[derrick_t]

http://www.areed.com/imac/


go here.

[GraphiteBoi]

You make some valid points, but I don't think it will be very likely that the bottom iMac would be less than $700...especially with it being LCD.

[lee vieira]

Well, everyone and their grandmama has posted their guess at exact specs, so I will too.

I think mine err a bit on the optimistic side, but component prices are very soft lately due to low world demand.

All have Firewire, and OS X 1.1 pre-loaded, 'natch. Still comes in colors? Yes, but fewer.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Classic iMac / Middle iMac / Top iMac

15" CRT / 14" LCD / 14" LCD

100 MHz bus / 133MHz / 133 MHz

SDRAM / SDRAM / SDRAM

500 MHz G3 / 600 MHz G3 / 733 MHz G3

20 gig HD / 30 gig / 40 gig

128MB RAM / 128MB / 256MB

CDRW / CDRW / Combo drive

8mb Rage128 Pro / 16mb Rage128 Ultra / 16mb GeForce 2MX

$999 US / $1299 / $1599

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Me bestest guess. Apple can justify minor price increases due to LCD on the upper two models and CDRW on the bottom one. Margins on the top two models aren't as good as with the current CRT line but aren't razor-thin either *shrug*

--lee

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

May I just say that I'm starting to get kind of annoyed with some of you people who just can't seem to grasp some of the most obvious aspects of the new iMac at MWNY. For example, until the past few days everyone was giving tech specs with a 15" lcd display. We know that's too big, and it doesn't explain why Apple would have so many 14" lcds produced of late. I'm glad some people have finally accepted this.
Secondly is this never-ending fascination with Apple simultaneously releasing two versions of the iMac: Classic and LCD. What is wrong with you people? Why in God's name would apple want to further complicate a product line that has forever been based on simplicity. Over in the PowerMac threads you all can't stop complaining about how the last PowerMac revision contained far too many models of basically the same computer. Apple just made one of it's smartest moves ever recently (the discontinuation of the Cube), why would they imediately take a step back into potential unprofitability?
Apple can only afford to have one iMac, with no more than 3 different models within the product line. Anything else would be just too damn costly.

P.S. - If in fact they do have more than one iMac at MWNY, whoops. And that whoops is both on my part and Apple's.

[jccbin]

Again, My opinion only:

The digital hub concept that Mr Jobs has laid out is more than he has already said. It is not meant for computer-users like us. It is meant for the mass market, which is still very much computer illiterate and will remain so for about another 25 years until kids who grow up with computers in kindergarten-12th grade become the dominant demographic among purchasers in this new genre of device.

The key has always been price. VCR sales did not take off until the prices dropped. DirecTV and the like did not become feasible until initial purchase costs and montly fees became competitive with cable , even if cable was unavailable in the boondocks.

The iMac as digital hub or as a part of that hub is subject to the same rules of supply and demand. An iMac computer need not be the same as an iMac digital hub, even if it plays both roles well. It certainly does not need to be acronym-up-to-date in the same way that the G4 tower does.

How many of us tear into the back of our televisions to uprade them? A very small minority.

How many of us personally remove our factory car stereos and replace them ourselves? Again a small minority of the buying public. We might pay to have this done, but that only expands the minority slightly.

The digital hub iMac must be as easy to use as your toaster, or DirecTV, although my toaster is harder to use. Why? Because it must simply work, work well, and consistently give good results before the MASS market will embrace it.

I am proud that Apple has sold more than 1 million iMacs - but they will need to sell twenty million to achieve status as digital hub numero uno. And an iMac COMPUTER cannot reach that number fast enough. But an iMac XYZ may be able to.

Drop the price, alter the focus slightly and drive consumer demand.

End of my opinion.

[Lolo from Paris]

Originally posted by jccbin:
<STRONG>
The new low end iMac will feature the exact same LCD as the iBook and the low-end model will start at $700 or lower.

Apple will greatly benefit from two of it's lines using the same LCD</STRONG>

I don't think Apple will make a 12.1 LCD iMac it would be stupid. That almost impossible to work all day long with that...

Most of the consumers (not Mac nerds) would prefer to have a bigger CRT than a smaller LCD...Consumers are not ready for LCD yet. Maybe last year. I do believe only the high end iMac will be LCD and the low end will still be CRT.

I'd prefer to have a great CRT iMac with a lot of features like combo drive, Nvidia etc. than a LCD iMac with half the features...

What if the new imacs weren't all-in-one. What if it was like a cube but priced something retarded like $299. You could still get a 15" LCD for $599 and have a mac for $899. But from a marketing standpoint Macs would be the lowest priced computers ever. What do ya think?

How 'bout we stop calling the LCD machine an "imac?"

It will probably replace the cube.

Imac, LCD Mac, and Tower is NOT a more complicated line of computers than
Imac, Cube , and Tower.

Stop saying have two form factors in addition to the tower will be too many lines.

[georgius]

O Christ...I take my thumb off the pulse of this topic for a few days and when i get back...wow...how people�s views have changed!

Lee...your tech specs are very nice, but impossible. No thank you. No sirey-bob. Sh!t man, I�d like to have any of your iMacs in that range at MWNY. But as I have said, I doubt that Stevie will split the product range into several parts...

AND HERE IS WHY...

Remember 1997? Remember the dark and dank ol� days of John Sculley - and Gil Amelio�s infamous 500 days in Cupertino on the firing line?

I�m sure you remember them.

I do. Its just a bit hard to forget a Mac range of 14 products with parts coming from over 300 different suppliers. A mix of names and numbers.

" Good morning. This is Apple Technical Support. Can I take your model number please? Performa 7600 was that? Or did you mean that Performa 6700? Or was that the Quadra 340? Can I put you on hold...?"

You see the problem arising.

Steve put a stop to all that. He cut the number of suppliers down to 150...he even trimmed the board of execs at Apple...small is better in his view. And it seems to have worked.

Back in 1998, there was only one iMac, with just one chip speed, one amount of RAM as standard, one HD size..

And that model sold in its hundreds of thousands.

And now...it is three different set-ups - nice set-ups at that -but it sort of defies Jobs� dream of a simple product line.

The Cube doesn�t help things either. The desktop range should be iMac + Power Mac only. Its like with children...the youngest is your baby...the oldest always your first born. So what is the Cube, the middle child? Answer: for Pros who don�t want PCI slots. WRONG!. Do not pass go! Do not collect $200,000,000 for excellent Cube sales! The correct answer is: the odd one out.

The iMac has come through its various ups and downs � highs and lows. Last July, the iMac line was about to sink because of the plethora of different configurations that there were...all a bit of a pickle...

"Ruby...with a 10 gig...no lets make that a 20 gig...and heck whilst we�re at it lets bump up the processor (not forgetting the price tag)."

iMac DV? iMac DV SE? iMac DV + ? iMac DV with an order of fries, a Diet Coke and a bag of Hershi bars?

What happened to good old iMac?

Simple stupid always works. If Apple falls into the same pit as it was climbing out of fours years ago...it will be because it�s product line-up will be too much. And look at the fourth quarter profits of 2000. I mean its $240,000,000 losses, sorry. The product line was too complex...the Cube was the odd one out...PowerBook sales had tanked. But now things are much better. The Cube has been cut. The iMac is slightly simpler...and the Ti has helped enormously.

Steve Jobs is a "product person". Make great products, and people will respond to that. The simple iMac with one speed and one price tag is a testimony to that. But make multiple versions of the same products with a daunting array of set-ups and BTO options and you are standing at the very jaws of hell.

Okay...so I have a slight bent towards having colors on an iMac. That is what defines the machine...

...but having different screens and designs for a "class of iMac"? I like DV. DV sounds good. I could never imagine an iMac with a "Classic" tag. It makes the iMac sound old and decrepit, when it is so youthful in both looks and status.

To bring in a "Classic" line up would not only ruin the product matrix but also hurt the iMac.

If it comes to a flat screen iMac versus a CRT iMac...it will be a tough competition. One or the other will win. Not both. An LCD iMac could become the next Cube...and have its sales stall if up against a CRT iMac � which as we have agreed is much cheaper to produce and buy. Or, a cheaper CRT iMac would be seen as old and decrepit...and would be no match for the aesthetically pleasing LCD iMac.

There...can you see even more problems arising?

Listen people...you see, whatever happens, a split line of iMacs is not possible. Not a split as distinctive as design anyway. Chips and colors have been done...split, chopped, changed, mutataed, morphed, bent, curled, squeezed.

[bBUT...mark my words, there will only be on iMac at MWNY. One iMac as in design. Not two different lines, CRT vs LCD. Sure - they might have a few different processor configurations, RAM and HD sizes, but not different monitors.

But there is only one iMac. As there is one Power Mac, iBook and PowerBook, Two iMacs? Uh-uh...I don�t think so.

And if you don�t believe me...look at how the original "great white hope" sold. As I said...simple stupid always works. One iMac range and setup gives a better sense of individuality � of soul � of meaning. A Mac so muddled so it does not have a meaning is Mac not worth having on your desk. To have rugged individualism is good for the computer, company and consumer. It brings out a sense of what Apple is...and who we are as Mac users. Sure...a split line is "thinking different"...but nothing is better than knowing that your feet are on the ground and not mixed up with whether or not you�re having a CRT with 600MHz or an LCD with 128MB RAM and a 400MHz G3. Or is that a CRT 400MHz with a 192MB RAM?

O the shame! O the complexity! O the true meaning of it all!

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON

Play it cool

I would just like to add to the portables vs.desktop debate...
Laptops are pretty pathetic in terms of output and are pretty lame for photoshop due to their dimmness..This is because of trying to save battery power..unfortunately there is no higher output level for when its plugged in. When an LCD made for your home (plugged into the wall) is way way more crisp and has a higher viewing angle so the colours don't flake out when you move your eyes from it..Cheers

If they're releasing new imac's to replace both the current ones and the cube, how come they got rid of the cube early and not the imacs? Is it just because they ran out of the cubes? What is Apples motivation behind that?

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by georgius:
<STRONG>

The Cube doesn�t help things either. The desktop range should be iMac + Power Mac only. [/b].

</STRONG>

Um...you do know that Apple just axed the Cube, didn't you?

In any case, even if the iMac line were to be CRT/LCD for awhile, that's hardly a return to the bad old days of 14 different product lines.

What it comes down to is, what has Apple got to cover the sub-$1000 desktop market if the iMac goes LCD? A $999 LCD seems to be very difficult to do without it either having such poor specs or such a small LCD that many people wouldn't want it, or having such poor margins that dealers wouldn't want to sell it.

So Apple can either whip up a whole new product line to cover that market, at quite an R&D expense; or they can, virtually for free, let an existing design handle it until LCD iMacs become cheap enough to do so.

Just a theory, but it seems relatively common-sense. If Apple release a whole new sub-$1k line out of nowhere, I'll be happy, but I wouldn't bet money on it happening.

I also don't think Steve is quite the rigid purist you seem to believe he is. Otherwise, how does the new G4 tower get released in six configurations plus many BTO options? Isn't that the kind of confusion that would tear a product line apart?

Yet, actual sales show the exact opposite. Curious.

Oh, and the iMac went from the original one model to multiple models for the very good reason that since the iMac has no real BTO options (other than RAM) a single model couldn't meet everyone's needs. They did overdo it when they went to 4 models for awhile, but 3 seems fine.

--lee

[georgius]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>

Um...you do know that Apple just axed the Cube, didn't you?

In any case, even if the iMac line were to be CRT/LCD for awhile, that's hardly a return to the bad old days of 14 different product lines.

What it comes down to is, what has Apple got to cover the sub-$1000 desktop market if the iMac goes LCD? A $999 LCD seems to be very difficult to do without it either having such poor specs or such a small LCD that many people wouldn't want it, or having such poor margins that dealers wouldn't want to sell it.

So Apple can either whip up a whole new product line to cover that market, at quite an R&D expense; or they can, virtually for free, let an existing design handle it until LCD iMacs become cheap enough to do so.

Just a theory, but it seems relatively common-sense. If Apple release a whole new sub-$1k line out of nowhere, I'll be happy, but I wouldn't bet money on it happening.

I also don't think Steve is quite the rigid purist you seem to believe he is. Otherwise, how does the new G4 tower get released in six configurations plus many BTO options? Isn't that the kind of confusion that would tear a product line apart?

Yet, actual sales show the exact opposite. Curious.

Oh, and the iMac went from the original one model to multiple models for the very good reason that since the iMac has no real BTO options (other than RAM) a single model couldn't meet everyone's needs. They did overdo it when they went to 4 models for awhile, but 3 seems fine.

--lee</STRONG>

You may have got me Lee. On the whole Cube thing, I was debating as whether to use the past or present tense...but I opted for the present. I do know that the Cube has been axed, dropped, torn to bits and thrown into the guts of Siberia. But it stillwas noly announced by Phil Schiller to be ceasing production last week - speculations and roumours aside.

And I don't believe Jobs to be a purist. Heck...anyone who could have such a complex Pro range has got to be slightly out there. From what I hear, its the complexity of the range has caused quite a tri in the Power Mac forum.

But what you all constantly seem to forget, is that the iMac is meant to be a consumer product. A consumer doesn't need a Geforce MX 2. Even if a Rage 128 is three years old, it does the job fine...for playing a few games, typing some e-mails, perhaps a Word document or two...

...you have a different view...

BUT...my main gripe about split product lines is not about specs. I know not everyone wants a 500MHz G3. My main gripe is about the complexity of product design...a CRT monster versus the more petite LCD. Think of how that would split a product line in 2. Fvck processor configurations and BTO options , the design of the iMac is pivotal. Isn't what this whole thread meant to be about in essence...LCD iMacs...and the difference that they bring? imagine putting a CRT up against a LCD. One or the other would suffer.

And o, Lee...a single spec does do well...look at the current iBooks...500MHz across the board...and they seem to be doing okay...

Play it cool

If it is true that the new iMac will only have a 14" LCD it will be a disaster. Yes I know they want to keep the price down, but we really need an enclosure that will allow a range of options on screen size. I would like to see the option of the new 17" screen built in on the top of the range model.

[Matsu]

Originally posted by &lt;JLFanboy&gt;:
<STRONG>
...this never-ending fascination with Apple simultaneously releasing two versions of the iMac: Classic and LCD. What is wrong with you people? Why in God's name would apple want to further complicate a product line that has forever been based on simplicity...
P.S. - If in fact they do have more than one iMac at MWNY, whoops. And that whoops is both on my part and Apple's. </STRONG>

I don't think we'll see two iMacs (Classic and iMacII) but that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea or that it can't be done efficiently. If the plastics are assembled by two different companies it is entirely possible to do it without complicating the Model/Pricing structure at all. You offer the current iMacSE600 in one config only, call it classic, and make it cheap. Maybe smaller HDD, Maybe CDrw, but CD only is OK too. All the R&D, and tooling/production costs have long since been covered on that model. Then you offer two iMacII configs. A base and SE. New LCD enclosure. Both G4s. Base has HDD/RAM like classic. New SE version has a one clock multiplier speed increase (100-133Mhz faster) Combo drive, bigger HDD.

Still just three models of iMac. But two different cases, assembled in two different places. They could sell the current G3 DVSE 600 at 899 without too much difficulty (the parts are insanely cheap in Apple quantities) thus allowing them to keep a cheap (yet powerful) model for education and budget buyers, yet have a new model to encourage new buyers, upgrades from mac owners etc.

If they ever did it, it'd only be untill they could lower iMacII price to drop the Classic entirely. But they most likely won't and as a result education/budget sales will suffer.

[Nimisys]

if apple were to split the imac line, why the the offspring have to be called an imac?

let say apple does introduce a split in it, what would change? the enclosure would diffently change internally as an lcd is nothing like a crt. the fact that the G3 is cooled by convection current based off of the heat from the crts is a big issue. so by spliting them you still have to go through the R&D costs of creating a new inclosure, even though externally they may appear the same.

so why not do the minor changes to the exsisting line, (more ram, X, faster, ect) that cost nothing and price it down, then introduce your LCD iMAC (different shape, possibly diferent name) AIO at the 1500$ price point. you can have your G4, LCD and margins all in one,and since it has a damn LCD internally it won't suffer the same fate as the cube of being too much for too little. best yet it doesn't confuse the product lines, fills a gap and won't hurt their 25% margins.

[Nicko]

If you consider that the new ibook line has 4 configs, I don't see why the new imac could have 4 either. With the cube gone, I think that a higher end imac could be justifiable. With a new AIO design with an lcd, it will more than likely look alot more 'proffessional' than the current gumdrop shape.

On the issue of splitting the new imacs into some with crt/lcd...I don't see apple doing it. If they are advertising the fact that they are going all lcd with all of their other computers...why would they keep one in the imac?? it would just add to support costs and serve to confuse people to which model is better. The last thing apple wants to do is confuse people.

[BRussell]

For those who think Apple won't have a split CRT/LCD iMac line: It's not even a question of whether they'll do it, it's a question of "for how long?" There are plenty of CRT iMacs still around - current and even older models that haven't been sold yet.

If Apple goes to an LCD iMac, there will still be CRT iMacs in the channels. What those of us who believe in the split-line are saying, is that they'll simply allow these to be produced and sold for longer than usual. Remember, if it's LCD, it's an entirely different machine, probably produced at a different factory, so continuing to produce the CRT version won't interrupt production of the LCD version.

Other evidence:

From macrumors.com:
Hey Guys, I work at CompUSA and I have some information that may be of interest to you. As of today (7.01.01) at least one of the iMacs of each speed, All of the PowerMac G4's and all of the Cubes underwent a change in the source codes. They went from -A01 which is an active item to -N01 which is an item that we no longer carry. Just thought that may be the proving factor that major changes are going to occuring at MacWorld.

Note that it says "at least one of the iMacs of each speed," rather than all the iMacs, as it says about the Cubes and PowerMacs. I bet they continue to sell Blue and Graphite iMacs for quite a while after MWNY, even if they intro a new LCD iMac.

[oranjdisc]

I totally agree with georgius.

The tried-and-true iMac got too big for it's britches as Apple tried to expand the model into something between the all-in-one, cheap consumer machine it was meant to be, and the G4 line of towers by tossing in all kinds of colors and configurations.

I personally hope they go back to a simple, efficient choice. Two is all anybody needs....a cost-effective base model, and one more decked out with a bigger drive and faster graphics card. That's it.

Apple will never offer "all anybody needs." They simply can't. I want a 14" LCD laptop and am willing to spend $2000. Apple doesn't do that. I want something in the price range of an imac, but without the imac monitor. Oh dear, apple doesn't do that.

Apple definitely losses business because they don't supply computers that fit people's notions of what they want. If they want more market share, they may need more products, not fewer. If simpler is better, why don't we create the product line with nothing in it. Clean and simple.

The key is offering products that people want. They need a low cost model. They need something around $1500. They need something around $2000; they need something around $2500.

The problem with complicated products lines develops when the differences/advantages between products becomes unclear. What's the difference between the Performa 6200 and 6230? That's the problem; not having a 500Mhz iMac at $1200 and a 600Mhz iMac at $1400. In the second case the difference is clear to all.

The Cube was a failure not because it added complexity to the product lineup, but because it wasn't a practical choice for many people. If the initial pricing and marketing had been better, maybe it would have worked. A cheaper Mac without a monitor I think would be welcomed by many. So what if it eats into sales of other products? At least they're buying Macs!

Basically it boils down to whether the products sells. The precise number of products in the matrix does not.

[neutrino23]

Three iMacs at MWNY.
Product confusion in the past came because products were too similar and often overlapped each other. You need to make products really DIFFERENT in order to have them each support sales and not be confusing.

The classic iMac is one of the most recognizable computers in the world. Over 5 million have been sold. The design and engineering is completely paid for. It would be a shame to not capitalize on that somehow. Apple could continue to sell it at the low end very cheaply. The CD-ROM version is also good for those who just need an "intelligent terminal" and don't want any removable writable media which could be security risks.

My guess for MWNY - three iMacs; Good, Better Best

Good - Classic CRT iMac of some sort, ~500 MHz G3, CD-ROM only.
$599.

Better - LCD iMac with 13 or 14" display (maybe not good enough for using all day but these users
$1,199 won't use it all day. Standard with CD-ROM. Other drives BTO.

Best - LCD wide format ~17" display. This will really be the jewel. The one the
$1,599 press will drool over. Standard with DVD/CD-ROM. Other drives BTO.

Except for the drives and display the Better and Best will share the same internals (motherboard, CPU, etc.) They might ship with a little different RAM and HD. Possibly these could be ~600MHz G4s. Nice differentiation from G4 towers if those start at 733MHz as rumored elsewhere. Maybe there is a glut of slower G4s or those with higher power draw which can't be used in laptops which can be had cheaply.

This clearly differentiates the three models and attracts three different kinds of customers. It makes use of Apple's intellectual property at the low end and is technically aggressive at the high end.
-------
I have to add that at least here in Japan at least one wide format, LCD based PC has been on the market for six months to a year. There are also a number of LCD based all-in-one PCs available here. Apple is not pushing the envelope with the above configurations except compared to their own history.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by georgius:
<STRONG>

But what you all constantly seem to forget, is that the iMac is meant to be a consumer product. A consumer doesn't need a Geforce MX 2. Even if a Rage 128 is three years old, it does the job fine...for playing a few games, typing some e-mails, perhaps a Word document or two... </STRONG>

Well, that may be your take on it, but what I hear from lots of iMac owners is that they wish that the upper models, at least, had a nice gfx chip. And GeForce 2 MXs are pretty darn cheap these days...

<STRONG> imagine putting a CRT up against a LCD. One or the other would suffer. </STRONG>

Only if they were in direct competition. If you put them at different pricepoints (as I did), they aren't. Especially if Apple can't do a very cheap LCD iMac ($899-999) that people and dealers would want, which I suspect they cannot right now.

Basically, a CRT iMac would fill a void in the lineup temporarily until LCD prices drop more. I fail to see the disaster in doing that...its a lot better than Apple having no desktop product in that price range.

<STRONG> And o, Lee...a single spec does do well...look at the current iBooks...500MHz across the board...and they seem to be doing okay... </STRONG>

The iBook isn't truly single-spec...there's four different models (which according to you is a bit of a recipe for disaster), ranging from CD-ROM on up to combo drive.

Of course, IMO they could easily trim that to two models, DVD-ROM and combo drive, as DVD-ROM prices have dropped to not much above CD-ROM prices. But that'd involve charging more reasonable/realistic prices, rather than milking the higher iBook models price-wise, as Apple is doing (a $500 premium for a combo drive and 64MB of RAM? wtf?)

I also suspect that the flattening of the iBook cpu speed range is due to the need to keep iBook cpu speeds high enough to not look like sheeite compared to Wintel, while not being so high as to majorly cannibalize the higher-margin TiBook G4 sales.

I suspect the slowpoke 66MHz bus was kept for at least partly the same reason, since with a 100 MHz bus and that 500 MHz G3, you'd likely find that an iBook would meet or beat a $2600 TiBook G4 in most non-Altivec tasks for half the money.

--lee

[Sawtooth2000]

What about this:

low end
$899 or approx.
15" CRT 13.8" viewable
500 MHz G3 (or 533 with a 133 bus)
same old specs
basically the existing 500 MHz iMac.

middle
$1199 or approx.
14.1" LCD
600 MHz G3 (or 633/667? with a 133 bus)
good specs

high end
$1499 or approx.
15" LCD
700 MHz G3 (or 733 with a 133 bus)
good specs

What does everyone think about this? I know some of you don't like having different displays, I didn't either, but as I thought about this, it makes more and more sense. With this scheme, they only need to make 2 new iMacs (low end is basically already produced) and the form factor can be basically the same with a slight change for the bigger LCD, however, this will be of great benefit for those who wish for the bigger LCD.

-'tooth

[georgius]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>

The iBook isn't truly single-spec...there's four different models (which according to you is a bit of a recipe for disaster), ranging from CD-ROM on up to combo drive.

Of course, IMO they could easily trim that to two models, DVD-ROM and combo drive, as DVD-ROM prices have dropped to not much above CD-ROM prices. But that'd involve charging more reasonable/realistic prices, rather than milking the higher iBook models price-wise, as Apple is doing (a $500 premium for a combo drive and 64MB of RAM? wtf?)

I also suspect that the flattening of the iBook cpu speed range is due to the need to keep iBook cpu speeds high enough to not look like sheeite compared to Wintel, while not being so high as to majorly cannibalize the higher-margin TiBook G4 sales.

I suspect the slowpoke 66MHz bus was kept for at least partly the same reason, since with a 100 MHz bus and that 500 MHz G3, you'd likely find that an iBook would meet or beat a $2600 TiBook G4 in most non-Altivec tasks for half the money.

--lee</STRONG>

Okay...but the four different models have only a different optical drive. None of them are designed completely and utterly differently. The chip is the same across the board...but all of them look the same. Shame there are no colors.

The disaster would be if you were going to have a CRT based iMac at $799 and an LCD iMac at $899-999.

Which would win...or be more profitable? Huh...?

Play it cool

[Nicko]

If think if they go some lcd and some crt that it would differentiate and confuse the whole concept of what an imac is supposed to be. Think about the new 'orbit' ibook ad.... apple is now promoting the digital hub concept again and will carry this same concept over to the new imacs when they start advertising them. If you have 2 totally different designs (which there would be if you had two different display types) how on earth would apple advertise them?!? Show both of them in the same commercial? have separate commercials? new imac and imac classic???? that would be crazy I think....

[mlwhitt]

Personally I am very hyped about there even being the slightest hint at a LCD iMac. I owned on of the orignal Bondi Blues and I loved it. At the time it was the sexiest thing around. Apple had out done themselves, but now years later, I need something new. I can just imagine how great a LCD iMac would look setting on my office desk. I personally think it is time for a product change with the iMac, new colors or patterns just will not work this time. The people are demanding something new and fresh. Apple needs something as "unique" and "cool" as the orginal iMac was. Some people on here have said that an iMac that is smaller with a LCD screen will be too much competetion with the iBook, but I disagree. A small LCD iMac does not translate to portable just because it is small. Laptops such as the iBook have millions of R&D spent on them to fortify them for the rugged 'on the road' life they must endure.

I have not figured out the profit margin problem either. A revamp to a LCD iMac will cause Apple a lose for the first generation or so of it's product life. But then again, so must have the orginal iMac, which has sold millions, thus paying back Apple for the money spent on it's "Uniqueness". We know some of the key facts: A) People are wanting a change in the way the iMac looks, B) Apple has said "no more CRTs", C) Apple has a large investment in LCD production, D) LCD prices are falling quickly, E)People are likely to be willing to pay a small increase in cost for LCD.

I have my doubts about the sub $1k LCD iMac. I think it would be possible, but I am not sure how Apple would handle it. On one side they could continue to milk the cash cow, and hold on to the design in case the LCD iMac doesn't hit it off. That is one problem with the Cube, we will likely see it again, as the announcement of it's demise leaves room for a sequel, but we will all think of it as old technology. The Cube was a great piece of machine and art. I do think Apple released it a year too soon, before LCD screens dropped to their current prices. Also as has been brought up before, the Cube was priced at a point were many were A) not willing to spend a few hundred extra for it (ie the iMac consumer crowd) or B) willing to spend a few hundred more for a more powerful machine (ie the power user crowd).

The Cube did not fufil the nitch that it needed because of placement. Apple knows the iMac's nitch. I doubt they will completely drop the sub $1k line even if it means offering two iMac models a CRT and a LCD model. Personally I am almost betting that they will release three models, with the two lower being CRT and the SE being LCD. From past experience the SE is always the 'Special' child. Apple knows that it is getting more and more pressure for companies such as Dell on the consumer front. The economy may be down, but Apple knows that a product that is unique enough will sell. Now is the time for Apple to make another push like they did in '98 when they gave us the orignal iMac.

SimCode.Net
MichaelWhitt.Com

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Nicko:
<STRONG>If you have 2 totally different designs (which there would be if you had two different display types) how on earth would apple advertise them?!? Show both of them in the same commercial? have separate commercials? new imac and imac classic???? that would be crazy I think.... </STRONG>

But that's just it. The beauty of the thing is, you wouldn't even have to spend $$$ advertising the CRT model. After 3 years of very heavy iMac advertising, and 5 million units sold, people are VERY aware of the CRT model already.

So all the advertising would go to the LCD models, and that'd be great, since that's what Apple wants to emphasize-- the new, cool product that may be able to bust them out of their sales slump.

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by georgius:
<STRONG>

The disaster would be if you were going to have a CRT based iMac at $799 and an LCD iMac at $899-999.

Which would win...or be more profitable? Huh...?

</STRONG>

Oh, I agree... a $100 seperation in price would be awful.

But a $200 or $300 difference seems fine. You wouldn't really say that the current middle iMac competes against the current low-end iMac now, would you? Either you want the CDRW & better specs and are willing to spend the $300 xtra for them, or you aren't. Simple.

Its the exact same thing with a potential CRT vs LCD lineup differentiated by pricepoints. Either you're happy buying a cheap CRT iMac, or you really want the LCD form-factor/cool-factor and are willing to pony up significantly more cash for it. Again, simple.

--lee

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[Ken_F2]

There is no way there will be separate CRT and LCD iMacs. This would negate much of Apple's cost savings in production.

The current iMac is not selling anywhere near as well as it used to, and analysts (representing investors) agree that a major redesign is needed. The new iMacs must and will use LCDs exclusively. The only question is... whether it will be a 14" or 15" LCD, both of which would be an improvement over the current iMac's 13.8" viewable.

Moreovoer, the new iMacs will use G4 processors. Apple's current processor lineup consists of 400MHz, 500MHz, and 600MHz IBM 750CXe (G3) processors. IBM is or soon will be producing the 750CXe, which Apple uses, at 667MHz and 700MHz. However, these two parts are no less expensive than the 533MHz and 666MHz G4e parts from Motorola. The redesign of the iMac (with a LCD) presents the perfect opportunity for this change.

With all the marketing Apple has put into the G4, and the OSX and media software optimizations for that processor, this G3-&gt;G4e change for the iMac is overdue. The use of such a processor on an iMac would require that faster processors (no less than 733/866/933) be used on the desktop systems.

Of course, no redesigned iMac would be complete without an improved video subsystem, and thus, Apple will use nVidia's GeForce2 MX 400 graphics with 32Mb SDRAM. While slightly more expensive than the Rage128 Ultra, the unit price of this chip will drop significantly in several months, when nVidia unveils the Geforce3 Mx in October (Geforce2 Mx will still remain well into next year as an ultra-budget solution). Last, but not least, the new iMacs will get a boost in their bus speed (FSB) from 100MHz to 133MHz, and will ship with at least 128Mb PC133 SDRAM (256Mb on the high-end model).

Less certain, although a distinct possibility is the move to the combo DVD+CDRW (DVD readable + CDRW) drives that have become popular among the major PC manufacturers.

The new iMac will be the first designed as a viable platform for OS X (and it will come preloaded, but not default), as necessary if that operating system is to have any future for the 'masses.'

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
<STRONG>

Moreovoer, the new iMacs will almost certainly use G4 processors. Apple's current processor lineup consists of 400MHz, 500MHz, and 600MHz IBM 750CXe (G3) processors. IBM is or soon will be producing the 750CXe, which Apple uses, at 667MHz and 700MHz. However, these two parts are no less expensive than the 533MHz and 666MHz G4e parts from Motorola.

</STRONG>

Actually, that's doesn't seem to be true. I know, because I used to think the same thing until I was shown differently.

Prices for the 750 CXe G3 are as follows:

$57 each for 400-MHz device, $93.75 for the 500-MHz and $143.75 for the 600-MHz.

Source: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010227S0061

Prices for the 7410 G4 (the low-cost G4, less expensive than the G4e you mention): The MPC7410 is available now at 400MHz, 450MHz and 500MHz, with a 550MHz version available soon, Motorola said. Suggested pricing is $95, $135, $195 and $230 each.

Source: http://macweek.macworld.com/2000/09/24/0927mpc7410.html

Comparing MHz for MHz:

400MHz 750 CXe G3: $57
400MHz 7410 G4: $95

500MHz 750 CXe G3: $94
500MHz 7410 G4: $195

The 7410 G4 is always referred to as the 'low-cost' G4, implying that the higher-MHz, higher performance G4e you mention would be more expensive still.


--lee

[Ken_F2]

lee,

That pricing is about seven months out of date. IIRC, both the 750CXe (G3) 700MHz and 7450 (G4e) 666MHz run about $200.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]

I really don't believe that there is need for a CRT any more. It is possible to buy a 15" LCD screen with enclosure and power connections and cables, shipping and profit etc for �290. The marginal cost of a 15" LCD must be around �100 or less, that's probably a DIFFERENCE of only �70 ($100) against CRT, I think the market can stand the price increase without effecting sales. A new machine, with faster processor, LCD, more memory has got to be worth the extra cost. The costs of different inventory and enclosurers means that it simply wouldn't be worth running a CRT line.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
<STRONG>lee,

That pricing is about seven months out of date. IIRC, both the 750CXe (G3) 700MHz and 7450 (G4e) 666MHz run about $200.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]</STRONG>

The difference in time between the two articles is only 5 months, and I even compared the lower-cost G4 line.

I seriously doubt that the G4e is as cheap as you imagine. And Moto doesn't even make '666' G4e (Satan? ) chips anymore, because the yields on the 733 are quite good.

If nothing else, the G4 is always going to cost more than the G3 due to the Altivec unit.

Kinda sucks, as I would like to see the G4 on the next iMac rev too. But I just can't suspend disbelief enough to think it's gonna happen.

I mean, LCDs costs more, they're adding the more expensive combo drives, probably a more expensive graphics chip, AND you say that they're gonna add a more expensive cpu too, all at the same time?

Logic dictates that something's gotta give. The real question is, what?

--lee

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[Sawtooth2000]

I think that G3s would be fine, especially with a bus upgrade to 133 MHz.

466, 533, 733 G3
or
533, 667, 733

Sounds good to me.

-'tooth

[Mongrel]

Just for fun... yes I know it would be way too expensive.



However, the Palm certainly isn't far fetched. It would run an Apple-modified version of Palm OS (in hi-res color of course, we are in competition with Sony after all), and have a built-in Airport antennae that could hotsync with any computer with a base station, such as the iMac here. It would use a similar design sceme as the Optical Mouse, clear/tinted where it can be, solid, fading into bright glossy white where it needs to cover up the circuitry.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Mongrel ]


[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Mongrel ]

[Ken_F2]

tooth,

466, 533, 733 G3
or
533, 667, 733

The 750CXe (G3) is available in 400, 500, 600, and 700MHz parts, the first three of which Apple uses now.

The difference in time between the two articles is only 5 months, and I even compared the lower-cost G4 line.

The articles bear no relation to one another; one covers Motorola and the other covers IBM. The article on 7410 (original G4) pricing is 10 months old. Pricing changed when Motorola unveiled the 7450, and it has changed again at least once since.

I seriously doubt that the G4e is as cheap as you imagine. And Moto doesn't even make '666' G4e (Satan? ) chips anymore, because the yields on the 733 are quite good.

Correction, Apple doesn't use the 666 anymore. Apple discontinued the 666 model for marketing or cost issues.

If nothing else, the G4 is always going to cost more than the G3 due to the Altivec unit.

The Altivec unit doesn't have anything to do with additional cost. The technology alone doesn't make the processor any more or less expensive.

Kinda sucks, as I would like to see the G4 on the next iMac rev too. But I just can't suspend disbelief enough to think it's gonna happen.

Well, no use arguing really, for we shall see who is right soon enough.

I mean, LCDs costs more, they're adding the more expensive combo drives, probably a more expensive graphics chip, AND you say that they're gonna add a more expensive cpu too, all at the same time?

The current iMac is just not viable. It is not selling well. It is not increasing Apple's market share; it is not creating interest around the company. It doesn't matter how little a current product costs if it isn't selling or drawing attention. Apple is already buying the 15" LCDs in quantity, so I doubt it would incur a premium of more than $50-$60 over the CRT. The Geforce2 MX400 graphics chip is perhaps $5 more expensive than the ATI, and it may well be cheaper in a few months. The prices memory, hard drives, and other components have probably dropped enough to makeup much of the difference.

Again, we'll all see soon enough...

[Lolo from Paris]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
<STRONG>There is no way there will be separate CRT and LCD iMacs. This would negate much of Apple's cost savings in production.

The current iMac is not selling anywhere near as well as it used to, and analysts (representing investors) agree that a major redesign is needed. The new iMacs must and will use LCDs exclusively. The only question is... whether it will be a 14" or 15" LCD, both of which would be an improvement over the current iMac's 13.8" viewable.

Moreovoer, the new iMacs will use G4 processors. Apple's current processor lineup consists of 400MHz, 500MHz, and 600MHz IBM 750CXe (G3) processors. IBM is or soon will be producing the 750CXe, which Apple uses, at 667MHz and 700MHz. However, these two parts are no less expensive than the 533MHz and 666MHz G4e parts from Motorola. The redesign of the iMac (with a LCD) presents the perfect opportunity for this change.

With all the marketing Apple has put into the G4, and the OSX and media software optimizations for that processor, this G3-&gt;G4e change for the iMac is overdue. The use of such a processor on an iMac would require that faster processors (no less than 733/866/933) be used on the desktop systems.

Of course, no redesigned iMac would be complete without an improved video subsystem, and thus, Apple will use nVidia's GeForce2 MX 400 graphics with 32Mb SDRAM. While slightly more expensive than the Rage128 Ultra, the unit price of this chip will drop significantly in several months, when nVidia unveils the Geforce3 Mx in October (Geforce2 Mx will still remain well into next year as an ultra-budget solution). Last, but not least, the new iMacs will get a boost in their bus speed (FSB) from 100MHz to 133MHz, and will ship with at least 128Mb PC133 SDRAM (256Mb on the high-end model).

Less certain, although a distinct possibility is the move to the combo DVD+CDRW (DVD readable + CDRW) drives that have become popular among the major PC manufacturers.

The new iMac will be the first designed as a viable platform for OS X (and it will come preloaded, but not default), as necessary if that operating system is to have any future for the 'masses.'

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Ken_F2 ]</STRONG>

We won't have any low end LCD iMac, that's just impossible, none PC company can do it, then I don't think Apple can do that, they don't sell enough to have very low price.

Plus, Apple needs a low end iMac and they also need a CRT model for schools, children and graphics people who can't use LCD for many reasons.

What I see :

- 2 CRT models with better G3 (no G4), a better video card (NVIDIA MX with 16 MB), combo drive in middle model

- 1 Special Edition model with LCD combo drive etc.

Why only Special Edition with LCD ? because it costs a lot, and Apple IMO needs to test the market, they need to know if people will follow them with LCD.

Have you seen how much does Packard Bell LCD computers sell for ? That's very expensive...too expensive for now, maybe in 2002.


In a few days we'll know...but I don't expect to see LCDs in every model, only high end one. It won't cost more to Apple to have 2 models because CRT models don't cost a lot to design (it could be the same design with different colors)

[Lolo from Paris]

Originally posted by &lt;No need for CRT&gt;:
<STRONG>I really don't believe that there is need for a CRT any more. It is possible to buy a 15" LCD screen with enclosure and power connections and cables, shipping and profit etc for �290. The marginal cost of a 15" LCD must be around �100 or less, that's probably a DIFFERENCE of only �70 ($100) against CRT, I think the market can stand the price increase without effecting sales. A new machine, with faster processor, LCD, more memory has got to be worth the extra cost. The costs of different inventory and enclosurers means that it simply wouldn't be worth running a CRT line.</STRONG>

For the cost of a 15" LCD you can buy a 19" CRT (and a good one) !!! Think about it ;-)

Since I've bought my Tibook I just regret my PowerMac G4 (which I sold)...LCD screens are really bad for graphics, colors are not accurate. When you look at the bottom of the screen, the colour and brigthness is not the same

I wonder how people can actually work with LCD screens ???

I hope not all the new iMacs will be LCD. I just want a CRT model, cheap and the same form factor but with better features.

IMO Apple needs faster iMacs, with better features (especially graphics card), they don't need LCD yet. LCD will be the big thing next year, not now.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lolo from Paris:
<STRONG>- 2 CRT models with better G3 (no G4), a better video card (NVIDIA MX with 16 MB), combo drive in middle model

- 1 Special Edition model with LCD combo drive etc.</STRONG>

I think this scenario is more likely than the other ones people have been talking about - i.e., a "left-over" CRT iMac on the low-end.

I think they will basically keep the iMac line as is, but add the LCD "SE" iMac (who knows, maybe it won't even be called an iMac, but something else), and charge $1800 for it. Basically, an all-in-one replacement of the cube, but cheaper than the cube + monitor.

[Joel]

Hi everyone!

Hopefully this wasn't discussed in-depth somewhere in the last few pages of posts (I read the first two and skipped to the eighth). If so, my apologies!

I think in those three pages, I just saw one person comment on this as an afterthought. I believe a lot of people are underestimating the value having an LCD in an iMac will give regarding the heat produced (or not produced in this case!).

I work at a High School as the Computer Technician. We have over 100 Macintosh computers on campus and roughly half of those are iMacs. About 25 of those iMacs are Rev. D 333 Mhz models. The rest are either 400 Mhz DV's or the cheap, firewire-less models (some indigo and blueberry). Here's my observation. I've had basically no trouble with any of the Rev. D iMacs aside from that annoying buzzing noise due to the trayload CD-Rom drive. I've had, comparatively speaking, tons of trouble with the newer, fanless iMacs. We've had to send four in for repair at an authorized Apple store an hour or so away. A handle broke off of one of them while it was being carried between rooms (Apple covered repair costs even though they considered it an "accident" which isn't covered under warranty). A monitor is fritzing out on one of them now and several keep getting bluish tinges to the monitor (a couple we sent in for repair came back and are doing it again now). Nothing like this has ever happened on the Rev. D's.

I think it all has to do with the heat produced by the CRT monitor without a fan. I once had a DV overheat and shut off on me (it works now, but I wasn't very happy at the time). If I'm having this much trouble just at my school with the small number of computers we have here, I imagine other schools with larger number of iMacs are having a rougher time of it. All of this contributes to headaches for Apple. Mucho warranty covered repair costs and whatever else. I also think the integrity of the case (read: handle) is compromised with the new design used to let heat out (the new one feels plain flimsy compared to the Rev. D handle).

Now, let's examine what's going on. Apple switches to all LCD monitors with the pro lineup. Now their only computer using them is the iMac, forcing them to buy two different types of monitors, driving cost up. You have to know Steve is, at this point, seriously looking at LCD's for the iMac. Why? It would solve the heat problem, possibly reducing the heat produced enough to allow for higher end graphics chips in the future. This would help PR by making the iMac feel cooler and thus reduce people's perception that the machine is "overheating" and by adding an additional cool factor. It would decrease the cost of their LCD purchases in regard to the 15" screen (using any other size just doesn't make sense--iBook size is too small and 13" or 14" cancels out the pluses of reduced cost for buying more 15" screens). Apple sells tons of iMacs and by using 15" LCD displays they would be able to buy these puppies in major bulk orders for selling individually to pro machines and for the iMac itself.

Recap:

Adding a 15" LCD screen makes a lot of sense:

� solves heat issue
� adds appeal to machine
� reduces overall cost of LCD monitors (allowing them to make a larger profit on the individual sales [or lower the price--selling more units] and include it in the iMac

Call me crazy, but I won't be surprised if LCD's are in the iMacs eight days from now. If not, they definitely will be by January.

-Joel

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Joel ]

[lee vieira]

<STRONG>
---------------------------------------------
466, 533, 733 G3
or
533, 667, 733
---------------------------------------------


The 750CXe (G3) is available in 400, 500, 600, and 700MHz parts, the first three of which Apple uses now.

</STRONG>

Yup, but you obviously know that even though the chips come in 100MHz increments, they can still be used on 133MHz busses.

And 733 is probably very possible, at the expense of slightly lower yields. IBM's yield of 700MHz chips don't all fail at 701MHz...there's some wiggle room, that's the nature of chip production. The speed-rating is more of a guideline, which is why you have so much overclocking. 700 --&gt; 733MHz = not much of a jump.

<STRONG>

---------------------------------------------
The difference in time between the two articles is only 5 months, and I even compared the lower-cost G4 line.
---------------------------------------------


The articles bear no relation to one another; one covers Motorola and the other covers IBM. The article on 7410 (original G4) pricing is 10 months old. Pricing changed when Motorola unveiled the 7450, and it has changed again at least once since.

</STRONG>

You don't understand. In comparing the G3 prices to G4, the timing between the articles IS rather important, since one article had G3 prices, and the other had G4.

It wouldn't be accurate of me to compare 1998 G3 prices with 2001 G4 prices, now would it?

<STRONG>

---------------------------------------------
I seriously doubt that the G4e is as cheap as you imagine. And Moto doesn't even make '666' G4e (Satan? ) chips anymore, because the yields on the 733 are quite good.
---------------------------------------------

Correction, Apple doesn't use the 666 anymore. Apple discontinued the 666 model for marketing or cost issues.

</STRONG>

If you can find an embedded or other non-Apple system using Moto's 666MHz G4e, please share.

<STRONG>
---------------------------------------------
If nothing else, the G4 is always going to cost more than the G3 due to the Altivec unit.
---------------------------------------------


The Altivec unit doesn't have anything to do with additional cost. The technology alone doesn't make the processor any more or less expensive.

</STRONG>

If you can find a G4e cpu of the same MHz priced the same or lower than a G3, again, please share.

<STRONG>
---------------------------------------------
Kinda sucks, as I would like to see the G4 on the next iMac rev too. But I just can't suspend disbelief enough to think it's gonna happen.
---------------------------------------------


Well, no use arguing really, for we shall see who is right soon enough.

</STRONG>

Yup.

<STRONG>


---------------------------------------------
I mean, LCDs costs more, they're adding the more expensive combo drives, probably a more expensive graphics chip, AND you say that they're gonna add a more expensive cpu too, all at the same time?
---------------------------------------------


The current iMac is just not viable. It is not selling well. It is not increasing Apple's market share; it is not creating interest around the company. It doesn't matter how little a current product costs if it isn't selling or drawing attention. Apple is already buying the 15" LCDs in quantity, so I doubt it would incur a premium of more than $50-$60 over the CRT. The Geforce2 MX400 graphics chip is perhaps $5 more expensive than the ATI, and it may well be cheaper in a few months. The prices memory, hard drives, and other components have probably dropped enough to makeup much of the difference.

Again, we'll all see soon enough...

</STRONG>


Well, I think you're being a bit pie-in-the-sky, but you're right, the Stevenote is next week.

I think we'll all be very happy with what we see though

--lee

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[Phoible]

I think that Steve will cancel the iMac... Just kidding. I think that the new iMacs will feature the 14.1-inch display that Alpha Top is manufacturing for Apple. Apple will also introduce a new PowerMac. No new iBooks, no new Powerbooks until September, when rev. b will come out. No new cube. Maybe a 25th anniversary mac (I can hope, can't I). Everything will be LCD (maybe the high-end iMac will even have an ADC).

[GraphiteBoi]

Originally posted by Phoible:
<STRONG>Apple will also introduce a new PowerMac. No new iBooks, no new Powerbooks until September, when rev. b will come out. No new cube. Maybe a 25th anniversary mac (I can hope, can't I). Everything will be LCD (maybe the high-end iMac will even have an ADC).</STRONG>

I really dont think they will introduce a new powermac. The reason that the Cube didnt do well is that it didnt fit into a consumer category. With the 2 consumer and 2 pro portables and desktops, there is one for everyone. When the cube was around, it just floated in the middle somewhere. So as far as a new PowerMac...keep dreaming!

[Phoible]

They have EOL'ed the current Powermacs, so the new Powermac will replace the old one. It will be a bit smaller and sleeker, but it won't be all that much different (some pictures were floating around before, but they were pretty fuzzy).

[Troll]

Thought I might as well post this link here too.

CNET Article on New iMacs?

Apparently the delay for delivery of all existing iMacs except the entry level iMac has suddenly increased from 1 day to 10 days. That means if you order an iMac DV, DV+ or SE now, you won't get it until after MacWorld...

The fact that the entry-levels are still available suggests a split line. Since the new machine seems to be a replacement for the Cube, maybe iMac stays iMac (CRT, same form factor) and DV, DV+ and SE become something else.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>Thought I might as well post this link here too.

CNET Article on New iMacs?

Apparently the delay for delivery of all existing iMacs except the entry level iMac has suddenly increased from 1 day to 10 days. That means if you order an iMac DV, DV+ or SE now, you won't get it until after MacWorld...

The fact that the entry-levels are still available suggests a split line. Since the new machine seems to be a replacement for the Cube, maybe iMac stays iMac (CRT, same form factor) and DV, DV+ and SE become something else.</STRONG>

Confirmed. At the Apple Store, all colors of the middle- and high-iMacs are at a 10-day wait, while the base iMac alone is available next day. Nice work, Troll.

It looks like a split CRT-LCD iMac line, indeed, remains strong possibility.

Oh, and some interesting quotes from that CNet article you mentioned:

With last week's confirmation that Apple is discontinuing the PowerMac G4 Cube, speculation is running high that Jobs will introduce a flat-panel version of the iMac, at least at the high end of its consumer line.

However, (industry analyst) LeTocq said Apple may need to keep the traditional iMacs around to hit the right prices for the low end of the consumer market and for schools.

"Eventually, even that will go away as (the price of) LCD panels comes down," LeTocq said, referring to liquid crystal displays used for flat-panel monitors and notebooks.

Which is exactly what I've been saying

--lee

[unfaded]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>Thought I might as well post this link here too.

CNET Article on New iMacs?

Apparently the delay for delivery of all existing iMacs except the entry level iMac has suddenly increased from 1 day to 10 days. That means if you order an iMac DV, DV+ or SE now, you won't get it until after MacWorld...

The fact that the entry-levels are still available suggests a split line. Since the new machine seems to be a replacement for the Cube, maybe iMac stays iMac (CRT, same form factor) and DV, DV+ and SE become something else.</STRONG>

How do you know they just don't have excess amounts? It's plausable, you know.

[Troll]

Originally posted by unfaded:
<STRONG>

How do you know they just don't have excess amounts? It's plausable, you know.</STRONG>

Wut you talking 'bout unfaded man? If they had "excess amounts" of iMacs then they would be able to give it to you right away.

Are you suggesting that it's plausible that Apple has more orders for the high end iMacs than they can cope with? If so, I think there are enough people out there who know that Macworld takes place next week. If there's any time that supply of a machine outstrips demand, it's the week before a Macworld.

In short, I don't think it's plausible that Apple has more orders for high-end iMacs right now than it can cope with. I think they probably have four or five of the little suckers left marked "For the Apple Museum".

[M�lum]

Like I wrote some weeks ago: base model iMac reamains on sale for a very good price.
iMac replacement will be without monitor.
iBox?

[aaanorton]

http://www.macminute.com/lib/imac_010711.shtml