As I've said before, Apple isn't in the business of selling computers as much as it's in the business of selling a bunch of components.
Apple have a habit of making you shell out for high mark-up components by bundling them on the back of a feature you can't live without.
With the iMac range, the main differentation is the screen size. If Apple follow their current form, they'll force you to take the huge hard disk, memory, speakers, and the whole shooting match if you want that 20" screen. You try going to the AppleStore and downgrading the memory or video card on the top of the range G5, and see how far you get.
That's why I doubt that the only difference between the two top end models is the size of the hard disk. They wouldn't sell many of the top end machines. Perhaps the 1.8GHz processor is only available in one of the 20" machines?
The other thing that got me thinking was also to do with the screen sizes. If all the gubbins are attached to the back of the screen, then that means that the 17" and 20" models would require different backs.
From a manufacturing standpoint, this doesn't make sense. It's a loss of commonality, and therefore a loss of profit margin. Surely you would manufacture a single size of "backplate", and then attach that to whichever size of screen is in demand. That would keep your options open and offer a degree of flexibility for demand.
What happens when you manufacture to many of the 17" backplates and everybody's buying the 20"? Do you strip all the parts out again and build up the 20" version. Or do you stop production of the 17"s until your surplus has disappeared?
What happens when you manufacture to many of the 17" backplates and everybody's buying the 20"?
Nobody has the answer to that yet. But if the past is any indication, Apple will come up with a clever way to work around that. Don't forget that Apple has Jonathan Ives.
Using currency convertor, I'm getting £713 ish with a high end price of £1209. If that included VAT and Apple's 'not in America' pricing (which I doubt) then I'd say, 'Okay.'
Add on Apple's United Kingdom tax and you've got £999?
I'd like to see it cheaper.
Unless the edu' price is circa £795.
The 'high end' model comes in at a reasonable £1200. Add Vat and the rest of the world sales tax and you've got £1595?
You've got a G5 strapped into a barebones £400 Wintel computer. An Apple 20 inch monitor and Apple's margin make up the rest.
In fact, Apple's profit in these computers is all in the monitors. Nah, knowing Apple, they've got a stiff mark up on the ancient Nvidia MX4 card. It'll do for Education. Wonder what price it will be?
So, eh, why wouldn't you go for a dual 1.8 G5? Because you like buying machines with 256 megs of ram and a feeble graphics card?
Apple seem to be stuck on the 'peach melba' moment with regard AIOs.
Hmm.
I await confirmation on UK vat inclusive prices. Initially, from a UK perspective, it seems like they have moved the prices down to the old iMac price range. That would be good.
I'm still struggling to see why you'd buy a top end iMac over a Powerbook 17 inch. Bar 3 inches? Just how much faster is the 1.8 G5 than a 1.5 G4? Erhmmmm. Hmm.
No 2 gig and Radeon 9700 at the top end? Yeesh.
I'm beginning to grumble...I'm feeling whiny all over again...
I only hope the Think Secret report is not accurate. Unfortunately, they have a pretty good record on such things.
I would not be surprised if the report was proved true, as I am not expecting much more from Apple in this sector. But a Geforce 5200 with 64 MB VRAM in the highest end of the line, is not fun anymore. Apparently: either Apple are trying to protect their margins by adopting methods that, eventually, would cost them much in the long term (Cube? iMac2?), or they are not anymore interested seriously in the consumer market.
And why not a 2 GHz iMac? Is it an G5-yield or decision issue? A 2 GHz G5 iMac would not harm the Power Mac line, which is now all dual and can have much stronger graphics, and other hardware, options. Really, I don't understand.
1299 and a 1.6Ghz G5 which we know is only marginally better than the fastest G4.
1299 and fixed 17" screen.
1299 and no internal expansion/upgradability
1299 and an absolutely anemic 256MB of base ram
1299 and a pitiful 64MB of VRAM
1299 and a stingy 80GB HDD
Fvck, that's a seriously weak misguided new product. When is Apple going to understand that disposable computer needs a more affordable price? All they've done is create another boutique computer. They forced you to take the bundled display, and haven't offered any sort of deal on it. WHat's more they've anchored it so that you can't ever do anything about it.
There is no smilie that makes for an adequate reply to the priceland fantasy in which Jobs operates. Maybe they pulled out the last of his sense along with that tumor.
I really hope that's not true, because this things won't sell, sorry
preety much for the sme reason that the iMac 2 didn't sell, price range, yes they might be what they are worth, and you can't set up a similar PC at a lower price, but people won't buy compters at this prices this days
as for the design, it sucks, and it's not my opnion, just hear what Jobs had to say in the iMac 2 launch, about simply putting the motherboard behind the screen
anyway I hope Think Secret are wrong on this one, or this is truly bad news for Apple
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If true, this is terrible, and I can't imagine one person in the whole, wide world that I can recommend this box to.
Apple hasn't released this thing yet, so we shouldn't be getting ourselves into a twist, but if the news turns out to be true, Apple hasn't learned a damn thing from the past few years. Just slapping a G5 into it isn't going to make it a significantly better product than what it is currently; the other components have to be just as good.
Golden rule: The real specs are never better than those reported in advance by Think Secret.
I mean, a GeForce FX 5200 in a non-upgradeable, $1299 computer? 256MB RAM isn't enough to have OS X running, and play one modern game. It's enough for surfing, listening to music and maybe one more task - then it starts jumping and chopping. This is just sick.
Apple hasn't released this thing yet, so we shouldn't be getting ourselves into a twist...
Sure, you are right... however... I don't know how much you have followed Think Secret's predictions and reports, but people here have a very valid reason to worry. Think Secret has such a good reputation as a rumor site, that when they say something, it is almost a given it will be so.
I am afraid that Apple will screw it badly this time. And it will be no next big chance for Apple's anniversary year before the end of this year. Unless they plan to release something completely different and the Think Secret report is 100% out of phase.
Just slapping a G5 into it isn't going to make it a significantly better product than what it is currently; the other components have to be just as good.
Right on the money. Here's hoping TS got this one wrong...
Golden rule: The real specs are never better than those reported in advance by Think Secret.
I mean, a GeForce FX 5200 in a non-upgradeable, $1299 computer? 256MB RAM isn't enough to have OS X running, and play one modern game. It's enough for surfing, listening to music and maybe one more task - then it starts jumping and chopping. This is just sick.
Wouldn't the 1299$ price tag be for the Edu model though, the one with no optical drive, 56k modem and a GF4 MX with 32MB VRAM?
The same comments and arguments come up every-time Apple introduces a revised iMac. Apple cannot bring the computer in at Dell's commodity prices. Apple needs higher margins. Apple cannot buy "off the shelf" components from a choice of vendors as Dell and HP do. It's always been that way. Sure some parts are already out there, but most are specifically designed for the iMac. $999 iMacs would be hard to produce with any down the line profit to Apple. This is a public corporation. They cannot produce "loss leaders" to mollify a handful of people without losing money for their shareholders. It is in fact illegal to deliberately do so. Rant over.
Comments
As I've said before, Apple isn't in the business of selling computers as much as it's in the business of selling a bunch of components.
Apple have a habit of making you shell out for high mark-up components by bundling them on the back of a feature you can't live without.
With the iMac range, the main differentation is the screen size. If Apple follow their current form, they'll force you to take the huge hard disk, memory, speakers, and the whole shooting match if you want that 20" screen. You try going to the AppleStore and downgrading the memory or video card on the top of the range G5, and see how far you get.
That's why I doubt that the only difference between the two top end models is the size of the hard disk. They wouldn't sell many of the top end machines. Perhaps the 1.8GHz processor is only available in one of the 20" machines?
The other thing that got me thinking was also to do with the screen sizes. If all the gubbins are attached to the back of the screen, then that means that the 17" and 20" models would require different backs.
From a manufacturing standpoint, this doesn't make sense. It's a loss of commonality, and therefore a loss of profit margin. Surely you would manufacture a single size of "backplate", and then attach that to whichever size of screen is in demand. That would keep your options open and offer a degree of flexibility for demand.
What happens when you manufacture to many of the 17" backplates and everybody's buying the 20"? Do you strip all the parts out again and build up the 20" version. Or do you stop production of the 17"s until your surplus has disappeared?
Seems very strange to me. I guess time will tell.
Originally posted by Messiah
What happens when you manufacture to many of the 17" backplates and everybody's buying the 20"?
Nobody has the answer to that yet. But if the past is any indication, Apple will come up with a clever way to work around that. Don't forget that Apple has Jonathan Ives.
Add on Apple's United Kingdom tax and you've got £999?
I'd like to see it cheaper.
Unless the edu' price is circa £795.
The 'high end' model comes in at a reasonable £1200. Add Vat and the rest of the world sales tax and you've got £1595?
You've got a G5 strapped into a barebones £400 Wintel computer. An Apple 20 inch monitor and Apple's margin make up the rest.
In fact, Apple's profit in these computers is all in the monitors. Nah, knowing Apple, they've got a stiff mark up on the ancient Nvidia MX4 card. It'll do for Education. Wonder what price it will be?
So, eh, why wouldn't you go for a dual 1.8 G5? Because you like buying machines with 256 megs of ram and a feeble graphics card?
Apple seem to be stuck on the 'peach melba' moment with regard AIOs.
Hmm.
I await confirmation on UK vat inclusive prices. Initially, from a UK perspective, it seems like they have moved the prices down to the old iMac price range. That would be good.
I'm still struggling to see why you'd buy a top end iMac over a Powerbook 17 inch. Bar 3 inches? Just how much faster is the 1.8 G5 than a 1.5 G4? Erhmmmm. Hmm.
No 2 gig and Radeon 9700 at the top end? Yeesh.
I'm beginning to grumble...I'm feeling whiny all over again...
Matsu?
Lemon Bon Bon
(Pictures Phil on stage...sounds of crickets chirping when the feature/price spec are announced...)
Lemon Bon Bon
I would not be surprised if the report was proved true, as I am not expecting much more from Apple in this sector. But a Geforce 5200 with 64 MB VRAM in the highest end of the line, is not fun anymore. Apparently: either Apple are trying to protect their margins by adopting methods that, eventually, would cost them much in the long term (Cube? iMac2?), or they are not anymore interested seriously in the consumer market.
And why not a 2 GHz iMac? Is it an G5-yield or decision issue? A 2 GHz G5 iMac would not harm the Power Mac line, which is now all dual and can have much stronger graphics, and other hardware, options. Really, I don't understand.
1299 and NO SUPERDRIVE!!!
1299 and a 1.6Ghz G5 which we know is only marginally better than the fastest G4.
1299 and fixed 17" screen.
1299 and no internal expansion/upgradability
1299 and an absolutely anemic 256MB of base ram
1299 and a pitiful 64MB of VRAM
1299 and a stingy 80GB HDD
Fvck, that's a seriously weak misguided new product. When is Apple going to understand that disposable computer needs a more affordable price? All they've done is create another boutique computer. They forced you to take the bundled display, and haven't offered any sort of deal on it. WHat's more they've anchored it so that you can't ever do anything about it.
There is no smilie that makes for an adequate reply to the priceland fantasy in which Jobs operates. Maybe they pulled out the last of his sense along with that tumor.
IDIOTS!
preety much for the sme reason that the iMac 2 didn't sell, price range, yes they might be what they are worth, and you can't set up a similar PC at a lower price, but people won't buy compters at this prices this days
as for the design, it sucks, and it's not my opnion, just hear what Jobs had to say in the iMac 2 launch, about simply putting the motherboard behind the screen
anyway I hope Think Secret are wrong on this one, or this is truly bad news for Apple
There aren't any families going to be buying desktops in that range after about 3 months -- or once all the die-hard mac heads order theirs.
I mean, a GeForce FX 5200 in a non-upgradeable, $1299 computer? 256MB RAM isn't enough to have OS X running, and play one modern game. It's enough for surfing, listening to music and maybe one more task - then it starts jumping and chopping. This is just sick.
Originally posted by Jim Paradise
Apple hasn't released this thing yet, so we shouldn't be getting ourselves into a twist...
Sure, you are right... however... I don't know how much you have followed Think Secret's predictions and reports, but people here have a very valid reason to worry. Think Secret has such a good reputation as a rumor site, that when they say something, it is almost a given it will be so.
I am afraid that Apple will screw it badly this time. And it will be no next big chance for Apple's anniversary year before the end of this year. Unless they plan to release something completely different and the Think Secret report is 100% out of phase.
Originally posted by Jim Paradise
Just slapping a G5 into it isn't going to make it a significantly better product than what it is currently; the other components have to be just as good.
Right on the money. Here's hoping TS got this one wrong...
Originally posted by Zapchud
Golden rule: The real specs are never better than those reported in advance by Think Secret.
I mean, a GeForce FX 5200 in a non-upgradeable, $1299 computer? 256MB RAM isn't enough to have OS X running, and play one modern game. It's enough for surfing, listening to music and maybe one more task - then it starts jumping and chopping. This is just sick.
Wouldn't the 1299$ price tag be for the Edu model though, the one with no optical drive, 56k modem and a GF4 MX with 32MB VRAM?
Originally posted by Eric_Z
Wouldn't the 1299$ price tag be for the Edu model though, the one with no optical drive, 56k modem and a GF4 MX with 32MB VRAM?
It actually wouldn't surprise me. Even worse. I seriously hope 1299 is for the non-edu model, and the edu model being $999 or something like that.
"Most overpriced computer of 2004: iMac G5 educational model."
But what's up with the graphics card?
Well, Apple ships their "Power" Macs with a crap 5200 nVidia card so its no shocker that the new iMac gets the same.
How about the 4MX in the lowend iMac.
Didn't that come out like 10 years ago?
Originally posted by msantti
Well, Apple ships their "Power" Macs with a crap 5200 nVidia card so its no shocker that the new iMac gets the same.
The problem is that even the high end iMac will, allegedly, have the Geforce 5200 with 64 MB VRAM.
Originally posted by rok
well, folks, here's your G5 powerbook.
Except that the G5 powerbook would have a decent graphics chip. :-)
The same comments and arguments come up every-time Apple introduces a revised iMac. Apple cannot bring the computer in at Dell's commodity prices. Apple needs higher margins. Apple cannot buy "off the shelf" components from a choice of vendors as Dell and HP do. It's always been that way. Sure some parts are already out there, but most are specifically designed for the iMac. $999 iMacs would be hard to produce with any down the line profit to Apple. This is a public corporation. They cannot produce "loss leaders" to mollify a handful of people without losing money for their shareholders. It is in fact illegal to deliberately do so. Rant over.