First, this is the holiday season. People splurge more during the holidays, and a computer with a high lust factor will do well. Second, note Phil Schiller's quote that they were pleased and surprised with 17" sales. The iMac's moving upscale because, for now, that's working, "industry trends" (read: Dell trying to run everyone else out of business) be damned.
Second, who says this isn't appealing to pros? The bare fact is that you don't need a dual G5 to run most of the traditional Mac apps. Sure, it helps, but for a lot less you can get a nice, quiet workstation with a large, ergonomic monitor that runs your apps well, if not at blinding speeds. pscates could do what he does on a tangerine iMac DV. If there's a bottleneck in the 2D creative process, it's usually sitting at the keyboard.
There's this assumption that pro implies tower. Obviously, some pros want them, and some pros need them. But how many pros don't? MacWorld UK is put together on eMacs.
It's funny how our perceptions change when we get a little bit of power in our hands, huh?
Two years ago, if you had an 800MHz G4 tower, you were the King Daddy Bad Ass. And go back a few years to a blue-and-white 450MHz G3 tower or whatever.
And now, we have a $1099 iBook that many of you would've killed to have in a tower just 1-2 years ago.
Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.
Everyone dings the eMacs up and down these forums, but if I were buying a desktop tomorrow OR was buying one for a friend OR was outfitting a small desktop publishing/graphics studio, I'd buy an eMac before I would anything else.
Some people act like NOTHING was getting done on Mac, graphics-wise, prior to the dual G4s and the G5.
As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.
Maybe some of you honestly push your Macs to the absolute limit and we just aren't aware of it here. But I suspect that's a "few and far between" scenario and it's simply human nature to want the biggest, fastest, etc.
I'm blown away by this silly 1.25GHz PowerBook of mine. That either means I'm easily impressed or know that I've got a machine that more than meets my needs and am happy with it.
The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them. But it has very little - if anything - to do with any sort of creative or artistic process and no one I know who is good with design and knows Photoshop or is a page layout master isn't "held back" because they decide to work on an eMac or an iBook or whatever.
The most talented artist I know uses a 400MHz blue and white tower and does things in Painter that blow me away everytime I see them! Granted, she's waiting a bit for those progress bars. But she's not truly suffering over it. If she were doing it for a living, she'd get something that scooted along a bit more.
Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.
and herein lies the problem... apple pounds these messages down our collective throats so often that when we start to believe them, it hurts sales of other products.
apple was screaming at the top of their marketing lungs of the greatness of the g4 for a LONG time. eventually, it became harder and harder to convince anyone who had been believing this hype that the g3 was still a useful chip.
then apple kept working the "mhz myth" to offset motorola's inability to get past 500 mhz in quantity. when that message started to finally seep into the masses, people were slower to upgrade, partially because we had convinced ourselves, thanks to apple's own marketing and spin, that approx. 500 mhz was FAST ENOUGH, at leats until the next evolutionary jump.
with the g5 commercials, you're seeing the same thing. i mean, did we even go 24 hours before people started clamoring for g5's in a powerbook???
"The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them."
Well said yourself there, Scates.
I do obviously wish it were $200 less, just so it's "under" $2000.
Anyway, as far as power, speed and productivity are concerned (nevermind creativity) the larger 1600x screen area alone would boost my productivity probably two fold if not more, 124% more, as Apple's page notes.
I don't mind at all, Clayton. It's also true in my own field (software development) where, hours-long builds notwithstanding, the #1 bottleneck in any project is the developer himself. You can always sleep during the build (in fact, overnight builds are standard practice).
The 20" iMac is under $2000 for me. Working for a university has its advantages.
As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.
True enough. But don't underestimate the value in greater productivity.
In my office, some people are still limping along running Quark on Power Mac 8600s (that is not a typo) running OS 9.1. They hate 'em because they're so slow.
We're now in the process of upgrading to InDesign, Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 on MDD G4s and, after the first of the year, G5s -- and we can't wait. Why? Because they'll help us do our jobs faster, and we'll do better quality work while we frantically meet our daily deadlines.
Of course given the bottlenecks elsewhere on our network we can't always put that speed to full use. But despite that, for many of us, especially those working under daily deadline pressure, faster really does equal better.
A 20" display on the iMac is a big waste. My current monitor has lasted 5 years, so far, and is attached to it's third computer. In a couple of years when that iMac starts feeling really slow, that 20" is stuck on there.
Exactly. I used to want to be able to plug in a computer to an old Toaster Compact Classic Mac, and I still think laptop makers should have VIDEO IN! Especially for the 17" PowerBook. Because that screen is worth almost as much as the rest of the iMac and is going to outlast it by far especially considering it's pathetic G4. Apple messed up big time here. Who the hell would buy this?
My family is looking at the low or mid iMac and waiting for price to go down a lot. This isn't a nice development for our holiday season. I guess we'll stomach the 15" iMac but as usual I'm sure we'll get burned and it'll be updated right afterwards. \
I think you people are smoking crack. It's a nice machine. Sure, it's probably the last hurrah for the sunflower iMac, but it's a much better finale than its predecessor had...
Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?
pscates and others are 100% correct. If a person is sitting in front of a computer all day long and it is a Mac, it had better be a powerful unit such as a tower and likely now a G5. (At least if using the system for CPU-intensive video or photo work, etc.)
But for most of the rest of us, a 1Ghz+ G4 will still be able to serve us for a good long while. I use my 1Ghz G4 iMac 2 for a little e-mail, a little internet surfing, and quite a bit of video work. As it is a side venture, it just occupies an hour or so each evening on the average. So I never get frustrated with a system which is not the fastest on the market. If I was sitting in front of the thing all day, then yes, I would definitely spring for the fastest G5 currently available.
Aquatic, for your own good, you must get a superdrive so you can save all of those video memories for future generations of Aquatics.
I know it's a great computer, it's just I wish I could buy a 17" iMac withOUT a SuperDrive. I save memories on my PowerBook 12" G4's SuperDrive and charge for them.
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?
Exactly! At least make this a BTO option and not force individuals to go with a slow Superdrive when all they want is a fast CDR-W burner.
You'd think with a SD, they at least drop in at least one FW800 or upgrade the video card.
I may be wrong...but I think the 20" will be a very niche product to prosumers and some pros.
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.
I think you people are smoking crack. It's a nice machine. Sure, it's probably the last hurrah for the sunflower iMac, but it's a much better finale than its predecessor had...
Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?
I haven't smoked crack in at least 72 hours!
It's just my opinon. I have never been a huge fan of all in one systems, but up until the 17" imac I always saw the cost of the display as minimal. At least they are not forcing you to buy the 20" model.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just mad that my G5 is short one 1.8GHz processor .
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.
Well, if they run up huge losses expanding market share (you're talking $300 a machine in lost revenue - millions, if not tens of millions of dollars!) they've just traded one problem for another.
The trick is not to shave margins to the bone, because you can't sustain Apple's cash pillow and R&D budget that way. The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium. Could the iPod be cheaper? Hell yes. The margin on those things is fat. Should they be cheaper? They're selling hand over fist and making Apple a mint.
Unfortunately, it's a trick, not a science. There is some science involved, obviously, but there's the great big if of consumer taste and there are no certainties there. Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy. I'd have expected the LCD iMac to do better than it has done, and clearly Apple expected that as well. But it seems that the people who are buying iMacs are buying the 17" rather than the 12" [edit: 15"! ], so in a way it makes sense to go up rather than down. Especially during a holiday season when people are inclined to get the more dazzling, whiz-bang models.
I'm just praying to God that no one spoils this thread with the typical "Apple should just make a sub-$1000 tower....It would sell like hotcakes....guaranteed!"
The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium...
Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy.
You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.
But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position.
People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.
I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.
Regarding the downside of having a 20" screen connected to an aging CPU, does anyone else think screens aren't going to be that expensive in 3 yrs?
OLED and other technologies are supposed to be here by then. I think I saw an estimate a little bit ago that by 2005 LCD and other flat screens would only cost 1.5x as much as CRTs. Of course, at that point who the hell is going to by a CRT.
Personally, as long as they find a way of playing HDTV on one I'd have no problem with retiring an iMac to TV and base station duty in 3 yrs.
Comments
First, this is the holiday season. People splurge more during the holidays, and a computer with a high lust factor will do well. Second, note Phil Schiller's quote that they were pleased and surprised with 17" sales. The iMac's moving upscale because, for now, that's working, "industry trends" (read: Dell trying to run everyone else out of business) be damned.
Second, who says this isn't appealing to pros? The bare fact is that you don't need a dual G5 to run most of the traditional Mac apps. Sure, it helps, but for a lot less you can get a nice, quiet workstation with a large, ergonomic monitor that runs your apps well, if not at blinding speeds. pscates could do what he does on a tangerine iMac DV. If there's a bottleneck in the 2D creative process, it's usually sitting at the keyboard.
There's this assumption that pro implies tower. Obviously, some pros want them, and some pros need them. But how many pros don't? MacWorld UK is put together on eMacs.
It's funny how our perceptions change when we get a little bit of power in our hands, huh?
Two years ago, if you had an 800MHz G4 tower, you were the King Daddy Bad Ass. And go back a few years to a blue-and-white 450MHz G3 tower or whatever.
And now, we have a $1099 iBook that many of you would've killed to have in a tower just 1-2 years ago.
Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.
Everyone dings the eMacs up and down these forums, but if I were buying a desktop tomorrow OR was buying one for a friend OR was outfitting a small desktop publishing/graphics studio, I'd buy an eMac before I would anything else.
Some people act like NOTHING was getting done on Mac, graphics-wise, prior to the dual G4s and the G5.
As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.
Maybe some of you honestly push your Macs to the absolute limit and we just aren't aware of it here. But I suspect that's a "few and far between" scenario and it's simply human nature to want the biggest, fastest, etc.
I'm blown away by this silly 1.25GHz PowerBook of mine. That either means I'm easily impressed or know that I've got a machine that more than meets my needs and am happy with it.
The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them. But it has very little - if anything - to do with any sort of creative or artistic process and no one I know who is good with design and knows Photoshop or is a page layout master isn't "held back" because they decide to work on an eMac or an iBook or whatever.
The most talented artist I know uses a 400MHz blue and white tower and does things in Painter that blow me away everytime I see them! Granted, she's waiting a bit for those progress bars. But she's not truly suffering over it. If she were doing it for a living, she'd get something that scooted along a bit more.
That's the truest statement I've seen here in ages.
Originally posted by pscates
Suddenly everyone has latched on to the "G5 or nothing at all!" bandwagon when, in fact, most of your needs (if not all) are MORE than met by a nice 1GHz+ G4 of some sort.
and herein lies the problem... apple pounds these messages down our collective throats so often that when we start to believe them, it hurts sales of other products.
apple was screaming at the top of their marketing lungs of the greatness of the g4 for a LONG time. eventually, it became harder and harder to convince anyone who had been believing this hype that the g3 was still a useful chip.
then apple kept working the "mhz myth" to offset motorola's inability to get past 500 mhz in quantity. when that message started to finally seep into the masses, people were slower to upgrade, partially because we had convinced ourselves, thanks to apple's own marketing and spin, that approx. 500 mhz was FAST ENOUGH, at leats until the next evolutionary jump.
with the g5 commercials, you're seeing the same thing. i mean, did we even go 24 hours before people started clamoring for g5's in a powerbook???
"The process is still the same: sepia is still sepia, feathering is still feathering. Not TOO much being done differently that requires "new faster hardware". Hell, if anything I think that graphics apps (Adobe in particular) are getting so big and bloated and "everything but the kitchen sink", new fast machines are needed just to RUN them."
Well said yourself there, Scates.
I do obviously wish it were $200 less, just so it's "under" $2000.
Anyway, as far as power, speed and productivity are concerned (nevermind creativity) the larger 1600x screen area alone would boost my productivity probably two fold if not more, 124% more, as Apple's page notes.
The 20" iMac is under $2000 for me. Working for a university has its advantages.
Originally posted by pscates
As I recall, Macworld magazine was looking VERY spiffy back in the late 90's and I bet you there wasn't a G-ANYTHING to be found in one of their offices.
True enough. But don't underestimate the value in greater productivity.
In my office, some people are still limping along running Quark on Power Mac 8600s (that is not a typo) running OS 9.1. They hate 'em because they're so slow.
We're now in the process of upgrading to InDesign, Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 on MDD G4s and, after the first of the year, G5s -- and we can't wait. Why? Because they'll help us do our jobs faster, and we'll do better quality work while we frantically meet our daily deadlines.
Of course given the bottlenecks elsewhere on our network
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?
A 20" display on the iMac is a big waste. My current monitor has lasted 5 years, so far, and is attached to it's third computer. In a couple of years when that iMac starts feeling really slow, that 20" is stuck on there.
Exactly. I used to want to be able to plug in a computer to an old Toaster Compact Classic Mac, and I still think laptop makers should have VIDEO IN! Especially for the 17" PowerBook. Because that screen is worth almost as much as the rest of the iMac and is going to outlast it by far especially considering it's pathetic G4. Apple messed up big time here. Who the hell would buy this?
My family is looking at the low or mid iMac and waiting for price to go down a lot. This isn't a nice development for our holiday season. I guess we'll stomach the 15" iMac but as usual I'm sure we'll get burned and it'll be updated right afterwards.
Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?
But for most of the rest of us, a 1Ghz+ G4 will still be able to serve us for a good long while. I use my 1Ghz G4 iMac 2 for a little e-mail, a little internet surfing, and quite a bit of video work. As it is a side venture, it just occupies an hour or so each evening on the average. So I never get frustrated with a system which is not the fastest on the market. If I was sitting in front of the thing all day, then yes, I would definitely spring for the fastest G5 currently available.
Aquatic, for your own good, you must get a superdrive so you can save all of those video memories for future generations of Aquatics.
I know it's a great computer, it's just I wish I could buy a 17" iMac withOUT a SuperDrive. I save memories on my PowerBook 12" G4's SuperDrive and charge for them.
Originally posted by Aquatic
MY FAMILY DOES NOT WANT OR EVER NEED A SUPEDRIVE IN AN iMAC! WHY make us pay extra for a big screen?
Exactly! At least make this a BTO option and not force individuals to go with a slow Superdrive when all they want is a fast CDR-W burner.
You'd think with a SD, they at least drop in at least one FW800 or upgrade the video card.
I may be wrong...but I think the 20" will be a very niche product to prosumers and some pros.
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.
Originally posted by Amorph
I think you people are smoking crack. It's a nice machine. Sure, it's probably the last hurrah for the sunflower iMac, but it's a much better finale than its predecessor had...
Anyone who replaces their computer three times in five years is not in the iMac's target market. It's perfectly possible to get 3-5 years of good use out of the 20" iMac, and by then who knows what'll be available?
I haven't smoked crack in at least 72 hours!
It's just my opinon. I have never been a huge fan of all in one systems, but up until the 17" imac I always saw the cost of the display as minimal. At least they are not forcing you to buy the 20" model.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just mad that my G5 is short one 1.8GHz processor
Originally posted by satchmo
Apple had the chance to sell a ton of 17" iMacs during this holiday season if they dropped the price to $1499. Sure they make less of a margin but you get the switchers on board who may then buy iPods and other Apple products down the road.
It's becoming more and more apparent that marketshare is not a priority at Apple...rather profits are. This is not necessarily a bad thing but just don't say one thing and do another.
Well, if they run up huge losses expanding market share (you're talking $300 a machine in lost revenue - millions, if not tens of millions of dollars!) they've just traded one problem for another.
The trick is not to shave margins to the bone, because you can't sustain Apple's cash pillow and R&D budget that way. The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium. Could the iPod be cheaper? Hell yes. The margin on those things is fat. Should they be cheaper? They're selling hand over fist and making Apple a mint.
Unfortunately, it's a trick, not a science. There is some science involved, obviously, but there's the great big if of consumer taste and there are no certainties there. Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy. I'd have expected the LCD iMac to do better than it has done, and clearly Apple expected that as well. But it seems that the people who are buying iMacs are buying the 17" rather than the 12" [edit: 15"!
I'm just praying to God that no one spoils this thread with the typical "Apple should just make a sub-$1000 tower....It would sell like hotcakes....guaranteed!"
Originally posted by Amorph
The trick is to make a product that's worth the premium...
Apple knows firsthand that people will shell out for things they really want, so they're trying to make something that people really want. It's not easy.
You make some very valid points. And it is very difficult reading the minds of consumers. Otherwise every computer maker would be doing well. Apple has for the most part been right with the last few product releases.
But in a somewhat depressed economy, even with the holiday season, I can't see someone shelling out $2200 for an iMac. Yes, there is the drool and must have factor as demonstrated with the iPod. But that was attainable at $299.
A lower cost 17" (or even 15") iMac could have been in a similar position.
People still marvel at the iMac's design. I can't count the number of times I've overheard someone point at one and saying how cool it looks. They then look at the price and go "ouch!". They want one...but not at those prices.
I ask you, should the iMac not be Apple's cash cow? It's consumer product for the masses? If so, it should be priced that way.
OLED and other technologies are supposed to be here by then. I think I saw an estimate a little bit ago that by 2005 LCD and other flat screens would only cost 1.5x as much as CRTs. Of course, at that point who the hell is going to by a CRT.
Personally, as long as they find a way of playing HDTV on one I'd have no problem with retiring an iMac to TV and base station duty in 3 yrs.