[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Well it's too late for me, I had to buy a powermac G4 because I couldn't stand the current iMac's miniscule display. But perhaps there is hope for the future? Here's a few dumb ideas I had whilst getting loaded tonight:

1. G4 iMacs. Apple must use G4s across the line. Why? Aside from the performance increases it would provide for OS X, G4 iMacs would increase the demand for altivec optimized software. If the majority of Macs sold were altivec accelerated (not the case now), then software developers would have more incentive to code for altivec. In fact a certain game developer (whose name I forget now, I think it was the president of Westgate interactive) said that they will NOT invest the time to code for altivec until the G4 makes its way into iMacs.

So ultimately, G4 iMacs would promote the widespread use of Altivec, and the "MHz myth" would be exposed more readily. This would position Apple very, very well in the marketplace. When hardcore gamers see altivec optimized games performing well on G4 iMacs, these same people will buy Macs when they're a little older, they will bring a positive mac attitude to the IT departments they get jobs at, ect, ect, . I guess I'm just stating the obvious, but sometimes it seems that Apple doesn't get it.

And with an LCD iMac, heat wouldn't be an issue, so Apple could use any G4 in the iMac.

2. Display choice. The ADC connector might have one benefit to Apple: they could use it to offer several different displays for the iMac. The new iMac could have a single form factor for the base, and a slot to plug in one of two displays for the iMac. Apple could offer a tiny 14" display for cheap, and a nice 16" display for a bit more. It would be a simple matter to mix and match different bases and monitors: so if someone didn't care about performance or HD space, but needed a large display (granny with bad eyes), they get the low end base and mix it with the large display. Or vice versa. It gives consumers choice without adding too much to Apple's production costs.

3. More upgradeability. The base unit could have a mobo with a standard sized AGP slot, so gamers would be happy (this seems to be the greatest complaint about imacs, that the video card isn't upgradeable). No PCI slots, just the AGP slot, or if Apple refuses on the slot, then at least give us at least one iMac base with a real video card. I'm talkin' GF2MX or Radeon, 32 MB vRAM for the 15" LCD.


That's it! A modular iMac with a single base station style, and two different LCD displays to snap into it. A lineup something like this:

iMac base unit:

Low end:
800 MHz G4, 133 MHz system bus
20 GB HD
CD-ROM
128 MB RAM

Midrange:
800 MHz G4, 133 MHz system bus
30 GB HD
CD-RW
128 MB RAM

High end:
800 MHz G4, 133 MHz system bus
60 GB HD
CD-RW/DVD-ROM
256 MB RAM

Displays, to be bundled with any base unit (and the display choice will determine the video card choice):

14" LCD display, 1024x768
ATI Radeon 32 MB vRAM

16" LCD display, 1024x768
Nvidia GF3, 64 MB vRAM


I have no idea how Apple would work out the pricing, but the following guidlines are cruicial to the new iMac's success:

Low end base + 14" display: $899
I think this is possible, since the iBook hits 999, but this iMac wouldn't have the extra cost of miniaturized components.

High end base + 16" display: $1599
People will pay a bit more for this gem!

I bet most people would opt for the smaller display, and only hard core gamers or graphic artist professionals would go for the larger display. This sort of lineup would ROCK! With Apple's industrial design, it would look beautiful too.

I know, I know, I'm asking for waaaay tooo much. But like I said I'm pretty ripped tonight so it's fun to think about it..

[vmarks]

Interesting thoughts, but you know, we already have a thread on this subject. you didn't have to start a new one.

and my iMac is already modular-

I put the motherboard in a rackmount case with removable drive bays. I can swap drives, use any monitor I like (SVGA) and have resolutions as high as 1600x1200.

Part of the problem that the iMac solves is, for a simple home user that doesn't want complications and wires running everywhere, the iMac is a simple, all in one design. If that doesn't provide enough options, than the G4 was the right decision for you all along.

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Part of the problem that the iMac solves is, for a simple home user that doesn't want complications and wires running everywhere, the iMac is a simple, all in one design. If that doesn't provide enough options, than the G4 was the right decision for you all along.

You don't understand the problem, do you? A G4 with display costs well over $2000. Apple is competing with similar systems for under $1000.

Myself and many other people I know balked at buying iMacs because of the display size, and also for the video cards. But for many who decide against the iMac, they do not give Apple another sale with a Powermac G4 because it's far too expensive! I bought a used Mac, so Apple got nothing from me, and I've spoken to employees at CompUSA who told me that it is very rare for someone to consider an iMac but balk at the screen or video card, and then bust out the cash for a PMG4. In fact what most people do is run over to the other side of the store where for $1500 you can buy an entire system w/17" display.

You Apple apologists will find excuses for ANYTHING, won't you?

Keep in mind that unlike you most consumers will not hack apart their iMacs for the functionality they need. You say in one breath how great the iMac is because it's easy to set up without many wires and such, and then in the next breath you're bragging about how much your iMac can do after you've fully customized it!

Obviously the iMac was not the right computer for you, if you had to go to so much trouble to "fix" what was missing from day one.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>


You Apple apologists will find excuses for ANYTHING, won't you?

</STRONG>

Translation: Apple needs to make a more tower-like iMac, and how dare you disagree with me.

Two words: Grow up. And find a way to disagree more agreeably, please.

For what it's worth, I've sent numerous emails to Jobs demanding a cheaper tower, so I don't think you can call moi an 'Apple aplogist' here

An expandable iMac with G4 and choice of monitor would certainly be very cool, but they'd never do it, since expandability, monitor choice, and G4 (or lack of same) is how they stratify their desktop product lines (and get to charge more for towers, of course).

The real problem is, obviously, $$$. The margins on the $1499 iMac are really good, so Apple is loathe to have a $1299-$1499 low-end tower in the same price range that would cannibalize high-margin high-end iMac sales for lower-margin low-end tower ones. That's an explanation, by the way, not a rationalization. I personally don't agree with the decision.

Apple, IMO, is being short-sighted here... having a cheaper tower might also expand the Apple market some too, which is something Apple needs. It's not entirely the zero-sum game they seem to think it is.

But let's not kid ourselves and think that its as easy as releasing an iMac that would cost more to make and that would kill tower sales...if Apple runs another loss, the 'Apple is DEAD!' drumbeat starts up in the press again, and we're all in deep doo-doo.

--lee

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[vmarks]

This is rich. Lee Veira responded for me, and quite well, but I feel like I oughta stick up for myself after a personal assault as well. (Thanks, Lee!)

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>

You don't understand the problem, do you? A G4 with display costs well over $2000. Apple is competing with similar systems for under $1000.
</STRONG>

Actually, I understand pretty well. My first Apple was a G4/400 Mystic, purchased in October 2000. I bought it with a non-Apple display, 19".

<STRONG>
Myself and many other people I know balked at buying iMacs because of the display size, and also for the video cards.</STRONG>

You speak for the masses.
Either you're Tron, who speaks for the users, or someone elected you- but it wasn't me.

Modern iMacs have 16mb video cards, that can drive external monitors at 1600x1200, millions of colors. They do OpenGL. If that doesn't meet your needs, fine. The iMac isn't for you, it's for schools and general purpose computing, not hardcore game freaks. But then, you knew this: hardcore game freaks spend their allowance on a new video card every month. Any machine with an integrated video card would be ruled out.

<STRONG> But for many who decide against the iMac, they do not give Apple another sale with a Powermac G4 because it's far too expensive!
</STRONG>

Expensive is relative to how much you budget, how you estimate your total cost of ownership, and what you believe is the price/performance ratio. For a Maserati owner, a Corvette is dirt-cheap, even the Z06 $50,000 models. Please note, I don't own a Maserati or a 'Vette, but I can appreciate that expensive is variable, and not some fixed truth that you have a monopoly on.

<STRONG>
I bought a used Mac, so Apple got nothing from me, and I've spoken to employees at CompUSA who told me that it is very rare for someone to consider an iMac but balk at the screen or video card, and then bust out the cash for a PMG4.
</STRONG>

This isn't clear: First, you're speaking with CompUSA employees. I am not impressed. I have only found two CompUSA employees who were Apple-knowledgeable, and they knew precious little about anything else, including the English language or salesmanship.

Second, and the real point, your sentence was unclear:
Is it very rare for a person to consider the iMac?
Is it very rare for a person to consider the iMac and balk at the screen or video card?
Or, is it very rare for a person to consider the iMac, balk at the screen and video card, and then after balking, go look at the G4, and make a purchase for the G4 on the spot.

I would say this, presuming you meant the latter: It's rare for a person to make any purchase at all after being dissuaded from the item they were originally considering. It's far more common for a person to go home and think some more, re-evaluate their budget, maybe come back another day, or purchase over the web. You've said nothing that was a revelation so far.

<STRONG>
In fact what most people do is run over to the other side of the store where for $1500 you can buy an entire system w/17" display.
</STRONG>

Sure, they'll look at other options. But, do they buy that same day, from the other side of the store? I'd bet not. Especially not if they were originally considering the iMac and came to the store to look at one.

Those $1500 machines aren't for game freaks either. They don't have the newest video card, they have a P4 (worse than pIII), they have a western digital (hard drive of 'worst quality ever') and they come with MSN (worst internet service ever). You're lucky if the sound and NIC cards aren't integrated on the motherboard to take up IRQ resources with lower quality chipsets.

<STRONG>

You Apple apologists will find excuses for ANYTHING, won't you?

Keep in mind that unlike you most consumers will not hack apart their iMacs for the functionality they need. You say in one breath how great the iMac is because it's easy to set up without many wires and such, and then in the next breath you're bragging about how much your iMac can do after you've fully customized it!

Obviously the iMac was not the right computer for you, if you had to go to so much trouble to "fix" what was missing from day one.</STRONG>

No, the G4 I bought first was the right computer for me.

After I had it, I no longer wanted to use my PC laptops and desktops, even though I use Linux on them (god it's faster than MS.)

The iMac is perfect for a home or small business user for light gaming, productivity, and general computer use. In it's original configuration, it meets the needs of many people. For those with greater needs, you can either use an external monitor on the iMac, or move up to a G4. Expense is an issue I've already addressed.

For my needs as a rugged, inexpensive, luggable computer to hack on (one of my hobbies- I can't program for the life of me, but I love to hack on hardware) it was perfect. I now have several small systems that are still simple (some with removable drives, some without), and I plan to donate a few to old folks who live in the community with my grandparents. The iMacs I used for this project were older ones that needed parts anyway, so they were perfect for my needs as well.

I think you have some nice ideas in your original post, but I don't think they're anything Apple would ever do, whether it made sense for them to, or not. I encourage you to start your own company and produce them to your heart's delight. I might even buy one from you if the product meets my needs. Heck, if you were serious, I might even help you prototype such a thing. Just don't make gross assumptions about me and declare me an apologist and hypocrite again.

Victor Marks
[email protected]

let's see here...

Past (when G3's were first introduced)
G3 = Pro users
Whatever was before G3 = home/general usage

Today
G4= Pro users (does the ad "Pro Create" mean anything anymore?)
G3 = home/general usage

Future
Some processor faster than G4 = Pro
G4 = home/general usage

Right now, general computer users (people that don't make intense movie graphics or require the speed to do billions of calculation per second) are moving to the g4 because they are fast are very expandable. We have had the G4 chip for a long time now, eventually it will be replaced and the G4 chip will move to the home and general computer users.

It's that easy, people.

[Face Ache]

No, no, no.

The difference between the iMac and the Tower isn't the G3/G4 thing. And it isn't about screen size.

It's about upgradeability.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. Some people will want a bigger monitor and they will pay for it.

But on the whole Apple's market is broken up into "this machine will do me nicely thank you" and "what can I do to it in the future". I think most people would aspire to a tower the second time around, rather than another iMac, wouldn't they?

So any new models will be split accordingly - based on upgradeability. Towers; yes, iMacs; no.

I would imagine they will all be G4's.

BTW: I have dibs on the "snap-on" LCD idea . It's mine and it's months old. Only in my plan they use the current LCD screen plastics, modify the stand and thus reduce inventory further. I was sober when I thought of that.

I would NEVER post if I was pissed (drunk).

May I suggest other drugs for enlightenment....

[lee vieira]

C'mon now, vmarks. While I agree that the guy took a cheap shot at you, he DOES make some valid points that deserve to be viewed with less cynicism that you displayed in your reply.

Let's face it-- while the MacOS is superior, it is pretty nice to walk into a store and be able to buy an expandable desktop computer with your choice of monitor for well under $1,500 (and I'm not talking a crappy eMachines system either). With the current Apple line, you can't do that.

Technically speaking, Apple could definitely make a cheaper tower. That 733MHz 7450 G4 they have in the low end tower goes for something like $370 from Moto, if I remember correctly. But a 550MHz 7410 G4 (what they had in the last tower rev, but downclocked slightly) goes for $235. That's $135 less right there, and very close to $200 if you consider the dealer and Apple margins that are stacked on top of it. No doubt other things could be intelligently down spec'd as well.

The problem, though, as I said earlier, is that a cheap, good-value, low-margin tower might cannibalize high-margin iMac 'SE' sales. Apple's really addicted to the butterfat on those babies, and I guess they need to be, especially in this time of economic downturn

So a cheaper tower doesn't work in terms of Apple's 'bottom line' here.

But, geez, doesn't that screw marketshare a little bit? There are people with $1500 to spend, but who DON'T want an iMac. Perhaps its a not a huge group, but with Apple's current marketshare woes, I don't think they're in a position to say no to any significant group of customers.

There is, however, a bright spot on the horizon that might solve this situation: the LCD iMac.

An LCD iMac, even if introduced at only the $1299 and $1499 pricepoints (which is what I think they'll do, if they're smart; if they ask, say, $1499 and $1799 or something, I'll just sigh and shake my head), would, necessarily, have LOWER margins than the current middle and top iMacs, due to the expense of the LCD component.

Apple would hope to make the lower iMac margins back with higher sales volume, which I think a very well-executed LCD iMac could manage. But a by-product of this strategy is that the tower line is free to go lower in price.

After all, if the top iMacs are no longer providing big, fat margins, but rather margins that are more comparable to what a true low-end tower would provide, why not make the low-end tower and provide more consumer choice? And get more marketshare as well?

I can only hope events play out this way.

-- lee

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>C'mon now, vmarks. While I agree that the guy took a cheap shot at you, he DOES make some valid points that deserve to be viewed with less cynicism that you displayed in your reply.
</STRONG>

You're right, and I ought to have let it stand with your first reply. I didn't need to come back as hard as I did. Rather than edit my post above, I'll put my mea culpa here.

I agree that he made several valid points- which is why I still say- he oughta start his own company and market these things. I -seriously- would work on prototyping one.

<STRONG>
Let's face it-- while the MacOS is superior, it is pretty nice to walk into a store and be able to buy an expandable desktop computer with your choice of monitor for well under $1,500 (and I'm not talking a crappy eMachines system either). With the current Apple line, you can't do that.

</STRONG>

Well, sort of. This comes down to what you believe is a quality desktop machine. Everyone derides eMachines, and they're an easy target. What most folks overlook is how close Compaq, and HP products sold alongside eMachines have in common with eMachines- low quality POS. Gateway and Dell are marginally, if at all, better. The only two worth looking at as a sound base for upgrading on are Sony and IBM (NetVista, more so than Aptiva.) By the time you look at these two, you're quickly getting back to the same price range Apple operates in.

Sony and IBM machines aren't outfitted as game machines from the start, but they are a more solid platform for upgrading on, quality-wise. Besides, gamers upgrade every accessory component anyways based on what the popular sound/graphics/etc. card is this month.

Once you agree we've reached the equivalent price range, then you're back to talking about the more expensive minitower, where you can upgrade to the SB card and nVidia/ATI/whatever-you-please.

I agree with you entirely about the niceties of a lower price tower option, and that it's unlikely it'll happen due to eating into iMac SE sales. The prices you bring up are pretty similar to the prices for x86 processors, only a little less affordable because there isn't as many folks assembling their own PPC boxes as there are x86 assemblers, and there aren't as many processor lines for desktop machines.

re: your comments about marketshare and the Apple product offerings for folks who have $1500 and don't want the iMac:
You're right, but you and I don't work at Apple (or at least, I don't.)
The product Matrix is a work in progress, and I don't think we've seen the last of changes to it.


Until events play out, I'm going to continue hacking away on the iMac hardware I have on hand, and we'll see that they introduce. Sony and IBM both have a nice LCD screen that mounts on the wall or on it's stand. I think I'll use one of those in conjunction with my slimcase iMacs. Instant LCD iMac.

Victor Marks
[email protected]

[gumby5647]

personally, i would trim the iMac line down to
two.

Home and School
999.00 Platinum Ice (new color) or Graphite
133Mhz bus
533Mhz G4
128MB RAM
40GB HD
16MB ATI Rage Ultra
choice of optical drive: CD-RW or for 50.00 less, CD or DVD ROM


Small Business and Techno-geek
1,399.00 Platinum Ice or Graphite
133Mhz bus
733Mhz G4
256MB RAM
60GB Hard Drive
32Geforce 2MX
RCA Video jack, for watching TV, VCR, Etc.
Choice of Optical drive: Combo (standard) or for 50.00 less CD-RW or for 100.00 less a plain CD or DVD ROM

Personally, i could care less about the screen....
maybe they could use the old pismo's 14.1" LCD

Apple, it is time for the G4 iMac!!!

[gto47]

Overclocked Homo Sapien: That computer you're dreaming of already exists (or existed) It's called the G4 cube. It was built for the exact market nich that your are talking about. Granted, it doesn't have the graphics card expandability, or the 133mhz bus, but it's pretty close otherwise. We all know this product failed. Had it thrived, those capabilities may have been matched. You say that you wish there was an alternative to buying a g4 or an imac. ... That's what apple thought when they developed the machine. The logic seems almost fool proof. But it's not. People, as we all observed preferfed to pay the extra few hundred bucks to get a real g4. It may have sold better, had apple put a lower price (1299) on it earlier, or sold it with a monitor included at a low cost, as you suggested. Apple can't afford another G4 Cube,or to lose their number one selling computer. While we would all love to have the features you described in your imac, i don't think these idea's feasable for Apple's Imac. Apple's imac is supposed to be an inexpensive and simple. It's supposed to appeal to all audiences, young, as well as old, and have the capability to apply itself to numerous purpuses, whithout having to apply a large price tag. To quote the marketing ideas of the nissan exterra, "It's everything you need, and nothing you don't". The problem with that is the word YOU in that sentence. The you, or market that both of these companies are responding to is that who wants more than they pay for. They want something that can do everything everyone else's product can do, but at a lesser cost. What imac users ask for is something that can do the same thing g4s can do, but at a fraction of the cost. I mean let's face it, THERE'S NOTHING THE IMAC CAN'T DO THAT THE G4 CAN. Perhaps the imac can't do it as well, or be upgraded to do it as well, but that's what the imac market is. You have to remember, that apple builds computers for a variety of uses, and they sell different computers for different people. If the imac doesn't suit you, then that's what the rest of their machines are for. We have to remember that apple consistently has to apply it self to the types of users that want to buy their computers. It has to do this to stay afloat. No matter how much they say their computers should be applied to the individual, this cannot be believed. For, apple only currently makes four models. That's not enough to suit everyone, but they have found that with a certain knowledge of their buyers, that they cn thrive, and have the means to make computers that are both astonishing cosmetically and statistically. Five years ago, apple's problem was that they were unable to sell computers to more than one market nich. There really are only two market niches, the people willing to spend 2G+ and those who want to spend between799 and 1500. Apple has finally found their place in both of these niches, and abandoning either of them could be extremely dangerous. As for those "comparable systems" (pc i'm assuming), they're not really comparable. Mac users know that they're computers aren't going to be shot in two years. I would venture to say that macs really have twice the life of pcs. Your ideas are good, however. Trying to apply apple to the market outside of the circle they're in is a great idea. But a lot more thought has to be put into who is going to be buying these computers. A new imac sounds great to the consumer, but to the people at apple, it's scary as hell. The imac has led apple to it's rise, and quite frankly, is it could ultimately lead to the demise of apple. We have to remember, that apple, just like every other company has to consider the market before they build a product. You, as well as everyone else on this forum have come forth with excellent ideas for the design of the imac, because you're looking foreward to seeing a new product on computer store shelves, and perhaps even on your desktop. But before apple wants engineers a computer, they're going to need to find a desktop to put it on.

[gumby5647]

actually....

without additional hardware....(IE, straight out of the box)
the iMac can not do:
1. Burn DVD's
2. Write to Zip disks (Provided your G4 came with a zip drive)
3. Encode DVD's

[gto47]

without additional hardware....(IE, straight out of the box)
the iMac can not do:
1. Burn DVD's
2. Write to Zip disks (Provided your G4 came with a zip drive)
3. Encode DVD's [/B]

{please note that the bottom &lt;1699&gt; g4 can do none of these things}

1. granted, but this can be done through a firewire drive for around $500 (less than getting one in the g4), obviously
2. Also can be done externally (probably for less than paying for one installed in the g4.) Also, why do you want this if you have cdrw?
3.Refer to number one. This software comes with these drives i would think.

These are pretty small things. I was expecting some technical garble about altivec or something. Thanks for sparing me the jibber jabber.

[CityGuy2003]

ok, i think we should rule out any changes such as g4 to the imac until the g5 comes out...whenever it is..probably not till next MYNY at the earliest...
anyway...when that does happen this is how apple should have their lineup:

Pro Towers:
G5
ram, hard drive, etc to match
three display options (15, 17, 22 inch LCDs)
cost: 2000-3000

iMac Line:
G4
ram, hard drive, etc to match
two displays (built in) (14, 16 inch LCDs)
cost: 1000-2000

Low End Line:
G3
basic amounts of ram, hard drive, etc to match
three display options (15, 17 inch CRTs and 15 inch LCDs)
cost: sub-900

this low end line would be expandable, and could help gain apple enterprise market share by giving large corporate customers, a very basic workstation with very basic capabilites very cheap

by this time apple will hopefully have finally developed a good line of servers based on either g4 or g5...rackmount etc...

this could let apple really leap into the enterprise market

---
as i said...i dont want this to happen next week...lets be realistic here...apple just need to stay profitable until they can make this massive leap

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

That computer you're dreaming of already exists (or existed) It's called the G4 cube.

Nonsense. The G4 cube was overpriced.

If Apple had introduced a Cube priced at around $999, it would have been an excellent choice for people who didn't like the iMac's screen size. Instead Apple priced the cube so that it wouldn't compete with the iMac. What Apple failed to consider is that the cube complimented the iMac rather well. Some people dig the small screen and all in one design, and they buy iMacs. If someone wants a larger display, but doesn't want to fork out the cash for a totally expandable tower, then the cube would have worked.

The problem is that the headless iMac (cube) cost MORE than the iMac! What the hell...a product w/o display should cost less than an iMac, not more. That was a dumb move.

Anyways, a few of you picked apart my thread but you still don't understand the problem. I'll repeat it again, listen up this time:

Apple doesn't offer a computer system with a screen larger than 15" (13.8" viewable) for under ~$2100. OTOH, a Wintel system w/17" screen can be found for under $1000. This is the crux of the problem.

Saying "you need to buy a powermac tower", or "you get what you pay for" doesn't address the problem. The market determins value, and right now the imac is not a value. I'm willing to pay more for the Mac OS, but not thousands more!

The problem lies with Apple's product line. Apple needs either several iMac models with different screen sizes (a feasable solution if they use LCDs with ADC plug in style connectors), or they need to sell a reletively inexpensive tower with some expandability but not as much as the PMG4s (like the cube, but price it accordingly).

And I just wanted to add:

Expensive is relative to how much you budget, how you estimate your total cost of ownership, and what you believe is the price/performance ratio. For a Maserati owner, a Corvette is dirt-cheap, even the Z06 $50,000 models. Please note, I don't own a Maserati or a 'Vette, but I can appreciate that expensive is variable, and not some fixed truth that you have a monopoly on.

This is just wanking off. Car comparisons are weak and cliche, any twit can see that most of Apple's desktop computers are overpriced. If Mac really were like "mercedes benz" cars, then they would have superior components that delivered better performance than the competition. A $1500 iMac w/ 15" display and an old motherboard with a cheezy GPU chipset is not superior hardware, it's not even competitive hardware. And that nonesense about total cost of ownership...give me a break. Did you just pull that out of your ***? Where are the numbers for this? This was true LONG AGO, but current Macs use the same parts and components as any midrange to high end wintel box.

Anyways, if Apple is interested in boosting market share, then they need to address some of the problems that consumers have with their computers.

People don't like:
The iMac's tiny screen.
The iMac's total lack of upgradeability.
The fact that comparably priced wintel systems offer much, much more than an iMac does.

These are FACTS, you can blather on about how CompUSA salesmen don't know anything about customers, or you can call me Tron, but for most people, these complaints enter their minds when they look at an iMac. If you own an iMac and don't care, then that's great, it means you are less demanding and thus you will save money in the long run. But realize that you don't shop like other consumers.

[long time mac user]

Could we get an LCIII type iMac that includes the current speakers and no fan? I think this would solve many problems. I didn't get a cube as much because of the speakers being detached as anything else. I don't want the heat and noise of the towers. A fully packaged model, essentially the bottom half of the current iMac, would be great. There is no great reason to have the power supply sit on the ground.

I personally want to set that beautiful 17" LCD on top. Some may want a 15" LCD, others may just want a CRT to save money.

Price of LCII type iMac - $999 with 700mhz G3, 20 gig drive, CDRW and a good replacable video card. Higher prices for more mhz and hard drive size. $1199 gets 800mhz and 40 gig drive.

Keep the all in one iMac at current prices for those who need all-in one convenience.

I suspect Apple will go with an all-in one LCD, so I hope they bring back the Cube in some incarnation.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
<STRONG>

This is just wanking off. Car comparisons are weak and cliche, any twit can see that most of Apple's desktop computers are overpriced. If Mac really were like "mercedes benz" cars, then they would have superior components that delivered better performance than the competition. A $1500 iMac w/ 15" display and an old motherboard with a cheezy GPU chipset is not superior hardware, it's not even competitive hardware. And that nonesense about total cost of ownership...give me a break. Did you just pull that out of your ***? Where are the numbers for this? This was true LONG AGO, but current Macs use the same parts and components as any midrange to high end wintel box.

</STRONG>

I agree that an aging video display chip is not competitive hardware, but the motherboard design holds up. It may not have the fastest bus speed, but it's of higher quality than the Intel boards that had to be recalled. (and better than the ones they didn't recall, too.)

Expensive is relative, whether you like it or not. What's expensive for you isn't expensive for someone else.

TCO is a valid thing to bring up. Just because other people have tried to twist it or invalidate it, doesn't make it not worth mentioning. In its simplest form, it answers the question:

"How much does this thing cost me now, and how much is it gonna cost me to keep it useful for the next (x) number of years?"

In Windows machines, you have to take into account upgrading as well as maintaining shoddy parts. In the Macintosh world, while parts still fail, they do at a lower rate. Same parts in PCs and Macs you say? No. Same specification for interface, but Macs don't use an Intel or VIA northbridge-southbridge combination, Macs don't use a $25 budget power supply with a sleeve bearing fan (prone to failure) that puts out 11.5 volts instead of 12. Macs don't ship with lower quality memory. Macs don't use SMC or WinBond chips that don't always meet heat specifications. Macs use similar methods of interconnect, but use parts manufactured to a higher standard. They have a longer useable lifetime, and therefore, a lower cost of ownership.

Some PC companies, the ones that are the most expensive (sony, IBM) use higher quality parts, too. IBM has fabrication plants. They test the parts they buy to see if they're up to standard. For years, there were two sets of Rockwell modem chipsets on the market- the one that Rockwell introduced first, and then the version 2, that was fixed when IBM refused to use it as an OEM part due to the bugs in the chip. IBM fixes chip bugs during the course of preparing to fabricate chips. Had IBM been licensed to fabricate the Motorola G4, chip speeds would have not been stuck at 400mhz~ for so long (Three generations of G4/400, Yikes! Sawtooth, and Mystic).

The parts aren't the same from Macs to PCs, and they aren't even the same in expensive PCs to cheap PCs. There is a difference, and price is one of the ways you can most times (not always) tell.

In Closing
I agree, there's room for a product like you describe in the Mac lineup. I I'm not sure that what you describe is an iMac replacement- you're trading the simplicity for upgradeability. If it's about screen size, you can use a 6mb rage IIc and get 1600x1200 at millions of colors, so the chip isn't a limitation for graphics pros, the screen is. If it's about upgradeability, then the video card must be a standard (not a cube style where you have to change the port mounting plate) AGP card, because that's the only way gamers will even consider it.


Thanks

Victor Marks

Here's my ideas for the new iMac Part Deux:

800-900 MHz IBM G3
133 MHz bus
4X AGP
FireWire 2
USB 2
15" LCD w/1600x1200
GeForce2 MX (possible Radeon 7500, but most likely not for Macs)
slot-loading CD-RW, DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive choices
OS 10.1/9.2
$1000-$1400

No G4. Give it a blazin fast G3, G3s are cheap and can still offer performance when the MHz is cranked up. Probably something in the 800s would be highest considering the top PMG4 is 867 MHz. 10.1 will make OS X run nice.

Couple these specs with a stunning futuristic design ala PBG4 or the iBook, and voila! Apple has a hit.

Start the revolution all over again.