New iMac's in Sept - **CONFIRMED**

1679111216

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 302
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    I think someone nailed it above. Lots of Apple's product refreshes boil down to a poor supply of Cpus. IBM got to 0.09 tech' first. They HAVE brilliant tech' and are often first. But contrast the volumes for a Power 4 server vs the ramps for consumer products which Intel does in its sleep?



    IBM simply don't seem to have the manufacturing volume, no, they don't have enough fx chips for X-Serve, PowerMac AND iMac3. I think if the iMac 3 was G4 (disaster!) then it would have been announced by now. IBM can't cater for Apple's 'small slice' of the computer industry...at the moment. It will improve. And IBM will see it as a chip/architecture worth pursuing, I'm sure. Especially when Powerbooks are added to the orderbooks. I think an eweek article talked about IBM not having the experience of this level of volume. Call it yield. Call it speed binning...I dunno...



    The obvious. 2.5 gig 0.09 water cooled (!) PowerMac.



    Available?



    July. August more likely.



    (Aside, new graphics card, ALSO produced by IBM suffering delays for both PC and Mac. In reality, Macs will have the 6800 card about the same time as PC guys! New 30 inch monitor? August. Clearly. Apple. IBM have ramping issues as they shift to these new technologies.)



    1.8 gig is the lowest clocked fx chip? They're all dual for the Powermac.



    Guess. IF the PowerMac is all dual and so expandable (don't laugh...) then nothing stops the iMac going G5 in style. And what grades of fx are there?



    1.8 G5

    2.0 G5

    2.5 G5



    All singles. Seems these are the grades IBM are focusing resources on.



    1.6 fx chip? Pretty pathetic. Got to be 1.8 min'. Intel land don't limit consumer pcs with 1.2 Gig G4s, eh?



    All designed to put the iMac BACK on the map in the SAME way the original iMac put Apple back on the computer map.



    Back to basics. Mountable detachable display for wall mounting. Have the 17 inch LCD that comes with the iMac 3 or upgrade to one of the other displays.



    Aluminium styling ala iPod mini and displays and Powerbooks.



    Integraded graphics? Geforce 52 (! Heh!) or an PCI Express slot?



    Price? Just above the eMac to just under the PowerMac.



    The eMac is due dropping because it's CRT and the future is LCD.



    The iMac 3 may(!) be modular to allow the 'power' and 'price' and 'sweetspot' criticisms to be answered.



    Clearly, to get the iMac back to half a million sales? It HAS to be something REALLY special. Fast. Flexible. Unique. Price scaleable.



    Putting choice back into the consumer's hands. Allowing for a AIO OR Headless. Radical. But a design that scales the eMac's inevitable death right upto a 'mini tower' (of sorts) that sits just under the PowerMac.



    We could be talking about 5 models. Three under a K. Two over.



    If IBM are only catching up on X-Serve orders and PowerMac orders ready to go...clearly, IBM is struggling on volume.



    It leaves Apple and the 'stunning'(!) iMac 3 waiting.



    With baited breath.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 162 of 302
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    The challenge is that this new iMac needs to serve a wide range of customers. And with consumers being pretty savvy these days, price will dictate it's success or lack of. Apple has admitted they need to get down to the magic $1000 range.



    On on hand you've got prosumers who don't need the bulk of a G5 tower but want limited expandabilty. Then there is the "lifestyle" segment who simply need an AIO to display in their living room. There's also the educational market (although it's partly served by the eMac).



    While I'd love a detachable wall mountable 17 widescreen display with a G5 equipped breakout box with one slot, I'm not sure we can get there quite just yet for $1000.
  • Reply 163 of 302
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Well, you can if the display doesn't come as standard on the entry level 'pizza' box. (They are often extras on 'cheap' wintel desktops...)



    Ergo: Apple can make a cheap consumer desktop.



    An iServe Pizza box that can include/bolt on extras such as monitor better graphics as the model parts move on up...



    Essentially, a Powerbook with detachable monitor...



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 164 of 302
    I for one think that we are going to be let down again, when we look at the price...
  • Reply 165 of 302
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    LBB: Actually, the only mac (IMO the Xserve isn't a mac. If you disagree, then it's two models) that's got the FX chip currently is the 2.5 gigger. The other models are using the vanilla 970.



    So to me it appears that Apple are saving the lower-clocked 970FX chips for the iMac.
  • Reply 166 of 302
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Zapchud

    LBB: Actually, the only mac (IMO the Xserve isn't a mac. If you disagree, then it's two models) that's got the FX chip currently is the 2.5 gigger. The other models are using the vanilla 970.



    So to me it appears that Apple are saving the lower-clocked 970FX chips for the iMac.




    Actually, all three models of the PM use the 970FX, it's in the tech docs.
  • Reply 167 of 302
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by discstickers

    Actually, all three models of the PM use the 970FX, it's in the tech docs.



    Except it's not true. The 1.8 and 2.0s use the old PPC970. It's been confirmed several times by actual owners.
  • Reply 168 of 302
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence





    . . . 3. Apple is not blaming IBM. It is blaming itself. Go read the statement again.






    Though Apple did not mention the 970fx, I happen to believe that 970fx delays are indeed the reason for no iMac announcement at WWDC. Apple did not mention IBM for several very good reasons.



    First, it would give away the fact that the new iMac is using the G5. I think Apple is saving this tidbit for the official product announcement. Second, it truly is Apple's own fault for relying on an early estimate of the 970fx schedule. Third, IBM is doing well, and it would do more harm than good to try to blame IBM for Apple's problems.
  • Reply 169 of 302
    oldmacfanoldmacfan Posts: 501member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Except it's not true. The 1.8 and 2.0s use the old PPC970. It's been confirmed several times by actual owners.



    I have read the tech docs, but have not seen anyone actually state that their new dual 1.8 or 2.0 is using the old chip.
  • Reply 170 of 302
    kcgilkcgil Posts: 23member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Michael Grey

    According to Peter Cohen over at MacCentral "...Apple has been very clear that a G5 iMac won't appear before the end of the year at the soonest."



    \




    ----------------------------------------------------



    September could still be the end of year for Apple - That's when their fiscal year ends.
  • Reply 171 of 302
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,292member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

    I think someone nailed it above. Lots of Apple's product refreshes boil down to a poor supply of Cpus. IBM got to 0.09 tech' first. They HAVE brilliant tech' and are often first. But contrast the volumes for a Power 4 server vs the ramps for consumer products which Intel does in its sleep?



    IBM simply don't seem to have the manufacturing volume, no, they don't have enough fx chips for X-Serve, PowerMac AND iMac3. I think if the iMac 3 was G4 (disaster!) then it would have been announced by now. IBM can't cater for Apple's 'small slice' of the computer industry...at the moment. It will improve. And IBM will see it as a chip/architecture worth pursuing, I'm sure. Especially when Powerbooks are added to the orderbooks. I think an eweek article talked about IBM not having the experience of this level of volume. Call it yield. Call it speed binning...I dunno...



    The obvious. 2.5 gig 0.09 water cooled (!) PowerMac.



    Available?



    July. August more likely.



    (Aside, new graphics card, ALSO produced by IBM suffering delays for both PC and Mac. In reality, Macs will have the 6800 card about the same time as PC guys! New 30 inch monitor? August. Clearly. Apple. IBM have ramping issues as they shift to these new technologies.)



    1.8 gig is the lowest clocked fx chip? They're all dual for the Powermac.



    Guess. IF the PowerMac is all dual and so expandable (don't laugh...) then nothing stops the iMac going G5 in style. And what grades of fx are there?



    1.8 G5

    2.0 G5

    2.5 G5



    All singles. Seems these are the grades IBM are focusing resources on.



    1.6 fx chip? Pretty pathetic. Got to be 1.8 min'. Intel land don't limit consumer pcs with 1.2 Gig G4s, eh?



    All designed to put the iMac BACK on the map in the SAME way the original iMac put Apple back on the computer map.



    Back to basics. Mountable detachable display for wall mounting. Have the 17 inch LCD that comes with the iMac 3 or upgrade to one of the other displays.



    Aluminium styling ala iPod mini and displays and Powerbooks.



    Integraded graphics? Geforce 52 (! Heh!) or an PCI Express slot?



    Price? Just above the eMac to just under the PowerMac.



    The eMac is due dropping because it's CRT and the future is LCD.



    The iMac 3 may(!) be modular to allow the 'power' and 'price' and 'sweetspot' criticisms to be answered.



    Clearly, to get the iMac back to half a million sales? It HAS to be something REALLY special. Fast. Flexible. Unique. Price scaleable.



    Putting choice back into the consumer's hands. Allowing for a AIO OR Headless. Radical. But a design that scales the eMac's inevitable death right upto a 'mini tower' (of sorts) that sits just under the PowerMac.



    We could be talking about 5 models. Three under a K. Two over.



    If IBM are only catching up on X-Serve orders and PowerMac orders ready to go...clearly, IBM is struggling on volume.



    It leaves Apple and the 'stunning'(!) iMac 3 waiting.



    With baited breath.



    Lemon Bon Bon




    I quoted this entire post because I think it sums up the wet dreams of a lot of Apple fanatics. But I emphasize that it is nothing more than that, a wet dream. I think this fiasco will be followed by one of the biggest let downs in history. If Apple doesn't leak some real specs, the stock price is going to plummet even further when the real iMac is announced. Apple is unwilling and incapable of producing the kind of machine being described here. They will not make the iMac the single processor PM because they have no intention of keeping the PMs dual. They do an all dual line up under duress when they are in trouble. They do not do it out of principal. They will be back to singles again when they think they have got something big.



    They will never go headless. Do you have any idea how much profit Apple is making off of their monitors by having them attached? It is an unholy amount that they could not possibly make if they only charged for what the computer was worth and then separately what the monitor was worth. No way their giving that up without a fight.



    They will always have a comparatively lame CPU. Their market segmentation scheme demands it. If you don't need the power for your profession, then you don't really need that much power, or so the logic goes.



    They are never going to include upgradable graphics, nor will the graphics be very good. In the first place, they don't even have decent graphics in the PM. The iMac can forget about it. In the second place, they want the machine to become obsolete rather quickly. Making it cheaply upgradable kills the incentive to buy a new one every couple of years. Finally on this point, if they had decent graphics cards, they would still be terrible for gaming because the bottleneck is not just the graphics, it is the software. Apple has nothing remotely similar to Direct X. That was a brilliant stroke. As long as they have low end hardware, then it is the supplier's fault. If they had the same hardware and performance is still not up to that of low end PCs, then it is Apple's fault. They have zero incentive to put in a killer graphics card because its usefulness would be limited on the Mac platform. Therefore, it is easier for Cupertino to say that Mac users don't like to play games rather than to explain why because of platform limitations, they can't play games on par with PC users.



    Lastly, the price is not coming down. If they drop the low end offering to $999, it would still be too much. You can get 17" flat panel systems from Dell at than price. Apple is not about to drop $800 off the price of one of its systems. Forget about it. Apple can't design a mid range G4 system inexpensively enough to get to that point. Now you expect them to be able to do it for a G5? Did you ever wonder why the G4 headless tower never hit the $999 mark? Look at the price they are extorting for their stand alone monitors. Now you think they will magically be able to offer both a G5 system and a flat panel display for less than a grand? No way! The $999 eMac is not half the system the new iMac needs to be and yet it currently occupies the price point you want to see the new iMac at. Good luck.



    This dog want hunt people and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can start to develop more reasonable expectations.
  • Reply 172 of 302
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    They will never go headless. Do you have any idea how much profit Apple is making off of their monitors by having them attached? It is an unholy amount that they could not possibly make if they only charged for what the computer was worth and then separately what the monitor was worth. No way their giving that up without a fight.





    There are lots of won'ts, nevers and can'ts in your post. I agree with much of it but on this point I'd like to comment. What do you suppose it costs Apple to put a 15" LCD on the current iMac? I'd guess about $200. The arm it's hanging on probably costs about $50. Basically all Apple would have to do is remove those two parts and they could sell a headless Mac for $1049 and make the same profit. I bet they'd sell like hotcakes. No, this Mac wouldn't be equal to a Dell with display at the same price but it would be a Mac with which you could use any display for about $1000. That's all we want!
  • Reply 173 of 302
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,292member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iDave

    There are lots of won'ts, nevers and can'ts in your post. I agree with much of it but on this point I'd like to comment. What do you suppose it costs Apple to put a 15" LCD on the current iMac? I'd guess about $200. The arm it's hanging on probably costs about $50. Basically all Apple would have to do is remove those two parts and they could sell a headless Mac for $1049 and make the same profit. I bet they'd sell like hotcakes. No, this Mac wouldn't be equal to a Dell with display at the same price but it would be a Mac with which you could use any display for about $1000. That's all we want!



    Ask yourself a better question. How much is the iMac, as it stands now, is worth without the monitor. The answer has to be, a little less than the low end eMac. Now, do you think for a moment that Apple wants to sell you a headless iMac for what it is really worth? The monitor and the arm allows Apple to claim an incredible mark-up on that product. If, as you suggest, they release such a machine for over a grand, we would all be justifiably screaming that it is still way too expensive. In a sense, it will have gotten more expensive that way. I tell you, they won't do it.



    Here's the problem. Because of the reasons I outlined in my last post, Apple can't and won't build an AIO computer that is worth the asking price. The next generation iMac won't change that. The days of the expensive internet appliance are gone. And the consumer comp specs have gone above what Apple wants to supply and the price has gone lower than what Apple is willing to accept. Therefore, in order for the next iMac to be successful, it will have to offer something more than just mid level computing. It will have to add value some other way. Since it can't double as a gaming machine as PCs do in this range, it will have to double as something else. Perhaps TV/Tivo. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening with SJ at the helm. Perhaps they will bundle it with Airport Express and some type of remote to market it as a home music server. Maybe they will make the head detachable to act as a wireless remote and a way to show iPhotos and iMovies to friends and family. I am not talking about a headless iMac. The head would still be married to the CPU. It could just operate wirelessly for a few hours in picture frame/remote control mode. Perhaps they will not bump the specs dramatically but include a matching iPm with each purchase. Perhaps it will come bundled with some new DLD. My point is that they will have to do something besides stick a G5 in it to make it worth the asking price for consumers. Frankly, adding Media Center functionality would be great in the consumer space. But again, I don't think that will happen.
  • Reply 174 of 302
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Couple of minor points: A headless iMac isn't worth any more than a headless eMac. MacVoyer's points are mostly valid; the bundling is a value-add to Apple. Same thing with the video card argument: the iMac is basically a laptop in a desktop case with no battery.



    On thinking about it, I doubt they can hit the $999 price point. Their volume is too low. What I'd like to see is a machine with a simpler arm that comes with, and is only sold with, a VESA-mount LCD monitor. The VESA-mount monitor is available separately for PowerMac buyers. The 17" widescreen iMac system sells for $1299, the monitor for $399. The $399 price includes a stand. I think this would make people happy because they could take off the monitor later and put a different one on.



    The other minor point is DirectX. DirectX, originally WinG, is an API that MS developed because the graphics support in Windows itself was too slow. They have added more capabilities to it later, while the base capabilities of the Windows API have stayed much the same. This is a bad situation in the long run, because what was originally a temporary kludge just for games has basically split the API. Apple's approach, of supporting OpenGL 2, will benefit the entire industry, even including Microsoft, because down the road they will be able to reunify their API. To make a long story short, don't wish DirectX upon us.
  • Reply 175 of 302
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    Ask yourself a better question. How much is the iMac, as it stands now, is worth without the monitor. The answer has to be, a little less than the low end eMac. Now, do you think for a moment that Apple wants to sell you a headless iMac for what it is really worth? The monitor and the arm allows Apple to claim an incredible mark-up on that product. If, as you suggest, they release such a machine for over a grand, we would all be justifiably screaming that it is still way too expensive. In a sense, it will have gotten more expensive that way. I tell you, they won't do it.



    I'm not convinced. The original iMac came down to well under $1000. The eMac is under $1000. The iBook is $1099, with LCD. Why won't (can't) Apple remove the display from one of them and sell it? I and thousands of others wouldn't be screaming, we'd be buying. A box with the exact same components as the Superdrive eMac, without the CRT, for $999 would be a big hit!
  • Reply 176 of 302
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,292member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iDave

    I'm not convinced. The original iMac came down to well under $1000. The eMac is under $1000. The iBook is $1099, with LCD. Why won't (can't) Apple remove the display from one of them and sell it? I and thousands of others wouldn't be screaming, we'd be buying. A box with the exact same components as the Superdrive eMac, without the CRT, for $999 would be a big hit!



    IDave, I love you man, but you've got to lay off the pipe. Apple already makes an iBook like device that a person is free to add their own monitor to for $1099. IT'S CALLED AN iBook!!! It is totally unacceptable as a modern desktop. There is a reason it is marketed as a kids computer. Today's consumer is a power hungry freak! Apple's own entry level software requires more horsepower than the iMac provides. Go ahead, just try doing something really interesting with GB on an iMac standard config out of the box. It seems as though Tiger is going to need a little more grunt as well. Why would anyone want the headless guts of an iBook for $999 when they can have a complete eMac for $749?



    What Apple has to produce for the consumer desktop, if it is to attract anyone other than frothing at the mouth Mac addicts, is something between the PB and the PM for power. Now just look at how much you have to pay for a 1.5 GHz Mac and tell me how you are going to get something even more powerful in a slightly larger case for $1000 less and include a decent monitor. That would kill too many of their sacred/cash cows. Forget about it. For the next iMac, think value added feature, not competitive, low price.
  • Reply 177 of 302
    concordconcord Posts: 312member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist:

    Apple's approach, of supporting OpenGL 2, will benefit the entire industry, even including Microsoft, because down the road they will be able to reunify their API. To make a long story short, don't wish DirectX upon us.



    I hate to break a lovely theory with the harsh reality of the marketplace but OpenGL is slowly getting supplanted by DirectX. We've already been witnessing it's marginalization in the gaming industry and with Longhorn's UI tied to DirectX - watch it get phased out all the quicker.



    No, if at all possible, Apple should find a way to adopt DirectX - whether you like it or not, it *is* the way of the future.



    Just my 2 bits,



    C.
  • Reply 178 of 302
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    OpenGL will never get supplanted in CAD, which basically guarantees its existence. As long as id's graphics engines continue to be the centre of many games it won't go anywhere from games either.
  • Reply 179 of 302
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,358member
    Good lordy we've been waiting forever to get a finalized OpenGL 2.0. I wonder if Apple is going to have to squeeze it in at the last moment before Tiger ships.
  • Reply 180 of 302
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    They will not make the iMac the single processor PM because they have no intention of keeping the PMs dual. They do an all dual line up under duress when they are in trouble. They do not do it out of principal. They will be back to singles again when they think they have got something big.







    That is preposterous, suicidal, and ridiculous. The entire OS is designed to be used with Dual Processors. All the Pro Applications are designed to take advantage of Dual Processors. WHY? Because it is the PowerMac. The computer that has to compete with the PC's highend offerings. If there were not Dual Processors in the PowerMac lineup AVID would rule the roost in video editing. Shake would not sell a single license, and there would be no more PowerMac purchases from anybody in video production, or anybody wanting to play games, or do anything that required a highend tower.

    Nobody serious would bother with Apple computers at all. None of the Apple pro applications would be attractive at all because everybody could get 3X+ the performance out of a PC app using an x86 Dual, or Quad XEON, or Dual or Quad Opteron 64 Processors. What would apple rely on? They would be a bigger joke than they have ever been in their entire history.

    Once your pro lineup is a joke your a laughing stock, and the rest of your computers go straight down he tubes with it. Word of mouth would be "Apple is SLOW!" Nobody will buy "SLOW."

    Right now Apple is pending, and waiting like everybody else, and they are not stupid enough to go single CPU in their Pro lineup. You would have to be seriously brain dead to do that. Do you think dual core processors is an IBM exclusive? AMD has already tapped out their dual core design, and intel is going to be using dual cores as well. You can bet you mother they will both have Dual Processor Motherboards when it's done, and everybody is fighting to stay alive. So if you think Apple totally re-designed their OS from OS9 to a Unix 64-bit SMP OS just to make single processor iMacs to run unix while they let their professional machines go straight down the tubes your out of your mind.
Sign In or Register to comment.