[Evan_11]

The original iMac was new and different but it also looked like it wouldn't mind if you drank a beer and ate pizza in front of it. The iMac G4 and G5 models look like museum exhibits, you know "no food or drinks allowed". If you touch it, it will leave a mark. They look high maintenance.

That's why I think they need to lose the white.

If they offer an anodized aluminum model it will sell better.

[storer]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The original iMac was new and different but it also looked like it wouldn't mind if you drank a beer and ate pizza in front of it. The iMac G4 and G5 models look like museum exhibits, you know "no food or drinks allowed". If you touch it, it will leave a mark. They look high maintenance.
That's why I think they need to lose the white.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The white is a distinctive apple thing and elegance in design is important.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The original iMac was new and different but it also looked like it wouldn't mind if you drank a beer and ate pizza in front of it. The iMac G4 and G5 models look like museum exhibits, you know "no food or drinks allowed". If you touch it, it will leave a mark. They look high maintenance.

OMG! What will it think if I download some pr0n!!

[mbryda]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
OMG! What will it think if I download some pr0n!!

Mine never minds. I think it likes looking at it with me!

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by storer:
I couldn't disagree with you more. The white is a distinctive apple thing and elegance in design is important.

The iMac G4 and iMac G5 look like something that Christopher Lowell would try to sell.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by storer:
I couldn't disagree with you more. The white is a distinctive apple thing and elegance in design is important.

You missed my point. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Joe and Jane Public.

I like the design too. It's just that iMac sales have flatlined over the last couple of years. I just think they should of went with anodized aluminum like the cinema displays and iPod mini. It's a gut feeling.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I just think they should of went with anodized aluminum like the cinema displays and iPod mini. It's a gut feeling.

The cinema displays are not anodized.

A good friend of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool PC user, likes the new design. He was an Apple basher for years and years. Two weeks ago he admitted that he likes Macs and OS X. He's assessing his finances to see if he can afford to get one right now.

I think the iMac G5 will be successful. It has a simple clean look to it that I think most people will like more than the previous generation iMacs.

[teknopimp]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
The cinema displays are not anodized.

um... yes they are:

http://www.apple.com/displays/

read the third line.

[d0ubled0wn]

I've always assumed anodized means colors. Silly me.

[funkboy]

I agree with the first poster. But I think it may have something to do with the LCD screen - they're considered more "fragile" by computer geeks (since they are!) and, therefore, by the public at large I think.

The way to make it more friendly is to make it bigger, more protected by the elements, probably.

[hldan]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
I've always assumed anodized means colors. Silly me.

Anodizing the aluminum is a mechanical process that changes the structure of the metal so to make it non porous and non reactive. It gives the metal a natural look and durability for cookware and obviously the computers and displays and iPod mini's for Apple.

[MrForgetable]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
The cinema displays are not anodized.

A good friend of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool PC user, likes the new design. He was an Apple basher for years and years. Two weeks ago he admitted that he likes Macs and OS X. He's assessing his finances to see if he can afford to get one right now.

I think the iMac G5 will be successful. It has a simple clean look to it that I think most people will like more than the previous generation iMacs.

my friend who is a diehard PC user said she loves the new iMac. "So thin, so purdy"

[storer]

Originally posted by MrForgetable:
my friend who is a diehard PC user said she loves the new iMac. "So thin, so purdy"

I've found a lot of my windoze friends like it too. It just appeals to them

[balls]

Originally posted by storer:
I've found a lot of my windoze friends like it too. It just appeals to them

I just hope it will attract more people to the Mac.

[khufuu]

They didn't call it the iLamp for nothing.

[LoganCharles]

Good to hear the PC crowd likes it. This unfortunately doesn't translate into sales usually. It's kind of like saying I like the new BMW but I have no intentions of buying one.

[Graymalkin]

The original iMac largely appealed to two different markets, home users and educational users. The situation has been a bit different since the eMac's introduction however. The eMac largely appeals to the educational market while the iMac appeals more to the home market. Comparing the original iMacs sales to the G4's sales is a bit silly because they're different products aimed at different markets. The G4 iMac sales slump has little to do with the case's color.

I personally feel the new iMac is going to sell extremely well this year. The iMacs are no longer eMacs with LCDs on metal arms sticking out of the top. There was little to differenciate the late model G4 iMacs with the eMacs besides the screen and form factor. The G5 iMacs are a definite improvement over the eMacs yet not as pricey as PowerMacs.

[Parky]

My view is :-

When the original iMac came out it was so different it brought a new type of user to Apple.
All these new users / buyers may not yet want to upgrade, many of them will still be using OS9 to get mail and surf the internet.

Of course they will have been upgrading over the years, but you will not get that same buying spike that happened initially, as what we have now is evolution rather than the revolution the Bondi Blue iMac started.

Ian

[P]

I have another theory why the iMac wasn't selling so good with the G4: price. The first iMac debuted at $1299 and dropped from that - you could get a decent machine at $999. The G4s got too expensive, with an expensive CPU and large LCDs. I'm hoping that the cheaper G5 (yes, they're cheaper than the G4) and dropping prices on LCDs can once again bring the low-end iMac below $1000 with a 15" 4:3 LCD.

[Parky]

I don't think we will see a 15" LCD iMac again.

Two reasons :-

1. It would look like a backwards move to announce a smaller screen version.
2. They would not have the room in a 15" flat enclosure for all the G5 iMac parts.

Ian

[storer]

Originally posted by P:
I have another theory why the iMac wasn't selling so good with the G4: price. The first iMac debuted at $1299 and dropped from that - you could get a decent machine at $999. The G4s got too expensive, with an expensive CPU and large LCDs. I'm hoping that the cheaper G5 (yes, they're cheaper than the G4) and dropping prices on LCDs can once again bring the low-end iMac below $1000 with a 15" 4:3 LCD.

The price was high, but it was justified. Its amazing how much time you waste while using iMac G4s, purely from looking at the beautiful machine. I have seen it so many times before, but its still just beautiful.

[Lancer409]

the lamp was gorgeous ... if only you could gut a g5 imac and slap it into a 20inch lamp ... it was ... man ... i had a feeling they wouldnt be able to top it ... i need to see the g5 in person .. maybe it'll grow on me .. but the g4 imac was ... wow

[mac freak]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
A good friend of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool PC user, likes the new design. He was an Apple basher for years and years. Two weeks ago he admitted that he likes Macs and OS X. He's assessing his finances to see if he can afford to get one right now.

Ha HA! So he came out of the closet!

Anyway, I do agree that, while the new designs are very cool, they have less common appeal... I prefer the new stuff, since I'd eat pizza in front of anything, but I can certainly see where y'all are coming from.

[LightWaver-67]

I think I know why iMacs are no longer popular with the public.

Wait... did I miss something...?

Where is it noted & confirmed that iMacs are "no longer popular with the public"...? Did I miss a memo...? What are you basing that statement on...? Are there findings or recent poll results, or is it an assumption on your behalf...?

I'm not trying to be a jerk... I'm just curious as to why you'd start a discussion thread and get people to either protest or defend a premise that may not even be true. Everyone in my small circle-of-influence on this planet (Boston-area) seems to LOVE the iMac in it's "half-dome" incarnation and are even MORE in-love with the latest all-in-one display offering.

Like everything... taste is subjective... but do you really think (or have proof) that the iMac is no longer popular...?

Just curious.

[terminator]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Wait... did I miss something...?

Where is it noted & confirmed that iMacs are "no longer popular with the public"...? Did I miss a memo...? What are you basing that statement on...? Are there findings or recent poll results, or is it an assumption on your behalf...?

I'm not trying to be a jerk... I'm just curious as to why you'd start a discussion thread and get people to either protest or defend a premise that may not even be true. Everyone in my small circle-of-influence on this planet (Boston-area) seems to LOVE the iMac in it's "half-dome" incarnation and are even MORE in-love with the latest all-in-one display offering.

Like everything... taste is subjective... but do you really think (or have proof) that the iMac is no longer popular...?

Just curious.

Here is a little bit of info.

[Eriamjh]

Sales are flat or going down. The iMac was getting old. The speed wasn't advancing enough. The G5 was the best way to give it a boost. If the G5 stalls any more on GHz, the same problem may beset the new iMac.

Computers only have a sales life of about 6 months. After that they need feature and speed bumps or big price cuts. Apple can't up the speed and won't really drop the price. If in 6 months, the iMac is still topped at 1.8GHz its sales will flatten out. If it moves to 2.5GHz in that time, it will continue to fly off the shelves.

[LightWaver-67]

Yeah, but isn't that true of all models in-need of a refresh...? not just iMacs...? Look how badly PMG4 sales had slumped before the release of the PMG5... then there was a flood of new orders and increased sales. It happens with the PwrBook & iBook too.

Besides, when the iMac was FIRST revealed, it was during a "better" U.S. financial time and everyone wanted to get onto the "inter-web"... for about 4-6 years after it's release... there was a decent economy to back it's success. Since about 4-years ago... the economy in-general, and people's "disposable income" have dropped.

[iREZ]

Hmmmmmmm..................I wonder why?

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Yeah, but isn't that true of all models in-need of a refresh...? not just iMacs...? Look how badly PMG4 sales had slumped before the release of the PMG5... then there was a flood of new orders and increased sales. It happens with the PwrBook & iBook too.

Besides, when the iMac was FIRST revealed, it was during a "better" U.S. financial time and everyone wanted to get onto the "inter-web"... for about 4-6 years after it's release... there was a decent economy to back it's success. Since about 4-years ago... the economy in-general, and people's "disposable income" have dropped.

Geez, let's make some excuses. It's been fairly common knowledge if you keep up with the quarterly sales stuff that iMacs have been declining in sales for a long time. This may be news to you, but it's true. Between lax demand and the eMac carving away sales the iMac has declined while Apple is selling more notebooks and of course iPods.

Heck, they even lump the eMac and iMac together and don't give exact numbers of what each sells to make it look better for those sales periods. It's a fact, but hopefully the lower price, better specs and simple, PC-centric (ala Gateway, IBM) design help it make those numbers up.

DRM

[thunderous_funker]

I think the biggest problem with Apple is their obsession with AIO designs for their "consumer"
products. I think they have forgotten the real reason the original iMac was so successful.

AIO's are disposable computers. Consumers are giving up future upgrades when they buy an AIO
computer. You have to give them enough reason to offset the built-in obsolescence of the AIO product
or they won't buy it.

For laptops you get mobility in exchange for shortened life-span, for example.

Many argue that "ease of use" makes AIO's inherently attractive. I think that is an
over-simplification, however. I think the "ease of use" is very specific to what the consumer wants
to use the computer for. After all, once a computer is installed, an AIO is no easier to use than
any other computer.

If you make an AIO that specifically simplifies something that lots of consumers want to do, then
it will be appealing enough to overcome the obsolescence problem.

What I think many people have forgotten is that the original iMac was designed to simplify a very
specific task--getting on the internet. AFter all, that is what the "i" stand for, remember?

Once upon a time the internet was a pretty mysterious thing. Not all computers came with Ethernet
or even Modems. My PowerMac 6100 was the first PC with Ethernet in my college dorm back in the day.
Anyone who wanted to see the "world wide wide" came over to my room and used the only machine in
the building with Ethernet and Mosaic browser. A few months later some of the other guys got
ethernet PC cards for their 486's.

Remember when the internet boom happened? People would ask if your computer "had the internet on
it". People didn't know what made one computer able to access the net and another computer unable.
There were external modems, internal modems, drivers, software, endless hassle. Hell, I had a job
working for AOL tech support where I spent most of the day putting custom modem strings together to
get people online (remember modem strings?? and AT commands??).

So along comes the AIO iMac. Plug it in the wall, plug it into the phone line, double click here
and you're on. Oh, and it looks like a VW bug. Oh, and it comes in colors. Oh, and its pretty
affordable ( a bit more than a comparable PC but hey, try getting your Dell on the internet this
easy!).

Back then, the internet was the "killer app" driving the PC market. It was the #1 reason to buy a
computer so the AIO, easy to use iMac (with its cute and stylish looks) made a helluva product.

Well, once everyone who wanted to get on the internet did, the PC market fall threw the floor.

Apple was smart enough to stumble onto the next "killer app" with the Digital Hub concept and the
iMac + iLife became a pretty attractive product even if it wasn't "top of the line" in terms of
hardware. Oh, and the price was pretty competitive--slightly higher but had a lot going for it to
make it appealing.

Now, I happen to think that the LCD iMac was absolutely gorgeous. In terms of design, it was
probably the best PC design ever. But the problem was that while it was ergonomical and beautiful,
it no longer had the really defining "ease of use" that the original iMac had--mostly because mp3s
and photos wasn't quite as killer a "killer app" that perhaps Apple thought it would be. Oh, and it
now had a new very premium price tag.

So now you've got a very expensive PC that really doesn't do anything that a $500 Dell won't do in
terms of software. Yeah, iLife is arguably better, but is it really 3 times the price better? The
sales numbers would tell us that most people didn't think so.

Let's face it: a cheap Dell with do mp3s, photos and movies. Hell, it will even run iTunes and
support an iPod. Plus it will probably run games better than an iMac. Oh, and all the parts are
probably upgradable.

Apple's answer? More styling, more price, less upgradable.

Swing and a miss.

Apple needs to add real value to the product, not just more sex appeal. One way would be to make their products more upgradable (headless macs with AGP slots, for example). However they seem really attached to the AIO design despite the fact that, IMO, the reason for AIO is a lot less compelling now then it was back when the original iMac came out. That's fine, but they need to add value still to make it worth the premium price.

Lots of users would consider Gaming to be another "Killer app". In fact, Gaming is probably the only real "killer app" in the PC market right now. Not only do specific new games drive new sales, but the rate at which games push hardware technology also forces upgrades. AIO is a really a bad choice for a prduct aimed at gamers unless key components are upgradable. If you're going to try and sell an AIO product as a gaming rig (even to casual gamers), it had better have the most cutting edge GPU you can manage at that price point. Otherwise, the obsolescence factor is overwhelmingly against you.

What is Apples most successful product? The iPod. Why? The same reason as the original iMac: it offers the best solution to a very specific need. For the iMac is was "internet for anyone". The iPod is the same for digital music.

Same for PowerBooks and iBooks. They are AIO for a very good reason.

Right now the iMac doesn't do anything that the eMac doesn't and doesn't do lots of things that other PCs do. Oh, and its expensive. Oh, and its not upgradable. That only leaves the people who are willing to pay for Brand Loyalty or Style. That might be a profitable market right now (albeit a very small one) but will be remain so forever? I'm not sure.

What reason is there to keep the iMac an AIO design?

[Evan_11]

A lot of good points there Thunder.

I think Apple is concerned about the relevancy of the iMac. That's why they're trying so hard to make it appeal to the same buyers of the iPod. Thing is those people don't need a Mac to make their iPod work. I think the new iMac will sell well enough at first but like the G4 model sales will quickly putter out after six months.

What to do?

A few things:

They could make a pizza box Mac that is upgradeable. Price it for under $600. Probably not a lot of money to be made here.

Or they could turn the iPod into a mini Mac. A Mac that you could carry in your pocket anywhere. It would have a DVI or VGA out and wireless technology. I know this is asking a lot right now and it probably isn't feasible at a price point under 1K yet.

Team up with a games manufacturer like Nintendo and make a set top box that would be a game console and run Apple software like iMovie, iTunes, GarageBand etc.

Or throw caution to the wind and lower PowerMac prices. Offer a single processor model for under 1K. This is probably their best bet.

And lastly, for god sakes actually advertise what a Mac running OS X can do! Instead of doing stupid commercials about stoned teenagers and dudes sticking their tongues out.

[hldan]

Originally posted by Evan_11:




And lastly, for god sakes actually advertise what a Mac running OS X can do! Instead of doing stupid commercials about stoned teenagers and dudes sticking their tongues out.

An Apple exec (not sure if it was Steve) interviewed some weeks ago about this. He mentioned (in different words) that Apple will not do commercials adverstising Mac OSX because they would have to touch on the facts that it's stable and immune to viruses which may increase the idea to hackers to try and damage the system.
I know Microsoft does not really need to but they don't commericals adverstising what Windows XP does either. They have just advertised the name of of the new OS.

[LORL]

I love how everyone always says every new Mac model is going to be unpopular for X reasons. La dee da da

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
A lot of good points there Thunder.

I think Apple is concerned about the relevancy of the iMac. That's why they're trying so hard to make it appeal to the same buyers of the iPod. Thing is those people don't need a Mac to make their iPod work. I think the new iMac will sell well enough at first but like the G4 model sales will quickly putter out after six months.

What to do?

A few things:

They could make a pizza box Mac that is upgradeable. Price it for under $600. Probably not a lot of money to be made here.

Or they could turn the iPod into a mini Mac. A Mac that you could carry in your pocket anywhere. It would have a DVI or VGA out and wireless technology. I know this is asking a lot right now and it probably isn't feasible at a price point under 1K yet.

Team up with a games manufacturer like Nintendo and make a set top box that would be a game console and run Apple software like iMovie, iTunes, GarageBand etc.

Or throw caution to the wind and lower PowerMac prices. Offer a single processor model for under 1K. This is probably their best bet.

And lastly, for god sakes actually advertise what a Mac running OS X can do! Instead of doing stupid commercials about stoned teenagers and dudes sticking their tongues out.

I definitely agree with your point about marketing OS X. It seems to me that they could really add a lot of value to their products by raising consumer awareness of how much better (or at least different) OS X is than Windows. I would think that iLife ads along the lines of iPod + iTunes ads would be very very beneficial.

But then again, the marketing gurus might have crunched the numbers and perhaps discovered that spending $$$$ on advertising OS features doesn't fly with focus groups. It might be that studies show that those kinds of ads don't really have much impact.

We already know that Apple considers the Apple retail stores to be a marketing tool. Maybe they prefer to spend their marketing money there instead of on TV ads for OS X.

Just guessing.

The iLife set-top box is a very intriguing idea I've heard before. That would make AIO make a lot of sense--total ease of use and dedicated purpose to offset the fact that you can't upgrade it. And such a device could be priced pretty competitively. Of course, other set-top manufacturers aren't doing so well so perhaps Apple doesn't see a real market there.

A mini-Mac seems too much like a PDA to me and I agree with Apple that the PDA market is doomed and not worth pursuing. Yeah, I even own a PDA but I realize it will be a dinosaur soon enough as phones get smarter.

I love Apple's Digital Hub strategy. i think its brilliant. I just wish they could augment it and strengthen the value of Macs by either marketing their iLife advantage more or making Gaming a core part of the Digitial Hub strategy. I think iLife + Games would really help a lot of consumers get past the price premium for Macs.

But of course adding Games to the Digital Hub would almost demand staying away from AIO designs--particularly AIO designs w/o user replacable AGP cards.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by LORL:
I love how everyone always says every new Mac model is going to be unpopular for X reasons. La dee da da

I didn't say it would be unpopular. I said it was not an easy sell beyond the niche market of people who can afford to pay a premium price for an AIO machine with built in obsolescence.

I suspect they will sell quite a few of the iPodMacs. Unfortunately, I don't think many of those buyers will be switchers. I think they will be mostly long time Mac-heads who consider the iPodMac to be the first affordable G5 and will jump on it.

Lots of other users (like myself) still find ourselves falling between the cracks of Apple's current product line. I don't want a desktop AIO (I already have a great monitor and want some upgrade options), but I don't need a dual G5 PowerMac. Many of us were hoping that the new iMac would fill that gap instead of stickiing with the AIO design.

My wife wants a new Mac so we will probably get an iBook. I just think Apple's desktop lineup is not very appealing right now.

[Evan_11]

Maybe Apple needs to start licensing their hardware and software technology more like with the iTunes/hPod deal. It's still "Apple" but it will reach a broader base.

I think depending on the sucess of the new iMac, Apple will eventually release some more iApps to Windows. Licensing their software and hardware to PC manufacturers makes sense in the long run.

I just can't see them growing the consumer base....

Things are a little different on the professional side. I think they have a lot of room to grow in the IT department. Also they'll always control a large percentage of the creative market.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Things are a little different on the professional side. I think they have a lot of room to grow in the IT department. Also they'll always control a large percentage of the creative market.

I totally agree. The creative market is still very strong and Apple is making great in-roads into new markets like science and bio-technology. And IT depts are taking a new look at Apple as a serious Unix vendor.

Why? Because Apple has great products for those markets.

Let's face it, a Dual G5 PowerMac is one bad-arse-mutha of a Unix workstation. Any former Sun workstation customer who isn't taking a serious look at Apple for their next order has got more money than brains.

The xServe is a great product too. So are the notebooks. I think pound for pound, dollar for dollar, Apple notebooks are seriously feature, performance and price competitive with Windows notebooks.

The eMac is a very good entry level machine. Plenty of oomph for most home users and a simple design and even though it isn't upgradable, it is still very affordable.

The only market segment I shake my head at continues to be the space between eMac and PowerMac. I just don't think that market is well served by an AIO--especially an AIO that is a crippled G5 for a premium price.

Just like the LDC iMac, I think they'll do very well for people who have been waiting to replace an older iMac, but they won't sell very many Switchers.

Of course, maybe Apple is already aware of a short shelf-life for iPodMac and as soon as the PowerBook G5 is out they will roll out the new G5 Cube with an AGP slot that so many of us are desperately hoping for.

Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.

[LORL]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I didn't say it would be unpopular. I said it was not an easy sell beyond the niche market of people who can afford to pay a premium price for an AIO machine with built in obsolescence.

I suspect they will sell quite a few of the iPodMacs. Unfortunately, I don't think many of those buyers will be switchers. I think they will be mostly long time Mac-heads who consider the iPodMac to be the first affordable G5 and will jump on it.

Lots of other users (like myself) still find ourselves falling between the cracks of Apple's current product line. I don't want a desktop AIO (I already have a great monitor and want some upgrade options), but I don't need a dual G5 PowerMac. Many of us were hoping that the new iMac would fill that gap instead of stickiing with the AIO design.

My wife wants a new Mac so we will probably get an iBook. I just think Apple's desktop lineup is not very appealing right now.

The thing is, it really isn't a "premium" price. Apple doesn't try to compete with the $300 cheap Celeron computer market, because it isn't profitable. And they couldn't release a respectable computer for the value. Dell doesn't make anything off selling those cheapo computers. But, if you consider a mid-range Dell, it falls on almost exactly the same price as the iMac G5, except that the iMac is a noticably better performer (not to mention design/hardware/software).

I agree that it is hard for those people who want something headless, but nothing near the price range/performance of a dual G5. I don't really know what to say about that. But, honestly, I have never felt the need to upgrade more than the ram and the video card before I dump a computer off to someone else, or sell it. I guess a video card that will go extinct is probably the only bad part about the iMac G5.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by LORL:
The thing is, it really isn't a "premium" price. Apple doesn't try to compete with the $300 cheap Celeron computer market, because it isn't profitable. And they couldn't release a respectable computer for the value. Dell doesn't make anything off selling those cheapo computers. But, if you consider a mid-range Dell, it falls on almost exactly the same price as the iMac G5, except that the iMac is a noticably better performer (not to mention design/hardware/software).

I agree that it is hard for those people who want something headless, but nothing near the price range/performance of a dual G5. I don't really know what to say about that. But, honestly, I have never felt the need to upgrade more than the ram and the video card before I dump a computer off to someone else, or sell it. I guess a video card that will go extinct is probably the only bad part about the iMac G5.

Well, I guess I should qualify "premium" a bit. The entry level iMac is well priced, IMO. It has pretty good specs for $1299. Of course it doesn't have upgradable parts like a similarly or even lower priced Wintel box, but I can't say that $1299 for a G5, 17" LCD PC isn't a good deal--it is.

Now the 20" iMac isn't a very good deal, IMO.

But then again I'm the kind of person who really has a hard time buying a disposable computer (non-upgradable). With a wintel box I can basically spend a little bit of money every so often and keep a machine up to date for a really long time by just replacing/upgrading parts as needed. Its really hard for me to feel good about forking over $1500 for something I can never upgrade.

Its not that its a bad price for a new PC. Its just a lot of money for a PC which will have to be completely replaced rather than upgraded in future.

To me, a $1500 computer that you can't upgrade is called a laptop and you pay that premium simply for the advantage of mobility. It just doesn't make much sense to me for a desktop.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now the 20" iMac isn't a very good deal, IMO.

I disagree here. They dropped the price $400 and you get a much more powerful system over the previous 20" model. You could argue that the 20" was overpriced before but you should know that Macs just cost more, period. The iPod is overpriced comparatively to other mp3 players yet continues to sell well....

I don't think price is so much a problem as people are just not willing to pay a premium for a computer that does not run windows.

I know the apologists here will argue otherwise but the Mac OS has a negative image with the general public. That's why they need to show off OS X. Most people when you mention a Mac they automatically think of those clunky computers running OS 8 in college computer labs. Oh yeah and B&W monitors....

Mention Apple and suddenly we're back in elementary school with floppy discs and green text monitors.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I disagree here. They dropped the price $400 and you get a much more powerful system over the previous 20" model. You could argue that the 20" was overpriced before but you should know that Macs just cost more, period. The iPod is overpriced comparatively to other mp3 players yet continues to sell well....

I don't think price is so much a problem as people are just not willing to pay a premium for a computer that does not run windows.

I know the apologists here will argue otherwise but the Mac OS has a negative image with the general public. That's why they need to show off OS X. Most people when you mention a Mac they automatically think of those clunky computers running OS 8 in college computer labs. Oh yeah and B&W monitors....

Mention Apple and suddenly we're back in elementary school with floppy discs and green text monitors.

Just because its better than the previous 20" iMac doesn't automatically make it a good deal. The old one was just a complete joke in terms of price/performance.

Again, its not so much that Apples are that much more than comparable wintel boxes, its the fact that you can never upgrade it that makes it less attractive.

If I spend $1300-2000 in the Wintel world, I know I can swap out parts and milk that investment for years. Get the next great video card next year. Get a flashy new monitor the year after that. I can make that initial outlay of money last way beyond the lifespan of the original computer with minimal outlay for new parts in later years.

"not running windows" isn't enough of a selling point to overcome that objection for me and lots of other people who think OS X is awesome but don't want an AIO desktop for all the above reasons.

Its not about initial price tag.

Disposable computers should be dirt cheap or laptops.

[hldan]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Just because its better than the previous 20" iMac doesn't automatically make it a good deal. The old one was just a complete joke in terms of price/performance.

Again, its not so much that Apples are that much more than comparable wintel boxes, its the fact that you can never upgrade it that makes it less attractive.

If I spend $1300-2000 in the Wintel world, I know I can swap out parts and milk that investment for years. Get the next great video card next year. Get a flashy new monitor the year after that. I can make that initial outlay of money last way beyond the lifespan of the original computer with minimal outlay for new parts in later years.

"not running windows" isn't enough of a selling point to overcome that objection for me and lots of other people who think OS X is awesome but don't want an AIO desktop for all the above reasons.

Its not about initial price tag.

Disposable computers should be dirt cheap or laptops.

True but many people here including you seem to sound like the iMac is the only AIO computer. Sony has 3 AIO Vaios that are all virtually non upgradable except for memory just like the iMac and they are bulky machines and Sony charges plenty for them.
Gateway and Dell all have AIO's. If it's such a problem with the Apple AIO then go for a G5 Tower. Pay for what you need if you want Apple.
Of course it's true Apple's market share is small but the other PC companies are in competition with other so they have even a smaller market share.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by hldan:
True but many people here including you seem to sound like the iMac is the only AIO computer. Sony has 3 AIO Vaios that are all virtually non upgradable except for memory just like the iMac and they are bulky machines and Sony charges plenty for them.
Gateway and Dell all have AIO's. If it's such a problem with the Apple AIO then go for a G5 Tower. Pay for what you need if you want Apple.

Gateway, Sony and Dell do sell AIO's for people who want them. The difference is Apple ONLY sells AIOs and very expensive Dual processor Unix workstations--nothing in between.

I would like to see Apple offer more choices. You seem to be confirming my point rather than refuting it.

[adrianl]

But then again, the marketing gurus might have crunched the numbers and perhaps discovered that spending $$$$ on advertising OS features doesn't fly with focus groups. It might be that studies show that those kinds of ads don't really have much impact.

We already know that Apple considers the Apple retail stores to be a marketing tool. Maybe they prefer to spend their marketing money there instead of on TV ads for OS X.

Just guessing.

Yours is a very shrewd guess.

Speaking as someone who's worked in and around ad agencies for over 20 years, I'd have to say that powerful as TV advertising is, it's a terrible medium for communicating the superiority of OSX over Windows. That kind of stuff is just too detailed.

But Apple's marketing challenge (not the same as TV advertising challenge necessarily) and one which it consistently flunks is to communicate this superiority through the most appropriate channels. It will always be drowned out by the PC advertising dollars though (every store ad for a cheap PC adds to the store of Windows advertising).

Adrian

[hldan]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Gateway, Sony and Dell do sell AIO's for people who want them. The difference is Apple ONLY sells AIOs and very expensive Dual processor Unix workstations--nothing in between.

I would like to see Apple offer more choices. You seem to be confirming my point rather than refuting it.

Okay so then what would be your ideal G5 tower for price and features????You have to understand that a mid priced tower would be more like an iMac and would greatly cut into the pro G5 tower's profits. So what would you want Apple to do?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by hldan:
Okay so then what would be your ideal G5 tower for price and features????You have to understand that a mid priced tower would be more like an iMac and would greatly cut into the pro G5 tower's profits. So what would you want Apple to do?

A desktop mini-tower would do fabulously. Single G5 and a standard 8x AGP slot. Maybe a PCI slot or two if they can manage, but I'd live without that.

As for price, if it hit the same price points as the iMac that would be terrific although I think they should be able to get a lower price point since it wouldn't include a monitor. But even so, I'd pay $1500 for one.

In fact, since someone mentioned it in the other thread I'm seriously considering a refurbished 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac. That's exactly what I want although a smaller enclosure would be welcome but certainly not necessary.

[DaBeav]

Well, or the current G5s, add more internal drive space and maybe another optical bay and make PCI-X standard on all models. Convince ATi and/or nVidia to make some of their really high-end workstation class graphics cards available for the G5 workstation. Add more PCI-X slots.

Then for a much smaller tower, keep it limited to a single optical bay and two internal HD bays. Give it AGP (or PCI-E) and two PCI (not PCI-X) slots. New tower is single CPU only, no dualies. Consumer graphics only, no workstation-class cards. Keep the base config under $1K Offer the 17" widescreen LCD as a standalone display for around $500 max.

High-end users would have a compelling reason to shell out more for the high-end tower (dual CPUs, more graphics options, more expansion). Home users would have a choice between an AIO, or with a more expandable design. All the geeks whining about no affordable headless machines from Apple would have to go out and buy one.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by DaBeav:
Well, or the current G5s, add more internal drive space and maybe another optical bay and make PCI-X standard on all models. Convince ATi and/or nVidia to make some of their really high-end workstation class graphics cards available for the G5 workstation. Add more PCI-X slots.

Then for a much smaller tower, keep it limited to a single optical bay and two internal HD bays. Give it AGP (or PCI-E) and two PCI (not PCI-X) slots. New tower is single CPU only, no dualies. Consumer graphics only, no workstation-class cards. Keep the base config under $1K Offer the 17" widescreen LCD as a standalone display for around $500 max.

High-end users would have a compelling reason to shell out more for the high-end tower (dual CPUs, more graphics options, more expansion). Home users would have a choice between an AIO, or with a more expandable design. All the geeks whining about no affordable headless machines from Apple would have to go out and buy one.

Make it so, Number 2!!

[drmcnutt]

Originally posted by hldan:
True but many people here including you seem to sound like the iMac is the only AIO computer. Sony has 3 AIO Vaios that are all virtually non upgradable except for memory just like the iMac and they are bulky machines and Sony charges plenty for them.
Gateway and Dell all have AIO's. If it's such a problem with the Apple AIO then go for a G5 Tower. Pay for what you need if you want Apple.
Of course it's true Apple's market share is small but the other PC companies are in competition with other so they have even a smaller market share.

Yes remember, buy a Mac because the alternatives are so much worse. Why can't we compare Apples to Apples without having to use the inferior PC to make a case? "Get a Mac cause they suck less than PC's" they'll start lining up.

And by "we" I don't mean you specifically.

DRM

[Nodnarb]

Originally posted by adrianl:

Speaking as someone who's worked in and around ad agencies for over 20 years, I'd have to say that powerful as TV advertising is, it's a terrible medium for communicating the superiority of OSX over Windows. That kind of stuff is just too detailed.

But Apple's marketing challenge (not the same as TV advertising challenge necessarily) and one which it consistently flunks is to communicate this superiority through the most appropriate channels. It will always be drowned out by the PC advertising dollars though (every store ad for a cheap PC adds to the store of Windows advertising).

Adrian

OS X is way, way, way, to much to explain in a commercial about how its better then windows, your right about that.

But what if Apple were to make like 2 commercials advertising iLife.
1. Shows a family on a vacation taking a bunch of pictures. They go back to the hotel room, (husband and wife) with 2 cameras and 2 laptops, a powerbook and...lets just say a dell. The husband picks up the dell and plugs in his camera, then says he cant find the installation/driver cd. The wife picks up the powerbook and plugs in her camera. iPhoto opens automatically and begins importing. The husband is still looking all over for the cd. The wife takes the second camera and imports it. The husband finally finds his cd but the wife tells him shes already uploaded both cameras.
Then Apple could do all their flashy stuff that they do and show quick parts of iPhoto, then say "iPhoto. Just one part of iLife, preinstalled on all Macs." And then show iBooks, Powerbooks, and the new iMac.

2. Then for the second they could do something similar and include both iMovie and iDVD. Blah blah blah, then the same ending.

Then, if they felt it neccessary, they could make one for the iPod and iTunes showing the ease of use.

Now I'm not sure if these are good ideas, but Apple definetley needs to show the average PC user the power of iLife and OS X.