PowerMac G5 Express
This is what I want from Apple, the iMac replacement. They're "Express'ing" their products these days (Final Cut Express, AirPort Express, etc.), why not a Power Mac Express?
Ok, terrible mockup I know, but just imagine the current G5 case in a smaller, cube shape. Small enough to be practical, but not so small that it skyrockets engineering costs (like the G4 Cube did). I'm fine with fans if it needs it, just keep the costs low.
Specs:
Single 1.8 GHz G5
900MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
60GB Serial ATA
8x Superdrive
1 free PCI slot
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR Video Memory
56K internal modem
$1199
It would be a slimmed down PowerMac G5, but filling the iMac's price point. It would have some expandability, which the iMac doesn't. The video card could be upgraded because it'd be in an AGP slot in the PowerMac Express. You'd have a free PCI slot to install if you need it. And most importantly, you could choose any monitor to use and upgrade as you wish.
You might think this is too much for too small of a price. Why was the original iMac such a hit? Because it was essentially a low-end Power Mac (almost exact spec-for-spec) with a monitor for a very low price ($1299). I don't see why Apple can't go back to this strategy to create a killer machine for a killer price. The current iMac is an embarrassment and nowhere near this philosophy.
Apple needs to get their act together with respect to the Mac. It's saddening to hear that Apple is no longer focusing on growing marketshare but rather growing revenues. I'm sure my idea is just a pipedream, but I (and I'm sure others too) just want a practical, fast, cheap box to run OS X on, because it's the software that keeps us Mac users, not the hardware.
Ok, terrible mockup I know, but just imagine the current G5 case in a smaller, cube shape. Small enough to be practical, but not so small that it skyrockets engineering costs (like the G4 Cube did). I'm fine with fans if it needs it, just keep the costs low.
Specs:
Single 1.8 GHz G5
900MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
60GB Serial ATA
8x Superdrive
1 free PCI slot
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR Video Memory
56K internal modem
$1199
It would be a slimmed down PowerMac G5, but filling the iMac's price point. It would have some expandability, which the iMac doesn't. The video card could be upgraded because it'd be in an AGP slot in the PowerMac Express. You'd have a free PCI slot to install if you need it. And most importantly, you could choose any monitor to use and upgrade as you wish.
You might think this is too much for too small of a price. Why was the original iMac such a hit? Because it was essentially a low-end Power Mac (almost exact spec-for-spec) with a monitor for a very low price ($1299). I don't see why Apple can't go back to this strategy to create a killer machine for a killer price. The current iMac is an embarrassment and nowhere near this philosophy.
Apple needs to get their act together with respect to the Mac. It's saddening to hear that Apple is no longer focusing on growing marketshare but rather growing revenues. I'm sure my idea is just a pipedream, but I (and I'm sure others too) just want a practical, fast, cheap box to run OS X on, because it's the software that keeps us Mac users, not the hardware.
Comments
You forgot, since it is aluminum, why not anodize them to the iPod mini colors?
She comes in colors.
I figure "Express" is reserved for mobile (or at least easily portable) versions of heavier wired products and "mini" is just smaller versions of the bigger namesake, mobile or not.
I would think it'd be easier to just lop the head off an iMac like so.
Those are 2 mockups I did and as much as I'd actually like to see them, I assume that Apple will give us something much better than mere mini versions of an existing product. Just like how the iPod mini is nearly entirely different in some respects while maintaining the core features (and improving them).
That's brilliant!!
Originally posted by johnq
(Caution: nothing new below, just my usual mockups)
You forgot, since it is aluminum, why not anodize them to the iPod mini colors?
She comes in colors.
I figure "Express" is reserved for mobile (or at least easily portable) versions of heavier wired products and "mini" is just smaller versions of the bigger namesake, mobile or not.
I would think it'd be easier to just lop the head off an iMac like so.
Those are 2 mockups I did and as much as I'd actually like to see them, I assume that Apple will give us something much better than mere mini versions of an existing product. Just like how the iPod mini is nearly entirely different in some respects while maintaining the core features (and improving them).
Dang, I wish I saw that PowerMac mini mockup before making mine. That's exactly what I was thinking about.
I think mini is geared more towards consumers and Express is geared more towards professionals. Express isn't necessarily portable versions of wired products. There's Final Cut Express and Logic Express, pro software packages slimmed-down to make more affordable for a wider audience. That's what I think would be perfect for a mid-range PowerMac. Multi-colored aluminum casing would look gaudy I think
fat kids.
This site is genius!
Originally posted by bborofka
Dang, I wish I saw that PowerMac mini mockup before making mine. That's exactly what I was thinking about.
More the merrier I say...
Originally posted by bborofka
I think mini is geared more towards consumers and Express is geared more towards professionals. Express isn't necessarily portable versions of wired products. There's Final Cut Express and Logic Express, pro software packages slimmed-down to make more affordable for a wider audience.
"Express" in software terms was just lighter versions of the more serious Pro apps. Airport Express is somewhat of a prosumer product, yeah mobile pros will like it, making it an instant wireless solution, just add ethernet, but home users will like it conceivably solely for streaming music. (Of course it's cabable of more than that). I still wodner if it is XBOX, GC and PS2 (online) compatible. I assume it would be...Now that's the crowd to pitch to...
But relative to Airport Extreme Basestation, it is lighter, made to travel and easier to use. Might they have called it Airport mini? Perhaps...but the original iPod was easy to use and made for travel. I think "mini" means not departing from the larger versions' core features - same but smaller, whereas "Express" means make it more portable. But that's all a hunch and not really worth talking about until there are more examples.
Originally posted by bborofka
That's what I think would be perfect for a mid-range PowerMac. Multi-colored aluminum casing would look gaudy I think
But not if they are aimed at consumers and if displays matched. Keep in mind there is a gargantuan PC case industry that makes all kinds of cheesy elaborate "custom" cases for PCs that people buy in droves. Not that I want Apple to cater to them, but I think colors on G5 minis might work (as long as the silver option remains). What with just-in-time manufacturing its not like Apple will be saddled with 250,000 pink PowerMac G5 minis sitting on shelves...
The thing about G5 Express/mini would be they'd be GREAT for pros/businesses and schools, not merely home users, so I suppose it might hurt the top end sales...and so the debate continues...
Originally posted by bborofka
PowerChode G5?
For example, the Japanese guy that made a G5 Cube (working). (G5 Cube is yet another name for the same thing). Although I'm not sure if you meant yours to be a cube or merely half as tall...
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_7.html
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_9.html
"to ______ happy graduation love mom and dad"
laser etched into the bottom or front.
also if they laser etch the case then perhaps apple could set up a site like this using .mac etc.
http://www.stuffback.com/stuffBakAdmin/
Originally posted by onlooker
It's just a cube, and I doubt Apple is ready to fail with another cube again. People asked for this smaller form factor once before. Apple gave them an awesome cube, but it cost them. I don't think they'll do it again for a while.
add the ability to cluster and you have a hit (with me at least
Think about cool cubes with colored or changing lights that are clustered together. you could put them int he living room for ambient light and control the color and brightness via a (dare I say it apple remote) Then the clustering could be both cool and functional computationaly and decor wise. Remember what the core market for apples is design professionals and their ilk.
Let a designer design the lego bricks into the home fashionably. Like a lamp, coffee table, bookshelf computer, (OK now I have lost it)
but something like this
http://www.retromodern.com/item_detail.asp?4989.
doesn't have to be white could be any color or material and i different sizes. Who said the computer must be on a bookshelf why not make it the coffee table with wireless keyboard. and perhaps laser pointer like mouse. You could rest a cup of tea on it and it would be designed in such a way that minor spills don't short out the system.
and it could provide light in this configuration
http://www.retromodern.com/item_detail.asp?4987.
this way it could sit on the desk or floor or shelf and provide some light as well as the computational power needed. Given wifi and bluetooth much can be achieved with airport and airport express to untether the computer from the desk. use a hangable display on the desk and a wireless dvd drive, keyboard and mouse and why then do you need the box on the desk at all. put it next to the couch or wherever.
I don't design hardware or software I use it. and like being able to move around the house or sit outside and still have my data. Digital hub.
It's just a cube, and I doubt Apple is ready to fail with another cube again. People asked for this smaller form factor once before. Apple gave them an awesome cube, but it cost them. I don't think they'll do it again for a while.
If Apple were able to sell these things for say $999 with the above specs (sorry, $1199 is too high), I think they'd probably have trouble keeping them in stock. The cube's problem was SOLELY that it cost too much... Fix that, and it's gangbusters.
Apple can't go after marketshare with a headless consumer box until it COMPLETELY closes the perceived hardware parity gap. That means 3GHz+ in a <$1K machine. Until then, anything "close" just does more harm than good.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Apple can't go after marketshare with a headless consumer box until it COMPLETELY closes the perceived hardware parity gap. That means 3GHz+ in a <$1K machine. Until then, anything "close" just does more harm than good.
Unfortunately, 3+GHz in a sub-$1K machine will STILL not = hardware parity. By the time we can get this machine, the "competition" will be at 5+ GHz for $499.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I agree that they'd sell like hotcakes, but only to people who would have bought an iMac or gone up to a Power Mac anyway. Even at $999, it's still not a switcher machine, it still won't grow marketshare. All it would do (other than make a lot of cheap Mac geeks happy) is destroy margins and cut display sales.
Apple can't go after marketshare with a headless consumer box until it COMPLETELY closes the perceived hardware parity gap. That means 3GHz+ in a <$1K machine. Until then, anything "close" just does more harm than good.
I think a lot of PC users like OS X and want to use OS X, but then they look at Apple's hardware, they stick up their nose and turn away.
I'm sure a lot of these people see the PowerMac as the only viable solution but it costs way too much for them. These same people want flexibility in a machine for a low price that the iMac doesn't give them. They want to be able to upgrade their video card, add another PCI card, and use whatever monitor they please (especially their existing ones).
A PowerMac Express would give these people what they want. It's not about perception, it's not about making a better laptop because "people aren't buying desktops these days," it's about making a low priced machine with flexibility and specs that people want.
Since Steve Jobs' return to Apple, I believe their hasn't been a desktop Mac without a monitor for less than $1800. How can we say a machine like this for $1199 wouldn't grow marketshare if Apple won't even try it?
Originally posted by Derrick 61
Unfortunately, 3+GHz in a sub-$1K machine will STILL not = hardware parity. By the time we can get this machine, the "competition" will be at 5+ GHz for $499.
I know, that was the point I was making. In order to go headless to gain marketshare, Apple would have to immediately release a >3GHz/<$1K machine. Since they obviously can't do that, Apple's consumer desktops will remain AIO to A) protect margins through forced display purchases and
Maybe in 18-24 months when Apple has access to affordable dual core chips and Intel's braindead naming convention for their future processors has backfired there will be a new opprtunity. But until the rules of the game change, headless is business suicide for Apple.
And just to be clear, I personally would love a G5 mini as described in this thread. The irony so many here fail to understand is that just because a putative Cube 2 makes sense for you, doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple.
Originally posted by bborofka
I think a lot of PC users like OS X and want to use OS X, but then they look at Apple's hardware, they stick up their nose and turn away.
I agree.
A PowerMac Express would give these people what they want. It's not about perception, it's not about making a better laptop because "people aren't buying desktops these days," it's about making a low priced machine with flexibility and specs that people want.
I would also agree ?IF? Apple could actually vend a Mac with the "specs people want". This means >3GHz/<$1K. Apple simply CANNOT build this machine. Let's look at an extremely generous best case scenario:
G5 mini
1.8 GHz 970fx
Single, upgradeable AGP slot
Single, upgradeable SATA hard drive
$999
Though this is a Mac geek's wet dream, 90% of sales would only go to existing Mac users who would have bought a G5 iMac or Power Mac anyway if that remained their only option. The other 10% would be the few enlightened switchers already interested in OS X who would find such a machine compelling enough to buy it over a more expensive, non upgradeable G5 iMac.
But your average PC user down at Fry's is still going to turn his nose up at it. Clockspeed is king. For the same money, Joe Sixpack could still get a machine that's almost "twice as fast" for the same money, and that's completely ignoring the other barriers to switching.
Bottom line: a G5 mini at <3Ghz only moves existing sales from high margin products to low margin products. It CANNOT and will not increase marketshare.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I agree that they'd sell like hotcakes, but only to people who would have bought an iMac or gone up to a Power Mac anyway. Even at $999, it's still not a switcher machine, it still won't grow marketshare. All it would do (other than make a lot of cheap Mac geeks happy) is destroy margins and cut display sales.
Apple can't go after marketshare with a headless consumer box until it COMPLETELY closes the perceived hardware parity gap. That means 3GHz+ in a <$1K machine. Until then, anything "close" just does more harm than good.
I disagree. You are misdiagnosing the reason people skip Apple:
1. most people want traditional desktops
2. many people shopping for computers consider Macs
The ones closest to the fence who buy a PC, balk at the hardware coost...and there are a lot of those people. Some of these are the same people who modify their windows computer to make it look like a mac. Macs are expensive. If Apple had a reasonably specced headless consumer machine with equivalent RAM, video and hard drive space to the PCs in the same price range, these fence sitters would buy a Mac. The newbies also shopping in this price range will buy a Mac too.
But with $2k desktop machines, and AIO as the only choice, Apple misses a huge chunk of the market. A cheap headless box will cannabilize the low end powermacs, but will sell a much higher volume. And at the end of the day, Apple still needs more MAc users. The people needed a dual g5 will still leave with a powermac. But there should be a separate single g5 desktop option, besides on the ebay market.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
But your average PC user down at Fry's is still going to turn his nose up at it. Clockspeed is king. For the same money, Joe Sixpack could still get a machine that's almost "twice as fast" for the same money, and that's completely ignoring the other barriers to switching.
Bottom line: a G5 mini at <3Ghz only moves existing sales from high margin products to low margin products. It CANNOT and will not increase marketshare.
Clockspeed is king to the cheap people. But while working as an Apple rep, i met a huge chunk of PC users who wanted a g5...no matter the clockspeed, but didn't want to pay $2000. And they bought a sony. These people would have bought a MAc if it was in the $1000-$1400 price range their Sony was.
Originally posted by jade
I disagree. You are misdiagnosing the reason people skip Apple:
1. most people want traditional desktops
2. many people shopping for computers consider Macs
I agree. I already said exactly this above.
The ones closest to the fence who buy a PC, balk at the hardware coost...and there are a lot of those people.
I agree. I already said exactly this above.
Macs are expensive.
I agree. I already said exactly this above.
If Apple had a reasonably specced headless consumer machine with equivalent RAM, video and hard drive space to the PCs in the same price range, these fence sitters would buy a Mac. The newbies also shopping in this price range will buy a Mac too.
I agree. I already said exactly this above.
But here's the rub and I'll try saying this again: Apple CANNOT build "a reasonably specced headless consumer machine with equivalent RAM, video and hard drive space to the PCs in the same price range". If they could they would do it tomorrow and everything would be fine, but they simply can't.
You are falling into the same trap that so many Mac users do: the idea that "close enough is good enough" when it comes to hardware parity. You think that since a 1.8GHz G5 is a lot by our standards, then that qualifies as "reasonably specced" by switchers. It does not. It's like getting a failing grade in school, a score of 49% is an "F" just as much as a score of 0%. It doesn't matter how close you come to the necessary minimum if you still fall short. In fact for Apple and its margins, coming close and failing is much, much worse than not trying at all.
Total perceived hardware parity is an absolute prerequisite for even attempting a push for marketshare. The reality is a 1.8Ghz G5 in a headless box, even at $999, still doesn't even come close to closing the gap with Wintel. Until then, AIO is the ONLY way Apple can differentiate its products and simulataneously maintain margins. It's a an unfortunate strategy to be forced into, I agree, but it's the only strategy available.
Originally posted by jade
Clockspeed is king to the cheap people.
Cheap people = 95% of the market. Apple already does just fine with the other 5%.
But while working as an Apple rep, i met a huge chunk of PC users who wanted a g5...no matter the clockspeed, but didn't want to pay $2000. And they bought a sony. These people would have bought a MAc if it was in the $1000-$1400 price range their Sony was.
I was an Apple rep too, and I had the same experience. That's why I said ~10% of G5 mini sales would be to just such "enlightened switchers". But that group only seemed big to us because they were the open minded group that walked into the Apple section to talk to the rep about their needs. I've been surrounded by a circle of 15-20 of them answering questions (and attempting to defend Apple's pricing) for hours. You're right that every one of them would've bought a G5 mini instead of a Sony. You're wrong though to think this group represents the general public, or exists in anywhere near enough numbers to offset the massive loss of margins and Power Mac cannibalization the introduction of such a machine would cause.
Look, I want a G5 mini to be possible too, but we can't let our desires blind us to the market realities.