It would be nice to see the 17" drop down to the $999 price range for an entry model again. I think that the component prices have droped enough to allow for this since the 17" iMac was released.
As far as the screen goes, it's a simple balance of what Apple can procure for the target price point. They got rid of the CRT, and the 15"LCD, and now 20" displays seem to be frefalling in price, so they may decide that there is no point keeping the 17", especially for what is NOT a budget computer.
As far as the screen goes, it's a simple balance of what Apple can procure for the target price point. They got rid of the CRT, and the 15"LCD, and now 20" displays seem to be frefalling in price, so they may decide that there is no point keeping the 17", especially for what is NOT a budget computer.
David
I understand what you and others are saying but at the same time I still disagree to an extent. Yes, apple will have a target price point for their products and they will be very careful in giving the most they can for these windows. But based on what I know about PC users and somewhat ignorant computer people (my parents included)- if they became interested in purchasing a mac then options starting at a fairly large screen such as the 20" would deter them from buying it.
In other words, they would consider a mac but become intimidated right off the back if they were interested in an iMac but did not see an option for a screen size they are more comfortable with. I understand a lot of people on these boards don't want macs fanbase to grow to ignorant or casual computer users but apple sure as hell wants to increase their market share.
I definitely think the iMac is marketed more towards switchers from PC than the mini and I don't think apple is comfortable enough with their market share yet to get rid of the 17" size.
Screen technology is getting better and cheaper but these are still computers people.....a lot of people just want to browse the internet, listen to their music and do a few simple tasks and many are willing to dish out a decent amount of cash for a reliable iMac that gives them the option of doing many other things if they feel inspired. A 23" screen is a big effin screen ...unless you are a pro user or hardcore computer geek that size is going to be a bit too large to market to the "avg" computer user. By the way, I don't mean "avg" mac user, I am speaking in terms of the whole industry. 23" is still an okay sized tv for some families.
Anyways, I think I have made my points whether or not you agree. It still remains to be seen as to what happens. Here's to more speculation
Yeah, exactly. And I don't think it would make sense for Apple to ignore the C2D desktop chip completly. A iMac with a 2.33 Merom wouldn't stack up well against a Dell desktop with a 2.4 Conroe.
Agreed, I hope the iMacs design does not preclude the use of the Conroe series of chips. That said the Conroe is likely to have a more favourable thermal signature than the G5 iMac, a Core 2 Duo Extreme would be a very tempting machine.
Having just purchased a 24" for my PB - i would consider a 23" Core 2 Extreme iMac seriously.
Quote:
As far as the screen goes, it's a simple balance of what Apple can procure for the target price point. They got rid of the CRT, and the 15"LCD, and now 20" displays seem to be frefalling in price, so they may decide that there is no point keeping the 17", especially for what is NOT a budget computer.
I dont think the 17" would be going anywhere soon, since it is likely to be the cornerstone of education sales for some years to come, educators would much prefer any cost reduction to a 17" panel than the "benefit" of a 20". Furthermore, Apple may extend the edu iMac 17" to general consumers and offer 20/23" models with dedicated graphics,etc.
This goes all the way back to my Mac Pro prediction, and my reasoning is still the same.
Server/Workstation = Woodcrest
Desktops = Conroe
Mobile = Merom
Intel said it. That's how they are to be considered.
How logical, probably won't happen. If Merom goes in iMac look at the perfromace gulf that will exist between iMac and Mac Pro. Then early next year Mac Pro will get Cloverton and be running on 8 cores while iMac will be chugging along at 2.3 ghz Merom. The product lines will really look distorted, unless a new midrange line is added. But how long have people been waiting for that?
How logical, probably won't happen. If Merom goes in iMac look at the perfromace gulf that will exist between iMac and Mac Pro. Then early next year Mac Pro will get Cloverton and be running on 8 cores while iMac will be chugging along at 2.3 ghz Merom. The product lines will really look distorted, unless a new midrange line is added. But how long have people been waiting for that?
I hope your wrong about the Merom, that would be well a real shame but probably more a technical (heat) issue if anything else. Desktops = Conroe, sure, but the mac mini is a Desktop so is it realistic to expect the mac mini to get a Conroe?. The iMac has a much larger motherboard footprint from which to distribute heat than the mac mini, so my guess is it will get the Conroe?
That said the Conroe is likely to have a more favourable thermal signature than the G5 iMac, a Core 2 Duo Extreme would be a very tempting machine.
Having just purchased a 24" for my PB - i would consider a 23" Core 2 Extreme iMac seriously.
I'd be very suprised, although happy, if Apple put the 2.9 GHZ C2 Extreme in the iMac. I'd even be suprised if the 2.6 GHZ C2 Duo made it's way into the iMac.
This is based on price of the chips soley. The 2.4 GHZ chip is pretty much in line with the current 2.0 GHZ Yonah chips. The 2.6 is somewhere around $500 and the 2.9 C2E is around $1000. I'd find it hard for Apple to keep a $1799 - $2000 price point for the iMac with a $1000 chip in it and a $700 LCD.
yea sure why not an imac wheter is 23 or 20 with a conroe extreme
remember that the mac pro is quad core, while the imac is still dual, sure that apple will want to compete against any other brand, with better prices, if you see it well, the 3.0 ghz xeon is far more cheaper than street price, apple wants to make sure the customer buys all at apple store, because if they didn't have a competitive price, anyone could buy a mac pro with lower specs, and buy a faster proc, hard drives, whatever, in the street
So i truely believe we will see at least an imac at 2.66 and hopefully an imac with at 2.93
However the only thing i care about is the memory, currently it supports up to 2gb i'd love to see at least 3gb even better 4gb
any ideas if the next imac will support more memory?
So i truely believe we will see at least an imac at 2.66 and hopefully an imac with at 2.93. However the only thing i care about is the memory, currently it supports up to 2gb i'd love to see at least 3gb even better 4gb
I find that very hard to believe. I would think 2.4 GHz/4MB L2 is the best case we'd see, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the iMac only get bumped to the 2.16 GHz/2MB L2 chip. No idea on whether we'll see 4GB RAM support, but that would be a great option for a 64-bit chip. I'm also wondering we'll see an update from the ATI X1600?
Comments
David
As far as the screen goes, it's a simple balance of what Apple can procure for the target price point. They got rid of the CRT, and the 15"LCD, and now 20" displays seem to be frefalling in price, so they may decide that there is no point keeping the 17", especially for what is NOT a budget computer.
David
I understand what you and others are saying but at the same time I still disagree to an extent. Yes, apple will have a target price point for their products and they will be very careful in giving the most they can for these windows. But based on what I know about PC users and somewhat ignorant computer people (my parents included)- if they became interested in purchasing a mac then options starting at a fairly large screen such as the 20" would deter them from buying it.
In other words, they would consider a mac but become intimidated right off the back if they were interested in an iMac but did not see an option for a screen size they are more comfortable with. I understand a lot of people on these boards don't want macs fanbase to grow to ignorant or casual computer users but apple sure as hell wants to increase their market share.
I definitely think the iMac is marketed more towards switchers from PC than the mini and I don't think apple is comfortable enough with their market share yet to get rid of the 17" size.
Screen technology is getting better and cheaper but these are still computers people.....a lot of people just want to browse the internet, listen to their music and do a few simple tasks and many are willing to dish out a decent amount of cash for a reliable iMac that gives them the option of doing many other things if they feel inspired. A 23" screen is a big effin screen ...unless you are a pro user or hardcore computer geek that size is going to be a bit too large to market to the "avg" computer user. By the way, I don't mean "avg" mac user, I am speaking in terms of the whole industry. 23" is still an okay sized tv for some families.
Anyways, I think I have made my points whether or not you agree. It still remains to be seen as to what happens. Here's to more speculation
Yeah, exactly. And I don't think it would make sense for Apple to ignore the C2D desktop chip completly. A iMac with a 2.33 Merom wouldn't stack up well against a Dell desktop with a 2.4 Conroe.
Agreed, I hope the iMacs design does not preclude the use of the Conroe series of chips. That said the Conroe is likely to have a more favourable thermal signature than the G5 iMac, a Core 2 Duo Extreme would be a very tempting machine.
Having just purchased a 24" for my PB - i would consider a 23" Core 2 Extreme iMac seriously.
As far as the screen goes, it's a simple balance of what Apple can procure for the target price point. They got rid of the CRT, and the 15"LCD, and now 20" displays seem to be frefalling in price, so they may decide that there is no point keeping the 17", especially for what is NOT a budget computer.
I dont think the 17" would be going anywhere soon, since it is likely to be the cornerstone of education sales for some years to come, educators would much prefer any cost reduction to a 17" panel than the "benefit" of a 20". Furthermore, Apple may extend the edu iMac 17" to general consumers and offer 20/23" models with dedicated graphics,etc.
Furthermore, Apple may extend the edu iMac 17" to general consumers and offer 20/23" models with dedicated graphics,etc.
I think this is much more likely than getting rid of the 17" size to non-education qualified consumers anytime soon.
This goes all the way back to my Mac Pro prediction, and my reasoning is still the same.
Server/Workstation = Woodcrest
Desktops = Conroe
Mobile = Merom
Intel said it. That's how they are to be considered.
How logical, probably won't happen. If Merom goes in iMac look at the perfromace gulf that will exist between iMac and Mac Pro. Then early next year Mac Pro will get Cloverton and be running on 8 cores while iMac will be chugging along at 2.3 ghz Merom. The product lines will really look distorted, unless a new midrange line is added. But how long have people been waiting for that?
How logical, probably won't happen. If Merom goes in iMac look at the perfromace gulf that will exist between iMac and Mac Pro. Then early next year Mac Pro will get Cloverton and be running on 8 cores while iMac will be chugging along at 2.3 ghz Merom. The product lines will really look distorted, unless a new midrange line is added. But how long have people been waiting for that?
I hope your wrong about the Merom, that would be well a real shame but probably more a technical (heat) issue if anything else. Desktops = Conroe, sure, but the mac mini is a Desktop so is it realistic to expect the mac mini to get a Conroe?. The iMac has a much larger motherboard footprint from which to distribute heat than the mac mini, so my guess is it will get the Conroe?
That said the Conroe is likely to have a more favourable thermal signature than the G5 iMac, a Core 2 Duo Extreme would be a very tempting machine.
Having just purchased a 24" for my PB - i would consider a 23" Core 2 Extreme iMac seriously.
I'd be very suprised, although happy, if Apple put the 2.9 GHZ C2 Extreme in the iMac. I'd even be suprised if the 2.6 GHZ C2 Duo made it's way into the iMac.
This is based on price of the chips soley. The 2.4 GHZ chip is pretty much in line with the current 2.0 GHZ Yonah chips. The 2.6 is somewhere around $500 and the 2.9 C2E is around $1000. I'd find it hard for Apple to keep a $1799 - $2000 price point for the iMac with a $1000 chip in it and a $700 LCD.
remember that the mac pro is quad core, while the imac is still dual, sure that apple will want to compete against any other brand, with better prices, if you see it well, the 3.0 ghz xeon is far more cheaper than street price, apple wants to make sure the customer buys all at apple store, because if they didn't have a competitive price, anyone could buy a mac pro with lower specs, and buy a faster proc, hard drives, whatever, in the street
So i truely believe we will see at least an imac at 2.66 and hopefully an imac with at 2.93
However the only thing i care about is the memory, currently it supports up to 2gb i'd love to see at least 3gb even better 4gb
any ideas if the next imac will support more memory?
So i truely believe we will see at least an imac at 2.66 and hopefully an imac with at 2.93. However the only thing i care about is the memory, currently it supports up to 2gb i'd love to see at least 3gb even better 4gb
I find that very hard to believe. I would think 2.4 GHz/4MB L2 is the best case we'd see, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the iMac only get bumped to the 2.16 GHz/2MB L2 chip. No idea on whether we'll see 4GB RAM support, but that would be a great option for a 64-bit chip. I'm also wondering we'll see an update from the ATI X1600?
--DotComCTO