[RealMadrid]

www.apple.com

[vvedge]

nothing yet, man! I wanna see what this looks like before i run out the door!

[vvedge]

ooh, actually if you go to the store, it's there right now. Might not update the main page or the rest of the site... for a few minutes.

[Big Fat Octopus]

Would have preferred to have seen additional differentiation from the 17" model. Lot of extra dough for that bigger screen!

17" is looking like the pick of the bunch for value for money.

15" looks tiny next to the 17" so with a 20" beast now available maybe they could have done away with the 15" or at least made it a 15.4" widescreen!

[djjava]

Airport and Bluetooth are BTO.... WTF???

[iDaver]

Originally posted by djjava:
Airport and Bluetooth are BTO.... WTF???

Many desktop users don't need either. Much better to be BTO in my opinion.

[cenutrio]

I don't see the 20" screen point. Very expensive machine using out of date hardware.

The 17" looks are nicer.

I like the dual 1.8 G5 though.

[neilw]

I think Apple is going in the wrong direction here, though this is possibly nothing more than an attempt to add a little temporary juice to the line before the holidays.

Tying such a big, beautiful, *expensive* screen like that to such outdated, non-upgradable hardware just makes no sense. Sure it'll look impressive, and they'll sell some, but this doesn't address their biggest issue in the consumer market, which is the lack of a low-cost mini-tower.

Mind you, I wouldn't feel as negative about it if they coupled it to something more state-of-the-art, like say a 1.6 or 1.8 GHz G5. But as it is... bleh.

[TheIceMan]

Originally posted by cenutrio:
I don't see the 20" screen point. Very expensive machine using out of date hardware.

The 17" looks are nicer.

Agreed. Am I the only one who thinks that the new 20" iMac is disproportional? The screen looks too big for the base. It's like looking at someone whose head is just too big for his body!

[andreas_g4]

If they hadn't to put too much effort in developing the 20" model, which seems to be obviously, they could update the iMac line just the day when they would have updated anyway.
As neilw says, they wanted to get some juice for the holidays, nothing more.
If I was in the market, I'd never get a 20" G4 iMac though, but there will be some people who will.

[castle3]

I agree w/ BFO, I think its a marketing scheme to sell a bunch of 17inch macs for the holidays before the big upgrade in the spring! However the 20inch mac is not a bad idea for a college student if all you wanna do is watch DVDs and get on the net. Maybe play games and edit video.

[Proudest Monkey]

i guess i disagree with the previous post ... < i don't see this as an affordable computer for college students. granted, it would be cool to have the machine for dvd's and such, but i could buy a sony flatscreen and dvd player for $700, which would be an awesome setup. >

thanks for making yet another affordable computer apple ... i'd love an imac, but seriously, i don't need a 20 in widescreen, but a faster chip, more ram, larger hard drive and bluetooth i would love to have ... the 20 incher just isn't necessary for a student. come on apple, get your priorities straight.

[castle3]

actually i take back what i just said about the 20inch being good for a college student etc...etc..The 20inch is good for a RICH college student.

[Proudest Monkey]

Originally posted by castle3:
actually i take back what i just said about the 20inch being good for a college student etc...etc..The 20inch is good for a RICH college student.

haha, just as i was typing my edit, you replied with this. lol

[cenutrio]

If I "would be" a rich college student, I sure would get the new PM 1.8 dual G5 and a 17" flat screen ($2,299 + $599)...

At least I would reuse the screen next time I get a new system.

[castle3]

yeah, i think that im not the one confused, maybe apple is. But it seems that the always have something up their sleeve. I think that the new design rumored to be in the spring will have standard 20inch screens along w/ the new hardware boosts. I think that ill wait for that. Until then, I'll have my pick w/ the 17inch.

[castle3]

amen to that cenutrio!!

[discotronic]

I can't see the $400 price difference between the 17" and the 20". The only difference is the screen size. Everything else is exactly the same. Apple should have a least put a bigger hard drive and added more memory to the beast for that price.

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by Proudest Monkey:

thanks for making yet another affordable computer apple ... i'd love an imac, but seriously, i don't need a 20 in widescreen, but a faster chip, more ram, larger hard drive and bluetooth i would love to have ... the 20 incher just isn't necessary for a student. come on apple, get your priorities straight.

I work in marketing for a big consumer goods company, so I'm familiar with the mentality. They needed news for the holidays, and this was all they could do short of sacrificing margins (which Apple will never, ever do), with limited development support -- especially with all new iMacs on the way.

Proper market research might of killed it -- but doesn't seem Apple *has* a proper research department. If they do, they have obviously been bullied and beaten to death by SJ.

My prediction is thus:
New non-monitor iMacs on the way. Finally, the low-cost Apple desktop. There seems to be room for such a product now, with the G5 kicking so much ass on the "pro" side.

I expect these new desktops to be very small, silent, and very white. Will have the IBM Alivec-enabled G3 chips -- likely not called G3, but G4e or something similar.

Expect a 15" widescreen studio display to be introduced, with the 17" also moving to a widescreen format.

eMacs will carry the all-on-one torch -- as the concept just works better with disposable, cheap CRTs. Not so with more expensive LCDs... I don't want one married to my hardware, and I would expect an LCD to make it through at least two hardware upgrades. The product concept only works with a laptop. The new iMac was somewhat of a blunder, IMO.

The the G5 so powerful, there seems room now for Apple to innovate on the consumer side. I'm looking forward to some interesting options in the coming year.

Elvis
(spot-free, noise-free, problem-free 15" AlBook)

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by discotronic:
I can't see the $400 price difference between the 17" and the 20". The only difference is the screen size. Everything else is exactly the same. Apple should have a least put a bigger hard drive and added more memory to the beast for that price.

How about that $400 difference between the top-end 15" and 17" Powerbooks?

[elvis2000]

Originally posted by castle3:
I agree w/ BFO, I think its a marketing scheme to sell a bunch of 17inch macs for the holidays before the big upgrade in the spring! However the 20inch mac is not a bad idea for a college student if all you wanna do is watch DVDs and get on the net. Maybe play games and edit video.

One at Sarah Lawrence, perhaps. Not NC State.

Elvis (Apple needs failure, keeps them grounded)

[nredman]

it's nice to see updates but haven't they just been updating the screen save on the imac since it came out? its getting kind of old.

[Eug]

The release of the 20" iMac and the overall reaction to it is another example that Apple is in dire need of a consumer level headless G5 iMac.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
How about that $400 difference between the top-end 15" and 17" Powerbooks?

At least between those you would get a slight increase in processor speed as well as a bigger screen. With the iMac everything stays the same. With a price increase they could have added something extra to seperate it from the 17" model. Look at the price of the 15" and 17" iMac. You get more than a bigger screen.

[::maroma::]

I agree with the need for a low cost consumer level PowerMac.

My prediction:

Next year (being 2004) will be the Macinsosh's 20 year anniversary. I expect Apple to release a special edition Mac for this. I think that Apple will revive the Cube, rethink it, and brand it as a Special Edition. My only question is how will they make it affordable. Or will it be another Cube price-wise (high priced)?

This is only me prediction of course.

[Xaaron Swiftblade]

Originally posted by elvis2000:
I work in marketing for a big consumer goods company, so I'm familiar with the mentality. They needed news for the holidays, and this was all they could do short of sacrificing margins (which Apple will never, ever do), with limited development support -- especially with all new iMacs on the way.

Proper market research might of killed it -- but doesn't seem Apple *has* a proper research department. If they do, they have obviously been bullied and beaten to death by SJ.

My prediction is thus:
New non-monitor iMacs on the way. Finally, the low-cost Apple desktop. There seems to be room for such a product now, with the G5 kicking so much ass on the "pro" side.

I expect these new desktops to be very small, silent, and very white. Will have the IBM Alivec-enabled G3 chips -- likely not called G3, but G4e or something similar.

Expect a 15" widescreen studio display to be introduced, with the 17" also moving to a widescreen format.

eMacs will carry the all-on-one torch -- as the concept just works better with disposable, cheap CRTs. Not so with more expensive LCDs... I don't want one married to my hardware, and I would expect an LCD to make it through at least two hardware upgrades. The product concept only works with a laptop. The new iMac was somewhat of a blunder, IMO.

The the G5 so powerful, there seems room now for Apple to innovate on the consumer side. I'm looking forward to some interesting options in the coming year.

Elvis
(spot-free, noise-free, problem-free 15" AlBook)

I agree completely, except I wouldn't call the iMac so much a blunder as an "art piece"

[Eug]

I wouldn't call the iMac so much a blunder as an "art piece"

ie. Cube Redux (in so many ways).

[thunderous_funker]

Props to neilw and elvis2000. They pretty much said what had to be said.

Bolting a $1300 display to a disposable computer strikes me as rather impractical. But then again, I think iMac has always been aimed at those who have a lot more disposable income than I do.

For $1799 you can now buy a upgradable, expandable, G4 stomping, P4 abusing G5.....OR......a disposable mac with a gigantic screen you can't keep.



If I didn't have to count my pennies, I suppose it wouldn't bother me.

P.S. a headless disposable Mac would be glorious, absolutely glorious. But I don't expect to see one as long as iMacs and eMacs are in the line-up. A low cost headless Mac would relegate them to total and utter niche-dom like the Cube. Unless, of course, they price it as badly as the Cube.

[iDaver]

Originally posted by discotronic:
At least between those you would get a slight increase in processor speed as well as a bigger screen. With the iMac everything stays the same. With a price increase they could have added something extra to seperate it from the 17" model. Look at the price of the 15" and 17" iMac. You get more than a bigger screen.

Look at the difference between the 17" Studio Display and the 20" Cinema Display...$600. I don't think this $400 difference in the two iMacs is bad, considering. I do think both the 15" and 17" iMacs could be a bit cheaper, but Apple tries to get what they can get.

[NemesisEG]

I'm using the 17" iMac here and it's lovely, but I think going to the 20" screen is overkill.

The specs need a kick up the arse to be honest. I know it's termed a consumer machine, but it's way behind now.

Still, let's see if anything happens in January, but I suspect we're going to see small spec upgrades for a while yet.

[Skypat]

Complaints, complaints, complaints ...

iMac :
G4 ? Too slow
1.25 Ghz ? Too slow !!
20" monitor ? Too big
80 GB 7200 RPM hardrive ? Too small
USB 2 and Firewire ? Yes but no FW 800 ! Outdated !
167 Mhz bus ? No true DDR, too slow, old technology, crap !!

So imagine :

iMac G5
1.6 Ghz ? Yes but too slow ! Too hot !
Fan : Too noisy !
Faster bus : yes but not enough
64 MB graphic card : 128 MB would have been so great ...

You people are *never* satisfied.

The new iMac 20" is a terrific computer : fast, elegant, super equiped with everything 95% of the people out there need ! It has the same screen as the gorgeous 20" Cinema Display, how could the iMac be better !!

If you dream of a G5 iMac with a 20" LCD screen at $1000, well. Dream on If Apple comes with a low cost tower you will find so many reasons no to buy it anyway (weak video card, small HD, no level 3 cache ... you know the song). ;-)

[Athens]

Originally posted by Skypat:
Complaints, complaints, complaints ...


167 Mhz bus ? No true DDR, too slow, old technology, crap !!

Just to correct you, that is true DDR, 167 FSB is 333Mhz DDR, DDR 266 runs off of a FSB of 133MHz and DDR 400 runs off a FSB of 200Mhz. Its not old technology, its standard technology uses on most computers right now.

Problems with getting a G5 in a iMac, same as getting it in a laptop, heat but with a iMac more room to address this, also the iMacs are ment to be low end computers affordable to every one so it dosent make scence to put in costly G5's in it. APple is being cheap on the hard drive space and default amount of memory though. Those babies should have 120GB Hard Drives, and 512MB as standard for ram. But then again Apple has always left the ram as a optional upgrade for Mac Stores so they can make more money off the Macs.

[Centris650]

I still wonder WHY doesn't Apple have a headless consumer computer?! Really, think about it. We haven't had a monitorless consumer mac for, what, 5 years? (Unless you count the Cube, but it's price was not very consumer friendly!) What is Apple thinking? I'd like to know why they think consumers don't want to purchase their own monitors?

[Athens]

I cant remmeber Apple ever having a consumor Mac that was 2 peice, The Performa 580 was a all in one, the 5200 was all in one, the iMac all in one and so forth.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Athens:
I cant remmeber Apple ever having a consumor Mac that was 2 peice, The Performa 580 was a all in one, the 5200 was all in one, the iMac all in one and so forth.

How about the Performa 6400, 6500, the "PowerMac" 4400 (was also pretty much a consumer machine), the Performa 630, the LC475, ...

In the old days Apple used to always have a headless consumer machine.

When Steve came back and launched the bondi-blue iMac that was over. Up to then, Apple always had something along those lines.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Athens:
Just to correct you, that is true DDR, 167 FSB is 333Mhz DDR, DDR 266 runs off of a FSB of 133MHz and DDR 400 runs off a FSB of 200Mhz. Its not old technology, its standard technology uses on most computers right now.

Wrong. Skypat is absolutely correct. The memory bus design on the G4 machines is outdated.

DDR on an iMac (or Power Mac G4 or PowerBook) runs as SDR with respect to the G4 CPU itself. The G4 as currently implemented is incapable of utilizing the doubled bandwidth.

[iDaver]

Originally posted by Simon:
How about the Performa 6400, 6500, the "PowerMac" 4400 (was also pretty much a consumer machine), the Performa 630, the LC475, ...

In the old days Apple used to always have a headless consumer machine.

Wasn't that the days when Apple was losing money and nearly going out of business?

[Simon]

Originally posted by iDaver:
Wasn't that the days when Apple was losing money and nearly going out of business?

Yes. Indeed.

But I'm sure you weren't trying to imply that having a headless consumer machine means Apple has to go out of business. That would be just to silly, wouldn't it.

[Mallrat]

Originally posted by iDaver:
Wasn't that the days when Apple was losing money and nearly going out of business?

Exactly. I became a mac geek myself when the iMac came out and lots of people did.

It saved the company and it started all the good stuff.

If it wasn't for the iMac, my guess is that apple wouldn't be gone, but much different.

Probably just become a video company, making turney computers.

But the iMac lead to the iPod, and all the great iSoftware.

It changed so much.

I think apple does need a low end tower and upgradable computer.

But I think the iMac is here to stay for a long time and they would be stupid to lose it. The eMac isn't as good, they should kill the CRT.

apple needs to do their best to have a sub 1000 dollar desktop that is all in one and move up from there.

799 would be nice. they have to do their best to compute with the PC people.

They need to have cheaper iMac again.... didn't they get done to 999 at some point?

[neilw]

There are a couple of problems here:

1) The cost of the display is becoming too large a percentage of the iMac. Therefore it makes less and less sense to invest in the big display, only to need to discard it along with the computer. This was not an issue with the original iMac, which came with a fairly disposable (even then) small CRT.

2) Like it or not, many consumers (such as myself) do not want to purchase an all-in-one unit, no matter how nice it is, because of the disposable display issue. At the same time, we have absolutely no need (or won't to pay for) a hulking beast like the current G5. This group of people is being left hanging by Apple, and it seems to stem from some edict (presumably from Steve) that consumers only want all-in-one units. That's just ridiculous. It doesn't mean, like Skypat wrote, that we're expecting a headless iMac + 20" display for $1000. It means that we want the freedom to upgrade the display and computer separately. Very, very simple. Oh, and it wouldn't be bad to have at least a bit of choice in hardware as well. There's *very* little choice on a 20" iMac.

I think the success of the original iMac poisoned Apple's thinking, leading them to conclude that it's the correct solution for all consumers. Maybe the failure of the Cube further screwed them up, leading them to conclude that consumers don't want a low-end headless system. Well, we all know that the Cube failed because of price, and nothing else. I have little doubt that a headless machine priced considerably below the low-end PowerMac would sell truckloads. What could possibly be the reason to stubbornly refuse to release a product that a large number of customers want?

I hope Apple comes around one of these days, they're losing sales in the meantime.

[SpeedRacer]

C'mon folks the 20" iMac is a great product which Apple clearly would HAD to have finalized specs on at/before the release of the "updated" iMac lineup several month back. How would you expect them to release a new-fangled iMac with dramatic hardware changes in such a short time frame since the other members of its family were first produced? Perhaps you'd like to have a similar announce-and-wait-3-months-release as we've seen on the G5's?

19" displays are fast becoming the standard on all new desktop purchases. Apple phased out it's separate 15" LCD ~1 year ago. Why would they not make a similar move with the 15" iMac?

$300 more than the 17" iMac for a widescreen 20" display? The price of Apple's 20" LCD all by itself is $1300!

IOW... you're getting a G4/1.2gHz Mac for $800.

The disaster of the G4 Cube evidences the fact that a 3rd product line between consumer and pro lines for Apple simply does not work. It evidences that Apple cannot produce a cheap expandable product that compete with cube PC systems on the Wintel architecture. And it evidences that even when the price drops down below the price of the existing pro lineup, there just is not enough MacNN forums users like all of us to make a good profit on these things.

The most compelling argument for this solution seems to be a way for pro users to get a cheap, semi-upgradeable machine that they can attach to any display they like.

This argument essentially says:

"Give me the expandability of a Tower at the price of an iMac"

- or -

"Give me a Mac at the price of eMachine"

Yet the fundamental questions remain unanswered:

How would such a product NOT cannibalize both iMac and Tower sales?

Given lower profit margins, how would Apple recuperate the massive development and splitering of hardware development teams to make back the money invested in the development of Cube v2?

How would Apple compete on price with commonity vendors like eMachines or CrapUSA brand?

The e/iMac and G5 product lines demonstrate exactly what Apple does best:

Produce computers with best of class innovations and performance regardless of price
- or -
Produce computers with best of class design and all-in-one forms at a reasonable price.

Perhaps, as neil mentions above, this is an over-simplification of the otherwise diverse consumer marketplace, but oversimplification is also a policy that keeps your company profitable in an chilled tech economy.

Perhaps we will see Cube v2.0 down the road, but it won't be anytime soon.

For now it's merely:

Pro or consumer.
Get in line.

[djjava]

How long before the 40" imac?
And how heavy must that base be?

[Alpha-sphere]

LOL that's one big ass screen. Nice for watching DVD's though.

No real life 20" iMac pics yet??????

[Eug]

$300 more than the 17" iMac for a widescreen 20" display?

$400 more. $2199 vs. $1799. Both with a G4 1.25 and an outdated bus design. Welcome to 2002.

[neilw]

Just a couple more comments:

Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
The disaster of the G4 Cube evidences the fact that a 3rd product line between consumer and pro lines for Apple simply does not work.

No, it instead suggests that you can't market a non-expandable machine that costs MORE than the low-end, fully expandable PowerMac. That was pretty obvious to a lot of people the day it was introduced.

It evidences that Apple cannot produce a cheap expandable product that compete with cube PC systems on the Wintel architecture.

The Cube was also not an attempt to produce a cheap machine. Stev-- uh, "Apple" seemed to think that users would pay an arbitrary amount of money for a cool-looking machine.

The most compelling argument for this solution seems to be a way for pro users to get a cheap, semi-upgradeable machine that they can attach to any display they like.

This argument essentially says:

"Give me the expandability of a Tower at the price of an iMac"

- or -

"Give me a Mac at the price of eMachine"

No, that's not the argument at all, despite the fact that some folks are always asking for a sub-$500 minitower, which just ain't gonna happen.

The argument instead boils down to this, which some folks seem to be reluctant to accept:

Many people simply Do Not Want an expensive all-in-one machine, *especially* one with an obviously outdated architecture. That does not make them "pros". They do not want big iron like the G5. They want something in between.

Yet the fundamental questions remain unanswered:

How would such a product NOT cannibalize both iMac and Tower sales?

Let it. I'm not suggesting a cut-to-the-bone, no profit margin model. It should be priced so Apple can make money on it.

A question for you: how can Apple seriously hope to attract switchers, when they fail to provide the one type of machine that is exactly what many potential switchers want?

My father is using a Wintel machine now (somewhat unhappily, I might add) specifically because Apple didn't offer him a headless, consumer level machine. And you know what? I couldn't, in good conscience, advise him otherwise.

Perhaps, as neil mentions above, this is an over-simplification of the otherwise diverse consumer marketplace, but oversimplification is also a policy that keeps your company profitable in an chilled tech economy.

Jobs' initial simplification of the product line was a very good thing, because it really had gotten out of control. That doesn't mean it has to stay like that forever, though. Turning away customers, as Apple does now, especially switchers, has never struck me as a particularly good policy for a company struggling with marketshare.

[iDaver]

Ok, take the new 20" iMac and remove the display. $2199 minus $1299 equals $900. Cram the guts into some kind of cube-like box computer and sell them for $900. I'll bet lots of folks would complain to no end about a non-expandable computer with no display that costs $900.

What you're basically asking is for Apple to sell a computer that would kill lots of PowerMac and iMac sales. If it was slightly expandable, it would kill even more sales of higher margin computers. I don't think they're going to do it.

[Eug]

Originally posted by iDaver:
Ok, take the new 20" iMac and remove the display. $2199 minus $1299 equals $900. Cram the guts into some kind of cube-like box computer and sell them for $900. I'll bet lots of folks would complain to no end about a non-expandable computer with no display that costs $900.

Some would complain yes, but more would just love it. A $999 headless iMac would sell quite well IMO. Well, it would if it had at least a reasonable CPU in it. eg. a G5 1.6 in February, one month after the G5 2.0 single low end Power Mac is shipping.

Even in the iMac, the G4 simply has got to go.

The G4 in today's world really only belongs in the iBook and the eMac.

[Centris650]

Originally posted by iDaver:
Ok, take the new 20" iMac and remove the display. $2199 minus $1299 equals $900. Cram the guts into some kind of cube-like box computer and sell them for $900. I'll bet lots of folks would complain to no end about a non-expandable computer with no display that costs $900.

What you're basically asking is for Apple to sell a computer that would kill lots of PowerMac and iMac sales. If it was slightly expandable, it would kill even more sales of higher margin computers. I don't think they're going to do it.

Actually I think if Apple ever introduces a monitorless consumer mac (MCM) I think it would HAVE to replace the imac line (or be the NEW imac) The emac would be the ONLY All in One option.

As far as price I doubt Apple would EVER offer a $900 MCM. I was thinking in the ball park of $1199-$1299. Yes, I know the emac and iMac both are around that price (eMac $1099 & 15" iMac at $1299). It would need to be somewhat expandable like the Cube but far less than the Powermac. (Graphics Card, HD, and MAYBE one open slot) Your paying here for SOME expandibility and the ability to use your current monitor and saving some money.

[Eug]

Originally posted by Centris650:
Actually I think if Apple ever introduces a monitorless consumer mac (MCM) I think it would HAVE to replace the imac line (or be the NEW imac) The emac would be the ONLY All in One option.

As far as price I doubt Apple would EVER offer a $900 MCM. I was thinking in the ball park of $1199-$1299. Yes, I know the emac and iMac both are around that price (eMac $1099 & 15" iMac at $1299). It would need to be somewhat expandable like the Cube but far less than the Powermac. (Graphics Card, HD, and MAYBE one open slot) Your paying here for SOME expandibility and the ability to use your current monitor and saving some money.

Yeah, I also agree if that the headless iMac appeared, it'd have to take over the role of the current LCD iMac. That said, I think a cost of $1199 for the low end headless iMac would be too high. The magic number of $999 is doable I think, even with a G5, say with a combo drive, a low end video card, and 80 GB hard drive. Maybe overall something like $999 - $1399, depending on the model.

[Centris650]

Originally posted by Eug:
I think a cost of $1199 for the low end headless iMac would be too high. The magic number of $999 is doable I think, even with a G5, say with a combo drive, a low end video card, and 80 GB hard drive. Maybe overall something like $999 - $1399, depending on the model.

Oh I agree. I was thinking that the $1299 would be for the high end MCM. (Superdrive etc.)

Ok, so when do we pitch this to Steve-O?