I assure you %50 of software sales are not games. While I do not doubt the clout of the gaming industry(its revenues surpass that of Hollywoods) I have seen far too much importance placed on gaming. Does the smart family buy a computer for gaming or just wise up and grab the Xbox for $149 on sale.
My thesis is this.
Consumers are tired of being afraid to put their computer on the internet. They are tired of viruses, trojans, worms and setting up firewalls. They want their peaceful lives back. They want to regain the computing innocence that they had before. Enter Apple. A nice friendly system that is easy to setup and highly functional. The consumer now realizes that gaming on consoles is the more frugal way. They realize that console games can be rented at the local blockbuster. Fiscal sense awashes them and cleanses the geek disease that afflicts them. They grab their credit card..the new iMac is theirs.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish. DOOM will be available on consoles soon. Half Life will never come to the Mac. The horse isn't just dead on this subjects it's been ground into the Earth.
That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).
As for your thesis -- if I was on your Review Committee you would not be getting your PhD
Remember we are not talking about spending $1300 for a computer just to play games on, we are talking about spending $1340 to buy a computer that can play the games in addition to doing all the other stuff we want to do with a computer.
Yes the mac/games subject has been ground into the earth. People like you cannot seem to get it through your heads that console gaming and computer gaming are different entities, and most of the gamers I know play games on consoles and on their computers. The world wide PC consumer gaming market is over 3 billion dollars, and should not be ignored by any computer company that claims it is selling computers to consumers.
Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere £95 (PS2), £100ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about £500.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ £919.
As some one else was saying on IRC (gzl) gaming and the Mac isn't exactly Apples fault. Developers out there are not going to develop games for a company that doesn't have the hardware to run said games, and Apple will not look at gaming seriously as the bulk of developers are working on PC/Console games, which is quite orthogonal (yes gzl, I like it too).
Getting back on topic here - It seems obvious that Apple has targetted the new iMac at the very misinformed newbie to the computer, which in its self is dangerous considering the specs of the machine as newbies tend to rely on what *others* say as they are incapable of passing their own judgement (for obvious reasons). Of course the informed will state that its GPU is under par and memory/HDD specs are lacking as well - however, people will buy this as many people out there want a very 'basic' machine in say the living room or in a stylish apartment. It is space saving and will get pretty much everything done for your 'regular' mac user (the kind that couldn't spell GPU even if the 3 letters were supplied on paper). They would buy it knowing that they are paying a premium for something that will be obsolete by the time Tiger 10.4.5 comes out.
Right now Apple needs to seriously address the (headless) SFF G5 that would *really* sell like hot cakes. Many people have covered possible specs here etc, and I'm sure Apple knows we want it....all we can do is hope.
These iMacs would make perfect dumb terminals. With more power and better screens then our current Sun Rays, I can see Apple selling alot of these to the corporate world. Something to compliment their Xservers.
Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere ?(PS2), ?ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about ?.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ ?.
A bit of a tangential question...
All I see above, where I'd expect to see prices, are question marks. This isn't the only post where I've seen this happen, and I don't think that in every case the posters posting such messages meant to be so non-commital about their monetary figures.
What did you really type? Some currency symbol, followed by a number? If so, which currency symbol?
Whatever it is that you're typing, I think you're triggering something in the vB message board software for numerically specifying characters, most of which turn out by chance to be non-displayable characters, which then get turned into question marks.
All I see above, where I'd expect to see prices, are question marks. This isn't the only post where I've seen this happen, and I don't think that in every case the posters posting such messages meant to be so non-commital about their monetary figures.
What did you really type? Some currency symbol, followed by a number? If so, which currency symbol?
Whatever it is that you're typing, I think you're triggering something in the vB message board software for numerically specifying characters, most of which turn out by chance to be non-displayable characters, which then get turned into question marks.
They show for me. He is quoting price in pounds.
Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere 95 (PS2), 100ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about 500.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ 919.
ps - I removed the pound symbols so you can perhaps see his numbers now.
Dave I think that the whole upgrade market thing is a niche. Sure it costs Apple sales but nowhere near what many people over dramatize.
I'm not sure I agree with you, maybe this is true in the Mac market but not the computer industry as a whole.There seems to be an awfull lot of consumer oriented graphics cards offered by a number of companies (though most of ate ATI or Nvidia based cards). If there was not a market for these then I doubt that there would be as many for sale as there are. Then there are sound cards, again mostly consumer oriented products on the lower end. Video in and TV tuners, sure you can get FireWire and USB boxes to do this, but that takes up more space and used to cost more (I admit I haven't priced them lately) than the PCI cards do (on the low end at least). Sure there are alternatives to most of these for the Mac, but again they take up more desktop space than an internal card would.
Quote:
If users get 3 years out of the iMac G5 1.8Ghz computer then it's cost them no more than the average cable bill. Most of the features you'd need for PCI are included on the motherboard already. If you need a high end PCI then a Powermac is your choice.
PCI is only high end in the Mac market place, it is mid grade (or even lower end) in the rest of the industry. Since we pay more for Macs I would say that it is reasonable to expect some pariaty with the industry as a whole. Now I do admit that the only 2 cards that I would consider upgrading are video card and daughter card, however if there were more manufacturers making a greater variety of cards something else may become available that I would like to add down the road , such as a FW 800/USB 3 card or a newer WiFi standard card that is not "supported" by the internal Airport slot (such as the Aiport Extream and my Cube)
Quote:
The reality to me is this. Apple has far more demographic data than any of us. That data likely points to the fact that while people "like" the idea of upgradability a precious few actually utilize that feature. By reducing the upgradability you can enable 2" thick G5 computers.
You can have all the data you want, but if you can't convice the consumers that they don't need the expansion that you don't offer then you will never make those sales. If Apple want's to grow market share they need come out with products that address the needs of markets that are not covered by their current products and customers that do not currently own Macs. A medium to low-end expandable computer without a display does this, and there is plenty of room below the bottom end PowerMac for such a product.
That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).
Actually, you were correct the first time. PC games accounted for 1/3 of PC software revenue in 2003 but 1/2 of all software units shipped. (Google is your friend.) Interestingly, though, PC game revenue has declined for each of the past 2 years while console game revenue has increased.
Couple of other interesting Google tidbits, as long as I'm being pedantic:
1. According to this article, most computer gamers purchase games that are generally non-demanding of a video card: "Computer gamers, however, most often purchased strategy games (27.1%), children?s entertainment games (14.5%) and shooter games (13.5%), followed by family entertainment titles (9.5%), role-playing games (8.7%), sports titles (5.8%), racing (4.4%), adventure (3.9%), and simulation games (3.5%)."
So if you assume *all* "shooter" games are too demanding for the new iMac's video system (a pretty unrealistic assumption) and that the other categories work OK, at least 70% of all games purchased are no problem at all for a new iMac (and probably a much higher percentage).
2. The 10 best-selling PC software titles in the US in 2003 were, according to NPD Group:
Intuit's TurboTax 2002 Deluxe
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2003
Intuit's TurboTax 2002
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2004
Intuit's TurboTax State 2002 Multistate 45
H&R Block's TaxCut Deluxe 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft Office XP Student and Teacher Edition
H&R Block's TaxCut State2002
Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2003
Looks like the big PC market isn't gamers, it's tax-preparers \
2. The 10 best-selling PC software titles in the US in 2003 were, according to NPD Group:
Intuit's TurboTax 2002 Deluxe
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2003
Intuit's TurboTax 2002
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2004
Intuit's TurboTax State 2002 Multistate 45
H&R Block's TaxCut Deluxe 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft Office XP Student and Teacher Edition
H&R Block's TaxCut State2002
Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2003
Looks like the big PC market isn't gamers, it's tax-preparers \
Wow, 3 of the top 10 products deal with viruses and security! Looks like the Windows swiss cheese security model has sprung up one hell of a software cottage community!
Also, the fact that 5 of the top 10 programs deal with taxes proves the IRS should be abolished and the tax code simplified for us mere mortals. I'm guilty of buying a copy of H&R Block's TaxCut software, and I'm an accountant!
You might as well paint a PCI expansion slot on the side, as it will be used just as much and apparently make the sale by all accounts.
Anyway, I think we see the other half of future Mac marketing. We already know that Macs have a much easier time of it when it comes to malware, but obviously, Apple needs to sell their own tax software, and ship their consumer machines with a slot for printing on small paper rolls!
I predict the rumored i*** is, in fact, a calculator! Wireless, even!
[added]eh, I should probably weigh in wrt the new iMac:
I think the pictures from the Expo floor, as usual, make the new iMac look more exciting. I generally like the way Apple photographs and displays its wares, but they I guess suck some of the life out of them in the process. Really, I warm up the new design a lot once I think of all the peripherals cluttered around it, then the almost deceptive simplicity of the design, how obvious it is, becomes a lot more important. I mean, Apple would probably be better suited to show the iMac surrounded by a printer, scanner, iPod, keyboard and mouse, still camera, music keyboard, movie camera, etc. I imagine this riot of stuff that all plugs into this simple center hub. While I'd like to see the proportion get to be wider, that is, taking some of the material below the screen away, it's less important than tat image I have in my head. It has the promise to be the computer on your kitchen counter as well as in your den, though it might not quite be there yet to make a multi-computer networked household obvious or possible to everyone.
For me at least, all of this back and forth comes down to one thing. At a time when Apple has seized more of the public's mindshare than in the recent past, they are still artificially narrowing the target market for consumer machines. All arguments concerning price/performance, video card capability, hard drive size, etc. both pro and con when compared to Windows machines seem irrelavent to this one concept.
Apple has stated they wanted to increase market share(re: they didn't say installed user base), therefore, if it were me I would be targeting a much broader base than just consumers prefering AIO design.
One minor nit pick, for those that say the FX5200 ultra should suit most consumer needs, that may be true, and that many people never upgrade graphics, that may be true also. But many many people opt for upgraded graphics at the time of purchase of the computer. The AIO also eliminates this convenience.
Ever wonder why ATI and Nvidia don't offer more options for upgrading video card options for the Mac, one guess. it begins with A and ends with O.
Please don't get me wrong, I liked the iLamp, a lot, I also like this new iMac, for the money they are even price competative compared to Dell, moreso than Apple bashers will admit.
...Apple has stated they wanted to increase market share(re: they didn't say installed user base), therefore, if it were me I would be targeting a much broader base than just consumers prefering AIO design...
I agree, Apple needs to find more markets for their PC's, it is after all still their "Core" business", and one way to do this would be to offer new products that fill the needs of consumers that are not met by Apple's current offerings. This includes a consumer grade computer without a monitor. In fact, since the bottom end PM is now $1999 this product could also fill the missing low end pro computer (PM's historic price up untill the G5 hovered between $1499 and $1699, mid range from $1999-2499 if I remember correctly).
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
...Ever wonder why ATI and Nvidia don't offer more options for upgrading video card options for the Mac...
An interesting note, ATI is still shipping Radeon 9200 PCI video cards, and I think I heard that they have a announced a new PCI video card coming out.
What I think is funny about all this moaning and whining is that no-one (except maybe Amorph as usual) is looking at the historical context.
To those now saying the iMac G5 makes the Powermac/CD combo look overpriced: Apple ALWAYS DOES THIS! They alway release a new product with a sufficent price/features delta over the current offerings in order to switch interest to that new model line. THey did it with the original iMac, with the ibook G4 with many others. This allows them to "upsell" people to a more expensive (higher profit margin) computer. In the case of Powermac G5 the difference between the two machines is more than enough to appeal to different buyers.
To those b*tching about the graphics card in the iMac: I bet anything that Apple had the specs of the iMac G5 locked down and the orders for components set in stone back in March. The delay in release is clearly due to the G5. A huge company like Apple cannot just back out of an order for xxx amount of screens, graphics cores, etc, etc. just cos they now have 2-3 months extra. I'm sure when a low power low heat core at a similar price to what they got the FX5200 for comes along they'll use it. This decision is all about price. Simple as that. If the iMac G5 had come out in June then the 5200 might not have seemed so bad really.
As for the ram: Apple is just being cheap, simple really. its not justifable really but as many others have pointed out, it is a useable amount for web-surfing, iPhoto etc. I personally think the 20 incher should have more standard, but like I said Apple are just being cheap.
For those b*tching about the iMac not including the latest stuff like PCIe, etc. Remeber these technologies are only just starting to appear on the market now (here in NZ PCIe motherboards have only been out for a matter of weeks) So before the specs for the iMac were locked down 4-5 months ago, where was PCIe then?
I am not trying to justify Apples decisions, just sick to death of all the fanboys who dont not think before posting!
The iMac G5 does look great, both physically and technically. Those expecting more of anything (except RAM, WTF Apple?) don't quite get the iMac line. As Thereubster said, a valid reason may be the delay. Either way the graphics are sufficient and all to be expected. I'd also like to see a thinning of bezel over time, along with colors introduced at some point.
The eMac should be re-designed though. And not as an AIO. IT staff at schools already have TONS of monitors. Why not introduced an inexpensive, headless unit for schools. That would also appeal to switchers. Nothing like targeting a new demographic with an existing, albeit redesigned line.
The iMac G5 does look great, both physically and technically. Those expecting more of anything (except RAM, WTF Apple?)
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
The whole point is to hook you with the lower price point that's possible with the skimpy RAM, then either sell you the extra memory after hooking you, or at least convince you that you want the thing badly enough to buy it then add more memory yourself.
It's not like Apple is the only one who does this.
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
The whole point is to hook you with the lower price point that's possible with the skimpy RAM, then either sell you the extra memory after hooking you, or at least convince you that you want the thing badly enough to buy it then add more memory yourself.
It's not like Apple is the only one who does this.
i don't get you people
on the one hand you argue that the imac is a consumer machine. consumers dont upgrade, they dont do this and that, they never open the computer and then on the other you say a RAM upgrade is cheap and not a problem and easy to add
the truth is, a lot of people don't upgrade their ram, a lot of stores dont upgrade the ram. people are all about first impressions. if they use one in a store and its slow because of low ram then they are turned off. this used to happen all the time back when apple was stuck on 32MB and then 64MB. and a lot of people when they do buy it, they say it sucks cuz the ram is too low, only they dont know that is the reason.
and graphics card is as easy to upgrade as ram....or, it could be if they ever allowed it
Well, part of the problem is that we aren't all the same people.
But anyway, ordering extra RAM right from the get-go when you buy a new computer is hardly what I think most people are thinking about when they say "people don't upgrade".
It's sort of like the difference between the number of people likely to spring for the optional fancy hubcaps or "deluxe" sound system when buying a car vs. the number of people who'd add any those things well after having bought the car and used it without those things for a time.
It's a rough analogy, but fairly close in the case of buying extra RAM as a BTO option from Apple... or Dell as the case might be. The analogy gets a little rougher in the case of buying third-party RAM at the same time you buy a new computer -- because then you have to be willing to install it yourself or find a geek friend/relative to do it for you -- but the analogy still holds to a degree, because I think there's a tendency for people to be more motivated to change things up front at purchase time, but then as long as what they've then got gets the job done for them, a lot of people settle in with what they've got and then leave it alone until they buy another whole new system.
I'd hazard a guess -- and it's only a guess -- that when people do actually bother to upgrade their computers (apart from the above-mentioned case of extra RAM bought at the same time as the original purchase) that RAM would turn out to be the number-one internal upgrade, that is, the number one upgrade among all upgrades that requiring cracking open their computer's case. I'd futher hazard the guess that whatever the #2 internal upgrade is -- perhaps it is video -- it's a distant second to RAM.
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
Yeah, their prices are something huh? Do they hand solder their own chips in cupertino? For being a digital hub, and having a 1.6-1.8GHz G5 processor on a RAM hungry OS, why not bump up to 512MB? Even on the 20" version? How much money are they saving me? Is 256MB of RAM cost them $100?
Being a multimedia hub requires RAM. What Applenut said is true.
Here's a nice little story about my self. After having my 12" Pbook SD for over a month on 256MB all I did was very light stuff, GPRS, surfing and IMing.....(didn't have time as I was on the constant move.
Now I'm tied to the wall here most of the time in Geneva (all the way from Sri Lanka!) and got about 8 apps running.
So in England I ordered another 512 from Crucial and ran around Leeds looking for a Philips 00 screw driver to do it my self (I've installed way more RAM than it could be called 'healthy') but alas none had em!
Went to the AppleStore, asked nicely and they did it free of charge knowing that I got my ram for GBP 30 CHEAPER than them!
On the way out I'm like "Could you please trash this box?" and the store manager is like "You buy the ram from Crucial, get us to install it and now make us dispose of the box? You are seriously taking the micky out of us!"
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Res that was a nice bit of science fiction there.
I assure you %50 of software sales are not games. While I do not doubt the clout of the gaming industry(its revenues surpass that of Hollywoods) I have seen far too much importance placed on gaming. Does the smart family buy a computer for gaming or just wise up and grab the Xbox for $149 on sale.
My thesis is this.
Consumers are tired of being afraid to put their computer on the internet. They are tired of viruses, trojans, worms and setting up firewalls. They want their peaceful lives back. They want to regain the computing innocence that they had before. Enter Apple. A nice friendly system that is easy to setup and highly functional. The consumer now realizes that gaming on consoles is the more frugal way. They realize that console games can be rented at the local blockbuster. Fiscal sense awashes them and cleanses the geek disease that afflicts them. They grab their credit card..the new iMac is theirs.
My point is games are important but spending $1300+ to get them is foolish. DOOM will be available on consoles soon. Half Life will never come to the Mac. The horse isn't just dead on this subjects it's been ground into the Earth.
That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).
As for your thesis -- if I was on your Review Committee you would not be getting your PhD
Remember we are not talking about spending $1300 for a computer just to play games on, we are talking about spending $1340 to buy a computer that can play the games in addition to doing all the other stuff we want to do with a computer.
Yes the mac/games subject has been ground into the earth. People like you cannot seem to get it through your heads that console gaming and computer gaming are different entities, and most of the gamers I know play games on consoles and on their computers. The world wide PC consumer gaming market is over 3 billion dollars, and should not be ignored by any computer company that claims it is selling computers to consumers.
.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ £919.
As some one else was saying on IRC (gzl) gaming and the Mac isn't exactly Apples fault. Developers out there are not going to develop games for a company that doesn't have the hardware to run said games, and Apple will not look at gaming seriously as the bulk of developers are working on PC/Console games, which is quite orthogonal (yes gzl, I like it too).
Getting back on topic here - It seems obvious that Apple has targetted the new iMac at the very misinformed newbie to the computer, which in its self is dangerous considering the specs of the machine as newbies tend to rely on what *others* say as they are incapable of passing their own judgement (for obvious reasons). Of course the informed will state that its GPU is under par and memory/HDD specs are lacking as well - however, people will buy this as many people out there want a very 'basic' machine in say the living room or in a stylish apartment. It is space saving and will get pretty much everything done for your 'regular' mac user (the kind that couldn't spell GPU even if the 3 letters were supplied on paper). They would buy it knowing that they are paying a premium for something that will be obsolete by the time Tiger 10.4.5 comes out.
Right now Apple needs to seriously address the (headless) SFF G5 that would *really* sell like hot cakes. Many people have covered possible specs here etc, and I'm sure Apple knows we want it....all we can do is hope.
Originally posted by bsodmike
Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere ?(PS2), ?ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about ?.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ ?.
A bit of a tangential question...
All I see above, where I'd expect to see prices, are question marks. This isn't the only post where I've seen this happen, and I don't think that in every case the posters posting such messages meant to be so non-commital about their monetary figures.
What did you really type? Some currency symbol, followed by a number? If so, which currency symbol?
Whatever it is that you're typing, I think you're triggering something in the vB message board software for numerically specifying characters, most of which turn out by chance to be non-displayable characters, which then get turned into question marks.
Originally posted by shetline
A bit of a tangential question...
All I see above, where I'd expect to see prices, are question marks. This isn't the only post where I've seen this happen, and I don't think that in every case the posters posting such messages meant to be so non-commital about their monetary figures.
What did you really type? Some currency symbol, followed by a number? If so, which currency symbol?
Whatever it is that you're typing, I think you're triggering something in the vB message board software for numerically specifying characters, most of which turn out by chance to be non-displayable characters, which then get turned into question marks.
They show for me. He is quoting price in pounds.
Console or PC gaming, even though a different entity, can be had for a mere 95 (PS2), 100ish (GameCube) and a decent Shuttle system for about 500.
All this will play games quite well, won't choke (other than the GameCube on titles such as Splinter Cell which is more or less an annoying PC port over to this platform - it lacks the grace of Metal Gear Solid!), while the entry level iMac G5 Combo starts @ 919.
ps - I removed the pound symbols so you can perhaps see his numbers now.
All those prices were quoted in GBP (Sterling Pounds).
Regards,
Mike
Originally posted by hmurchison
Dave I think that the whole upgrade market thing is a niche. Sure it costs Apple sales but nowhere near what many people over dramatize.
I'm not sure I agree with you, maybe this is true in the Mac market but not the computer industry as a whole.There seems to be an awfull lot of consumer oriented graphics cards offered by a number of companies (though most of ate ATI or Nvidia based cards). If there was not a market for these then I doubt that there would be as many for sale as there are. Then there are sound cards, again mostly consumer oriented products on the lower end. Video in and TV tuners, sure you can get FireWire and USB boxes to do this, but that takes up more space and used to cost more (I admit I haven't priced them lately) than the PCI cards do (on the low end at least). Sure there are alternatives to most of these for the Mac, but again they take up more desktop space than an internal card would.
If users get 3 years out of the iMac G5 1.8Ghz computer then it's cost them no more than the average cable bill. Most of the features you'd need for PCI are included on the motherboard already. If you need a high end PCI then a Powermac is your choice.
PCI is only high end in the Mac market place, it is mid grade (or even lower end) in the rest of the industry. Since we pay more for Macs I would say that it is reasonable to expect some pariaty with the industry as a whole. Now I do admit that the only 2 cards that I would consider upgrading are video card and daughter card, however if there were more manufacturers making a greater variety of cards something else may become available that I would like to add down the road , such as a FW 800/USB 3 card or a newer WiFi standard card that is not "supported" by the internal Airport slot (such as the Aiport Extream and my Cube)
The reality to me is this. Apple has far more demographic data than any of us. That data likely points to the fact that while people "like" the idea of upgradability a precious few actually utilize that feature. By reducing the upgradability you can enable 2" thick G5 computers.
You can have all the data you want, but if you can't convice the consumers that they don't need the expansion that you don't offer then you will never make those sales. If Apple want's to grow market share they need come out with products that address the needs of markets that are not covered by their current products and customers that do not currently own Macs. A medium to low-end expandable computer without a display does this, and there is plenty of room below the bottom end PowerMac for such a product.
That was a typo on my part: it should have said over 30% (the PC gaming industry accounts for about 1/3 of all software revenue).
Actually, you were correct the first time. PC games accounted for 1/3 of PC software revenue in 2003 but 1/2 of all software units shipped. (Google is your friend.) Interestingly, though, PC game revenue has declined for each of the past 2 years while console game revenue has increased.
Couple of other interesting Google tidbits, as long as I'm being pedantic:
1. According to this article, most computer gamers purchase games that are generally non-demanding of a video card: "Computer gamers, however, most often purchased strategy games (27.1%), children?s entertainment games (14.5%) and shooter games (13.5%), followed by family entertainment titles (9.5%), role-playing games (8.7%), sports titles (5.8%), racing (4.4%), adventure (3.9%), and simulation games (3.5%)."
So if you assume *all* "shooter" games are too demanding for the new iMac's video system (a pretty unrealistic assumption) and that the other categories work OK, at least 70% of all games purchased are no problem at all for a new iMac (and probably a much higher percentage).
2. The 10 best-selling PC software titles in the US in 2003 were, according to NPD Group:
Intuit's TurboTax 2002 Deluxe
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2003
Intuit's TurboTax 2002
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2004
Intuit's TurboTax State 2002 Multistate 45
H&R Block's TaxCut Deluxe 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft Office XP Student and Teacher Edition
H&R Block's TaxCut State2002
Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2003
Looks like the big PC market isn't gamers, it's tax-preparers
Originally posted by Voxapps
2. The 10 best-selling PC software titles in the US in 2003 were, according to NPD Group:
Intuit's TurboTax 2002 Deluxe
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2003
Intuit's TurboTax 2002
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus 2004
Intuit's TurboTax State 2002 Multistate 45
H&R Block's TaxCut Deluxe 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade
Microsoft Office XP Student and Teacher Edition
H&R Block's TaxCut State2002
Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2003
Looks like the big PC market isn't gamers, it's tax-preparers
Wow, 3 of the top 10 products deal with viruses and security! Looks like the Windows swiss cheese security model has sprung up one hell of a software cottage community!
Also, the fact that 5 of the top 10 programs deal with taxes proves the IRS should be abolished and the tax code simplified for us mere mortals. I'm guilty of buying a copy of H&R Block's TaxCut software, and I'm an accountant!
You might as well paint a PCI expansion slot on the side, as it will be used just as much and apparently make the sale by all accounts.
Anyway, I think we see the other half of future Mac marketing. We already know that Macs have a much easier time of it when it comes to malware, but obviously, Apple needs to sell their own tax software, and ship their consumer machines with a slot for printing on small paper rolls!
I predict the rumored i*** is, in fact, a calculator! Wireless, even!
[added]eh, I should probably weigh in wrt the new iMac:
I think the pictures from the Expo floor, as usual, make the new iMac look more exciting. I generally like the way Apple photographs and displays its wares, but they I guess suck some of the life out of them in the process. Really, I warm up the new design a lot once I think of all the peripherals cluttered around it, then the almost deceptive simplicity of the design, how obvious it is, becomes a lot more important. I mean, Apple would probably be better suited to show the iMac surrounded by a printer, scanner, iPod, keyboard and mouse, still camera, music keyboard, movie camera, etc. I imagine this riot of stuff that all plugs into this simple center hub. While I'd like to see the proportion get to be wider, that is, taking some of the material below the screen away, it's less important than tat image I have in my head. It has the promise to be the computer on your kitchen counter as well as in your den, though it might not quite be there yet to make a multi-computer networked household obvious or possible to everyone.
Apple has stated they wanted to increase market share(re: they didn't say installed user base), therefore, if it were me I would be targeting a much broader base than just consumers prefering AIO design.
One minor nit pick, for those that say the FX5200 ultra should suit most consumer needs, that may be true, and that many people never upgrade graphics, that may be true also. But many many people opt for upgraded graphics at the time of purchase of the computer. The AIO also eliminates this convenience.
Ever wonder why ATI and Nvidia don't offer more options for upgrading video card options for the Mac, one guess. it begins with A and ends with O.
Please don't get me wrong, I liked the iLamp, a lot, I also like this new iMac, for the money they are even price competative compared to Dell, moreso than Apple bashers will admit.
Will I buy one? No.
To quote Steve Jobs himself,"We(I) like options."
Originally posted by rickag
...Apple has stated they wanted to increase market share(re: they didn't say installed user base), therefore, if it were me I would be targeting a much broader base than just consumers prefering AIO design...
I agree, Apple needs to find more markets for their PC's, it is after all still their "Core" business", and one way to do this would be to offer new products that fill the needs of consumers that are not met by Apple's current offerings. This includes a consumer grade computer without a monitor. In fact, since the bottom end PM is now $1999 this product could also fill the missing low end pro computer (PM's historic price up untill the G5 hovered between $1499 and $1699, mid range from $1999-2499 if I remember correctly).
Originally posted by rickag
...Ever wonder why ATI and Nvidia don't offer more options for upgrading video card options for the Mac...
An interesting note, ATI is still shipping Radeon 9200 PCI video cards, and I think I heard that they have a announced a new PCI video card coming out.
To those now saying the iMac G5 makes the Powermac/CD combo look overpriced: Apple ALWAYS DOES THIS! They alway release a new product with a sufficent price/features delta over the current offerings in order to switch interest to that new model line. THey did it with the original iMac, with the ibook G4 with many others. This allows them to "upsell" people to a more expensive (higher profit margin) computer. In the case of Powermac G5 the difference between the two machines is more than enough to appeal to different buyers.
To those b*tching about the graphics card in the iMac: I bet anything that Apple had the specs of the iMac G5 locked down and the orders for components set in stone back in March. The delay in release is clearly due to the G5. A huge company like Apple cannot just back out of an order for xxx amount of screens, graphics cores, etc, etc. just cos they now have 2-3 months extra. I'm sure when a low power low heat core at a similar price to what they got the FX5200 for comes along they'll use it. This decision is all about price. Simple as that. If the iMac G5 had come out in June then the 5200 might not have seemed so bad really.
As for the ram: Apple is just being cheap, simple really. its not justifable really but as many others have pointed out, it is a useable amount for web-surfing, iPhoto etc. I personally think the 20 incher should have more standard, but like I said Apple are just being cheap.
For those b*tching about the iMac not including the latest stuff like PCIe, etc. Remeber these technologies are only just starting to appear on the market now (here in NZ PCIe motherboards have only been out for a matter of weeks) So before the specs for the iMac were locked down 4-5 months ago, where was PCIe then?
I am not trying to justify Apples decisions, just sick to death of all the fanboys who dont not think before posting!
The eMac should be re-designed though. And not as an AIO. IT staff at schools already have TONS of monitors. Why not introduced an inexpensive, headless unit for schools. That would also appeal to switchers. Nothing like targeting a new demographic with an existing, albeit redesigned line.
Originally posted by IonYz
The iMac G5 does look great, both physically and technically. Those expecting more of anything (except RAM, WTF Apple?)
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
The whole point is to hook you with the lower price point that's possible with the skimpy RAM, then either sell you the extra memory after hooking you, or at least convince you that you want the thing badly enough to buy it then add more memory yourself.
It's not like Apple is the only one who does this.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
The whole point is to hook you with the lower price point that's possible with the skimpy RAM, then either sell you the extra memory after hooking you, or at least convince you that you want the thing badly enough to buy it then add more memory yourself.
It's not like Apple is the only one who does this.
i don't get you people
on the one hand you argue that the imac is a consumer machine. consumers dont upgrade, they dont do this and that, they never open the computer and then on the other you say a RAM upgrade is cheap and not a problem and easy to add
the truth is, a lot of people don't upgrade their ram, a lot of stores dont upgrade the ram. people are all about first impressions. if they use one in a store and its slow because of low ram then they are turned off. this used to happen all the time back when apple was stuck on 32MB and then 64MB. and a lot of people when they do buy it, they say it sucks cuz the ram is too low, only they dont know that is the reason.
and graphics card is as easy to upgrade as ram....or, it could be if they ever allowed it
Originally posted by applenut
i don't get you people
Well, part of the problem is that we aren't all the same people.
But anyway, ordering extra RAM right from the get-go when you buy a new computer is hardly what I think most people are thinking about when they say "people don't upgrade".
It's sort of like the difference between the number of people likely to spring for the optional fancy hubcaps or "deluxe" sound system when buying a car vs. the number of people who'd add any those things well after having bought the car and used it without those things for a time.
It's a rough analogy, but fairly close in the case of buying extra RAM as a BTO option from Apple... or Dell as the case might be. The analogy gets a little rougher in the case of buying third-party RAM at the same time you buy a new computer -- because then you have to be willing to install it yourself or find a geek friend/relative to do it for you -- but the analogy still holds to a degree, because I think there's a tendency for people to be more motivated to change things up front at purchase time, but then as long as what they've then got gets the job done for them, a lot of people settle in with what they've got and then leave it alone until they buy another whole new system.
I'd hazard a guess -- and it's only a guess -- that when people do actually bother to upgrade their computers (apart from the above-mentioned case of extra RAM bought at the same time as the original purchase) that RAM would turn out to be the number-one internal upgrade, that is, the number one upgrade among all upgrades that requiring cracking open their computer's case. I'd futher hazard the guess that whatever the #2 internal upgrade is -- perhaps it is video -- it's a distant second to RAM.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm surprised that so many people get so bent out of shape about the RAM. Sure the 256 MB in the new iMac is a bit skimpy. But it's also very, very easy to add more RAM for just a little more money, especially if you get third-party RAM instead of paying Apple's premium prices for it.
Yeah, their prices are something huh? Do they hand solder their own chips in cupertino? For being a digital hub, and having a 1.6-1.8GHz G5 processor on a RAM hungry OS, why not bump up to 512MB? Even on the 20" version? How much money are they saving me? Is 256MB of RAM cost them $100?
Being a multimedia hub requires RAM. What Applenut said is true.
Now I'm tied to the wall here most of the time in Geneva (all the way from Sri Lanka!) and got about 8 apps running.
So in England I ordered another 512 from Crucial and ran around Leeds looking for a Philips 00 screw driver to do it my self (I've installed way more RAM than it could be called 'healthy') but alas none had em!
Went to the AppleStore, asked nicely and they did it free of charge knowing that I got my ram for GBP 30 CHEAPER than them!
On the way out I'm like "Could you please trash this box?" and the store manager is like "You buy the ram from Crucial, get us to install it and now make us dispose of the box? You are seriously taking the micky out of us!"