Apple has an education machine and it ROCKS! We use three eMacs at work (Illustrator, Photoshop and printing) and had they been unveiled before (or at the same time) as the current flat-screen iMacs, I personally would've bought an eMac and saved myself $400!
For years people begged Apple to make a 17" iMac and put a G4 in it.
They did. Enjoy it!
What I find amazing and hard to believe is that we're about to hit the one year mark of the introduction of the LCD G4 iMac...and it hasn't been revved ONCE (not counting this summer's 17" model). But I guess I can't bitch because that's twice now (my tangerine iMac was "top of the line" for almost 8 months and I've got to enjoy having a "non-replaced" LCD iMac since March) that I've made a purchase and it "held up" over time without being replaced by a faster, cheaper version.
They're still sitting at 800MHz.
I guess they're selling okay.
But I do agree with the other post: I'd love for the entire line to go to the 17" widescreen (@ 1440x900 resolution). My buddy in Nashville has one, and between the physical size increase AND the higher resolution (more pixels), it's like using a kick-ass 19" screen or something. TONS of room for Illustrator and Photoshop palettes!
<strong>The only problem with Apple doing something like this is that it'll take sales away from the eMac and iMac</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly and why would they want to take sales away from a machine with a low profit margin in order to benefit sales of a machine with an even lower profit margin? The rise in sales won't make up for the profit loss and since business is about profit I can't see it happening.
<strong>The day Apple Computer releases a $399 POS computer is the day they cease to be Apple Computer. I'm all for getting the price of the eMac down as low as possible but someone has to do things better. Call me an elitist but I would never want to run the Mac OS on a cheap PC box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The time is coming when 1000 USD will describe a very high-end machine. Not soon, but eventually. Everyone in the PC industry is going to have to learn to make cheaper computers. We might deride the budget category today, but they're learning lessons as valuable as those on the high-end. How to build a box as efficiently as possible will be just as important as more glamorous objectives like ultimate performance, software integration, and seamless connectivity. You'll see.
Also, Pulver, where did apple come from? Why did apple shoot to the stars in their first few years, you think? Because they offered an affordable computing solution for everybody.
<hr></blockquote>
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?
Now the perception (at least) of that superiority has diminished over time, but the price delta has narrowed also. The trick is finding the perfect mix of real value, perceived value and cost. The retail stores are all about this, as is the Switch campaign. Is it perfect? No. Does Apple need to bump specs and lower prices a bit? Yes. But what they cannot and should not do is attempt to compete in the $500 range. It dilutes the brand, it dilutes the message.
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed, at the time I desperately wanted that 128k Mac but it was just not a possibility because of the price. I ended up getting a Apple IIc. If only they had an eMac back then.
Hell, I wouldn't exactly buy an even lower end eMac, but still: I can't understand what would be against it, except some sort of elitist pride that doesn't help anyone. I think (and I'm not an economist, so contradict me if I'm wrong) that getting a firm foot between the door in the education market, as well as with small (read, lower income) and so on, families, in short: expanding the audience a little bit (downwards as it were) would only free new resources. It would make the audience of the mac grow (children learning mac and sticking with it, ...) and at the same time, a greater market share might just make more resources available to add some more oooomph to the high-end mac performance. etc. a full circle, easier said than done. I just can't see why... (as I cannot see why mac users today should be happy to pay more for a lot less performance) you can only use the excuse of beauty and user experience so many times (especially if your beautiful OS starts acting sluggish on your less than one year old comp). My thoughts. Bit of a disgruntled mac enthousiast. Don't get me wrong. I'm a mac veteran. Have been since '87, today however, the gap is too big. I'm willing to stick it out, but the big silence and apparent lack of foresights, it pains me.
Okay. This seems to lead to the usual iWhiners thread again. So I'll rant a bit, m'k?
Introducing a 399$ monitorless Mac would certainly kill the iMac/eMac/PowerMac sales numbers. And THAT'S where the profits are in.
Apple has ALREADY got a lot of unwanted attention from lusers buying old iMacs and then stating that the machine was too slow.
Most iWhiners own a 333 MHz colourful iMac and claim that a) the Dual PM 1.25 GHz is too slow compared to AMD/intel and b) that Apple should introduce a 399$ Mac and give .mac out for free. They want iMovie to have FinalCut Pro's abilites, trade Adobe warez on the 'net and are deep inside gamers that shouldn't have bought a Mac in the first place as they're not doing any real work on their computers.
Macintosh - A computer that makes work fun again.
PC - A computer that makes games hard work, as you're constantly looking for drivers and add-ons to keep up with the crowd.
Yes it's elitary to think we should get rid of the iWhiners. But I'm not a rich man myself. I've been working hard for all of the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years.
Sure, cheaper is better, and free is the best form of cheap, but there's stuff that has quality behind it and the Macintosh is one of those things. And I'm glad I've paid that lot of money for my TiBook 500, because even today I wouldn't want to exchange it for a new VAIO or HPaQ laptop. They may be faster by now okay, but they don't let me WORK faster. And I can't be bothered with driver hell, DRM, Big Brother MS looking into my computer and an operating system that tells me that I want to use MSN Messenger.
Instead I rather instawakeup my TiBook and get back to that book I'm layouting in InDesign in SECONDS rather than having to first troubleshoot my PC because salerqawfh.dll could not be found.
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it didn't sell and Steve Jobs was fired because he refused to do anything about it.
<strong>Okay. This seems to lead to the usual iWhiners thread again. So I'll rant a bit, m'k?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please don't, nobody gets better by your ranting here.
fryke, I ask you this: how many people on these boards have not said that OS X is rather sluggish on their machine. This is a problem NOW. I may have an iBook, but I came from a powerbook, and am going back there (ibook being a reststop cause I killed my powerbook before its rightful EOL).
You should not act as if you hold the authority to say which is and which isn't true Apple behaviour, and Apple audience. Things just don't work that way. We live in a big world, and even with 3% market share, there are millions of mac users, and many of them would disagree with you and they all have every right to.
You have the right to think that the real sales lie in the pro-line. But say so in a moderated tone, please. What do you think will you reach by ranting? ugh.
Do you not feel that there is at least some truth in the assumption that a low 'entering'-point mac might lure more people towards the mac platform?
And also, have you followed the evolution of the Mac platform the last ten years? Ten years ago, the Mac was ultimately the fastest, and then two years ago, it was still the fastest for graphical applications, and now it is the fastest for nothing.
What you are naming there, 'instawakeup', that is a matter of seconds. What is not a matter of seconds is rendering a multi-meg image in photoshop for some lighting effects. That is seconds, many seconds, to even a minute(s) (think video rendering).
Why is it that we cannot look at the rather peckish state Apple is in now and speak about it without being termed iwhiner or whatever by some self-declared mac-legislator?
Apple can not afford to sell a 400$ computer. Simply because it would have to be a G3 sub 1ghz and people wouldn't buy it.
Why a G3? Because the performance that others are selling at 400$ is a G4 1ghz class computer and if Apple would sell a 1ghz G4 for 400$ there'd be no way they could demand anything near 2000$ for a dual 1.25 ghz tower. Nor anything nead 1800$ for a 17" iMac.
IMHO this means that _maybe_ once Apple can have a _real_ difference as far as the PowerMacs and iMac-class computers go, they might introduce a cheap mac. I mean PC manufacturers have anything from a 1.2 ghz celeron type of computer to a hyperthreading 3ghz pentiumIV that they can spec their computers on, apple has a 800 mhz G3 and G4s from 800 - 1.25. You can't have a large range there...
Between this topic and the $399 topic, many good points have been made, but they are scattered over many pages of griping and ranting too. Here is my pick of significant statements on the low end market.
1) Apple needs low priced computer without monitor for several markets -- general business use, schools, low performance home use (email and word processing), and a myriad of needs where performance is not an issue. There are several good posts about it in the old $399 topic.
2) The price of this low end Mac does not have to be anywhere near the oft quoted $399 figure. It seems that a $600 to $700 range would be acceptable. Gateway has a new business model for $739, without monitor, and one a little cheaper than that.
In my opinion, a low end Mac like this would not hurt eMac and iMac sales much if the performance was selectively limited for running only low end applications and OS X. Possibly limiting just the graphics performance would be sufficient. Also, most iApps might be eliminated. The eMac would be the low end of the digital hub Macs.
Regarding the eMac, since that is the topic, the low end eMac needs a little lower price tag.
To der Kopf and anyone else who has taken exception with my sometimes strident tone, I apologize. I just honestly feel that a $500 Mac would kill the platform in 90 days. I make my living from the Mac and I literally can't afford for it to die. (I'll try to justify that position a bit more below.)
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
In my opinion, a low end Mac like this would not hurt eMac and iMac sales much if the performance was selectively limited for running only low end applications and OS X. Possibly limiting just the graphics performance would be sufficient. Also, most iApps might be eliminated. The eMac would be the low end of the digital hub Macs.
<hr></blockquote>
Selectively limit performance? Low end applications only? Eliminate most iApps? Non digital hub Macs? Are you crazy? People are complaining about 10.2 performance on new, $2000 machines. What do you think it's going to be like on this mythical $500 G3 based, crippled graphics disaster?
Every Mac is a digital hub Mac. This is the whole point. If you take out the digital hub capabilities, it's not a Mac anymore. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Everyone's doggin' the base eMac as overpriced and underpowered, while taking the iApps for granted. Does any sub $1K Wintel box give you the best OS in the world with a *nix command line, full developer's tools and Java 2 certification? How about complete control over your OS installs and restores? How about no limits on copies of your digital media?
Does any sub $1K Wintel box come with anything even remotely like the iApps? If iMovie, iTunes and iPhoto were standalone retail products they would command at least $60-$80 each. That's over $200 right there.
Does any sub $1K Wintel box not look like complete ass?
Would people buy a $500 crippled Mac? Probably, but only at the expense of Apple's profit margins, user experience, industrial design, distinction from the Wintel platform and ultimately its very life.
Bump the specs of the base eMac, price it at $999, advertise and evangelize its inherent superiority and most importantly don't apologize for it. If you want a new Mac, this is what it costs to get in the game. And you know what? It's worth every penny.
I think there is a belief by those pushing a sub-$700-$800 Mac (or the completely insane ones wanting a $399 Mac) that the OS alone will make up for the features (both hardware and software) one would have to cut, as a matter of course, to still make it profitable. Apple would kill the features that make them distinguishable from cheap PC boxes. What would be the point?
I think I need to interject a reminder that the original revisions of the iMac cost $1200! And that's with a sub-300MHz G3 and piss-poor graphics chip.
Now you can get a eMac with a G4 for $999.
The specs have gone up and price has come down. I feel many are seeing Apple's lack of further success through the smoke-colored glasses of slow global economy.
Snoopy, what would be the point of eliminating the monitor? To justify dropping the price by a whole $50 (if even that)?!
"Introducing the new eMac, starting at $850" Image of white, plastic slab... Whoopity-doo! [crickets chirping]
Thanks sCreeD, I was beginning to think I was the only one.
You are totally right about the old $1,299 iMacs. Everyone loved those machines at the time, but now everyone's dissatisfied with the $999 eMac? I don't get it.
<strong>Thanks sCreeD, I was beginning to think I was the only one.
You are totally right about the old $1,299 iMacs. Everyone loved those machines at the time, but now everyone's dissatisfied with the $999 eMac? I don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but the thing is... in 1998, the iMac competed very well in price and specs.
the eMac even at 999 does not match up as well, and its looks aren't as eye-popping as the original iMac's were.
the comparison being made should be between that first iMac and today's LCD iMacs and that comparison is even worse. Apple went from having an extremely strong consumer desktop lineup to a weak and confused one.
Personally? I'd like 2 see the eMac go to one model for 799 with only BTO options available through the Apple store and the iMac go to one or 2 models (special edition) at 1299 and 1699. I think it's possible. But Apple should take advantage of BTO for the eMac. Make it like a car with a load of custom options... make more money, make more people happy as well
Comments
Apple has an education machine and it ROCKS! We use three eMacs at work (Illustrator, Photoshop and printing) and had they been unveiled before (or at the same time) as the current flat-screen iMacs, I personally would've bought an eMac and saved myself $400!
For years people begged Apple to make a 17" iMac and put a G4 in it.
They did. Enjoy it!
What I find amazing and hard to believe is that we're about to hit the one year mark of the introduction of the LCD G4 iMac...and it hasn't been revved ONCE (not counting this summer's 17" model). But I guess I can't bitch because that's twice now (my tangerine iMac was "top of the line" for almost 8 months and I've got to enjoy having a "non-replaced" LCD iMac since March) that I've made a purchase and it "held up" over time without being replaced by a faster, cheaper version.
They're still sitting at 800MHz.
I guess they're selling okay.
But I do agree with the other post: I'd love for the entire line to go to the 17" widescreen (@ 1440x900 resolution). My buddy in Nashville has one, and between the physical size increase AND the higher resolution (more pixels), it's like using a kick-ass 19" screen or something. TONS of room for Illustrator and Photoshop palettes!
:eek:
<strong>The only problem with Apple doing something like this is that it'll take sales away from the eMac and iMac</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly and why would they want to take sales away from a machine with a low profit margin in order to benefit sales of a machine with an even lower profit margin? The rise in sales won't make up for the profit loss and since business is about profit I can't see it happening.
<strong>The day Apple Computer releases a $399 POS computer is the day they cease to be Apple Computer. I'm all for getting the price of the eMac down as low as possible but someone has to do things better. Call me an elitist but I would never want to run the Mac OS on a cheap PC box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU!
Also, Pulver, where did apple come from? Why did apple shoot to the stars in their first few years, you think? Because they offered an affordable computing solution for everybody.
<hr></blockquote>
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?
Now the perception (at least) of that superiority has diminished over time, but the price delta has narrowed also. The trick is finding the perfect mix of real value, perceived value and cost. The retail stores are all about this, as is the Switch campaign. Is it perfect? No. Does Apple need to bump specs and lower prices a bit? Yes. But what they cannot and should not do is attempt to compete in the $500 range. It dilutes the brand, it dilutes the message.
<strong>
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed, at the time I desperately wanted that 128k Mac but it was just not a possibility because of the price. I ended up getting a Apple IIc.
Introducing a 399$ monitorless Mac would certainly kill the iMac/eMac/PowerMac sales numbers. And THAT'S where the profits are in.
Apple has ALREADY got a lot of unwanted attention from lusers buying old iMacs and then stating that the machine was too slow.
Most iWhiners own a 333 MHz colourful iMac and claim that a) the Dual PM 1.25 GHz is too slow compared to AMD/intel and b) that Apple should introduce a 399$ Mac and give .mac out for free. They want iMovie to have FinalCut Pro's abilites, trade Adobe warez on the 'net and are deep inside gamers that shouldn't have bought a Mac in the first place as they're not doing any real work on their computers.
Macintosh - A computer that makes work fun again.
PC - A computer that makes games hard work, as you're constantly looking for drivers and add-ons to keep up with the crowd.
Yes it's elitary to think we should get rid of the iWhiners. But I'm not a rich man myself. I've been working hard for all of the Macs I've owned in the past 10 years.
Sure, cheaper is better, and free is the best form of cheap, but there's stuff that has quality behind it and the Macintosh is one of those things. And I'm glad I've paid that lot of money for my TiBook 500, because even today I wouldn't want to exchange it for a new VAIO or HPaQ laptop. They may be faster by now okay, but they don't let me WORK faster. And I can't be bothered with driver hell, DRM, Big Brother MS looking into my computer and an operating system that tells me that I want to use MSN Messenger.
Instead I rather instawakeup my TiBook and get back to that book I'm layouting in InDesign in SECONDS rather than having to first troubleshoot my PC because salerqawfh.dll could not be found.
End of rant (for now).
[ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>
I'd hardly call the first Macs "affordable". Five grand in 1984 dollars was a lot of money. It sold despite its cost due to its massive superiority. Sound like a familiar plan?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it didn't sell and Steve Jobs was fired because he refused to do anything about it.
<strong>Okay. This seems to lead to the usual iWhiners thread again. So I'll rant a bit, m'k?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please don't, nobody gets better by your ranting here.
fryke, I ask you this: how many people on these boards have not said that OS X is rather sluggish on their machine. This is a problem NOW. I may have an iBook, but I came from a powerbook, and am going back there (ibook being a reststop cause I killed my powerbook before its rightful EOL).
You should not act as if you hold the authority to say which is and which isn't true Apple behaviour, and Apple audience. Things just don't work that way. We live in a big world, and even with 3% market share, there are millions of mac users, and many of them would disagree with you and they all have every right to.
You have the right to think that the real sales lie in the pro-line. But say so in a moderated tone, please. What do you think will you reach by ranting? ugh.
Do you not feel that there is at least some truth in the assumption that a low 'entering'-point mac might lure more people towards the mac platform?
And also, have you followed the evolution of the Mac platform the last ten years? Ten years ago, the Mac was ultimately the fastest, and then two years ago, it was still the fastest for graphical applications, and now it is the fastest for nothing.
What you are naming there, 'instawakeup', that is a matter of seconds. What is not a matter of seconds is rendering a multi-meg image in photoshop for some lighting effects. That is seconds, many seconds, to even a minute(s) (think video rendering).
Why is it that we cannot look at the rather peckish state Apple is in now and speak about it without being termed iwhiner or whatever by some self-declared mac-legislator?
Apple can not afford to sell a 400$ computer. Simply because it would have to be a G3 sub 1ghz and people wouldn't buy it.
Why a G3? Because the performance that others are selling at 400$ is a G4 1ghz class computer and if Apple would sell a 1ghz G4 for 400$ there'd be no way they could demand anything near 2000$ for a dual 1.25 ghz tower. Nor anything nead 1800$ for a 17" iMac.
IMHO this means that _maybe_ once Apple can have a _real_ difference as far as the PowerMacs and iMac-class computers go, they might introduce a cheap mac. I mean PC manufacturers have anything from a 1.2 ghz celeron type of computer to a hyperthreading 3ghz pentiumIV that they can spec their computers on, apple has a 800 mhz G3 and G4s from 800 - 1.25. You can't have a large range there...
<a href="http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=128k.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=128k.html</a>;
The Lisa sold for $10,000.
<a href="http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=128k.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple-history.com/quickgallery.html?where=128k.html</a>;
I don't know why everyone is saying $5000.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
1) Apple needs low priced computer without monitor for several markets -- general business use, schools, low performance home use (email and word processing), and a myriad of needs where performance is not an issue. There are several good posts about it in the old $399 topic.
2) The price of this low end Mac does not have to be anywhere near the oft quoted $399 figure. It seems that a $600 to $700 range would be acceptable. Gateway has a new business model for $739, without monitor, and one a little cheaper than that.
In my opinion, a low end Mac like this would not hurt eMac and iMac sales much if the performance was selectively limited for running only low end applications and OS X. Possibly limiting just the graphics performance would be sufficient. Also, most iApps might be eliminated. The eMac would be the low end of the digital hub Macs.
Regarding the eMac, since that is the topic, the low end eMac needs a little lower price tag.
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
In my opinion, a low end Mac like this would not hurt eMac and iMac sales much if the performance was selectively limited for running only low end applications and OS X. Possibly limiting just the graphics performance would be sufficient. Also, most iApps might be eliminated. The eMac would be the low end of the digital hub Macs.
<hr></blockquote>
Selectively limit performance? Low end applications only? Eliminate most iApps? Non digital hub Macs? Are you crazy? People are complaining about 10.2 performance on new, $2000 machines. What do you think it's going to be like on this mythical $500 G3 based, crippled graphics disaster?
Every Mac is a digital hub Mac. This is the whole point. If you take out the digital hub capabilities, it's not a Mac anymore. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Everyone's doggin' the base eMac as overpriced and underpowered, while taking the iApps for granted. Does any sub $1K Wintel box give you the best OS in the world with a *nix command line, full developer's tools and Java 2 certification? How about complete control over your OS installs and restores? How about no limits on copies of your digital media?
Does any sub $1K Wintel box come with anything even remotely like the iApps? If iMovie, iTunes and iPhoto were standalone retail products they would command at least $60-$80 each. That's over $200 right there.
Does any sub $1K Wintel box not look like complete ass?
Would people buy a $500 crippled Mac? Probably, but only at the expense of Apple's profit margins, user experience, industrial design, distinction from the Wintel platform and ultimately its very life.
Bump the specs of the base eMac, price it at $999, advertise and evangelize its inherent superiority and most importantly don't apologize for it. If you want a new Mac, this is what it costs to get in the game. And you know what? It's worth every penny.
I think there is a belief by those pushing a sub-$700-$800 Mac (or the completely insane ones wanting a $399 Mac) that the OS alone will make up for the features (both hardware and software) one would have to cut, as a matter of course, to still make it profitable. Apple would kill the features that make them distinguishable from cheap PC boxes. What would be the point?
I think I need to interject a reminder that the original revisions of the iMac cost $1200! And that's with a sub-300MHz G3 and piss-poor graphics chip.
Now you can get a eMac with a G4 for $999.
The specs have gone up and price has come down. I feel many are seeing Apple's lack of further success through the smoke-colored glasses of slow global economy.
Snoopy, what would be the point of eliminating the monitor? To justify dropping the price by a whole $50 (if even that)?!
"Introducing the new eMac, starting at $850" Image of white, plastic slab... Whoopity-doo!
Screed
[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
You are totally right about the old $1,299 iMacs. Everyone loved those machines at the time, but now everyone's dissatisfied with the $999 eMac? I don't get it.
<strong>Thanks sCreeD, I was beginning to think I was the only one.
You are totally right about the old $1,299 iMacs. Everyone loved those machines at the time, but now everyone's dissatisfied with the $999 eMac? I don't get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but the thing is... in 1998, the iMac competed very well in price and specs.
the eMac even at 999 does not match up as well, and its looks aren't as eye-popping as the original iMac's were.
the comparison being made should be between that first iMac and today's LCD iMacs and that comparison is even worse. Apple went from having an extremely strong consumer desktop lineup to a weak and confused one.
Personally? I'd like 2 see the eMac go to one model for 799 with only BTO options available through the Apple store and the iMac go to one or 2 models (special edition) at 1299 and 1699. I think it's possible. But Apple should take advantage of BTO for the eMac. Make it like a car with a load of custom options... make more money, make more people happy as well
Apple went from having an extremely strong consumer desktop lineup to a weak and confused one. <hr></blockquote>
Just wait until Jan. 7th.