Apple doesn't have to compete on price; they do have to compete on features. Apple can charge +20% because of their market positioning and their reputation.
They don't need 3 GHz either - note that AMD top out at 2.4Ghz currently and are able to compete through a subterfuge quite successfully.
A mid range machine -
2.0 GHz G5
9600XT / 5900XT / X600 (close enough to the same thing)
120 GB HDD
768 MB RAM
with 17" LCD for $AUS2400 or 1200 US.
supported by an appropriate lower model (1.6/(9200 or 5200)/80/512 @ $999) and higher spec model (2.5/X800/146(10K)/1024 @ $1999) would be about right I think.
Gives a lead in machine, a desirable upgrade and a show off factor model.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
I disagree completely. When a computer buyer contemplates a purchase, there is a maximum amount they can afford to spend. Let's just say it's $1200. If they look at a G5 Tower, it's out of the question. If they look at an iMac, it's out of the question. If there is a "G5 Express" to look at and it's $1199 and only a few hundred more than some Dell or HP, and it's virtually virus free, and it comes with all the iLife apps, and it has a cool design that will match the Apple display they've had for a year, they WILL consider it. What makes you think Apple has to match WinPCs dollar for dollar and Mhz for Mhz in order to get switchers?
I obviously meant what new display goes with it at time of purchase. No computer company can sell a desktop on the assumption that you'll use your old CRT you got laying around, especially not Apple.
If Apple vends a headless Mac, they MUST provide an affordable, accompanying display, at least as an option. So I ask again, what is it going to be?
You've extrapolated from the basic idea too far - I don't claim that it would be assumed that every single purchaser of such a machine would already own a display. If a buyer wants to buy an Apple LCD at the store to go with it, more power to them. But if they don't, at least they would have a choice, which is more than they have now.
A cheaper 17" LCD would be a good start. If Apple cannot build a price competitive 17" panel, then they should re-sell some other company's display. They re-sell printers after all. Why should displays be special? Nostalgia?
The draw of a design like this is that it will appeal to people who do not want to buy a new monitor yet. Every potential switcher... and there are a lot of them... already has a display. You can argue percentages if you like but this basic point is pretty clear to me.
I have always wanted a 22"/23" Cinema Display and yet I have never wanted/needed a Powermac tower.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
I have always wanted a 22"/23" Cinema Display and yet I have never wanted/needed a Powermac tower.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
I think there are quite a few like you who want a big honkin' display but don't need a super fast expandable computer; me included.
I have always wanted a 22"/23" Cinema Display and yet I have never wanted/needed a Powermac tower.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
I have a 23" CD and it fucking rocks! The only sucky part, which is soooo much more apparent, is it's attached to my digital audio 733Mhz PM. The box just doesn't do the display justice.
I've had my PC friends over - some of whom are total code & development warriors for different companies, and they are always blown away by first - my display & second, when I give them a glimpse of Expose.
Every comment I've heard is, "I want that screen & that's totally cool, why doesn't Windows do that?".
In case I misphrased that, by saying "But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there." I was only referring to my not wanting a full-fledged tower.
I wasn't saying that there aren't 200,000,000 people out there that want 23" Cinema Displays. I'm sure there are. Safe to say the entirety of the human race would want one if they saw one.
The powermac G5 express is a nice idea, i would buy one. I think we can all agree that Apple does have a very big problem in the consumer/prosumer line. 1st is the monitor problem and second is bang for buck. Perhaps by designing a ultracool display that attaches to a headless iMac in a fashion where it appears as a all in one would solve the issue. A machine thats says style and coolness that makes people say i have to have one but on the otherhand that same machine can be purchased without the display for those with other needs.
There is a huge gap between Emac(G4 1.25) and dual 1.8 G5 and its not being filled by iMac and it wont be filled by any machine that cant grow with the user meaning it needs 1 or 2 pci slots and a real videocard.
Apple has never been about cheapness in anyform so those clamoring for a $999 iMac i just dont see it happening but i think there is plenty of room to give iMac more performance and perhaps a little expansion. Imac was designed to grab the user in hopes of moving them up into a Powermac later in life. Just like me Only problem is Powermac can be overkill for many and iMac is underpowered for many. Apple has to fill the gap.
Amorph used to mention this from timt to time. HT/PCI-e now make it possible.
There is a way to do a machine with "growth potential" while retaining many of the tamer-proof, sealed unit benefits of an AIO. Actually, you could use it to do away with "pro" and "consumer" machines entirely.
And to further the cause, with the right connectors, the machines could serve as a computer as well as a living room component.
Speed is not the issue. Yeah-yeah, yeah, it looks like the issue right now. But iMacs won't keep the G4 forever (not in it's current form). G5's are more than competitive with the fastest X86 machines, and that speed will eventually trickle down.
So what is the issue?
It's quite rightly stated as having a big expensive appendage (LCD) stuck to a very nicely integrated, but often middling/stagnant machine. No independant buying cycle. No upgrades?
How do you manage to allow "upgrades" while also promoting, new unit sales?
The answer?
SLABS!!!
Take one hunk of Al/lucite, roughly iBook sized footprint, but about 2-3" thick. No battery, no lid, no keyboard, no LCD, and about 2-2.5X the thickness of an iBook; equals, lots of room. Take the guts from an eMac. Drop them in with standard desktop grade HDD/optical. What you have now is a very small, headless, computer, 8.5x11 by 2-3" thick, if you have to play with the dimensions a little for aesthetic reasons, fine, do 10X10 or 11x11 or whatever, jut don't deviate too much.
Nothing should be upgradeable at all, inside the slab that is. You benefit from a nice cool/small/cheap integrated mobo, and an easy to produce machine. If an eMac can be made for 999 with bulky hunk of glass attached, which may cost $50, but adds to design, manufacture, storage , and shipping costs significantly, then that same "computer" in a nice standardized slab, should be possible at 799.
And that's the key, standardization. The box should be easy to manufacture and cheap to sell (AT A PROFIT) -- to do so will require simplicity, and eschew "expansion" schemes.
With one key difference:
PCI-e/HT. Because these can operate over a cable, Apple makes one, and only one, change to their I/O: a small PCI/e connector on the underbelly of the unit. PCI-e has lots and lots of bandwidth for any type of "expansion".
Need PCI cards? Add in an expansion slab that takes two/three of 'em. Want storage? Add a chassis that takes 2-4 drives. Maybe an UPS? Maybe a second CPU, or xServe style node? All available in nice little matching 2" slabs, with non-CPU units also available from third parties.
Suddenly, the sealed computer has all the expansion of a typical tower, but in a consumer friendly box that is just as happy under your HDTV as it is on your desk.
You might not even need a pro/consumer distinction any more, though in all fairness you would need a G5/dual G5 slab for that.
Anyway, headless eMac in a slab
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
At that price, the software and integration would sell itself, especially if you have a simple, better way to overcome that familiar psychological bugaboo -- expansion.
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
At that price, the software and integration would sell itself, especially if you have a simple, better way to overcome that familiar psychological bugaboo -- expansion.
Who doesn't have a monitor lying around?
I would rather see a single 1.5ghz g5, bigger bus, better architexture and so on, and price it at say $899.
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
No. Designing a new machine around the G4 would be foolhardy. 1.8GHz 970FX, yes; 1.5 or 1.6GHz e600 w/ RapidIO & hella bandwidth, maybe. 74xx G4, no way. The G4's time has passed. Let it die.
But even a headless eMac G4 would still be better than the current all-in-one iMac G4. I just cannot stomach the idea of giving away a perfectly good LCD when I upgrade an FP iMac. That's why I haven't bought one.
But even a headless eMac G4 would still be better than the current all-in-one iMac G4. I just cannot stomach the idea of giving away a perfectly good LCD when I upgrade an FP iMac. That's why I haven't bought one.
Um, well wouldn't you sell it? The attached display increases the resale value. I know what you're saying though. You can never seem to sell something for what it's worth so you'd just as soon keep it.
But not for the reason everybody here seems to be arguing for. I design signage and video serving systems and for the first time XServes and XRaids are doing the business for the backend. For the actual screen servers though its very hard to justify a G5 PM on cost and on just pure size. A PM 'Slab' (G5 preferrable but not neccessary) I could hang on a wall or behind a display is a dream I've had for years.
The slab idea is old. It goes back to the Bookshelf that frogdesign mocked up for Apple back in the '80s: You bought a "bookshelf," essentially the mother of all docking stations, and then plugged in "books" of CPUs, RAM, persistent storage, or whatever else you needed. It was modular, extensible computer. In the intervening 20 years, no-one's gotten closer than a rack of blades attached to a SAN. That's not very close, especially when you consider the pain of setting them up and maintaining them.
I still think it's a fascinating idea, and although I originally looked at FireWire as an interconnect (back in the halcyon days when we all thought 1600Mbps was just around the corner) I agree that HT is much better suited to the task.
I also think that, retrofitted to the now-standard 19" rack, it would be a revolutionary pro solution.
I simply cannot see how all this talk about a modular consumer solution makes any sense. I know enough non-geeks to know that systems are bought as a unit, set up as a unit, and disposed of or handed down as a unit (especially if they're handed down, since an old box without a monitor is of little use to the average person). This has not changed. The one couple I know who were thinking of keeping their "perfectly good" monitor changed their minds when they saw a new one. A headless box is 100% geek lust. There is a market for it. I'd consider one myself, but then I'm not an average computer purchaser. And despite the fact that I'm perfectly happy taking things apart and putting them back together again, I can absolutely see the appeal of an AIO: You buy one thing, and you have a whole PC! Just set it on a desk and turn it on. The AIO argument is not that people are "too stupid" to plug in a monitor, it's that since they only ever do that once, it's once too many. Consumers like convenience, and they pay for it, which is why it's so hard for people like me to find cars with manual transmissions. You want a choice of monitor? You've got 15", 17" and 20" right now.
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
I kind of agree with you Amorph, the display line up doesnt support a headless consumer mac. resellers were told to expect a 3 week delay before any iMacs would fill the pipeline. I would say if we were getting a bump (g4) there wouldnt be any or much delay between 1.25s and say 1.5s. Tiger is coming and written for G5 so why do another G4 model? This has to mean a G5 model is coming so I still expect to see a G5 Imac in the next couple of weeks. Maybe just in time for Paris Expo in July? Lets just hope its not killed off with a FX5200 video system because frankly that is poor video chip that drops frames at anything above 640 x 480. Give me a 1.8 G5 and a 9600xt or better and ill be the next customer. sorry just found out the expo is at the end of Aug\
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
You may well be right. I just hope Apple can figure out a way to offer a decent AIO with a flat panel display for $1000-1200. Low-end-computer shoppers won't likely pay more.
Comments
They don't need 3 GHz either - note that AMD top out at 2.4Ghz currently and are able to compete through a subterfuge quite successfully.
A mid range machine -
2.0 GHz G5
9600XT / 5900XT / X600 (close enough to the same thing)
120 GB HDD
768 MB RAM
with 17" LCD for $AUS2400 or 1200 US.
supported by an appropriate lower model (1.6/(9200 or 5200)/80/512 @ $999) and higher spec model (2.5/X800/146(10K)/1024 @ $1999) would be about right I think.
Gives a lead in machine, a desirable upgrade and a show off factor model.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the general public makes no distinction between Dell's prices and "affordable". To them they are one and the same.
I disagree completely. When a computer buyer contemplates a purchase, there is a maximum amount they can afford to spend. Let's just say it's $1200. If they look at a G5 Tower, it's out of the question. If they look at an iMac, it's out of the question. If there is a "G5 Express" to look at and it's $1199 and only a few hundred more than some Dell or HP, and it's virtually virus free, and it comes with all the iLife apps, and it has a cool design that will match the Apple display they've had for a year, they WILL consider it. What makes you think Apple has to match WinPCs dollar for dollar and Mhz for Mhz in order to get switchers?
Originally posted by jade
People want a $1000 mac,...just not one with a head.
Bingo! There's Apple's problem, right there... m.
Originally posted by jade
People want a $1000 mac,...just not one with a head.
I'd go along with that theory too. Build it, and they will come.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I obviously meant what new display goes with it at time of purchase. No computer company can sell a desktop on the assumption that you'll use your old CRT you got laying around, especially not Apple.
If Apple vends a headless Mac, they MUST provide an affordable, accompanying display, at least as an option. So I ask again, what is it going to be?
You've extrapolated from the basic idea too far - I don't claim that it would be assumed that every single purchaser of such a machine would already own a display. If a buyer wants to buy an Apple LCD at the store to go with it, more power to them. But if they don't, at least they would have a choice, which is more than they have now.
A cheaper 17" LCD would be a good start. If Apple cannot build a price competitive 17" panel, then they should re-sell some other company's display. They re-sell printers after all. Why should displays be special? Nostalgia?
The draw of a design like this is that it will appeal to people who do not want to buy a new monitor yet. Every potential switcher... and there are a lot of them... already has a display. You can argue percentages if you like but this basic point is pretty clear to me.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
Originally posted by johnq
I have always wanted a 22"/23" Cinema Display and yet I have never wanted/needed a Powermac tower.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
I think there are quite a few like you who want a big honkin' display but don't need a super fast expandable computer; me included.
Originally posted by johnq
I have always wanted a 22"/23" Cinema Display and yet I have never wanted/needed a Powermac tower.
I have zero options aside from buying a PowerBook, which is nice and all but still pricier than I want. I want to blow the majority of my cash on the display.
But, I also don't presume there are 200,000,000 of me out there.
I have a 23" CD and it fucking rocks! The only sucky part, which is soooo much more apparent, is it's attached to my digital audio 733Mhz PM. The box just doesn't do the display justice.
I've had my PC friends over - some of whom are total code & development warriors for different companies, and they are always blown away by first - my display & second, when I give them a glimpse of Expose.
Every comment I've heard is, "I want that screen & that's totally cool, why doesn't Windows do that?".
I wasn't saying that there aren't 200,000,000 people out there that want 23" Cinema Displays. I'm sure there are.
There is a huge gap between Emac(G4 1.25) and dual 1.8 G5 and its not being filled by iMac and it wont be filled by any machine that cant grow with the user meaning it needs 1 or 2 pci slots and a real videocard.
Apple has never been about cheapness in anyform so those clamoring for a $999 iMac i just dont see it happening but i think there is plenty of room to give iMac more performance and perhaps a little expansion. Imac was designed to grab the user in hopes of moving them up into a Powermac later in life. Just like me
Amorph used to mention this from timt to time. HT/PCI-e now make it possible.
There is a way to do a machine with "growth potential" while retaining many of the tamer-proof, sealed unit benefits of an AIO. Actually, you could use it to do away with "pro" and "consumer" machines entirely.
And to further the cause, with the right connectors, the machines could serve as a computer as well as a living room component.
Speed is not the issue. Yeah-yeah, yeah, it looks like the issue right now. But iMacs won't keep the G4 forever (not in it's current form). G5's are more than competitive with the fastest X86 machines, and that speed will eventually trickle down.
So what is the issue?
It's quite rightly stated as having a big expensive appendage (LCD) stuck to a very nicely integrated, but often middling/stagnant machine. No independant buying cycle. No upgrades?
How do you manage to allow "upgrades" while also promoting, new unit sales?
The answer?
SLABS!!!
Take one hunk of Al/lucite, roughly iBook sized footprint, but about 2-3" thick. No battery, no lid, no keyboard, no LCD, and about 2-2.5X the thickness of an iBook; equals, lots of room. Take the guts from an eMac. Drop them in with standard desktop grade HDD/optical. What you have now is a very small, headless, computer, 8.5x11 by 2-3" thick, if you have to play with the dimensions a little for aesthetic reasons, fine, do 10X10 or 11x11 or whatever, jut don't deviate too much.
Nothing should be upgradeable at all, inside the slab that is. You benefit from a nice cool/small/cheap integrated mobo, and an easy to produce machine. If an eMac can be made for 999 with bulky hunk of glass attached, which may cost $50, but adds to design, manufacture, storage , and shipping costs significantly, then that same "computer" in a nice standardized slab, should be possible at 799.
And that's the key, standardization. The box should be easy to manufacture and cheap to sell (AT A PROFIT) -- to do so will require simplicity, and eschew "expansion" schemes.
With one key difference:
PCI-e/HT. Because these can operate over a cable, Apple makes one, and only one, change to their I/O: a small PCI/e connector on the underbelly of the unit. PCI-e has lots and lots of bandwidth for any type of "expansion".
Need PCI cards? Add in an expansion slab that takes two/three of 'em. Want storage? Add a chassis that takes 2-4 drives. Maybe an UPS? Maybe a second CPU, or xServe style node? All available in nice little matching 2" slabs, with non-CPU units also available from third parties.
Suddenly, the sealed computer has all the expansion of a typical tower, but in a consumer friendly box that is just as happy under your HDTV as it is on your desk.
You might not even need a pro/consumer distinction any more, though in all fairness you would need a G5/dual G5 slab for that.
Anyway, headless eMac in a slab
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
At that price, the software and integration would sell itself, especially if you have a simple, better way to overcome that familiar psychological bugaboo -- expansion.
Who doesn't have a monitor lying around?
Originally posted by Matsu
Anyway, headless eMac in a slab
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
At that price, the software and integration would sell itself, especially if you have a simple, better way to overcome that familiar psychological bugaboo -- expansion.
Who doesn't have a monitor lying around?
I would rather see a single 1.5ghz g5, bigger bus, better architexture and so on, and price it at say $899.
Would you today buy a 1.25-1.5Ghz G4 with 256-512MB, DVD-combo/super, wireless, and a neat connection system, for 799?
No. Designing a new machine around the G4 would be foolhardy. 1.8GHz 970FX, yes; 1.5 or 1.6GHz e600 w/ RapidIO & hella bandwidth, maybe. 74xx G4, no way. The G4's time has passed. Let it die.
Originally posted by Matsu
Anyway, headless eMac in a slab
Headless: YES.
G4: NO.
But even a headless eMac G4 would still be better than the current all-in-one iMac G4. I just cannot stomach the idea of giving away a perfectly good LCD when I upgrade an FP iMac. That's why I haven't bought one.
Escher
Originally posted by Escher
But even a headless eMac G4 would still be better than the current all-in-one iMac G4. I just cannot stomach the idea of giving away a perfectly good LCD when I upgrade an FP iMac. That's why I haven't bought one.
Um, well wouldn't you sell it? The attached display increases the resale value. I know what you're saying though. You can never seem to sell something for what it's worth so you'd just as soon keep it.
Abso-freakin-lutely matsu.
But not for the reason everybody here seems to be arguing for. I design signage and video serving systems and for the first time XServes and XRaids are doing the business for the backend. For the actual screen servers though its very hard to justify a G5 PM on cost and on just pure size. A PM 'Slab' (G5 preferrable but not neccessary) I could hang on a wall or behind a display is a dream I've had for years.
I still think it's a fascinating idea, and although I originally looked at FireWire as an interconnect (back in the halcyon days when we all thought 1600Mbps was just around the corner) I agree that HT is much better suited to the task.
I also think that, retrofitted to the now-standard 19" rack, it would be a revolutionary pro solution.
I simply cannot see how all this talk about a modular consumer solution makes any sense. I know enough non-geeks to know that systems are bought as a unit, set up as a unit, and disposed of or handed down as a unit (especially if they're handed down, since an old box without a monitor is of little use to the average person). This has not changed. The one couple I know who were thinking of keeping their "perfectly good" monitor changed their minds when they saw a new one. A headless box is 100% geek lust. There is a market for it. I'd consider one myself, but then I'm not an average computer purchaser. And despite the fact that I'm perfectly happy taking things apart and putting them back together again, I can absolutely see the appeal of an AIO: You buy one thing, and you have a whole PC! Just set it on a desk and turn it on. The AIO argument is not that people are "too stupid" to plug in a monitor, it's that since they only ever do that once, it's once too many. Consumers like convenience, and they pay for it, which is why it's so hard for people like me to find cars with manual transmissions.
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Amorph
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
Enter the Power Mac G5 Express
Originally posted by Amorph
I think the latest update to the Apple display line totally kills the headless iMac concept again. It's just not going to happen. But then, it was never going to happen, because it doesn't make sense.
You may well be right. I just hope Apple can figure out a way to offer a decent AIO with a flat panel display for $1000-1200. Low-end-computer shoppers won't likely pay more.