact, while I might have considered a Pismo as a possible home computer, there is no way I would buy a TI or Al or even iBook unless I absolutly had to have one for work. The screen is nice, but it no longer fits your hands. It has lost that nice ergonomic feel that the Pismo had, and while the current design does have a nice clean industrial look to it, the clean lines and gentle curves of the Pismo are more elegant, and fit in just as well in the profesional environment.
...They shouldn't need two consumer desktops. The iMac should be able to cover this segment...
I disagree, Apple needs 2 distinct consumer lines with varying levels of price and features. They just dont have the right products for the market, becouse all their consumer lines are AIO models, but not all conusmer's want AIO computers.
I'm thinking about buying an Imac & I Just wanted to get some thoughts from other users on the possibility of a 20" imac coming (Paris) ?
if so what are the chances on 400 & 800 firewire ports, usb & usb 2 ports, gigabit ethernet & built in bluetooth (standard) along with what would be an obvious speed bump?
I have 1 more question to ask, in reading some posts a new cube has been mentioned more then once, is a g5 cube within the realm of possibilities?
[With the Cube] Apple targeted pros instead of consumers, forgetting that pros like expandable machines.
No, Apple learned that pros don't like spending more for a non-expandable machine than they would for an expandable one. There are whole swaths of professionals who don't need or want the PowerMac's expansion - but what they expected was a less expensive option without all the frills of the tower. At $1299 or $1399, the Cube would have filled graphic design offices coast to coast. It's small, quiet, elegant, and perfectly suited to running most DP applications. The people who'd have bought that Cube are now buying the 17" iMac.
Quote:
The iMac, although more successful than the Cube, is in a similar position. It is a great looking computer. Unfortunately, pricing pressure is even stronger on the iMac than it was on the Cube because of the Wintel price wars. Those who are expecting the iMac to get a G5 anytime soon aren't going to be happy as the months roll on. Nor is the iMac due for a major chasis redesign. The problem with pricing is that Apple won't give up its good margins in order to compete with Wintel.
Apple's margin has been ticking downward in order to compete with Wintel; their margin on the LCD iMacs was less than 10% when the model was first introduced. It's probably somewhat higher now, but not much. Their stated profit margin is average, not per model. They make less on iBooks, and more on PowerBooks.
The iMac is an expensive machine to make, which is one reason it is where it is. (The Cube wasn't cheap to make, either, but Apple actually boasted about how big the margins were on that model - for the iMac, they warned about how small the margins were.) I'm willing to bet that they'll try to refresh the design to make it more manufacturable.
As for a G5 iMac, it'll appear a matter of months after the G5 PowerBook.
I still wonder if part of the LCD iMac's problem is its design. It's eminently practical, and sort of sci-fi looking, but it doesn't have the immediacy or the intimacy of the gumdrop.
I've been wondering that for over a year now...I've even tried to get my orange DV iMac back from a friend and trade her my current SuperDrive LCD model!
I have no sort of connection to this LCD iMac of mine (sentimental or otherwise) after owning it for 18 months. My little orange DV gumdrop? I miss it more with each passing month...
My CRT iMac 400Mhz G3 is way faster browsing the internet with Safari compared to my 1.6Ghz Pentium 4 on the same connection.
Hahahahah ok...yeah. How about you give us some websites and compare the rendering times. I'm on a 1GHz P3 right here, and I guarantee IE/Mozilla on it will beat the holy shit out of Safari on a 400MHz G3.
In fact, I'd make the same claim about my 600MHz P3 at home. And I have a 400MHz G4 as well. I know what I'm talking about.
No, Apple learned that pros don't like spending more for a non-expandable machine than they would for an expandable one. There are whole swaths of professionals who don't need or want the PowerMac's expansion - but what they expected was a less expensive option without all the frills of the tower. At $1299 or $1399, the Cube would have filled graphic design offices coast to coast. It's small, quiet, elegant, and perfectly suited to running most DP applications. The people who'd have bought that Cube are now buying the 17" iMac.
Lets not forget another nail in the coffin for the, the economy. The Cube was introducted 7/19/2000, and was discontinued 7/03/2001. This puts it as entering the market too late for the Y2K spending boom for computers and too early for any upswing in spending after the recession. I think that if Apple would have kept producing them and upgrading them along with the PM's, that in the next 6 to 8 months they would have sold a lot of cubes to design and production houses that had been holding off on purchases for as long as they could due to economic reasons.
People buy eMacs because eMacs are targeted at novice users, education, business and switchers. The 17" iMac is targeted at power users, rich people and creative pros. There is no space for the 15" iMac. It is Apple's current Cube.
Barto
Thankfully, there is a 15" iMac, else Apple would have lost a 18 unit sale to 1 customer alone. The customer wanted LCD NOT CRT, and the 15" iMac was the cheapest I could supply without doing an IBM BTO - ugly duckling (that the customer was use to).
Admittedly, the customer did not require a Combo drive, 60G HD, speakers or a modem or any iapps - these costs should have gone into more RAM and a discount.
Its my opinion that this model should be more configurable for customer needs and currently its below the price/performance curve. Which leads into the merits/discussion of a xseries client unit that can accomodate any size LCD around the $799 price point (no display), and re-introduce a 15" LCD for this unit.
That's all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN. The 15" has negligable sales, even when it had the same feature set as the 17".
Barto
Every time Apple sells a 15" iMac, they make money. They've already done the R&D. Leave it to marketing wannabe's to make suggestions that unnecessarily limit consumer's already limited choices.
Every time Apple sells a 15" iMac, they make money. They've already done the R&D. Leave it to marketing wannabe's to make suggestions that unnecessarily limit consumer's already limited choices.
Precisely why there should even be a G5 iMac at the 'high end' of the consumer range and as I suggested even lower specs/price for the 15" iMac, which could satisfy the business users better or release a xClient - industrial looking pizza/cube.
Realistically, the 17" iMac should be at about 1.6G G4 by now, with the 15" at 1.33. Maybe a 1.6-1.8G G5 as a premium product. Now these units would SELL! \
Comments
Originally posted by wizard69
Frankly Apple really is not in a position to manufacture computers that don't sell well. The development costs are to high.
You are making a mistake relative to the reason the current iMacs do not sell, at least for this individual. That is simply the lack of power in a contemporary sense. By that I mean the processor and memory design along with the I/O ports. There is little sense in buying a PC from the top shelf if it is behind in implementing the features that keep it current. This is where the iMac fails badly.
If the iMac is to keep the smae price point it will need several enhancements, most important would be a 50% cpu speed increase and a corresponding improvement in the memory subsystem. Unfortunately the only way Apple is likely to get this is through implementation of a 970, though there is always the possibility of a surprise from Moto. All of this should be driving an improved display processor. To finish the machine off up to date ports should be added.
DAVe
You're such a kidder! No really, you should do stand-up!
The iMac 17" is APPLE'S BIGGEST SELLING MODEL. There isn't a problem with power from the customer's perspective anyway. And the iMac, indeed ALL Macs, have always been superior at integration (part of which is implementation) of their features. And they have the latest goddamned useless crap (I know, useful in the future) like FireWire 800. Seriously, PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN.
How about all sells Jagilohertz G5 iMacs? Or I just pull an iMac replacement out of my arse? I'd prefer the former, the latter might hertz. hurt. whatever.
As far as the Cube goes (which others of you have mentioned), Apple has GOT IT RIGHT. Everything (except the 15" iMac, I don't know why the fück that's still around) is selling extremely well. Education, Business, Consumers, Power Users, Creative Pros, Science and Internet sectors are all served well (pardon the pun) with Apple's current line-up.
Now all they need is an Enterprise Sales Group to sell their wares to business. Oh wait, THEY DO!
Good to meet you!
- Barto "Maddog" Flamethrower
Originally posted by Barto
You're such a kidder! No really, you should do stand-up!
The iMac 17" is APPLE'S BIGGEST SELLING MODEL. There isn't a problem with power from the customer's perspective anyway. And the iMac, indeed ALL Macs, have always been superior at integration (part of which is implementation) of their features. And they have the latest goddamned useless crap (I know, useful in the future) like FireWire 800. Seriously, PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN.
How about all sells Jagilohertz G5 iMacs? Or I just pull an iMac replacement out of my arse? I'd prefer the former, the latter might hertz. hurt. whatever.
As far as the Cube goes (which others of you have mentioned), Apple has GOT IT RIGHT. Everything (except the 15" iMac, I don't know why the fück that's still around) is selling extremely well. Education, Business, Consumers, Power Users, Creative Pros, Science and Internet sectors are all served well (pardon the pun) with Apple's current line-up.
Now all they need is an Enterprise Sales Group to sell their wares to business. Oh wait, THEY DO!
Good to meet you!
- Barto "Maddog" Flamethrower
I know why the *beep* they need the 15" iMac... not a ton of people can afford the 17 incher. They could even make a $1,049 low end model, making the eMac quite a bit less popular. And, they could have a $1,439 model with all the features of the 17" other than the display and SuperDrive.
The iMac, although more successful than the Cube, is in a similar position. It is a great looking computer. Unfortunately, pricing pressure is even stronger on the iMac than it was on the Cube because of the Wintel price wars. Those who are expecting the iMac to get a G5 anytime soon aren't going to be happy as the months roll on. Nor is the iMac due for a major chasis redesign. The problem with pricing is that Apple won't give up its good margins in order to compete with Wintel. But we can't survive indefinitely as a platform with such low market share. The Mac pricing premium, which is necessary to maintain profitability, prevents many from making the switch. I believe it would be a really good long term investment to substantially lower prices across the board for a couple of quarters and amortize the losses. Once people come to the Mac, they won't go back to Windows. But Apple likely wouldn't consider such a plan.
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.
You're right about DVR functionality, but we're not likely to see that either. SJ has repeatedly decried TV watching, and we can't even get ATi to give us All-in-Wonder cards. Apple's probably also concerned that PVR technology will make the MPAA come-a-knocking.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I know why the *beep* they need the 15" iMac... not a ton of people can afford the 17 incher. They could even make a $1,049 low end model, making the eMac quite a bit less popular. And, they could have a $1,439 model with all the features of the 17" other than the display and SuperDrive.
That's all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN. The 15" has negligable sales, even when it had the same feature set as the 17". People buy eMacs because they prefer the cheaper eMacs to the more expensive 15" iMac. People would probably still buy the eMac if the 15" was the same price for features.
People buy eMacs because eMacs are targeted at novice users, education, business and switchers. The 17" iMac is targeted at power users, rich people and creative pros. There is no space for the 15" iMac. It is Apple's current Cube.
Barto
Originally posted by Big Mac
The Mac pricing premium, which is necessary to maintain profitability, prevents many from making the switch. I believe it would be a really good long term investment to substantially lower prices across the board for a couple of quarters and amortize the losses. Once people come to the Mac, they won't go back to Windows. But Apple likely wouldn't consider such a plan.
Well, they actually tried this road several times:
- the LC 475
- the Performas 5500 and later
- the 4400
- and partly the original iMac
Results were mixed. The iMac was a real hit, because it looked great and was at the price/performance sweet spot. The LC offered nothing groundbreaking, but was cheap enough, but the 4400 was cheap and a flop nevertheless. So, low price alone is not the answer.
Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity. The flair of the iMac G3 was Ived in an attempt to be even more brilliant.
Apple could have a winner with the Powerbook 12" if they market it as the iBook G4, or with a much cheaper iMac.
Originally posted by Smircle
Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity.
Hmm your right. We don´t have any huggable computers like the original iMac or iBook anymore. This is not good.
The Design, Mac OS X, iLife and others iApps... (the Digital Hub)
Nothing can compete with that. They try. Dell can't, Gateway can't.
One or two things that I would like to see from a geek perspective, in the next revision, is at least 1 MB L3 cache, the option to have a good graphic card like the Radeon 9600.
But I really think what Apple will do is a lot of bundle.
Like with an iPod, iSight, .Mac, Voucher for iTunes Music Store, etc.
For the future, I would like to see - like Matsu - a nice little tower like the Cube but with at least one upgradeable AGP slot and without display.
This will fit everybody : Education and consumer.
Originally posted by tacojohn
Alright- would you rather drive a ford over a BMW?
Would you rather use a Dell over an Apple?
Why not go for the cheaper dell- it can perform the same tasks as the apple and is cheaper- so why not?
I use an Apple because of the whole expierence. Yah- I pay a little bit more, maybe get a little bit less speed for the money. But the whole computer is just much better as far as quality and expierence goes.
Why do you guys use an Apple and not a cheap PC?
If I could only get the BMW that ran of hydrogen, and I didnt have a regional source for fuel grade hydrogen to refuel the BMW then there is no way I would buy the BMW. In all honesty, I wouldnt buy a BMW anyway becouse I feel that the quality of the cars is not reflected in their price, but that isnt the point.
Apple needs a certain level of developer support, and viable programs to be a viable alternative platform. To maintain that they need a large enough install base to maintain a profitable market for developers products. This means that Apple needs to maintain or grow their market share. To do this they need to keep up with the market on price/performance as well as offer something unique to make their product more attractive. This does not mean that Apple computers need to be as cheap as thier Wintel competators, but they do need to compete in the same market.
To achieve this they can do better at reacting to "current market value" of certain products, such as the price of LCD's, DVD and Hard Drive, and chip prices. In the time since the introduction of the 15" iMac 2 LCD the price for these 4 items has dropped, in some cases dramatically. In this same time period the iMac 2 has maintained its entry price point, with only 1 minor speed bump (in what, 18 months?). LCD prices for 15" screens are dropping below $300, and 17" below $400. Both Sonnet and PowerLogix have dropped prices on their G4 upgrades, the 800 kits are now $210, and 1.2Ghz $369 (the 1.4's are now at the price the 1.2's were just a few months ago. DVD R/RW drives are breaking the $300 mark, they were close to twice that 18 months ago if I recall. Last, 120 GB HD's are approaching the price that 60 GB drives were when the iMac 2 was introduced. There is plenty of room just in reduction of price components for Apple to reduce the cost of the iMac 2. Add to this a "phasing out" of development costs that should be, and usually are, realized over the life of a product and I would think that an entry level 15" 1 Ghz iMac could be sold today at $999 with a profit margin that is close to the margin that Apple had at its introduction.
Now, as to why I care about this at all? Well the obvious reason is that I would like a new Mac, and would like to spend as little as possible for it. But it is more than that, as a Mac user I have a personal interest in the long term viability of the product that I use in both profesional and private life. I do not want to use a Windows computer, be it Dell, Sony, or HP. I want software developed for the Mac to keep it a viable product, so that it is around when I replace my Cube, and so that there is good software available for it to do the tasks that I use a computer for.
Originally posted by Smircle
...Personally, I believe the iMac 2 has lost a lot of what made the original iMac such a winner: it's not cuddly anymore, it is cold, high-priced - more a piece of art than a commodity. The flair of the iMac G3 was Ived in an attempt to be even more brilliant...
A gum drop is a lot more attractive than a desk light....It would be nice to see that more "human" aproach make its way back into Apples designs. I personally think that the Pismo laptop was much nicer than the flat metalic ones that they are currently making. In fact, while I might have considered a Pismo as a possible home computer, there is no way I would buy a TI or Al or even iBook unless I absolutly had to have one for work. The screen is nice, but it no longer fits your hands. It has lost that nice ergonomic feel that the Pismo had, and while the current design does have a nice clean industrial look to it, the clean lines and gentle curves of the Pismo are more elegant, and fit in just as well in the profesional environment.
Originally posted by InactionMan
...They shouldn't need two consumer desktops. The iMac should be able to cover this segment...
I disagree, Apple needs 2 distinct consumer lines with varying levels of price and features. They just dont have the right products for the market, becouse all their consumer lines are AIO models, but not all conusmer's want AIO computers.
if so what are the chances on 400 & 800 firewire ports, usb & usb 2 ports, gigabit ethernet & built in bluetooth (standard) along with what would be an obvious speed bump?
I have 1 more question to ask, in reading some posts a new cube has been mentioned more then once, is a g5 cube within the realm of possibilities?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
New displays?
Originally posted by Big Mac
[With the Cube] Apple targeted pros instead of consumers, forgetting that pros like expandable machines.
No, Apple learned that pros don't like spending more for a non-expandable machine than they would for an expandable one. There are whole swaths of professionals who don't need or want the PowerMac's expansion - but what they expected was a less expensive option without all the frills of the tower. At $1299 or $1399, the Cube would have filled graphic design offices coast to coast. It's small, quiet, elegant, and perfectly suited to running most DP applications. The people who'd have bought that Cube are now buying the 17" iMac.
The iMac, although more successful than the Cube, is in a similar position. It is a great looking computer. Unfortunately, pricing pressure is even stronger on the iMac than it was on the Cube because of the Wintel price wars. Those who are expecting the iMac to get a G5 anytime soon aren't going to be happy as the months roll on. Nor is the iMac due for a major chasis redesign. The problem with pricing is that Apple won't give up its good margins in order to compete with Wintel.
Apple's margin has been ticking downward in order to compete with Wintel; their margin on the LCD iMacs was less than 10% when the model was first introduced. It's probably somewhat higher now, but not much. Their stated profit margin is average, not per model. They make less on iBooks, and more on PowerBooks.
The iMac is an expensive machine to make, which is one reason it is where it is. (The Cube wasn't cheap to make, either, but Apple actually boasted about how big the margins were on that model - for the iMac, they warned about how small the margins were.) I'm willing to bet that they'll try to refresh the design to make it more manufacturable.
As for a G5 iMac, it'll appear a matter of months after the G5 PowerBook.
I still wonder if part of the LCD iMac's problem is its design. It's eminently practical, and sort of sci-fi looking, but it doesn't have the immediacy or the intimacy of the gumdrop.
I have no sort of connection to this LCD iMac of mine (sentimental or otherwise) after owning it for 18 months. My little orange DV gumdrop? I miss it more with each passing month...
Those iMac were simply perfect, IMO.
Hahahahah ok...yeah. How about you give us some websites and compare the rendering times. I'm on a 1GHz P3 right here, and I guarantee IE/Mozilla on it will beat the holy shit out of Safari on a 400MHz G3.
In fact, I'd make the same claim about my 600MHz P3 at home. And I have a 400MHz G4 as well. I know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Amorph
No, Apple learned that pros don't like spending more for a non-expandable machine than they would for an expandable one. There are whole swaths of professionals who don't need or want the PowerMac's expansion - but what they expected was a less expensive option without all the frills of the tower. At $1299 or $1399, the Cube would have filled graphic design offices coast to coast. It's small, quiet, elegant, and perfectly suited to running most DP applications. The people who'd have bought that Cube are now buying the 17" iMac.
Lets not forget another nail in the coffin for the, the economy. The Cube was introducted 7/19/2000, and was discontinued 7/03/2001. This puts it as entering the market too late for the Y2K spending boom for computers and too early for any upswing in spending after the recession. I think that if Apple would have kept producing them and upgrading them along with the PM's, that in the next 6 to 8 months they would have sold a lot of cubes to design and production houses that had been holding off on purchases for as long as they could due to economic reasons.
Originally posted by Barto
People buy eMacs because eMacs are targeted at novice users, education, business and switchers. The 17" iMac is targeted at power users, rich people and creative pros. There is no space for the 15" iMac. It is Apple's current Cube.
Barto
Thankfully, there is a 15" iMac, else Apple would have lost a 18 unit sale to 1 customer alone. The customer wanted LCD NOT CRT, and the 15" iMac was the cheapest I could supply without doing an IBM BTO - ugly duckling (that the customer was use to).
Admittedly, the customer did not require a Combo drive, 60G HD, speakers or a modem or any iapps - these costs should have gone into more RAM and a discount.
Its my opinion that this model should be more configurable for customer needs and currently its below the price/performance curve. Which leads into the merits/discussion of a xseries client unit that can accomodate any size LCD around the $799 price point (no display), and re-introduce a 15" LCD for this unit.
Originally posted by Barto
That's all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN. The 15" has negligable sales, even when it had the same feature set as the 17".
Barto
Every time Apple sells a 15" iMac, they make money. They've already done the R&D. Leave it to marketing wannabe's to make suggestions that unnecessarily limit consumer's already limited choices.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Every time Apple sells a 15" iMac, they make money. They've already done the R&D. Leave it to marketing wannabe's to make suggestions that unnecessarily limit consumer's already limited choices.
Precisely why there should even be a G5 iMac at the 'high end' of the consumer range and as I suggested even lower specs/price for the 15" iMac, which could satisfy the business users better or release a xClient - industrial looking pizza/cube.
Realistically, the 17" iMac should be at about 1.6G G4 by now, with the 15" at 1.33. Maybe a 1.6-1.8G G5 as a premium product. Now these units would SELL!