The iMac will get them in the door, but when it comes time to reach for the wallet, it's important to have something reasonable to step down to. The eMac is very important in this light.
Apple always uses things like Superdrives and LCDs to get people to look at the hardware - it's the hook. People will dial themselves back when it comes to price but Apple is pretty good at making those price points high, but not too high to cut off the "Well, maybe another $200 is worth it..." thoughts.
When the spectrum of iMacs came out, it was the high end DV models that sold best. People kept justifying their way up the price ladder. You need the right bottom ones for people to say 'Yeah, I can afford to consider these things as they do what I need' and then the baby steps up in features and price.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it. Start with a 17" CRT and ease them up from $999 to $1799 in no more then $200 or $300 increments. *Never* ask the consumer to pay more and give something up.
eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've now used both the eMac and the iMac, and I've got to say that the eMac's screen is definitely NOT a step up from the iMac's. Put them side by side and the VIS difference is negligible. It's more of a side-step from one to the other. There's no question that the iMac's screen is easier to look at (both at first glance and over extended periods). The eMac's screen (I think others have mentioned this) is not perfectly flat, though it is close, but rather it sits behind a perfectly flat glass screen amking it a touch floaty/remote. In contrast the iMac's screen is eye-poppingly immeadiate (given the better contrast/brightness).
But, and I was surprised by this, the eMac's higher res modes are not so bad. If I drop the refresh on my NEC FE750 down below 85hz, to 80, I swear I can notice a touch of flicker. Running the eMac's screen at 1152x864@80hz, I really couldn't detect the flicker. It could be the mask in front of the screen, or the lighting in the store and all the other monitors near it; it might even have had something to do with the OSX backgrounds (as opposed to my ugly windows98 backgrounds here at home.) At 72hz, even 1280x960 seemed usable in a pinch, though the real test would be a late night session in my room.
So, in terms of screen realestate the eMac has some advantage; in terms of VIS, it's a wash; and, in terms of visual quality the iMac is noticeably (quite a bit) better.
Of course consumers may look at the spec sheet and naively think 17 is better than 15, but they may just as easily look at the technology and think LCD is better than CRT. All depends on what the customer really knows about displays, what they really want, and how much the sales guy thinks he can get away with.
Anyways....17 inch iMac....yeah I'll jump on the bandwagon...there's too much legit press on board (CNET, MSNBC) to get around it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Legitimate press my ass. If you will notice, both cNet and MSNBC printed the exact same story word for word. Not saying a 17" iMac won't happen but really, there has only been once source of this rumor. Its kind of like how ThinkSecret and SpyMac get their rumors from SlapTech and then claim they have inside sources at Apple. Ha!
I have no trouble viewing CRTs for extended intervals so I am inclined to prefer the eMac screen over the iMac screen. IMHO, the 15" iMac screen and ASD do not compare to the 17" ASD, which has an LCD that would be way too expensive to put on an iMac.
What still intrigues me is the mention of the 19" iMacs in the Quanta press release. It is probable that this was either flat out wrong or was due to confusion with a new Apple display.
However, assuming this new display exists, it begs the question, will it be a cinema display to extend that line down or a studio display to extend that line up? My guess, (and that is exactly what this is) is that it would be a 16:10 widescreen display.
The question then becomes, why not offer this in the iMac somewhere down the road. . I?m guessing that 19", 16:10 is probably the limit as to what could be added to the iMac technically (19" 4:3 may be possible) and the larger displays (22", 23") are intended (priced) for pro users in any event.
My somewhat long-winded point/question is: Does it benefit Apple to change the iMac philosophy and sell the iMac with a full line-up of display options: 15", 17" and 19" (be it studio or cinema)? This would allow Apple to start at a (hopefully) reasonable price point and work their way up to the high end in nice little price increments until they hit each prospective buyers financial pain threshold. At the bottom is a true starter consumer machine (15" CD-RW, say $1099) at the top end is a nearly pro-sumer machine (19", 16:10 , superdrive, etc. $2,000+).
Hey, can?t afford to enter the LCD world just yet, well folks, check out the amazing eMac, just $899. (Yeah I know, but doesn't that machine just seem $200 too much.)
Looks like the 17" imac is a lock, as are new ibooks (don't know what the difference is...speed bumps probably)
I work in IT in education, there's an Apple rep here today and he claims these two are in for the expo, I'll see if I can get anything else out of him...
<strong>Looks like the 17" imac is a lock, as are new ibooks (don't know what the difference is...speed bumps probably)
I work in IT in education, there's an Apple rep here today and he claims these two are in for the expo, I'll see if I can get anything else out of him...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you are right abot the iBook......A nice 800-1 Ghz Sahara would be nice.
I guess you change direction, missing the point where this thread started!!
Please, try to put all the info concerning the chance to build a future HT-MAC-osax based system.
Thanks to everybody...
Dear Xcel,
do you really think Steve Jobs has no interests in this market due to low costs PC involved????
I think that if one day the MAC of the future will be the best in terms of performances, even if its costs 2 times or more than HTPC, people won't think twice to purchase it.
More over, do we spend a lot of money for Big Projector??...where is the differences???
Naturally it should blow out all the others HTPC competitors to make it sense...
<strong>If the vertical height of a 17" 16x9 screen is less than the current 15" 4x3 then I don't think it will happen. But if the virtical height is the same or larger I would rate is a possibility.
I Think that one of the most important iApp upadtes is 16x9 support in iDvd & iMovie and a wide screen would just do the trick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
widescreen iMac = drooooool. Stretch out the 15" a few inches wider and there you have it. 1280x720 or Ti resolution in a bigger screen area.
does applecare cover drool damage?
me want. I would sell my iBook, dvd player, tv, vcr and PM7500 for a true widescreen iMac
Okay then. Time for a bet: If Jobs introduce a 17" iMac you win. If not I win. And since unautorisedgabling probably is illegal lets make the price a postcard. I send you one from sunny Copenhagen if I loose. If you loose you send me one from whereever you live.
Deal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guess you owe me a postcard dude (dudette?)
I've never been to Copenhagen so I wouldn't mind one the show the ambience of Copenhagen / Denmark.
<strong>Well, the only way Apple can add a '17 inch' LCD to the iMac and keep costs down is with a widescreen. with a 3:2 17" widescreen, if that exists, you get about 25 square inches more physical real estate and about a half inch taller screen. But the only monitors I could find were 16:10, or what the 22 inch ACD's aspect ratio is. The first one looks like a likely choice, maybe, but that's a lot of pixels...almost the same number of pixels as the 17" ASD's
Comments
<strong>
The iMac will get them in the door, but when it comes time to reach for the wallet, it's important to have something reasonable to step down to. The eMac is very important in this light.
Apple always uses things like Superdrives and LCDs to get people to look at the hardware - it's the hook. People will dial themselves back when it comes to price but Apple is pretty good at making those price points high, but not too high to cut off the "Well, maybe another $200 is worth it..." thoughts.
When the spectrum of iMacs came out, it was the high end DV models that sold best. People kept justifying their way up the price ladder. You need the right bottom ones for people to say 'Yeah, I can afford to consider these things as they do what I need' and then the baby steps up in features and price.
The 15" screen keeps some people from considering Macs, and the jump from 17" CRT to 15" LCD screws up the ladder - you don't want a jump from $999 to $1699, because they'll never make it. Start with a 17" CRT and ease them up from $999 to $1799 in no more then $200 or $300 increments. *Never* ask the consumer to pay more and give something up.
eMac to iMac forces the consumer to give up screen size in a higher priced package. That's very bad. 17" LCD across the board - that's my vote.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You read my mind. I totally agree.
But, and I was surprised by this, the eMac's higher res modes are not so bad. If I drop the refresh on my NEC FE750 down below 85hz, to 80, I swear I can notice a touch of flicker. Running the eMac's screen at 1152x864@80hz, I really couldn't detect the flicker. It could be the mask in front of the screen, or the lighting in the store and all the other monitors near it; it might even have had something to do with the OSX backgrounds (as opposed to my ugly windows98 backgrounds here at home.) At 72hz, even 1280x960 seemed usable in a pinch, though the real test would be a late night session in my room.
So, in terms of screen realestate the eMac has some advantage; in terms of VIS, it's a wash; and, in terms of visual quality the iMac is noticeably (quite a bit) better.
Of course consumers may look at the spec sheet and naively think 17 is better than 15, but they may just as easily look at the technology and think LCD is better than CRT. All depends on what the customer really knows about displays, what they really want, and how much the sales guy thinks he can get away with.
<strong>
Anyways....17 inch iMac....yeah I'll jump on the bandwagon...there's too much legit press on board (CNET, MSNBC) to get around it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Legitimate press my ass. If you will notice, both cNet and MSNBC printed the exact same story word for word. Not saying a 17" iMac won't happen but really, there has only been once source of this rumor. Its kind of like how ThinkSecret and SpyMac get their rumors from SlapTech and then claim they have inside sources at Apple. Ha!
generally, a week or less before Macworld, they have printed articles in which they predict (almost) the exact specs that will be released
that's why many people believe them (including me)
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Max8319 ]</p>
However, assuming this new display exists, it begs the question, will it be a cinema display to extend that line down or a studio display to extend that line up? My guess, (and that is exactly what this is) is that it would be a 16:10 widescreen display.
The question then becomes, why not offer this in the iMac somewhere down the road. . I?m guessing that 19", 16:10 is probably the limit as to what could be added to the iMac technically (19" 4:3 may be possible) and the larger displays (22", 23") are intended (priced) for pro users in any event.
My somewhat long-winded point/question is: Does it benefit Apple to change the iMac philosophy and sell the iMac with a full line-up of display options: 15", 17" and 19" (be it studio or cinema)? This would allow Apple to start at a (hopefully) reasonable price point and work their way up to the high end in nice little price increments until they hit each prospective buyers financial pain threshold. At the bottom is a true starter consumer machine (15" CD-RW, say $1099) at the top end is a nearly pro-sumer machine (19", 16:10 , superdrive, etc. $2,000+).
Hey, can?t afford to enter the LCD world just yet, well folks, check out the amazing eMac, just $899. (Yeah I know, but doesn't that machine just seem $200 too much.)
I work in IT in education, there's an Apple rep here today and he claims these two are in for the expo, I'll see if I can get anything else out of him...
<strong>Looks like the 17" imac is a lock, as are new ibooks (don't know what the difference is...speed bumps probably)
I work in IT in education, there's an Apple rep here today and he claims these two are in for the expo, I'll see if I can get anything else out of him...
I hope you are right abot the iBook......A nice 800-1 Ghz Sahara would be nice.
:cool: <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Jet
Nothing exciting.
[edit: fingers too fat for keys}
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: Colby2000 ]</p>
First,
Think HTPC ( Home theater PC )
For HDTV format
<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=e45333ba2a16e6fbe762e61e52649da1&; threadid=30817" target="_blank">http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=e45333ba2a16e6fbe762e61e52649da1&; threadid=30817</a>
=================================================
looking for more news...
I guess you change direction, missing the point where this thread started!!
Please, try to put all the info concerning the chance to build a future HT-MAC-osax based system.
Thanks to everybody...
Dear Xcel,
do you really think Steve Jobs has no interests in this market due to low costs PC involved????
I think that if one day the MAC of the future will be the best in terms of performances, even if its costs 2 times or more than HTPC, people won't think twice to purchase it.
More over, do we spend a lot of money for Big Projector??...where is the differences???
Naturally it should blow out all the others HTPC competitors to make it sense...
Bye
FAbio
=================================================
His wish might come true in this summer.
Second for 17 inch for iMac & Monitor
Check this spec;
1) 17 Wide XGA LM171W02
Feature
PCTV Use(Monitor/TV) <--- Hmmm....
-Wide Type
-HDTV <---- Hmmmm.....
Model Name : LM171W02
Active Area[mm] : 367.2 X 229.5
Outline Dimension[mm] : 395 X 259.2
Thickness[mm] : 11
Resolution : 1,440 X RGB X 900
Aspect Ratio : 16 : 10
Pixel Pitch[mm] : 0.255(99.6)
Number of Colors : 16.2M(6 bit+FRC)
Luminance[cd/㎡] : 200
Color Saturation : 60
Weight[g] : 1,250
Contrast Ratio : 350:1
Interface TMDS
Viewing Angel[˚,U/D/L/R] : 50/70/75/75(CE≥5)
Color Temperature[K]
Response Time[ms] : 25
MP Schedule : Q3.'02
2) 17 Wide XGA LM171W01
Feature
-PCTV Use(Monitor/TV) <--- hmmm
-Wide Type
-HDTV <---- Hmmm.....
-High Luminance(400cd/㎡
Model Name LM171W01
Active Area[mm] : 372.5×223.5
Outline Dimension[mm] : 400×258
Thickness[mm] : 16.8
Resolution : 1,280 x RGB x 768
Aspect Ratio : 16:9.6
Pixel Pitch[mm] : 0.291(87)
Number of Colors : 16.2M(6bit+FRC)
Luminance[cd/㎡] : 450
Color Saturation : 65
Weight[g] : 1,900
Contrast Ratio : 500:1
Interface : LVDS 2Port
Viewing Angel[˚,U/D/L/R] : 50/70/75/75
Color Temperature[K] : 6,500
Response Time[ms] : 22
MP Schedule : Q2, '02
17 Wide XGA LM171W01
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: kormac77 ]</p>
Good to see you.
hmmm
Where's that penny jar..
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>7 days shipping time on the 800 iMac.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
They now have 1-2 days in red on the "Choose your iMac" page.
An update on the 800 is a no brainer now...
<strong>If the vertical height of a 17" 16x9 screen is less than the current 15" 4x3 then I don't think it will happen. But if the virtical height is the same or larger I would rate is a possibility.
I Think that one of the most important iApp upadtes is 16x9 support in iDvd & iMovie and a wide screen would just do the trick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
widescreen iMac = drooooool. Stretch out the 15" a few inches wider and there you have it. 1280x720 or Ti resolution in a bigger screen area.
does applecare cover drool damage?
me want.
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]</p>
<strong>
Okay then. Time for a bet: If Jobs introduce a 17" iMac you win. If not I win. And since unautorisedgabling probably is illegal lets make the price a postcard. I send you one from sunny Copenhagen if I loose. If you loose you send me one from whereever you live.
Deal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guess you owe me a postcard dude (dudette?)
I've never been to Copenhagen so I wouldn't mind one the show the ambience of Copenhagen / Denmark.
<strong>Well, the only way Apple can add a '17 inch' LCD to the iMac and keep costs down is with a widescreen. with a 3:2 17" widescreen, if that exists, you get about 25 square inches more physical real estate and about a half inch taller screen. But the only monitors I could find were 16:10, or what the 22 inch ACD's aspect ratio is. The first one looks like a likely choice, maybe, but that's a lot of pixels...almost the same number of pixels as the 17" ASD's
<a href="http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=126&offset=0&pkinds=monitor &pname=products" target="_blank">http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=126&offset=0&pkinds=monitor &pname=products</a>
or
<a href="http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=123&offset=0&pkinds=monitor &pname=products" target="_blank">http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com:8888/English/view/monitordetail.php3?idx=123&offset=0&pkinds=monitor &pname=products</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Bam!
<strong>
widescreen iMac = drooooool. Stretch out the 15" a few inches wider and there you have it. 1280x720 or Ti resolution in a bigger screen area.
does applecare cover drool damage?
me want.
[ 07-16-2002: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Time to get busy on eBay.