. . . Most of these costs are already observed and few will be added further like big storage and handling charges because of its larger size than 20", other than that i do not see a completely redesigned case or anything like that. . .
Unfortunately, it would mean a redesigned case, not necessarily an aesthetic change, but an engineering and manufacturing change. Even what seem to be minor changes means making a new die. Apple would likely use the same motherboard and other hardware however, so it isn't starting from scratch.
I see you remain unconvinced. We can agree to disagree on this topic of cost analysis and pricing. That's okay with me.
Quote:
Clearly I have no case then. Your guesses have obviously blown gaping holes in my concerns of upfront expenditure associated with the jarringly simple task of slamming a 23" display in white plastic and tossing in some computer parts behind it. . .
I do want to comment on your closing remark. You are absolutely correct about the "upfront expenditure" of using a 23" display in an iMac. There would be new tooling required and that is not cheap. Would $1,000,000 be enough to cover the tooling? No, let's make it $2,000.000. If Apple were to amortize this capital expenditure over the first 200,000 23" iMacs built, it would be just $10 per iMac!
So, be concerned about the upfront engineering effort, yes, but its affect on the selling price is insignificant. The difference in price would be determined by the added cost of a 23" panel, and whatever non-financial factors marketing wants to throw in.
I don't think it will happen, you need to consider the people that buy an iMac over the other models.
They are consumers and secretaries; people that use office, safari,and ilife.
I can see why you want a 23" iMac. I want a 10" MacBook, but it won't happen.
The large screens are for web designers, print designers, video editors, and system administrators. Some of the latter two would go for the iMac, but most from the MacPro. It is more versatile, upgradable, longer lasting (because you can upgrade). The video editors and sys-admins need the power of the MacPro and won't be getting an iMac.
Every product apple has released thus far has been targeted at a specific group. If you do this, get this, if you do that, get that, etc. Dell, HP, etc. make a bunch of systems and each person has a lot of ways to get the same thing done.
If there was a specific set of people that would buy the 23" I think it would be possible.
Hey, who knows, in 5 months someone could quote me and call me an idiot during the macworld keynote .
I can see why you want a 23" iMac. I want a 10" MacBook, but it won't happen.
Well, yes, wanting it does not mean it will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpennington
I don't think it will happen, you need to consider the people that buy an iMac over the other models.
They are consumers and secretaries; people that use office, safari,and ilife.
.
.
.
The large screens are for web designers, print designers, video editors, and system administrators. Some of the latter two would go for the iMac, but most from the MacPro. It is more versatile, upgradable, longer lasting (because you can upgrade). The video editors and sys-admins need the power of the MacPro and won't be getting an iMac.
Sorry, try something else. This was the very same argument people used to explain why a 20" G4 iMac would never happen.
With the AI report that the 23" iMac featuring a Merom processor is pretty much a lock, anyone have any idea what the price for such a machine could run? Would Apple be able to maintain the current $1699 price point or be bumped to $1999+?
People familiar with the Mac maker's plans say it will sidestep Intel Corp's Core 2 Duo desktop processors, formerly code-named Conroe, in favor of adopting the mobile variant of chips, previously known as Merom, throughout the entire line. The company will also add a new member to the iMac family, a stunning 23-inch model, those same people say."
<chomp, chomp, chomp">
BTW - humble pie still tastes lousy ...
edit: well, if you are going to offer it then make it so it can be expandable, dammit Steve.
fw 400&800 + express card slot, no give it 2 slots. thanks.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple tries to hobble the 23" iMac in some way to make it unpalatable to Pros, or if they are confident the Mac Pro's expandability will win over their highest margin customers.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple tries to hobble the 23" iMac in some way to make it unpalatable to Pros, or if they are confident the Mac Pro's expandability will win over their highest margin customers.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
I'm as much a fan of towers as the next guy, especially if they are affordable enough for me to buy one, and have been pretty vocal about Apple's need for one in the $1000-$2000 range. However, from what I have seen most Pro computers in the print graphics field never see an upgrade beyond memory. The main need they have is for a large monitor that is not attached to the computer, and possibly more hard drives but his is handled by network storage at a lot of places now. I'm sure that there are probably other fields such as video where this is different as well as hobbiests, but I would think that these are the exceptions not the rule today.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
True, but there's a cost-sensitive side of the design market that would outfit most of their team with such iMacs and leave the Mac Pro only to the Photoshop gurus.
External hard drives are cheap and modern GPUs are fast enough for layout.
(Video and Gaming are a different story.)
The only problem is memory, and a 23" should have enough space for four slots.
That's probably where Apple will cheap out to avoid cannibalizing the Mac Pro sales.
I'm hoping for something insanely cool, but I'll settle for a new faster chip.
I wouldn't mind a new more ergonomic design to enhance portability... things being what they are these days (what with hundreds of millions of $$$ flying out the door for settlements) I have a distinct feeling the form factor will stay pretty much unchanged.
An MBP or an MB is still a much more expensive option - especially if you were looking for the hard drive space and graphics performance of a desktop. Also, let's not forget that the Dell 2407WFP is known to have colour banding issues. I'm not keen on going that route just to get my extra screen space.
What Apple would ideally do at the same time is offer the accessible back of the original iMac G5 with the cooling properties of the newest models. That way people could at least swap the hard drive or perform DIY repairs.
Also, those who'd say the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo is such a "high end machine" haven't seen CPU prices. Mobile chips like the ones in the current iMac are actually quite expensive. A local shop has both Core 2 Duo models listed for pre-order; would you believe that a 2.4GHz desktop Core 2 Duo is less expensive than a 2.16GHz (and lower-performing) mobile version? If it won't melt the insides of the case or turn the CPU fan as loudly as a jet engine, the 2.4GHz chip should be in the iMac.
Pricing
The mobile version of the Intel Core 2 Duo processors T7600, T7400, T7200, T5600 and T5500 are priced at $637, $423, $294, $241 and $209 respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities. For additional information on platform component pricing and availability, visit Intel® Processor Pricing (PDF 24KB)
Comments
. . . Most of these costs are already observed and few will be added further like big storage and handling charges because of its larger size than 20", other than that i do not see a completely redesigned case or anything like that. . .
Unfortunately, it would mean a redesigned case, not necessarily an aesthetic change, but an engineering and manufacturing change. Even what seem to be minor changes means making a new die. Apple would likely use the same motherboard and other hardware however, so it isn't starting from scratch.
I see you remain unconvinced.
Clearly I have no case then. Your guesses have obviously blown gaping holes in my concerns of upfront expenditure associated with the jarringly simple task of slamming a 23" display in white plastic and tossing in some computer parts behind it. . .
I do want to comment on your closing remark. You are absolutely correct about the "upfront expenditure" of using a 23" display in an iMac. There would be new tooling required and that is not cheap. Would $1,000,000 be enough to cover the tooling? No, let's make it $2,000.000. If Apple were to amortize this capital expenditure over the first 200,000 23" iMacs built, it would be just $10 per iMac!
So, be concerned about the upfront engineering effort, yes, but its affect on the selling price is insignificant. The difference in price would be determined by the added cost of a 23" panel, and whatever non-financial factors marketing wants to throw in.
They are consumers and secretaries; people that use office, safari,and ilife.
I can see why you want a 23" iMac. I want a 10" MacBook, but it won't happen.
The large screens are for web designers, print designers, video editors, and system administrators. Some of the latter two would go for the iMac, but most from the MacPro. It is more versatile, upgradable, longer lasting (because you can upgrade). The video editors and sys-admins need the power of the MacPro and won't be getting an iMac.
Every product apple has released thus far has been targeted at a specific group. If you do this, get this, if you do that, get that, etc. Dell, HP, etc. make a bunch of systems and each person has a lot of ways to get the same thing done.
If there was a specific set of people that would buy the 23" I think it would be possible.
Hey, who knows, in 5 months someone could quote me and call me an idiot during the macworld keynote
I can see why you want a 23" iMac. I want a 10" MacBook, but it won't happen.
Well, yes, wanting it does not mean it will happen.
I don't think it will happen, you need to consider the people that buy an iMac over the other models.
They are consumers and secretaries; people that use office, safari,and ilife.
.
.
.
The large screens are for web designers, print designers, video editors, and system administrators. Some of the latter two would go for the iMac, but most from the MacPro. It is more versatile, upgradable, longer lasting (because you can upgrade). The video editors and sys-admins need the power of the MacPro and won't be getting an iMac.
Sorry, try something else. This was the very same argument people used to explain why a 20" G4 iMac would never happen.
Yes but at this point, a 17" screen is the smallest most people will go with. The20" being spectacular to most.
I am sorry to not follow your reasoning, but have you read the new iMac rumors in the other thread?
People familiar with the Mac maker's plans say it will sidestep Intel Corp's Core 2 Duo desktop processors, formerly code-named Conroe, in favor of adopting the mobile variant of chips, previously known as Merom, throughout the entire line. The company will also add a new member to the iMac family, a stunning 23-inch model, those same people say."
<chomp, chomp, chomp">
BTW - humble pie still tastes lousy ...
edit: well, if you are going to offer it then make it so it can be expandable, dammit Steve.
fw 400&800 + express card slot, no give it 2 slots. thanks.
Apple wouldn't you to watch a movie on a puny litlle ipod screen.
Movies require a BIG screen. So, here it is the iMac 23 inch.
just as the mac mini is the perfect itunes server with front row, the iMac is the perfect movie server with front row.
Oh, and expect a new revamped Airport express with audio and video out. IMHO.
I am sorry to not follow your reasoning, but have you read the new iMac rumors in the other thread?
Hey PB --
Yep I read that. Looks like I might be wrong. Like I said, you all would probably come back and call me an idiot
It'll be interesting to see if Apple tries to hobble the 23" iMac in some way to make it unpalatable to Pros, or if they are confident the Mac Pro's expandability will win over their highest margin customers.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
I'm as much a fan of towers as the next guy, especially if they are affordable enough for me to buy one, and have been pretty vocal about Apple's need for one in the $1000-$2000 range. However, from what I have seen most Pro computers in the print graphics field never see an upgrade beyond memory. The main need they have is for a large monitor that is not attached to the computer, and possibly more hard drives but his is handled by network storage at a lot of places now. I'm sure that there are probably other fields such as video where this is different as well as hobbiests, but I would think that these are the exceptions not the rule today.
Apple are not silly - they have always hobbled them.
It is sort of self-hobbling in that regaurd: pros want more than 2 gigs of memory (in a desktop/server configuration, not laptop ram ), more than one internal hdd, the ability to toss in a better GPU down the line, and the ability to change displays, amoungst other things, so it really wouldnt be a "pro" unit, outside of maybe rank-and-file page layout, and even they need special vertical displays.
True, but there's a cost-sensitive side of the design market that would outfit most of their team with such iMacs and leave the Mac Pro only to the Photoshop gurus.
External hard drives are cheap and modern GPUs are fast enough for layout.
(Video and Gaming are a different story.)
The only problem is memory, and a 23" should have enough space for four slots.
That's probably where Apple will cheap out to avoid cannibalizing the Mac Pro sales.
23" iMac on its way .... it is no longer a speculation or rumor, but when? we will know in 10 days time
ugh, why not 3 days?
I wouldn't mind a new more ergonomic design to enhance portability... things being what they are these days (what with hundreds of millions of $$$ flying out the door for settlements) I have a distinct feeling the form factor will stay pretty much unchanged.
An MBP or an MB is still a much more expensive option - especially if you were looking for the hard drive space and graphics performance of a desktop. Also, let's not forget that the Dell 2407WFP is known to have colour banding issues. I'm not keen on going that route just to get my extra screen space.
What Apple would ideally do at the same time is offer the accessible back of the original iMac G5 with the cooling properties of the newest models. That way people could at least swap the hard drive or perform DIY repairs.
Also, those who'd say the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo is such a "high end machine" haven't seen CPU prices. Mobile chips like the ones in the current iMac are actually quite expensive. A local shop has both Core 2 Duo models listed for pre-order; would you believe that a 2.4GHz desktop Core 2 Duo is less expensive than a 2.16GHz (and lower-performing) mobile version? If it won't melt the insides of the case or turn the CPU fan as loudly as a jet engine, the 2.4GHz chip should be in the iMac.
Pricing
The mobile version of the Intel Core 2 Duo processors T7600, T7400, T7200, T5600 and T5500 are priced at $637, $423, $294, $241 and $209 respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities. For additional information on platform component pricing and availability, visit Intel® Processor Pricing (PDF 24KB)