[jac]

I'm a bit confused about something: the biggest complaint about the iMac's screen is the size: 13.8" is way too small, right? Why then are people lusting for a screen that is only slightly larger in physical size and offers NO added work space as the resolutions are the same? How on earth can a 14 inch lcd be considered?

I also find it strange that the small iMac screen is said put off new computer buyers in favor for the at least 17" offered with new wintel PCs; but at the same time a 17 inch iMac is claimed to be too heavy and clumsy for anyone to ever want to own? How can people find room for a big heavy grey box AND a 17 inch CRT, but not an all-in-one iMac the same size as the PC monitor?

Maybe it's just me, but a 17 inch CRT iMac would certainly make me consider upgrading. Heck, a 19" would be even more appealing! A 15", 1024x768 pixel iMac will never be on my future shopping lists, LCD or no. But as I said, maybe that's just me. Anyone care to enlighten me?

maybe it's just me, but i don't want a winnebago sized imac parked on my desk. yes, 19'' is great...but just how practical is it? i wouldn't want to try and move a 70 pound imac and i doubt anyone else would either. it's 'mo-better thinking...where more=better,but this is not always true. if you need a big monitor, then in my opinion, the imac isn't for you. it wasn't built for powerusers, and to morph it into such a thing means that it stops being what it's supposed to be...a small, friendly consumer device.

for me, that's why LCD's make sense in the imac. they're cooler, lighter, smaller and brighter. i agree that a 14'' LCD imac is not ideal, but even at 14'', the ability to make a smaller, lighter enclosure is probably worth the change. personally, i think the 15.2'' LCD from the powerbook TI would be ideal. it would give a noticeable increase in workspace while keeping the footprint small. also, the thermal savings would allow for faster processors, larger video cards, etc. that would also provide a collateral benefit.

go to http://www02.u-page.so-net.ne.jp/rb3/mrc/top.html and click on the links to the "himac". here's a great concept that really shows how a flat design could benefit the imac. i know i would want a machine like this...even at 14''. of course, 15'' would be better still.

[jac]

If portability is a must then what's wrong with an iBook? You don't have to be a "power user" to want or benefit from a larger screen than the current one. In fact, an LCD is definitely more of a high-end product than simply a larger screen.
I agree that 19" is impractical, but 17 is very managable. The iMac is after all a desktop computer and the ability to easily move it around isn't a big priority for me (plus it's not a feather weight now as it is).
Apple already has the 2 best portables on the market, and I would prefer to see a new iMac with a lower price and higher performance than one that would make redecorating a snap could possibly have.

PRoblem with morphiogn the entire unit nto the screen is that it becomes TOO portable and will threaten the TiBook and iBook...so it still needs to be easy to move around, BUT difficult enough that it doesn't get mistaken for a portable.

okay...i admit it. i'd like a 17'' monitor. however, i still have to ask myself, do i want one in an imac?

they'd have to make a larger enclosure and i'm sure there are thermal issues to be dealt with as well. most 17'' monitors have a 16'' viewable area. the 15.2'' powerbook TI flat screen is only .8'' smaller in true working area, but is virtually the same size as the 15'' CRT (13.8'' viewable) present in today's imac. this to me seems like a better way....provide more screen without taking up more space.

yes, LCD's cost more right now, but the cost is falling. recently, companies have started working with LEP's (light emitting plastics) and have already created screens which are simpler to fabricate, while being brighter than even LCD's. in a few years, i think flat screens will move into the mainstream and the price will be where everyone wants them to be.

in the meantime, i still believe apple should focus on incorporating and marketing new technology...and that means flat screens. it's tough to make the imac of tomorrow with parts borrowed from yesterday.

[ajprice]

Xeo, what I said about the iTunes through the Apple logo was "a mute iTunes visualiser" . Mute as in no sound, because the doors are closed, because having sound playing when the doors are closed would be silly!

Whatever size LCD is used on the new iMac, the resolution should be at least 1024x768, or the widescreen equivalent (1152x768). This is the resolution the iBook uses with a 12" screen. If they used the same screen as a 15" Studio Display or TiBook, there would be no extra R & D or production cost because the screens already exist, so they order more of them for the iMacs, simple. (Lee Viera shakes his head and presses Post Reply)

[Macintosh]

The answer is so simple and laid out for us, it is crazy. Apple came out with a 17 inch flat and lowered the price on the 15 inch flat. This obviously means that the iMac will be rebuilt with the 15 inch FP because the price of that model is constantly falling. It is as if Apple wants us to know what their future plans are.http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/wink.gif

[ajprice]

Thought the message above hadn't posted, I come back and there it is. Weird.

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: ajprice ]

[Xeo]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Xeo, what I said about the iTunes through the Apple logo was "a mute iTunes visualiser" . Mute as in no sound, because the doors are closed, because having sound playing when the doors are closed would be silly!</STRONG>

Ahh, gotcha. I musta read over that. Sorry!

Now the "lava lamp-like" thing makes more sense, since lava lamps don't play music either.

[captnfun]

LCD's too expensive?? Here's a 14" LCD for $299.
http://www.monitoronsale.com/cgi-bin....cgi?id=800060

Let the debate begin...

[grok420]

For those of you doubting whether a 14-15" LCD is really an upgrade from the 15" CRT, forget about the numbers.

I've been pricing Machines online a LOT lately and never even considered the 15" LCD because it seemed too small. I mean, 15"?? Gimme a break, right?

Then on my trip to the Apple Store I was playing with a Cube hooked up to a big, expansive, gorgeous LCD with tons of real estate and a phenomenal picture. Apple store employee comes over to chat, I mention the monitor and she drops the bomb:

"Um, that's the 15" LCD. Those are pretty cheap now."

It was sitting right next to the now defunct 17" Studio CRT and it LOOKED BIGGER!!!

I'm telling you, even at the same size, an LCD monitor feels and works bigger than a CRT. You gotta see it to belive it. An iMac with a 14" or 15" (preferably) LCD is gonna be a HUGE upgrade visually.

[GraphiteBoi]

it might "look" bigger, but the fact remains..ITS SMALLER!

[jac]

...and at 1024x768 you get the same workspace as the new 12" iBook. A 17" at 1280x1024 (or higher) IS a big improvement. I don't see the point of making an LCD iMac if the resolution's gonna stay the same.

[2far]

Originally posted by GraphiteBoi:
<STRONG>it might "look" bigger, but the fact remains..ITS SMALLER!</STRONG>

You may be wrong: The sizes of LCDs and CRTs are not measured the same way, as any sane observer might think.

CRTs are measured from edge to edge of the glass. The edges are of course always hidden under the plastics, and the picture really only starts quite a distance from the actual glass edge, and that even varies with make and model. The screen size in inch is actually 2 inches larger than the picture itself most of the time, sometimes even more.

Whereas LCDs have their picture virtually the same size as the screen itself, so there is not such a big difference.

Bottom line: as a rule of thumb you can add 2" to the LCD size to get the CRT size with an equivalent picture size.

If you don't believe me, check it out, go ahead an measure the diagonal of the pictures of a 15" LCD and a 17" CRT ...

[Judge_Fire]

About Cost...

Apple can shave off some, perhaps even considerable, logistics expenses, if they can package three LCD iMacs in the space of one CRT model.

These little machines travel around a lot, all over the world, in large quantities, so small, light packages would make shipping and storaging more economical. And even ecological, should a US- based company be interested in such. (Sorry, compulsory Kyoto- plug )

Put a handle in the packaging and watch those happy customers carry them home from the Apple store, as opposed to wrangling the current iMac box.

It could be a hit in Japan, because of the size factor, thus bringing in the shipping factor from above again - Apple makes half it's sales outside the US. They might also be anticipating the dollar finally weakening, hopefully against the Euro, which would boost Apple's exports to Europe, as prices here would become reasonable. Of course, some key components come from Asia, so the dollar should remain strong in that market.

Above speculation purely from my selfish viewpoint, of course , but the over-rated dollar must be hurting exports of US companies. Bring it down a bit and Apple's overseas sales should pick up speed.

Something like � 0.02 worth of thoughts,

[Justin Morgan]

Apple definitely needs to do something to re-energize people's enthusiasm for the iMac. Am I the only person who thinks the Flower Power and Blue Dalmation iMacs are a little over the top? :-)

Introducing a radical Cube-styled (grey and clear) iMac with a 15" LCD display would definitely catch peoples' attention once again.

but the over-rated dollar must be hurting exports of US companies

Ironically, here in the USA we view the dollar as being just fine, and we perceive European and Asian currency (and national economies) to be in a slump. I guess it all depends on your perspective.

And even ecological, should a US- based company be interested in such. (Sorry, compulsory Kyoto- plug

For a good explanation of why America will never, never ratify the Kyoto treaty (as currently written), read this article.

Originally posted by jac:
<STRONG>I'm a bit confused about something: the biggest complaint about the iMac's screen is the size: 13.8" is way too small, right? Why then are people lusting for a screen that is only slightly larger in physical size and offers NO added work space as the resolutions are the same? How on earth can a 14 inch lcd be considered?
</STRONG>

The iMac CRT looks "relatively" crappy at 1024x768. I mostly run my iMac at 800x600 due to the 'fuzzyness' of the 1024x768 resolution. Don't get me wrong I think it's an excellent CRT, but it would be so much more comfortable on the eyes if it was a LCD.

For comparison, my ThinkPad had a 14.1 inch LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024. There is no way that that would be bearable on a 15" CRT, yet on that 14.1 inch LCD it's crisp and pleasant to look at.

[SunSeeker]

If you've ever seen rooms full of iMacs in a college or training centre, you will know that when a cheap crt mac is no longer available it will be a sad day for a significant number of students starting out in photoshop. Either they will be sharing fewer machines, colleges will switch to PCs or course fees will increase.

LCD just doesn't cut it, only the true pros can edit images without being able to see what they really look like..

An LCD model would be great, but if it's going to force the price up too much they could still do a CRT model for entry level.

Cheers!

Inkfinger

[zigzag]

Apple has an ownership interest in Samsung's LCD division, therefore Apple has a very competitive source for LCDs. Steve Jobs has said that LCD prices will continue to fall and that Apple intends to push this trend. Apple has discontinued production of its branded CRTs. LCDs are lightweight and compact, saving on manufacturing, shipping, and packaging costs. They are also easy on the eyes, and sexy. A 14" LCD has more real estate than the present iMac CRT. All of which makes me think that there will be an LCD iMac. IMO, Apple has to continue to lead and distinguish itself from the PC market, and this would be a good way to do it. I don't think a new version of the CRT iMac will be enough.

I can't imagine a 17" CRT iMac. It would be too big, too inelegant. Jobs is not one to take old technology and make it even uglier. That would be backwards, and he is always moving forward. It would go against the whole LCD trend that Apple is in front of.

The iBook starts at $1299. Using cheaper, off-the-shelf components, an easier-to-build case, no battery, and it seems conceivable that an LCD iMac could be built for less. They might sacrifice margins at first on the low-end model, but hopefully they could make up for it with upgrade models. And LCD and other component costs would continue to decline, helping margins over time.

Looked at another way, the cheapest Cube is $1299. Switch the G4 for a G3, shave some other component and manufacturing costs, flatten it a bit, stick an LCD on it, and you could conceivably offer an LCD iMac for less.

Getting it down to $999 might be tough, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. No one expected the new iBook for $1299.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[SpeedRacer]

Speed's Top 10 List:
10 Reasons the next iMac will be LCD...

1) LCD-based PCs have exploded in popularity over the past 6 months. Witness the Compaq iPaq series, IBM Netvista X40, etc.

2) Apple's investment in Samsung.

3) Apple's elimination of CRT's in their display line.

4) Apple's lowering of the 15" LCD by nearly $200.

5) Apple increase of the base model iMac by $100. Irregardless of added features (firewire, Airport) this sets a standard for future iMacs to start at a minimum of $900. Possibly even $999?

6) Inordinate delay on any Cube rev or update. Timeline-wise the Cube should have been rev'ed by now. Why wait so long to rev a product... unless it is to coincide with the rev of another product in you company's lineup? More evidence of a imminent Cube death: Poor Cube sales, SJ stating: "We thought there was room between our professional and consumer products. It turns out there isn't," and the slow/ending of Cube shipments to retail channels.

7) The overall Apple product matrix. The elimination of the Cube line would leave a massive gap in Apple's line for an inexpensive LCD-based, consumer Macintosh bundle. Enter iMac v3.0.

8) The "digital hub" analogy. How does an analog CRT device fit into this concept? Call it a small detail, but LCDs are digital, CRTs are not. Take it from there.

9) Alternatives to a LCD-based iMac. What are they? Rumors of a 17" iMac have existed since the initial release of the iMac. It's been nearly two years. If it was going to happen it would have by now. At the time of the rumors 17" displays were the standard. Now we're looking at 19" displays as the emerging standard. Why produce an over-sized computer with a sub-par display?

10) Apple's release of a consumer portable with 1024x768 res LCD screen for $1299. If you can produce an LCD-based consumer laptop for $1299, why would you not be able to produce a consumer desktop for $999? Irregardless of physical screen size, consider Apple's traditional high initial markup on new products. Given this, the iBook at $1299 is still likely granting Apple a considerable markup profit and demonstrates that the cost of LCD technology has come down dramatically since the release of the $1599 iBook with 800x600 screen nearly a year ago.

Mark my words... the next iMac will be LCD-based.

Speed

[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: SpeedRacer ]

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
<STRONG>

Mark my words... the next iMac will be LCD-based.

</STRONG>

Unless Apple releases a whole new desktop product line to address the sub-$1000 market, I remain unconvinced that this next iMac rev coming at MWNY will be LCD-based.

As I've said before, they could do it, but it'd be a major mistake to just give away the sub-$1K market to Wintel(more like the sub-$1200 market, actually).

And of course, this doesn't even address the fact that the next rev of iMacs should be getting combo DVD/CDRW drives and better graphics cards, both of which will put pricing pressures on the iMac line. And you're going to go to an expensive LCD at the same time? Sorry, don't think so. Yeah, you could have a $2000 iMac SE that was LCD-based, but who'd buy it?

It's gotten to the point where I just want to STFU and wait for Macworld NY to seperate the Nostradamuses from the NoClueWhatsoeveruses. Only a month more to wait and see what Steve pulls out of his hat...

--lee

no doubt there's lots of activity in the sub $1000 pc market, but i doubt that much money is being made there either. the cheaper the pc, the lower the margin, the more you have to sell in order to turn a profit. i agree apple needs a sub $1000 pc, but they shouldn't attempt to drive prices down by using cheaper components. instead, they need to sell potential customers on why macs are worth the extra investment. we'll never beat the wintel world on price. we need to beat them in elegance, style, and simplicity. flat screens provide a benefit people can easily see. you can have this collection of beige boxes, or for a few hundred more you can have this beautiful display in a computer that's practically as flat as a pancake. that's a difference you can see. a difference you can sell.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by &lt;koffedrnkr&gt;:
<STRONG>no doubt there's lots of activity in the sub $1000 pc market, but i doubt that much money is being made there either. the cheaper the pc, the lower the margin, the more you have to sell in order to turn a profit. i agree apple needs a sub $1000 pc, but they shouldn't attempt to drive prices down by using cheaper components. instead, they need to sell potential customers on why macs are worth the extra investment. we'll never beat the wintel world on price. we need to beat them in elegance, style, and simplicity. flat screens provide a benefit people can easily see. you can have this collection of beige boxes, or for a few hundred more you can have this beautiful display in a computer that's practically as flat as a pancake. that's a difference you can see. a difference you can sell.</STRONG>

Sure, but you're missing two things:

1) Apple needs all the marketshare it can get, regardless of whether or not it makes much money off of low-end products. Apple's share is currently below 5%, and if they cede large segments of the market to PCs, they risk that number dropping lower, and with it, software/games support from developers, which would hurt Apple's more profitable higher-end markets too.

2) Several PC makers ALREADY make an LCD all-in-one desktop, among them Gateway and IBM, and neither scored a sales homerun with them, mainly due to a poor price-performance ratio (think Cube here).
An LCD iMac isn't as nearly as 'revolutionary' as you might think, unless you define 'revolutionary' as going where PC makers have already been for months now.

I won't presume to speak for everyone, but for myself, anyway, a new iMac with either a 17" CRT or a 'wide-screen' 16" CRT, 133MHz bus, DDR-RAM, GeForce 2MX or Radeon VE vid cards, and combo CDRW/DVD drives would be all the 'revolution' I'd need =]

LCDs can come onboard when they're good and cheap, i.e. 9-18 months from now.


--lee

[Nimisys]

Lee i think you are underestimating the cost of the Pioneer DVR-A03 (aka SuperDrive)...

take a look at the cost of it at PriceWatch...

then look at the cost of a (LCD)15" TFT display ...

Now i realize that Apple, NEC and Packard bell are getting a much cheaper price, (as seen in Packard Bell and NEC systems under 2k with ghz CPU's 1394, and and 60GB drives) but Apple having a controlling stake in Samsung LCD would also have one there...

You'll either see SuperDrive or LCD, but i doub't both ina sub 1200$ machine as those two parts alone could total 1.1k....

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>Lee i think you are underestimating the cost of the Pioneer DVR-A03 (aka SuperDrive)...

take a look at the cost of it at PriceWatch...

then look at the cost of a (LCD)15" TFT display ...

Now i realize that Apple, NEC and Packard bell are getting a much cheaper price, (as seen in Packard Bell and NEC systems under 2k with ghz CPU's 1394, and and 60GB drives) but Apple having a controlling stake in Samsung LCD would also have one there...

You'll either see SuperDrive or LCD, but i doub't both ina sub 1200$ machine as those two parts alone could total 1.1k....</STRONG>

Um, you seem a bit confused. The iMac line isn't going to have SuperDrives for quite awhile, and that wasn't what I was saying.

I'm talking CD-RW/DVD-playback-only drives(i.e. 'combo drives'), not DVD-R or DVD-RW drives like the SuperDrive. SuperDrives are very obviously waaay too expensive for the iMac line at present...which is why you only see them on the $3500 G4 tower. SDs retailed at $1000 upon introduction, which is more than an entire low-end iMac.

Even combo drives of the type I'm describing will add around $100 more to the price of an iMac over what a plain CD-ROM would, and something like $40-70 over CD-RW(CNet did a story describing manufacturer's cost of combo drives being approx. $140, and CD-RWs being $70 or 100(sorry, forget which). Manufacturer's cost for plain CD-ROMs? Well, seeing as you can get them at Fry's for $40...)

Far as LCD goes...sigh. Yes, you can get an el cheapo 15" LCD for around $350, if you're willing to settle for trusted brand names such as 'Generic' and 'House Brand'.

Significantly, the cheapest Samsung on your list was $404. Apple could get them for a bit less than that, though, sorry, the Samsung investment does *not* mean Sammy is gonna sell LCDs to Apple at a loss.

But do you realize how incredibly dirt cheap CRTs are? Even very high-quality 15" CRTs go for $200, retail. Dell lets you add 15" CRTs to their comps for $110 (I have one at work in fact; its only adequate, but hey, it works).

What do you think Apple pays for the good-but-not-great Mitsumi 15" CRT units in the current iMacs? I'd be shocked if it was much above $100.

Lets put it this way...the current low-end iMac goes for $899. IBM took their best shot at a cheap, low-spec'd 15" LCD all-in-one, and it goes for $1262, best price. You do the math.

I'm not a guru here by any means, merely a re-teller of the obvious.

--lee

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>


Sure, but you're missing two things:

1) Apple needs all the marketshare it can get, regardless of whether or not it makes much money off of low-end products. Apple's share is currently below 5%, and if they cede large segments of the market to PCs, they risk that number dropping lower, and with it, software/games support from developers, which would hurt Apple's more profitable higher-end markets too.

2) Several PC makers ALREADY make an LCD all-in-one desktop, among them Gateway and IBM, and neither scored a sales homerun with them, mainly due to a poor price-performance ratio (think Cube here).
An LCD iMac isn't as nearly as 'revolutionary' as you might think, unless you define 'revolutionary' as going where PC makers have already been for months now.

I won't presume to speak for everyone, but for myself, anyway, a new iMac with either a 17" CRT or a 'wide-screen' 16" CRT, 133MHz bus, DDR-RAM, GeForce 2MX or Radeon VE vid cards, and combo CDRW/DVD drives would be all the 'revolution' I'd need =]

LCDs can come onboard when they're good and cheap, i.e. 9-18 months from now.


--lee</STRONG>

lee, your last point seems to be making mine for me. i doubt apple could produce the revolutionary system you're asking for and still hold below the $1000 pricepoint. we both agree that apple needs something to drive sales, but where you want better system specs, i think apple should focus on a few key differences. BTW, i like your system configuration. it would appeal to anyone who knows anything about what's happening under the hood. unfortunately, most imac people aren't enthusiasts...they're first timers, school teachers, parents, college kids, consumers. do they care about DDR? can the apple marketing department make them care? i just don't see it.

i also agree the flatscreen offerings from other manufacturers have been failures, but look at why.....most were underpowered, overpriced, and under "screened". there was also the "white elephant" syndrome. one model that was radically different from all other products and was very expensive to boot. doesn't exactly inspire consumer confidence.....

i think going LCD with the imac, a mainstream pc, would give apple's marketing department something they could work with..something they can use to push brand awareness and ultimately, sales. with LCD prices falling, apple is in a position to do something revolutionary...not by adding a flat screen, but in bringing the price down to the point were average computer buyers can have a shot at owning one.

i can hear steve now ... "apple is the first company in history to use LCD's across an entire desktop line. apple is also the first company in history to do it for under $(fill in prices here)."

or how about this,

"look at this dell system...it's large, it's hot, it's noisy, it's an energy hog....now look at the new imac. it's sleek, cool, silent and energy efficient. which one would you really want in your home?"

that's good marketing. that creates mindshare. that makes non-apple people say, "i want that!". i'm not saying they don't care about HD size, memory and speed...i'm saying that the imac built it's base around a smart form-factor. to enlarge the design with a larger CRT is a step in the wrong direction. just my opinion, of course... ; )

[Toxi]

Key argument everybody comes back to is price - the impossibility to offer a good spec imac with LCD, however, as some have pointed out already, components in the ibook should be far costlier than ones in a desktop model - this should give Apple the "margin" to fit in a LCD screen.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG> I won't presume to speak for everyone, but for myself, anyway, a new iMac with either a 17" CRT or a 'wide-screen' 16" CRT, 133MHz bus, DDR-RAM, GeForce 2MX or Radeon VE vid cards, and combo CDRW/DVD drives would be all the 'revolution' I'd need =] </STRONG>

lee, I hope your being facetious. You may be right about an LCD iMac being premature, but these features sound more dreamlike to me than a 14" LCD. In light of recent trends and statements, do you think Apple would go to a bigger CRT? And a 133MHz bus in the iMac? People who want something that big and fast have a much more likely choice - a tower.

But only time will tell.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG> Significantly, the cheapest Samsung on your list was $404. Apple could get them for a bit less than that, though, sorry, the Samsung investment does *not* mean Sammy is gonna sell LCDs to Apple at a loss.

What do you think Apple pays for the good-but-not-great Mitsumi 15" CRT units in the current iMacs? I'd be shocked if it was much above $100.

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]</STRONG>

Let's say your figures are about right, let's say that Apple gets the current iMac monitors for about $100 (that's with a viewable area of 13.9"), and that they can get 15" (viewable) LCDs for $300 or so (they have an ownership interest in the business, and they only need the screens, not the casings, so maybe even less). That's a difference of only $200, possibly less due to lower shipping, packaging and manufacturing costs. And you're getting a bigger, better screen. Compare with the 17" CRT that you're looking for, or even a nice flat CRT, and the difference shrinks even further. I think it's possible that they could come up with a range of machines between $1000-2000 (if they drop the Cube) that would satisfy a lot of people.

It was only a year ago Christmas that I paid $1500 for an iMac DV SE (since replaced by a Cube because I couldn't stand the CRT monitor anymore). If I didn't already have the Cube, I'd happily pay that much or more for a new iMac with a 14-15" LCD screen.

My concern is that the design will appear too exotic for the mass market, which I think was a problem with the Cube. Considering the IBM and Gateway machines, it's possible that the mass market just isn't ready. But I never thought the original iMac would sell like it did, either. If Apple gets the look right, they might make it work.

Time will tell.

[funkboy]

The more I think about an LCD iMac, the harder it is to justify making one. I suppose quite a few people still would like a desktop machine - but think how many MORE people would much rather have an airport setup and a laptop?

If Apple lowered prices on the AirPort and could even lower the price of an iBook a touch more, you'd have a computer that could sit at a desk or be carried anywhere around the house or office, at about the same price of an iMac that is guaranteed to suck up desktop real estate.

I guess I'm starting to see an eventual phase-out of desktop technology for home users once laptop prices get low enough - there probably won't be real replacements for towers with their PCI slots and drive bays and big ol' heat, but for most home users, a low-cost laptop that's wireless would be just what the doctor ordered.

[zigzag]

funkboy, I agree with you, sorta. Laptops are getting so good that it's getting harder to decide laptop vs. desktop. But desktops still have serious advantages - full-size, moveable keyboards and monitors, brighter monitors, more ports, bigger and faster drives, etc., for less money to boot. But if your argument applies to an LCD iMac, I think it applies even more to a bigger CRT iMac.

Anything Apple does will probably surprise us. Who knows, maybe the iMac will remain as is for a while longer and they'll come out with some new type of Cube.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Toxi:
<STRONG>Key argument everybody comes back to is price - the impossibility to offer a good spec imac with LCD, however, as some have pointed out already, components in the ibook should be far costlier than ones in a desktop model - this should give Apple the "margin" to fit in a LCD screen.</STRONG>

People keep making that iBook argument, but fact is,

1) the cheapest iBook is still $1299, or $400 more than the cheapest iMac

2) iBooks have a 12.1" LCD, i.e. a cheap small LCD that'd likely be too small for the iMac.

Doesn't add up.

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>

lee, I hope your being facetious. You may be right about an LCD iMac being premature, but these features sound more dreamlike to me than a 14" LCD. In light of recent trends and statements, do you think Apple would go to a bigger CRT? And a 133MHz bus in the iMac? People who want something that big and fast have a much more likely choice - a tower.

But only time will tell.</STRONG>

There's really nothing facetious about those features...if you go out and price 17" CRTs, they are quite a lot closer in price to 15" CRTs than 15" LCDs are.

For example, Dell charges as little as $60 for you to upgrade a system-included 15" CRT to 17". The LCD price gap is far larger than that, for any adequately-sized LCD (i.e. 15").

Combo drives are pretty much a slam-dunk at least for higher end iMacs, as Apple is already including them in some product lines, and PC makers are doing so as well. It's just logic at work...there's a CD-RW camp of customers and a DVD camp of customers, and combo drives let computer makers keep both camps happy for not a lot more money.

A 133MHz bus is hardly extravagent, many moderately priced PCs have already gone this way, hence the common-ness of PC133 RAM these days(my iMac is running a PC133 DIMM, btw). DDR-RAM? Already a high-end PC feature, and soon to be a moderately-priced PC feature.

Vid cards? 16MB GeForce2MX or Radeon VEs(the low-cost Radeon) just aren't that expensive anymore(Apple's cost is likely in the $60 range), and a lot of purchasers of higher-end iMacs are pretty annoyed that they shelled out $1500 and yet still have to settle for 2-year old Rage128 technology.

I'm not saying that all of these features will make into the next rev, but some of them will, and the rest are only months away(i.e. the rev after this one).

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by &lt;koffedrnkr&gt;:
<STRONG>

i also agree the flatscreen offerings from other manufacturers have been failures, but look at why.....most were underpowered, overpriced, and under "screened". </STRONG>

They were underpowered and overpriced because LCDs cost so much

Apple doesn't want to make the same mistake, so they'll either

1) wait until LCD prices are lower (smart, IMO)

2) go with an LCD iMac with a small, cheap LCD, like 12" (dumb, IMO)

3) introduce a new cheap desktop line for the sub-$1K market, and let LCD iMacs handle the $1200-1500+ market (very risky, IMO).


--lee

[SpeedRacer]

Other than the price issue that nobody outside of Apple really understands anyway, has anyone here got even the slightest clue as to what Apple could do to keep a cheapo 13.8" CRT display-based iMac alive for even another month other than the absurd notion of cramming a 45.8lb 17" CRT display into an already 34.7lb iMac?

I can just see it now on July 21st...

"Man! I just got to get myself one of those 60lb, 17" CRT, combo-drive, flower doggy iMacs! They're sooooo amazing."

Don't think i've ever seen a topic go around in circles so many times. If you're gonna say X iMac feature is not going to make it into the next iMac let's see some reasonable alternatives for the next version of Apple's most successful product ever. At 13.8" in its current form even a 14.1" LCD (like on the old PBG3s would be an improvement).

Speed

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
<STRONG>Other than the price issue that nobody outside of Apple really understands anyway, has anyone here got even the slightest clue as to what Apple could do to keep a cheapo 13.8" CRT display-based iMac alive for even another month other than the absurd notion of cramming a 45.8lb 17" CRT display into an already 34.7lb iMac?

I can just see it now on July 21st...

"Man! I just got to get myself one of those 60lb, 17" CRT, combo-drive, flower doggy iMacs! They're sooooo amazing."

</STRONG>

Gosh, I don't know where you get that from. Must be livin' in the '80s or something, back when 17s really were tanks.

Go over to Mitsubishi's website. Most of their 17" CRTs weigh in at 37 1/2 lbs., which is only 8.8 lbs. more than what their 15" CRTs are. And Mitsus aren't even the lightest 17s around.

Before you complain about those 8 lbs.-and-change, remember that the original iMac weighed 3-4 lbs. more than what the current one does. So we're talking about 5 lbs. over the Rev A iMac to go 17". I could easily live with that.

Not saying that they'll do it, just saying that weight isn't a big barrier to doing so. Price isn't a barrier either, since 17" CRTs have been commoditized so heavily, due to them becoming the 'standard' monitor size in recent years.

--lee

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[Dogma]

Let me tell you that weight is factor.

Can you imagine the difference a few pounds here and there add in real cost of shipping? Also note that the size of the boxes would have to be very well calculated but it would still be 10-15% larger than the current iMac box. Again shipping costs.

Also, the current iMac box fits comfortably into any car. Whereas the Apple 17" Studio CRT box would only go into hatchbacks (you know, ones with the foldable seats), that couple of extra inches adds a lot more headache than you would think. Plus of course most people can carry an iMac box, but few find it easy to carry a 17" display box.

These are physical and real concerns that Apple will be looking at.

I would definitely say that 17" is a very bad idea. (unless it's flat panel of course - as if!)

[koffedrnkr]

there's another problem with cramming a larger CRT into an imac...heat dissipation. cooler running G3's combined with a simplified motherboard allowed imacs to transition from units with fans (revisions A & B) to ones cooled by convection. i know how warm my slot-loading DVD imac SE gets under heavy working conditions. i shudder to think how a larger CRT would increase this. of course, you could cram more in if you went back to using a fan, but then you've just taken a gigantic step backwards. i still believe that for the next-gen imac to succeed, it needs to be "bigger" without being any bigger. that means a 14 or 15'' LCD screen to improve upon the 13.8'' viewable area of the existing model.

[Nicko]

Another thought... how could apple possibly make a 17inch crt imac look cool and sexy? I don't see it happening.

[satchmo]

With all due respect Lee, I think there has to be a LCD iMac in the offerings. Not so much to do with your numbers adding up but the perception problem Apple will face if they don't come up with something "different"
In this climate where PC's are slashing their prices, Apple's defence is their innovation and design.

If another teardrop shaped iMac whether it be 16" or 17" widescreen or otherwise is introduced, it'll just be viewed as just another all in one computer. Yes, it'll probably look cool given Apple's design team but, how many times can you milk a dead cow? The public's seen enough candy coloured iMacs and certainly enough flower powered ones.

An LCD version while not unique, can and will be perceived as cool once Jonathan Ives and his team is through with it. Throw in the combo drive and maybe a built-in TV tuner and university students will snap them up in a second. Marketing will be a key factor in letting people see the benefits of a LCD screen.

As far as costs are concerned, Apple has never been the cheapest and my guess is that this won't change. Perhaps the entry model with lower specs and very low cost ($999) targets new buyers. A substantially higher mid line model with much better spec, for the bulk of Mac users better, and of course the special edition version that is usually way over priced.

Bottom line, if Apple wants to chip away at the other 95%, it must at least appear to be different. After all, most people want cool looking stuff.

[lee vieira]

Again, what's so 'innovative' about an LCD all-in-one desktop if IBM and Gateway have had LCD all-in-one desktops out for several months now?

Answer: Nothing.

Face it fellas, Apple isn't going to release an LCD iMac in some desperate bid to be thought of as 'innovative'...if that's their reason for doing it, the PCers will laugh in their face and point to the NetVistas and Profile 3.

Apple will do an LCD iMac when market conditions get to the point where it makes good common sense to do so, price/performance-wise.

Think back to what made the iMac such a big hit in the first place... was it the all-in-one design? Yes, partly, but that wasn't innovative...Apple all-in-ones had been around at least since the original Macintosh in '84. Was it the ease-of-use? Yes, partly, but Macs have always been easy-to-use. Was it that you could set one up and be on the 'net in ten minutes flat, start to finish? Yes, but Macs have always....yadda yadda yadda.

Don't you see? Aside from the styling, the iMac was NEVER some hyper-innovative, magical bolt from the blue. It was never some grand technological leap forward. It was the coming together of several bits of computer common sense that had been around for ages and that all ended up working wonderfully together for Joe Consumer.

The iMac is a very, very good common sense design, but not a breakthrough technological revolution.

When LCDs make common sense for the iMac, Apple will then absolutely go that way. Notwithstanding some serious comprimises, I don't think we're there yet.


--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by koffedrnkr:
<STRONG>there's another problem with cramming a larger CRT into an imac...heat dissipation. cooler running G3's combined with a simplified motherboard allowed imacs to transition from units with fans (revisions A & B) to ones cooled by convection. </STRONG>

Odd...the TiBook runs an 'allegedly-hotter-than-G3s' G4 cpu, and has no fan, far as I can tell.

Perhaps the iMac's fanless design had less to do with 'cooler running G3s' as you put it, and more to do with Steve Jobs' famous hatred of fans in computers, dating back to the Lisa days.

Note that the Cube was a convection design also, and ran a G4.

--lee

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Dogma:
<STRONG>Let me tell you that weight is factor.

Also, the current iMac box fits comfortably into any car. Whereas the Apple 17" Studio CRT box would only go into hatchbacks (you know, ones with the foldable seats), that couple of extra inches adds a lot more headache than you would think.</STRONG>

The old Apple 17" Studio Display is a very bad example, given that it was one of the bulkiest 17s ever made.

Go to a store and set a 15" CRT next to a 17" CRT from the same manufacturer...the difference in size is pretty negligible.

It's also readily calcuable, given the standard 4:3 aspect ratio that most monitors use...a 17" screen is all of 1.2" taller and 1.6" wider than a 15" one is.

If that makes a huge difference to you, then hey, who am I to tell you otherwise? But I myself find it difficult to get worked up over an inch here and there.

To be honest though, what I care about the next iMac having even more than a bigger screen(though that'd be nice) is combo drives and a better vid card on any models that are $1199 and up.

To me, features are what are truly crucial, both from my own preference, and iMac-sales-wise as well(note how iMac sales started to slip in 2000 when they didn't offer CD-RW for a whole year after PC makers started to).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I don't to get into a form-factor jihad here. Look at Macworld Tokyo...Jobs rolls out new iMacs that finally have CD-RWs and iTunes, and all anyone can talk about is how much they love/hate the FlowerPower and Blue Dalmatian color schemes. Dumb.


--lee

[binky_says_hi]

Apple has an All-in-one that has a 12" LCD screen
www.assistivetech.com/p-Gemini.htm#SPEC
'special needs computer'

----------------------------------------
Memory: 160MB RAM
Hard Drive: 3GB
Screen: 12" LCD colour
CD-ROM: 24x
Processor: G3
Mac OS: 9.04
----------------------------------------

If 'Apple ' increased screen size(17"),
bigger HD and SuperDrived it(DVD-R, CD-RW)
I think people would pounce-on-it. Can't be done???

Before iMac...life was 'beige'...coloured computers,
only if you're painter didn't use a drop cloth...

Price...???...in '97 a G3/233 - 7200 was under $2000,
that was only the box it did not include a monitor.
In '98 the iMac was introduced for under $1300, in
6 months you got more computer for less money.

When 'Apple' is ready they'll let us know...and
they'll be a little more creative than calling
it "iMac or iMac2".

------------
LC III
UMAC Apple Clone
iMac DV - Lime

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by binky_says_hi:
<STRONG>Apple has an All-in-one that has a 12" LCD screen
www.assistivetech.com/p-Gemini.htm#SPEC
'special needs computer'

----------------------------------------
Memory: 160MB RAM
Hard Drive: 3GB
Screen: 12" LCD colour
CD-ROM: 24x
Processor: G3
Mac OS: 9.04
----------------------------------------

If 'Apple ' increased screen size(17"),
bigger HD and SuperDrived it(DVD-R, CD-RW)
I think people would pounce-on-it. Can't be done???

Before iMac...life was 'beige'...coloured computers,
only if you're painter didn't use a drop cloth...

Price...???...in '97 a G3/233 - 7200 was under $2000,
that was only the box it did not include a monitor.
In '98 the iMac was introduced for under $1300, in
6 months you got more computer for less money.

When 'Apple' is ready they'll let us know...and
they'll be a little more creative than calling
it "iMac or iMac2".

------------
LC III
UMAC Apple Clone
iMac DV - Lime</STRONG>

Umm...what does a $6000 modified blueberry iBook for handicapped people have to do with anything?

--lee

[binky_says_hi]

Umm...what does a $6000 modified blueberry iBook for handicapped people have to do with anything?


-----------
Granted it may look like an iBook(sans keyboard half)...but it's
got the LCD screen, CD drive, full size (external as-in separate)
keyboard/ mouse,and built-in stereo speakers.

Is this not what this discussion is about...what 'if' Apple could
make an 'All-in-One' unit like the iMac, but w/ a LCD screen.

I was only try to shed some light on a product people were saying
'what if' when 'Apple' already is making it(in small quantities, hence
the high price tag).

Originally posted by lee vieira:
<STRONG>


Odd...the TiBook runs an 'allegedly-hotter-than-G3s' G4 cpu, and has no fan, far as I can tell.

Perhaps the iMac's fanless design had less to do with 'cooler running G3s' as you put it, and more to do with Steve Jobs' famous hatred of fans in computers, dating back to the Lisa days.

Note that the Cube was a convection design also, and ran a G4.

--lee</STRONG>

i'm well aware of steve's dislike for fans, but if you'll notice....both the TI book and the cube can use a G4 precisely because NEITHER TRIES TO USE A CRT IN THE SAME ENCLOSURE. which brings me back to my earlier point about heat dissipation. it would be a major design issue for an imac sporting a 16 or 17'' CRT....which is why i don't see it happening. why should apple wait until LCD prices drop to the point where everyone will start using them? they need to get into the space first...for their reputation if for nothing else. it's possible they may even elect to take a cut in margin for the first year or so in anticipation of a further LCD price drop. that's a small price to pay to be the first consumer machine to sport a decent sized display.

apple sells itself as an innovation company. they pride themselves on "getting there first"...whether that's firewire, or airport, or superdrives. you think they're really going to let LCD's simply walk on by? i doubt it.

[SpeedRacer]

I think koffedrnkr's point on the heat issue is an important one. Which is why comparing a hypothetical 17" CRT iMac to a Cube and/or Titanium is completely irrelevant as neither of these 2 products are equipped with a heat-spewing CRT display. Anybody that's used both a Cube and iMac can confirm the fact that the top of the iMac gets considerably hotter than the top of a Cube in everyday use. Why? Clearly it's certainly not the CPU.

Speed

[SpeedRacer]

Sorry Lee you made some good points earlier, but here's another reason why you're incorrect on the CRT vs. LCD issue. You're primary argument is cost-efficiency of a 17" CRT vs. 14-15" LCD, yes?

Why do you think Apple has waited so long to rev the iMac? Certainly 17"displays have been available for cheap for quite some time now. Why wait so long to rev what has been a poorer and poorer seller for Apple?

Consider this...

Summer 01: Apple releases 17" CRT iMac.
Spring 02: 15" LCD's drops the point where they fit Lee's definition of a cost-effective display
Summer 02: Apple drops screen size by 2" and releases 15" LCD iMac?

Putting a 17" CRT in an iMac makes little sense b/c it sets the standard of a 17" display in all future iMac releases. Given you're very same argument on cost-efficiency combined with a current selling point of $999 for the 17" Apple LCD, we wouldn't see a LCD-based iMac for years.

If you believe that at any point in the future Apple is going to standardize its iMac line on LCD, it make little sense to believe that Apple would release a 17" CRT-base iMac in the interim.

It will either (a) not change at all (how long can you milk a dead cow argument) or (b) go LCD now at very slim initial profit margins.

Speed