Apple has ended production of 15" iMacs according to far east sources and pubished several times during the past weeks. All iMacs will be 17" with the possible addition of a 19" version. Tuesday reportedly will be for laptop announcements. There will be no $999 LCD iMac. Lowest price wil be $1099. If an announcement is not made on Tuesday via the Apple site and PR releases a separate update of the line will be made in mid-November. 17" iMacs have been selling very very well according to reports and a discussion I had with an Apple employee. However all desktop sales are well behind last years levels across the industry.
I think JD's breakdown was eerily too close to the truth.. I don't know what you're talking about</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. While Apple tries to inovate their way out of the recession, they appear to have stoped updating products to keep up with the industry that they are competeing for market share in. Innovations in the past year:
LCD iMac
Xserve--(debatable, its a new product for Apple but not a new product in the industry as a whole)
Xraid--(debatable, its a new product for Apple but not a new product in the industry as a whole)
Quartz Xtream
Rendezvous
iSync
iCal
Hardware upgrades:
iMac-added a 17" LCD screen
eMac-this is really a 17" CRT iMac w/G4
PowerBook/iBook-1 speed increase, some new screen sizes in the iBook
PowerMac-Boost to 1ghz, then 1.25 ghz
iPod-HD size increase, and some PDA functions added
Some improvement in graphics cards offered across the product line in the high end models.
All in all a pretty modest year for hardware. Yes we have seen some great software released, but I dont think that it has the impact of iMovie or iPhoto as a marketing tool, and the hardware upgrades were too skimpy to get people really excited about them.
It may just be me, but the impact of Apple's lacluster speed increases (due to Moto not bieng able to increase speed) has had a direct and detrimental impact on the adoption of OS X. Apple was not able to have a "spectacular" comming out party for the software, becouse they didnt have the hardware to back it up with "intel/windows" killer bake offs. To a degree Apple has to take some of the blame for the G4 problem. They chose a "propriatary" PowerPC, which locked them into one supplier and one R&D team. This is never a good idea, the alliance's collaberation and internal competition between IBM Motorolla are the factors that made the PowerPC processor a threat to the x86 domination.
Apple has to do something with the iMac now, but I'm more interested in knowing what Apple will do when the 970 appears in the PowerMacs. Will they stick with the G4 and hope it keeps up with the 970? Will they use a lower power and much lower system bus 970 in the iMacs? It would look horrible if the PowerMacs are at 1.8 or faster and the iMacs are stuck at 1.0 or maybe 1.25 Ghz with a 100 or 133 Mhz system bus. But we all know how bad Apple is at giving cutting edge stuff and doing it across product lines.
I think the problem with the iBook is not that it uses a G3, But that it is not using the Fastest G3 possiable. The TiBook is stuck with a slow G4 so any one who wants a iBook running a fast G3 can't get one.
People just aren't buying computers for Xmas this year - maybe iPods sales help, but overall the industry in general is seeing a slowdown. All this while we wait to see if Microsoft gets baked today.
It is entirely pathetic that the iMac is still at the same specs almost an entire year later. Apple is going to go through the holiday season with the same iMacs? Man, sometimes I really really question who is running things over there.
You're right, it is pretty sad. I have friends who are asking about the iMacs (first Mac).... I'm almost wishing they'd forget about it for a few months...
<strong>It is entirely pathetic that the iMac is still at the same specs almost an entire year later. Apple is going to go through the holiday season with the same iMacs? Man, sometimes I really really question who is running things over there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the problem is that they are tied into a matrix of relationships between their products...
The PowerMac stalled forever on speed so the iMac couldn't go up too far without cannabalizing sales, the eMac is backed up behind that. The differentiator for the desktops is the Dual Procs in the PM vs Singles in the iMac.
For the portables the obvious difference is G3 for iBook against G4 for PowerBook. You can't bump one with out the other of course otherwise one of them looks bad.
Of course it cuts the other way too, the iBook is compared to the iMac and the PM to the PB.
Apple can't win until they get a decent chip for both Pro and Consumer lines that will let them upgrade at will pretty much.
i know it doesnt make sence like we'd like to consider, but i'm pretty sure apple knows what they are and can do with what they have. yes it would be nice for them to upgrade now, but they know something we don't, or else they would have...there are other factors then...you need x to sell more. its extremely complicated and i'm not accusing anyone of not knowing this but apple has the full view...we only have a small part
Only Apple, it seems, can go a whole year without an iMac update with inflated prices, out of date specs and belated and 'too little, too late' price cuts. Then they sit at their profits conference call and twiddle their thumbs as to why things like the 'power'Mac and iMac aint selling.
Er. Could be the economy. Well, er...yes...that would certainly be a contributing factor...
BUT...HELLO!!! Perhaps it's because we storm out the gates with a great product...bump up the price...take ages to bring them down to the previous 'reasonable' levels...and don't BUILD on the success of the initial launch.
No. Instead of getting agressive with specs and price...we launch the cop out machine eEEEEMac...which gets little in the way of advertising...but outsells the 'NEW' iMac2!
Gee, could it be anything to do with PRICE and a YEAR LONG frozen cpu spec and an OUT OF DATE Mobo!??!
Yeesh. Will Apple ever learn?
Lemon Bon Bon
So much for innovating your way out of recession, eh?
Half baked 'power'Macs...
Luke warm iMac updates
Hardware wise? Since Jan? Slow. Very.
Blame the ecomony.
But why is the iPod selling?
Why are the iBooks selling?
Why is Dell still selling loads of PCs?
Apple's desktops are lumbering to extinction (over reaction trademark )
It's funny that in another thread there was real consensus in opposition to my opinion that current Mac hardware provides very poor performance for its price. Even Amorph got on my case - seemingly taking my comments personally - even though I wasn't speaking specifically to him. It's interesting that the views here are very similar to the opinion for which I was criticized.
Yet, I digress... The major problem with the iMac is definitely its lack of any positive revision whatsoever. The only things Apple did to promote the line lo these many months was to lower the price (back to previous levels) and to introduce the 17" model. I too don't believe we'll see an iMac revision until January, which is unfortunate.
However, when people refer to the lack of demand for the iMac, it's important to examine another factor other than price to performance. When the iMac was announced, demand was wonderful. And that high demand would have been great except for the fact that there was a dearth of supply. For quite some time, many locations received neither stock nor promotional supplies of any kind. People who ventured into retailers actively looking for the machines came away with nothing at all. And then, around three months later, a remarkable thing happened: Apple raised the price of the line, the machines started to flood in, and demand dropped off precipitously.
From my vantage point, Apple definitely lost quite a few sales. People were less interested months later, and Apple's price increase certainly didn't stimulate demand. It was perplexing to me that Apple could go from basically no machines to a significant surplus over night, and that the supply increase was so closely linked to the $100 increase. It was almost as if Apple couldn't stand to produce the machines until it made that price adjustment. (And please realize I am cognizant of the various excuses for the lack of machines -- firmware issues and arm assembly -- but those explanations only make sense to a certain extent.) Perhaps Apple was so concerned about leaks that it delayed production until the unveiling. While not surprising, if that were the case, then Apple needs to rethink its priorities: secrecy and Santa Steveism vs. adequate supply.
And as far as the price spike goes, many scoffed at concerns that it would have a detrimental impact on sales. While $100 doesn't logically make a tremendous amount of difference when we're talking about $1300-$1800 sums, I believe the increase had a psychological impact. People expect technology to get cheaper, of course, not more expensive. Three months in the iMac wasn?t quite as good a value, and that natural depreciation was exacerbated by the new price. We cannot say for certain how much of an impact the increase had, but we can readily perceive the correlation between the increase and the drop in demand.
I still can?t understand why the price went up anyway. It was blamed on the rising costs of components, but I don?t see why Apple was compelled to pass the costs on to the consumer immediately. Apple must have ignored the potential of the increase to weaken demand. Even if one can somehow justify the spike, it still screams of poor planning on Apple?s part. If the $100 were that crucial, then it should have been priced into the machine from the outset. As an Apple historian, I?m mindful of how many times the company has managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Perhaps Apple secretly doesn?t wish to be too successful; that's a dangerous neurosis in the business world.
At least Apple has taken some initiative and has pushed the price of the line down a bit. It?s still far from ideal, but it?s not that bad considering the pitiful state of performance of our platform in general right now. I won?t weigh in with much of an opinion on future iMac specs. On the other hand, I must vehemently disagree with those who are comfortable with the discontinuation of the iMac 15?. I don?t believe Apple will be able to get the 17? down to the low-end consumer pricing spectrum, so if the 15? is truly gone only the eMac will be left to fill the low-end. Perhaps that?s what Apple has intended to do. I hope we?re not too disappointed by near-term developments. It looks like it will be a dreary season until the 970 thaw.
<strong>A year? The 17" iMac just came out a few months ago. That was the update. We won't see another one probably until jan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No the 17" iMac was not an update, it was just additional LCD iMac model. A update would be to the MOBO, Processor speed, better graphic card, larger hard drive....so the LCD iMac started shipping in Feb so it now about 10 months since an update.
<strong>A year? The 17" iMac just came out a few months ago. That was the update. We won't see another one probably until jan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No the 17" iMac was not an update, it was just additional LCD iMac model. A update would be to the MOBO, Processor speed, better graphic card, larger hard drive....so the LCD iMac started shipping in Feb so it now about 10 months since an update.
<strong>It's funny that in another thread there was real consensus in opposition to my opinion that current Mac hardware provides very poor performance for its price. Even Amorph got on my case - seemingly taking my comments personally - even though I wasn't speaking specifically to him. It's interesting that the views here are very similar to the opinion for which I was criticized.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you know that if you criticize apple with a bunch of posts its okay, but if you don't have a bunch of posts its not okay!!
Let the bashing begin!
But about the iMac, I agree that its time to get an update. The majority of the people that buy the iMac do not care about altivec. They care about over "snappiness", because that is what they see and their friends that come over and look at it. I love my 800 iMac, but there are numerous times when I wish it would be snappier. I don't see why we can't get a faster proc and let the pro line have duals.
Comments
i want to "switch" since the introdution of the 17" imac but it's already very hard waiting for specs like faster cpus, bus or more video ram.
poor apple.
(sorry)
<strong>
I think JD's breakdown was eerily too close to the truth.. I don't know what you're talking about</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. While Apple tries to inovate their way out of the recession, they appear to have stoped updating products to keep up with the industry that they are competeing for market share in. Innovations in the past year:
LCD iMac
Xserve--(debatable, its a new product for Apple but not a new product in the industry as a whole)
Xraid--(debatable, its a new product for Apple but not a new product in the industry as a whole)
Quartz Xtream
Rendezvous
iSync
iCal
Hardware upgrades:
iMac-added a 17" LCD screen
eMac-this is really a 17" CRT iMac w/G4
PowerBook/iBook-1 speed increase, some new screen sizes in the iBook
PowerMac-Boost to 1ghz, then 1.25 ghz
iPod-HD size increase, and some PDA functions added
Some improvement in graphics cards offered across the product line in the high end models.
All in all a pretty modest year for hardware. Yes we have seen some great software released, but I dont think that it has the impact of iMovie or iPhoto as a marketing tool, and the hardware upgrades were too skimpy to get people really excited about them.
It may just be me, but the impact of Apple's lacluster speed increases (due to Moto not bieng able to increase speed) has had a direct and detrimental impact on the adoption of OS X. Apple was not able to have a "spectacular" comming out party for the software, becouse they didnt have the hardware to back it up with "intel/windows" killer bake offs. To a degree Apple has to take some of the blame for the G4 problem. They chose a "propriatary" PowerPC, which locked them into one supplier and one R&D team. This is never a good idea, the alliance's collaberation and internal competition between IBM Motorolla are the factors that made the PowerPC processor a threat to the x86 domination.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
<strong>It is entirely pathetic that the iMac is still at the same specs almost an entire year later. Apple is going to go through the holiday season with the same iMacs? Man, sometimes I really really question who is running things over there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the problem is that they are tied into a matrix of relationships between their products...
The PowerMac stalled forever on speed so the iMac couldn't go up too far without cannabalizing sales, the eMac is backed up behind that. The differentiator for the desktops is the Dual Procs in the PM vs Singles in the iMac.
For the portables the obvious difference is G3 for iBook against G4 for PowerBook. You can't bump one with out the other of course otherwise one of them looks bad.
Of course it cuts the other way too, the iBook is compared to the iMac and the PM to the PB.
Apple can't win until they get a decent chip for both Pro and Consumer lines that will let them upgrade at will pretty much.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: robster ]</p>
Only Apple, it seems, can go a whole year without an iMac update with inflated prices, out of date specs and belated and 'too little, too late' price cuts. Then they sit at their profits conference call and twiddle their thumbs as to why things like the 'power'Mac and iMac aint selling.
Er. Could be the economy. Well, er...yes...that would certainly be a contributing factor...
BUT...HELLO!!! Perhaps it's because we storm out the gates with a great product...bump up the price...take ages to bring them down to the previous 'reasonable' levels...and don't BUILD on the success of the initial launch.
No. Instead of getting agressive with specs and price...we launch the cop out machine eEEEEMac...which gets little in the way of advertising...but outsells the 'NEW' iMac2!
Gee, could it be anything to do with PRICE and a YEAR LONG frozen cpu spec and an OUT OF DATE Mobo!??!
Yeesh. Will Apple ever learn?
Lemon Bon Bon
So much for innovating your way out of recession, eh?
Half baked 'power'Macs...
Luke warm iMac updates
Hardware wise? Since Jan? Slow. Very.
Blame the ecomony.
But why is the iPod selling?
Why are the iBooks selling?
Why is Dell still selling loads of PCs?
Apple's desktops are lumbering to extinction (over reaction trademark
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
Yet, I digress... The major problem with the iMac is definitely its lack of any positive revision whatsoever. The only things Apple did to promote the line lo these many months was to lower the price (back to previous levels) and to introduce the 17" model. I too don't believe we'll see an iMac revision until January, which is unfortunate.
However, when people refer to the lack of demand for the iMac, it's important to examine another factor other than price to performance. When the iMac was announced, demand was wonderful. And that high demand would have been great except for the fact that there was a dearth of supply. For quite some time, many locations received neither stock nor promotional supplies of any kind. People who ventured into retailers actively looking for the machines came away with nothing at all. And then, around three months later, a remarkable thing happened: Apple raised the price of the line, the machines started to flood in, and demand dropped off precipitously.
From my vantage point, Apple definitely lost quite a few sales. People were less interested months later, and Apple's price increase certainly didn't stimulate demand. It was perplexing to me that Apple could go from basically no machines to a significant surplus over night, and that the supply increase was so closely linked to the $100 increase. It was almost as if Apple couldn't stand to produce the machines until it made that price adjustment. (And please realize I am cognizant of the various excuses for the lack of machines -- firmware issues and arm assembly -- but those explanations only make sense to a certain extent.) Perhaps Apple was so concerned about leaks that it delayed production until the unveiling. While not surprising, if that were the case, then Apple needs to rethink its priorities: secrecy and Santa Steveism vs. adequate supply.
And as far as the price spike goes, many scoffed at concerns that it would have a detrimental impact on sales. While $100 doesn't logically make a tremendous amount of difference when we're talking about $1300-$1800 sums, I believe the increase had a psychological impact. People expect technology to get cheaper, of course, not more expensive. Three months in the iMac wasn?t quite as good a value, and that natural depreciation was exacerbated by the new price. We cannot say for certain how much of an impact the increase had, but we can readily perceive the correlation between the increase and the drop in demand.
I still can?t understand why the price went up anyway. It was blamed on the rising costs of components, but I don?t see why Apple was compelled to pass the costs on to the consumer immediately. Apple must have ignored the potential of the increase to weaken demand. Even if one can somehow justify the spike, it still screams of poor planning on Apple?s part. If the $100 were that crucial, then it should have been priced into the machine from the outset. As an Apple historian, I?m mindful of how many times the company has managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Perhaps Apple secretly doesn?t wish to be too successful; that's a dangerous neurosis in the business world.
At least Apple has taken some initiative and has pushed the price of the line down a bit. It?s still far from ideal, but it?s not that bad considering the pitiful state of performance of our platform in general right now. I won?t weigh in with much of an opinion on future iMac specs. On the other hand, I must vehemently disagree with those who are comfortable with the discontinuation of the iMac 15?. I don?t believe Apple will be able to get the 17? down to the low-end consumer pricing spectrum, so if the 15? is truly gone only the eMac will be left to fill the low-end. Perhaps that?s what Apple has intended to do. I hope we?re not too disappointed by near-term developments. It looks like it will be a dreary season until the 970 thaw.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
<strong>A year? The 17" iMac just came out a few months ago. That was the update. We won't see another one probably until jan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No the 17" iMac was not an update, it was just additional LCD iMac model. A update would be to the MOBO, Processor speed, better graphic card, larger hard drive....so the LCD iMac started shipping in Feb so it now about 10 months since an update.
<strong>A year? The 17" iMac just came out a few months ago. That was the update. We won't see another one probably until jan.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No the 17" iMac was not an update, it was just additional LCD iMac model. A update would be to the MOBO, Processor speed, better graphic card, larger hard drive....so the LCD iMac started shipping in Feb so it now about 10 months since an update.
<strong>It's funny that in another thread there was real consensus in opposition to my opinion that current Mac hardware provides very poor performance for its price. Even Amorph got on my case - seemingly taking my comments personally - even though I wasn't speaking specifically to him. It's interesting that the views here are very similar to the opinion for which I was criticized.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you know that if you criticize apple with a bunch of posts its okay, but if you don't have a bunch of posts its not okay!!
Let the bashing begin!
But about the iMac, I agree that its time to get an update. The majority of the people that buy the iMac do not care about altivec. They care about over "snappiness", because that is what they see and their friends that come over and look at it. I love my 800 iMac, but there are numerous times when I wish it would be snappier. I don't see why we can't get a faster proc and let the pro line have duals.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: trailmaster308 ]</p>
(yes, i knew that they hadn't been updated in awhile...but the whole "still at rev. A thing seems weird)
apple don't need to develope faster chips for the imac - they already exist (1 ghz!). what takes so long????