"Creators of the iPod" is artistic licence and a promotional gimmick. Apple is using the cachet* of the iPod's success, directing the promotion of the new G5 iMac particularly to PC users who have bought more iPods then Apple folk. The creator of the iPod and the new iMac is Jonathan Ive and his staff... who do all the design work for all the products at Apple.
I dont see this iMac as a marketshare grabber, what i see is more of what the last iMac was and it wasnt a big hit. All in ones are all in ones and they give you more reasons not to buy then they give you reasons to buy. This machine is perfect for grandma's & girly guys but real men will go elsewhere.
A note on women and tech: According to a Best Buy survey, women customers make 60% of the purchasing decisions in their stores.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dazaran
You won't give up your little world will you? Portable systems are portable this is what people buy them for.
Desknotes don't satisfy any definition of portable that the new iMac doesn't as well.
And the point is that consumers will cheerfully trade expandability away: Portables have become primary computers, meaning that consumers have no need for (internal) expandability at all, regardless of whether they tote the portable around.
Quote:
Desktops are not portable in the same way that a laptop is, therefore they require a different reason for people to want them.
Some desktops might not be, but the iMac falls into the "luggable" category pretty easily. At about 18 pounds, the 17" iMac is barely heavier than the bigger PC desknotes.
Quote:
So what do you suppose this reason is?
Style? (iMacs1,2, and 3 have this)
Performance? (iMac1 had a decent amount, 2 and 3 bleh)
Choice in models? (iMac1 had a decent amount, 2 and 3? not even close, you get 2 models w/ choice of 2 different displays on second model)
Expandability? (hmm nope none to speak of)
So the iMac3 has 1 good reason to buy it. Yep a good niche Mac but not gonna be putting up numbers like the iMac1.
Sorry, no. It probably won't put up numbers like the iMac 1 because unlike the iMac 1 it has to share the market with the iBook. On the other hand, it's the best-suited iMac ever for enterprise, SOHO (although the iMac 2 was great for SOHO as well) and edu customers, who tend to buy in large quantities.
As for performance, that's kind of hard to judge from pictures, isn't it?
And as for expandability: If you can find a tower that has easier and quicker access to the innards, it's probably a PowerMac. In this regard, the iMac 3 is unparalleled among iMacs, and among AIOs generally. It has the bases covered as far as external expandability goes — which for some reason is never counted even though it's much more consumer-friendly.
I'm willing to bet that if you actually talked to people about why they got laptops, it would be because they have a reasonable size relative to what they do. The idea that common computing tasks require a tower and a separate display is frankly absurd. Of course, towers will ship anyway, because of the inertia of the commodity market, and because of the convenience of the manufacturers (BTO is relatively easy when your case is an ATX tower), and there will always be some people who prefer them, but by and large they're dated and ridiculous overkill. Look at the broader consumer market: What else that is designed and offered to consumers is that elaborate and involved? Nothing. And that's because the tower was never designed with consumers in mind. The ATX design was driven by manufacturers and business, although even business is moving away from towers now.
For all those, "I can build my own machine for ...". Just one question. Did you build your own car? No? How LAME is that. If you built your own car it would be much faster and cheaper. Losers.
Just when you thought no-one could come up with a more tenuous car analogy.
It doesn't work for me at this moment. Perhaps the Apple servers are too much loaded right now. Anyway, what is the conclusion?
Phill looked shit scared most of the time - poor thing. I read someone actually shouted out 'we want Steve' at one point but I couldn't hear it. As for the video at the end - definitely directed at the iPodders. The soundtrack to the video was 'Let's get it started' by the Black-eyed Peas ala iPod advert and there were constant references to it being similar to the iPod in form and function (ease of use etc). It also stressed the suitability of the thing for iLife - using little shots of happy people up-loading photos into iPhoto and... you get the picture. Although It did look as though the people were filmed without the iMac actually being there! Which isn't surprising really - can't trust these actors you know!
All in all, I think it was a success - in that it will attract the 20-30 year old iPod users and sell like hot cakes! I know I wan't one - just a shame I can't afford one (bloody student debts!)
Just thought i would check on FX5200 performance on Doom3. went over to lanse doom3 time demo benches where folks are posting their 1024 x 768 scores, every fx5200 was running in the mid to low teens and some of these machines where being pushed by a P4 3.0s and athlon's. you cant enjoy nothing when its stuttering like a slide show and crippled down 1.6 or 1.8 G5 is not a P4 at 3.0 or athlon. Anyone who has any hopes of playing Doom3 and other triple A titles should keep this in mind. ( edit ) this was at med settings
A note on women and tech: According to a Best Buy survey, women customers make 60% of the purchasing decisions in their stores.
Desknotes don't satisfy any definition of portable that the new iMac doesn't as well.
And the point is that consumers will cheerfully trade expandability away: Portables have become primary computers, meaning that consumers have no need for (internal) expandability at all, regardless of whether they tote the portable around.
Some desktops might not be, but the iMac falls into the "luggable" category pretty easily. At about 18 pounds, the 17" iMac is barely heavier than the bigger PC desknotes.
Sorry, no. It probably won't put up numbers like the iMac 1 because unlike the iMac 1 it has to share the market with the iBook. On the other hand, it's the best-suited iMac ever for enterprise, SOHO (although the iMac 2 was great for SOHO as well) and edu customers, who tend to buy in large quantities.
As for performance, that's kind of hard to judge from pictures, isn't it?
And as for expandability: If you can find a tower that has easier and quicker access to the innards, it's probably a PowerMac. In this regard, the iMac 3 is unparalleled among iMacs, and among AIOs generally. It has the bases covered as far as external expandability goes — which for some reason is never counted even though it's much more consumer-friendly.
I'm willing to bet that if you actually talked to people about why they got laptops, it would be because they have a reasonable size relative to what they do. The idea that common computing tasks require a tower and a separate display is frankly absurd. Of course, towers will ship anyway, because of the inertia of the commodity market, and because of the convenience of the manufacturers (BTO is relatively easy when your case is an ATX tower), and there will always be some people who prefer them, but by and large they're dated and ridiculous overkill. Look at the broader consumer market: What else that is designed and offered to consumers is that elaborate and involved? Nothing. And that's because the tower was never designed with consumers in mind. The ATX design was driven by manufacturers and business, although even business is moving away from towers now.
I agree entirely with you Amorph. The proof : I just ordered an I mac 20 inch on the Apple store (with Airport, wireless mouse and keyboard and a 1 GB ram).
I wanted to replace my G4 digital audio 533, not because it was not fast enough for his purpose, but because it was too noisy. This computer is in our bedroom, and my wife complain about the noise, and I must admit that I share her advice.
The other reason is that I was fed up of all this cables and wires, who look very bad.
I was tempted by a dual, but I do not really nead all that power for my home use. The lack of expandibility is not a real issue, I am interested in a second HD, but I have already a firewire HD that will fit my need.
I just added airport extreme and blue tooth allowing to communicate my powerbook and my Imac alltogether.
I am sure that I will notice the difference of speed between my new Imac and my G4, and even if the Geforce 5200 ultra is not great, it will be much more faster than the geforce 2 mx.
With time I am less interested in performance, but more in ergonomia : place, noise, wireless technologies and nices screens.
That's why I believe the Imac G5 will be a best seller. It was time for the Apple desktop consumer line.
Here's a chart taken from the Apple site which certainly shows improved performance vs. the previous iMac:
I would take that with a grain of salt, notice no frame rates only a percentage of faster then G4 which i dont think is true either, Apple has made it a habit of s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth a little on its own benches.
Stop with the video cards sucks for playing games rants. The iMac is not a gaming machine. It's not intended to be a gaming machine. It's is a simple all in one! Compare the iMac to it's intended competition from a PC manufacture and you will see that it's features and price are perfect! The Sony in the same category has 32MB of shared RAM for it's video, while the Gateway has 64MB of shared memory. Quit it already! Don't use a screwdriver to pound in a damn nail, get a fuckin' hammer!
True enough on the s t r e t c h i n g thing. Guess we'll have to wait for real world tests. Interestingly according to the Apple site the tests were done August 24! They must have just finished the software tweaking last weeek?
Phill looked shit scared most of the time - poor thing. I read someone actually shouted out 'we want Steve' at one point but I couldn't hear it. As for the video at the end - definitely directed at the iPodders. The soundtrack to the video was 'Let's get it started' by the Black-eyed Peas ala iPod advert and there were constant references to it being similar to the iPod in form and function (ease of use etc). It also stressed the suitability of the thing for iLife - using little shots of happy people up-loading photos into iPhoto and... you get the picture. Although It did look as though the people were filmed without the iMac actually being there! Which isn't surprising really - can't trust these actors you know!
All in all, I think it was a success - in that it will attract the 20-30 year old iPod users and sell like hot cakes! I know I wan't one - just a shame I can't afford one (bloody student debts!)
Ah, thanks glen. And patience my friend, time will come. There is no chance, by the way, to enjoy the new iMacs in your school/university?
Guys, just shut up already. You're dissapointed for not finding pro features in a normal computer! If you're a serious enough gamer where you need a 128mb graphics card, and you're using a mac, go pick up a ps2, or an xbox.
Why do people keep repeating this incredibly silly sentiment? Console gaming is not the same thing as gaming on a computer (at all). People who play first person shooters on a computer with a mouse are NEVER going to be satisfied with an X-box. Consoles don't even offer the real-time strategy games that are so popular with computer gamers.
Additionally, you don't have to be a particularly serious gamer to need a 128 MB graphics card. That is a middle of the road specification that's necessary to run many games that are coming out right now, never mind what the future holds. If you think the video card seems dated on introduction, imagine how it will look in a year or two, when you can't upgrade it.
It seems clear that this iMac is a particularly poor choice for anyone who includes gaming as one of the primary uses for their computer. That's too bad, because a network of 6 of 'em would fit on a dining room table for some serious LAN-party action.
Stop with the video cards sucks for playing games rants. The iMac is not a gaming machine. It's not intended to be a gaming machine. It's is a simple all in one! Compare the iMac to it's intended competition from a PC manufacture and you will see that it's features and price are perfect! The Sony in the same category has 32MB of shared RAM for it's video, while the Gateway has 64MB of shared memory. Quit it already! Don't use a screwdriver to pound in a damn nail, get a fuckin' hammer!
Come on go to the iMac graphics page at apples own web site and they would try to make you think the FX5200 is the greatest gaming thing around. even the above chart makes you say wow until you notice missing fram rates which tell the story. The young crowd will want to game and fx5200 is garbage but my point it made. be careful of Apple spin and do a little research.
The most debated: the video card. Well, it seems like currently, ATi makes better ones. And certainly ones that produce less heat. So again, why stick NVIDIA in there instead of ATi. It seems like a political move, just like with the 12" PowerBooks. A RADEON Mobile or a lowend desktop one would probably smoke it. I also suspect NVIDIA is a bit cheaper. So it is probably part price, part political. I may buy this rev, may buy the next. The video card isn't holding me back though, I just want something that does Core Image.
Next: someone mentioned that when you look at the LCD prices alone, the difference between them and the iMac is $300. So a G5 mini-tower could cost around $300! I think it's time for Apple to make a mini-Tower. The PC industry has been for a while and I think there's a market. The screens in the iMacs now are where the real cost is and lots of people don't necessarily want that fancy an LCD or even an LCD. Make headless iMac with upgradeable graphics (one AGP 8x slot) and a PCI-X slot. FireWire 2. Other than that keep it the same, nice and small. Sell for under a grand. Not sure what pricepoint that'd entail. $899? With SuperDive. $799 with Combo? Maybe make an offer to buy a display from Apple and get a little discount.
FireWire 2: I guess it's not needed for iMacs this rev, hopefully will make the cut next time.
The only thing they really made a mistake on is the RAM. Like they have for a decade. I don't get it, it really hurts performance. Another 128 would've cost them next to nothing. Give the low end 384 and the upper 512. Apple charges $75 for 256 megs of RAM, damn. (to go from 256 to 512) On Dealram you can get it for $37. Talk about markup. You can get 512 for less. Ah well I'm sure it's really "high quality" RAM.
I hope on the next rev they can get the iMac back under it's old magical price point- $999!
Why do people keep repeating this incredibly silly sentiment?
Consoles are cheap, they run a lot of games, and they don't run Windows.
Quote:
Additionally, you don't have to be a particularly serious gamer to need a 128 MB graphics card. That is a middle of the road specification that's necessary to run many games that are coming out right now, never mind what the future holds.
"Middle of the road" at what price point? If I get off work and drive over to Best Buy and buy an off-the-shelf machine, how much will I pay to get a card with 128MB RAM and a PC powerful enough to drive it? How much for a machine that comes with that card? Are these mainstream consumer prices?
Quote:
It seems clear that this iMac is a particularly poor choice for anyone who includes gaming as one of the primary uses for their computer. That's too bad, because a network of 6 of 'em would fit on a dining room table for some serious LAN-party action.
First, that holds for Macs generally. Second, game developers keep sales in mind. If the iMac 3 runs away with the market, guess what? It'll become the reference platform for Mac games, in exactly the way that the first iMac was a reference platform, and developers will make a point of targeting it. The higher the specs required relative to what's out there, the smaller the market will be, the less money you can spend on the game, etc. Obviously, you can throw in extra eye candy for the hardware tweakers, but your game had better be playable on mainstream hardware or you'll lose your shirt. So, for instance, Neverwinter Nights is playable on my 450MHz G4 and 32MB RADEON, despite the fact that my Cube was already pretty old when NWN came out. I don't get to see all the bells and whistles, or use a high resolution, but that's mostly just eye candy anyway: I can play the game, and it looks good.
As far as gaming performance goes, all we have to go by is a singularly useless graph on Apple's site that doesn't have any concrete numbers on it. That will change as they ship in a couple of weeks (fingers crossed) and reviewers like Mike Breeden at Accelerate Your Mac! (or his readers, who are quite happy to send him detailed benchmarks) start getting ahold of them. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, this is all handwaving.
Comments
*thanks Amorph!
Originally posted by Dazaran
You won't give up your little world will you? Portable systems are portable this is what people buy them for.
Desknotes don't satisfy any definition of portable that the new iMac doesn't as well.
And the point is that consumers will cheerfully trade expandability away: Portables have become primary computers, meaning that consumers have no need for (internal) expandability at all, regardless of whether they tote the portable around.
Desktops are not portable in the same way that a laptop is, therefore they require a different reason for people to want them.
Some desktops might not be, but the iMac falls into the "luggable" category pretty easily. At about 18 pounds, the 17" iMac is barely heavier than the bigger PC desknotes.
So what do you suppose this reason is?
Style? (iMacs1,2, and 3 have this)
Performance? (iMac1 had a decent amount, 2 and 3 bleh)
Choice in models? (iMac1 had a decent amount, 2 and 3? not even close, you get 2 models w/ choice of 2 different displays on second model)
Expandability? (hmm nope none to speak of)
So the iMac3 has 1 good reason to buy it. Yep a good niche Mac but not gonna be putting up numbers like the iMac1.
Sorry, no. It probably won't put up numbers like the iMac 1 because unlike the iMac 1 it has to share the market with the iBook. On the other hand, it's the best-suited iMac ever for enterprise, SOHO (although the iMac 2 was great for SOHO as well) and edu customers, who tend to buy in large quantities.
As for performance, that's kind of hard to judge from pictures, isn't it?
And as for expandability: If you can find a tower that has easier and quicker access to the innards, it's probably a PowerMac. In this regard, the iMac 3 is unparalleled among iMacs, and among AIOs generally. It has the bases covered as far as external expandability goes — which for some reason is never counted even though it's much more consumer-friendly.
I'm willing to bet that if you actually talked to people about why they got laptops, it would be because they have a reasonable size relative to what they do. The idea that common computing tasks require a tower and a separate display is frankly absurd. Of course, towers will ship anyway, because of the inertia of the commodity market, and because of the convenience of the manufacturers (BTO is relatively easy when your case is an ATX tower), and there will always be some people who prefer them, but by and large they're dated and ridiculous overkill. Look at the broader consumer market: What else that is designed and offered to consumers is that elaborate and involved? Nothing. And that's because the tower was never designed with consumers in mind. The ATX design was driven by manufacturers and business, although even business is moving away from towers now.
For all those, "I can build my own machine for ...". Just one question. Did you build your own car? No? How LAME is that. If you built your own car it would be much faster and cheaper. Losers.
Just when you thought no-one could come up with a more tenuous car analogy.
Originally posted by PB
It doesn't work for me at this moment. Perhaps the Apple servers are too much loaded right now. Anyway, what is the conclusion?
Phill looked shit scared most of the time - poor thing. I read someone actually shouted out 'we want Steve' at one point but I couldn't hear it. As for the video at the end - definitely directed at the iPodders. The soundtrack to the video was 'Let's get it started' by the Black-eyed Peas ala iPod advert and there were constant references to it being similar to the iPod in form and function (ease of use etc). It also stressed the suitability of the thing for iLife - using little shots of happy people up-loading photos into iPhoto and... you get the picture. Although It did look as though the people were filmed without the iMac actually being there! Which isn't surprising really - can't trust these actors you know!
All in all, I think it was a success - in that it will attract the 20-30 year old iPod users and sell like hot cakes! I know I wan't one - just a shame I can't afford one (bloody student debts!)
Originally posted by Amorph
A note on women and tech: According to a Best Buy survey, women customers make 60% of the purchasing decisions in their stores.
Desknotes don't satisfy any definition of portable that the new iMac doesn't as well.
And the point is that consumers will cheerfully trade expandability away: Portables have become primary computers, meaning that consumers have no need for (internal) expandability at all, regardless of whether they tote the portable around.
Some desktops might not be, but the iMac falls into the "luggable" category pretty easily. At about 18 pounds, the 17" iMac is barely heavier than the bigger PC desknotes.
Sorry, no. It probably won't put up numbers like the iMac 1 because unlike the iMac 1 it has to share the market with the iBook. On the other hand, it's the best-suited iMac ever for enterprise, SOHO (although the iMac 2 was great for SOHO as well) and edu customers, who tend to buy in large quantities.
As for performance, that's kind of hard to judge from pictures, isn't it?
And as for expandability: If you can find a tower that has easier and quicker access to the innards, it's probably a PowerMac. In this regard, the iMac 3 is unparalleled among iMacs, and among AIOs generally. It has the bases covered as far as external expandability goes — which for some reason is never counted even though it's much more consumer-friendly.
I'm willing to bet that if you actually talked to people about why they got laptops, it would be because they have a reasonable size relative to what they do. The idea that common computing tasks require a tower and a separate display is frankly absurd. Of course, towers will ship anyway, because of the inertia of the commodity market, and because of the convenience of the manufacturers (BTO is relatively easy when your case is an ATX tower), and there will always be some people who prefer them, but by and large they're dated and ridiculous overkill. Look at the broader consumer market: What else that is designed and offered to consumers is that elaborate and involved? Nothing. And that's because the tower was never designed with consumers in mind. The ATX design was driven by manufacturers and business, although even business is moving away from towers now.
I agree entirely with you Amorph. The proof : I just ordered an I mac 20 inch on the Apple store (with Airport, wireless mouse and keyboard and a 1 GB ram).
I wanted to replace my G4 digital audio 533, not because it was not fast enough for his purpose, but because it was too noisy. This computer is in our bedroom, and my wife complain about the noise, and I must admit that I share her advice.
The other reason is that I was fed up of all this cables and wires, who look very bad.
I was tempted by a dual, but I do not really nead all that power for my home use. The lack of expandibility is not a real issue, I am interested in a second HD, but I have already a firewire HD that will fit my need.
I just added airport extreme and blue tooth allowing to communicate my powerbook and my Imac alltogether.
I am sure that I will notice the difference of speed between my new Imac and my G4, and even if the Geforce 5200 ultra is not great, it will be much more faster than the geforce 2 mx.
With time I am less interested in performance, but more in ergonomia : place, noise, wireless technologies and nices screens.
That's why I believe the Imac G5 will be a best seller. It was time for the Apple desktop consumer line.
More stuff here.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Here's a chart taken from the Apple site which certainly shows improved performance vs. the previous iMac:
I would take that with a grain of salt, notice no frame rates only a percentage of faster then G4 which i dont think is true either, Apple has made it a habit of s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth a little on its own benches.
Originally posted by glen
Phill looked shit scared most of the time - poor thing. I read someone actually shouted out 'we want Steve' at one point but I couldn't hear it. As for the video at the end - definitely directed at the iPodders. The soundtrack to the video was 'Let's get it started' by the Black-eyed Peas ala iPod advert and there were constant references to it being similar to the iPod in form and function (ease of use etc). It also stressed the suitability of the thing for iLife - using little shots of happy people up-loading photos into iPhoto and... you get the picture. Although It did look as though the people were filmed without the iMac actually being there! Which isn't surprising really - can't trust these actors you know!
All in all, I think it was a success - in that it will attract the 20-30 year old iPod users and sell like hot cakes! I know I wan't one - just a shame I can't afford one (bloody student debts!)
Ah, thanks glen. And patience my friend, time will come. There is no chance, by the way, to enjoy the new iMacs in your school/university?
Originally posted by brianru
Guys, just shut up already. You're dissapointed for not finding pro features in a normal computer! If you're a serious enough gamer where you need a 128mb graphics card, and you're using a mac, go pick up a ps2, or an xbox.
Why do people keep repeating this incredibly silly sentiment? Console gaming is not the same thing as gaming on a computer (at all). People who play first person shooters on a computer with a mouse are NEVER going to be satisfied with an X-box. Consoles don't even offer the real-time strategy games that are so popular with computer gamers.
Additionally, you don't have to be a particularly serious gamer to need a 128 MB graphics card. That is a middle of the road specification that's necessary to run many games that are coming out right now, never mind what the future holds. If you think the video card seems dated on introduction, imagine how it will look in a year or two, when you can't upgrade it.
It seems clear that this iMac is a particularly poor choice for anyone who includes gaming as one of the primary uses for their computer. That's too bad, because a network of 6 of 'em would fit on a dining room table for some serious LAN-party action.
Originally posted by fahlman
Stop with the video cards sucks for playing games rants. The iMac is not a gaming machine. It's not intended to be a gaming machine. It's is a simple all in one! Compare the iMac to it's intended competition from a PC manufacture and you will see that it's features and price are perfect! The Sony in the same category has 32MB of shared RAM for it's video, while the Gateway has 64MB of shared memory. Quit it already! Don't use a screwdriver to pound in a damn nail, get a fuckin' hammer!
Come on go to the iMac graphics page at apples own web site and they would try to make you think the FX5200 is the greatest gaming thing around. even the above chart makes you say wow until you notice missing fram rates which tell the story. The young crowd will want to game and fx5200 is garbage but my point it made. be careful of Apple spin and do a little research.
Next: someone mentioned that when you look at the LCD prices alone, the difference between them and the iMac is $300. So a G5 mini-tower could cost around $300! I think it's time for Apple to make a mini-Tower. The PC industry has been for a while and I think there's a market. The screens in the iMacs now are where the real cost is and lots of people don't necessarily want that fancy an LCD or even an LCD. Make headless iMac with upgradeable graphics (one AGP 8x slot) and a PCI-X slot. FireWire 2. Other than that keep it the same, nice and small. Sell for under a grand. Not sure what pricepoint that'd entail. $899? With SuperDive. $799 with Combo? Maybe make an offer to buy a display from Apple and get a little discount.
FireWire 2: I guess it's not needed for iMacs this rev, hopefully will make the cut next time.
The only thing they really made a mistake on is the RAM. Like they have for a decade. I don't get it, it really hurts performance. Another 128 would've cost them next to nothing. Give the low end 384 and the upper 512. Apple charges $75 for 256 megs of RAM, damn. (to go from 256 to 512) On Dealram you can get it for $37. Talk about markup. You can get 512 for less. Ah well I'm sure it's really "high quality" RAM.
I hope on the next rev they can get the iMac back under it's old magical price point- $999!
Originally posted by radiospace
Why do people keep repeating this incredibly silly sentiment?
Consoles are cheap, they run a lot of games, and they don't run Windows.
Additionally, you don't have to be a particularly serious gamer to need a 128 MB graphics card. That is a middle of the road specification that's necessary to run many games that are coming out right now, never mind what the future holds.
"Middle of the road" at what price point? If I get off work and drive over to Best Buy and buy an off-the-shelf machine, how much will I pay to get a card with 128MB RAM and a PC powerful enough to drive it? How much for a machine that comes with that card? Are these mainstream consumer prices?
It seems clear that this iMac is a particularly poor choice for anyone who includes gaming as one of the primary uses for their computer. That's too bad, because a network of 6 of 'em would fit on a dining room table for some serious LAN-party action.
First, that holds for Macs generally. Second, game developers keep sales in mind. If the iMac 3 runs away with the market, guess what? It'll become the reference platform for Mac games, in exactly the way that the first iMac was a reference platform, and developers will make a point of targeting it. The higher the specs required relative to what's out there, the smaller the market will be, the less money you can spend on the game, etc. Obviously, you can throw in extra eye candy for the hardware tweakers, but your game had better be playable on mainstream hardware or you'll lose your shirt. So, for instance, Neverwinter Nights is playable on my 450MHz G4 and 32MB RADEON, despite the fact that my Cube was already pretty old when NWN came out. I don't get to see all the bells and whistles, or use a high resolution, but that's mostly just eye candy anyway: I can play the game, and it looks good.
As far as gaming performance goes, all we have to go by is a singularly useless graph on Apple's site that doesn't have any concrete numbers on it. That will change as they ship in a couple of weeks (fingers crossed) and reviewers like Mike Breeden at Accelerate Your Mac! (or his readers, who are quite happy to send him detailed benchmarks) start getting ahold of them. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, this is all handwaving.