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.
But to put a G5 in the iMac (especially as a high-end model along side G4's) would require a complete re-design of the MB ... it is a totally different architecture.
Therefore, It would end up being priced like a powermac ... so go buy a tower !
Eventually, the G5 will make it into the iMac... but not till they're ready to upgrade the entire iMac line-up. (OK, they might leave one entry level model as a G4)
But to put a G5 in the iMac (especially as a high-end model along side G4's) would require a complete re-design of the MB ... it is a totally different architecture.
Therefore, It would end up being priced like a powermac ... so go buy a tower !
Eventually, the G5 will make it into the iMac... but not till they're ready to upgrade the entire iMac line-up. (OK, they might leave one entry level model as a G4)
Thanks dude, i didnt realise that the G5 was completely different to a G4
On the price issue - some people want the G5, but not all the expandability that goes with a PMac a 1.6G/17" = 2699, the current 17" is just 1799, technical issues aside but around the 2199 for an iMac G5 1.6 17". Its not necessary to update the entire line to G5, to re-ignite iMac sales, although Id like some feedback on whether this price point would affect PMac sales.
*READ* my post. I said "even when" it had the same feature set. Which was when the 17" iMac was first introduced. And the GeForce 4 MX is just a GeForce 2 MX Just-Noticeable Improvement Edition!&trade
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). I guess they still sell 15" iMacs because they still have LCD stocks. It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
YOU CAN NOT SELL A 2199 iMAC... G4/5/6 doesn't matter. A high-end consumer machine (PC) currently costs 899-1399. Anything over 999 comes with a TFT, and many models manage a 17" TFT at 1100+
At 1799, the 17" iMac costs WAYYYY TOOO MUCH! At 1599 it still costs way too much. At 1399 it'd still be expensive, but not bad with a 4X superdrive and 17" display. For 1299 the competition will get you a superdrive, 17" LCD as well as 512MB base RAM, better video, and a larger HDD. However, I can spot Apple a ***SMALL*** premium for design and being a "mac", but it can be, if I didn't stress it enough, a SMALL premium only.
So, even at 1399 for the top end iMac, it'd still be "expensive" though no longer extremely overpriced. A 2199 iMac, G5's or not, is just ludicris (iHate rappers) -- value or not, consumers WOULD NEVER buy it, talk about a cube pricing fiasco redux!
Consumer machines have to be affordable first and foremost, feature rich and reliable second, and fast third.
A combo 17" iMac should be no more than 1099, and the 15" model should be no more than 899 (combo)
eMacs, if they start at 799, should finish there too. They only need one model, give it a combo drive and forget about it, it's an ugly bastard anyway. If the superdrive iMac's were priced in line with the rest of the industry, no one would touch the eMac unless they were looking for the absolute cheapest mac they could find.
For using Mac OS X, iLife, iApps and the whole mac experience,
I think that's not much money for the iMac when compared to the Dell 4600 (apart better performance from the PIV 2.4 GHz).
The eMac is worse. I think Apple need to compete with the Dell 2400.
A little tower or better expansion and lower prices. That's for the eMac.
For the iMac, a little bit of better performance (G4+L3 cache) will be fine. But with 100 or 200 $ less it will be better.
What processor speeds for each model. The iMac 15" @ 800 mhz, vs a 2.4 Ghz P4? To me the iMac is loosing that battle due to a slow processor. Put in a 1.2 G4 with L4 cache and it might be a good comparison.
*READ* my post. I said "even when" it had the same feature set. Which was when the 17" iMac was first introduced. And the GeForce 4 MX is just a GeForce 2 MX Just-Noticeable Improvement Edition!&trade
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). I guess they still sell 15" iMacs because they still have LCD stocks. It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
Barto
Ah. Well they practically need to keep it aroundif they expoect to get a $1,069 model out. However perhaps they could end up with this line:
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
Barto
More armchair marketing, Barto? I haven't seen the even more numerous and MORE confusing names and product lines hurt Dell or HP that badly. Do you think consumers can even actually name ONE Dell machine by its real name? "New Dimension" might be one because they have put in some commercials about it, but NONE of the other companies have "pruned" their "dead-wood" to make a healthier "tree" .... and they are doing fine.
[Note: Economics and Marketing are rife with bad analogies to the natural world that really just an attempt to make economics more of a science than the psychology that it is.]
Matsu, as usual, is partially correct. Cost and accessibility are the key components to the consumer in EVERY product they buy.
People buy computers the way they think they SHOULD buy computers. At a CompUSA or on-line (using the PC they currently have, I might add) or by having a friend build a cheap one for them (this obviously is going to be a PC). The Apple Stores help and it is a good way for Apple to continue. The on-line Apple Store is also a good experience. The catch is the price and the selection of games and software.
This is mostly based on IGNORANCE of how good the iApps are and how much they are worth and of course ease of use, yaddayadda.
In the consumer arena Apple needs to educate and market much better. Telling people about Unix is great for the geek market, but not the consumer market.
Steve Jobs said a few years ago that Apple was trying to get to the sub$500 iMac. Right now that would be a great thing to have, wouldn't it? Unfortunately what we have is a respectable but a little over-priced, under-marketed eMac and fairly expensive LCD iMacs.
I wish Apple would have kept the iMac moniker on the AIO crt's and continued to develop that line. I wish they would have called the LCD iMac something else and made it the AIO cube that it is. And I wish there was a true, slightly expandible, headless, $900 Cube now. I think it would sell since only Mac people remember the cube as a failure anyway.
So what about iMac3?
1. I think Apple needs to aggressively price the current iMacs so no one has an excuse on price for not buying one.
2. They have to make CONSUMER commercials for the CoNSUMER market, not artsy PRO-SUMER stuff. They have to get their software out there and market it. Get Gore and Rush on the tube discussing why Macs are better.
3. Change the iMac mobo so that periferals or upgrades are easier and make ALL Macs able to span screens so that consumers don't think that they are wasting their PC monitor by buying an iMac.
4. Get some color back into the consumer PC market.
Good post MacGregor. To expand slightly on your list:
Apple needs to advertise their hardware, software, and services seperatly to better educate consumers. This will be especially true when iTMS hits Windows so that consumers dont assume that you need a Mac, or an iPod to take advantage of the service, just download the FREE player, or player plug-in, set up an account and use it. While they are at it, have get the software included on PC magazine CD's, and send out a couple million CD's (ala AOL).
Bundeling Word with iMacs would be a good idea, and keep Microsoft happy (kill works and save the development $). A riskier alternative would be a new version of Works that reads and writes Office files (at least the current PC versions), though this would no doubt anger Microsoft.
Make an alliance with AOL to have iChat video added to their buddy software network, and switch over to Quicktime for their video delivery, Apple supplies the software AOL the marketing $ and market share. The main thing here is getting a larger footprint for Quicktime, and associate that name with Apple.
As far as expansion goes, the only thing that I really see that is needed is Video cards, which would need to be a custom design to fit in an iMac's round base. What they really need is a cheap Cube, and someone to market retail Nvidea cards for the Mac market to compete with ATI's retail offerings. But I do agree that ALL MACS SHOULD SUPPORT VIDEO SPANNING...its built in to all the video chips now.
I don't think Apple needs to compete with PCs on price. The current PC price levels are absurdly low. Of course there are huge rebates, and I don't think rebates should count against the price, but that's another topic.
PC prices are at historic lows for a simple reason: Sales are way down. Demand is at an all-time low. Why? Three basic reasons: the market is over-saturated; there is no market for used machines; and there is no compelling reason to upgrade for most people.
Apple is trying to address the third reason, and they are getting some sales.
Several PC companies will likely go out of business in the next couple of years. After that, prices of PCs will rise again.
Someone said the iMac 17" is Apple's biggest seller. Is that so? I thought the iBook 12" was the biggest seller.
Here is where I think the cube could become a real coup for Apple.
I'll let you guys debate the specs of my fantasy machine, but where I think Apple could make a significant push forward in market share would be to come out with a new cube that has price overlaps with the eMac and iMac. It should have very low profit margains.
But make this a killer little box with that design that everyone adored, and dedicate years to it before deciding if it's pass/fail. This cube would be something Apple could make minimal upgrades to but nothing major for lengthy periods of time. Bump up the processor speeds ever so slightly every 6 months, and systemactic, yet small, increases in HD capacity. Something that'll pretty much remain static but be upgraded just often and slightly enough to keep the people happy.
I guess what I'm basically trying to say here is I'd like to see Apple crank out something lovely that is designed to increase market share at the expense of good profit margains for a while. My box is no doubt fanciful, but I think the concept holds some promise.
Comments
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". 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
The same feature set?
GeForce 2 instead of 4
No AirPort Extreme
20GB smaller HD
No SuperDrive
SDRAM instead of DDR
200 Mhz slower
Therefore, It would end up being priced like a powermac ... so go buy a tower !
Eventually, the G5 will make it into the iMac... but not till they're ready to upgrade the entire iMac line-up. (OK, they might leave one entry level model as a G4)
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
But to put a G5 in the iMac (especially as a high-end model along side G4's) would require a complete re-design of the MB ... it is a totally different architecture.
Therefore, It would end up being priced like a powermac ... so go buy a tower !
Eventually, the G5 will make it into the iMac... but not till they're ready to upgrade the entire iMac line-up. (OK, they might leave one entry level model as a G4)
Thanks dude, i didnt realise that the G5 was completely different to a G4
On the price issue - some people want the G5, but not all the expandability that goes with a PMac a 1.6G/17" = 2699, the current 17" is just 1799, technical issues aside but around the 2199 for an iMac G5 1.6 17". Its not necessary to update the entire line to G5, to re-ignite iMac sales, although Id like some feedback on whether this price point would affect PMac sales.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
The same feature set?
GeForce 2 instead of 4
No AirPort Extreme
20GB smaller HD
No SuperDrive
SDRAM instead of DDR
200 Mhz slower
*READ* my post. I said "even when" it had the same feature set. Which was when the 17" iMac was first introduced. And the GeForce 4 MX is just a GeForce 2 MX Just-Noticeable Improvement Edition!&trade
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). I guess they still sell 15" iMacs because they still have LCD stocks. It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
Barto
absorb the following.
ARE YOU FVCKING INSANE?!?!?!?
YOU CAN NOT SELL A 2199 iMAC... G4/5/6 doesn't matter. A high-end consumer machine (PC) currently costs 899-1399. Anything over 999 comes with a TFT, and many models manage a 17" TFT at 1100+
At 1799, the 17" iMac costs WAYYYY TOOO MUCH! At 1599 it still costs way too much. At 1399 it'd still be expensive, but not bad with a 4X superdrive and 17" display. For 1299 the competition will get you a superdrive, 17" LCD as well as 512MB base RAM, better video, and a larger HDD. However, I can spot Apple a ***SMALL*** premium for design and being a "mac", but it can be, if I didn't stress it enough, a SMALL premium only.
So, even at 1399 for the top end iMac, it'd still be "expensive" though no longer extremely overpriced. A 2199 iMac, G5's or not, is just ludicris (iHate rappers) -- value or not, consumers WOULD NEVER buy it, talk about a cube pricing fiasco redux!
Consumer machines have to be affordable first and foremost, feature rich and reliable second, and fast third.
A combo 17" iMac should be no more than 1099, and the 15" model should be no more than 899 (combo)
eMacs, if they start at 799, should finish there too. They only need one model, give it a combo drive and forget about it, it's an ugly bastard anyway. If the superdrive iMac's were priced in line with the rest of the industry, no one would touch the eMac unless they were looking for the absolute cheapest mac they could find.
PS. [edit]
COMBO
eMac Combo - 999 $ (ATI Radeon 7500)
Dell Dimension 2400 with 17" - 628 $ (integrated 3D Intel graphics - no AGP)
iMac 15 Combo - 1299 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
Dell Dimension 4600 with 15" LCD - 1088 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
SUPERDRIVE
eMac SuperDrive - 1299 $ (ATI Radeon 7500)
Dell Dimension 2400 with 17" - 729 $ (integrated 3D Intel graphics - no AGP)
iMac 17 SuperDrive - 1799 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
Dimension 4600 with 17" LCD- 1547 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
For using Mac OS X, iLife, iApps and the whole mac experience,
I think that's not much money for the iMac when compared to the Dell 4600 (apart better performance from the PIV 2.4 GHz).
The eMac is worse. I think Apple need to compete with the Dell 2400.
A little tower or better expansion and lower prices. That's for the eMac.
For the iMac, a little bit of better performance (G4+L3 cache) will be fine. But with 100 or 200 $ less it will be better.
I can get much better deals, retail, from HP, Compaq, or Gateway.
Originally posted by jeromba
let's compare Dell's prices with the same config as the iMac 15 & 17 and the eMac.
COMBO
eMac Combo - 999 $ (ATI Radeon 7500)
Dell Dimension 2400 with 17" - 628 $ (integrated 3D Intel graphics - no AGP)
iMac 15 Combo - 1299 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
Dell Dimension 4600 with 15" LCD - 1088 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
SUPERDRIVE
eMac SuperDrive - 1299 $ (ATI Radeon 7500)
Dell Dimension 2400 with 17" - 729 $ (integrated 3D Intel graphics - no AGP)
iMac 17 SuperDrive - 1799 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
Dimension 4600 with 17" LCD- 1547 $ (with GeForce 4 MX)
For using Mac OS X, iLife, iApps and the whole mac experience,
I think that's not much money for the iMac when compared to the Dell 4600 (apart better performance from the PIV 2.4 GHz).
The eMac is worse. I think Apple need to compete with the Dell 2400.
A little tower or better expansion and lower prices. That's for the eMac.
For the iMac, a little bit of better performance (G4+L3 cache) will be fine. But with 100 or 200 $ less it will be better.
What processor speeds for each model. The iMac 15" @ 800 mhz, vs a 2.4 Ghz P4? To me the iMac is loosing that battle due to a slow processor. Put in a 1.2 G4 with L4 cache and it might be a good comparison.
Originally posted by Barto
*READ* my post. I said "even when" it had the same feature set. Which was when the 17" iMac was first introduced. And the GeForce 4 MX is just a GeForce 2 MX Just-Noticeable Improvement Edition!&trade
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). I guess they still sell 15" iMacs because they still have LCD stocks. It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
Barto
Ah. Well they practically need to keep it aroundif they expoect to get a $1,069 model out. However perhaps they could end up with this line:
15", 900Mhz, Combo
$1,069
17", 1000Mhz, Combo
$1,379
17", 1200Mhz, SuperDrive
$1,719
Originally posted by Barto
Look, the 15" has very little sales. Sure, it has SOME sales, but last time I checked Apple kills computers that don't sell well (they have a 100 days unwritten rule internally). It's an issue with pruning the dead-wood from the tree. In the end, Apple has a healthier line-up with less distractions for the consumer, less effort in sales support, less effort in manufacturing, less effort in continued hardware development and testing.
Barto
More armchair marketing, Barto? I haven't seen the even more numerous and MORE confusing names and product lines hurt Dell or HP that badly. Do you think consumers can even actually name ONE Dell machine by its real name? "New Dimension" might be one because they have put in some commercials about it, but NONE of the other companies have "pruned" their "dead-wood" to make a healthier "tree" .... and they are doing fine.
[Note: Economics and Marketing are rife with bad analogies to the natural world that really just an attempt to make economics more of a science than the psychology that it is.]
Matsu, as usual, is partially correct. Cost and accessibility are the key components to the consumer in EVERY product they buy.
People buy computers the way they think they SHOULD buy computers. At a CompUSA or on-line (using the PC they currently have, I might add) or by having a friend build a cheap one for them (this obviously is going to be a PC). The Apple Stores help and it is a good way for Apple to continue. The on-line Apple Store is also a good experience. The catch is the price and the selection of games and software.
This is mostly based on IGNORANCE of how good the iApps are and how much they are worth and of course ease of use, yaddayadda.
In the consumer arena Apple needs to educate and market much better. Telling people about Unix is great for the geek market, but not the consumer market.
Steve Jobs said a few years ago that Apple was trying to get to the sub$500 iMac. Right now that would be a great thing to have, wouldn't it? Unfortunately what we have is a respectable but a little over-priced, under-marketed eMac and fairly expensive LCD iMacs.
I wish Apple would have kept the iMac moniker on the AIO crt's and continued to develop that line. I wish they would have called the LCD iMac something else and made it the AIO cube that it is. And I wish there was a true, slightly expandible, headless, $900 Cube now. I think it would sell since only Mac people remember the cube as a failure anyway.
So what about iMac3?
1. I think Apple needs to aggressively price the current iMacs so no one has an excuse on price for not buying one.
2. They have to make CONSUMER commercials for the CoNSUMER market, not artsy PRO-SUMER stuff. They have to get their software out there and market it. Get Gore and Rush on the tube discussing why Macs are better.
3. Change the iMac mobo so that periferals or upgrades are easier and make ALL Macs able to span screens so that consumers don't think that they are wasting their PC monitor by buying an iMac.
4. Get some color back into the consumer PC market.
Apple needs to advertise their hardware, software, and services seperatly to better educate consumers. This will be especially true when iTMS hits Windows so that consumers dont assume that you need a Mac, or an iPod to take advantage of the service, just download the FREE player, or player plug-in, set up an account and use it. While they are at it, have get the software included on PC magazine CD's, and send out a couple million CD's (ala AOL).
Bundeling Word with iMacs would be a good idea, and keep Microsoft happy (kill works and save the development $). A riskier alternative would be a new version of Works that reads and writes Office files (at least the current PC versions), though this would no doubt anger Microsoft.
Make an alliance with AOL to have iChat video added to their buddy software network, and switch over to Quicktime for their video delivery, Apple supplies the software AOL the marketing $ and market share. The main thing here is getting a larger footprint for Quicktime, and associate that name with Apple.
As far as expansion goes, the only thing that I really see that is needed is Video cards, which would need to be a custom design to fit in an iMac's round base. What they really need is a cheap Cube, and someone to market retail Nvidea cards for the Mac market to compete with ATI's retail offerings. But I do agree that ALL MACS SHOULD SUPPORT VIDEO SPANNING...its built in to all the video chips now.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Excellent ideas, @homenow. I think that should just about do it. Steve can send us his thanks later.
no salery needed...we can just split his bonus...
It's doesn't matter WHAT the price is if people don't buy them. Yeah, if Apple killed the eMac people would be forced to buy 15" iMacs.
Next time I want cock down my throat, I'll choose Microsoft. Same with any other customer.
It doesn't matter how great your ideas are if people don't buy them. And people don't buy the 15" iMac. That is a fact, and it's not going to change.
Barto
PC prices are at historic lows for a simple reason: Sales are way down. Demand is at an all-time low. Why? Three basic reasons: the market is over-saturated; there is no market for used machines; and there is no compelling reason to upgrade for most people.
Apple is trying to address the third reason, and they are getting some sales.
Several PC companies will likely go out of business in the next couple of years. After that, prices of PCs will rise again.
Someone said the iMac 17" is Apple's biggest seller. Is that so? I thought the iBook 12" was the biggest seller.
Originally posted by cubist
...Someone said the iMac 17" is Apple's biggest seller. Is that so? I thought the iBook 12" was the biggest seller...
Looks like your right. At the Apple store the iBook is currently listed as the #4 best seller, behind the iPod, Office:Mac and the Belken tune cast.
I'll let you guys debate the specs of my fantasy machine, but where I think Apple could make a significant push forward in market share would be to come out with a new cube that has price overlaps with the eMac and iMac. It should have very low profit margains.
But make this a killer little box with that design that everyone adored, and dedicate years to it before deciding if it's pass/fail. This cube would be something Apple could make minimal upgrades to but nothing major for lengthy periods of time. Bump up the processor speeds ever so slightly every 6 months, and systemactic, yet small, increases in HD capacity. Something that'll pretty much remain static but be upgraded just often and slightly enough to keep the people happy.
I guess what I'm basically trying to say here is I'd like to see Apple crank out something lovely that is designed to increase market share at the expense of good profit margains for a while. My box is no doubt fanciful, but I think the concept holds some promise.
Yeah, probably won't happen but if Apple really wanted to take back some of the consumer market, a dual G4 1.25 would do it.
Well, it would have to be priced right too.
Originally posted by rickag
Looks like your right. At the Apple store the iBook is currently listed as the #4 best seller, behind the iPod, Office:Mac and the Belken tune cast.
Maybe the 12" iBook is the AppleStore's biggest seller, but when you include retail and direct purchase it would be the 17" iMac.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
Maybe the 12" iBook is the AppleStore's biggest seller, but when you include retail and direct purchase it would be the 17" iMac.
Barto
Thank you for the information. How do you know this?