iMac 4
OK, v3 is out. Time to start speculating about v4. 
Obvious/apparent shortfalls on v3: video GPU, no FireWire 800, 4x DVD burner.
Re: The current GPU. Is this a case of Apple really not caring about the gamer market? Or is this the best chip they could use because of heat issues in that tight space?
If I were running Apple, this is what I'd like to see in the iMac.[list=1][*]CPU - Single at the same speed as the Pro machines.[*]GPU - Upgradeable. GPU technology moves too fast, and user "needs" varies too widely for a one chip fits all solution. Would be nice to see PCI Express, but AGP is probably still good for a few years.[*] Monitor - separate. Yeah, yeah, the iMac is an all-in-one; always has been, always will be. IMHO, Apple could marry an iMac CPU to a Cinema Display in such a way that it would be indistinguishable from an AOI. Apple could even be mean and only sell the iMac CPU paired with a monitor, but people might squeal very loudly.[/list=1]
Most other stuff is pretty standard - USB 2.0, FW4/800, optical audio, Wi-Fi ability, Bluetooth.
I guess one of my problems with the current iMac is that it appears to be a case of making the technology fit the form factor, rather than designing a form to fit the available technology. e.g. 2.0GHz and 2.5GHz CPUs exist, why not put one in rather than throttle back because of heat issues. Same with the GPU; faster chips are readily available, they're just hotter.
The v3 iMac is a fine machine, and I'm sure Apple will sell them as fast as they can make them (which still won't increase their marketshare at all), but I really think they could have a stronger machine if they'd follow their own advice and "think different".
- Jasen.
Obvious/apparent shortfalls on v3: video GPU, no FireWire 800, 4x DVD burner.
Re: The current GPU. Is this a case of Apple really not caring about the gamer market? Or is this the best chip they could use because of heat issues in that tight space?
If I were running Apple, this is what I'd like to see in the iMac.[list=1][*]CPU - Single at the same speed as the Pro machines.[*]GPU - Upgradeable. GPU technology moves too fast, and user "needs" varies too widely for a one chip fits all solution. Would be nice to see PCI Express, but AGP is probably still good for a few years.[*] Monitor - separate. Yeah, yeah, the iMac is an all-in-one; always has been, always will be. IMHO, Apple could marry an iMac CPU to a Cinema Display in such a way that it would be indistinguishable from an AOI. Apple could even be mean and only sell the iMac CPU paired with a monitor, but people might squeal very loudly.[/list=1]
Most other stuff is pretty standard - USB 2.0, FW4/800, optical audio, Wi-Fi ability, Bluetooth.
I guess one of my problems with the current iMac is that it appears to be a case of making the technology fit the form factor, rather than designing a form to fit the available technology. e.g. 2.0GHz and 2.5GHz CPUs exist, why not put one in rather than throttle back because of heat issues. Same with the GPU; faster chips are readily available, they're just hotter.
The v3 iMac is a fine machine, and I'm sure Apple will sell them as fast as they can make them (which still won't increase their marketshare at all), but I really think they could have a stronger machine if they'd follow their own advice and "think different".
- Jasen.
Comments
We can't both have a machine that's got every latest thing and is still the cheapest machine on the market.
These things are going to sell like crazy, interesting to see if IBM/Apple can keep up...
These new iMac G5's are going to sell like the first iMac did. Clever to market them as the iPod twin...very clever indeed!
(for those of you who read the USA TODAY article on how more and more students now come in wanting a Mac because of their iPod)
My biggest wish is that the Grahics card was upgradable, but there you have it.
Budget GPUs will probably continue to use some variant of a previous-generation core, so in actual fact GPUs whose basic designs are 2+ years old are not at all uncommon at the low end, and that will remain true.
As for the next iMac: Hard to say, but if this one does well (and I think it will) I can see a refinement of this basic design. The bezel has room to shrink, as does the depth. The monitor can continue to grow as the 17" pushes down into inexpensive territory and HDTV pushes resolutions up. More and more wireless options will keep the design clean in practice while adding possibilities like an AirPort Express-style ability to wirelessly beam full-quality 5.1 or 7.1 to a stereo, only without an AirPort Express. The displays can go high-resolution once that technology matures, since it appears that Tiger lays the groundwork for resolution independence. This design has legs, simply because it comes as close as Apple ever has to reducing the machine to its interface, and there's plenty of room to continue that reduction as technology improves.
The further apple gets from "standard PC" design, the easier it will be for them to escape standard spec comparisons.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
Fwiw, I believe Apple should've gone back to the Cube concept or something simillar with a small form factor but bundled with reduced-price pro monitor. That Apple chose to slap everything (all the computing parts) behind a monitor and price it for $600.00 less than the equivalent monitor alone shows that Apple could've made a CPU-only unit and still sold it for sub-$1000. All those that don't need another display would've have been happily served and Apple would've made tons of sales and profits.
Why do you guys always forget the most important part. Can Apple make more money this way? Of course it's possible for Apple to come out with a low cost computer that is headless but that revenue hit from unbundling the monitor isn't going to be looked at nicely from shareholders and Wallstreet. Apple doesn't need conjecture about increased sales they need concrete proof that their cost cutting actions will increase sales enough to cover the revenue loss.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Why do you guys always forget the most important part. Can Apple make more money this way? Of course it's possible for Apple to come out with a low cost computer that is headless but that revenue hit from unbundling the monitor isn't going to be looked at nicely from shareholders and Wallstreet. Apple doesn't need conjecture about increased sales they need concrete proof that their cost cutting actions will increase sales enough to cover the revenue loss.
Hold on a minute. Most people, including myself, aren't ignoring what you're saying. But, I'd bet that if Apple had released a headless unit and priced it somewhere around $999 without monitor and somewhere around the current price of the new iMac when bundled with a monitor, that Apple would be selling a ton more units.
Everytime I want to replace an older Mac in my household I'm forced to get rid of my current CRT/LCD monitor. How about giving the buyer a little more choice. Apple's margins on the LCD displays must be so great that their tacking on a computer to sell more displays. That's what it seems like.
I believe some people do ignore the fact that fewer choices ultimately lead to lost sales.
Since this looks so much like the iPod I think it means a few things:
1. Next iMac will get thinner and thinner, shaving thickness, like the iPod.
2. If there's ever an iPod maxi, it will look like a mini handheld iMac G5.
3. Next iMac may be all wireless. Wireless keyboard, mouse, airport, and detachable screen. Wireless power? Is that possible? Nah.
4. eMac will continue to exist. The face of the new iMac looks eMac-ish. It will get upgraded to G5 early next year and will look basically the same but with a slot loading drive.
But, I'd bet that if Apple had released a headless unit and priced it somewhere around $999 without monitor and somewhere around the current price of the new iMac when bundled with a monitor, that Apple would be selling a ton more units.
They should price the PowerMac Mini in such a way that the option to buy a monitor separately is a bonus... Apple could add, say, $100 or $200 of extra profit margin to the price of the Mini, and then offer bundle deals that shaves the exact same amount off the price of a display. Also, if they want to push the iMac, they can make sure an iMac costs slightly less than an equivalent Mini + display bundle.
This way, people who buy a headless unit without buying an Apple display to match won't be hurting Apple's bottom line too much compared to if they'd bought an AIO. Meanwhile, Apple still has a relatively inexpensive headless box to sell to the masses. And they can justify the high price by citing quality materials and workmanship, because I'd expect them to make it pretty much as gorgeous as a tower can be.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
Hold on a minute. Most people, including myself, aren't ignoring what you're saying. But, I'd bet that if Apple had released a headless unit and priced it somewhere around $999 without monitor and somewhere around the current price of the new iMac when bundled with a monitor, that Apple would be selling a ton more units.
Everytime I want to replace an older Mac in my household I'm forced to get rid of my current CRT/LCD monitor. How about giving the buyer a little more choice. Apple's margins on the LCD displays must be so great that their tacking on a computer to sell more displays. That's what it seems like.
I believe some people do ignore the fact that fewer choices ultimately lead to lost sales.
I understand your point of vue, but screen do not last forever. A separate screen will cost more than the Imac 3 concept (connection, enclosure, and less sales).
Look at the prices of a 20 inch LCD screen (the 17 inch screen are different, so we can't compare) and a Imac 20 inch : 1299 $ for the screen and 1899 $ for the Imac. The difference is 600 $. The difference between the 20 inch and the 17 inch Imac with the same HD is 300 $.
I don't think that an Imac without a screen cost 600$,(superdrive model ). My gess is that the Imac without the screen cost 1000 $ and the screen 300 $ for the 17 inch. For the 20 inch the screen cost 600 $.
I think that a screen of 17 inch at 300 $ and a 20 inch at 600 $ is a good bargain
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
I believe some people do ignore the fact that fewer choices ultimately lead to lost sales.
Fewer choices reduces cost per unit.
I'm hoping that this will be wildly successful as an iPod accessory, and even eventually as a business Mac. The ability to be bolted to the wall or the desk will appeal in business setting where theft is an issue.
Originally posted by Amorph
As for the next iMac: Hard to say, but if this one does well (and I think it will) I can see a refinement of this basic design. The bezel has room to shrink, as does the depth. The monitor can continue to grow as the 17" pushes down into inexpensive territory and HDTV pushes resolutions up. More and more wireless options will keep the design clean in practice while adding possibilities like an AirPort Express-style ability to wirelessly beam full-quality 5.1 or 7.1 to a stereo, only without an AirPort Express. The displays can go high-resolution once that technology matures, since it appears that Tiger lays the groundwork for resolution independence. This design has legs, simply because it comes as close as Apple ever has to reducing the machine to its interface, and there's plenty of room to continue that reduction as technology improves.
I think this is exactly right. I mean there are only so many things you can do with a computer design before you are really beginning to "stretch it". I think Apple is on a "design continuum" here that is heading in the direction of "making the computer disappear". The new iMac is another step in that direction. I predicted this after I saw iMac 2.
So, I can see things getting thinner (as technology allows) and bezels shrinking...to the point where you have nothing but this display floating in mid air! The wireless keyboard and mouse eliminate cables. It is looking very cool.
I expect that the PM line will continue to carry the form of a "traditional" computer. But the iMac is Steve's "play toy"...he (along with his very talented designer and engineers) can make this the "dream machine" (in a sense).
BTW...no one has (yet) mentioned the resemblence to the original Mac.
Originally posted by jasenj1
The v3 iMac is a fine machine, and I'm sure Apple will sell them as fast as they can make them (which still won't increase their marketshare at all), but I really think they could have a stronger machine if they'd follow their own advice and "think different".
I don't think you are talking about the iMac. The iMac is their AIO, "pull it out of the box and do general consumer kinds of things with it". Style is a big part of its appeal. What most of the people in this forum (and other like it, filled with primarily geeks & gamers) want is not the iMac. They want a low cost, customizable, headless G5 Mac. Its been quite a while since Apple built such a machine (if ever). The PowerMac 610 was pretty close. With the PowerMac towers going all dual this leaves a space for a pizza box of the same type with BTO CPU/GPU/HD/DVD/RAM options. With the Unix crowd more interested in MacOS X than ever there seems to be a market for a real low-margin machine. When the dual core 970 arrives this will allow an obvious BTO option of single or dual core. The GPU is easily put on a card. The main issue is whether Apple thinks it can survive the low margin battle that such a machine would face...
Wireless USB is also coming. Bluetooth will likely start to go away at that point.
We shouldn't expect the system to shrink every generation. It's possible that v4 could require a base again depending on thermal requirements of high-end G5's or the G6. Or, perhaps, it'll just keep disappearing until it's nothing but a holographic display.
Nonetheless, we know that Apple will likely not compete on price, so they should find things that their computers can do that others can't at the time. That's what v3 lacks. It's the same computer, just with a different form factor and a beefed up processor. More speed doesn't really take you down any new roads anymore.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
No longer will one be able to look the display straight on without bending your head down. Ergonimically, I think this new iMac is a miss.
I don't think so. It just became an optional item.
As the new iMac finally offers a VESA mount. You've got all the ergonomic options you'd ever want! Hang it from the wall or swing it around on your desk - pick the mount and maneuverability of your liking!
It is not a miss, it is a step forward!
Granted this costs extra, but there are more options than just one, as the old iMac had.
Next, the iMac v5 would be... an iPod! By 2010, when the iMac v5 will be out, the technology will be sufficient to build cheap and extremely powerful computers fitting in an iPod body, IMO... plug that to a screen and you're done!
That's pure speculation, of course, but that's where my intuition leads me to (btw, don't be too hard on me, that's my first post in two months)