Do less complaining about Apple's specs and more study on what the PC world is shipping. $1300 don't come with ATI 9800 cards.
Again, they do come with AGP slots, so you can easily and cheaply upgrade. The iMac needs either an upgradable GPU (which is exceptionally unlikely), or a decent one out of the box.
Interesting, all this discussion of the new iMac's price/value ratio...
Yet not one word devoted to ergonomics or form factor?
Speed is increasinly trivial to many consumers. While I agree that the iMac2 and possibly the iMac3 are overpriced, it seems that the problem is overstated. People purchasing botique machines (like the iMac2 and iMac3) are likely more impressed by design than teraflop mongering.
Discussion of the iMac's price/value is useless unless the form factor is factored in.
Interesting, all this discussion of the new iMac's price/value ratio...
Yet not one word devoted to ergonomics or form factor?
Speed is increasinly trivial to many consumers. While I agree that the iMac2 and possibly the iMac3 are overpriced, it seems that the problem is overstated. People purchasing botique machines (like the iMac2 and iMac3) are likely more impressed by design than teraflop mongering.
Discussion of the iMac's price/value is useless unless the form factor is factored in.
i don't think i can agree with that. the original imac was adorable....but it had the best price/performance ratio of any mac available at the time. it was quite an amazing little computer.
the iMac LCD never had that bang for the buck appeal.
All of Apple's products are visually appealing. Looks work for things that don't involve cracking open the savings account. The iPod mini sells on looks. a 1500 dollar computer only has looks as a factor....not the deciding one. Every person I talk to, who doesn't own a mac, says they are too much money and underpowered.
I just got the latest Dell Catalog in the mail. And I looked through all their desktop offerings.
The truth is.... as painful as it is for me to admit, the graphics chip is not the problem. If those specs are accurate, Apple competes amazingly well and if the 17 inch truly is 1299, it'll be a very good deal. it's near impossible to find a desktop with similar specs and also buy a 17 inch Dell LCD for 1299.....In fact, I can't.
The bigger issue i see is processor speed. Apple finally has clockspeed at their use....but are opting for 1.6 and 1.8. if they went for 1.8 and 2 they'd not only be comparable on other specs but also on processor speeds....which would be a first in many years.
Still hoping for 1299 to include superdrive.
Applenut I just have the same revelation this morning. It was an "oh shit" moment when I realized that the typical PC that had what I wanted was $1499 and that was using a 5200fx. I do agree though on the processor speed. Apple could have utilized 1.8 and 2Ghz speeds because while the G5 is fast it cannot beat out a P4 system running twice its clock.
Quote:
Again, they do come with AGP slots, so you can easily and cheaply upgrade. The iMac needs either an upgradable GPU (which is exceptionally unlikely), or a decent one out of the box.
Yeah I know but at $1300 I question about how important that really is. These computers are tossers in 2-3 years. In that same timeframe it's likely that you've spent more money on your cable connection than your iMac G5.
Apple is suprisingly competitive at this pricing and that is unique because they're not shipping commodity boxes. This is custom design for a small pittance increase over a ATX PC. That's impressive.
I'm sorry but you guys are out of touch with reality. Do less complaining about Apple's specs and more study on what the PC world is shipping. $1300 don't come with ATI 9800 cards. Wake up people!
It doesn't matter if PCs come with a spectacularly underpowered card, they have an AGP port. If the user doesn't like the graphics card, he can switch it with a better one.
With these iMacs, you can't be skimping on parts like the graphics card, the user can't do anything about it. Sure, the 5200 is sufficient for a poor user that only wants to check his email and play some tunes. But the poor mac fan that has an ambition to play a game or two of today and the future on his shiny, new iMac - he's got no choice but to pick the PowerMac or ... a PC, which 98% of the population is choosing.
I suggest you do a little waking up yourself. This is the computer Apple is trying to take over the world with. Will they succeed with a computer that doesn't fit buyers? This should be the "one size fits all" computer, but it doesn't get any better than the weakest part it has.
Skimping on the GPU when they say the GPU is the future themselves, it's just saying "We're not really interested."!
All of Apple's products are visually appealing. Looks work for things that don't involve cracking open the savings account. The iPod mini sells on looks. a 1500 dollar computer only has looks as a factor....not the deciding one. Every person I talk to, who doesn't own a mac, says they are too much money and underpowered.
Looks? Form is not synonymous with looks.
Fixation upon looks and speed is common amoung youth and lessons with age. At a certain point in life, usability and ergonomics overtake speed and looks as the paramount criteria.
The same phenomenon is true amoung car buyers. Youth make decisions based upon speed and looks while elderly are more concerned with seat comfort and cup holder placement.
I think the demographics here tend to skew our eveluations toward the gamer and spec whore perspective.
It doesn't matter if PCs come with a spectacularly underpowered card, they have an AGP port. If the user doesn't like the graphics card, he can switch it with a better one.
Most people don't Zap. Apple sells almost a million computers a qtr so imagine how many PCs are sold per qtr but not even half of these people upgrade their cards. Macintosh is admittedly not a platform for games so the whole "rush" to get the latest graphics card isn't really prevalent.
Quote:
With these iMacs, you can't be skimping on parts like the graphics card, the user can't do anything about it. Sure, the 5200 is sufficient for a poor user that only wants to check his email and play some tunes. But the poor mac fan that has an ambition to play a game or two of today and the future on his shiny, new iMac - he's got no choice but to pick the PowerMac or ... a PC, which 98% of the population is choosing.
Again you're revising reality to meet your needs. My links previous showed adequately that both Dell and Gateway heavily utilize the 5200fx. Are PC user not as ambitious for gaming. Id guess many are MORE apt to play game yet they will find a 5200fx in computers up to $1800. Hence Apple is "skimping" no more than the worlds largest computer manufacturer(Dell).
Quote:
I suggest you do a little waking up yourself. This is the computer Apple is trying to take over the world with. Will they succeed with a computer that doesn't fit buyers? This should be the "one size fits all" computer, but it doesn't get any better than the weakest part it has.
Apple never said they were going to take over the world. They simply make cool products and make a profit doing so. They must be suceeding as they turned a nice 60 million profit last qtr. They have money in the bank. You know what. For the first time I think I realize that it is some fans that have the Reality Distortion Field.
The RDF on this board is amazing. I mean i'm being told that 98% of PC users want fast graphics yet most have the same damn card. Where's the "scratching my head" emoticon for these moments.
Fixation upon looks and speed is common amoung youth and lessons with age. At a certain point in life, usability and ergonomics overtake speed and looks as the paramount criteria.
The same phenomenon is true amoung car buyers. Youth make decisions based upon speed and looks while elderly are more concerned with seat comfort and cup holder placement.
I think the demographics here tend to skew our eveluations toward the gamer and spec whore perspective.
(myself included)
the original imac was one of the worst ergonomic computers you could buy. it sold 6 million. the imac lcd 2 is a very good ergonomic computer. it's sales sucked
people really dont care about ergonomics when buying stuff. even though they probably should. face it, its only nature for humans to get into the "mine is bigger and better than yours".
The sales volume of those two product lines were a result of price. The iMac2 was definately priced out of many consumers' budget.
However, this doesn't suggest that ergonomics is irrelevent. Just that it was priced to high for the market.
Keep in mind that user demographics are rapidly changing. Web (home computer) users are suprisingly old when compared to just a few years ago. Yes, the elderly are taking over the web. It's just easy to miss this phenomenon since we don't visit their sites.
But Applenut...mine really "is" bigger than yours!
Thinksecret left some wiggle room on the pricing. I sincerely hope that Apple does not ship iMac G5 non edu model without a superdrive. The reasoning is simple. People want to burn DVDs even if it is just data and backing up. Second iDVD doesn't work with external drives so now the user is locked out of iDVD.
Apple would be better just to increase the price rather than try and hit a pricepoint by cutting out a Superdrive.
As for the graphics we still don't know if the card is not upgradable. %80 chance that it isn't but there is always that slight possibility that the iMac G5 ushers in a GPU on a daughtercard. This benefits Apple just as much as it benefits the end user. Cross your fingers. Apple might now do this until they go PCI Express but we can always hope.
The last time TS posted specs on an upcoming device, they were not completely accurate. The recently 4G iPod comes to mind. They spoke of a 60GB with color screen, iPods in various colors, etc. I suspect that at some point they'll do an Update and make some changes. I also checked a Dell mailing I received a few days ago. Although there are cheaper machines available, when all is said and done a fully loaded Dell competing even with the current iMac is practically at the same price point . Yes CPU speeds are higher, but hasn't this MHz myth been debunked recently. The PC world thinks so, but not the Mac world. Anyhow, I think the new iMac is going to be beautiful and an eye opener. Anyone want to bet on the "shipping" date? I believe the 17" models will be available "immediately" with the 20" ones available at the end of September. I'd think the edu model will not be listed on the Apple Store page. Perhaps the top end will also have several built to order options? 2 1/2 weeks.
If the best video Apple can muster for its consumer line is fx5200 then Apple has a problem. Not having a better video option will kill this thing just as it did the iMac G4. Every thing that killed current imac is still here except for the cpu&neck The consumer wants video options but Apple doesnt listen well to consumers unless you are talking pods pods and more pods. consumer computers?Apple has been lost for awhile on that one. holding onto this all in one crap is killing off their consumer market and keeping with the lowest videochip with no upgrade path continues this market loosing philosophy. you want to use garbage fine but give the consumer the option of letting that fx5200 find a drawer to collect dust bunnies in. I wouldnt buy this thing on the fx5200 alone and many will do the same.
All those game companies like aspyr,macsoft,feral must be wondering what the heck is Apple doing?
Ati must be wondering why make and sell Mac video cards when only 1 model can even use them.
Some very lively talk here. Good, nice to read for a change.
Every time I sat in an Apple/reseller store and toyed with an LCD iMac, the graphics seemed quite slow. No matter if it was a 700MHz 15" model or a 1.25GHz 20" model. They just seem slow when using them.
And configuring an IBM, HP or Dell at or near the 17" iMac with Superdrive comes in around $1399 or so (with the obvious DVD writing/Movie editting software packages) and DVD writer. iMac is $1799. With those others though, I can upgrade to an ATI 9800Pro. And that is not a cheap upgrade - $150-$200.00 depending on vendor. The 5200 blows.
Yeah I know but at $1300 I question about how important that really is. These computers are tossers in 2-3 years. In that same timeframe it's likely that you've spent more money on your cable connection than your iMac G5.
True that. \
I've had my iMac since 1999. The wideband is killing me. The iMac is a steal.
Ah, finally, one of these threads gets some perspective.
At least you're getting an FX 5200 standard in PCs now. Intel integrated graphics used to be available well over $1K. Sure, you can get an AGP card (sometimes) and go into driver update hell if you want, but this is suboptimal. Why should you have to bring your PC back to the store (because Joe Consumer does not crack the case open and add cards) and spend a significant amount of money just to get basic functionality?
The FX 5200 is pretty much the worst case for the iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship something better, at least on the 20". But even if they don't, they're par for the course. If a significant percentage of PC buyers bought aftermarket cards, the industry would be wildly more profitable than it is. As it is, ATI and NVIDIA both still make most of their money from OEM sales, so most people must not upgrade the card that ships in their machine. Therefore, whatever Apple ships looks like it'll be at least par for the course. Some people won't be happy, but they're the sort of people to whom Apple's approach isn't appealing in the first place.
The cube returns! and not in a good way. It's the same thing all over again. High price + cool design + not up to date internals = a poor selling failure.
Yep. But at least the Cube had an upgradable video card.
I'm glad I got my 1.6 tower, even though it's as big as a small refrigerator. I've already upgraded the video.
People having a shit-fit about the GPU are misplacing their anger.
An AIO is an AIO is an AIO. You ain't gonna upgrade much, unless the CPU is on a daughtercard and the GPU is on one of those mobile style-card-socket-thingamabob standards that some GPU makers are using for mobile products -- which it may be if this iMac turns out to be the PB G5 in a few months time.
Anyway. It's the bleeding price folks! 1299, and no superdrive, which should be standard at that price, and only 256MB of RAM, a figure which every single manufacturer doubles when we're talking about systems over 1K.
A combodrive 17" model has no business costing more than 999. That ain't no loss leader either. G5's are at least as cheap as G4's, and 17" panels barely cost more than 15"ers.
I sure hope think secret is wrong about the prices.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Do less complaining about Apple's specs and more study on what the PC world is shipping. $1300 don't come with ATI 9800 cards.
Again, they do come with AGP slots, so you can easily and cheaply upgrade. The iMac needs either an upgradable GPU (which is exceptionally unlikely), or a decent one out of the box.
Yet not one word devoted to ergonomics or form factor?
Speed is increasinly trivial to many consumers. While I agree that the iMac2 and possibly the iMac3 are overpriced, it seems that the problem is overstated. People purchasing botique machines (like the iMac2 and iMac3) are likely more impressed by design than teraflop mongering.
Discussion of the iMac's price/value is useless unless the form factor is factored in.
Originally posted by dfiler
Interesting, all this discussion of the new iMac's price/value ratio...
Yet not one word devoted to ergonomics or form factor?
Speed is increasinly trivial to many consumers. While I agree that the iMac2 and possibly the iMac3 are overpriced, it seems that the problem is overstated. People purchasing botique machines (like the iMac2 and iMac3) are likely more impressed by design than teraflop mongering.
Discussion of the iMac's price/value is useless unless the form factor is factored in.
i don't think i can agree with that. the original imac was adorable....but it had the best price/performance ratio of any mac available at the time. it was quite an amazing little computer.
the iMac LCD never had that bang for the buck appeal.
All of Apple's products are visually appealing. Looks work for things that don't involve cracking open the savings account. The iPod mini sells on looks. a 1500 dollar computer only has looks as a factor....not the deciding one. Every person I talk to, who doesn't own a mac, says they are too much money and underpowered.
Originally posted by applenut
I just got the latest Dell Catalog in the mail. And I looked through all their desktop offerings.
The truth is.... as painful as it is for me to admit, the graphics chip is not the problem. If those specs are accurate, Apple competes amazingly well and if the 17 inch truly is 1299, it'll be a very good deal. it's near impossible to find a desktop with similar specs and also buy a 17 inch Dell LCD for 1299.....In fact, I can't.
The bigger issue i see is processor speed. Apple finally has clockspeed at their use....but are opting for 1.6 and 1.8. if they went for 1.8 and 2 they'd not only be comparable on other specs but also on processor speeds....which would be a first in many years.
Still hoping for 1299 to include superdrive.
Again, they do come with AGP slots, so you can easily and cheaply upgrade. The iMac needs either an upgradable GPU (which is exceptionally unlikely), or a decent one out of the box.
Yeah I know but at $1300 I question about how important that really is. These computers are tossers in 2-3 years. In that same timeframe it's likely that you've spent more money on your cable connection than your iMac G5.
Apple is suprisingly competitive at this pricing and that is unique because they're not shipping commodity boxes. This is custom design for a small pittance increase over a ATX PC. That's impressive.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm sorry but you guys are out of touch with reality. Do less complaining about Apple's specs and more study on what the PC world is shipping. $1300 don't come with ATI 9800 cards. Wake up people!
It doesn't matter if PCs come with a spectacularly underpowered card, they have an AGP port. If the user doesn't like the graphics card, he can switch it with a better one.
With these iMacs, you can't be skimping on parts like the graphics card, the user can't do anything about it. Sure, the 5200 is sufficient for a poor user that only wants to check his email and play some tunes. But the poor mac fan that has an ambition to play a game or two of today and the future on his shiny, new iMac - he's got no choice but to pick the PowerMac or ... a PC, which 98% of the population is choosing.
I suggest you do a little waking up yourself. This is the computer Apple is trying to take over the world with. Will they succeed with a computer that doesn't fit buyers? This should be the "one size fits all" computer, but it doesn't get any better than the weakest part it has.
Skimping on the GPU when they say the GPU is the future themselves, it's just saying "We're not really interested."!
Originally posted by applenut
All of Apple's products are visually appealing. Looks work for things that don't involve cracking open the savings account. The iPod mini sells on looks. a 1500 dollar computer only has looks as a factor....not the deciding one. Every person I talk to, who doesn't own a mac, says they are too much money and underpowered.
Looks? Form is not synonymous with looks.
Fixation upon looks and speed is common amoung youth and lessons with age. At a certain point in life, usability and ergonomics overtake speed and looks as the paramount criteria.
The same phenomenon is true amoung car buyers. Youth make decisions based upon speed and looks while elderly are more concerned with seat comfort and cup holder placement.
I think the demographics here tend to skew our eveluations toward the gamer and spec whore perspective.
(myself included)
It doesn't matter if PCs come with a spectacularly underpowered card, they have an AGP port. If the user doesn't like the graphics card, he can switch it with a better one.
Most people don't Zap. Apple sells almost a million computers a qtr so imagine how many PCs are sold per qtr but not even half of these people upgrade their cards. Macintosh is admittedly not a platform for games so the whole "rush" to get the latest graphics card isn't really prevalent.
With these iMacs, you can't be skimping on parts like the graphics card, the user can't do anything about it. Sure, the 5200 is sufficient for a poor user that only wants to check his email and play some tunes. But the poor mac fan that has an ambition to play a game or two of today and the future on his shiny, new iMac - he's got no choice but to pick the PowerMac or ... a PC, which 98% of the population is choosing.
Again you're revising reality to meet your needs. My links previous showed adequately that both Dell and Gateway heavily utilize the 5200fx. Are PC user not as ambitious for gaming. Id guess many are MORE apt to play game yet they will find a 5200fx in computers up to $1800. Hence Apple is "skimping" no more than the worlds largest computer manufacturer(Dell).
I suggest you do a little waking up yourself. This is the computer Apple is trying to take over the world with. Will they succeed with a computer that doesn't fit buyers? This should be the "one size fits all" computer, but it doesn't get any better than the weakest part it has.
Apple never said they were going to take over the world. They simply make cool products and make a profit doing so. They must be suceeding as they turned a nice 60 million profit last qtr. They have money in the bank. You know what. For the first time I think I realize that it is some fans that have the Reality Distortion Field.
The RDF on this board is amazing. I mean i'm being told that 98% of PC users want fast graphics yet most have the same damn card. Where's the "scratching my head" emoticon for these moments.
Originally posted by dfiler
Looks? Form is not synonymous with looks.
Fixation upon looks and speed is common amoung youth and lessons with age. At a certain point in life, usability and ergonomics overtake speed and looks as the paramount criteria.
The same phenomenon is true amoung car buyers. Youth make decisions based upon speed and looks while elderly are more concerned with seat comfort and cup holder placement.
I think the demographics here tend to skew our eveluations toward the gamer and spec whore perspective.
(myself included)
the original imac was one of the worst ergonomic computers you could buy. it sold 6 million. the imac lcd 2 is a very good ergonomic computer. it's sales sucked
people really dont care about ergonomics when buying stuff. even though they probably should. face it, its only nature for humans to get into the "mine is bigger and better than yours".
However, this doesn't suggest that ergonomics is irrelevent. Just that it was priced to high for the market.
Keep in mind that user demographics are rapidly changing. Web (home computer) users are suprisingly old when compared to just a few years ago. Yes, the elderly are taking over the web. It's just easy to miss this phenomenon since we don't visit their sites.
"mine is bigger and better than yours".
But Applenut...mine really "is" bigger than yours!
Thinksecret left some wiggle room on the pricing. I sincerely hope that Apple does not ship iMac G5 non edu model without a superdrive. The reasoning is simple. People want to burn DVDs even if it is just data and backing up. Second iDVD doesn't work with external drives so now the user is locked out of iDVD.
Apple would be better just to increase the price rather than try and hit a pricepoint by cutting out a Superdrive.
As for the graphics we still don't know if the card is not upgradable. %80 chance that it isn't but there is always that slight possibility that the iMac G5 ushers in a GPU on a daughtercard. This benefits Apple just as much as it benefits the end user. Cross your fingers. Apple might now do this until they go PCI Express but we can always hope.
Originally posted by dfiler
Interesting, all this discussion of the new iMac's price/value ratio...
Yet not one word devoted to ergonomics or form factor?
Didn't my post earlier in this thread count?
All those game companies like aspyr,macsoft,feral must be wondering what the heck is Apple doing?
Ati must be wondering why make and sell Mac video cards when only 1 model can even use them.
Thanks for giving us a dose of your RDF. Much appreciated.
Every time I sat in an Apple/reseller store and toyed with an LCD iMac, the graphics seemed quite slow. No matter if it was a 700MHz 15" model or a 1.25GHz 20" model. They just seem slow when using them.
And configuring an IBM, HP or Dell at or near the 17" iMac with Superdrive comes in around $1399 or so (with the obvious DVD writing/Movie editting software packages) and DVD writer. iMac is $1799. With those others though, I can upgrade to an ATI 9800Pro. And that is not a cheap upgrade - $150-$200.00 depending on vendor. The 5200 blows.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yeah I know but at $1300 I question about how important that really is. These computers are tossers in 2-3 years. In that same timeframe it's likely that you've spent more money on your cable connection than your iMac G5.
True that.
I've had my iMac since 1999. The wideband is killing me. The iMac is a steal.
At least you're getting an FX 5200 standard in PCs now. Intel integrated graphics used to be available well over $1K. Sure, you can get an AGP card (sometimes) and go into driver update hell if you want, but this is suboptimal. Why should you have to bring your PC back to the store (because Joe Consumer does not crack the case open and add cards) and spend a significant amount of money just to get basic functionality?
The FX 5200 is pretty much the worst case for the iMac. I wouldn't be surprised if they ship something better, at least on the 20". But even if they don't, they're par for the course. If a significant percentage of PC buyers bought aftermarket cards, the industry would be wildly more profitable than it is. As it is, ATI and NVIDIA both still make most of their money from OEM sales, so most people must not upgrade the card that ships in their machine. Therefore, whatever Apple ships looks like it'll be at least par for the course. Some people won't be happy, but they're the sort of people to whom Apple's approach isn't appealing in the first place.
Originally posted by little mouse
The cube returns! and not in a good way. It's the same thing all over again. High price + cool design + not up to date internals = a poor selling failure.
Yep. But at least the Cube had an upgradable video card.
I'm glad I got my 1.6 tower, even though it's as big as a small refrigerator. I've already upgraded the video.
An AIO is an AIO is an AIO. You ain't gonna upgrade much, unless the CPU is on a daughtercard and the GPU is on one of those mobile style-card-socket-thingamabob standards that some GPU makers are using for mobile products -- which it may be if this iMac turns out to be the PB G5 in a few months time.
Anyway. It's the bleeding price folks! 1299, and no superdrive, which should be standard at that price, and only 256MB of RAM, a figure which every single manufacturer doubles when we're talking about systems over 1K.
A combodrive 17" model has no business costing more than 999. That ain't no loss leader either. G5's are at least as cheap as G4's, and 17" panels barely cost more than 15"ers.
I sure hope think secret is wrong about the prices.