[[[VGA-out with a perfectly non-functional display just sitting there taking up space, that's really elegant! ]]]
Now you're splitting hairs and cherry-picking my friend... You seemed to have wanted a solution. You didn't specify that it had to be elegant. To be honest I don't think a tower setup is as elegant as an iMac, so what's your point?
[[[No you cannot erase drives from the equation, why do you insist on citing the worst PC examples. ]]]
Because you love to oversimplify and generalize. I add balance. it's that simple. The iMac is easy to work on and if you ever done it, you will see. Period.
[[[People buy dirt cheap ATA drives and drop 'em in, nothing could be simpler.]]]
You keep saying it, but I don't see it. I do it, but I don't see it. And it really isn't as easy on a PC I'm sorry. And furthermore, what could be easier than just getting a FireWire drive and plugging it in? Nothing. And I can take it to a friends house or anywhere else for that matter. To top it off, for MOST people it doesn't NEED to be high-performance. You keep insisting that people need or even care about the FASTEST and cheapest... They care about being able to do it themselves and what's easiest. \t
[[[I think it's you who doesn't understand. less than 1% of all computers sold are an iMac, obviously more people follow a trend not represented by your arguments. ]]]
Don't be silly... you are comparing a single vendor (Apple) to the rest of the PC market LOL. Spare us.
[[[You're just wrong, it's that simple, the market has voted against you, has been doing so for quite some time in fact.\t]]]
Whining ... that's too bad... Well, considering your argument fell apart and all.
Well! From all this wrangling it seems agreed that the next generation of the iMac should be a reincarnated Cube, with front-drawer optical drive, no clear plastic, no smart-alecky touch switch, and an eMac-like (quiet) fan. It can have an AGP video card. The slot should allow for bigger cards and please, let's keep the standard L-bracket. And a built-in power supply (no muffler).
Apple should redesign their LCD monitors (at least the smaller ones) to include an iMac-like swivel arm, instead of the unpositionable current case.
A lot of the wrangling seems to be over the price. Since the monitor is not included - use your own DVI or VGA monitor - there should be no difficulty keeping the price below 1000 pounds sterling or $1400 USD.
Also, the keyboard and mouse should not be included either. Let the wireless fans select their own mouse and keyboard from any of the many vendors that supply such things.
Frankly, it sounds to me like we've reinvented the PowerMac...
Ed M, I will not be out whined by your pro AIO whining, look at that post count, I can bash the flaws in the AIO principle all day and nothing, absolutely nothing in my argument has fallen apart. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What exactly is the point of an AIO if you need to keep an external display hooked up to it? If that was the point, you'd just have a headless computer. How long do you propose someone keep using an iMac or eMac with a non-functional CRT? Gee, that really saves space, two bulky boxes sitting on your desk. Your point is idiotic.
If you aren't seeing it, then you're blind. What gets sold? It's that easy. What gets sold, by and large, are not AIO (or iMacs specifically). What gets sold is towers, if you aren't seeing it, then you aren't selling either computers or peripherals. I keep saying it because it's true. Everybody I know, even people who don't know squat about their computers simply takes their tower to the store and for a $30 installation fee walks out with a second HDD installed. Cheap drives are for your pr0n collection, not to shuttle projects between computers. Consumers DO NOT typically buy external drives if they have a choice, THEY DO BUY INTERNAL DRIVES 'cause they want everything in one neat box that they can hide under their desks and that don't require plugging in one drive or another all the time. I like firewire, I think it's a great idea/technology, but it's no replacement for internal storage.
As for your opening up the mac? Do tell the average home user what the state of their warranty will be if they take it upon themselves to open up the iMac FP/CRT or eMac and change any of the drives themselves? Oh yeah, that's right, bye-bye AppleCare. You need to take it in for Apple Authorized service, on an iMac you even need to do that just to change the idiotically placed internal RAM module.
Going back to comparing one model to all computers sold, it's absolutely valid because Apple has to support the mac platform all by itself. Even Apple sees the laptop supplanting AIO sales over time as it grows relative to the desktop market as a whole. In any event I'm comparing the relative penetration of the AIO concept against the tower/desktop concept, the AIO gets handily spanked. People want expandable desktops at a reasonable price. They want to add the display of their choice, and periodically upgrade RAM, HDD's video cards etc etc... the local Costco wouldn't be full of video/sound cards, RAM modules and bare drives if average joes weren't doing these upgrades. They're available because people do buy them, because people want them. It's you who's being pig-headed here, the numbers come down overwhelmingly against you. People like to buy tower based desktops moreso than AIO's. That's just the way it is, there isn't one market analysis that supports your arguments, not one, not when you look at the numbers. Like I said, despite your rationalizations, you're just wrong, and so is Apple.
[quote] What gets sold? It's that easy. <hr></blockquote>
so you must think that windows is much much much (like 95 to 5) better than OS X....
it is rarely easy.....g
as for the orginal question...i want skins for the iMac shell...not for mine...in the year i have had mine it is still nice and white and clean (plus the screen covers the base when i use it anyway)...but skins to put on the iMacs at CompUSA....dang those things looked nasty...i push back the base and pull the screens down so they are covered...can't the kids that work there wipe them off once a week??? ick....plus the kids would like custom skins anyway....mmmmm flames on my iMac....g
<strong>I'd like to see no wires - keyboard, mouse, speakers, cables. Somehow have integrated speakers that sound awesome. A longer arm - really be able to push the base aside, but still have a floating monitor. I like to be able to write and read without the monitor and keyboard being in the way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about that. Someone posted a pic of what a wireless tablet/iMac could look like, and it looked rather silly. I doubt Apple's going to be going into tablets anytime soon.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the design now. I agree that adding a PCI slot or even just making the graphics card upgradable like on the PM's would do. FW 800 would be nice as well.
Aside from that, well, *shrug* it's like the current "Yosemite" design for the PM's. If it ain't broken, why fix it?
I'd quite like and inflatable iMac, so I could carry it around in my pocket - anyone working on something like that? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Name one Wintel AIO that's sold well? They all suck, yes, I must admit, but people buy towers/desktops for a reason --price/expansion/upgradability is it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I contend that the reason is that the alternatives all suck.
Even the notebooks suck, although not as much, so they're rapidly approaching 50% of all PC sales. Most of those are too big and too heavy to be called laptops, and they're not used that way.
[quote]<strong>You yourself bought a cube, not an iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one reason: The LCD.
When Apple came out with the LCD iMac, I said that that was the machine I really wanted when I bought the Cube, and I meant it. Of course, I paid enough for the Cube + 15" LCD that I'll hold on to it until I've squeezed every last bit of use from it, but if I replace it it will probably be with an iMac (unless I get a PowerBook). As I said upthread, I consider the LCD iMac's design to be just about ideal.
As far as improving the design goes, I'm in way over my head, here. I don't really know what Apple could do, short of essentially minor tweaks. They appear to be set up to accomodate at least one more upgrade in terms of monitor size, which is the only significant change I could see them making. Landscape/portrait rotation would be a cool trick, but I don't know how much extra engineering that would involve, given that the iMac's arm is already an intricate thing.
Oh, and they might go slot-load. I will admit to a private wish that they (and all Macs) were capable of monitor spanning, but that's probably not going to happen.
[quote]<strong>In a year or two, when fast G4 upgrades are less than 300USD you'll get a nice little boost for that machine without breaking the bank. In internal HDD upgrade is a simple matter and it won't void your warrantee either. If anything goes wrong with your display, a solution is as easy as a trip to the local Electromics r'us'oMart. How often have you pined for a pizza box?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I'll have to watch the G4 upgrades, because they will void my AppleCare warranty and because the Cube has heat issues. It was not designed to be upgradeable, and I bought it assuming that.
2) I upgraded the HDD already. There's now a FW drive sitting beside the Cube.
3) 90% of the monitors in the various electronics stores are any of: ugly, CRTs, analog, or some way lacking in image quality. None of the ones I've seen have tempted me away from my Apple 15" - and that's not even all that good a monitor next to Apple's newer offerings. I'm willing to pay for quality.
4) How often have I pined for a pizza box? Never, actually. It's the only form factor I can see for a "headless iMac," but it's otherwise unexceptional. Now, the amount of lust I've had for the 17" iMac and the various Apple notebooks is another matter entirely.
5) Apple's units are not hermetically sealed. In fact, with some exceptions (the TiBooks, especially the early models) they're easier to upgrade than most PC towers are. The clamshell iBook even came with a wrench tucked into the screen casing. You might not be able to upgrade as much, but what there is is easy to get to.
[[[Cheap drives are for your pr0n collection, not to shuttle projects between computers. Consumers DO NOT typically buy external drives if they have a choice, THEY DO BUY INTERNAL DRIVES 'cause they want everything in one neat box that they can hide under their desks and that don't require plugging in one drive or another all the time.]]]
Wrong, that's what YOU want! I've thought about this, and I'm not sure we have MOST people filling up those enormous drives (that now come with these systems) to capacity anyway. That's a lot of porn you have my friend ... lol So, the same upgrade question can now be directed toward hard disks. Are you saying that MOST users require more than 40 gig?
[[People want expandable desktops ]]]
Change that to be more specific... *Internally* expandable systems... And as for which sells, It has to do with the sales people pushing one design over the other... I'd be willing to bet that MOST people go out to "look at computers"; it's only when they encounter a sales person do their needs get altered.
On Amorphs comments... I Agree completely. He also hit on a key point about the AIO concept... People go out and 95% of the time they are offered Wintel solutions to begin with and no other choice other than a name stickered to the side of the crate. When they look at the AIOs offered by the PC OEM, the SUCK beyond belief and people end up going with a tower. Then again, if what Matsu says is true, you would think that these multibillion dollar PC OEM companies marketing their AIO designs would have seen his reasoning and jumped ship long ago.. they aren't Why? Because they saw what a smash hit the iMac was when it first debuted. He makes it sound that when people go shopping for computers, they're offered a choice of Mac and PC side by side every time with sales staff knowledgeable with both platforms; they're not. So, it only goes to prove one point... You can bake the results any way you wish.
In the end, when you look at it, hardly anyone is upgrading the motherboard and processor.. Too much trouble and too little return on investment which after you reason it out, doesn't buy you that much more time. Why? because most machines are fast enough for MOST people right out of the box and should last them a good 5 years unless Microsoft *requires* you to upgrade.
The same holds true for hard drives... I'm on systems with single drive configs... 1 with an 8 gig drive that still has 3 gig available and one with a 10 gig drive with 5 gig available. An external FW hard disk is more versatile for me since I can go from machine to machine and back up or off-load my data as needed or even simply move the data over to a CD. After all, people should be backing up their data and moving it to CD. This is a great way to free up drive space. I wonder if Matsu was looking at it from the perspective of a *gamer* ;-) You'd probably need all the drives you could get lol. In that case, buy a console system.
Regardless of what you say, Matsu, the iMac is extremely expandable, just because it's *externally* capable makes no difference. I can upgrade the internal HD if I want and the optical drive and CMOS batteries are easy enough to get at. Every thing is about tradeoffs -- it's how well thy're balanced that really matters. So, in the end it seems to come down to memory upgrades and they seem to provide the most ROI., not what the sales people pitch to their customers -- often manufacturing an artificial notion that they will "need to have this or that for the *future* "etc.... After all how many people were sold on this idea the first time and simply ended up buying a completely new system anyway, after figuring that the upgrad rout it a poor ROI?
Perhaps Amorph can add a few things that I might have forgotten to consider...
[quote] oversimplify and generalize <hr></blockquote>
S'funny, I see alot of that in quite a few of your posts. How do you KNOW people aren't upgrading? Are you omnipotent or something?
Soft economy or not. Apple is still selling far fewer iMac2 than iMac1. They're selling far less 'power'Macs. Yet Dell and HP seem to be selling just as many PCs to a saturated market. Apple's design? Brilliant. But their consumer desktops are flawed. Other than a soft economy, why aren't the iMac2 and eMac (which was designed specifically for the edu' market, afterall...) selling like hot cakes? Soft economy? Quark? I have no idea...
Ed M, it was you that said (paraphrase) 'Maybe I move in different circles...' Maybe. Where reality bites.
Apple's doing alot of great things. But their desktops flatter to deceive. But you'd kinda expect that from a software company who are still, relatively speaking, in denial. And that's why they're at 3% marketshare today. Give or take. They put themselves there. It remains to be seen if their 'patience and diligence' pay off in the next five years or so.
Matsu is a consumer, he's entitled to want stuff Apple isn't providing. He's not the only one.
S'funny, I see alot of that in quite a few of your posts. How do you KNOW people aren't upgrading? Are you omnipotent or something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's run the numbers, and they're not alone in doing so. Companies are understandably eager to learn what customers do with machines.
The survey that sticks out in my mind was of PowerMac owners (back in the pre-G3 days). Apple asked them how many PCI slots they had used. 80% replied none. None. Zip. Zero. A machine that sold to the remaining 20% would make the Cube look like a roaring success: The numbers just aren't there.
PCI slots are now even less useful than they were, because so much more is built into the mobo, connected by USB or FireWire, or available via another connector (e.g. AirPort).
[quote]<strong>Soft economy or not. Apple is still selling far fewer iMac2 than iMac1. They're selling far less 'power'Macs. Yet Dell and HP seem to be selling just as many PCs to a saturated market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any numbers to back that up? A quick search through Google reveals a consensus that PC sales are entering their fourth year in a slump. Dell is gaining market share, but that's not necessarily the same as gaining sales: They're just getting a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.
As of July 18, 2002 (the date of <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/1710"; target="_blank">this article</a> on O'Reilly), the overall PC market had fallen 8.7%, while Apple fell 2% and Dell gained .5%. This doesn't show Apple in the best possible light, but it does show their sales weathering the slump better than the market average. And that's after the 15" iMac tanked.
It's a plain fact that anyone who projects their wishes onto an imagined majority is commiting a fallacy. I know that there are people out there for whom expandability is a big deal. I know many more people for whom it is not. I also know that Steve Jobs thinks PCs should be appliance-like, and I don't doubt for a moment that this belief colors Apple's offerings. However, Apple has kept a finger on the pulse of its customer base, and it has proven that it will change direction abruptly if its customers require it to (e.g. the eMac). If $999 towers really would fly out the door, you can bet that Apple would be considering them. Instead, look at the iMac's new, winnowed price points: I don't even need to see the numbers to know that those are the prices that sold best. They aren't the lowest. But then, the cheapest iMac has never been the best seller. Not by a margin.
Incidentally, schools have favored all-in-one designs for as long as I can remember: They're as kidproof as you'll get, and they save desk space. The eMac is hardly the first machine to exploit that fact.
My attempts to remain on topic will have to remain flailing and weak, since I still can't imagine how to replace the current design. It's like replacing El Capitan: It's one thing to say that Cap is aging, and it's quite another to come up with a worthy replacement. The current Buick (because of the portholes, natch) variant is probably the best minitower case money can buy. Similarly, I don't know how Apple could trump the current iMac in terms of form and function. The base recedes, as it should. The arm is a stroke of genius, and it makes the iMac the most ergonomic desktop I've ever seen. The LCDs are consistently rated at a very high quality. How do you top that?
[[[If $999 towers really would fly out the door, you can bet that Apple would be considering them. Instead, look at the iMac's new, winnowed price points: I don't even need to see the numbers to know that those are the prices that sold best. They aren't the lowest. But then, the cheapest iMac has never been the best seller. Not by a margin.]]]
This is it.. this holds the clues that a lot of people on these boards don't seem to get.
In the end, it's not the "cheapest" that sells the best. Paper plates/cups, plastic utensils etc. instead of reusable tableware? Restaurants? It's amazing that we aren't all eating at McDonnell's and White Castle, considering they're relentless marketing of the "value meals"... On the other hand, studies have shown that such value pricing has lead to the rarely discussed epidemic in the USA: Obesity. Anyway... The point is there are other factors to consider -- *taste* being but one of them. ;-)
[[The arm is a stroke of genius, and it makes the iMac the most ergonomic desktop I've ever seen.]]]
The design of the arm is simply amazing. Apple engineers and designers must have put in some hefty overtime when developing it. You'll see nothing like it in the PC realm. Of course the arm isn't what sells the iMac, but that isn't my point.
\t
[[[The LCDs are consistently rated at a very high quality. How do you top that?]]]
They're Samsung LCDs. Samsung probably makes the best LCDs on the market right now.
[quote] Do you have any numbers to back that up? <hr></blockquote>
I dunno. I guess you'd have to compare the first 13 months of iMac1 and Imac2. And see which tailed off most significantly.
I think the iMac2 actually surpassed the original iMac in terms of initial sales but, over the 13 months..?
I don't recall the iMac2 sales figures much above a 150K for the last quarter..? I'm too lazy to go hunting for links. I'm not that anal! Maybe you can post them for Lazy Bon Bon? I'm sure the iMac 2 didn't get over half a million or something... Wheren't they languishing?
Superior design the imac2 may well have. But superior sales? Son of Cube?
Dell and HP may have a bigger share of a shrinking cake...but that's still millions upon millions more than Apple to a saturated x86 market. Millions upon millions the iMac2 aint selling for sure. Wonder how many of those millions upon millions are limited all in ones?
See loads of towers in every PC mag I pick up. Doesn't mean Apple should do a really cheap tower. But it does mean all those PC guys are selling to somebody?
Sure, the iMac2 isn't the answer on its own. (You've aluded and I've talked about his myself too the complex range of caveats Apple will have to perform to get growth.)
Too my disappointment (and probably Apple's...), the iMac2 doesn't appear to have had the same sustained impact the original iMac had re: sales. Maybe the eMac is weakening it's position but...
If they iMac2 isn't spearheading quarterly sales of half a million then I think there's something wrong with it's overall position, price and limited upgradeability then they've got their Son of Cube. If they're happy with that... I wouldn't be. It's a pity it took them as long to follow up the original iMac. They didn't built on its impact soon enough...they squeezed the orange dry... The last year has seen a more aggressive tack. But they're going to have to be more aggressive still to get that 10%. I just kinda thought that an iMac2 priced appropriately would have been the kind of machine to lead that vanguard.
It's simple Amorph. Product stagnation. Overpricing. No advertising (well, if you count the 'inspired' tongue blobbing...) yadda yadda yadda.
Regarding all in ones and education. I've been in many schools in England (where Apple is invisible re: profile...) and towers are the norm. In every news feature on education? Towers are the norm. At our school? Thin pizza clients with LCDs. We used to have towers! But the only school in our area with LCDs...
[[[See loads of towers in every PC mag I pick up. Doesn't mean Apple should do a really cheap tower. But it does mean all those PC guys are selling to somebody?]]]
They aren't selling like they once were is what Amorph is trying to say. Apple and Dell are the only OEMs making money right now. Dell would have taken a HUGE hit had they not changed the way they report. Something like 1.6 BILLION if I remember correctly.
[[Too my disappointment (and probably Apple's...), the iMac2 doesn't appear to have had the same sustained impact the original iMac had re: sales.]]]
And you conveniently left out the fact that the economy was in a LOT better shape back then.
[[[If they iMac2 isn't spearheading quarterly sales of half a million then I think there's something wrong with it's overall position, price and limited upgradeability then they've got their Son of Cube.]]]
We've been through this... MOST people buying these machines aren't looking to upgrade. On the other hand as Amorph and myself have pointed out, it's PLENTY expandable.
[[[The last year has seen a more aggressive tack. But they're going to have to be more aggressive still to get that 10%. I just kinda thought that an iMac2 priced appropriately would have been the kind of machine to lead that vanguard. ]]]
Oh don't worry they'll have plenty of help... Microsoft is locking-down their OS into a more proprietary config with each passing day; it's only a matter of time before the anti-Microsoft sentiment that's already prevalent, mushrooms. And if someone on high gets wise and starts holding software companies liable for their shoddy work, then watch out.. The Lemon Law meets MS Windows... It gets worse if all competition fades, leaving everyone to migrate to a "common platform". Talk about the Irish Potato Famine of the new Millennium... Besides, Windows is too cliche...
<strong>Wouldn't an iMac make a great monitor? OK, so 15" is a little small by tommorow's standards, but I don't think anyone sees displays FOR THE DESKTOP going much past the 19-24" range, with 17-18" becoming a sort of baseline size. If an iMac had DVI-in, when the guts became a little older and slower you could effectively turn your iMac into the display for another machine. If I had an iMac, after 3 years I'd even consider buying a 3rd party hack that let me tap into the video cord and put a small KVM switch in the base. While in 3 years time LCD's will again be better still, they're already pretty good now. What a cool way to recycle an iMac, as a display for your next machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a clever idea, but I just don't see something like this ever flying. There's something klunky and kludgey about the idea of a all-in-one computer being reused as a monitor -- a monitor with an old, unused dead-weight computer attached to it.
Besides, would you see a significant uptick in current sales from buyers who are thinking "I'm only going to buy this AIO computer if I can reuse it as a monitor in three years?" to offset the price of adding the video input and related circuitry? To offset the possible loss in future monitor sales?
I'd say there's a good chance that LCD technology with have improved so much in three years, or will have been supplanted by something like OLED, that even if someone bought an AIO today with the idea of reusing it as a monitor after those three years -- they'd suddenly find that it was only a rationalization they used to justify their first computer purchase, and they'd have to come up with a new rationalization to buy the hot new OLED display for their new computer.
Yeah, I don't expect Apple to do it, but I think there would definitely be a market for a third party hack. Ass-u-ming that the iMac panel is digital, you really only need a way to tap into the cord that runs up the neck. No messy analogue circuitry if the signal is just straight DVI/ADC. Power is already there, even a nice metallic port/rocker-switch that you double sticky glue to the back of dome would do. It's not like using an eMac or iMac CRT as the display. Most any LCD will need a base whose footprint is not much smaller than the iMac's. Monitors do get better all the time, but I only upgraded my original 15 CRT when 17" screens became semi affordable. I used that 17" untill it died and then replaced it with a new 17" I don't think I would feel the need to replace a perfectly good LCD just because better displays are out there, especially one as expensive as the iMacs.
Comments
Now you're splitting hairs and cherry-picking my friend... You seemed to have wanted a solution. You didn't specify that it had to be elegant. To be honest I don't think a tower setup is as elegant as an iMac, so what's your point?
[[[No you cannot erase drives from the equation, why do you insist on citing the worst PC examples. ]]]
Because you love to oversimplify and generalize. I add balance. it's that simple. The iMac is easy to work on and if you ever done it, you will see. Period.
[[[People buy dirt cheap ATA drives and drop 'em in, nothing could be simpler.]]]
You keep saying it, but I don't see it. I do it, but I don't see it. And it really isn't as easy on a PC I'm sorry. And furthermore, what could be easier than just getting a FireWire drive and plugging it in? Nothing. And I can take it to a friends house or anywhere else for that matter. To top it off, for MOST people it doesn't NEED to be high-performance. You keep insisting that people need or even care about the FASTEST and cheapest... They care about being able to do it themselves and what's easiest. \t
[[[I think it's you who doesn't understand. less than 1% of all computers sold are an iMac, obviously more people follow a trend not represented by your arguments. ]]]
Don't be silly... you are comparing a single vendor (Apple) to the rest of the PC market LOL. Spare us.
[[[You're just wrong, it's that simple, the market has voted against you, has been doing so for quite some time in fact.\t]]]
Whining ... that's too bad... Well, considering your argument fell apart and all.
--
Ed
Hey, you could even flip it up and use it to hold your chips and soft-drink, or how about a fern? LOL give me a break. j/k of course :-)
--
Ed
Apple should redesign their LCD monitors (at least the smaller ones) to include an iMac-like swivel arm, instead of the unpositionable current case.
A lot of the wrangling seems to be over the price. Since the monitor is not included - use your own DVI or VGA monitor - there should be no difficulty keeping the price below 1000 pounds sterling or $1400 USD.
Also, the keyboard and mouse should not be included either. Let the wireless fans select their own mouse and keyboard from any of the many vendors that supply such things.
Frankly, it sounds to me like we've reinvented the PowerMac...
What exactly is the point of an AIO if you need to keep an external display hooked up to it? If that was the point, you'd just have a headless computer. How long do you propose someone keep using an iMac or eMac with a non-functional CRT? Gee, that really saves space, two bulky boxes sitting on your desk. Your point is idiotic.
If you aren't seeing it, then you're blind. What gets sold? It's that easy. What gets sold, by and large, are not AIO (or iMacs specifically). What gets sold is towers, if you aren't seeing it, then you aren't selling either computers or peripherals. I keep saying it because it's true. Everybody I know, even people who don't know squat about their computers simply takes their tower to the store and for a $30 installation fee walks out with a second HDD installed. Cheap drives are for your pr0n collection, not to shuttle projects between computers. Consumers DO NOT typically buy external drives if they have a choice, THEY DO BUY INTERNAL DRIVES 'cause they want everything in one neat box that they can hide under their desks and that don't require plugging in one drive or another all the time. I like firewire, I think it's a great idea/technology, but it's no replacement for internal storage.
As for your opening up the mac? Do tell the average home user what the state of their warranty will be if they take it upon themselves to open up the iMac FP/CRT or eMac and change any of the drives themselves? Oh yeah, that's right, bye-bye AppleCare. You need to take it in for Apple Authorized service, on an iMac you even need to do that just to change the idiotically placed internal RAM module.
Going back to comparing one model to all computers sold, it's absolutely valid because Apple has to support the mac platform all by itself. Even Apple sees the laptop supplanting AIO sales over time as it grows relative to the desktop market as a whole. In any event I'm comparing the relative penetration of the AIO concept against the tower/desktop concept, the AIO gets handily spanked. People want expandable desktops at a reasonable price. They want to add the display of their choice, and periodically upgrade RAM, HDD's video cards etc etc... the local Costco wouldn't be full of video/sound cards, RAM modules and bare drives if average joes weren't doing these upgrades. They're available because people do buy them, because people want them. It's you who's being pig-headed here, the numbers come down overwhelmingly against you. People like to buy tower based desktops moreso than AIO's. That's just the way it is, there isn't one market analysis that supports your arguments, not one, not when you look at the numbers. Like I said, despite your rationalizations, you're just wrong, and so is Apple.
so you must think that windows is much much much (like 95 to 5) better than OS X....
it is rarely easy.....g
as for the orginal question...i want skins for the iMac shell...not for mine...in the year i have had mine it is still nice and white and clean (plus the screen covers the base when i use it anyway)...but skins to put on the iMacs at CompUSA....dang those things looked nasty...i push back the base and pull the screens down so they are covered...can't the kids that work there wipe them off once a week??? ick....plus the kids would like custom skins anyway....mmmmm flames on my iMac....g
good to have you around matsu....g
<strong>I'd like to see no wires - keyboard, mouse, speakers, cables. Somehow have integrated speakers that sound awesome. A longer arm - really be able to push the base aside, but still have a floating monitor. I like to be able to write and read without the monitor and keyboard being in the way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know about that. Someone posted a pic of what a wireless tablet/iMac could look like, and it looked rather silly. I doubt Apple's going to be going into tablets anytime soon.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the design now. I agree that adding a PCI slot or even just making the graphics card upgradable like on the PM's would do. FW 800 would be nice as well.
Aside from that, well, *shrug* it's like the current "Yosemite" design for the PM's. If it ain't broken, why fix it?
<strong>Here's an idea for the next design ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds fantastic, a little bit stratrklike and such. Would you please provide us with a web-link to that jonathan art?
<strong>Name one Wintel AIO that's sold well? They all suck, yes, I must admit, but people buy towers/desktops for a reason --price/expansion/upgradability is it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I contend that the reason is that the alternatives all suck.
Even the notebooks suck, although not as much, so they're rapidly approaching 50% of all PC sales. Most of those are too big and too heavy to be called laptops, and they're not used that way.
[quote]<strong>You yourself bought a cube, not an iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one reason: The LCD.
When Apple came out with the LCD iMac, I said that that was the machine I really wanted when I bought the Cube, and I meant it. Of course, I paid enough for the Cube + 15" LCD that I'll hold on to it until I've squeezed every last bit of use from it, but if I replace it it will probably be with an iMac (unless I get a PowerBook). As I said upthread, I consider the LCD iMac's design to be just about ideal.
As far as improving the design goes, I'm in way over my head, here. I don't really know what Apple could do, short of essentially minor tweaks. They appear to be set up to accomodate at least one more upgrade in terms of monitor size, which is the only significant change I could see them making. Landscape/portrait rotation would be a cool trick, but I don't know how much extra engineering that would involve, given that the iMac's arm is already an intricate thing.
Oh, and they might go slot-load.
[quote]<strong>In a year or two, when fast G4 upgrades are less than 300USD you'll get a nice little boost for that machine without breaking the bank. In internal HDD upgrade is a simple matter and it won't void your warrantee either. If anything goes wrong with your display, a solution is as easy as a trip to the local Electromics r'us'oMart. How often have you pined for a pizza box?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I'll have to watch the G4 upgrades, because they will void my AppleCare warranty and because the Cube has heat issues. It was not designed to be upgradeable, and I bought it assuming that.
2) I upgraded the HDD already. There's now a FW drive sitting beside the Cube.
3) 90% of the monitors in the various electronics stores are any of: ugly, CRTs, analog, or some way lacking in image quality. None of the ones I've seen have tempted me away from my Apple 15" - and that's not even all that good a monitor next to Apple's newer offerings. I'm willing to pay for quality.
4) How often have I pined for a pizza box? Never, actually. It's the only form factor I can see for a "headless iMac," but it's otherwise unexceptional. Now, the amount of lust I've had for the 17" iMac and the various Apple notebooks is another matter entirely.
5) Apple's units are not hermetically sealed. In fact, with some exceptions (the TiBooks, especially the early models) they're easier to upgrade than most PC towers are. The clamshell iBook even came with a wrench tucked into the screen casing. You might not be able to upgrade as much, but what there is is easy to get to.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Wrong, that's what YOU want! I've thought about this, and I'm not sure we have MOST people filling up those enormous drives (that now come with these systems) to capacity anyway. That's a lot of porn you have my friend ... lol So, the same upgrade question can now be directed toward hard disks. Are you saying that MOST users require more than 40 gig?
[[People want expandable desktops ]]]
Change that to be more specific... *Internally* expandable systems... And as for which sells, It has to do with the sales people pushing one design over the other... I'd be willing to bet that MOST people go out to "look at computers"; it's only when they encounter a sales person do their needs get altered.
On Amorphs comments... I Agree completely. He also hit on a key point about the AIO concept... People go out and 95% of the time they are offered Wintel solutions to begin with and no other choice other than a name stickered to the side of the crate. When they look at the AIOs offered by the PC OEM, the SUCK beyond belief and people end up going with a tower. Then again, if what Matsu says is true, you would think that these multibillion dollar PC OEM companies marketing their AIO designs would have seen his reasoning and jumped ship long ago.. they aren't Why? Because they saw what a smash hit the iMac was when it first debuted. He makes it sound that when people go shopping for computers, they're offered a choice of Mac and PC side by side every time with sales staff knowledgeable with both platforms; they're not. So, it only goes to prove one point... You can bake the results any way you wish.
In the end, when you look at it, hardly anyone is upgrading the motherboard and processor.. Too much trouble and too little return on investment which after you reason it out, doesn't buy you that much more time. Why? because most machines are fast enough for MOST people right out of the box and should last them a good 5 years unless Microsoft *requires* you to upgrade.
The same holds true for hard drives... I'm on systems with single drive configs... 1 with an 8 gig drive that still has 3 gig available and one with a 10 gig drive with 5 gig available. An external FW hard disk is more versatile for me since I can go from machine to machine and back up or off-load my data as needed or even simply move the data over to a CD. After all, people should be backing up their data and moving it to CD. This is a great way to free up drive space. I wonder if Matsu was looking at it from the perspective of a *gamer* ;-) You'd probably need all the drives you could get lol. In that case, buy a console system.
Regardless of what you say, Matsu, the iMac is extremely expandable, just because it's *externally* capable makes no difference. I can upgrade the internal HD if I want and the optical drive and CMOS batteries are easy enough to get at. Every thing is about tradeoffs -- it's how well thy're balanced that really matters. So, in the end it seems to come down to memory upgrades and they seem to provide the most ROI., not what the sales people pitch to their customers -- often manufacturing an artificial notion that they will "need to have this or that for the *future* "etc.... After all how many people were sold on this idea the first time and simply ended up buying a completely new system anyway, after figuring that the upgrad rout it a poor ROI?
Perhaps Amorph can add a few things that I might have forgotten to consider...
--
Ed M.
S'funny, I see alot of that in quite a few of your posts. How do you KNOW people aren't upgrading? Are you omnipotent or something?
Soft economy or not. Apple is still selling far fewer iMac2 than iMac1. They're selling far less 'power'Macs. Yet Dell and HP seem to be selling just as many PCs to a saturated market. Apple's design? Brilliant. But their consumer desktops are flawed. Other than a soft economy, why aren't the iMac2 and eMac (which was designed specifically for the edu' market, afterall...) selling like hot cakes? Soft economy? Quark? I have no idea...
Ed M, it was you that said (paraphrase) 'Maybe I move in different circles...' Maybe. Where reality bites.
Apple's doing alot of great things. But their desktops flatter to deceive. But you'd kinda expect that from a software company who are still, relatively speaking, in denial. And that's why they're at 3% marketshare today. Give or take. They put themselves there. It remains to be seen if their 'patience and diligence' pay off in the next five years or so.
Matsu is a consumer, he's entitled to want stuff Apple isn't providing. He's not the only one.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
S'funny, I see alot of that in quite a few of your posts. How do you KNOW people aren't upgrading? Are you omnipotent or something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's run the numbers, and they're not alone in doing so. Companies are understandably eager to learn what customers do with machines.
The survey that sticks out in my mind was of PowerMac owners (back in the pre-G3 days). Apple asked them how many PCI slots they had used. 80% replied none. None. Zip. Zero. A machine that sold to the remaining 20% would make the Cube look like a roaring success: The numbers just aren't there.
PCI slots are now even less useful than they were, because so much more is built into the mobo, connected by USB or FireWire, or available via another connector (e.g. AirPort).
[quote]<strong>Soft economy or not. Apple is still selling far fewer iMac2 than iMac1. They're selling far less 'power'Macs. Yet Dell and HP seem to be selling just as many PCs to a saturated market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any numbers to back that up? A quick search through Google reveals a consensus that PC sales are entering their fourth year in a slump. Dell is gaining market share, but that's not necessarily the same as gaining sales: They're just getting a bigger piece of a shrinking pie.
As of July 18, 2002 (the date of <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/1710"; target="_blank">this article</a> on O'Reilly), the overall PC market had fallen 8.7%, while Apple fell 2% and Dell gained .5%. This doesn't show Apple in the best possible light, but it does show their sales weathering the slump better than the market average. And that's after the 15" iMac tanked.
It's a plain fact that anyone who projects their wishes onto an imagined majority is commiting a fallacy. I know that there are people out there for whom expandability is a big deal. I know many more people for whom it is not. I also know that Steve Jobs thinks PCs should be appliance-like, and I don't doubt for a moment that this belief colors Apple's offerings. However, Apple has kept a finger on the pulse of its customer base, and it has proven that it will change direction abruptly if its customers require it to (e.g. the eMac). If $999 towers really would fly out the door, you can bet that Apple would be considering them. Instead, look at the iMac's new, winnowed price points: I don't even need to see the numbers to know that those are the prices that sold best. They aren't the lowest. But then, the cheapest iMac has never been the best seller. Not by a margin.
Incidentally, schools have favored all-in-one designs for as long as I can remember: They're as kidproof as you'll get, and they save desk space. The eMac is hardly the first machine to exploit that fact.
My attempts to remain on topic will have to remain flailing and weak, since I still can't imagine how to replace the current design. It's like replacing El Capitan: It's one thing to say that Cap is aging, and it's quite another to come up with a worthy replacement. The current Buick (because of the portholes, natch) variant is probably the best minitower case money can buy. Similarly, I don't know how Apple could trump the current iMac in terms of form and function. The base recedes, as it should. The arm is a stroke of genius, and it makes the iMac the most ergonomic desktop I've ever seen. The LCDs are consistently rated at a very high quality. How do you top that?
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
This is it.. this holds the clues that a lot of people on these boards don't seem to get.
In the end, it's not the "cheapest" that sells the best. Paper plates/cups, plastic utensils etc. instead of reusable tableware? Restaurants? It's amazing that we aren't all eating at McDonnell's and White Castle, considering they're relentless marketing of the "value meals"... On the other hand, studies have shown that such value pricing has lead to the rarely discussed epidemic in the USA: Obesity. Anyway... The point is there are other factors to consider -- *taste* being but one of them. ;-)
[[The arm is a stroke of genius, and it makes the iMac the most ergonomic desktop I've ever seen.]]]
The design of the arm is simply amazing. Apple engineers and designers must have put in some hefty overtime when developing it. You'll see nothing like it in the PC realm. Of course the arm isn't what sells the iMac, but that isn't my point.
\t
[[[The LCDs are consistently rated at a very high quality. How do you top that?]]]
They're Samsung LCDs. Samsung probably makes the best LCDs on the market right now.
--
Ed M.
I dunno. I guess you'd have to compare the first 13 months of iMac1 and Imac2. And see which tailed off most significantly.
I think the iMac2 actually surpassed the original iMac in terms of initial sales but, over the 13 months..?
I don't recall the iMac2 sales figures much above a 150K for the last quarter..? I'm too lazy to go hunting for links. I'm not that anal!
Superior design the imac2 may well have. But superior sales? Son of Cube?
Dell and HP may have a bigger share of a shrinking cake...but that's still millions upon millions more than Apple to a saturated x86 market. Millions upon millions the iMac2 aint selling for sure. Wonder how many of those millions upon millions are limited all in ones?
See loads of towers in every PC mag I pick up. Doesn't mean Apple should do a really cheap tower. But it does mean all those PC guys are selling to somebody?
Sure, the iMac2 isn't the answer on its own. (You've aluded and I've talked about his myself too the complex range of caveats Apple will have to perform to get growth.)
Too my disappointment (and probably Apple's...), the iMac2 doesn't appear to have had the same sustained impact the original iMac had re: sales. Maybe the eMac is weakening it's position but...
If they iMac2 isn't spearheading quarterly sales of half a million then I think there's something wrong with it's overall position, price and limited upgradeability then they've got their Son of Cube. If they're happy with that... I wouldn't be. It's a pity it took them as long to follow up the original iMac. They didn't built on its impact soon enough...they squeezed the orange dry... The last year has seen a more aggressive tack. But they're going to have to be more aggressive still to get that 10%. I just kinda thought that an iMac2 priced appropriately would have been the kind of machine to lead that vanguard.
It's simple Amorph. Product stagnation. Overpricing. No advertising (well, if you count the 'inspired' tongue blobbing...) yadda yadda yadda.
Regarding all in ones and education. I've been in many schools in England (where Apple is invisible re: profile...) and towers are the norm. In every news feature on education? Towers are the norm. At our school? Thin pizza clients with LCDs. We used to have towers! But the only school in our area with LCDs...
Lemon Bon Bon
They aren't selling like they once were is what Amorph is trying to say. Apple and Dell are the only OEMs making money right now. Dell would have taken a HUGE hit had they not changed the way they report. Something like 1.6 BILLION if I remember correctly.
[[Too my disappointment (and probably Apple's...), the iMac2 doesn't appear to have had the same sustained impact the original iMac had re: sales.]]]
And you conveniently left out the fact that the economy was in a LOT better shape back then.
[[[If they iMac2 isn't spearheading quarterly sales of half a million then I think there's something wrong with it's overall position, price and limited upgradeability then they've got their Son of Cube.]]]
We've been through this... MOST people buying these machines aren't looking to upgrade. On the other hand as Amorph and myself have pointed out, it's PLENTY expandable.
[[[The last year has seen a more aggressive tack. But they're going to have to be more aggressive still to get that 10%. I just kinda thought that an iMac2 priced appropriately would have been the kind of machine to lead that vanguard. ]]]
Oh don't worry they'll have plenty of help... Microsoft is locking-down their OS into a more proprietary config with each passing day; it's only a matter of time before the anti-Microsoft sentiment that's already prevalent, mushrooms. And if someone on high gets wise and starts holding software companies liable for their shoddy work, then watch out.. The Lemon Law meets MS Windows... It gets worse if all competition fades, leaving everyone to migrate to a "common platform". Talk about the Irish Potato Famine of the new Millennium... Besides, Windows is too cliche...
--
Ed M
<strong>Wouldn't an iMac make a great monitor? OK, so 15" is a little small by tommorow's standards, but I don't think anyone sees displays FOR THE DESKTOP going much past the 19-24" range, with 17-18" becoming a sort of baseline size. If an iMac had DVI-in, when the guts became a little older and slower you could effectively turn your iMac into the display for another machine. If I had an iMac, after 3 years I'd even consider buying a 3rd party hack that let me tap into the video cord and put a small KVM switch in the base. While in 3 years time LCD's will again be better still, they're already pretty good now. What a cool way to recycle an iMac, as a display for your next machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a clever idea, but I just don't see something like this ever flying. There's something klunky and kludgey about the idea of a all-in-one computer being reused as a monitor -- a monitor with an old, unused dead-weight computer attached to it.
Besides, would you see a significant uptick in current sales from buyers who are thinking "I'm only going to buy this AIO computer if I can reuse it as a monitor in three years?" to offset the price of adding the video input and related circuitry? To offset the possible loss in future monitor sales?
I'd say there's a good chance that LCD technology with have improved so much in three years, or will have been supplanted by something like OLED, that even if someone bought an AIO today with the idea of reusing it as a monitor after those three years -- they'd suddenly find that it was only a rationalization they used to justify their first computer purchase, and they'd have to come up with a new rationalization to buy the hot new OLED display for their new computer.