mm.. sorry.. have to chime in here.. but a lot of people do run Little Snitch.. not quite the same i know.. but very close.. and what LS catches now is just the beginning..
Um the last time I checked my Little Snitch, it was designed for anything "phoning home" or any other outgoing network activity for that matter. Maybe that means that if some application like, say Adobe, is going to send your serial you can block it....ummm I wonder. Now I dunno about you but Spyware is not the same thing as an application "phoning home." Maybe I'm the stupid one here but Spyware installs applications on your comptuer and then has Data Miner's that can gather information about you and your internet habits. Now the last time I checked these didn't exist on the Mac, maybe they do but I would not classify Little Snitch the same thing as Adaware or SpyBot...
I will neither buy the new iMac (TS specs) nor recommend it.
For me to consider buying it or recommending it, it must have:
1. PCIe graphics slot with NVidia 6600 graphics standard
2. Faster processors (anything lower than 2GHz is not competitive, and 2GHz itself is only marginally competitive)
3. 512MB RAM
I'm sure your friends think of you as an "expert" but when I hear people state they won't "recommend" a computer I cringe. One of the things that seperates a Salesperson from just some bloke who knows computers is the ability to not focus on what your own personal desires are but to think about what the needs of that person relying on you to provide good info. Judging from your 3 point I can't see where you are a valuable source of tech info to your friends but hey what do I know?
I think the problem is that everyone suddenly becomes a Chief Financial Officer on these boards. They state that Apple cannot grow unless they hit a $999 pricepoint or add x feature.
That's not how people shop. Large purchases are emotional. There are always budgets but those budgets are lower than the what they need and when given the right information they people exceed their own particular budgets.
I used to get excited like you guys do. I used to proudly tell customers about the new whizbang megagiga graphics card or whatever and some people loved it providing it met their needs while others stared blankly at me and said "I don't care about that"
In sales it is all about qualifying the customers. You need to know what they expect to do with their computer and what their likes and dislikes. Then you can go over the options with a clear sense of what is going to work and what isn't.
Typically people do not like the end result. They find their budet is inadequate for their needs. But it is at this time they have the choice to either accept the lower computer that might not meet all their needs or they come back when they have the money. Sure some buy PCs but some don't.
Price is harped about on these boards by people that never walked the walk in sales. I know peope have the money, they know they have money. The only part you have is convincing them to look at the whole picture rather than specs. The average middle class family has what $5000 in revolving Credit Card debt.
So the idea that $1299 is a financial burden is superfluous. I think what you really mean to say is that families don't place a personal "value" in computers that exceed $1299 in many cases. Thus the most important part of retail, repeat business, may be difficult with these families.
The iMac G5 will fail or thrive based on the sum of its parts and the ability of Apple Store reps to uncover and unlock the value myster of each family or person looking to purchase.
This unit is going to be replaced next spring by another model. Apple may move to PCI express by then and have more options for cards. Parents buying their kids computers for school don't care about gaming in fact many would rather the gaming be kept a light as possible. Gaming isn't always a "good" thing to all people. We need to "shift our center" here and look from all angles.
Typical BS statement from an Apple-apologist. This sort of idea wouldn't last 1 minute in Dell board room, or any PC manufacturer's for that matter. Give people options and let them figure out what to do with their computer, this is what Apple needs to understand. Modular flexibility that is on par with your competitors is a proven seller in the marketplace. Permanent consolidation of various components with no flexibility isn't.
Shetline I was not saying they had to put in a crappy 17in. I think Apple could downgrade the monitor just a tad, not a lot. So it would be a less expenisve 15in,17in,and 20in. Or offer a nice 20in a medium 17in and an okay 15in. I don't know. It's just the monitors are so nice for a consumer computer.
You won't change the price much with just a small difference in display quality -- certainly not enough to get to the $999 price point, which is where I jumped into this thread.
G5 iMacs at the rumored Think Secret prices aren't so bad if...
1) Apple boosts the value proposition just a little... improve the video card (this really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but it does seem that it's not that expensive for Apple to go a notch or two higher and make a lot of people happier) and maybe boost the base memory to 512 MB.
2) There are other consumer options, like a cheaper 15" iMac, an improved eMac, a headless Mac.
The iMac is as much about style as anything else, which isn't a bad thing so long as there are also some good consumer-priced alternatives.
Typical BS statement from an Apple-apologist. This sort of idea wouldn't last 1 minute in Dell board room, or any PC manufacturer's for that matter. Give people options and let them figure out what to do with their computer, this is what Apple needs to understand. Modular flexibility that is on par with your competitors is a proven seller in the marketplace. Permanent consolidation of various components with no flexibility isn't.
I'm not an Apple Apologist I'm just better than you at knowing how people will respond. I really get a kick out of all you people and how you generalize consumers based on severe personal biases. Consumers are anything but monolithic in thought and desire.
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people.
@Homenow I agree. The iMac should be cheaper but cutting expensies in other areas such as the monitor and retian high preformance.
Here is where your idea dosen't work though the 17in monitor that Apple offers is $700 the 20in is $1300. Apple is a tight spot trying to make a monitor Flat panel that is $999. You notice the eMac can do it because it is a CRt display. Flat screens are expensive. And Don't forget over time you use more money, for example it used to be $30,000 to buy a nice home in the 70's no it is that much to buy a nice car.
I'm not an Apple Apologist I'm just better than you at knowing how people will respond. I really get a kick out of all you people and how you generalize consumers based on severe personal biases. Consumers are anything but monolithic in thought and desire.
I have no clue what you are talking about. You could at least just address my arguments instead of trying to impose your generalizations on me and superiority on yourself.
Quote:
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people. [/B]
Yes, because appealing colors and shapes are what sell computers yeah! The vast majority of people that would buy an iMac G5 with the information given on TS are existing Mac users. Yeah, there will be a flurry of buyers at first (as Apple has no desktop between $1000-$2000 for 2 months, Mac users need to upgrade), but it will just be the same story all over again. Apple reaping profits off their user base with crippled hardware and no unit growth or marketshare expansion. It's just the iMac G4 all over again.
But cheaper. People are likely to be upgrading from computers that are 3-5 years old. We AI Pros can easily become jaded but they will be amazed at what the iMac G5 can do.
$1299 isn't a lot of money for this "hobby" I'm sorry. If that's too much then Apple has a eMac for $500 cheaper that will suit even the most frugal in Mac users.
Keep the faith guys. Apple isn't "Apple" because of hardware. People buy Apple because of the whole appeal which is led by the best software platform on the Planet. The OS is the heart and soul of the platform. As long as it is beating hard Apple will be fine.
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people.
I would agree with you as long as it has the price to compete in it's intended market, I don't feel that it does with an entry point of $1299, they need to gent the entry price down to the "Sweet Spot" that they Apple was talking about earlier this year. Let the eMac cover the sub-1000 market, but get the entry iMac back down to $999 so that they can take better advantage of the brand recognition that the iMac has in the market to attract new customers. Price will kill iMac sales no mater how cool it looks as surely as they did for the Cube.
As to your earlier statement about getting th G5 into a consumer product I agree again, though I think that Apple might be better served to get duals into the consumer desktop lineup to encourage better mulit-threading and multi-processor support in the software released for the Mac. This will be more important in the coming years if Apple is truely going to make the iMac into a dugital hub serving music and possibly video to multiple places in the house while it is doing other work such as serfing the web, iPhoto retouching, etc.
But cheaper. People are likely to be upgrading from computers that are 3-5 years old. We AI Pros can easily become jaded but they will be amazed at what the iMac G5 can do.
$1299 isn't a lot of money for this "hobby" I'm sorry. If that's too much then Apple has a eMac for $500 cheaper that will suit even the most frugal in Mac users.
Keep the faith guys. Apple isn't "Apple" because of hardware. People buy Apple because of the whole appeal which is led by the best software platform on the Planet. The OS is the heart and soul of the platform. As long as it is beating hard Apple will be fine.
I agree with you, completely. You get a lot of shit from people on these boards, people who don't know jack. Good post and you're right on.
I would agree with you as long as it has the price to compete in it's intended market, I don't feel that it does with an entry point of $1299, they need to gent the entry price down to the "Sweet Spot" that they Apple was talking about earlier this year. Let the eMac cover the sub-1000 market, but get the entry iMac back down to $999 so that they can take better advantage of the brand recognition that the iMac has in the market to attract new customers. Price will kill iMac sales no mater how cool it looks as surely as they did for the Cube.
As to your earlier statement about getting th G5 into a consumer product I agree again, though I think that Apple might be better served to get duals into the consumer desktop lineup to encourage better mulit-threading and multi-processor support in the software released for the Mac. This will be more important in the coming years if Apple is truely going to make the iMac into a dugital hub serving music and possibly video to multiple places in the house while it is doing other work such as serfing the web, iPhoto retouching, etc.
You know what, I'm calling BS on the ThinkSickly article.
Fred Anderson said, flat-out that the price point on the iMac needs to be $999. TS claims that the price range is 1300-2200, which is no different than the current line of extinctMacs. The specs do not fall in line with the pricing, unless somehow the addition of the G5 keeps the prices high, but I just don't see it. The consumers would be horrified immediately by the reported specs, and I just think that the comment someone had about the interim spec sheet being included with marketing materials, may be on to something.
Apple will release a $999 G5 iMac, for consumers. ThinkSecret may be off on this one, at least, I hope so.
And on a side note: they don't even have an inkling of what the design will be. They point to a pathetic Sony "glommed on the back" design.
...And Don't forget over time you use more money, for example it used to be $30,000 to buy a nice home in the 70's no it is that much to buy a nice car.
Inflation is something to take into account, but look at the electronics industry over the last few years, including the recession, and you will see that better technology, manufacturing processes, and contracting companies in Asia to manufacture the products for you have driven costs down much faster than the rate of inflation over the same time period. How much did a 17" LCD screen cost 4 years ago? Where are they today? A year ago a 17" LCD TV was selling for over $1000, now they are around $800. Hard Drives have seen similar price reductions per GB. RAM fluctuates consistantly, but I would be willing to bet the price for the chips used in the G5 are cheaper today than they were a year ago becouse the production capacity has increased to meet the increasing demand of the market (though PC 100 and 133 RAM will probably start going up becouse production will decrease to reflect the decrease in demand for that type of memory). I will admitt that 15" LCD panels have not dropped much in price over the past 24 months, but that is only one component, the 17" LCD's have come down during that same period of time even if it is not reflected in the price of Apple's 17" monitor.
Non upgradable videocard and all-in-one are the deal killer for me. Now, I am going to get a new powerbook as soon as I can afford it.
I'll probably sell my G4 tower to get one too. But the iMac is not my computer, because of the built in monitor and lack of upgradablility for a desktop.
[irony] Help me understand: you won't buy the iMac because it has a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one. Instead, you're going to get a new PowerBook, which features a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one to an even greater extent than the iMac (even the keyboard is built-in)?
And you're going to sell your upgradeable tower and separate monitor to buy this all-in-one, non-upgradeable video card PowerBook? [/irony]
1. The price for the Education iMac is not going to be published - the $1,299 will be for the entry level consumer iMac.
2. Apple will sell only a percentage of the iMacs at list price. Too many people qualify for an educational discount (parent, student, works for a school, etc.) and that is a fast $130 off the price. Resellers will be getting more than 10% off on wholesale - again Apple gets less than the $1,299. Only non-education sales on apple.com or in Apple Stores will generate the full sales price for Apple.
3. Part of Apple's price development efforts will be to establish the gross margin of all sales and ensure that they end up with about a 28% gross margin or Wall Street will give them hell.
4. Unlike Dull or home built PCs buying a Mac means that you are paying for the R&D necessary to keep the wonderful compatibility that can be gained by controlling both the hardware and software, AND you are making your contribution to future R&D. It's part of being in the Mac community - you contribute when you buy and you benefit far more than your R&D contribution. Doesn't happen like this in the PC world. You get XP and in a few more years you get Longhorn. Support comes from India and it's not even the the manufacturer that is providing it. You definitely get what you pay for when you go super cheap.
5. Anyone, like me, who had to work on a 16MHz computer a few years ago will not turn their noses up at G5 consumer computer. Being able to compare both old hardware and software (remember Windows 3.1?) does give you a better view than only being able to compare over the past few years.
6. Some people like to work on their computers or cars, bumping the performance up, or just tinkering. I'm one of those that has no desire to lift the hood on either. I just want them to work when I need them to work. For me "Doom" is a broken timing belt.
7. I'm going to buy, based on my experience with 2 15" PowerBooks. I already have picked up a new 23" display so I can remove the remaining tasks from my 1.8 Dull - that is just over 2 years old and treats me like crap - and the G5 iMac will be to replace an old 450 Dull. If the screen is anywhere near the 23" I won't care if it's only a G4.5.
8. My PB is probably not the fastest notebook on the market, but I don't care. It is the most COMFORTABLE computer I have ever used. If the G5 iMac is as fast as the 1.5 PB that I am working on, retains the same comfort level, provides a screen as great as the 23" and accommodates 64 bit programs that will be coming in the near future then I will be very happy.
9. I voted top of the line as that is the one I plan on getting on Day 1.
PS. Has Apple ever released a new computer without hundreds of Mac "lovers" tearing it apart?
That was well said kenaustus. For the target group, the iMac works well. I have an orginal 800 G4 iMac that has been used hard and that I love. I also have a 1.6 G5 at work and find that to be a nice machine. I would be very happy with a 1.6 G5 iMac.
I think what people are unhappy about is that Apple is positioning the iMac as a computer that becomes outdated 2-3 years after its introduction. This way, people have to replace it with a new machine. Most people keep their Powermacs for >5 years. That is too long for Apple. Thus the iMac is required. They sell like hotcakes early on and create a large user base that will, hopefully, be repeat customers 2-3 years down the line. I know I fall into this catagory.
I voted no. I agree with Aurora, JCG and maffrew that there is not enough bang for the buck in this new iteration of the iMac. My 17" 1 GHz iMac will do me well. Why should I spend the money when the only upgrade in the new iMac is the G5 processor? My G4 does everything I want it to do and does it well. It is also plenty fast as far as I am concerned. Maybe I had my hopes set too high. I actually expected Apple to come through with a "killer" iMac replacement.
Comments
Originally posted by LGnome
mm.. sorry.. have to chime in here.. but a lot of people do run Little Snitch.. not quite the same i know.. but very close.. and what LS catches now is just the beginning..
Um the last time I checked my Little Snitch, it was designed for anything "phoning home" or any other outgoing network activity for that matter. Maybe that means that if some application like, say Adobe, is going to send your serial you can block it....ummm I wonder. Now I dunno about you but Spyware is not the same thing as an application "phoning home." Maybe I'm the stupid one here but Spyware installs applications on your comptuer and then has Data Miner's that can gather information about you and your internet habits. Now the last time I checked these didn't exist on the Mac, maybe they do but I would not classify Little Snitch the same thing as Adaware or SpyBot...
Originally posted by Existence
I will neither buy the new iMac (TS specs) nor recommend it.
For me to consider buying it or recommending it, it must have:
1. PCIe graphics slot with NVidia 6600 graphics standard
2. Faster processors (anything lower than 2GHz is not competitive, and 2GHz itself is only marginally competitive)
3. 512MB RAM
I'm sure your friends think of you as an "expert" but when I hear people state they won't "recommend" a computer I cringe. One of the things that seperates a Salesperson from just some bloke who knows computers is the ability to not focus on what your own personal desires are but to think about what the needs of that person relying on you to provide good info. Judging from your 3 point I can't see where you are a valuable source of tech info to your friends but hey what do I know?
I think the problem is that everyone suddenly becomes a Chief Financial Officer on these boards. They state that Apple cannot grow unless they hit a $999 pricepoint or add x feature.
That's not how people shop. Large purchases are emotional. There are always budgets but those budgets are lower than the what they need and when given the right information they people exceed their own particular budgets.
I used to get excited like you guys do. I used to proudly tell customers about the new whizbang megagiga graphics card or whatever and some people loved it providing it met their needs while others stared blankly at me and said "I don't care about that"
In sales it is all about qualifying the customers. You need to know what they expect to do with their computer and what their likes and dislikes. Then you can go over the options with a clear sense of what is going to work and what isn't.
Typically people do not like the end result. They find their budet is inadequate for their needs. But it is at this time they have the choice to either accept the lower computer that might not meet all their needs or they come back when they have the money. Sure some buy PCs but some don't.
Price is harped about on these boards by people that never walked the walk in sales. I know peope have the money, they know they have money. The only part you have is convincing them to look at the whole picture rather than specs. The average middle class family has what $5000 in revolving Credit Card debt.
Credit Card Nation
So the idea that $1299 is a financial burden is superfluous. I think what you really mean to say is that families don't place a personal "value" in computers that exceed $1299 in many cases. Thus the most important part of retail, repeat business, may be difficult with these families.
The iMac G5 will fail or thrive based on the sum of its parts and the ability of Apple Store reps to uncover and unlock the value myster of each family or person looking to purchase.
Originally posted by hmurchison
This unit is going to be replaced next spring by another model. Apple may move to PCI express by then and have more options for cards. Parents buying their kids computers for school don't care about gaming in fact many would rather the gaming be kept a light as possible. Gaming isn't always a "good" thing to all people. We need to "shift our center" here and look from all angles.
Typical BS statement from an Apple-apologist. This sort of idea wouldn't last 1 minute in Dell board room, or any PC manufacturer's for that matter. Give people options and let them figure out what to do with their computer, this is what Apple needs to understand. Modular flexibility that is on par with your competitors is a proven seller in the marketplace. Permanent consolidation of various components with no flexibility isn't.
Originally posted by volcom1206
Shetline I was not saying they had to put in a crappy 17in. I think Apple could downgrade the monitor just a tad, not a lot. So it would be a less expenisve 15in,17in,and 20in. Or offer a nice 20in a medium 17in and an okay 15in. I don't know. It's just the monitors are so nice for a consumer computer.
You won't change the price much with just a small difference in display quality -- certainly not enough to get to the $999 price point, which is where I jumped into this thread.
G5 iMacs at the rumored Think Secret prices aren't so bad if...
1) Apple boosts the value proposition just a little... improve the video card (this really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, but it does seem that it's not that expensive for Apple to go a notch or two higher and make a lot of people happier) and maybe boost the base memory to 512 MB.
2) There are other consumer options, like a cheaper 15" iMac, an improved eMac, a headless Mac.
The iMac is as much about style as anything else, which isn't a bad thing so long as there are also some good consumer-priced alternatives.
Originally posted by bborofka
Typical BS statement from an Apple-apologist. This sort of idea wouldn't last 1 minute in Dell board room, or any PC manufacturer's for that matter. Give people options and let them figure out what to do with their computer, this is what Apple needs to understand. Modular flexibility that is on par with your competitors is a proven seller in the marketplace. Permanent consolidation of various components with no flexibility isn't.
I'm not an Apple Apologist I'm just better than you at knowing how people will respond. I really get a kick out of all you people and how you generalize consumers based on severe personal biases. Consumers are anything but monolithic in thought and desire.
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people.
Here is where your idea dosen't work though the 17in monitor that Apple offers is $700 the 20in is $1300. Apple is a tight spot trying to make a monitor Flat panel that is $999. You notice the eMac can do it because it is a CRt display. Flat screens are expensive. And Don't forget over time you use more money, for example it used to be $30,000 to buy a nice home in the 70's no it is that much to buy a nice car.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm not an Apple Apologist I'm just better than you at knowing how people will respond. I really get a kick out of all you people and how you generalize consumers based on severe personal biases. Consumers are anything but monolithic in thought and desire.
I have no clue what you are talking about. You could at least just address my arguments instead of trying to impose your generalizations on me and superiority on yourself.
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people. [/B]
Yes, because appealing colors and shapes are what sell computers yeah! The vast majority of people that would buy an iMac G5 with the information given on TS are existing Mac users. Yeah, there will be a flurry of buyers at first (as Apple has no desktop between $1000-$2000 for 2 months, Mac users need to upgrade), but it will just be the same story all over again. Apple reaping profits off their user base with crippled hardware and no unit growth or marketshare expansion. It's just the iMac G4 all over again.
It's just the iMac G4 all over again.
But cheaper. People are likely to be upgrading from computers that are 3-5 years old. We AI Pros can easily become jaded but they will be amazed at what the iMac G5 can do.
$1299 isn't a lot of money for this "hobby" I'm sorry. If that's too much then Apple has a eMac for $500 cheaper that will suit even the most frugal in Mac users.
Keep the faith guys. Apple isn't "Apple" because of hardware. People buy Apple because of the whole appeal which is led by the best software platform on the Planet. The OS is the heart and soul of the platform. As long as it is beating hard Apple will be fine.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Save this post. If the iMac G5 comes in an appealing shape and color I predict that it will be a big seller even with a lowly outdated and unacceptable 5200fx. We're talking about a 64 bit computer for $1299 people.
I would agree with you as long as it has the price to compete in it's intended market, I don't feel that it does with an entry point of $1299, they need to gent the entry price down to the "Sweet Spot" that they Apple was talking about earlier this year. Let the eMac cover the sub-1000 market, but get the entry iMac back down to $999 so that they can take better advantage of the brand recognition that the iMac has in the market to attract new customers. Price will kill iMac sales no mater how cool it looks as surely as they did for the Cube.
As to your earlier statement about getting th G5 into a consumer product I agree again, though I think that Apple might be better served to get duals into the consumer desktop lineup to encourage better mulit-threading and multi-processor support in the software released for the Mac. This will be more important in the coming years if Apple is truely going to make the iMac into a dugital hub serving music and possibly video to multiple places in the house while it is doing other work such as serfing the web, iPhoto retouching, etc.
Originally posted by hmurchison
But cheaper. People are likely to be upgrading from computers that are 3-5 years old. We AI Pros can easily become jaded but they will be amazed at what the iMac G5 can do.
$1299 isn't a lot of money for this "hobby" I'm sorry. If that's too much then Apple has a eMac for $500 cheaper that will suit even the most frugal in Mac users.
Keep the faith guys. Apple isn't "Apple" because of hardware. People buy Apple because of the whole appeal which is led by the best software platform on the Planet. The OS is the heart and soul of the platform. As long as it is beating hard Apple will be fine.
I agree with you, completely. You get a lot of shit from people on these boards, people who don't know jack. Good post and you're right on.
Originally posted by @homenow
I would agree with you as long as it has the price to compete in it's intended market, I don't feel that it does with an entry point of $1299, they need to gent the entry price down to the "Sweet Spot" that they Apple was talking about earlier this year. Let the eMac cover the sub-1000 market, but get the entry iMac back down to $999 so that they can take better advantage of the brand recognition that the iMac has in the market to attract new customers. Price will kill iMac sales no mater how cool it looks as surely as they did for the Cube.
As to your earlier statement about getting th G5 into a consumer product I agree again, though I think that Apple might be better served to get duals into the consumer desktop lineup to encourage better mulit-threading and multi-processor support in the software released for the Mac. This will be more important in the coming years if Apple is truely going to make the iMac into a dugital hub serving music and possibly video to multiple places in the house while it is doing other work such as serfing the web, iPhoto retouching, etc.
You know what, I'm calling BS on the ThinkSickly article.
Fred Anderson said, flat-out that the price point on the iMac needs to be $999. TS claims that the price range is 1300-2200, which is no different than the current line of extinctMacs. The specs do not fall in line with the pricing, unless somehow the addition of the G5 keeps the prices high, but I just don't see it. The consumers would be horrified immediately by the reported specs, and I just think that the comment someone had about the interim spec sheet being included with marketing materials, may be on to something.
Apple will release a $999 G5 iMac, for consumers. ThinkSecret may be off on this one, at least, I hope so.
And on a side note: they don't even have an inkling of what the design will be. They point to a pathetic Sony "glommed on the back" design.
Apple's got it under wraps.
Originally posted by volcom1206
...And Don't forget over time you use more money, for example it used to be $30,000 to buy a nice home in the 70's no it is that much to buy a nice car.
Inflation is something to take into account, but look at the electronics industry over the last few years, including the recession, and you will see that better technology, manufacturing processes, and contracting companies in Asia to manufacture the products for you have driven costs down much faster than the rate of inflation over the same time period. How much did a 17" LCD screen cost 4 years ago? Where are they today? A year ago a 17" LCD TV was selling for over $1000, now they are around $800. Hard Drives have seen similar price reductions per GB. RAM fluctuates consistantly, but I would be willing to bet the price for the chips used in the G5 are cheaper today than they were a year ago becouse the production capacity has increased to meet the increasing demand of the market (though PC 100 and 133 RAM will probably start going up becouse production will decrease to reflect the decrease in demand for that type of memory). I will admitt that 15" LCD panels have not dropped much in price over the past 24 months, but that is only one component, the 17" LCD's have come down during that same period of time even if it is not reflected in the price of Apple's 17" monitor.
Originally posted by tak1108
Non upgradable videocard and all-in-one are the deal killer for me. Now, I am going to get a new powerbook as soon as I can afford it.
I'll probably sell my G4 tower to get one too. But the iMac is not my computer, because of the built in monitor and lack of upgradablility for a desktop.
[irony] Help me understand: you won't buy the iMac because it has a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one. Instead, you're going to get a new PowerBook, which features a non-upgradeable video card and is an all-in-one to an even greater extent than the iMac (even the keyboard is built-in)?
And you're going to sell your upgradeable tower and separate monitor to buy this all-in-one, non-upgradeable video card PowerBook? [/irony]
Originally posted by talksense101
None. If they thrown in a 9800 series of video cards or a nVidia 6800 series, I will take another look at it.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell us that you are kidding. there is no one in the world that can be that naive (but then again.....).
2. Apple will sell only a percentage of the iMacs at list price. Too many people qualify for an educational discount (parent, student, works for a school, etc.) and that is a fast $130 off the price. Resellers will be getting more than 10% off on wholesale - again Apple gets less than the $1,299. Only non-education sales on apple.com or in Apple Stores will generate the full sales price for Apple.
3. Part of Apple's price development efforts will be to establish the gross margin of all sales and ensure that they end up with about a 28% gross margin or Wall Street will give them hell.
4. Unlike Dull or home built PCs buying a Mac means that you are paying for the R&D necessary to keep the wonderful compatibility that can be gained by controlling both the hardware and software, AND you are making your contribution to future R&D. It's part of being in the Mac community - you contribute when you buy and you benefit far more than your R&D contribution. Doesn't happen like this in the PC world. You get XP and in a few more years you get Longhorn. Support comes from India and it's not even the the manufacturer that is providing it. You definitely get what you pay for when you go super cheap.
5. Anyone, like me, who had to work on a 16MHz computer a few years ago will not turn their noses up at G5 consumer computer. Being able to compare both old hardware and software (remember Windows 3.1?) does give you a better view than only being able to compare over the past few years.
6. Some people like to work on their computers or cars, bumping the performance up, or just tinkering. I'm one of those that has no desire to lift the hood on either. I just want them to work when I need them to work. For me "Doom" is a broken timing belt.
7. I'm going to buy, based on my experience with 2 15" PowerBooks. I already have picked up a new 23" display so I can remove the remaining tasks from my 1.8 Dull - that is just over 2 years old and treats me like crap - and the G5 iMac will be to replace an old 450 Dull. If the screen is anywhere near the 23" I won't care if it's only a G4.5.
8. My PB is probably not the fastest notebook on the market, but I don't care. It is the most COMFORTABLE computer I have ever used. If the G5 iMac is as fast as the 1.5 PB that I am working on, retains the same comfort level, provides a screen as great as the 23" and accommodates 64 bit programs that will be coming in the near future then I will be very happy.
9. I voted top of the line as that is the one I plan on getting on Day 1.
PS. Has Apple ever released a new computer without hundreds of Mac "lovers" tearing it apart?
I think what people are unhappy about is that Apple is positioning the iMac as a computer that becomes outdated 2-3 years after its introduction. This way, people have to replace it with a new machine. Most people keep their Powermacs for >5 years. That is too long for Apple. Thus the iMac is required. They sell like hotcakes early on and create a large user base that will, hopefully, be repeat customers 2-3 years down the line. I know I fall into this catagory.