[Cobra]

Oh, and colors are OUT!

They have ran their course. Too much of an inventory nightmare as well.

Sure, they did Apple well for a couple but the fad is over and done.

I can't even believe it was even brought up.

Cobra

[Macintosh]

Colors may be out but what is in is ruggedness and durability. I have heard a lot of people comment on how bad LCD iMacs would be for kids in school,ok...? If any company can make something fragile tough,big to small,slow to fast,it is most definitely APPLE. I can see Jonathan Ive in a QT video saying, "we wanted to make this new iMac unreasonably durable yet be able to sport an LCD screen,an LCD that is really georgious,somewhat outrageous."

Watch and be amazed.

[georgius]

Okay...well, I seem to be under attack now...Lee, move over...I�m the new controversial one in town.

zigzag:I�ve lived over here for a while...so I have picked up some of the "idioms"...but I�m still American.

Cobra:

Why not have a GeForce 2 MX in the iMac. Lets face it. The Rage 128 is WAY out of date. Hell, the damn thing in intro'd in the B&W G3 towers in Jan. 1999. Came out on the PC in August of 1998 I believe. Thats close to 3 YEARS ago.

Hell, thats even worse that where we are at on the G4 processor speeds. A GeForce MX 2 chip ain't that much now. Heck, its even getting a bit long-in-the-tooth.

Yeah, the iMac Classic specs are similar to what there is now but they are cheaper.

But, it looks like you and Lee are content with your 15" CRT screens so I won't argue the point.

Why no GeForce? Because your average Joe Schmoe Bloggs doesn�t know what the difference is between an ATi Rage 128 Pro and a GeForce 2. They probably don�t have a clue what "frame rates" are. Have the GeForce as a build to order option...but not as a standard part of the iMac. A Rage 128 is adequate enough for an iMac�s user...playing Bugdom, Cro Mag Rally, Nanosaur...even Quake III, are all playable with the Rage. So...3 years old? So what? It�s still useable. And cheap. I play Quake on it...and its fine for me. And may I point out that I push my iMac to the limit of it�s capabilities hardware. If you�re a games freak, go buy a G4 with a 22-inch Cinema Display with a GeForce 3. But the iMac isn�t designed for hardcore gamers.

IT IS DESIGNED FOR THE CONSUMER AND FIRST TIME BUYER

And most of you seem to forget that. Okay?

And as for CRT vs LCD. I�m pro LCD all the way. Why do you think I prefer a CRT? I have no clue whatsoever where you got that idea from.

Macintosh & Cobra: Colors are...NOT OUT! I love the funky styling and coloring of my iMac. The colors are what set the iMac apart form the rest of the home computer market. White, silver and beige are all very nice, but they make your home look like a badly funded office in the old USSR, used by the now defunct KGB. Colors are cool, hip, and happening. Which is better, beige or Bondi blue? Oatmeal or orange? Sand or Strawberry?

And Cobra...color plates are much less of an inventory issue than separate screen styles, (LCD or CRT), hard drive specifications, different RAM amounts, and various breeds of graphics cards, all suggested by you.

Happy now?



Play it cool

At this point, I don't care if new iMac will have CRT/LCD or what it might cost. My main question is when will it be out ? All my current machines are PC and I have been holding off on iBook to see what new iMac will be.

The purpose for my new iMac/iBook purchases are

• For my 3 year old son
• Use it as multimedia station for editing home videos and archival to a CD

By the way, didn't Steve recently announced that Apple will be an all LCD company - This makes me beleive that the new iMac will be an LCD box. The pricing of all the components has really gone down and I really feel that Apple can produce the LCD iMacs with same price-points as their current models.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by georgius:
<STRONG>If you�re a games freak, go buy a G4 with a 22-inch Cinema Display with a GeForce 3. But the iMac isn�t designed for hardcore gamers. </STRONG>

Yeah, except that most gamers don't have the $5000 or $6000 that would cost. You said yourself the iMac is for consumers. Consumers = gamers. Pro desktops = corporate users, with nameless, faceless business credit cards and purchasing accounts. Apple needs a better video option in at least one of their iMacs if they are at all serious about games.

<STRONG>Macintosh & Cobra: Colors are...NOT OUT! I love the funky styling and coloring of my iMac. </STRONG>

What you love and what is out may be very different. Colors are out. Not a single new product that Apple has come out with in 2 years has had colors - Cube, new PowerBook, new iBook. They even used to have colorful pro desktops (B&W G3, the god-awful ugly thing I'm typing on right now), but quickly moved to graphite around the same time.

Damn, boy, I can tell you're English.

Can Apple make an iMac with 15 inch LCD pannel for current prices?


What should a nice All-in-One computer include?

How about:
Memory - 128MB SDRAM
Hard Drive - 30.0 GB Ultra ATA
DVD-ROM - 12X MAX DVD-ROM
Floppy drive - 1.44MB Floppy
Graphics - ATI XPert 2000 Pro 4X AGP w/ 32MB
Modem - 56K v.90
Sound - 16-Bit Stereo
Sound Speakers - Flat Panel + Subwoofer
Keyboard - Logitech Wireless Keyboard
Mouse - 2 button High Resolution
Cable ready TV Tuner w/ FM Radio Tuner + remote + plug-in for game
consoles
Built-In High Quality 15" LCD Monitor
Easily Upgradable w/Standard Components
2 USB ports
ISO 9002 certification
One year Toll Free Support
One year Parts and Labor Warranty

How much should it cost?
How about US $1200?

Can it be done? Of course.

See http://www.accessmicro.com/Doc/HDEPCINTEGRA.php3&gt;

Will Apple? Only if they are smart and want to save their butts.

[Cobra]

But the iMac isn�t designed for hardcore gamers

You said that again.

The games market is fairly important. Apple themselves are pushing to get more games on the Mac. I think its great.

But, wouldn't it be of Apples benefit that a more powerful graphics chip be in the iMac? It would let the game developers know that they are serious. Guess I am just thing stupidly here.

As for colors and what you mentioned about different spec'd machines. Oh yes. I realize that there are currently different spec'd iMacs. But do you remember the 266 MHZ iMacs introduced in early 1999? All machines were the same. Only the colors were different. Thats and inventory nightmare. Apple did pretty well with it but it is risky.

I still say colors are done. Yes, all computers have colr. Hell, even beige is a "color". I like the current graphite, silver, clear, and whites. The best selling iMacs were the "graphite" iMac SE's. The costliest model.

But hell. Lets just rehash the old one 15" CRT's again.We can milk them babies out for another 2 years at least. Look forward to new patterns of "LSD Overdose" and "Wild Azalea". Would love to see another quarterly loss again. What the hell was I even thinking?

Cobra

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by &lt;House&gt;:
<STRONG>Can Apple make an iMac with 15 inch LCD pannel for current prices?


What should a nice All-in-One computer include?

How about:
Memory - 128MB SDRAM
Hard Drive - 30.0 GB Ultra ATA
DVD-ROM - 12X MAX DVD-ROM
Floppy drive - 1.44MB Floppy
Graphics - ATI XPert 2000 Pro 4X AGP w/ 32MB
Modem - 56K v.90
Sound - 16-Bit Stereo
Sound Speakers - Flat Panel + Subwoofer
Keyboard - Logitech Wireless Keyboard
Mouse - 2 button High Resolution
Cable ready TV Tuner w/ FM Radio Tuner + remote + plug-in for game
consoles
Built-In High Quality 15" LCD Monitor
Easily Upgradable w/Standard Components
2 USB ports
ISO 9002 certification
One year Toll Free Support
One year Parts and Labor Warranty

How much should it cost?
How about US $1200?

Can it be done? Of course.

See http://www.accessmicro.com/Doc/HDEPCINTEGRA.php3&gt;

</STRONG>

Hmmm...so?

IBM has had an LCD all-in-one out for awhile at nearly the same price. And unlike yours, it doesn't rely on a $200 mail-in rebate to bring its price down to the $1200-range. Finally, yours lacks Firewire.

In any case, even after mail-in rebate, your is still $300 above the current low-end iMac. So, as I've repeated ad nauseum, Apple would have no sub-$1k desktop product anymore if it went this route. Apple needs to go smaller on the LCD, or intro a new low-price desktop to fill the void an LCD iMac would create in the lineup.

*waits for everyone to say I'm anti-LCD again*

--lee

[Nimisys]

lee y0ur anti-LCD.... Haha i was the first to say it

but your right unless apple decides to give up their margins (which will NEVER happen) there won't be any sub 1k mac with an LCD.

i think the iMac won't get its update for 6 months when LCD's might be a bit more affordable...

I think that the cube might return (or another simialr machine) excepet that it comes with the 15" LCD... it fits the price range and supports the no more CRT sales claim.

let me see if i could even out together an LCD PC for under 1k...

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>lee y0ur anti-LCD.... Haha i was the first to say it

</STRONG>

*aaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!*

Just kidding

--lee

[Nimisys]

as for whether it could be done period... either platform side for under 1k... i think it could be, but barely...

part spec mfg price notes
Mobo KM133 MSI 80 Video
CPU 750 duron AMD 50 Boxed
Ram 256mb Generic 17 Pc133
Video Savage4 Internal 0
Sound PCAudio Creative 0
HDD 40gig Samsung 77
ComboDrive 8x8x4x32 Samsung 125
Modem 56k v.92 Zoom 30
NIC 10/100 SamSung 5
Speakers 120-200watt generic 10
OS Win2k M$ 135
Keyboard 104 Button generic 10 PS2
Mouse Wheel mouse M$ 28 Optical
Case ATX 300W Generic 25
Firewire 3port Lucent 20
Monitor 15" LCD Generic 325

Total 937
Markup of 10% 1030.7

prices all from Pricewatch...total cost doesn't include shipping cost from sellers, but i negate that with the bulk discount OEMs would recieve... also i didn't touch the OS cost as it may opr may not be present...it would cover some other hidden internal costs perhaps...

Specs aren't tooo bad for a consumer machine, but well below my acvcepted levels.

it all shows that the type machine you guys are suggesting as an iMac is barely possible for PC makers... and i do mean barely. not till that LCD drops another 100$ might it be feisable for the iMAc, but till then.

See anywholes in it or costs that might need to be removed go ahead and point them out, but the idea is the same, if the lower cost PC's can't do it, then how does the usually more expensive Apple suppose to be able tyo manage it?


sorry for the way the specs, costs are listed, but UBB isn't as code friendly as VBB AND even worse it has managed to add color and formating that was present b4 hand that it thought it needed... BAstards.

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Nimisys ]

The problem I see with every suggestion offered here and elsewhere is the RAM. 128 is not enough, If I get an iMac with 128 in it, I am going to end up with a 128MB DIMM sitting on a shelf somewhere. If there were four RAM slots, then it would not be such a big deal, but with only two RAM slots and 512MB PC133 DIMMS going for USD ~90 street, the absolte minimum should be 512MB in any computer offered by any manufacturer (possibly excluding RAMBUS memory)

I'm sure that in bulk, Apple could get 512MB DIMMS for USD 75 easily, and even with high margins, that adds no more than USD 50 to the price.

Laurence at teleport.com

[zigzag]

I think that everyone who has thought it through pretty much agrees that an iMac with a good 14" screen probably can't be done for under $1000. If we use the current iMac, iBook2 and Cube as hardware and pricing benchmarks, somewhere between $1099-$1299 seems more likely for a bare-bones model. The real question, as lee has emphasized, is whether Apple is willing to give up the sub-$1000 market to do this. The more I think about it, the more plausible a cheap "Classic iMac" (along with a new, more expensive LCD model) seems in order to satisfy the sub-$1000 market. But then again, it's now being reported that iMacs have been EOL'd in Europe. Of course, this could mean any number of things. Place your bets.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by &lt;Laurence921&gt;:
<STRONG>The problem I see with every suggestion offered here and elsewhere is the RAM. 128 is not enough, If I get an iMac with 128 in it, I am going to end up with a 128MB DIMM sitting on a shelf somewhere. If there were four RAM slots, then it would not be such a big deal, but with only two RAM slots and 512MB PC133 DIMMS going for USD ~90 street, the absolte minimum should be 512MB in any computer offered by any manufacturer (possibly excluding RAMBUS memory)

I'm sure that in bulk, Apple could get 512MB DIMMS for USD 75 easily, and even with high margins, that adds no more than USD 50 to the price.

Laurence at teleport.com</STRONG>

i fully agree the standard computer should have 256mb standard with the higher end enthusiasts at 512mb... oh and you can get generic 512mb sticks for 47$ on pricewatch now... so your right memory shouldn't be a problem in todays machines anymore. at least 256mbs of it

Originally posted by &lt;House&gt;:
<STRONG>Can Apple make an iMac with 15 inch LCD pannel for current prices?


What should a nice All-in-One computer include?

How about:
Memory - 128MB SDRAM
Hard Drive - 30.0 GB Ultra ATA
DVD-ROM - 12X MAX DVD-ROM
Floppy drive - 1.44MB Floppy
Graphics - ATI XPert 2000 Pro 4X AGP w/ 32MB
Modem - 56K v.90
Sound - 16-Bit Stereo
Sound Speakers - Flat Panel + Subwoofer
Keyboard - Logitech Wireless Keyboard
Mouse - 2 button High Resolution
Cable ready TV Tuner w/ FM Radio Tuner + remote + plug-in for game
consoles
Built-In High Quality 15" LCD Monitor
Easily Upgradable w/Standard Components
2 USB ports
ISO 9002 certification
One year Toll Free Support
One year Parts and Labor Warranty

</STRONG>

Floppy drive Are you joking? Who ever uses a floppy disk?? You can't even store this thread on a floppy disk!! 1.44MB! Puleese! Is this a PC user in our midsts?

16 bit stereo sound with separate speakers and a subwoofer! Pfaa! I want it all in one. Separate speakers adds at least one more step to the iMac's legendary 4 picture setup guide. Who wants to have speakers lying around on the desk?

Why have two mouse buttons when you only need one? I suppose we should get one of those crappy wheels that can't work out which window is in focus too? Bad interfaces require M$ crappy mice. Wireless would be nice though.

TV Tuner - Nice idea for a digital hub, but you need a better software solution than exists on any PC at the moment to make this feature user-friendly and integrated. Also, the screen is a bit small for watching TV.

2 USB ports? I'd say 4 is a minimum these days. And at least 2 firewire ports. Preferably on the front of the box, so we don't have to dig around the side or the back to find them.

DVD - I'd take CD-RW above DVD. If you must have DVD then it has to be a hybrid IMHO.

Upgradeable? You got friggin USB ports and if you get firewire too, you can upgrade to your heart's content. It's a consumer machine which has a shelf life of about 15 months. No need to be able to upgrade anything that can't be plugged into one of the ports.

[Troll]

Two years ago this time, colour and the internet were the big reasons people were buying iMacs. Today, most people (in Europe anyway) are buying iMacs for iMovie and Firewire. Sure they look cool too, but you can't get a software/hardware package for making movies with a DV Handycam in the PC market that comes close to an iMac ... yet! If Apple can make editing digital photographs as simple, they will tap a market that's even bigger than DV handycam owners.

The current iMac is a bit out of it's depth when marketed as a digital hub. iMovie is right on target, iTunes needs work and there is no "iPic" yet. They need more of this type of application. I like the idea of the iBook ad, but my iMac isn't quite as connected as that ad makes out.

The new iMac needs to be focussed on what it can do to make life fun. PC's are the things people use at work. They're boring, beige boxes that do word processing and flow charts and time recording. The iMac should be your friend.

My concern with a flat screen, no colours and the specs you guys are talking about is that iMac become too industrial. The shape of a flat screen alone makes it less huggable (how many people don't run their hands along the curve of your iMac when they see it? When the performance is to die for, it makes it a workhorse, powerstation, and when you take the colours away, the machine starts to say "hospital" rather than "pal". IMHO, the iBook screams "hospital".

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Troll ]

[JimiMac]

Well, I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but....

It seems the way prices are running on flat screens, there definitely is room for an iMac with a 14-15" flat screen to start at $999. I mean, the flat screen alone is now down to $599. With the iBook starting at a price point of $1299, $999 for an iMac sounds right. The best and most believable designs I've seen are the ones that show the new iMac looking similar to the current flat screen displays, but with speakers built into the feet and a CD-ROM/DVD slot located underneath the screen. I have a feeling from the back you'll see a base that looks similar to the cube, hence the demise of the stand alone cube. It might be possible that we will get a CD slot on the side of the display, with all the internal hardware placed behind the display making it look more like just a thicker version of a regular LCD display. This layout would be preferable, and really stunning, though it seems this makes the new iMac really just a bigger screen iBook, without a battery and that stands up like an easel. From the designs I've seen, it could be exciting to see a new iMac that looks so sleek and yet familiar. It will makes us smile in the future to see how bulky an iMac used to be. The only arguement I have for keeping my old iMac is just to still have a CRT tube display to edit photos on when working in Photoshop. I still don't think you can get a true feeling of final contrast and color settings when working with images on an LCD screen, but then maybe most iMac type users don't have this concern. You can't argue though, it will be beautiful!

[tomatohead]

I just read most of this terribly long thread and I apologize in advance if my post is a little long or makes some people a little defensive.

The reason I buy Apple computers is not because of the individual items in the spec sheet, but specifically because I know that because the computer is an Apple, I don't have to worry about the individual items in the spec sheet. I know I'm either buying a very well balanced, durable, unique looking and uniquely capable computer that won't let me down.

Contrast this with the PC world where a computer is nothing more than the spec sheet and all competition is based on who can assemble the best specs at the lowest price. If you want raw specs at the best price, Apple is out of the question - it's not what they do.

The ironic part is that despite the fact that Apple doesn't sell computers with the best raw specs at any given time, the useable life of any Apple I've owned is at least twice that of a comparable PC - mostly because Microsoft releases a new version of windows or office each year that require PC users to throw away their old system.

Anyhow, I think that to second guess Apple here in this forum is inappropriate because we know that they will not release a new computer incapable of running modern software well.

[BrunoBruin]

What you love and what is out may be very different. Colors are out. Not a single new product that Apple has come out with in 2 years has had colors - Cube, new PowerBook, new iBook.

True, but almost every rumor about revisions to the iBook and TiBook involves a choice of colors. Colored plastics for the iBook and a choice of metal finishes for the Ti.

I'd be really surprised if a new iMac did not come in a choice of colors -- it's now one of the signatures of the line. And Apple made such a big deal about the manufacturing process developed for the patterned cases, I can't see them just dumping the technology after six months.

Personally, if they switched the current imac screen for a 15" Trinitron, I think that'd make the machine much more appealing.

By way of comparison:

For $1799, Gateway offers:


15.0" XGA Active Matrix TFT Color Display
Intel� Pentium� III Processor 1000MHz with Intel� SpeedStep™ Technology
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Integrated 1.44MB 3.5" floppy diskette drive
Intel 3-D Graphics
99 Key Multi-function Keyboard
USB Mouse and Gateway Mouse Pad
(4) USB, Parallel, Serial and (2) PS/2
Headphone/Speaker, Line-in and Microphone Jacks
128MB SDRAM expandable to 512MB
8X DVD-ROM
Home Networking & V.90 56K Modem
Microsoft� Windows� Millennium Edition
Microsoft� Works Suite 2001 - Including Microsoft� Word and Encarta

For $1464, Dell offers:


[img] no integrated AIO product http://www.dell.com/images/global/products/optix/DOLS_optix_smalfm_chasW.jpg[/img]
OptiPlex GX50 Small Form Factor
Celeron™ Processor 800/100MHz, 128K Cache, Integrated Sound, NIC, and Video
64MB 1DIMM NonECC PC100 SDRAM
15" Dell 1503FP Flat Panel Display, 15.0 VIS
Video Solution: Integrated DVMT Video
10GB EIDE Value Hard Drive
1.44MB 3.5" Floppy Drive
Windows� 2000 Professional SP1 with CD using FAT32
Dell PS/2 2-Button Mouse in Gray
Integrated 10/100 3Com Remote Wake-up NIC
10/24X Slimline CD-ROM
Integrated Sound Blaster Compatible AC'97 Audio
Microsoft Office XP SBE & Norton AntiVirus 2001 Software
SBSXP - [365-1234] [410-2475] [412-1203]

For $1684, IBM offers:


Pentium III 1.0GHz 133 MHz
std/max 64 MB / 512 MB 133MHz
20 GB Ultra ATA
SVGA Integrated Video
8 MB 1024x768 16777216 colors AGP 2x
CD-ROM 24Xmax-10Xmin
3.5" 1.44 MB
Ethernet-Integrated 10Mbps, 100Mbps
AC-97 Audio
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
Lotus Notes Client, Lotus SmartSuite Millennium
Mouse IBM ScrollPoint III
Keyboard type Preferred USB keyboard

----------

If Apple can get an LCD iMac in under a grand, I'll be suprised.

The unregistered Gabeezabuzit

I should really register, if only so I can edit stupid mistakes.

Anyway, the dell pix were s'posed to look like this:

NO AIO PRODUCT


The unregistered gabeezabuzit

[zigzag]

Originally posted by &lt;Gabeezabuzit&gt;:
<STRONG> If Apple can get an LCD iMac in under a grand, I'll be suprised.

The unregistered Gabeezabuzit</STRONG>

Me too, but I think the appropriate benchmarks should be the current iMac, the iBook2, and the Cube. Take the existing iMac at $899, add an Apple-supplied 14" LCD, save some money on casing size and shipping weight, and you arguably (I say arguably, not certainly) have an LCD iMac for $1099, give or take (I'd guess closer to $1199). Or, take the iBook2 at $1299, use cheaper off-the-shelf components that are easier to assemble (although at greater shipping weight), and you arguably have an LCD iMac at or near the same price. I don't know if it'll happen, but it seems to me that Mac products are better cost benchmarks than PCs. Among other things, Apple doesn't have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft.

[ironknee]

Ive always wonder why apple would upgrade the bottom line of the imacs as often as the other models.

I mean couldn't apple see the current lowend model for education for much less....(remember they have volume...the more of the the model units ship the cheaper each unit costs...)

so if apple upgrades the imac to a flat panel incarnation, why not keep the low end old model to flush the market with cheap imacs?

I expect if apple will change the imac to flat panel, they will do it accross the line.

[The Ancient One]

I don't see why anyone thinks that Apple would have any trouble producing an iMac with a 15" LCD screen for $999. Consider:

The component costs are far lower than most people think. When Apple says they have a 25% profit margin on a $1000 machine, that doesn't mean the components cost $750. That profit margin includes things like R&D, advertising, distribution, facilities costs, etc. The component cost for the current 15" LCD monitor is probably a LOT less than $200.

A CRT uses far more power than an LCD. This means a smaller and cheaper power supply on an LCD model (and fewer problems with heat).

Ecomomy of scale also comes in here. The more 15" LCDs, the cheaper each one is. They could bring out a 14" LCD for the iMacs of course, since the volume will be high, but I hope not.

Finally, SJ is pitching the iBook to schools, not the iMac. The $999 model will probably have a regular CD-ROM. If you want DVD, CD-RW or a combo drive, we're not talking $999 any more.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by The Ancient One:
<STRONG>I don't see why anyone thinks that Apple would have any trouble producing an iMac with a 15" LCD screen for $999. Consider:

The component costs are far lower than most people think. When Apple says they have a 25% profit margin on a $1000 machine, that doesn't mean the components cost $750. That profit margin includes things like R&D, advertising, distribution, facilities costs, etc. The component cost for the current 15" LCD monitor is probably a LOT less than $200.</STRONG>

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Those margins do not include R&D, advertising, etc. The profit they make on their systems is used toward R&D etc.

And what are you saying anyway, that Apple should just drop those little luxuries called R&D, and advertising?

No matter how you cut it, saying that Apple could do a 15" LCD iMac for $999 is saying that the 15" LCD is only $100 more expensive than the 13.8" CRT in the iMac now.

[god]

an iMac with a geforce would be hellishly nice [img]null[/img]

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by The Ancient One:
<STRONG>I don't see why anyone thinks that Apple would have any trouble producing an iMac with a 15" LCD screen for $999. Consider:

The component costs are far lower than most people think. When Apple says they have a 25% profit margin on a $1000 machine, that doesn't mean the components cost $750. That profit margin includes things like R&D, advertising, distribution, facilities costs, etc. The component cost for the current 15" LCD monitor is probably a LOT less than $200.

A CRT uses far more power than an LCD. This means a smaller and cheaper power supply on an LCD model (and fewer problems with heat).

Ecomomy of scale also comes in here. The more 15" LCDs, the cheaper each one is. They could bring out a 14" LCD for the iMacs of course, since the volume will be high, but I hope not.

Finally, SJ is pitching the iBook to schools, not the iMac. The $999 model will probably have a regular CD-ROM. If you want DVD, CD-RW or a combo drive, we're not talking $999 any more.</STRONG>

i don't see this happening if i can barely scrap together a PC with consumer level specs for 1030 WITH A 10% MARJUP.... how can you say apple can do it for less. those are the cheapest prices for the parts period avaialbe to consumers. while OEMs get them cheaper they also have internal costs the i don't have when i make a PC for my self so it averages out.

go up see the specs i'm talking... you standard mom and pop shop down the street would give it to you for about 1050-1100, theres no way in hell Apple can beat that price spec point at under 1k. SHOW ME HOW THEY COULD DO IT, else shut up about it.

as for floppys... how many aftermarket drives are there for the iMAc and other apple computers? until everyone has Zips, you still have to have a removable storage device. so the Floppy lives on.

The only reason the floppy drive has survived so long on PC's is that they are needed as an emergency boot up device in case something goes seriously wrong with Windoze. I wonder how many PC users actually use 'em for anything else?

Got to agree with someones comment earlier about an "iPic" package being needed as part of the Digital hub, whatever form the next iMac takes.

Cheers!

Inkfinger

[Macintosh]

Apple will be able to do an LCD iMac for sub 1k because they will leave it bare bones with hardly any upgrades over the current low end machine. This will leave Apple open to make 2 more expensive LCD iMacs with higher specs. Remember Apple still puts better stuff in their condumer machines than the other guys, so we wont get skimped on with these new LCD iMacs. Just like the iBook waited for the right time the LCD iMac has waited its time too. Steve Jobs would have put an LCD into the iMac in 1998 if the price was right,now it is and Steve will put the most current technology in the his new BABY.

[koffedrnkr]

i think apple can and will do LCD across the entire line, but at different sizes. think about it...the depth of a LCD is constant..the only variables are width and height. a low-end model could have a 12-13'' screen. the main imac would have 14'' and a special edition would have a 15''. the form factor would stay the same, but the bezel around the screen would be different sizes depending upon the screen size.

for those who don't think apple can do a low-end LCD imac, think about this. the low-end ibook is $1294 retail. subtract apple profit margin (usually around 27%) and you get $944. the processor speed, port compliment, drives etc. would be comparable with a low-end imac. so would the overall size (slim). now subtract the cost of the battery (a very expensive laptop component...$129 retail or around $94 cost). that means the cost of a 12'' LCD imac @ 500mhz is around $850. sell for $999 and you get a profit of $149 or around 15% margin. not great, but considering that apple's marketing department could now announce "the first LCD desktop computer under $1000!"...it makes for good PR and at least some profit as well.

[The Ancient One]

BRussell said:

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Those margins do not include R&D, advertising, etc. The profit they make on their systems is used toward R&D etc.

And what are you saying anyway, that Apple should just drop those little luxuries called R&D, and advertising?

No matter how you cut it, saying that Apple could do a 15" LCD iMac for $999 is saying that the 15" LCD is only $100 more expensive than the 13.8" CRT in the iMac now.

Actually, that's pretty close but the extra cost of the LCD is partially offset by the smaller power supply and the reduced expenses of shipping lighter units. Here's the definition I'm using for profit margin:

"Subtract cost of goods sold from net sales, and divide the result by net sales. Basically, profit margin tells you the rate of profit generated on actual business operations, leaving aside capital investment, depreciation and other costs that don't directly and immediately relate to the cost of goods. A firm with a razor-thin profit margin generally is less attractive to investors than one with a big profit margin, but like all such measures, this one varies widely by industry. Profit margins for successful software firms and movie studios can be quite high, while profit margins for supermarket chains tend to be low."

I may have included a few too many items in the profit margin discussion in my original post, but I think you have excluded too many. I still maintain that component cost is a small enough part of system cost to easily permit a $999 15" LCD iMac. Of course it will have a plain CD-ROM drive and less RAM than the models most people will actually buy - just like the iBook.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: The Ancient One ]

[Nimisys]

ok those who still say it can be done show me how exactly... give specs/prices... here is a PC that barely could do it. show me where you trim back the specs and what you put in instead and how much it costs.

just for reference:

part spec..........mfg.........price notes
Mobo.......KM133.........MSI.........80...... on board Video/sound
CPU......750 duron......AMD..........50 Boxed
Ram........256mb........Generic......17 Pc133
Video.....Savage4.......Internal.....0
Sound.....PCAudio.......Creative.....0
HDD........40gig........Samsung......77
ComboDrive.8x8x4x32.....Samsung .....125
Modem......56k v.92........Zoom......30
NIC ........10/100......SamSung......5
Speakers....120-200watt..generic.....10
OS..........Win2k.........M$.........135 also covers certain internal costs
Keyboard...104 Button....generic....10 PS2 connection
Mouse......Wheel mouse...M$..........28 Optical
Case.......ATX 300W......Generic.....25
Firewire.....3port........Lucent.....20
Monitor.....15" LCD......Generic.... 325

Total 937
Markup of 10% 1030.7


so please i challenge you to show how it can be done. provide the costs. figure this PC could be sold for 1.1k by an oem. yes not all the prices/specs are right (such as the OS) but they can be used to cover other internal and hidden costs.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Nimisys ]

[Macintosh]

The imac can be done with an LCD for sub 1k. The iBook is 1299 and thats with more expensive componets! So tell me how,exactlt they did that? Apple will make you look like a fool. You doubt the company that brought us the GUI?

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Macintosh:
<STRONG>The imac can be done with an LCD for sub 1k. The iBook is 1299 and thats with more expensive componets! So tell me how,exactlt they did that? Apple will make you look like a fool. You doubt the company that brought us the GUI? </STRONG>

Sigh.

Actually, the iBook has a LESS expensive small 12" LCD screen that an LCD-iMac likely wouldn't have (it's a subject for another debate but I don't see how Apple could reduce the screen size significantly on the iMac and call it an improvement).

So far, Nimisys seems to have done his homework best on this subject, and he shows just how hard it would be to do a sub-$1000 LCD iMac right now. And he doesn't even mention things like labor costs for assembly.

In general, people involved in this discussion need to get more in touch with the true manufacturing, pricing, and margin realities.

For my part, I think a $999 LCD iMac is possible, but only with

1) very low specs
2) slim-to-no margins
3) a fairly small LCD screen (13-14")

Apple needs to balance 'what's possible' with 'what will sell'.

Too small an LCD and too lousy specs = a machine that may well be a sales flop, and slim-to-no margins on it = a product that dealers don't want to carry and that doesn't contribute to Apple's bottom line.

All I'm saying is, think it over some more. What good is it to make a product that meets a particular pricepoint if the average consumer's reaction to it is to point and laugh?

I'm really not sure I'd want a 12" LCD iMac.

14", yes, 12"...mmm, probably not.

--lee

[The Ancient One]

Nimisys said:

ok those who still say it can be done show me how exactly... give
specs/prices... here is a PC that barely could do it. show me where you trim back the specs and what you put in instead and how much it costs.

just for reference:

part spec..........mfg.........price notes
Mobo.......KM133.........MSI.........80...... on board Video/sound
CPU......750 duron......AMD..........50 Boxed
Ram........256mb........Generic......17 Pc133
Video.....Savage4.......Internal.....0
Sound.....PCAudio.......Creative.....0
HDD........40gig........Samsung......77
ComboDrive.8x8x4x32.....Samsung .....125
Modem......56k v.92........Zoom......30
NIC ........10/100......SamSung......5
Speakers....120-200watt..generic.....10
OS..........Win2k.........M$.........135 also covers certain internal costs
Keyboard...104 Button....generic....10 PS2 connection
Mouse......Wheel mouse...M$..........28 Optical
Case.......ATX 300W......Generic.....25
Firewire.....3port........Lucent.....20
Monitor.....15" LCD......Generic.... 325

Total 937
Markup of 10% 1030.7

Right , now pay attention:
CD-ROM drive instead of combo
20 gig HD instead of 40
128Mb RAM instead of 256
And the big one - no $135 charge for Windoze!

Damn! that was easy!

Say the specs stay exactly the same as current iMacs, except for the LCD.

Add $100 at each price point for the LCD

$999
400 MHz model
current specs

$1299
500 MHz model
current specs

$1599
600 MHz model
current specs


What would everyone think of this?

[Nicko]

Ok, considering that it IS possible that apple could release a bottem end imac for ~$999....How would it having low specs be a problem? Consider who is going to buy a low end model...schools, people who want to use basic email/internet, and for use as terminals like in internet cafes. You don't need a high spec computer to cater to these groups, you just need something cheap and looks cool. For example, at the university I go to they have around 40imac terminals hooked up to the library database...they don't need 3d on those! and they certainly don't want people burning their own cd's on them!
They just need a cheap all-in-one machine that does a simple task. Putting cdr/dvd in those types of machines just wastes money. SO, if apple does release a low spec imac with barebones hardware, it will sell fine... IMO

[zigzag]

nimisys, since when do intro Macs have 40 GB drives (try 10 GB), 256 MB RAM (try 64 MB), 133 mhz busses (try 66 mhz), combo drives, etc.? Never. With that in mind, you may actually be doing more to prove that it can be done than disproving it.

Why not make it simple and use the iMac, which Apple already manufactures, as a benchmark? Subtract $100 for the CRT, shipping weight, and a couple other items, add $200-300 or so for a 14" (not 15") screen, etc., and you've got an LCD iMac for $999-1099. Seems hard to imagine, but I haven't seen anyone invalidate these numbers.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>

Sigh.

Actually, the iBook has a LESS expensive small 12" LCD screen that an LCD-iMac likely wouldn't have (it's a subject for another debate but I don't see how Apple could reduce the screen size significantly on the iMac and call it an improvement).

So far, Nimisys seems to have done his homework best on this subject, and he shows just how hard it would be to do a sub-$1000 LCD iMac right now. And he doesn't even mention things like labor costs for assembly.

In general, people involved in this discussion need to get more in touch with the true manufacturing, pricing, and margin realities.

For my part, I think a $999 LCD iMac is possible, but only with

1) very low specs
2) slim-to-no margins
3) a fairly small LCD screen (13-14")

Apple needs to balance 'what's possible' with 'what will sell'.

Too small an LCD and too lousy specs = a machine that may well be a sales flop, and slim-to-no margins on it = a product that dealers don't want to carry and that doesn't contribute to Apple's bottom line.

All I'm saying is, think it over some more. What good is it to make a product that meets a particular pricepoint if the average consumer's reaction to it is to point and laugh?

I'm really not sure I'd want a 12" LCD iMac.

14", yes, 12"...mmm, probably not.

--lee</STRONG>

To paraphrase . . . Sigh.

Please explain why, using the current iMac, which Apple actually makes and sells for $899, as a benchmark, it can't be done? Why is nimisys' example, using the retail prices of PC components that wouldn't even be found in an introductory model, more valid?

I agree that it wouldn't be desirable to reduce the screen size to 12" - I hope they don't - but I'm not sure they'll have to. I think a 14" LCD on a consumer Mac would be swell.

Haven't intro models of Macs always had low specs? The new iBook has low specs and apparently it's selling like hotcakes. I suspect that the real margins are made on the upgrade machines. Why would a new iMac line be any different?

Again, I'm not predicting - a $999 14" LCD iMac seems hard to imagine, and I would bet on a somewhat higher price, and for all we know they're coming out with something entirely different - but I don't think the people contemplating it are out of touch with reality.

Time for a little Business 101:

When you invest millions of dollars esatblishing a relationship with a major LCD manafacturer for the express purpose of improving LCD supply it's a safe bet that you are going to be getting a *very* good unit price.

To the poster above who claimed that product pricing doesn't incorporate product marketing, R&D, etc. -- what are you smoking? Product pricing almost always represents not only component cost but marketing, promotion, etc.

To the poster who specced out a basic system for a $1000 -- Apple SURELY gets more than a %10 discount on components as most OEM's do. Most people would be shocked at an OEM's actual component cost per computer.

In the end I do think it's possible for Apple to have a lineup of iMac's starting at around a $1000. I don't think Apple neccesarily has to have an LCD lineup at that price point.

This could be an opportunity for Apple to push a CRT model for the very low end and then position higher-margin LCD products ranging all the way up to $1799.

Let's hope Apple can revitalize the desktop!

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Nicko:
<STRONG>Ok, considering that it IS possible that apple could release a bottem end imac for ~$999....How would it having low specs be a problem? </STRONG>

It's a problem because the iMac is primarily a consumer machine, and consumers can look across the aisle to Wintel machines and see the specs-to-price ratio over there, and compare it to a potential low-specs LCD-iMac.

Considering that Apple's own stats have 32% of iMac buyers being first-time computer buyers, and 15% of them being people who switched from Wintel machines, do you really want to turn those people away by offering a machine that's a poor value?

The specs can be low, but not too low, or you'll just be selling to the converted, i.e. hardcore Mac users, a considerably smaller group than what the iMac has traditionally appealed to.

Apple needs products that expand the base. Put yourself in a computer salesman's shoes...if the spec gap is too great and/or the screen is too small, the iMac becomes a tough sell.

Also, there has to be enough margin there for you, as a computer salesman, to WANT to sell said iMac.

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by &lt;Business Man&gt;:
<STRONG>Time for a little Business 101:

When you invest millions of dollars esatblishing a relationship with a major LCD manafacturer for the express purpose of improving LCD supply it's a safe bet that you are going to be getting a *very* good unit price.

</STRONG>

Yes, and its also a very safe bet that no investment short of a controlling interest is going to get said LCD maker to sell LCDs to you at a loss.

The cheapest 15" Samsung LCD goes for over $400 presently. Cheap 15" CRTs go for around $100. Do you honestly believe that Samsung has 300 percent margins?

The fact is, the falling LCD prices we've seen in the past few months(which are starting to stabilize, if recent articles are correct) were due to LCD supply exceeding demand. In that enviroment, a buyer's market, margins on LCD sales DROP, which means that there isn't a whole lot of margin for Samsung to negotiate away in dealing with Apple.

Is that 'Business 101' enough for you?

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

To paraphrase . . . Sigh.

Please explain why, using the current iMac, which Apple actually makes and sells for $899, as a benchmark, it can't be done? Why is nimisys' example, using the retail prices of PC components that wouldn't even be found in an introductory model, more valid?</STRONG>

Hmm...you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. I pooh-poohed the idea of using the iBook as a benchmark, for the very good reason that it uses a 12" LCD that would likely be too small for an LCD iMac. I never said that the base iMac couldn't be used as a benchmark.

And Nimi's analysis, while flawed a bit, is still better than using the iBook as a bench or just stating opinion, wouldn't you agree? He did blow it with things like 256 MB RAM and a combo drive on the base model (though RAM is beyond cheap right now), but at the same time he didn't even include labor, shipping, or advertising costs, and he reduced the margin to 10%...a rate probably too low for Apple, a company with massive R&D costs who likes their margins above 25%.

But if you want to use the base iMac as a bench, that's fine with me.

<STRONG>I agree that it wouldn't be desirable to reduce the screen size to 12" - I hope they don't - but I'm not sure they'll have to. I think a 14" LCD on a consumer Mac would be swell.</STRONG>

I agree. A 14" LCD would be appealing to me as well, and Apple could legitimately claim in ads that they actually INCREASED the viewable area of the screen too(current CRT is 13.8" viewable).

<STRONG>Haven't intro models of Macs always had low specs? The new iBook has low specs and apparently it's selling like hotcakes. I suspect that the real margins are made on the upgrade machines. Why would a new iMac line be any different?</STRONG>

The iBook actually doesn't have very low specs, except in the screen. A 500MHz G3, for example, is quite good for a base iBook...the current baseiMac is only 400.

And you have to watch margins, even on the base machines. A case in point is the $799 iMac that was out for awhile, and then got yanked in favor of the $899 one. Why? Well, no Firewire for one, but also, dealers made almost no money on it (I heard $35 from my local comp store), so they didn't want to carry it.

Even when they did, the salespeople would ferociously try to steer people away from buying it. I know, because that's exactly what happened to me when I went in to buy one.

What good is having a product that your dealers don't want to carry and which they'll try to steer customers away from with every iota of strength they have?

<STRONG> Again, I'm not predicting - a $999 14" LCD iMac seems hard to imagine, and I would bet on a somewhat higher price, and for all we know they're coming out with something entirely different - but I don't think the people contemplating it are out of touch with reality.</STRONG>

Again, I never said any such thing.

The fact is, we're not worlds apart here. You seem to have come around to the idea of a $999-1099 14" LCD iMac. Here's my position, as previously posted:


For my part, I think a $999 LCD iMac is possible, but only with

1) very low specs
2) slim-to-no margins
3) a fairly small LCD screen (13-14")

Mmm...so okay, what were we arguing about again?

--lee

&gt;Yes, and its also a very safe bet that no investment short of a
&gt;controlling interest is going to get said LCD maker to sell LCDs to you at &gt;a loss.
&gt;The cheapest 15" Samsung LCD goes for over $400 presently. Cheap 15" CRTs &gt;go for around $100. Do you honestly believe that Samsung has 300 percent
&gt;margins?

Do you honestly believe it costs Samsung $400 to manafacture said LCD? Also, your analysis assumes that Apple been makes a constant profit on the current iMac. Apple *surely* makes a higher profit margin on the iMac today than it did say 3 months ago. Apple can afford to have a smaller margin on an LCD iMac because Apple *has had* smaller margins on the iMac before. Constant margins are a common MYTH.

&gt;LCD sales DROP, which means that there isn't a whole lot of margin for
&gt;Samsung to negotiate away in dealing with Apple.
&gt;Is that 'Business 101' enough for you?

I agree with you that it does seem that the LCD market and component market in general are stabilizing. I also think it would be shortsighted on Apple's part to design a product that is vitally dependent on a component whose price has fluctuated so much recently.

At the same time, I think you underestimate Apple's investment in Samsung. LCD's are cleary a strategic priority at Apple. Apple doesn't sit down 4 months before a MW and decide to design a new iMac. The new iMac design has been evolving for the last 16 months (this I know for fact). It's my opinion that some part of the lineup will incorporate and LCD.

How Apple actually incorporates it, I do not know.

Not much time left till we find out.

One other point Lee --

Two years ago, no one would have thought it possible that Apple would have an 802.11 implementation that cost only $99 per client and $300 for the basestation. To get 802.11 on the PC, corporations were paying easily double those prices. I was shocked at MWNY when Steve announced Airport.
At the time the prices were just unbelievable.

It's very difficult to project component prices onto a major Apple product. Let's say we're Apple and it's our job to design a new iMac. Steve tells us to find a way to put in a quality LCD in 16-18 months. With that kind of time frame, I feel that's Apple's design group would have a very fair shot and figuring out a way to do it. You don't seem to think so.

I think it really just comes down to that. It's kind of useless arguing the point, all we can really do is wait.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>

(1) But if you want to use the iMac as a bench, that's fine with me.

(2) The iBook actually doesn't have very low specs, except in the screen. A 500MHz G3, for example, is quite good for a base iBook...the current baseiMac is only 400.

(3) What good is having a product that your dealers don't want to carry and which they'll try to steer customers away from with every iota of strength they have?

(4) The fact is, we're not worlds apart here. You seem to have come around to the idea of a $999-1099 14" LCD iMac.

(5) Again, I never said any such thing.

--lee</STRONG>

[I haven't figured out serial quotations - I'm kinda feeble-minded - so please bear with me]

(1) Well, do you agree that the iMac makes for a better pricing benchmark than nimisys' example? Maybe it'll help if we can all agree on an appropriate benchmark.

(2) The iBook doesn't have low specs? What about 64 MB RAM, 10 GB drive, CD-ROM only, 66 mHz bus, etc.? Aren't these the kind of low specs you've been worried about?

(3) It's never "good", but it's a tradition where Macs and PCs are concerned, and I don't think Apple is going to use the new iMacs to change that tradition in one fell swoop. That is one reason Apple is opening its own stores - they won't have to rely so much on InCompetentUSA salespeople, who never liked Macs and never will. Macs cannot compete with PCs feature for feature - if Macs succeed, it's because they are unique and attractive systems. As you suggested yourself in an earlier post, the iMac was nothing revolutionary on paper - it was the execution that turned people's heads.

(4) Agreed, but I haven't "come around" to it - I've liked the idea all along. You've been the principal skeptic. I like skeptics, but I don't think some of your remarks have been justified.

(5) You just said that people involved in this discussion need to get in touch with various realities, implying (once again) that you're the only voice of reason and that the rest are in fantasy-land. I don't think those kinds of characterizations (not to mention all the "Sigh"s) have been justified. But maybe it's just me. (I don't know what that little face is supposed to mean but it looks funny)

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: zigzag ]

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by &lt;Business Man&gt;:
<STRONG>&gt;Yes, and its also a very safe bet that no investment short of a
&gt;controlling interest is going to get said LCD maker to sell LCDs to you at &gt;a loss.
&gt;The cheapest 15" Samsung LCD goes for over $400 presently. Cheap 15" CRTs &gt;go for around $100. Do you honestly believe that Samsung has 300 percent
&gt;margins?

Do you honestly believe it costs Samsung $400 to manafacture said LCD? Also, your analysis assumes that Apple been makes a constant profit on the current iMac. Apple *surely* makes a higher profit margin on the iMac today than it did say 3 months ago. Apple can afford to have a smaller margin on an LCD iMac because Apple *has had* smaller margins on the iMac before. Constant margins are a common MYTH.</STRONG>

That's great, but no one was saying that Samsung makes no margin on LCDs, and no one was arguing about constant margins. Who are you having this discussion with? It is anyone I know? j/k

In any case, its clear that a tiny-margin iMac(the $799 Summer 2K model) did NOT work for Apple and/or its dealers, as they pulled it, and its also clear a 15" LCD would cost a lot more than the current 15" CRT in the iMac. Which leads me to the obvious conclusion that to go LCD on the iMac, Apple will have to

a) raise iMac prices, at least for the bottom model, AND
b) downspec the iMac line from what it would otherwise be with a cheaper screen AND
c) use a smaller-than-15" LCD

<STRONG> I agree with you that it does seem that the LCD market and component market in general are stabilizing. I also think it would be shortsighted on Apple's part to design a product that is vitally dependent on a component whose price has fluctuated so much recently. </STRONG>

Well, that's a good point. Going LCD on the iMac(assuming its really going to happen at MWNY) is a decision that could come back to bite them in the ass, if, when the global economy recovers, LCD prices skyrocket again when world demand exceeds supply. We'll have to see. I hope it doesn't hurt Apple.

<STRONG>At the same time, I think you underestimate Apple's investment in Samsung. LCD's are cleary a strategic priority at Apple. Apple doesn't sit down 4 months before a MW and decide to design a new iMac. The new iMac design has been evolving for the last 16 months (this I know for fact). It's my opinion that some part of the lineup will incorporate and LCD.
</STRONG>

I don't see how its underestimating Apple's investment to say that Sammy won't sell LCDs to Apple at a loss. Businesses, after all, are in business to turn a profit, not to engage in corporate welfare. Apple will get a sweetheart deal, but they won't get subsidized, which apparently is what you're expecting Sammy to do. Won't happen. And with LCD prices near rock-bottom, there's not a ton of margin wiggle-room for Sammy in negotiating prices either.

Far as LCD iMacs go, I don't doubt it'll happen eventually, its just a case of when... and how much for how much computer.

--lee

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>

And Nimi's analysis, while flawed a bit, is still better than using the iBook as a bench or just stating opinion, wouldn't you agree? He did blow it with things like 256 MB RAM and a combo drive on the base model (though RAM is beyond cheap right now), but at the same time he didn't even include labor, shipping, or advertising costs, and he reduced the margin to 10%...a rate probably too low for Apple, a company with massive R&D costs who likes their margins above 25%.

--lee</STRONG>

ok too much ram lets say 128 min so it can run X... cost for pc133 128mb is 10$ so have 7 dollars off the cost.

40Gb too much for an intro machine also... fine lets go 20gig (as i can't find much of anything smaller) new cost is 49$ you shaved 27$

Combo drive a no-go fine then lets look at cdrom (52x 25$ ) or a cd-r (60$ 8x4x32) or a dvd (12x 30$) so you save either 100$, 65$ or 95$ - could be a big chunk.

133 system bus costs no more to make than a 66mhz so it doesn't matter.

as for the cost of the OS i realize it is less but it ALSO covers some of the hidden costs (r&d,Labour, building, shipping ect) so the price remains the same.

new price with wimpified specs: 802......837......807
...................10% markup...882.2....920.7....887.7
...................25% Markup...1002.5...1046.25..1008.75

so could apple do it... barely with a 25% markup and either a dvd or cdrom but no cd-r assuming all other costs the same.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

[I haven't figured out serial quotations - I'm kinda feeble-minded - so please bear with me]

(1) Well, do you agree that the iMac makes for a better pricing benchmark than nimisys' example? Maybe it'll help if we can all agree on an appropriate benchmark.

(2) The iBook doesn't have low specs? What about 64 MB RAM, 10 GB drive, CD-ROM only, 66 mHz bus, etc.? Aren't these the kind of low specs you've been worried about?

(3) It's never "good", but it's a tradition where Macs and PCs are concerned, and I don't think Apple is going to use the new iMacs to change that tradition in one fell swoop. That is one reason Apple is opening its own stores - they won't have to rely so much on InCompetentUSA salespeople, who never liked Macs and never will. Macs cannot compete with PCs feature for feature - if Macs succeed, it's because they are unique and attractive systems. As you suggested yourself in an earlier post, the iMac was nothing revolutionary on paper - it was the execution that turned people's heads.

(4) Agreed, but I haven't "come around" to it - I've liked the idea all along. You've been the principal skeptic. I like skeptics, but I don't think some of your remarks have been justified.

(5) You just said that people involved in this discussion need to get in touch with various realities, implying (once again) that you're the only voice of reason and that the rest are in fantasy-land. I don't think those kinds of characterizations (not to mention all the "Sigh"s) have been justified. But maybe it's just me. (I don't know what that little face is supposed to mean but it looks funny)

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: zigzag ]</STRONG>

Replying:

[1] Use either or both. Whatever is accurate. Nimi's model could be updated to have slightly higher margins, a CD-ROM, assembly and advertising costs, 128MB RAM, etc.

[2] Every spec you mention is the same as the base iMac, except for the 66MHz bus, which I feel is offset by the iBook's 100 MHz faster processor. The iBook's specs aren't that low...for a laptop. In fact that's a problem...if it wasn't for the small screen, the iBook is spec'd just well enough that it would eat into low-end Titanium Powerbook sales.
In any case, you're not 'thinking forward' on this one. Specs are moving ever-upwards with new revs, even if pricepoints remain the same...its the nature of the computer biz. But if Apple has to carve money out of specs to make an LCD-iMac meet a certain pricepoint, you could see a specs 'freeze' on the iMac, where dropping prices on 'old hat' lower-performance parts enables Apple to get the expensive LCD in and still make a certain pricepoint.
So, okay, here's your new low-end MWNY iMac *sets it down in front of zigzag*. Its beautiful, and its got an LCD. But it has the same specs as the previous rev of the low-end iMac...400 MHz G3, 8MB Rage128 Pro and all that.
Maybe you're okay with that. But then, maybe you could've gotten a burner into the low-end iMac instead. Or a better graphics card. Or a considerably faster G3 and bigger HD. It's all about choices, and trade-offs. An LCD is expensive. You could get a lot of specs for that LCD.

[3] Apple opening up its own Stores will give it some leverage on this issue...in the future. But for now, Apple still sells the majority of their stuff through big chains and independent dealers. And they have to make sure that said chains and dealers get their margin, elsewise they won't carry the product, or they'll steer folks away from buying it. It's a primitive, nitty-gritty, bottom-line sort of truth, but its not something companies like Apple can afford to ignore. Stores survive on margins. Burn them on margin, and they'll cut back on shelf space for your products, or drop you entirely. Just what Apple doesn't need.

And Apple does have to worry about features...because consumers do compare. You can be below the PC competition in raw specs and still sell well on great industrial design and an easier-to-use, prettier OS. But, there is a limit to this. Try selling a 150MHz iMac with a 3GB HD in 2001 to see what I mean.

[4] I would consider myself a realist, not a skeptic. A skeptic would be saying that an LCD iMac is impossible. I'm not.

[5] In any large internet discussion I've ever been involved with, its always been inevitable that you have some folks involved who know of what they speak, and others that have opinions based on desires, hearsay, emotions, etc. Stating that doesn't make me any friends, but it does make me honest.

--lee