[Simon]

ThinkSecret posted exclusively according to 'highly reliable sources' that Steve will introduce a new $499 headless iMac at MWSF.

• Height similar to Xserve (1.73"), can be placed vertically or horizontally
• 1.25GHz G4
• 256MB RAM
• 40 or 80 GB HD
• Combo (possibly SuperDrive as BTO)
• USB2, FW400
• 100Mbps Ethernet, 56k Modem, APX slot
• iLife, AppleWorks

It should be announced at MWSF and ship later on in the quarter when it air freights over from Asia.

Apple supposedly changed its opinion on the sub-$800 Mac due to all the Win iPod users that are tempted to get a Mac, but hesitated due to price. The focus will be on the software experience rather than on power.

Looks like Apple is after all coming back to the Mac LC, only that this time 500 bucks is gonna get you a lot more.

[Tristrami]

256MB RAM - is that what ships, or max. capacity?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Tristrami:
256MB RAM - is that what ships, or max. capacity?

What ships I guess... I hope.

[Tristrami]

Any mockups floating around on this?

[MORT A POTTY]

xMac: servers for the rest of us.

I tell ya, this is perfect to compete with those celeron ****-boxes...

[Simon]

IMHO these specs should belong to the eMac mini.

Granted this Mac is more a consumer box than an education box, but giving it the name eMac mini would leave room for the iMac mini along the lines of

• 1.6GHz G5
• 80GB HD
• Combo (or SD as BTO)
• 8x AGP slot
• DVI out

However, it really looks like Apple is just targeting the converts and not trying to start a full-blown sub-$1000 line-up war with Dell. I guess the headless will therefore have to remain 'crippled' (i.e. lower clocked G4, no AGP slot, etc.).

[eddiecatflap]

this is very exciting news

all the people i speak to are put off by one thing only

price

now get some low cost lcd displays too !

17inch @ $499 ???

[Neptar]

Originally posted by Tristrami:
Any mockups floating around on this?

http://www.danamania.com/glgallery/vhacks/cube_pizzabox
http://www.danamania.com/glgallery/vhacks/white_slab
http://www.danamania.com/glgallery/vhacks/tiquadra

These are old ones as you can tell by the cube styling one, but man that white slab would be sweet.

NE

[P]

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
this is very exciting news

all the people i speak to are put off by one thing only

price

now get some low cost lcd displays too !

17inch @ $499 ???

If you want to keep the price down, you'll have to bring back some rock-bottom CRTs. Don't have to be Apple-branded, even, just something. I think it's meant to be connected to a TV though, a set-top box that also happens to be a Mac. There could be so many good things in this: iTunes and iTMS for music, DVD player and Tivo features for video... Would it be possible to add a PS2 emulator to this baby? Probably not, with that CPU, but still - it's a good idea.

[P]

Originally posted by Simon:
IMHO these specs should belong to the eMac mini.

Granted this Mac is more a consumer box than an education box, but giving it the name eMac mini would leave room for the iMac mini along the lines of

• 1.6GHz G5
• 80GB HD
• Combo (or SD as BTO)
• 8x AGP slot
• DVI out

However, it really looks like Apple is just targeting the converts and not trying to start a full-blown sub-$1000 line-up war with Dell. I guess the headless will therefore have to remain 'crippled' (i.e. lower clocked G4, no AGP slot, etc.).

I think Apple is targeting PC users - not just the hardcore PC users who can recite the exact differences between the Geforce 6800 GT and the 6800 Ultra. I think you'd be surprised at how many PC buyers who really don't care at all about the ability to upgrade the graphics board. Add to that all the people who buy it as a second machine and want to game on the main machine and I think that a Radeon 9200 (as seems the most likely choice) is overkill. Dig up some old Geforce2 MX chips instead, that ought to be enough. Hey, my old iMac with a Rage 128 still works.

(For the ironically impaired: I didn't really mean that. It needs Quartz Extreme support. I'm trying to get a point across here that graphics isn't important to Apple's target group).

The way for Apple to sell Macs to the homes is not going to be talk about hardware performance. That's important to the graphics pros, but not to the homes. They want something that is simple and that works without getting spyware and viruses, and they might just be seduced by Apple's marketing.

The other way is of course if this not a Mac at all. If this machine is going to be connected to the TV (which woudl explain all sort of interesting rumors about ATis All-in-wonder boards - there is 9200 version of those) and probably the stereo, it can have iTunes, iTMS and iPod support for music. It can have a DVD player and recorder, with Tivo-like HD recording as an option, for video. Hey, if they coudl squeeze in a PS2 emulator that would be perfect, though I suppose that is a bit much to ask.

I understand where you're going with that iMac mini thing, but I just don't think the market's there.

[Voch]

I've always wanted a cheap, flat, quiet Mac-based TV set top box...a headless iBook or something.

<pessimism>I'll believe it when it's announced and not before, though.</pessimism>

Who am I kidding...I *never* shut off my pessimism:
<pessimism>



Voch

[stuffedmonkey]

I think it would sell very well among the hardcore PC geek crowd. They wouldn't be getting to replace an overclocked, $500 graphics card monster gaming rig, it would be a second (third, fourth) box in the house - something to use for multimedia and to experement with the mac.

I used to work at an apple retail store for a little over two years. I can promise you that if this rumor is true, they will sell the hell out of them. You have no idea how many people have old, crusty macs as a primary machine, not upgrading because new machines are too pricey. This price point would be too sweet for them to pass up. Throw in the curious PC folds, and you have a runaway success. Also don't forget college kids! This now puts a mac desktop more within reach. The iMac was too expensive for them, and the eMac was closer - but waaaaaaaay to heavy. Make something small, light, and you are suddenly in dorms across america - as college network admins grow tired of putting out virus defs and unbuggering machines.

The iMac brought apple back form the edge. This could be the tipping point to a large increase in market share.

[Simon]

Originally posted by P:
I understand where you're going with that iMac mini thing, but I just don't think the market's there.

No, you're right, the market isn't there (yet). And Apple certainly needs to pay attention not to diversify the Mac market too much (we were there already with the Performa 6532 DOS compatbile).

But currently the market of tech-savvy, but not rich people is covered by the 1.8GHz SP G5 alone which is (compared to Dell's P4HT boxes) just too damn expensive. Of course I believe it's worth it, but a lot of PC users won't be able to agree until they get a Mac and see it for themselves. If Apple wants to get into that market they need more than this headless. But, granted, that market could be just 0.2% of the total market and Apple could care less. I don't know, I'm just thinking loud...

[Simon]

Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
I used to work at an apple retail store for a little over two years. I can promise you that if this rumor is true, they will sell the hell out of them.

I agree. If the above specs sell for $499, these boxes will fly out of the stores. I'm wondering how long it would take Apple's production to gear up to meet demand.

How about offering $100 off any iPod purchase when you buy one of these boxes at the AppleStore?

I think maybe Apple should call it the 5%-market-share-here-we-come Mac. It seems like finally they're going to use their cash reserves to expand their market share.

[PHoynak]

If this is true I will get one for my daughter who is 11. Plus I think they would fly off the shelves. Think...you buy an iPod...why not get the Mac to go with it.

[solbo]

I understand why this *might* be a good idea, but that 1.25 GHz G4 looks, and is, outdated.

Especially when people are comparing that to the 2-3 GHz Celeron boxes, or the AMD boxes that use 2500+, 3200+ etc to label their processors. Yes I know that the Celeron is crap at any speed but most people just see the MHz number and go "Oooo bigger number must be better". Apple is going to have to be super careful on this because low priced PCs just look better on paper.

Also not having the ability to switch out video cards in a headless machine is just lame.

[fado]

When I first read this... the "cube" popped in my head. How much I loved the cube concept and believed it would be so much better to own one now then before. With plasma TV's and LCD's coming out... finding a monitor is easy, more likely you already own one. Everytime I look back behind the screen, I see that empty DVI port. With this new news, I could finally connect it... then my tv is wireless.

Finally, I am all for eveything that "P" has been stating because I have been saying the same things about the current iMac's... only what if. This is just as good to me, oh I hope it is true.

[Voch]

My TV definately needs one of these if it can use the "standard" DVI-to-S-Video/Composite adapter that's available for the G5 desktops (or have the output natively like the iBooks currently do). It'd be 2X faster than my current PowerBook but still not a G5. And I'd replace my Dad's Athlon 900Mhz Windows 2000 box with one (I *hate* maintaining that thing for him).

I wonder what the EDU pricing would be. $20 off?

Voch

[osxisfun]

That's a spicy meatball!!!

This thing will sell sell sell. And I bet we are looking at the same profit margin for these as an ipod which mean $$$$$ for apple and their stock price.

look at how much ipod added to their bottom line.

God i hope this is true!

[waffffffle]

Think Secret has been pretty accurate as of late, so I think we can believe this one. What I'm most interested in is how this machine will be artificially limited by Apple (limitations imposed to prevent the use of advanced features that can't physically be removed from the box, like the prevention of display spanning on iBooks). Here's my guess:

1 - Will not run OS X Server. Apple will certainly prevent this thing from running OS X Server. They want customers buying X Serves as that's how they make their money in the server space.

2 - No display spanning. If this machine has 2 graphics ports (any combination of DVI,VGA,S-Video, composite, etc) there will be no display spanning whatsoever. Apple doesn't want this machine to be used as a creative workstation.

3 - Limited RAM upgradability. I'm thinking that the 256 MB will be soldered to the motherboard. The G4 can't use more than 2 GB of RAM anyways, but Apple could possibly impose a 1 GB limit on it, or even worse, make the RAM non-upgradeable in some way. That would suck.

4 - Difficult modding. Apple will most likely do whatever they can to prevent the processor upgrade companies from creating upgrades for this system. Apple doesn't want a power user trying to squeeze more performance out of this sucker.

5 - Limited, non-replaceable graphics card. This is expected, but what kind of card will it be? Would Apple be willing to ship this computer without a GPU? Probably not since Quartz Extreme is an essential part of the OS X experience, but how cheap of a GPU can they get?

Anything else? I'd be really interested to see what this Mac CAN'T do, as opposed to what it CAN do. Any ideas as to what else Apple would do to cripple this thing?

[jasonsRX7]

Can Apple really shave off $300 on what is essentially an eMac, sans the monitor, but with a bigger HD and Airport included? I'd love to see it happen, because I'd probably buy a couple myself, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Also, the eMac would have to be improved quite a bit to justify the extra $300.

[ajprice]

Good to see people so positive about this (Ahem, waffffffle, cough ). This thing would rock if it was true, and things seem a bit more defined about this than it has been before when 'headless iMac' rumours have been floating before. It just seems a bit strange that they would end up selling this thing for the same kind of price as a top end 40gig or photo iPod. One thing I hope it does have is a TV connection on the graphics card, to make it a proper digital hub.

[Laurence]

If this is true, I think it will be the most popular computer Apple has ever made. I would buy at least one, and probably more solely to use as set-top boxes.
I only hope that this would have TV out. If it doesn't then it will be Apple's biggest mistake in years. Having one set-top device to replace VCR, DVD, CD, Tape Deck, and provide basic gaming functionality all wirelessly connected to the home network would simplify so many things. I only hope that this will lead to ports of things like MythTV.

It would be nice if it had room for two drives, but it really isn't that important as 802.1g is fast enough for streaming most video and 300GB drives are cheap now anyway.

[chrisutley]

If they don't squeeze some performance out of this box, lots of PC weenies are going to have a bad first impression of the Mac. They will run around screaming "I told you so", and crap like that. It will be a black eye for Apple ...

Don't skimp on the graphics card either and ship it with at least 256MB of RAM.

[chrisutley]

why would you use these as set top boxes? I don't get it ... unless you have tons of money and time on your hands ... why not buy a Tivo for $99 and get on with your life?

What are you going to do? Spend $500 for the Mac (add another $100-$200 for RAM), then an eyeTV for another $300 ... then what? Add some cables for $XX. What is the point? You can burn to DVD? Add more to that $500 then ... okay now you can burn DVD's, but I can buy a Tivo that can do the same thing for cheaper than that.

I would love to have a Mac in every room of my house, don't get me wrong. I just don't get the logic here.

[Laurence]

The TiVO is great for watching/recording TV, but is useless for most other formats. What about DivX, QT, and all the various other AVI, MPEG, OGG, etc that come from the internet. I realize that there are ways to transcode and burn to DVD and there are even some set-top DVD players that will play many of these formats, but nothing that would be as nice as this hypothetical iMac with QT, VLC, MPlayer, etc. The point would be that this machine would play almost anything with a very simple intuitive interface as well as having all the other benefits of being a complete computer system.

There are many PC users (mac users too) that have hundreds of GB of movies in formats that are difficult to play from anything other than a computer.

This device would also eliminate the need for AirTunes as it would hook up to the stereo as well. That takes $129 off the price right there!

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by ajprice:
Good to see people so positive about this (Ahem, waffffffle, cough ). This thing would rock if it was true, and things seem a bit more defined about this than it has been before when 'headless iMac' rumours have been floating before. It just seems a bit strange that they would end up selling this thing for the same kind of price as a top end 40gig or photo iPod. One thing I hope it does have is a TV connection on the graphics card, to make it a proper digital hub.

How am I not being positive? I want to better understand the specifics of this machine. This machine will most likely fly off the shelves but there will most certainly be limitations. This isn't a negative, it is a business decision by Apple.

FYI, this was just posted at AI:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=802

[eddiecatflap]

the emac is currently available for £549.00 ( uk prices )

1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
DVD/CD-RW drive
ATI Radeon 9200
32MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem
AirPort Extreme Ready

that spec looks VERY close to the headless imac , now take away the color 17" crt ( c £150 )

hey presto

the £399 mac !

fast enough for iLife , safari and mail


look at the crap Dell sell for the same price !!!

[iREZ]

Seems like the whole thing isn't a headless iMac or eMac but I think it's going to be in a housing more similar to the iBook with no screens. I know for sure that Mac users are going to jump at a headless selling for $500, so why wouldn't PC users. This is an awesome rumor that I hope ends up being fact soon.

[Randman]

If able to connect to a TV, I'd get at least 2, for my folks (my dad has a *gasp* PC for e-mail) and my mom (who's Internet-free).

[CincyGamer]

Everyone is missing the point. There is no way that Apple can release such a model currently.

Points:
1. The PB's top speed is 1.5 G4 GHZ currently and $2000 G4 1.33 GHZ. So, the iBook and PowerBook lines need to be G5 based before this happens IMHO.

2. Apple will be transitioning everyone to the new G5 lines for eMac, iBook, Powerbook. Adding a new computer line is not going to happen currently as it does not help the other lines.

3. It wasnt too long ago that the G4 1.42 PowerMac was the best. A fast G4 is still considered current technology. Doom 3 is the first major game that requires a G5 for instance. Its too soon.

4. Apple seems more focused on its music sales than its hardware sales. The Apple hardware has some very serious problems such as
the lack of memory/GPU power in a G5 based machine. Apple's profit margins have historically been 25% on desktops (Apple Confidential 2.0 book).

5. The new box must support the current OS Tiger and that means at least 256 MB ram etc. I just dont see them giving away a computer with Tiger for < $600 as rumored.

6. Apple is raking in the dough. They are not going to cheapen their image and do the dell route. There are plenty of people waiting for the Powerbook G5 and 3 GHZ PMs. Steve even apologized in the last keynote for not having 3 GHZ yet. Various Sr. VPs last year already commented on the PB G5.


But I hope Im wrong. I would buy them as gifts to my family. But we are talking about Apple here.. home of the $500 iPod.

[babywriter2]

This is great news. I feel like dancing on my desk.

Just for giggles...I went back to a thread from August that I participated in regarding the "headless" iMac. Here's a post I did at that time:


-----------

Eventually, someone's going to ask what I mean by a "reasonably configured" headless Mac. So let me add my list of specs to those already posted here:

- 1.25 gHz single G4 or equivalent (this isn't the place for a G5, yet)
- integrated, shared-memory graphics chip, similar to what Wintel boxes do at the same price point, with SVGA and DVI outputs
- 256 MB RAM
- at least 1 industry standard PCI slot (3 would be ideal, but I don't know how you would fit those into a "pizza-box" style, which I prefer)
- integrated 100-base-T Ethernet, sound and 56K modem
- Modest software package - iLife and AppleWorks is probably enough
- something "whizbang" that only Apple can come up with - home media server management software, in conjunction with AirPort Express, perhaps?
- Price (without monitor): $599. If they can get a bottom-level option below $500, so much the better - but I don't think that's possible, given Apple's established profit margins.

If this is also meant to be a home media server, it really needs to have at least 3 PCI slots to have decent expandability. That means a minitower form factor. If this is a student/entry level/second home desktop, then one PCI slot is probably fine.

It's possible that, if Apple were to integrate Motorola/Freescale's
e600 system on a chip, this just might be doable at a really attractive price point. But I'm not a chip designer, so take that with a grain of salt.

- b


------

What amazes me is that Apple may be exceeding my expectations...and that's truly outstanding.

-b

[PBG4 User]

Originally posted by Laurence:
The TiVO is great for watching/recording TV, but is useless for most other formats. What about DivX, QT, and all the various other AVI, MPEG, OGG, etc that come from the internet. I realize that there are ways to transcode and burn to DVD and there are even some set-top DVD players that will play many of these formats, but nothing that would be as nice as this hypothetical iMac with QT, VLC, MPlayer, etc. The point would be that this machine would play almost anything with a very simple intuitive interface as well as having all the other benefits of being a complete computer system.

There are many PC users (mac users too) that have hundreds of GB of movies in formats that are difficult to play from anything other than a computer.

This device would also eliminate the need for AirTunes as it would hook up to the stereo as well. That takes $129 off the price right there!

There's a Phillips DVD player that can handle all of the video formats. One of the guys in our IT department got one and burned an AVI file that he couldn't play on his Windows machine to CD and it worked fine in the Phillips player. I think he said it cost about $70.

[Voch]

Originally posted by PBG4 User:
There's a Phillips DVD player that can handle all of the video formats. One of the guys in our IT department got one and burned an AVI file that he couldn't play on his Windows machine to CD and it worked fine in the Phillips player. I think he said it cost about $70.

I have this player -- it's the Philips DVP-642. It's an excellent player but still has trouble with some video files that work great in VLC 0.8.1. I think a set top box with a hard drive is more elegant and eliminates the need for burning onto media, too.

I'd also like a cheapie headless Mac that I can SSH/VNC into. I was planning on getting a faster portable and turning my PowerBook G4 into a server but that's a waste of a great 15" screen.

If this is true and I get one of these the only thing I'd use my headless PC for is MAME audits.

EDIT: tell the IT guy you know to try that AVI file using VLC.

Voch

[Laurence]

Quote:
There's a Phillips DVD player that can handle all of the video formats. One of the guys in our IT department got one and burned an AVI file that he couldn't play on his Windows machine to CD and it worked fine in the Phillips player. I think he said it cost about $70.

Yes, I already have something similar, (a LiteON LVD-2001) but its the convenience factor. There are many times someone wants to watch a movie, and then I have to burn a DVD or CD and that takes time. I've also had issues where some AVIs won't play with audio (OGG or something else embedded incorrectly in the file) and then I have to transcode the audio using FFMPEG or something. This sometimes leads to sync issues, etc. Having a computer to play back media files is far superior to any DVD player. What happens when a new codec comes out, with a DVD player it is unlikely to be supported through a firmware update, with a computer you just download the newest VLC or some other player. If HD-DVD or Blueray disks become popular I would bet that an internal IDE version will be much cheaper than any set-top players will be for quite some time. I just think $500 would be very affordable for a set-top box that does everything that my G4 tower does. Of course I would like a G5 with 4 Gigs of Ram, etc, but this rumored machine is all I really need for a set-top box.

BTW, does anyone know why I can't use the Quote button? I'm using the newest verison of Safari and clicking the Quote button does nothing on this forum.

[pliny]

Hmm, I bet this thing would sell pretty well. It'd be good if Apple could get a sorta snappy™ under $500-$600 machine out. It does sound like a headless emac.

[deboerjo]

ARRGH!! How many times is Apple going to screw up this concept?

First there was the G4 Cube. Apple had this big hole in thier product lineup; a middle ground between the unexpandable cheap iMac and the expensive powerful G4. Instead of designing the Cube for this market segment, they loaded it with gimmicks and jacked up the price higher than the G4 tower, thus placing it in direct competition with the G4 tower rather than a different market segment. Thus, the Cube was doomed to be a novelty item bought only by gadget geeks.

And now, a headless iMac. Except not the headless G5 iMac we've all been wanting; an expandable, mid-cost single G5 middle ground between the expensive G5 tower and the unexpandable eMac/iMac. Instead they give us essentially a cheapo headless eMac, which is going to be completely unexpandable from the sound of it, basically just an eMac without the monitor, which everybody needs to buy separately anyway. Once gain, instead of designing for a vacant market segment, they create a system that competes directly with the eMac in the low-cost unexpandable G4 desktop market.

I think this report is likely true, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be as miserable a failure as the Cube.

[deboerjo]

3. It wasnt too long ago that the G4 1.42 PowerMac was the best. A fast G4 is still considered current technology. Doom 3 is the first major game that requires a G5 for instance. Its too soon.

No, a G4 is NOT still considered cutting-edge technology, except as a laptop low-power solution. Welcome to the computing industry, one day's cutting edge becomes entry-level 6 months later. Apple was being left behind by the rest of the industry, he transition to G5 was overdue, and it is most certainly NOT too soon for the G4 to move into the low-end. In fact it's already happened. The G4 is perfect for a low-end system such as this.

5. The new box must support the current OS Tiger and that means at least 256 MB ram etc. I just dont see them giving away a computer with Tiger for < $600 as rumored.

Why not? 256MB isn't expensive these days. If Dell can sell a computer with 256MB for $499 with a monitor, surely Apple can sell one for <$600 without a monitor. This is NOT unrealistic.

Not that I'm happy about it (see previous post).

[osxisfun]

> they create a system that competes directly with the eMac in the low-cost unexpandable G4 desktop market.

read the TS article. apple is positioning this towards the pc people that bought ipods and would buy a mac is it weren't "too expensive"


>which is going to be completely unexpandable from the sound of it, b

Oh i forgot. USB 2 and firewire's ability to add hundreds of devices is just not expandable...

>he transition to G5 is overdue,

Perhaps IBM should break the laws of physics then. since a low cost g5 chip is in their hands not apple's.

>everybody needs to buy separately anyway. Once gain, instead of designing

read the TS article. PC switchers would use their existing monitors.

>; an expandable, mid-cost single G5 middle

Sounds like you know more than apple about product costs and marketing, please send them your resume.


A few seconds after i read the article, cynic that i am, began to wonder when people would start to bitch about the specs.

After years of crying for a low cost mac apple gives us one... result. bitch bitch bitch.

You'll forgive me if i put more trust in apple's marketing then

"dude its not expandable and I can buy a no name pc at fry's for 200 bucks."

This seems to be geared towards the email, browser, crowd and considering what i payed for and got in 1984, this little machine could be just the ticket to invigorate market share.

i hope this rumor is true.. apple will have yet another hit on their hands...

congrats apple.

[Simon]

Waffffffle, good points. But let me counter:

Originally posted by waffffffle:
1 - Will not run OS X Server. Apple will certainly prevent this thing from running OS X Server. They want customers buying X Serves as that's how they make their money in the server space.

Doesn't the eMac run OS X Server as well as any other Mac? If so, this one will too. Nobody doing serious network serving would use such a box as replacement for a PowerMac or Xserve (Gigabit Ethernet, faster discs, dual network controllers, etc...).

2 - No display spanning. If this machine has 2 graphics ports (any combination of DVI,VGA,S-Video, composite, etc) there will be no display spanning whatsoever. Apple doesn't want this machine to be used as a creative workstation.

Not necessary on a headless. Get the right monitor in the beginning and all will be fine. It's different from the iBook where you need spanning to get past 1024x768. This Mac could do 1920x1200 right out of the box.

3 - Limited RAM upgradability. I'm thinking that the 256 MB will be soldered to the motherboard. The G4 can't use more than 2 GB of RAM anyways, but Apple could possibly impose a 1 GB limit on it, or even worse, make the RAM non-upgradeable in some way. That would suck.

My guess: 256 soldered. 1 SO DIMM slot. Like the iBook or 12" PB.

4 - Difficult modding. Apple will most likely do whatever they can to prevent the processor upgrade companies from creating upgrades for this system. Apple doesn't want a power user trying to squeeze more performance out of this sucker.

They already do that. The iMac, eMac and iBook have soldered CPUs and no bus slot that could be accessed (a la NuBus processor upgrades). GPU is soldered as well. There is no modding.

5 - Limited, non-replaceable graphics card. This is expected, but what kind of card will it be? Would Apple be willing to ship this computer without a GPU? Probably not since Quartz Extreme is an essential part of the OS X experience, but how cheap of a GPU can they get?

This is where I'm going to get pessimistic. I'm expecting the 9200. There probably won't even be a 5200U. This will be the main 'crippling' to protect Apple's other lines.

Anything else? I'd be really interested to see what this Mac CAN'T do, as opposed to what it CAN do. Any ideas as to what else Apple would do to cripple this thing?

Nothing. The G4 at 1.25GHz will make it the rock bottom desktop Mac (I'm assuming the eMac will get an update at MWSF). It will be what the eMac is today in the non-EDU market. The entry-level sucker. Let's get this straight: This machine is about low-cost and the unique Mac software experience (Tiger, iLife, etc.) only. It's not about power. But it will be cheap and headless which is what many wanna-be converts demand. And so, after many years, it seems Apple could finally get the switcher campaign to work.

[Simon]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
No, a G4 is NOT still considered current technology, except as a laptop low-power solution. Welcome to the computing industry, one day's cutting edge is obsolete 6 months later. Apple's being left behind by the rest of the industry. The transition to G5 is overdue, and it is most certainly NOT too soon for the G4 to move into the low-end. In fact it's already happened.

Wrong.

You don't understand Apple's reasoning behind this machine.

In this machine a G4 is perfect. This box is about the Mac experience only. iLife, Tiger, etc. all run just perfectly fine on a 1.25GHz G4 and that's all that counts. Apple isn't targeting gamers, they are targeting PC users that would like to try a Mac and see for themselves what it's about. And that crowd will be perfectly fine with a 1.25GHz G4.

If you need more than a 1.25GHz G4 you are in the market for another system (chose one): iMac, PowerMac or game console.

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by Simon:
Wrong.

You don't understand Apple's reasoning behind this machine.

In this machine a G4 is perfect. This box is about the Mac experience only. iLife, Tiger, etc. all run just perfectly fine on a 1.25GHz G4 and that's all that counts. Apple isn't targeting gamers, they are targeting PC users that would like to try a Mac and see for themselves what it's about. And that crowd will be perfectly fine with a 1.25GHz G4.

If you need more than a 1.25 GHz you are in the market for (chose one): iMac, PowerMac or game console.

Bingo.

[Simon]

I was just thinking how many of these boxes I would buy.

• Office, just to test software and updates
• Living room, set top box for the TV and beamer
• Bedroom, set top box for the bedroom TV
• Kitchen, g/f needs a FileMaker client machine for the recipe database
• Home, dedicated SMTP/HTTP server box for my personal use

That makes 5. For only $2500 that's a lot of additional functionality & convenience.

[Simon]

BTW, nothing has been mentioned yet by TS, but I sure hope they will offer internal BT and BT KB/Mouse as BTO options. I'd hate to have a nice tiny box with a stupid dongle sticking out of it blocking 1 USB port.

[deboerjo]

read the TS article. apple is positioning this towards the pc people that bought ipods and would buy a mac is it weren't "too expensive"

eMac = $800. New headless $600 + monitor + speakers = $800. How does this new system make Macs any less expensive? That's why I say this new Mac is poorly placed; it competes almost directly with the eMac in featureset and price. And I doubt many PC switchers are going to save that monitor cost by using their old monitor; the old monitor is going to be sold/given to relatives alongside the old computer.

Oh i forgot. USB 2 and firewire's ability to add hundreds of devices is just not expandable...

Connecting external peripherals doesn't allow you to upgrade your processor, or add Firewire 800/USB 3.0/The Next Big Thing. And don't get me wrong, unexpandability is fine in this low-end market segment, I'm not complaining about the new system's specs at all, they're perfect for this market segment. You completely missed the whole point of my post. My criticism is that the low-end market segment is already filled. Apple's new products should be filling vacant markets, not competing with products they already have.

Perhaps IBM should break the laws of physics then. since a low cost g5 chip is in their hands not apple's.

Sounds like you know more than apple about product costs and marketing, please send them your resume.

Now now, the sarcasm is not necessary. I was unclear when I said the G5 transition was overdue; remember I was responding to CincyGamer. What I meant was that until the G5 came along, Apple was falling behind, and moving their high/midrange products over to the G5 couldn't come fast enough, and happily, they did it quick. My point was that the G4 is now solidly a low-end processor and fits nicely in a $500 computer, and should not be considered a high-end desktop CPU.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Simon:
Wrong.

You don't understand Apple's reasoning behind this machine.

In this machine a G4 is perfect. This box is about the Mac experience only. iLife, Tiger, etc. all run just perfectly fine on a 1.25GHz G4 and that's all that counts. Apple isn't targeting gamers, they are targeting PC users that would like to try a Mac and see for themselves what it's about. And that crowd will be perfectly fine with a 1.25GHz G4.

If you need more than a 1.25GHz G4 you are in the market for another system (chose one): iMac, PowerMac or game console.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I completely agree with you. The poster I was replying to was claiming that this report of a headless iMac had to be false, because the G4 was still a high-end processor. I was saying exactly what you're saying; the G4 is no longer a cutting-edge expensive processor, it's perfect for a $500 computer.

[osxisfun]

>eMac = $800. New headless $600 + monitor + speakers = $800. How does this new system make Macs any less expensive?


Huh?

Double huh?

Did you even read the TS article?

It might be $500 - pc user would use existing monitor and speakers

Price $500

>Connecting external peripherals doesn't allow you to upgrade your processor, or add Firewire 800/USB 3.0/The Next Big Thing

Then this ain't for you. Read the Ts article.

>Now now, the sarcasm is not necessary. I was unclear when I said the G5 transition was overdue; remember I was responding to CincyGamer.

When people make blanket comments like this "apple should just go g5" it really bugs me since its obvious very little thought was put into the statement. A little sarcasm helps to keep things inline. To be nice though. I will apologize.

[Simon]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
My criticism is that the low-end market segment is already filled. Apple's new products should be filling vacant markets, not competing with products they already have.

That's of course absolutely correct. But let me put it this way: The eMac hasn't brought a whole lot of switchers (in the sense of increasing the Mac market share to, let's say, 10%) , the iMac neither.

Obviously potential customers have asked for a cheap headless try-it-out-Mac and Apple is giving it to them. I can see no harm. Even if it eats into eMac sales, that's no problem. The eMac was designed for EDU and doesn't generate much revenue. If it eventually sells less than this iMac mini so be it. The main thing is Apple increases the Mac market share by any means.

[Simon]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I completely agree with you. The poster I was replying to was claiming that this report of a headless iMac had to be false, because the G4 was still a high-end processor. I was saying exactly what you're saying; the G4 is no longer a cutting-edge expensive processor, it's perfect for a $500 computer.

Ah, OK, sorry or the misunderstanding. My raving for this concept might be getting out of hand.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
eMac = $800. New headless $600 + monitor + speakers = $800. How does this new system make Macs any less expensive?...the old monitor is going to be sold/given to relatives alongside the old computer.

I think a lot of PC users have a perceived mental barrier when it comes to upgrading their systems. It's either that they think that keeping their monitor will save them tons of money, or that it's just much less hassle to keep it.

Either way, my parents call me all the time with various PC problems at their house. Each time I suggest that they get an eMac, they groan and say "yeah, but then when it gets old, we'll have to get rid of the monitor and everything," or, "but what if we want to get an LCD later on?" and I end up going over there to remove the spyware/virus of the week. Also, they have upgraded their computer 2 times without changing out monitors.

So I think a headless eMac would be awesome, and at ~$500 I know I could convince my folks to buy one. Actually, I know a few switchers-in-the-making that just a system priced low enough to make it an impulse buy.