Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
I agree with you (sure, $100 off would be nice.... but not really necessary). The only thing that I would strongly suggest to Apple about their eMac line is increase the RAM. Stock out of the box, it runs sluggish at best. Make it stock 512MB, and it will be worth every penny.
For those of you who do not like the design, think its ugly, or that it is going to die off: This machine rocks!! It is a perfect fit for a family who likes to use the Internet, do email, do photos and play music. I also like games, and with 512 - 768MB of RAM, it is an absolute pleasure to be on.
I am still using an eMac 700 for programming cocoa apps. It is a loaner from work until my dual 2.5 arrives. Its a great machine. I'm currently running 512mb of ram and its running fine. I can do any cocoa stuff. It is a little sluggish in photoshop... but what do you expect.
I'll second its an awesome computer for schools and any joe user at home that just does the basics. Obviously the newer ones are much faster. For 739 (student discount) it is an excellent package.
Nice one Matsu!, no need to produce a completely seperate machine - I think that a 20" model should be included, since the corporation gets better gross profits on these bundles.
I hope this might improve the battle against Dull for edu marketshare?. Although, ive always been a PB purchaser - i have to get a second machine for iLife stuff - now that the iMac is going G5 and alu - that will be my cue!
Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
Because edu administrators can get fast LCD Dull's for less money that's why, nobody disputes the eMac is great value, the problem is that time does not stand still and its time to move on.
As has been discussed, Apple will NEED to provide LCD machines at this price point or else. So why produce two different for factors?, use as many common parts as possible to maintain margins.
My only concern is that eMacs are very heavy (to steal) and sturdy which edu like - so will Apple hedge its bets, well see.
I think Apple knows its not hitting the market with iMac and Emac so be prepared to see 2 new models. how and what they do is anybody's guess but 15 inch lcd panels have gotten pretty cheap. I think it would be very easy to remove the crt and insert a 15" lcd with smaller case. It also looks like apple is commited to the G5 with its G5 imac announcement so perhaps a very turned down version of the G5 in a Emac in the next few months? remember the 970fx is cheaper almost twice as many chips per wafer compared to stagarola's G4. G4 is almost dead. by this time next year the only G4 you will see may be in ibook.
With the iMac moving to G5s the first question to ask will be if Apple is moving a lot of the PM technology over to it? Fast FSB, SATA HDs, faster memory, etc. Then ask about the costs of this technology.
I'm sitting here waiting to buy a new iMac on Day 1 and my thinking is that I want as much from the PM as possible because I want to use it for a long time. As one who wants Apple to push the limits on the new iMac I'm also prepared to pay more for it.
That's the choice as I see it - cut costs (meaning cheaper components) or maximize performance. It's a harder choice than you think as Apple not only wants to sell a lot of computers in the lower end, but also wants to address the market that is willing to pay $2,000+ if the specs are there.
In terms of the eMac, I don't think that Apple will address this issue as long as G5 chips are in short supply. When they have a sufficient supply to address it then I think they may move the eMac to the G5. Why allocate talented manpower and money to reengineer the eMac for a chip that is probably on the way out?
That brings up another interesting question. If, a year form now, you could get a very well speced 1.8 G5 eMac (with lots of PM technology) for $899 would you would you be willing to live with the AIO CRT? Or would you rather spend a few hundred more for an iMac with a panel?
I still love CRTs more than LCDs. I will for a long time... probably until the quality is identical. But putting a g5 behind a CRT seems like putting a jetrocket in a tri-cycle. It doesn't make any sense for education buyers and home buyers. They don't need it RIGHT NOW or with in the NEXT few years. At WWDC jobs and all of the sessions there stressed how they are going to focus on the gpu to do a lot more processing and turn the CPU into a traffic control. If anything I vote to put a nice GPU in it instead of a g5 for now. When a majority of apps are 64bit and g5s are in supply (lower costs) then put a g5 in it.
Remember though, that the eMac is in decreasing supply as well.
It could be that Apple timed it better in the case of the eMac, and that the iMac was first to debut at a slight premium, and then drop in price three months later.
999 is the stated "sweet spot" for a consumer machine. Is that consumer machine really, truly and honestly, intended to be the eMac?
The eMac doesn't have that much life left in it as a CRT based AIO, not at 999. Machines of that price now sport 15" LCD's, at a minimum.
Also, the original intent of the iMac, was to get the entry to 999, but it was to difficult for them to do -- price actually went up. That's the real reason the eMac exists, price, the edu argument is just bunk, edu is code for price. It's a very price sensitive market, education.
So if the iMac entry hits 999, which it should given that the supposed cost of the G5 over a G4 is negligible, whither the eMac?
I'd take an eMac for 599, and there are ways to option an edu only model in that way. Afterall, labs don't need more than a read only optical, or none at all, really, and the smallest capacity HDD will do.
However, I don't see consumers buying 799-999 eMacs when an iMac can and should be available at 999, with a G5.
Remember, the cost is not in the chip, and iMacs will have cheaper integrated graphics, and not quite the same bus or I/O subsystems as a powermac. The whole purpose of crafting an iMac motherboard is to get the cost down, within the reliability, quality, and performance parameters that Apple finds acceptable for the brand.
I still love CRTs more than LCDs. I will for a long time... probably until the quality is identical. But putting a g5 behind a CRT seems like putting a jetrocket in a tri-cycle. It doesn't make any sense for education buyers and home buyers. They don't need it RIGHT NOW or with in the NEXT few years. At WWDC jobs and all of the sessions there stressed how they are going to focus on the gpu to do a lot more processing and turn the CPU into a traffic control. If anything I vote to put a nice GPU in it instead of a g5 for now. When a majority of apps are 64bit and g5s are in supply (lower costs) then put a g5 in it.
the G5 isnt simply about clockspeed. it removes many of the bottlenecks and limitations G4 based systems have.
It's crucial that Apple moved forward with the G5 and its successors. The G4 is too restricting.
I agree completely.... but it is a little early to be sticking a g5 in an eMac when the Powerbooks don't even have one yet. I konw I know, apples and oranges.
Even though, another year or so I can imagine a g5 in an eMac with a CRT... I would buy one for someone in my family for sure. But right now I think the ultimate goal should be to get the cost of the eMac as far as apple can. This will entice switchers if all they are looking for is a cheap, stable, ipod x-ferrin machine. The g4 isn't that bad... for the eMac or iBooks. The g4 does have some life in it..... IF THEY WOULD ADD THE DAMN L3 CACHE BACK ON!!!!! I don't know why they insist on keeping this off. The powermac g4 is gone... put it in the eMac, ibook, powerbook and let it breathe. Doesn't make sense to me.
The main point I was trying to make but didn't cause I was in la-la land... was to drive down the price of the eMac... if they stick a g5 in it at this point.... that won't happen... price would probably go up.
However, I don't see consumers buying 799-999 eMacs when an iMac can and should be available at 999, with a G5.
Why not keep the eMac for special edu orders only, not available to public?, whereby, the imac G5 starts at the $999 price and no one will really care about the emac because it will keep the G4 and is acceptable for edu at around $700.
Just a footnote on cube history. The cube only sold at the end of it's life, as it was being cleared out, by that time it was damaged goods -- viewed as too expensive and/or outdated. But still, when the price came down, they sold out quickly. Had Apple debuted the cube at anything approaching a respectable price, they would have had a runaway hit.
The g4 does have some life in it..... IF THEY WOULD ADD THE DAMN L3 CACHE BACK ON!!!!! I don't know why they insist on keeping this off. The powermac g4 is gone... put it in the eMac, ibook, powerbook and let it breathe. Doesn't make sense to me.
The L3 cache memory is very expensive. More likely we'll see a new G4 variant on 90 nm with more L2 cache on-chip, which is much better and cheaper.
L3 cache gives you a 1%-5% boost, according to tests done by third-party CPU upgrade companies, with the median falling around 2%. A decent sized L3 cache also costs as much as the CPU. It's just not worth it.
I actually agree with Matsu's last couple of posts, except for his continued refusal to understand that education wanted the eMac for exactly the same reason that education has always wanted a giant, heavy, kid-proof monolith from Apple (just look at Apple's education machines, historically). Apart from that, though, he's dead on: the eMac was never intended to be the consumer machine sitting at the "sweet spot." The iMac was supposed to be there, but the current design never got cheap enough for whatever reason. I believe Apple very much wants the iMac there, and the eMac back to being a low-end consumer and education machine if it continues at all.
Fortunately, the upgrade path for the eMac looks pretty good: Freescale is making noises about the last G4 — the 7448 — flirting with 2GHz. If it gets there by being fabbed on 90nm, it should be nice and cheap, and (again, according to the upgrade companies) it's pin-compatible with the other 745x G4s, so no motherboard changes are needed to accommodate it. I can see Apple dropping the SuperDrive model to $899 as a consumer machine, and selling it even cheaper (and without SuperDrive) to education while the new iMac takes over as the primary consumer machine, priced accordingly.
My bet is that if Apple isn't going to its biggest edu customers and showing them prototype iMacs, they will be shortly. How the edu customers react to the new iMac will most likely determine the fate of the eMac. However, I hope that Apple keeps selling it. It'll only get cheaper to make, and they should be able to drive the price down still further before it sails off into the sunset. Even if it's not the biggest seller, it'll do OK, and it'll get people in the door with the promise of, say, a $699 complete system. 180,000 units isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's a strong enough showing to keep it alive. (The Cube sold approximately 12,000 units in its last quarter.)
As for the argument that the iMac can be made edu-ready by reinforcing the screen with glass: 1) glass has well-known optical effects; how do you deal with them cheaply? 2) the arm is still an open invitation to bored or restless children to wreak havoc.
Considering the machine that the emac is, it should sell in two models -
499 - combo
699 - superdrive
The superdrive model should get some more memory as well, dvd writers are hitting $80.
CPU, memory and HD should be competitive with what Dell/Gateway are shipping, 128/40 on the low end, 256/80 on the high end.
The key thing they have to do is cut out the free shipping on these machines, I got free two day shipping to hawaii with my emac. Im sure they could cut some other corners as well, like the modem ( make it bto ).
I actually agree with Matsu's last couple of posts, except for his continued refusal to understand that education wanted the eMac for exactly the same reason that education has always wanted a giant, heavy, kid-proof monolith from Apple (just look at Apple's education machines, historically).
I think it's possible that schools were used to having big monolithiv computers from Apple. However, I don't believe the LCD was considered a liability for long. Apple's sold a number of iBooks, all with LCD's, and I see no shortage of Dell LCD systems. I can agree that the Arm is an invitation to border students. In the past I suggested fixing it by keeping the dome and LCD, but replacing the Arm with a fixed unit (for edu only). It's pretty clear from the design of the eMac that it was the 17" CRT iMac G4 that Apple just never offer when the poor old original gumdrop was getting real old. A good bet, is it got designed mid way through the gumdrop's life, was on hold at various points for a number of reasons. G4 availibility, and the cost of phasing out the gumdrop. Apple has always been stingy with the AIO screens, whether that be the fuzz-ball CRT of the original, the moire riddled non-trinitron of the eMac, or the chronically undersized TFT's of the sunflower. (chronically undersized for the price *15 and 17* inch models, even the studio displays at these sizes have been way too expensive). In any case, they had this 17" CRT iMac design sitting around -- you know it, the shape screams 17" ASD -- and a problem with the new iMac's cost. It was a simple rebrand, a vowel swap if you will, and thus the eMac was born. Guaranteed, G-d's honest truth.
Quote:
Apart from that, though, he's dead on: the eMac was never intended to be the consumer machine sitting at the "sweet spot." The iMac was supposed to be there, but the current design never got cheap enough for whatever reason. I believe Apple very much wants the iMac there, and the eMac back to being a low-end consumer and education machine if it continues at all.
IIRC, when the eMac's first 1 and 1.25Ghz revsions arrived, some of the older 800Mhz and 1Ghz models were kept around for edu only purposes. I recal a colleague buying some for a local school. Apple still sells a 1Ghz *NO-OPTICAL* option for 799 Canadian, or read only for 875. About 599 in US terms.
Quote:
Fortunately, the upgrade path for the eMac looks pretty good: Freescale is making noises about the last G4 — the 7448 — flirting with 2GHz. If it gets there by being fabbed on 90nm, it should be nice and cheap, and (again, according to the upgrade companies) it's pin-compatible with the other 745x G4s, so no motherboard changes are needed to accommodate it. I can see Apple dropping the SuperDrive model to $899 as a consumer machine, and selling it even cheaper (and without SuperDrive) to education while the new iMac takes over as the primary consumer machine, priced accordingly.
Those should be sweet, but the prices have to be lower, we know from the edu only models that the threshold can fall quite a bit. Superdrives are gettin' real cheap now too, and GPU/I-O subsystem upgrades aren't needed for that model.
Quote:
My bet is that if Apple isn't going to its biggest edu customers and showing them prototype iMacs, they will be shortly. How the edu customers react to the new iMac will most likely determine the fate of the eMac.
No doubt. And taken with the bit above, we will also find out whether a Powerbook G5 is coming down the pipe once we get a look at that new iMac. A 1.8-2Ghz G4 wil be a pretty good performer for the price, especially die shrunk. If the FSB is improved, even slightly, it will probably shore the portables up untill the E-series chips show. Now, depending on the iMac, which will give us the best indication of whether Apple can get a G5 into any 'book, we'll know whether freescale has time or if IAM will end up in pbooks. Back to the issue of eMac's -- I hope Apple keeps driving the price down on it and selling it. I've often thought that the gumdrop could have been retired to a nice little appliance at 500USD a pop. I'd probably have a couple lying around the house right now, as cash registers for a store concept I'm developing, etc etc...
Quote:
However, I hope that Apple keeps selling it. It'll only get cheaper to make, and they should be able to drive the price down still further before it sails off into the sunset. Even if it's not the biggest seller, it'll do OK, and it'll get people in the door with the promise of, say, a $699 complete system. 180,000 units isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's a strong enough showing to keep it alive. (The Cube sold approximately 12,000 units in its last quarter.)
The cube sales numbers for the quarter don't indicate much. It was price dropped at the end and they all but disappeared from any retailer that had them at a decent price -- some stubbornly kept them at high prices, like my campus store at the time, before finally giving in, or some manager takinbg them home. Some time before all that production had been scaled back and finaly halted. You can't get a good read on what a 1K-1299 cube might have sold.
Quote:
As for the argument that the iMac can be made edu-ready by reinforcing the screen with glass: 1) glass has well-known optical effects; how do you deal with them cheaply? 2) the arm is still an open invitation to bored or restless children to wreak havoc.
Come to think of it there's no need to re-inforce. The arm could have been deleted in place of a fixed stay, but it's obvious the problems in price were not that simple.
And now my own thoughs.
I just walked out of the store the other day with a very nice 19" Princeton LCD. 1280x1024, 700:1 contrast; 25ms response; 300 Cd/m^2 for 699 Canadian. It's got dual DVI-Digital and VGA inputs. I'm using it on the old PC right now. I had one like this at work and loved it. It's as much real estate as the typical 17, and actually an insignificant bit more than a widescreen 17, but it's the extra size that makes it so nice. I sit way back, so comfortable. Lovely. That's 500-550 USD depending on exchange.
If Apple doesn't want to sell a competitive LCD, I don't care. Apple makes great LCD's, the 20-23-30 are amazing, but right out of this league. A 20" offers 1" more diagnal size, a wide screen, and 1680x1050, but it costs almost 3X more, and lacks analogue input. The Apple display is almost worth it too, I'm not talking about that aspect, just that there's nothing for this market. The 17" doesn't compare, and still costs 300 Canadian more than my 19"
Right now, the 19 is on my PC, via DVI. I'll occasionally use it on my PB (via VGA). Apple could take some of the resources they've put into making various AIO concepts and make me a headless machine for 1K. Give me a slightly faster system with a little internal expansion (say room for a 2nd internal HDD) and Gfx card swap. Give it to me for 1K, and I'll look after the display myself.
Yes l3 cache is very expensive... and it doesn't have much of an effect when there isn't a lot of transferring between IO and the cpu. But when the bus speed of a g4 mobo is 167 or 133 in most cases... the l3 cache makes a HUGE difference. Yes l2 would be much better and I would feel fine if they upped the l2 cache to a meg. What is it now 256k? Doesn't make sense to me.
I noticed a HUGE difference between my 733 quicksilver (no l3 cache) and the 733 gigabit (l3 cache (1mb)). When it came to cinema and photoshop the quicksilver was almost an unworkable environment. Only thing I could ever get away using it for was programming. And forget about Final Cut Pro and Garage Band. Where those apps ran like champions on the gigabit. Btw my quicksilver had 1.5gigs of ram. That l3 cache made a HUGE difference. Explain that to me. It was far from a 2-5% increase in speed.
What is everyone talking about? Getting rid of the eMac,
pssstt!! I have an eMac and i could have easily purchased an iMac at the time but did not because the iMac just did not appeal to me. First off, to give the iMac such a small footprint Apple uses SODIMM memory instead of regular DIMMs. This is the same memory used in laptops and as such it is more expensive. Secondly, IMO LCDs still dont measure up to the CRT in the area of frame rate(crucial in games and video) and the ability to change the resolution of the screen(yeah u can change the resolution but who wants to look at a monitor where half the screen,more or less, is black). Again this is just my opinion8)
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
The eMac may have to come down to 599 to get anyone to look at it.
Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
Originally posted by jouster
Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
I agree with you (sure, $100 off would be nice.... but not really necessary). The only thing that I would strongly suggest to Apple about their eMac line is increase the RAM. Stock out of the box, it runs sluggish at best. Make it stock 512MB, and it will be worth every penny.
For those of you who do not like the design, think its ugly, or that it is going to die off: This machine rocks!! It is a perfect fit for a family who likes to use the Internet, do email, do photos and play music. I also like games, and with 512 - 768MB of RAM, it is an absolute pleasure to be on.
I am still using an eMac 700 for programming cocoa apps. It is a loaner from work until my dual 2.5 arrives. Its a great machine. I'm currently running 512mb of ram and its running fine. I can do any cocoa stuff. It is a little sluggish in photoshop... but what do you expect.
I'll second its an awesome computer for schools and any joe user at home that just does the basics. Obviously the newer ones are much faster. For 739 (student discount) it is an excellent package.
I hope this might improve the battle against Dull for edu marketshare?. Although, ive always been a PB purchaser - i have to get a second machine for iLife stuff - now that the iMac is going G5 and alu - that will be my cue!
Originally posted by jouster
Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
Because edu administrators can get fast LCD Dull's for less money that's why, nobody disputes the eMac is great value, the problem is that time does not stand still and its time to move on.
As has been discussed, Apple will NEED to provide LCD machines at this price point or else. So why produce two different for factors?, use as many common parts as possible to maintain margins.
My only concern is that eMacs are very heavy (to steal) and sturdy which edu like - so will Apple hedge its bets, well see.
Originally posted by jouster
Well, it just came off a terrific quarter. Why would Apple mess with it after 180,000 sales?
180,000 isn't terrific. i think that's quite sad for a product that is the most affordable and aimed at the home market and for mass education sales.
I'm sitting here waiting to buy a new iMac on Day 1 and my thinking is that I want as much from the PM as possible because I want to use it for a long time. As one who wants Apple to push the limits on the new iMac I'm also prepared to pay more for it.
That's the choice as I see it - cut costs (meaning cheaper components) or maximize performance. It's a harder choice than you think as Apple not only wants to sell a lot of computers in the lower end, but also wants to address the market that is willing to pay $2,000+ if the specs are there.
In terms of the eMac, I don't think that Apple will address this issue as long as G5 chips are in short supply. When they have a sufficient supply to address it then I think they may move the eMac to the G5. Why allocate talented manpower and money to reengineer the eMac for a chip that is probably on the way out?
That brings up another interesting question. If, a year form now, you could get a very well speced 1.8 G5 eMac (with lots of PM technology) for $899 would you would you be willing to live with the AIO CRT? Or would you rather spend a few hundred more for an iMac with a panel?
It could be that Apple timed it better in the case of the eMac, and that the iMac was first to debut at a slight premium, and then drop in price three months later.
999 is the stated "sweet spot" for a consumer machine. Is that consumer machine really, truly and honestly, intended to be the eMac?
The eMac doesn't have that much life left in it as a CRT based AIO, not at 999. Machines of that price now sport 15" LCD's, at a minimum.
Also, the original intent of the iMac, was to get the entry to 999, but it was to difficult for them to do -- price actually went up. That's the real reason the eMac exists, price, the edu argument is just bunk, edu is code for price. It's a very price sensitive market, education.
So if the iMac entry hits 999, which it should given that the supposed cost of the G5 over a G4 is negligible, whither the eMac?
I'd take an eMac for 599, and there are ways to option an edu only model in that way. Afterall, labs don't need more than a read only optical, or none at all, really, and the smallest capacity HDD will do.
However, I don't see consumers buying 799-999 eMacs when an iMac can and should be available at 999, with a G5.
Remember, the cost is not in the chip, and iMacs will have cheaper integrated graphics, and not quite the same bus or I/O subsystems as a powermac. The whole purpose of crafting an iMac motherboard is to get the cost down, within the reliability, quality, and performance parameters that Apple finds acceptable for the brand.
Originally posted by emig647
I still love CRTs more than LCDs. I will for a long time... probably until the quality is identical. But putting a g5 behind a CRT seems like putting a jetrocket in a tri-cycle. It doesn't make any sense for education buyers and home buyers. They don't need it RIGHT NOW or with in the NEXT few years. At WWDC jobs and all of the sessions there stressed how they are going to focus on the gpu to do a lot more processing and turn the CPU into a traffic control. If anything I vote to put a nice GPU in it instead of a g5 for now. When a majority of apps are 64bit and g5s are in supply (lower costs) then put a g5 in it.
the G5 isnt simply about clockspeed. it removes many of the bottlenecks and limitations G4 based systems have.
It's crucial that Apple moved forward with the G5 and its successors. The G4 is too restricting.
Even though, another year or so I can imagine a g5 in an eMac with a CRT... I would buy one for someone in my family for sure. But right now I think the ultimate goal should be to get the cost of the eMac as far as apple can. This will entice switchers if all they are looking for is a cheap, stable, ipod x-ferrin machine. The g4 isn't that bad... for the eMac or iBooks. The g4 does have some life in it..... IF THEY WOULD ADD THE DAMN L3 CACHE BACK ON!!!!! I don't know why they insist on keeping this off. The powermac g4 is gone... put it in the eMac, ibook, powerbook and let it breathe. Doesn't make sense to me.
The main point I was trying to make but didn't cause I was in la-la land... was to drive down the price of the eMac... if they stick a g5 in it at this point.... that won't happen... price would probably go up.
Originally posted by Matsu
However, I don't see consumers buying 799-999 eMacs when an iMac can and should be available at 999, with a G5.
Why not keep the eMac for special edu orders only, not available to public?, whereby, the imac G5 starts at the $999 price and no one will really care about the emac because it will keep the G4 and is acceptable for edu at around $700.
Just a thought
Originally posted by emig647
The g4 does have some life in it..... IF THEY WOULD ADD THE DAMN L3 CACHE BACK ON!!!!! I don't know why they insist on keeping this off. The powermac g4 is gone... put it in the eMac, ibook, powerbook and let it breathe. Doesn't make sense to me.
The L3 cache memory is very expensive. More likely we'll see a new G4 variant on 90 nm with more L2 cache on-chip, which is much better and cheaper.
I actually agree with Matsu's last couple of posts, except for his continued refusal to understand that education wanted the eMac for exactly the same reason that education has always wanted a giant, heavy, kid-proof monolith from Apple (just look at Apple's education machines, historically). Apart from that, though, he's dead on: the eMac was never intended to be the consumer machine sitting at the "sweet spot." The iMac was supposed to be there, but the current design never got cheap enough for whatever reason. I believe Apple very much wants the iMac there, and the eMac back to being a low-end consumer and education machine if it continues at all.
Fortunately, the upgrade path for the eMac looks pretty good: Freescale is making noises about the last G4 — the 7448 — flirting with 2GHz. If it gets there by being fabbed on 90nm, it should be nice and cheap, and (again, according to the upgrade companies) it's pin-compatible with the other 745x G4s, so no motherboard changes are needed to accommodate it. I can see Apple dropping the SuperDrive model to $899 as a consumer machine, and selling it even cheaper (and without SuperDrive) to education while the new iMac takes over as the primary consumer machine, priced accordingly.
My bet is that if Apple isn't going to its biggest edu customers and showing them prototype iMacs, they will be shortly. How the edu customers react to the new iMac will most likely determine the fate of the eMac. However, I hope that Apple keeps selling it. It'll only get cheaper to make, and they should be able to drive the price down still further before it sails off into the sunset. Even if it's not the biggest seller, it'll do OK, and it'll get people in the door with the promise of, say, a $699 complete system. 180,000 units isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's a strong enough showing to keep it alive. (The Cube sold approximately 12,000 units in its last quarter.)
As for the argument that the iMac can be made edu-ready by reinforcing the screen with glass: 1) glass has well-known optical effects; how do you deal with them cheaply? 2) the arm is still an open invitation to bored or restless children to wreak havoc.
499 - combo
699 - superdrive
The superdrive model should get some more memory as well, dvd writers are hitting $80.
CPU, memory and HD should be competitive with what Dell/Gateway are shipping, 128/40 on the low end, 256/80 on the high end.
The key thing they have to do is cut out the free shipping on these machines, I got free two day shipping to hawaii with my emac. Im sure they could cut some other corners as well, like the modem ( make it bto ).
Originally posted by Amorph
I actually agree with Matsu's last couple of posts, except for his continued refusal to understand that education wanted the eMac for exactly the same reason that education has always wanted a giant, heavy, kid-proof monolith from Apple (just look at Apple's education machines, historically).
I think it's possible that schools were used to having big monolithiv computers from Apple. However, I don't believe the LCD was considered a liability for long. Apple's sold a number of iBooks, all with LCD's, and I see no shortage of Dell LCD systems. I can agree that the Arm is an invitation to border students. In the past I suggested fixing it by keeping the dome and LCD, but replacing the Arm with a fixed unit (for edu only). It's pretty clear from the design of the eMac that it was the 17" CRT iMac G4 that Apple just never offer when the poor old original gumdrop was getting real old. A good bet, is it got designed mid way through the gumdrop's life, was on hold at various points for a number of reasons. G4 availibility, and the cost of phasing out the gumdrop. Apple has always been stingy with the AIO screens, whether that be the fuzz-ball CRT of the original, the moire riddled non-trinitron of the eMac, or the chronically undersized TFT's of the sunflower. (chronically undersized for the price *15 and 17* inch models, even the studio displays at these sizes have been way too expensive). In any case, they had this 17" CRT iMac design sitting around -- you know it, the shape screams 17" ASD -- and a problem with the new iMac's cost. It was a simple rebrand, a vowel swap if you will, and thus the eMac was born. Guaranteed, G-d's honest truth.
Quote:
Apart from that, though, he's dead on: the eMac was never intended to be the consumer machine sitting at the "sweet spot." The iMac was supposed to be there, but the current design never got cheap enough for whatever reason. I believe Apple very much wants the iMac there, and the eMac back to being a low-end consumer and education machine if it continues at all.
IIRC, when the eMac's first 1 and 1.25Ghz revsions arrived, some of the older 800Mhz and 1Ghz models were kept around for edu only purposes. I recal a colleague buying some for a local school. Apple still sells a 1Ghz *NO-OPTICAL* option for 799 Canadian, or read only for 875. About 599 in US terms.
Quote:
Fortunately, the upgrade path for the eMac looks pretty good: Freescale is making noises about the last G4 — the 7448 — flirting with 2GHz. If it gets there by being fabbed on 90nm, it should be nice and cheap, and (again, according to the upgrade companies) it's pin-compatible with the other 745x G4s, so no motherboard changes are needed to accommodate it. I can see Apple dropping the SuperDrive model to $899 as a consumer machine, and selling it even cheaper (and without SuperDrive) to education while the new iMac takes over as the primary consumer machine, priced accordingly.
Those should be sweet, but the prices have to be lower, we know from the edu only models that the threshold can fall quite a bit. Superdrives are gettin' real cheap now too, and GPU/I-O subsystem upgrades aren't needed for that model.
Quote:
My bet is that if Apple isn't going to its biggest edu customers and showing them prototype iMacs, they will be shortly. How the edu customers react to the new iMac will most likely determine the fate of the eMac.
No doubt. And taken with the bit above, we will also find out whether a Powerbook G5 is coming down the pipe once we get a look at that new iMac. A 1.8-2Ghz G4 wil be a pretty good performer for the price, especially die shrunk. If the FSB is improved, even slightly, it will probably shore the portables up untill the E-series chips show. Now, depending on the iMac, which will give us the best indication of whether Apple can get a G5 into any 'book, we'll know whether freescale has time or if IAM will end up in pbooks. Back to the issue of eMac's -- I hope Apple keeps driving the price down on it and selling it. I've often thought that the gumdrop could have been retired to a nice little appliance at 500USD a pop. I'd probably have a couple lying around the house right now, as cash registers for a store concept I'm developing, etc etc...
Quote:
However, I hope that Apple keeps selling it. It'll only get cheaper to make, and they should be able to drive the price down still further before it sails off into the sunset. Even if it's not the biggest seller, it'll do OK, and it'll get people in the door with the promise of, say, a $699 complete system. 180,000 units isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's a strong enough showing to keep it alive. (The Cube sold approximately 12,000 units in its last quarter.)
The cube sales numbers for the quarter don't indicate much. It was price dropped at the end and they all but disappeared from any retailer that had them at a decent price -- some stubbornly kept them at high prices, like my campus store at the time, before finally giving in, or some manager takinbg them home. Some time before all that production had been scaled back and finaly halted. You can't get a good read on what a 1K-1299 cube might have sold.
Quote:
As for the argument that the iMac can be made edu-ready by reinforcing the screen with glass: 1) glass has well-known optical effects; how do you deal with them cheaply? 2) the arm is still an open invitation to bored or restless children to wreak havoc.
Come to think of it there's no need to re-inforce. The arm could have been deleted in place of a fixed stay, but it's obvious the problems in price were not that simple.
And now my own thoughs.
I just walked out of the store the other day with a very nice 19" Princeton LCD. 1280x1024, 700:1 contrast; 25ms response; 300 Cd/m^2 for 699 Canadian. It's got dual DVI-Digital and VGA inputs. I'm using it on the old PC right now. I had one like this at work and loved it. It's as much real estate as the typical 17, and actually an insignificant bit more than a widescreen 17, but it's the extra size that makes it so nice. I sit way back, so comfortable. Lovely. That's 500-550 USD depending on exchange.
If Apple doesn't want to sell a competitive LCD, I don't care. Apple makes great LCD's, the 20-23-30 are amazing, but right out of this league. A 20" offers 1" more diagnal size, a wide screen, and 1680x1050, but it costs almost 3X more, and lacks analogue input. The Apple display is almost worth it too, I'm not talking about that aspect, just that there's nothing for this market. The 17" doesn't compare, and still costs 300 Canadian more than my 19"
Right now, the 19 is on my PC, via DVI. I'll occasionally use it on my PB (via VGA). Apple could take some of the resources they've put into making various AIO concepts and make me a headless machine for 1K. Give me a slightly faster system with a little internal expansion (say room for a 2nd internal HDD) and Gfx card swap. Give it to me for 1K, and I'll look after the display myself.
I noticed a HUGE difference between my 733 quicksilver (no l3 cache) and the 733 gigabit (l3 cache (1mb)). When it came to cinema and photoshop the quicksilver was almost an unworkable environment. Only thing I could ever get away using it for was programming. And forget about Final Cut Pro and Garage Band. Where those apps ran like champions on the gigabit. Btw my quicksilver had 1.5gigs of ram. That l3 cache made a HUGE difference. Explain that to me. It was far from a 2-5% increase in speed.
pssstt!! I have an eMac and i could have easily purchased an iMac at the time but did not because the iMac just did not appeal to me. First off, to give the iMac such a small footprint Apple uses SODIMM memory instead of regular DIMMs. This is the same memory used in laptops and as such it is more expensive. Secondly, IMO LCDs still dont measure up to the CRT in the area of frame rate(crucial in games and video) and the ability to change the resolution of the screen(yeah u can change the resolution but who wants to look at a monitor where half the screen,more or less, is black). Again this is just my opinion8)