But how does one outcry? I have no idea how to go about complaining to apple to release it to the public.
Well, that might not have been the best word to use, but I like it.
Basically, by going into an Apple store and asking for it. The word gets back. It happened with the eMac. I suppose that's the way. After enough people ask, Apple will respond (hopefully).
it has poor sales, crippled performance, and is over priced.
and the contempt you show for people who would rather save money and get a machine that better suits their need is amusing.
the mini misses its target market buy about 200$ and the iMac about the same. i use dells becasue they offer me price and performance that is second to none. i also do not pay for them
i would buy a edu iMac as it offers me everything i need:
- fast
- reliable
- no Grahics card: i fit into the 90% of computer uses that would not need now or ever a grahics card(as i only use accounting software)
- good price
but i do not pay for computers and am not a student/ education buyer so i miss out.
P.S. all prices are in AU dollars
edit: dells are reliable; the dell i am on now is 4 years old and never had a problem.
Schools don't want the capability for wireless Bluetooth on many machines. The idea is to lock the machines down, operationally. Bluetooth would be a nucience. By Apple removing the upgradability, they lose nothing, and save some in component, assembly, and testing costs.
Yeah, but it's available to students as well as administration. Students are actually very likely to want Bluetooth capability in their machines. This is why I wonder why Bluetooth isn't an option. I'm not asking for it to be standard.
Plus, schools don't necessarily need 802.11g wireless networking in a desktop machine either. They usually have Ethernet ports running into the lab. But this machine seems to have that.
The iMac G4 was overpriced and performance crippled.
why can it not replace the Mac Mini?
it has poor sales, crippled performance, and is over priced.
You guys throw the word crippled around a lot, can we describe what crippled means for context.
In context of its intended market how was the iMac G4 crippled? The iMac line has been Apple's most successful computers.
You can certainly make an argument for the Mac mini not including a keyboard or mouse as being crippled, but you know that when you buy it. Apple does not want the mini to sell as well as the iMac.
Teno it's "obvious" to me that my Honda is crippled because they didn't put the Acura NSX engine in it
seriously though I believe a product is "crippled" when it has the ability to do more and is purposely diminished. Such as if I have an ethernet nic that could do gigabit but was limited to fast ethernet for no apparent reason.
BTW: I don't like LCD. I'm old school...prefer CRTs.
Then you'd better hope that SED technology pans out in a few years, and that they decide to make panels small enough to use for desktop & laptop computers.
Yeah, but it's available to students as well as administration. Students are actually very likely to want Bluetooth capability in their machines. This is why I wonder why Bluetooth isn't an option. I'm not asking for it to be standard.
Plus, schools don't necessarily need 802.11g wireless networking in a desktop machine either. They usually have Ethernet ports running into the lab. But this machine seems to have that.
If students want Bluetooth in their own machines, then they will just have to buy the regular model. Apple doesn't have to supply that ability. This is a price constrained model. Once they start adding the missing features back, or even the capability to add them, the price will start creeping up again.
Teno it's "obvious" to me that my Honda is crippled because they didn't put the Acura NSX engine in it
seriously though I believe a product is "crippled" when it has the ability to do more and is purposely diminished. Such as if I have an ethernet nic that could do gigabit but was limited to fast ethernet for no apparent reason.
By that definition, Apple has crippled products, but the mini doesn't seem to count by the same definition. The old iMac, G4 and first few revisions of G5, were technically capable of dual head operation, but was set to only provide mirroring, only corrected as of the G5 /w iSight and later. Many iPods have the capability in the hardware to record audio, but it requires either a hack, such as Linux for iPod, or an add-on device, to turn it on.
By that definition, Apple has crippled products, but the mini doesn't seem to count by the same definition. The old iMac, G4 and first few revisions of G5, were technically capable of dual head operation, but was set to only provide mirroring, only corrected as of the G5 /w iSight and later. Many iPods have the capability in the hardware to record audio, but it requires either a hack, such as Linux for iPod, or an add-on device, to turn it on.
This discussion about "crippled" products will go nowhere. All products are crippled, except the very top of the line, by these definitions.
All companies have to have several lines of products. Often, it is cheaper to use some of the same components, but they then have to disable certain features. This is quite normal.
As long as the product doesn't subject the user to a small subset of programs, or hardware add-ons, as the old Pc jr. did, then it's fine.
This discussion about "crippled" products will go nowhere. All products are crippled, except the very top of the line, by these definitions.
All companies have to have several lines of products. Often, it is cheaper to use some of the same components, but they then have to disable certain features. This is quite normal.
As long as the product doesn't subject the user to a small subset of programs, or hardware add-ons, as the old Pc jr. did, then it's fine.
I don't know, the top of the line iPod can't record audio, so there's no more expensive product to protect.
Frankly, their old habit of disabling second head feature on iMac was truly ludicrous given that it's not going to canibalize the market for higher end products, and that it's an awfully expensive computer to be mirror-only.
Frankly, their old habit of disabling second head feature on iMac was truly ludicrous given that it's not going to canibalize the market for higher end products, and that it's an awfully expensive computer to be mirror-only.
How many iMac users are there that would want to run an ugly second monitor next to their beautiful iMac though?
Not many I'd guess. You buy an iMac because you don't want the bulk.
Sure, deliberately disabling the feature is stupid but I can't imagine it's a feature that gets used a lot.
I don't like what Apple is doing. They release yet another machine with bad graphics before they fixed the hardware problems in MacBooks. Believe me, I hate to say this, but I don't see any quality advantage of Apple products over PCs anymore. I'd say current products are of worse quality than PCs. Apple is trying to save the last penny in the production pipeline. I don't like this. Moving from PPC to Intel is not an excuse for also lowering the quality.
I'm impatient to see what they do with the Mac Mini now. Perhaps they'll will even drop the Intel graphics in it, and release a Mini without any graphics at all, just to save a few dollars. A shame.
How many iMac users are there that would want to run an ugly second monitor next to their beautiful iMac though?
Not many I'd guess. You buy an iMac because you don't want the bulk.
Sure, deliberately disabling the feature is stupid but I can't imagine it's a feature that gets used a lot.
Why do you say it has to be an ugly monitor? Sounds like a red herring argument to me. Not everyone is so vain. Besides, I've heard that one can connect an LCD monitor up to one of these things, even this Apple company sells some if you must have brand matching.
I don't like what Apple is doing. They release yet another machine with bad graphics before they fixed the hardware problems in MacBooks. Believe me, I hate to say this, but I don't see any quality advantage of Apple products over PCs anymore. I'd say current products are of worse quality than PCs. Apple is trying to save the last penny in the production pipeline. I don't like this. Moving from PPC to Intel is not an excuse for also lowering the quality.
I'm impatient to see what they do with the Mac Mini now. Perhaps they'll will even drop the Intel graphics in it, and release a Mini without any graphics at all, just to save a few dollars. A shame.
Based on what relevant data? Do you have access to thousand of sales of both platforms and their return rate percentages? If not then what you say is tantamount to a Wild Ass Guess.
Before the MBP and MB you had a G4 processor with a 167Ghz bus. I'm struggling...and I mean strugglinng to see how quality has diminished in anyway. The MB employs a more solid feel than any other laptop I've seen at the same pricepoint. Sony Vaio's are nice but they don't necessarily "feel" all that durable.
Why do you say it has to be an ugly monitor? Sounds like a red herring argument to me. Not everyone is so vain. Besides, I've heard that one can connect an LCD monitor up to one of these things, even this Apple company sells some if you must have brand matching.
Comments
Originally posted by ecking
But how does one outcry? I have no idea how to go about complaining to apple to release it to the public.
Well, that might not have been the best word to use, but I like it.
Basically, by going into an Apple store and asking for it. The word gets back. It happened with the eMac. I suppose that's the way. After enough people ask, Apple will respond (hopefully).
Originally posted by furious_
would you not think that after the success of the eMac with consumers that apple would be smart enough to release it
Stupid enough, you mean.
The iMac G4 was overpriced and performance crippled.
That way iMac sales where well below exceptations so Apple needed a way to boost Mac sales.
That's not the case anymore. The iMac sells very well, these days.
And a $300-$400 premium is not something Apple will give up for some whinning cheapskates.
We'll see faster iMacs soon.
So Apple can justify the ultra steep price difference between the 17" iMac consumer edition and its educational counterpart.
it has poor sales, crippled performance, and is over priced.
and the contempt you show for people who would rather save money and get a machine that better suits their need is amusing.
the mini misses its target market buy about 200$ and the iMac about the same. i use dells becasue they offer me price and performance that is second to none. i also do not pay for them
i would buy a edu iMac as it offers me everything i need:
- fast
- reliable
- no Grahics card: i fit into the 90% of computer uses that would not need now or ever a grahics card(as i only use accounting software)
- good price
but i do not pay for computers and am not a student/ education buyer so i miss out.
P.S. all prices are in AU dollars
edit: dells are reliable; the dell i am on now is 4 years old and never had a problem.
Originally posted by melgross
Schools don't want the capability for wireless Bluetooth on many machines. The idea is to lock the machines down, operationally. Bluetooth would be a nucience. By Apple removing the upgradability, they lose nothing, and save some in component, assembly, and testing costs.
Yeah, but it's available to students as well as administration. Students are actually very likely to want Bluetooth capability in their machines. This is why I wonder why Bluetooth isn't an option. I'm not asking for it to be standard.
Plus, schools don't necessarily need 802.11g wireless networking in a desktop machine either. They usually have Ethernet ports running into the lab. But this machine seems to have that.
Originally posted by gar
We'll see faster iMacs soon.
So Apple can justify the ultra steep price difference between the 17" iMac consumer edition and its educational counterpart.
I agree. Hopefully Conroe iMacs before the end of the month.
The iMac G4 was overpriced and performance crippled.
why can it not replace the Mac Mini?
it has poor sales, crippled performance, and is over priced.
You guys throw the word crippled around a lot, can we describe what crippled means for context.
In context of its intended market how was the iMac G4 crippled? The iMac line has been Apple's most successful computers.
You can certainly make an argument for the Mac mini not including a keyboard or mouse as being crippled, but you know that when you buy it. Apple does not want the mini to sell as well as the iMac.
seriously though I believe a product is "crippled" when it has the ability to do more and is purposely diminished. Such as if I have an ethernet nic that could do gigabit but was limited to fast ethernet for no apparent reason.
Originally posted by initiator
BTW: I don't like LCD. I'm old school...prefer CRTs.
Then you'd better hope that SED technology pans out in a few years, and that they decide to make panels small enough to use for desktop & laptop computers.
Originally posted by CharlesS
Yeah, but it's available to students as well as administration. Students are actually very likely to want Bluetooth capability in their machines. This is why I wonder why Bluetooth isn't an option. I'm not asking for it to be standard.
Plus, schools don't necessarily need 802.11g wireless networking in a desktop machine either. They usually have Ethernet ports running into the lab. But this machine seems to have that.
If students want Bluetooth in their own machines, then they will just have to buy the regular model. Apple doesn't have to supply that ability. This is a price constrained model. Once they start adding the missing features back, or even the capability to add them, the price will start creeping up again.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Teno it's "obvious" to me that my Honda is crippled because they didn't put the Acura NSX engine in it
seriously though I believe a product is "crippled" when it has the ability to do more and is purposely diminished. Such as if I have an ethernet nic that could do gigabit but was limited to fast ethernet for no apparent reason.
By that definition, Apple has crippled products, but the mini doesn't seem to count by the same definition. The old iMac, G4 and first few revisions of G5, were technically capable of dual head operation, but was set to only provide mirroring, only corrected as of the G5 /w iSight and later. Many iPods have the capability in the hardware to record audio, but it requires either a hack, such as Linux for iPod, or an add-on device, to turn it on.
Originally posted by JeffDM
By that definition, Apple has crippled products, but the mini doesn't seem to count by the same definition. The old iMac, G4 and first few revisions of G5, were technically capable of dual head operation, but was set to only provide mirroring, only corrected as of the G5 /w iSight and later. Many iPods have the capability in the hardware to record audio, but it requires either a hack, such as Linux for iPod, or an add-on device, to turn it on.
This discussion about "crippled" products will go nowhere. All products are crippled, except the very top of the line, by these definitions.
All companies have to have several lines of products. Often, it is cheaper to use some of the same components, but they then have to disable certain features. This is quite normal.
As long as the product doesn't subject the user to a small subset of programs, or hardware add-ons, as the old Pc jr. did, then it's fine.
Originally posted by melgross
This discussion about "crippled" products will go nowhere. All products are crippled, except the very top of the line, by these definitions.
All companies have to have several lines of products. Often, it is cheaper to use some of the same components, but they then have to disable certain features. This is quite normal.
As long as the product doesn't subject the user to a small subset of programs, or hardware add-ons, as the old Pc jr. did, then it's fine.
I don't know, the top of the line iPod can't record audio, so there's no more expensive product to protect.
Frankly, their old habit of disabling second head feature on iMac was truly ludicrous given that it's not going to canibalize the market for higher end products, and that it's an awfully expensive computer to be mirror-only.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Frankly, their old habit of disabling second head feature on iMac was truly ludicrous given that it's not going to canibalize the market for higher end products, and that it's an awfully expensive computer to be mirror-only.
How many iMac users are there that would want to run an ugly second monitor next to their beautiful iMac though?
Not many I'd guess. You buy an iMac because you don't want the bulk.
Sure, deliberately disabling the feature is stupid but I can't imagine it's a feature that gets used a lot.
I'm impatient to see what they do with the Mac Mini now. Perhaps they'll will even drop the Intel graphics in it, and release a Mini without any graphics at all, just to save a few dollars. A shame.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How many iMac users are there that would want to run an ugly second monitor next to their beautiful iMac though?
Not many I'd guess. You buy an iMac because you don't want the bulk.
Sure, deliberately disabling the feature is stupid but I can't imagine it's a feature that gets used a lot.
Why do you say it has to be an ugly monitor? Sounds like a red herring argument to me. Not everyone is so vain. Besides, I've heard that one can connect an LCD monitor up to one of these things, even this Apple company sells some if you must have brand matching.
Originally posted by ecs
I don't like what Apple is doing. They release yet another machine with bad graphics before they fixed the hardware problems in MacBooks. Believe me, I hate to say this, but I don't see any quality advantage of Apple products over PCs anymore. I'd say current products are of worse quality than PCs. Apple is trying to save the last penny in the production pipeline. I don't like this. Moving from PPC to Intel is not an excuse for also lowering the quality.
I'm impatient to see what they do with the Mac Mini now. Perhaps they'll will even drop the Intel graphics in it, and release a Mini without any graphics at all, just to save a few dollars. A shame.
Based on what relevant data? Do you have access to thousand of sales of both platforms and their return rate percentages? If not then what you say is tantamount to a Wild Ass Guess.
Before the MBP and MB you had a G4 processor with a 167Ghz bus. I'm struggling...and I mean strugglinng to see how quality has diminished in anyway. The MB employs a more solid feel than any other laptop I've seen at the same pricepoint. Sony Vaio's are nice but they don't necessarily "feel" all that durable.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Why do you say it has to be an ugly monitor? Sounds like a red herring argument to me. Not everyone is so vain. Besides, I've heard that one can connect an LCD monitor up to one of these things, even this Apple company sells some if you must have brand matching.
They're silver though. Clashes horribly.
Apple wanted to capture the school purchasing cycle, but didn't have a new, separate design to offer.
Analyze it more than that and you're wasting your time. boooring.