you know like everybody else on these boards that the so called "distance" between consumer and pro models is a marketing trick.
it's better to sell a imac to a graphicdesigner than sell nothing in the next 2 years. because the graphicdesigner (the so called pro user?) thinks he doesn't need the expansion of a G4 tower, it's way to expensive for his budget (these days) and his g4/466 still works fine (more or less)... in this economic climat (and that's not very good for dutch designers), it doesn't matter what people buy next, it matters when they buy... after 2 years or after 3 or 4 is a very big difference. also if apple needs to dump its own consumer/pro myth. it won't hurt sales
so i think 19" imac makes sence, it also makes sence before christmas. but i think it won't happen
without a lot of fanfare. so i think they bump the imac on mwsf and that's another topic
Apple likes to hold on to outdated practices. Like their pricing strategy which seems to ignore the reality of dirt cheap components (yes, including those used by Apple). and as you point out, the consumer/professional distinction.
Such a distinction still exists, but it is disappearing rapidly. A 17" iMac beats the pants out of a pro photoshop set-up of only 2-3 years ago, for example. The current iBooks are more than a match for the Pismo range. As technology marches on, 'consumer' machines will be able to do mare and more. Morover, we will expect these cheaper models to do it. Pro categories WILL disappear as computing power increases. Office and now 2-D art have virtually sucuumbed to the march of tech. Any cheap computer can do Office and communication, any decent computer can do 2-D art. Music, video, and 3-D are up next. Already Apple's own advancements point to that day (still a way off) Final Cut Pro (and it's support apps) strikes at the heart of NLE systems costing much much more. It's not quite as good, but good enough for many.
What annoys about Apple is the way in which they try to corale sales into their pro machines at the expense of their consumer line-up. PPC issues aside, there's no good reason to disable features in a consumer machine, especially the monitor spanning capability of the iBook and GF4MX iMac. Not cool. Niether is the limited expansion of the iMac line. With the cube they had it right, easy (if not cheap yet still aceptable) upgrade paths for the PCU and GPU, and monitor too. Then they went and priced it into extinction. There's no good reason why the buyers of consumer machines should not as a minimum have upgradeability present everywhere else in the computer industry. Or does Apple dream that millions of Murbots will replace their machines every 6-12 months.
As someone with an iMac DV with a slot loading drive, I gotta say that I wish it didn't. Takes 2 tries to get a disk to eject, every time. This is a fairly recent occurrence, and the machine is pushing 3 years old, but I have a tray-loader on both my Wallstreet and PC, both are older, and both seem to function better.
(tig)</strong><hr></blockquote>
same here!
its annoying!
I was planning on getting a MDD g4 this christmas...but now I'm not so sure....if apple releases a iMac rev...then I think I'll get that, more power for less money probably.
It seems pretty obvious to me... the iMac seems to try to keep MHz pace with the PowerBook (and both must remain slightly below the PowerMac's Mhz).
As long as the Pro machines are over 1 GHz and the PowerBook is at 1 GHz, then the iMac can (and should) go to 1 GHz. Its current 800 MHz is more a function of marketing than engineering.
<strong>What annoys about Apple is the way in which they try to corale sales into their pro machines at the expense of their consumer line-up. PPC issues aside, there's no good reason to disable features in a consumer machine, especially the monitor spanning capability of the iBook and GF4MX iMac. Not cool. Niether is the limited expansion of the iMac line. With the cube they had it right, easy (if not cheap yet still aceptable) upgrade paths for the PCU and GPU, and monitor too. Then they went and priced it into extinction. There's no good reason why the buyers of consumer machines should not as a minimum have upgradeability present everywhere else in the computer industry. Or does Apple dream that millions of Murbots will replace their machines every 6-12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Couldn't agree more.
The Cube was perfect for me in terms of upgradability. AGP slot, CPU daughtercard, hard drive, and even the optical drive could all be updated fairly easily. Not so with the iMac, which is built to be thrown in a landfill as soon as possible so Apple can sell another computer to the same person.
Maybe this is good business, but it seems to me that Apple could get more sales if their low end systems were upgradeable. I know of two Wintel users who would buy an iMac if only the damn thing could accept an upgraded video card and CPU! That's two extra sales to Apple that only one person knows about. I think that if Apple gave the iMac the upgradability of the cube, they would be surprised at how many extra switchers they got.
Another problem with making so many Macs disposable is that they give Apple a bad image. Whenever people see a Mac, it's usually several years old, and without being upgraded, they seem dog-slow and out of date. It seems like a better image for Apple to have if most of the older Macs in use had been upgraded to run fast enough.
Apple could even sell upgrades at the applestore.com. Would it hurt sales of new Macs? Probably not, since whenever a Mac is upgraded, there are usually (should usually) be improvements in the motherboard architecture and case design. Many users who like to have Macs that are as modern as possible will still buy new hardware in lieu of upgrades. A thriving upgrade market could even drive down the price of components for Apple, thereby boosting their profit margins.
All this nonsense about making low-end Macs disposable seems like Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. A $999 "consumer" tower would attract so many new Mac users.... <sigh>
The Cube had slot loaders for looks only not for space considerations or anything else. The TiBook has them because it's a little tight in there.
The iMacs/eMacs are better off with trays, because there's enough space inside and they're cheaper as well as faster. (See 1x DVD-R in the new TiGHz book) Price matters in Consumer models. I've never seen one brak the tray of an iMac, so I doubt it's safer to use a slot. On the other hand I've seen a lot of different "objects" inserted into slot loaders that definitely NOT belong in there.
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>I think anything longer than a 9 incher makes no sense actually...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A "little" OT, but definitely above average and a good laugh. Greetings from your capitol.
[QB]The Cube had slot loaders for looks only not for space considerations or anything else.
...Ever Opened a Cube? Theres no room in there for anything else.... and how exactly would a vertically mounted tray loading drive work.....!?!? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
A properly placed iMac and keyboard would also mean that the tray and keyboard don't interfere with each other. The LCD may look nice and give off a tenth of the radiation of a CRT, but that doesn't mean you have to press your nose against it.
Nothing about a slot loader makes it thinner, You can make tray loaders just as compact. Media compatibility is more important than thinness, there are more bone-head moves to fvck up a slot loader than a tray, especially on the desktop, in a school, around children or executives. That said, I wouldn't mind slot loaders so much if Apple ensured their compatibility with 8cm media, but they don't. Even more troubling is the facility for dealing with stuck discs, which you can expect A LOT MORE OF as Music and Film industries plan to get really freaky with their copy protection schemes.
Trays are just better, and they would be even better if they had an easy manual eject button.
Back to the iMac screen size question: Apple probably should discontinue the 15" screen in favor of all 17" screens with the possible addition of a larger screen on a select model in the future.
If a consumer wants to save money by going with the smaller screen (or maybe more importantly a 1024X768 max resolution), they'll probably reconsider and choose an eMac instead of an iMac. IOW, if you're willing to pay for the FP screen and fancy design, why forever get stuck with a small screen?
I think Apple's sales mix in the iMac line reflects this situation, too. 50% of all iMacs are the top-of-the-line model.
But that's the nature of the AIO beast. You basically can't upgrade anything, so people go for the biggest scree, since they're spending too much anyway. However, if an iMac were in the 899-999 range, where it very well could be, Apple could sell it since then it becomes more of a bargain. Especially for businesses who might like the power savings of LCD seats instead of CRT based stations. Just need to come up with a convincing office bundle.
<strong>Just need to come up with a convincing office bundle.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like MS Office for 199$ with every new Mac? I think 15" iMacs prices below 1000$ would sell great. If Apple is stopping production altogether they're going to have another Cube. And they would have to keep the eMac making Steve's "CRTs are dead" statement look even more stupid.
I'm in favor of slot loading everything, assuming the technical details can be worked out. These details include durability and the ability to play smaller diameter discs. I think neither of these two hurdles are insurmountable given the normal rate of technological and manufacturing improvements.
In particular, the iMac would bennefit from a redesigned disc loading mechanism. Its curved face wastes space since the front of the cd tray is flat instead of round. Either, the tray should be rounded or eliminated completely. This will allow mounting of the drive closer to the front of the computer, freeing up space or allowing for a smaller enclosure. ... Plus... it would look cool <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
On screen sizes: Right now, budget buyers aren't purchasing G4 iMacs, and this is why many of them are choosing the 17" model. I think the 15" screen would sell much better at a lower price point. Nineteen inch screens would probably sell, but only if they were cheaper than a tower/lcd-screen purchase. Also, would the 19 inchers create more sales directly, or simply offer an alternative for current buyers? This alternative would be for those who can afford a large LCD screen but who would also trade the power of a dual tower for the iMac's tiny footprint. Its my opinion that there aren't that many non-Mac buyers out there who would be swayed into our fold soley by a 19" iMac.
With that said... i want one Its just not a good business model.
The Cube was perfect for me in terms of upgradability. AGP slot, CPU daughtercard, hard drive, and even the optical drive could all be updated fairly easily. Not so with the iMac, which is built to be thrown in a landfill as soon as possible so Apple can sell another computer to the same person.
Maybe this is good business, but it seems to me that Apple could get more sales if their low end systems were upgradeable. I know of two Wintel users who would buy an iMac if only the damn thing could accept an upgraded video card and CPU! That's two extra sales to Apple that only one person knows about. I think that if Apple gave the iMac the upgradability of the cube, they would be surprised at how many extra switchers they got.
Another problem with making so many Macs disposable is that they give Apple a bad image. Whenever people see a Mac, it's usually several years old, and without being upgraded, they seem dog-slow and out of date. It seems like a better image for Apple to have if most of the older Macs in use had been upgraded to run fast enough.
Apple could even sell upgrades at the applestore.com. Would it hurt sales of new Macs? Probably not, since whenever a Mac is upgraded, there are usually (should usually) be improvements in the motherboard architecture and case design. Many users who like to have Macs that are as modern as possible will still buy new hardware in lieu of upgrades. A thriving upgrade market could even drive down the price of components for Apple, thereby boosting their profit margins.
All this nonsense about making low-end Macs disposable seems like Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. A $999 "consumer" tower would attract so many new Mac users.... <sigh></strong><hr></blockquote>
What Apple needs to do to make the "upgradable " computer work for them is to make a consumer model that is innexpensive enough not to bother upgrading it, yet have the upgrade path availabe to marketing. They also need to update the backbone system's at a more agressive rate (bus and memory speed) to make it a better value to replace a Mac than to buy an upgrade.
I would love to see Apple come back out with a Cube at $799-$1000 for a bottom end model, and topping out around $1599. I think that at these prices it would sell pretty good, though it would take some sales away from the iMac and PowerMac, Apple could build this into their inventory and adjust the margins on the Cube to break even on those sales. I do think that this move would help out with "Switchers" especially with the bottom end tower at $1699.
Comments
<strong>
because apple alway holds a distance between "consumer" and "pro" models...
[ 11-09-2002: Message edited by: schrumpl ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
you know like everybody else on these boards that the so called "distance" between consumer and pro models is a marketing trick.
it's better to sell a imac to a graphicdesigner than sell nothing in the next 2 years. because the graphicdesigner (the so called pro user?) thinks he doesn't need the expansion of a G4 tower, it's way to expensive for his budget (these days) and his g4/466 still works fine (more or less)... in this economic climat (and that's not very good for dutch designers), it doesn't matter what people buy next, it matters when they buy... after 2 years or after 3 or 4 is a very big difference. also if apple needs to dump its own consumer/pro myth. it won't hurt sales
so i think 19" imac makes sence, it also makes sence before christmas. but i think it won't happen
without a lot of fanfare. so i think they bump the imac on mwsf and that's another topic
[ 11-10-2002: Message edited by: gar ]</p>
Such a distinction still exists, but it is disappearing rapidly. A 17" iMac beats the pants out of a pro photoshop set-up of only 2-3 years ago, for example. The current iBooks are more than a match for the Pismo range. As technology marches on, 'consumer' machines will be able to do mare and more. Morover, we will expect these cheaper models to do it. Pro categories WILL disappear as computing power increases. Office and now 2-D art have virtually sucuumbed to the march of tech. Any cheap computer can do Office and communication, any decent computer can do 2-D art. Music, video, and 3-D are up next. Already Apple's own advancements point to that day (still a way off) Final Cut Pro (and it's support apps) strikes at the heart of NLE systems costing much much more. It's not quite as good, but good enough for many.
What annoys about Apple is the way in which they try to corale sales into their pro machines at the expense of their consumer line-up. PPC issues aside, there's no good reason to disable features in a consumer machine, especially the monitor spanning capability of the iBook and GF4MX iMac. Not cool. Niether is the limited expansion of the iMac line. With the cube they had it right, easy (if not cheap yet still aceptable) upgrade paths for the PCU and GPU, and monitor too. Then they went and priced it into extinction. There's no good reason why the buyers of consumer machines should not as a minimum have upgradeability present everywhere else in the computer industry. Or does Apple dream that millions of Murbots will replace their machines every 6-12 months.
<strong>i would also be happy with an 19 incher</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think anything longer than a 9 incher makes no sense actually...
<strong>
As someone with an iMac DV with a slot loading drive, I gotta say that I wish it didn't. Takes 2 tries to get a disk to eject, every time. This is a fairly recent occurrence, and the machine is pushing 3 years old, but I have a tray-loader on both my Wallstreet and PC, both are older, and both seem to function better.
(tig)</strong><hr></blockquote>
same here!
its annoying!
I was planning on getting a MDD g4 this christmas...but now I'm not so sure....if apple releases a iMac rev...then I think I'll get that, more power for less money probably.
As long as the Pro machines are over 1 GHz and the PowerBook is at 1 GHz, then the iMac can (and should) go to 1 GHz. Its current 800 MHz is more a function of marketing than engineering.
<strong>What annoys about Apple is the way in which they try to corale sales into their pro machines at the expense of their consumer line-up. PPC issues aside, there's no good reason to disable features in a consumer machine, especially the monitor spanning capability of the iBook and GF4MX iMac. Not cool. Niether is the limited expansion of the iMac line. With the cube they had it right, easy (if not cheap yet still aceptable) upgrade paths for the PCU and GPU, and monitor too. Then they went and priced it into extinction. There's no good reason why the buyers of consumer machines should not as a minimum have upgradeability present everywhere else in the computer industry. Or does Apple dream that millions of Murbots will replace their machines every 6-12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Couldn't agree more.
The Cube was perfect for me in terms of upgradability. AGP slot, CPU daughtercard, hard drive, and even the optical drive could all be updated fairly easily. Not so with the iMac, which is built to be thrown in a landfill as soon as possible so Apple can sell another computer to the same person.
Maybe this is good business, but it seems to me that Apple could get more sales if their low end systems were upgradeable. I know of two Wintel users who would buy an iMac if only the damn thing could accept an upgraded video card and CPU! That's two extra sales to Apple that only one person knows about. I think that if Apple gave the iMac the upgradability of the cube, they would be surprised at how many extra switchers they got.
Another problem with making so many Macs disposable is that they give Apple a bad image. Whenever people see a Mac, it's usually several years old, and without being upgraded, they seem dog-slow and out of date. It seems like a better image for Apple to have if most of the older Macs in use had been upgraded to run fast enough.
Apple could even sell upgrades at the applestore.com. Would it hurt sales of new Macs? Probably not, since whenever a Mac is upgraded, there are usually (should usually) be improvements in the motherboard architecture and case design. Many users who like to have Macs that are as modern as possible will still buy new hardware in lieu of upgrades. A thriving upgrade market could even drive down the price of components for Apple, thereby boosting their profit margins.
All this nonsense about making low-end Macs disposable seems like Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. A $999 "consumer" tower would attract so many new Mac users.... <sigh>
The iMacs/eMacs are better off with trays, because there's enough space inside and they're cheaper as well as faster. (See 1x DVD-R in the new TiGHz book) Price matters in Consumer models. I've never seen one brak the tray of an iMac, so I doubt it's safer to use a slot. On the other hand I've seen a lot of different "objects" inserted into slot loaders that definitely NOT belong in there.
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>I think anything longer than a 9 incher makes no sense actually...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A "little" OT, but definitely above average and a good laugh. Greetings from your capitol.
[QB]The Cube had slot loaders for looks only not for space considerations or anything else.
...Ever Opened a Cube? Theres no room in there for anything else.... and how exactly would a vertically mounted tray loading drive work.....!?!?
[ 11-11-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
The slot loading makes a lot of sense because:-
1. It is neater.
2. It means the tray won't hit my keyboard any more.
3. The slot loading drive in my DV+ accepts both 8 and 12cm discs, so I see no reason why the new iMac couldn't.
[ 11-11-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
Nothing about a slot loader makes it thinner, You can make tray loaders just as compact. Media compatibility is more important than thinness, there are more bone-head moves to fvck up a slot loader than a tray, especially on the desktop, in a school, around children or executives. That said, I wouldn't mind slot loaders so much if Apple ensured their compatibility with 8cm media, but they don't. Even more troubling is the facility for dealing with stuck discs, which you can expect A LOT MORE OF as Music and Film industries plan to get really freaky with their copy protection schemes.
Trays are just better, and they would be even better if they had an easy manual eject button.
If a consumer wants to save money by going with the smaller screen (or maybe more importantly a 1024X768 max resolution), they'll probably reconsider and choose an eMac instead of an iMac. IOW, if you're willing to pay for the FP screen and fancy design, why forever get stuck with a small screen?
I think Apple's sales mix in the iMac line reflects this situation, too. 50% of all iMacs are the top-of-the-line model.
<strong>A "little" OT, but definitely above average and a good laugh. Greetings from your capitol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe! I guess it must be busy there because of the election-campaigns by now, or? Did you have a Gusi-Bus there yet?
*personally thinking all those campaigns are rather silly*
<strong>Just need to come up with a convincing office bundle.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like MS Office for 199$ with every new Mac? I think 15" iMacs prices below 1000$ would sell great. If Apple is stopping production altogether they're going to have another Cube. And they would have to keep the eMac making Steve's "CRTs are dead" statement look even more stupid.
In particular, the iMac would bennefit from a redesigned disc loading mechanism. Its curved face wastes space since the front of the cd tray is flat instead of round. Either, the tray should be rounded or eliminated completely. This will allow mounting of the drive closer to the front of the computer, freeing up space or allowing for a smaller enclosure. ... Plus... it would look cool <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
On screen sizes: Right now, budget buyers aren't purchasing G4 iMacs, and this is why many of them are choosing the 17" model. I think the 15" screen would sell much better at a lower price point. Nineteen inch screens would probably sell, but only if they were cheaper than a tower/lcd-screen purchase. Also, would the 19 inchers create more sales directly, or simply offer an alternative for current buyers? This alternative would be for those who can afford a large LCD screen but who would also trade the power of a dual tower for the iMac's tiny footprint. Its my opinion that there aren't that many non-Mac buyers out there who would be swayed into our fold soley by a 19" iMac.
With that said... i want one
<strong>
Couldn't agree more.
The Cube was perfect for me in terms of upgradability. AGP slot, CPU daughtercard, hard drive, and even the optical drive could all be updated fairly easily. Not so with the iMac, which is built to be thrown in a landfill as soon as possible so Apple can sell another computer to the same person.
Maybe this is good business, but it seems to me that Apple could get more sales if their low end systems were upgradeable. I know of two Wintel users who would buy an iMac if only the damn thing could accept an upgraded video card and CPU! That's two extra sales to Apple that only one person knows about. I think that if Apple gave the iMac the upgradability of the cube, they would be surprised at how many extra switchers they got.
Another problem with making so many Macs disposable is that they give Apple a bad image. Whenever people see a Mac, it's usually several years old, and without being upgraded, they seem dog-slow and out of date. It seems like a better image for Apple to have if most of the older Macs in use had been upgraded to run fast enough.
Apple could even sell upgrades at the applestore.com. Would it hurt sales of new Macs? Probably not, since whenever a Mac is upgraded, there are usually (should usually) be improvements in the motherboard architecture and case design. Many users who like to have Macs that are as modern as possible will still buy new hardware in lieu of upgrades. A thriving upgrade market could even drive down the price of components for Apple, thereby boosting their profit margins.
All this nonsense about making low-end Macs disposable seems like Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. A $999 "consumer" tower would attract so many new Mac users.... <sigh></strong><hr></blockquote>
What Apple needs to do to make the "upgradable " computer work for them is to make a consumer model that is innexpensive enough not to bother upgrading it, yet have the upgrade path availabe to marketing. They also need to update the backbone system's at a more agressive rate (bus and memory speed) to make it a better value to replace a Mac than to buy an upgrade.
I would love to see Apple come back out with a Cube at $799-$1000 for a bottom end model, and topping out around $1599. I think that at these prices it would sell pretty good, though it would take some sales away from the iMac and PowerMac, Apple could build this into their inventory and adjust the margins on the Cube to break even on those sales. I do think that this move would help out with "Switchers" especially with the bottom end tower at $1699.
Thursday, November 28th. Traditionally, the Friday following Thanksgiving is the beginning of the holiday shopping season in the U.S.