I probably need some advice and input from industrial design types, seeing as I'm not a creative type or indeed an engineering type, but here goes some alternative thinking.
I keep some of the detritus that I've hoarded as a result of being a 41-year old single male in a storage unit just up the road, and whilst paying my bills a few weeks ago I noticed that they'd installed a new PC, which was some Dell slimline unit that was retained in a Dell stand where the system unit appeared to act as a counterweight to a Dell LCD attached to the stand.
This set-up - which (you'll have to trust me) is more elegant than it sounds - got me thinking about how Apple could progress the iMac whilst resurrecting the Cube.
What if a G5-powered iMac (which I'll refer to a 3GiM, for 3rd Generation iMac) and a G5-powered Cube (2GC) were, in reality, the same thing?
To expand, what if Jonathan Ive and his little band of industrial design pixies decided - on the basis of some vague prophecy from the Dalai Lama of Integration ((c) 2003 Bono, used under license) - that Apple needs as much as a G5-powered AIO is a new Cube, but also a Cube+ that sports a minimum degree of expansion.
First of all, design a new Cube (2GC) as your starting point using 0.09-based 1.8 and 2.0 G5s as a starting point, 60GB disk as standard (100GB option), 512MB RAM standard (2GB maximum), Side-loading Combo drive standard (Superdrive optional), 2 x 400mb Firewire, 1 x 800mb, 5 x USB 2.0, 10/100/1000 Ethernet; V.92 modem is BTO option in the broadband age.
But this 2GC displays multiple personalities, through a clever edge connector, that docks with a variety of expansion bases (in my head the connector is on the bottom): One base unit - designed for the business market and my so-called Cube+ (2GC+) - has VGA/ADC video interfaces and a PCI expansion slot, a second merely the VGA/ADC interface (2GC), and a third provides the same functionality as 2GC+, but with an integrated 17" LCD display as per the current iMac, thus creating 3GiM.
Such an arrangement would give Apple a variety of systems for a variety of marketplaces: 2GC would address lifestyle computing types who need to drive a larger display than iMac provides, 2GC+ would address business types and allow them to use cheaper VGA-based displays.
3GiM would address the majority of domestic computing needs with the benefit that a user could upgrade the 3GiM base at the end of two years to the current model and get the benefits of GPU advancement, without the hassle/expense of buying a new system. In addition, 3GiM would give iMac users the opportunity for PCI expansion for the first time.
More or less what I was suggesting above (but with a lot more detail - thanks).
I.e., make a new Cube the base of the iMac, sell it with our without monitor, provide some limited expandibilitly, make it appropriately fast, and sell it for the right price.
The 970 is the same physical size as an MPC7447, and it's smaller than a 7457. Sheer physical size isn't the problem here. Heat - not just the 970's, but the high-speed bus', and the companion chip's - is the problem,
Who said the iMac has to have the same high speed buses the towers have? I think it would be logical to keep the consumer lines crippled by offering slower bus speeds. They have done it before.
Who said the iMac has to have the same high speed buses the towers have? I think it would be logical to keep the consumer lines crippled by offering slower bus speeds. They have done it before.
Even if they do, the 970's bus will be clocked significantly higher than the G4's.
Jeez, I always loved that name, even though it's already been used for AC adapters IIRC.
There was a mockup somewhere way before the G5s eventually were released. It looked, IMHO, way cool.
Heck, lets make the system being talked about here modular while we're at it: if you need more power, plug in another unit. Given the care paid to multi processor usage by Apple, how difficult would this really be?
The G5 iMac would be feasible in the existing shape if either one of two conditions were met: if IBM refined the G5 manufacturing process (0.09-micron chips and/or improved chip design), which is the most likely, or else change the casing of the iMac to a material like aluminum.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be nice if Apple had a colour-anodised aluminum iMac G5 to kick off the 20th anniversary of the original Mac? Maybe only one colour in normal stores (such as the existing white), but you could custom-order one that would be anodised at the factory in one of a few colours (I'd say metallic red, blue or green). That would be very tempting.
The only catch to that is that it would be a bit awkward to have two desktop lineups using G5s while all the portables use G4s. Knowing Apple's (or at least Jobs') tendency to update pro systems first, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw PowerBook G5s first.
Well, that does it for my weekly trip to FH. Thanks for the quality thread.
It could have two tilt/raise arms mounted on a swivel base, which in turn is mounted on a horizontally oriented PowerMac G5. Picture it...
How about a G5 iMac base which is an aluminum cylinder about 16" in diameter, 8" high, grill on top, tray optical drive. The base would have a grill skirt all the way around and a big, slow-moving, quiet fan similar to the one in the eMac.
If you're going to make an iMac that can exist sans monitor, I would suggest something more like a pizza box. The AIO variant could have a case with integrated arm and video cabling routed through the top. The stand-alone version (I'd recommend using the eMac moniker, since it wouldn't be a cube and people here are clamoring for the eMac in its current form to die anyway) would simply use a shell with standard VGA/DVI/ADC display circuitry.
All cooling ventilation should pass through the front and back, allowing them to be stacked without overheating. Also, the case should be sized in such a way that they can be rackmounted (most likely tipped on their sides) as relatively inexpensive blade servers (which requires that BTO options allow for them to be configured very minimally).
Enjoying these posts. The particular shape that I have been thinking about most recently is a flat-topped Disk (kind of like a hockey puck) but with straight sides (as if you cut a bit off of two sides of the puck). It would be vented on both sides (with a stylized, but understated Apple logo on the top of the Disk). The Arm would mount securely into an attachment at the back of the Disk in the AIO versions. Ideally, even the AIO versions could be taken apart so that the monitor could be connected separately as a desktop monitor. It would also be sold, of course, without an arm or monitor, if that is what you want. The FlexiMac. A G5 would be nice, but I would settle for a faster G4.
I really think you have to face the fact that the next revision of the iMac will a) be wholesale and radical and b) G5-based.
There are any number of reasons for this, but let's start with the following: -
G5 costs less on a per-unit basis than G4s!
Motorola's 'confused' positioning of the SPS division means that Apple really cannot have any faith in them as a long-term source of CPU parts.
At MWSF 04, it will have been two years since since the release of this iMac generation
MWSF 04 marks the 20th anniversary of the Macintosh brand
IBM appear to be well on course to deliver higher specced 970s and 970s on a smaller fabrication, thus creating room in the overall brand segmentation as well as the capability to exploit that room.
I really can't see anything larger than a 20" LCD appearing in the iMac space - anything larger is simply way too expensive to exist in that prosumer space with any degree of mass market appeal, you might see another inch to go to 18 is my theory.
My vision of 3GiM and 2GC(+) as stated earlier and shares a lot with Chinney, except I can't see the degree of exotic design that some are expecting here. The problem is that for the unit to work as low-cost business Mac (my 2GC+), the design has to - rightly or wrongly - be relatively conservative and designed to a cost rather than a specification or an expression of Apple's design credentials at their most extrovert.
However, this 2GC unit could be designed to fit into a 3GiM base that is more in keeping with Jonathan Ive's design aspirations, but the problem here is going to developing a design that satisfies the aesthetic needs of the Apple audience whilst simultaneously keeping more practical issues such as heat dissipation, maintainability and overall cost under control.
Of course, Apple could throw caution to the wind and design a pure AIO unit again - but I can't help but feel that this is wasting an opportunity when the market could so easily embrace a family of prosumer Macs from SoHo to web appliance to micro-server.
They've also long since blown past any pretensions of calling them "laptops." Aren't some of them up over 12 pounds now?
I've had this conversation before. An 8 to 10 lb luggable laptop is acceptable if it had the commiserate performance. In essense, it's an all-in-one desktop that can easily be moved. If the laptop market is going to be the major market in the future, this sort of laptop will be a big portion of that market.
For example, I use my laptop primarily at home. I never take it out of the house. I like using it on the couch, in the kitchen, in the bedroom, etc. Weight and size won't be my drivers as much as portability, so I and others like me would be in this market.
Quote:
Appropriately enough, they have a different platform for actual laptops that's low power, at least by Intel standards.
They've actually got several platforms: the desktop replacements that use desktop Pentium 4 CPUs, the power laptops that use mobile Pentium 4 CPUs, the mobile laptops that use Centrinos, the low cost laptop markets that use mobile Celerons, the ultra-mobile laptops and tablets using ULV Pentiums, Crusoe and Centrinos. I'm sure I've missed some others.
Re: iMac design. Consider the idea of a keyboard with the optical drive in it and eliminating it from the CPU box. It would free Apple to design some very interesting shapes and cooling solutions. For instance, they could keep the current iMac base and have a dual G4 or a high GHz G5 with corresponding cooling system in it because there would be a lot more room available without the optical drive there. One could put the motherboard behind the LCD, an old idea, and have nothing at the base but ballast.
Also, a keyboard with 2 optical drives would be really easy too.
Why this Cube thing? It was a failure for many reasons. One of the biggest is that people didn't like the way it looked. It had a brick for a power source on the floor. It developed cracks in the casing, etc. The optical drive was a problem. (Remember SJ saying a vertical drive for the current iMac was considered to be a poor idea- ummmmmm!) One thing any company learns, if they have any kind of smarts, is not return to a failure and try to re-invent it. The next iMac design, when it comes in mid-2004 or thereabouts, will not be a Cube in any stretch of the imagination. Apple doesn't have a death wish.
Perfectly said. Apple will never make a cube again. The new iMac is the cube.
Here it is folks the new iMac, it recovers the sleek all in one nature of is predecessor, the 'gumdrop' G3 model with plenty of Space for a G5 processor, a revolutionary oval display (Jobs: "The human eye is round, not square") and an "obsolescence proof" DVD/CD/DAT/VHS/8mm/Compact flash/Smart media/Memory Stick drive, an integrated stand, and an integrated left and right hand mouse (also includes bluetooth keyboard, not pictured), and long range Airport Extreme/Bluetooth Antennas up top.
Actually I foresee a simplification of the current iMac case design. The arm adds lots of cost and the very compact case dimensions also add cost. I think it is possible the new iMac may get a G5 due to the instability of Motorola SPS ad the rapid scalability predicted of the G5 (making space quickly under the PowerMac G5). I think it could look something like this , with a design optimised for convection air movement (maybe still no fans) and a simplified, but still sharable (ie turns and raises/lowers) LCD fastening system. A ring of holes might look better than the ring of slots on my "quick and dirty" sketch.
The LCD iMac is as big a failure as the original iMac was a success.
Is this really true? If we combine eMac and iMac sales because the old iMac covered both categories, how do sales compare? And after we factor out the recession, how would sales look? Then, if we factor out the dated G4 which is mostly the fault of Motorola, somewhat the fault of Apple and not at all the fault of the iMac, where would sales be?
I'm just saying that raw numbers don't count. The PowerMac sales dropped even though form factor didn't change a whole lot. So sales were down across the board because of a lot of factors and form factor isn't necessarily one of them.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
G5 costs less on a per-unit basis than G4s!
That is a rumor that has never been proven. If I recall correctly it orginally was on that MacWhipsers site and many of their rumors where just plain wrong. Even if the G5 chip itself was cheaper than the G4, the combination of the G5 and its memory controller is proabably more expensive than the G4 is itself. The current iMac is using a G4 that is 1 generation old and Apple is proabably getting a pretty good price on them. The G4 in the iBook and eMac is 2 generations old and Apple is probably getting those for peanuts.
Is this really true? If we combine eMac and iMac sales because the old iMac covered both categories, how do sales compare? And after we factor out the recession, how would sales look? Then, if we factor out the dated G4 which is mostly the fault of Motorola, somewhat the fault of Apple and not at all the fault of the iMac, where would sales be?
I'm just saying that raw numbers don't count. The PowerMac sales dropped even though form factor didn't change a whole lot. So sales were down across the board because of a lot of factors and form factor isn't necessarily one of them.
1. combine iMac and eMac sales and its still pathetic
2. iMac did not cover both categories...it covered one....1299....it was neither cheap nor expensive...it was just right and covered the middle ground.
3. recession? give me a break.....maybe you can attribute a couple percentage point drop to that but not the huge drop we have seen
4. Apple has options.... they have had options with the G4. it's Apple who has been notoriously reluctant to put the fastest processor available in a consumer machine.
5. raw numbers count a whole lot
6. raw numbers aren't everything...... the original iMac was a pop icon.....current iMac.....nothing.....
7. PowerMac sales dropped because Apple neglected to give people what they wanted in a powermac for a reasonable price AND that processor speeds were embarrassing.
Comments
I keep some of the detritus that I've hoarded as a result of being a 41-year old single male in a storage unit just up the road, and whilst paying my bills a few weeks ago I noticed that they'd installed a new PC, which was some Dell slimline unit that was retained in a Dell stand where the system unit appeared to act as a counterweight to a Dell LCD attached to the stand.
This set-up - which (you'll have to trust me) is more elegant than it sounds - got me thinking about how Apple could progress the iMac whilst resurrecting the Cube.
What if a G5-powered iMac (which I'll refer to a 3GiM, for 3rd Generation iMac) and a G5-powered Cube (2GC) were, in reality, the same thing?
To expand, what if Jonathan Ive and his little band of industrial design pixies decided - on the basis of some vague prophecy from the Dalai Lama of Integration ((c) 2003 Bono, used under license) - that Apple needs as much as a G5-powered AIO is a new Cube, but also a Cube+ that sports a minimum degree of expansion.
First of all, design a new Cube (2GC) as your starting point using 0.09-based 1.8 and 2.0 G5s as a starting point, 60GB disk as standard (100GB option), 512MB RAM standard (2GB maximum), Side-loading Combo drive standard (Superdrive optional), 2 x 400mb Firewire, 1 x 800mb, 5 x USB 2.0, 10/100/1000 Ethernet; V.92 modem is BTO option in the broadband age.
But this 2GC displays multiple personalities, through a clever edge connector, that docks with a variety of expansion bases (in my head the connector is on the bottom): One base unit - designed for the business market and my so-called Cube+ (2GC+) - has VGA/ADC video interfaces and a PCI expansion slot, a second merely the VGA/ADC interface (2GC), and a third provides the same functionality as 2GC+, but with an integrated 17" LCD display as per the current iMac, thus creating 3GiM.
Such an arrangement would give Apple a variety of systems for a variety of marketplaces: 2GC would address lifestyle computing types who need to drive a larger display than iMac provides, 2GC+ would address business types and allow them to use cheaper VGA-based displays.
3GiM would address the majority of domestic computing needs with the benefit that a user could upgrade the 3GiM base at the end of two years to the current model and get the benefits of GPU advancement, without the hassle/expense of buying a new system. In addition, 3GiM would give iMac users the opportunity for PCI expansion for the first time.
Any thoughts??
I.e., make a new Cube the base of the iMac, sell it with our without monitor, provide some limited expandibilitly, make it appropriately fast, and sell it for the right price.
The 970 is the same physical size as an MPC7447, and it's smaller than a 7457. Sheer physical size isn't the problem here. Heat - not just the 970's, but the high-speed bus', and the companion chip's - is the problem,
Who said the iMac has to have the same high speed buses the towers have? I think it would be logical to keep the consumer lines crippled by offering slower bus speeds. They have done it before.
Originally posted by muah
Who said the iMac has to have the same high speed buses the towers have? I think it would be logical to keep the consumer lines crippled by offering slower bus speeds. They have done it before.
Even if they do, the 970's bus will be clocked significantly higher than the G4's.
The LCD iMac is as big a failure as the original iMac was a success.
Jeez, I always loved that name, even though it's already been used for AC adapters IIRC.
There was a mockup somewhere way before the G5s eventually were released. It looked, IMHO, way cool.
Heck, lets make the system being talked about here modular while we're at it: if you need more power, plug in another unit. Given the care paid to multi processor usage by Apple, how difficult would this really be?
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be nice if Apple had a colour-anodised aluminum iMac G5 to kick off the 20th anniversary of the original Mac? Maybe only one colour in normal stores (such as the existing white), but you could custom-order one that would be anodised at the factory in one of a few colours (I'd say metallic red, blue or green). That would be very tempting.
The only catch to that is that it would be a bit awkward to have two desktop lineups using G5s while all the portables use G4s. Knowing Apple's (or at least Jobs') tendency to update pro systems first, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw PowerBook G5s first.
Originally posted by murbot
23" LCD on the iMac.
Well, that does it for my weekly trip to FH. Thanks for the quality thread.
It could have two tilt/raise arms mounted on a swivel base, which in turn is mounted on a horizontally oriented PowerMac G5. Picture it...
How about a G5 iMac base which is an aluminum cylinder about 16" in diameter, 8" high, grill on top, tray optical drive. The base would have a grill skirt all the way around and a big, slow-moving, quiet fan similar to the one in the eMac.
All cooling ventilation should pass through the front and back, allowing them to be stacked without overheating. Also, the case should be sized in such a way that they can be rackmounted (most likely tipped on their sides) as relatively inexpensive blade servers (which requires that BTO options allow for them to be configured very minimally).
There are any number of reasons for this, but let's start with the following: -
G5 costs less on a per-unit basis than G4s!
Motorola's 'confused' positioning of the SPS division means that Apple really cannot have any faith in them as a long-term source of CPU parts.
At MWSF 04, it will have been two years since since the release of this iMac generation
MWSF 04 marks the 20th anniversary of the Macintosh brand
IBM appear to be well on course to deliver higher specced 970s and 970s on a smaller fabrication, thus creating room in the overall brand segmentation as well as the capability to exploit that room.
I really can't see anything larger than a 20" LCD appearing in the iMac space - anything larger is simply way too expensive to exist in that prosumer space with any degree of mass market appeal, you might see another inch to go to 18 is my theory.
My vision of 3GiM and 2GC(+) as stated earlier and shares a lot with Chinney, except I can't see the degree of exotic design that some are expecting here. The problem is that for the unit to work as low-cost business Mac (my 2GC+), the design has to - rightly or wrongly - be relatively conservative and designed to a cost rather than a specification or an expression of Apple's design credentials at their most extrovert.
However, this 2GC unit could be designed to fit into a 3GiM base that is more in keeping with Jonathan Ive's design aspirations, but the problem here is going to developing a design that satisfies the aesthetic needs of the Apple audience whilst simultaneously keeping more practical issues such as heat dissipation, maintainability and overall cost under control.
Of course, Apple could throw caution to the wind and design a pure AIO unit again - but I can't help but feel that this is wasting an opportunity when the market could so easily embrace a family of prosumer Macs from SoHo to web appliance to micro-server.
Just one man's thoughts.
Originally posted by Amorph
Yeah, but this is a bigger jump.
Apple can use a bigger battery.
They've also long since blown past any pretensions of calling them "laptops." Aren't some of them up over 12 pounds now?
I've had this conversation before. An 8 to 10 lb luggable laptop is acceptable if it had the commiserate performance. In essense, it's an all-in-one desktop that can easily be moved. If the laptop market is going to be the major market in the future, this sort of laptop will be a big portion of that market.
For example, I use my laptop primarily at home. I never take it out of the house. I like using it on the couch, in the kitchen, in the bedroom, etc. Weight and size won't be my drivers as much as portability, so I and others like me would be in this market.
Appropriately enough, they have a different platform for actual laptops that's low power, at least by Intel standards.
They've actually got several platforms: the desktop replacements that use desktop Pentium 4 CPUs, the power laptops that use mobile Pentium 4 CPUs, the mobile laptops that use Centrinos, the low cost laptop markets that use mobile Celerons, the ultra-mobile laptops and tablets using ULV Pentiums, Crusoe and Centrinos. I'm sure I've missed some others.
Re: iMac design. Consider the idea of a keyboard with the optical drive in it and eliminating it from the CPU box. It would free Apple to design some very interesting shapes and cooling solutions. For instance, they could keep the current iMac base and have a dual G4 or a high GHz G5 with corresponding cooling system in it because there would be a lot more room available without the optical drive there. One could put the motherboard behind the LCD, an old idea, and have nothing at the base but ballast.
Also, a keyboard with 2 optical drives would be really easy too.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Why this Cube thing? It was a failure for many reasons. One of the biggest is that people didn't like the way it looked. It had a brick for a power source on the floor. It developed cracks in the casing, etc. The optical drive was a problem. (Remember SJ saying a vertical drive for the current iMac was considered to be a poor idea- ummmmmm!) One thing any company learns, if they have any kind of smarts, is not return to a failure and try to re-invent it. The next iMac design, when it comes in mid-2004 or thereabouts, will not be a Cube in any stretch of the imagination. Apple doesn't have a death wish.
Perfectly said. Apple will never make a cube again. The new iMac is the cube.
Here it is folks the new iMac, it recovers the sleek all in one nature of is predecessor, the 'gumdrop' G3 model with plenty of Space for a G5 processor, a revolutionary oval display (Jobs: "The human eye is round, not square") and an "obsolescence proof" DVD/CD/DAT/VHS/8mm/Compact flash/Smart media/Memory Stick drive, an integrated stand, and an integrated left and right hand mouse (also includes bluetooth keyboard, not pictured), and long range Airport Extreme/Bluetooth Antennas up top.
Originally posted by cubist
IHow about a G5 iMac base which is an aluminum cylinder about 16" in diameter, 8" high, grill on top....
Mmmm, hot dogs!
Originally posted by applenut
a new iMac better be coming soon
The LCD iMac is as big a failure as the original iMac was a success.
Is this really true? If we combine eMac and iMac sales because the old iMac covered both categories, how do sales compare? And after we factor out the recession, how would sales look? Then, if we factor out the dated G4 which is mostly the fault of Motorola, somewhat the fault of Apple and not at all the fault of the iMac, where would sales be?
I'm just saying that raw numbers don't count. The PowerMac sales dropped even though form factor didn't change a whole lot. So sales were down across the board because of a lot of factors and form factor isn't necessarily one of them.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
G5 costs less on a per-unit basis than G4s!
That is a rumor that has never been proven. If I recall correctly it orginally was on that MacWhipsers site and many of their rumors where just plain wrong. Even if the G5 chip itself was cheaper than the G4, the combination of the G5 and its memory controller is proabably more expensive than the G4 is itself. The current iMac is using a G4 that is 1 generation old and Apple is proabably getting a pretty good price on them. The G4 in the iBook and eMac is 2 generations old and Apple is probably getting those for peanuts.
Originally posted by THT
... An 8 to 10 lb luggable laptop is acceptable if it had the commiserate performance. ...
I like that. The users sit around and cry together that they could have bought PowerBooks.
Originally posted by bunge
Is this really true? If we combine eMac and iMac sales because the old iMac covered both categories, how do sales compare? And after we factor out the recession, how would sales look? Then, if we factor out the dated G4 which is mostly the fault of Motorola, somewhat the fault of Apple and not at all the fault of the iMac, where would sales be?
I'm just saying that raw numbers don't count. The PowerMac sales dropped even though form factor didn't change a whole lot. So sales were down across the board because of a lot of factors and form factor isn't necessarily one of them.
1. combine iMac and eMac sales and its still pathetic
2. iMac did not cover both categories...it covered one....1299....it was neither cheap nor expensive...it was just right and covered the middle ground.
3. recession? give me a break.....maybe you can attribute a couple percentage point drop to that but not the huge drop we have seen
4. Apple has options.... they have had options with the G4. it's Apple who has been notoriously reluctant to put the fastest processor available in a consumer machine.
5. raw numbers count a whole lot
6. raw numbers aren't everything...... the original iMac was a pop icon.....current iMac.....nothing.....
7. PowerMac sales dropped because Apple neglected to give people what they wanted in a powermac for a reasonable price AND that processor speeds were embarrassing.