[Sparkletron]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yes. The message is:

Hardcore gamers, get a PC and stop bitchin' !

-t

I agree but consider this...

People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

I submit that IF Macs had all the game titles that PCs have, and IF Macs were as affordable as PCs, THEN Apple would have a significantly larger market share. Parky may not be interested in games but I guarantee you that most computer enthusiasts are, as evidenced by the vast majority of software titles on display at CompUSA--and that holds true for the Mac corner as well.

-S

[RTiMac]

My eyes! They burn! Take it away!!!

[bergy]

This design is the only logical way it could have gone. Computers are starting to meld into our surroundings. Only the display is left and how can you eliminate that? What would you surround it with for design purposes .. an empty shell?

What i would like to know is .. can you take it off the stand .. tuck into a bag and make it portable ? This would be a huge advantage..

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

I disagree.

First of all, kids don't buy computers, grown-ups do. If they are stupid to buy a PC just because they used a PC when they were kids, so shall it be. The more educated consumers compare and make a decision based on more reasons than just sentiments.

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
I submit that IF Macs had all the game titles that PCs have, and IF Macs were as affordable as PCs, THEN Apple would have a significantly larger market share.

What's your point ? If Macs were like PCs in all aspects, of course they would have a larger share. Again, what's your point ?

Besides that, IMHO, there is no money to be made with gamers.
Trust me, that market niche is SO overrated.

As an add-on, to play games now and then, fine.

-t

[adamschneider]

How stable is this thing? And I don't mean the OS. I mean it looks like it could tip over to the right or left; that "foot" is quite small.

[threestain]

I think the new format is quite stunning and EVERYONE I have shown it too today (all of whom are not particularly computer literate and only ever use pcs) love it, and are impressed by it.

These are the people you are looking to influence - they don't need the 'hardcore' aspects of all the new games, they need something that won't look out of place in their front room, and will do all the documenting and e-mailing they need.

Besides, you can still play doom3 and stuff like it on an older machine, you just have to turn settings down. Not particularly tricky, and I know many people who play with ridiculously fast pcs with everything turned off because they only care about the fps

[Parky]

The Keynote is now up on the Apple Site.

iMac looks even better !!

Ian

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
The point is that a user will certainly notice an increase in performance between a G4 and a G5 processor. That is, every user will. Not only gamers but even my grandma writing an email will notice how everything gets a little faster.
On the other hand, would she have a GeForce 6800 Ultra video card with 256MB instead of the 5200 with 64MB, she wouldn't notice a thing. Nothing at all, that's the point.

The bottom line is: Faster CPU = good for all users. Faster GPU = good for a few users, unnecessary expense for most users.

Given how GPUs are becoming more and more integral to the basic running of the operating system, that line of argument is becoming less relevent. No, you don't need a super-fast card to run OS X, and I'm not arguing for a 6800 Ultra , but the way in which Apple seems to treat its graphics card selection like an afterthought doesn't help anyone. Given that the iMac is an AOI design, and, in fact, is the <i>higher tier</i> AOI design, I at least want more video card options for a BTO order.

Apple needs to make the underlining concepts of its designs a little more differentiated. The eMac can stay fully AOI, the iMac should have slightly more upgradability (RAM, HD, GPU), while the PowerMacs can go for it all (RAM, HD, GPU, CPU, etc.). I should not have to shell out $2000 just to be able to change my video card. I feel like Apple is ignoring a huge core of its user base by making 2/3 of its desktop line-up AOI designs.

[LightWaver-67]

I think I'm gonna toss a vote into the "I like it" pile.

Taste is all subjection. Some may not connect with this offering... some of us already do. I "get it" right away and I like it. My current job is a 98% Mac shop and there are iMacs EVERYWHERE. Graphics department and myself use G5 towers and there are only a handfull of WinPCs for task-specific things.

I could EASILY see these new iMacs on the desks of our sales staff, or production staff. yep... I think I like 'em.

[chrisutley]

To those of you complaining about the cosmetics/design, the iMac G5 form factor is the most logical and efficient next step in the evolution of the all in one concept. The average display size is climbing and no matter how thin you can make a display, you are always going to have the display area itself. Why design some fancy enclosure that's unnecessary? What's the point? Apple designs usually keep things simple and clean. This is the all in one boiled down to the most clean and simple enclosure possible, while still being aesthetically pleasing. They could have used notebook parts and shrunk it down further, but then it cost WAY more and end up like the Cube.

Design for the sake of design is worthless. Apple designs things to be functional, aesthetically pleasing, and simple. I think all of those things apply to the iMac G5.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

IF that were the case, I'd still be using my TI-99/4A that I have in the basement closet. After all, that's what I used as a kid...

[D'Espice]

This one is for all of you who bitch (or argue) about the video card.

Imagine Apple would've put in a better video card. Say even for the same price we'd have a 9800SE with 128MB of RAM. Now, would you honestly think that it radiates the same amount of heat as the 5200 does? It so does not! Not only are there twice as many RAM transistors producing an enormous amout of heat, they're also running faster than they would with the GF5200.
Now let's talk about the GPU. The 5200 is known to be a very efficient power saving chip. You actually don't even need a fan for it to stay cool enough not to cause any instability problems. In such a limited space as we're talking here this is an enormous benefit.

And even tho some of you mentioned Quartz Extreme (maybe not directly but you did base some arguments on 2D performance depending on the GPU) I agree that there's definitely a difference between say a GF2MX and a GF5200 but there is virtually none between a GF5200 and a Radeon 9800 in terms of 2D performance. Nada, zero, nonedemente! Most users shouting that they can feel a difference experienced a felt difference based on the fact that they just spent a shitload of money and now have to find ways to justify this expense.

Putting in another GPU sums up to one thing: more heat being produced therefore louder fans. I can already hear the roars, it's to friggin' loud, how could they do it? And why's it only a 9800SE, why not a 9800 or even X800? Damn you Apple, you screwed up again. And the iMac is too loud.

Now let's talk BTO: The fact that the iMac is an all-in-one computer equals that there's not much space. There's definitely no way one could put in a regular AGP video card, the only way is to have it soldered onto the logic board. Apple produces one single logic board for all iMacs hence producing a single board is quite cheap. If you would have even one BTO option it would require Apple to split this huge amount of produced boards say 80-20. This therefore would cause significant cost increases for both, the regular iMac boards as well as the ones with a better video card. I can already hear the roars, it's too friggin' expensive, how could they do it? And why is the only BTO we get a 9800SE, why not a 9800 or even GF6800? Damn you Apple, you screwed up again. And the iMac is too expensive.

Think about it...

[BZ]

It does not knock my socks off for design, but getting all of that power (remember when a 1.8G5 was a big deal) into what is basically a monitor, is pretty cool.

As usualy, Apple skimped a little on video cards, rams and ports, but these are not things that sell computers to general consumers.

Marketing it with the iPod is just genious.

BZ

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
This one is for all of you who bitch (or argue) about the video card.

Imagine Apple would've put in a better video card. Say even for the same price we'd have a 9800SE with 128MB of RAM. Now, would you honestly think that it radiates the same amount of heat as the 5200 does? It so does not! Not only are there twice as many RAM transistors producing an enormous amout of heat, they're also running faster than they would with the GF5200.
Now let's talk about the GPU. The 5200 is known to be a very efficient power saving chip. You actually don't even need a fan for it to stay cool enough not to cause any instability problems. In such a limited space as we're talking here this is an enormous benefit.

And even tho some of you mentioned Quartz Extreme (maybe not directly but you did base some arguments on 2D performance depending on the GPU) I agree that there's definitely a difference between say a GF2MX and a GF5200 but there is virtually none between a GF5200 and a Radeon 9800 in terms of 2D performance. Nada, zero, nonedemente! Most users shouting that they can feel a difference experienced a felt difference based on the fact that they just spent a shitload of money and now have to find ways to justify this expense.

Putting in another GPU sums up to one thing: more heat being produced therefore louder fans. I can already hear the roars, it's to friggin' loud, how could they do it? And why's it only a 9800SE, why not a 9800 or even X800? Damn you Apple, you screwed up again. And the iMac is too loud.

Now let's talk BTO: The fact that the iMac is an all-in-one computer equals that there's not much space. There's definitely no way one could put in a regular AGP video card, the only way is to have it soldered onto the logic board. Apple produces one single logic board for all iMacs hence producing a single board is quite cheap. If you would have even one BTO option it would require Apple to split this huge amount of produced boards say 80-20. This therefore would cause significant cost increases for both, the regular iMac boards as well as the ones with a better video card. I can already hear the roars, it's too friggin' expensive, how could they do it? And why is the only BTO we get a 9800SE, why not a 9800 or even GF6800? Damn you Apple, you screwed up again. And the iMac is too expensive.

Think about it...

We have. Which is why a lot of us think that instead of another crippled all-in-one design (Apple already has one, priced just where it should be: the eMac), Apple should design some sort of minitower to occupy the place of the iMac.

[Zoom]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Thank you. It is like buying a boat and being pissed off you can't drive on the road with it.

Not really, unless by your analogy, all non-Apple boats have this ability... because all non-Apple PCs can do both.

What you all seem to be saying is that Apple is ceding the game market to PCs and consoles, and that may be true - but you can't simply say that no PCs can be gaming machines. Of course they can - at least Wintel boxes can. It's an option you have with a PC that you do not have with an iMac, period. That's undeniable. You can argue that having this option is not important, but you can't dismiss it as moot. Since the iMac has a mediocre, non-upgradeable GPU, it will automatically off the list of any person who likes games - and that market is nothing to sneeze at. But Apple obviously is not targetting that market, despite what the demos might suggest.

I've come to understand that Apple just has no desire to address all of the major computer market segments (gamers being one, prosumers being another). Their offerings are way too limited to have a prayer of serving more than a handful of markets.

[Eug Wanker]

Instead of retyping everything, I'll just post my blog here:

Apple introduces G5 iMac 1.8 GHz

Apple VP Phil Schiller today introduced the new G5 iMac, at Apple Expo. Steve Jobs was unable to attend, because he is still recovering from his recent abdominal surgery for a neuroendocrine tumour of the pancreas.

The new G5 iMac is a variation on theme of the new Cinema Displays, with a similar hinge design and the ability to be wall-mounted, but with all the guts of a computer (including the power supply, optical drive and hard drive) behind the display. The new G5 iMac continues to use a white case, signifying that it is a consumer machine. (The pro machines are brushed aluminum.) A welcome addition is the presence of built-in speakers, underneath the screen. Also, an interesting feature is the Cube-like air flow design utilizing the speaker grille at the bottom of the unit in conjunction with a vent near the top rear allowing heat to escape. Heat rises after all. This should help to keep the machine quiet.

In my first article at Everything Apple, I described my thoughts on the specs of a future iMac G5, to come out today. Let's see how well my prediction panned out:

G5 970FX 1.8 GHz, with 512 KB L2 cache - Correct
3:1 multiplier, for a 600 MHz bus - Correct
256 MB Single-channel DDR333 memory, with 2-3 memory slots - Apple spec'd 256 MB DDR400, with 2 slots total.
80 GB 7200 rpm hard drive, upgradable to 160 GB - Apple's 20" model comes with 160 MB, upgradable to 250. The other models have 80 GB, upgradable to 160 or 250.
8X SuperDrive (DVD-R/W, CD-R/W) - It's a slot-load drive with 4X DVD-R, although it's possible it may go 8X if a slot-load variant of the Matsushita UJ-830 is eventually used.
nVidia GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 64 MB DDR - Apple only provides a 5200 across the line, whereas I expected a 5200 only in the lower end machines.
Airport Extreme ready - Correct
Bluetooth ready - Correct
Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 ports - Correct
VGA/S-video/composite video output - Correct
Analogue audio input and output - Apple includes both, but also a digital audio output.

But most importantly, despite the vastly upgraded CPU and bus speeds, I suspect the price of the new iMac will be LESS than what it is now. - Correct

The features are for the most part acceptable, and Apple bettered a few of my predictions. However, the inclusion of only a (non-upgradable) GeForce FX 5200 in the "high end" G5 iMac is a disappointment. Furthermore, while the pricing is a big improvement over previous iMacs, one wonders how it will fare to the bargain basement PCs available these days. Still, the price drop is welcome (and a long time coming). It's nice to see that Apple is trying to pay heed to market share concerns.

Lastly, I didn't think I'd say this, but despite the nice overall design of the G5 iMac, I'm sorry to see to original sunflower G4 iMac design go. If Apple is determined only to offer all-in-one computers for their consumer lines, then ergonomics should be the most important feature. Out of the box, the new design seems to have a much more ergonomic design than almost every other all-in-one design out there, except for the very flexible design of the previous G4 iMac. On the other hand, the VESA mountability of the new G5 iMac does open up a whole host of new possibilities, including in ergonomics. However, this time the third parties get to put on their design caps too, not just Apple.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
We have. Which is why a lot of us think that instead of another crippled all-in-one design (Apple already has one, priced just where it should be: the eMac), Apple should design some sort of minitower to occupy the place of the iMac.

I never said I disagree with that did I?
It just doesn't fit into Apple's philosophy. They had something like that before and apparantly it didn't sell as well as they thought it would. Now I agree that the cube was quite expensive therefore kinda exclusive. It's just that apparantly they don't see a market for that kind of computer and I'd have to agree with that.

The few geeks who actually would buy that kinda minitower aren't even close to what a company needs to make enough money to justify the expense.

[jedi2187]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
We have. Which is why a lot of us think that instead of another crippled all-in-one design (Apple already has one, priced just where it should be: the eMac), Apple should design some sort of minitower to occupy the place of the iMac.

They tried. Cube. Failed (I know, G4, not a G3). But bring it back at a lower price point and with a G5....

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
We have. Which is why a lot of us think that instead of another crippled all-in-one design (Apple already has one, priced just where it should be: the eMac), Apple should design some sort of minitower to occupy the place of the iMac.

The iMac is a Consumer machine. Meaning, Not Pro. Meaning, it will always lack some of the pro features. When will people get that in their heads, for crying out loud?

If you want a pro machine go and buy a tower.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
The iMac is a Consumer machine. Meaning, Not Pro. Meaning, it will always lack some of the pro features. When will people get that in their heads, for crying out loud?

If you want a pro machine go and buy a tower.

??

Since when does minitower = pro? It's probably the most common form factor among households today.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey:
??

Since when does minitower = pro? It's probably the most common form factor among households today.

Maybe. Yet it's not the design the majority of what Apple's users want. Like we said, they tried. Failed. That's it.

And even in case it is the most common form factor among households, who says that it's the best one?

[Zoom]

We're mixing lots of arguments here.

First, if you're stuck with this design, then sure, a swappable GPU makes no sense. But what if you're NOT stuck with this AIO design? By choosing the AIO design, Apple automatically removes many common PC minitower options from being viable.

Many people have said this, including me: there is no prosumer machine frmo Apple. You either have the consumer AIO machine with very limited options or you have the expensive, overkill machine with barely enough options. I'm trapped in that hell. There is no Apple machine made for me, and I know I'm not alone. This is not a niche, "geek" market - not at all. It's the next step up from the entry level models, and many people buy those. Apple needs three tiers of product: consumer, prosumer and professional (not counting the server products). In my view, they have no offering in the prosumer market.

[Mafia]

i love the new design but i am a big fan of the widescreen look and i hate the fact that the bezel at the bottom takes away from that. i personally woulda made it something more like this i dunno i just like the look of this better either way i think the new one is cool


mafia

[Bobby]

I posted this in my blog, but here it goes...

Ahem...

This is the coolest computer I have ever seen in my entire life!!!

[Parky]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Furthermore, while the pricing is a big improvement over previous iMacs, one wonders how it will fare to the bargain basement PCs available these days. Still, the price drop is welcome (and a long time coming). It's nice to see that Apple is trying to pay heed to market share concerns.

If it was competing with 'bargain basement' it might matter, but this is not in the same market.

It is clearly a 'premium' product.

Ian

[Zoom]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
Maybe. Yet it's not the design the majority of what Apple's users want. Like we said, they tried. Failed. That's it.

And even in case it is the most common form factor among households, who says that it's the best one?

Apple can design an amazing "minitower" if they want that looks nothing like a Dell or HP - fine. The form factor only matters to the extent that it dictates how flexible/upgradeable the resulting computer is. A laptop is at the low end because it has very rigid requirements on size, weight, power, heat, etc. An entry-level computer is usually governed by price, though with Apple's AIO design, it also has many other limiting factors - almost like a laptop, actually. I would be okay with that if Apple had a mid-level computer that was headless and had some flexibility, but they don't.

[schmoo]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
My initial thoughts on the NEW Imac G5:

This is a step backwards, in terms of computer design and a step forward in terms of processing power and value for the buck. This design is simple, clean, and quiet. I don't expect this iMac to be turning heads like the original two machines did. I for one, am completely underwhelmed when I look at the new plastic white enclosure of the iMac. It could have been so much more...

This is absolutely NOTHING like I could have imagined. I think I may have been expecting Apple to innovate, of which they didn't this time around. How dissapointing...

Noah

Don't worry about the drab white, where do you think Apple is heading with the chameleon technology they are patenting for electronically changing the external appearance of the machine? People want to be able to personalize their goodies to "stand out", so over the next few iterations of this imac I expect to see this mood ring tech rolled out. I think it will be like the hp ipod tattoos on steroids.

Apple doesn't underestimate how the shallowest things ultimately sway the average consumers purchase and neither should you. Remember the original fruity imacs and how everyone thought the colors were a silly gimmick, nothing more than cheap i candy, then one year later you couldn't turn around without seeing another bondi-blue accessory rolled out? Well, this tech will be the same, except there won't be any inventory issues for Apple like having to maintain a certain number of machines in a poor selling color, because the color can be changed with the click of the mouse.

[Busemann]

Its not like the new iMac can't play games at all as some of you make it sound like. It'll run all games older than one year beautifully and most brand new ones pretty well too.

If you're a die hard mac gamer ( ) just get a dual G5 with the 6800.

I can't see what all the fuzz is about.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
This one is for all of you who bitch (or argue) about the video card.
...
Think about it...

THANK YOU ! Danke !



Finally somebody with common sense AND understanding of the financial reasoning behind it. Rare, these days !

-t

[MrForgetable]

Originally posted by Mafia:
i love the new design but i am a big fan of the widescreen look and i hate the fact that the bezel at the bottom takes away from that. i personally woulda made it something more like this i dunno i just like the look of this better either way i think the new one is cool


mafia

that's true, but they probably had to do that to have sufficient cooling and to not make the iMac that thick.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
This one is for all of you who bitch (or argue) about the video card.

Imagine Apple would've put in a better video card. Say even for the same price we'd have a 9800SE with 128MB of RAM. Now, would you honestly think that it radiates the same amount of heat as the 5200 does? It so does not! Not only are there twice as many RAM transistors producing an enormous amout of heat, they're also running faster than they would with the GF5200.
Now let's talk about the GPU. The 5200 is known to be a very efficient power saving chip. You actually don't even need a fan for it to stay cool enough not to cause any instability problems. In such a limited space as we're talking here this is an enormous benefit.


Think about it...

Solution: ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 w/ 128 MB Video RAM. Would beat the GFX5200 any day of the week. Designed for low power use.

[Commodus]

On the subject of video cards, it's not totally true that Apple couldn't have gone higher than the FX 5200. The Radeon 9600 (even the XT variant, I think) doesn't necessarily need a fan, for example. But what would have made the most sense to me is if Apple had given the 20" a 128 MB card, even if it was just the FX 5200 again. A 20" display is more likely to need that extra VRAM.

That said, you're probably not a serious gamer in the first place if you're buying an iMac - you're the sort who would consider anything above Intel integrated graphics to be fast. It's just a shame that Apple isn't likely to produce the headless consumer box that would probably help their marketshare the most.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Fugly. Too much white plastic on bezel. I too was hoping for a cube imac.

You really thought Apple would release a new cube product after the fiasco of the last one?

[P]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
This one is for all of you who bitch (or argue) about the video card.

Imagine Apple would've put in a better video card. Say even for the same price we'd have a 9800SE with 128MB of RAM. Now, would you honestly think that it radiates the same amount of heat as the 5200 does? It so does not! Not only are there twice as many RAM transistors producing an enormous amout of heat, they're also running faster than they would with the GF5200.
Now let's talk about the GPU. The 5200 is known to be a very efficient power saving chip. You actually don't even need a fan for it to stay cool enough not to cause any instability problems. In such a limited space as we're talking here this is an enormous benefit.

<snip>

Think about it...

Yeah, I've thought about it. A lot, in fact. First up, go to the Apple Store and do a BTO of a Radeon 9600XT/128 over the Geforce 5200U/64. Notice the cost - it's $50. Not a lot. Next, go check some performance comparisons between those two cards to see what you get for those $50. That's not even the whole story - the AA is much better on the Radeon, for instance. This is the board I wish Apple would put in the iMac - maybe keeping the cheaper card in the low-end.

The power dissipation argument has some merit - at least on the part that there is more, faster RAM to dissipate heat. The Geforce 5200U is not much cooler than the Radeon 9600XT - I actually suspect that it may be the other way around, but I can't find any figures on it.

The part I snipped above is about 2D graphics and BTO options. I totally agree with you on the 2D issue and grudgingly agree on the BTO thing - the economy just isn't there.

[Parky]

I don't know why people keep banging on about a headless iMac, it won't happen. here are 10 reasons why :-

1. If you really want a Mac you will buy an iMac or a PowerMac, either way Apple gets your money. If you want flexibility to build the bits you want but a PC, no one will argue, it's your choice. I have never slagged off a PC, if you need one and it fits your requirements then OK.

2. A cut down PowerMac (which is what a headless iMac would be) would cannibalise PowerMac sales and why do that.

3. They would have less margin than a PowerMac and I don't think they would produce extra sales.

4. Another line of machines increases costs. The number of each unit sold would be less and therefore the development costs spread across all the models would push all the prices up.

5. Inventory is harder, more production and more stock holding, plus the dealer channel needs to hold more.

6. There are other costs involved as well - Training for repair, sales, support staff. Promotional materials, advertising, publicity, etc. Spare part holding, Development costs of software for each model, etc.

7. Is there really a market out there, maybe Apple have done market research and there is not enough demand for a 'prosumer' machine. I for one feel like a 'Prosumer' and I'm more than happy with the new iMac.

8. The price of a cut down PowerMac plus a current monitor would still be a great deal more than an iMac, would people not look at it and say 'its over priced, just like the Cube'.

9. Filling the price gap between the iMac and PowerMac may leave Apple with no room to reduce the price of the PowerMac when G5 chips are plentiful and demand starts to drop off. If they can do such a great job with the iMac price, who says the PowerMac won't be next.

10. They won't do it just to spite all the people on here who want one!

Ian

[turtle777]

In my opinion, most people bitchin' here are PC users, who'd just like to get a Mac with the same or better specs than a PC, and for the price of a PC. It won't happen. Never, ever !

And since most of them are not serious buyers anyways, all that arguing about "there is a market" and "I would buy" is nonesense.

It's such a waste of time to argue, but it's sort of entertaining

-t

[Zoom]

Originally posted by Parky:
I don't know why people keep banging on about a headless iMac, it won't happen. here are 10 reasons why :-

1. If you really want a Mac you will buy an iMac or a PowerMac, either way Apple gets your money. If you want flexibility to build the bits you want but a PC, no one will argue, it's your choice. I have never slagged off a PC, if you need one and it fits your requirements then OK.

2. A cut down PowerMac (which is what a headless iMac would be) would cannibalise PowerMac sales and why do that.

3. They would have less margin than a PowerMac and I don't think they would produce extra sales.

4. Another line of machines increases costs. The number of each unit sold would be less and therefore the development costs spread across all the models would push all the prices up.

5. Inventory is harder, more production and more stock holding, plus the dealer channel needs to hold more.

6. There are other costs involved as well - Training for repair, sales, support staff. Promotional materials, advertising, publicity, etc. Spare part holding, Development costs of software for each model, etc.

7. Is there really a market out there, maybe Apple have done market research and there is not enough demand for a 'prosumer' machine. I for one feel like a 'Prosumer' and I'm more than happy with the new iMac.

8. The price of a cut down PowerMac plus a current monitor would still be a great deal more than an iMac, would people not look at it and say 'its over priced, just like the Cube'.

9. Filling the price gap between the iMac and PowerMac may leave Apple with no room to reduce the price of the PowerMac when G5 chips are plentiful and demand starts to drop off. If they can do such a great job with the iMac price, who says the PowerMac won't be next.

10. They won't do it just to spite all the people on here who want one!

Ian

1) if yuo want a Mac, you only have two options. That's the point we're trying to make.

2-6) By this reasoning, Apple should produce a single model: the PowerMac. Very cost effective, little training, no retooling, etc. It has the highest margin, so why have any others that would cannibalize sales? This is WAY oversimplified.

8) There is plenty of room between the PowerMac and iMac for another product line, and it's okay if they overlap a bit. Most PC manufacturers do this and they survive just fine.

An iMac with a 20" display is $1900. The 20" display alone is $1300. I know it's fuzzy math, but that's $600 for the best iMac CPU. The worst PowerMac is $1800. $1400 is an enormous gap.

You can get the same figure by adding the 20" display to a PowerMac (which I did earlier in this thread).

9) Apple generally doesn't reduce its price points - they change what you get for a fixed price point.

7,10) I'd love to see the market studies, because they must have done them. I'm sure there is a market for mid-level machines. My guess is that Apple felt it couldn't create a unique, stylish Mac and compete in this space. Or they actually are stupid/arrogant enough to believe that the iMac should satisfy everyone short of a professional.

[Jarik C-Bol]

I love it.
as for the whole 'cables out the bottom" thing, i currently have a factory refurb HP flat-screen, and the power and monitor cables attach in a similar fashion, and look fine.
I won't buy one, because when i finally upgrade from 800Mhz g4, i intend to go directly to a G5 tower, mostly because I need the expandability and processor power.
but still, i love it.

as for mini towers...meh, people would complain about having to buy a monitor. (apple would have to come out with a super cheep monitor that could be "thrown in" with the thing)

sort of off topic, but towards the mini tower thing,
has anyone seen that casemod somone did for a original imac, that made it look like a miniturized G5 case? have a look

[JMII]

VERY NICE

It's perfect... a natural evolution from the "Sunflower" design. It's a wide screen display with PowerBook stuck on the back - simple.

I'm surprized nobody has said this yet, but it's just ONE step away from becoming a wireless "tablet". I was never a big fan on the Sunflower design because it looks too top heavy due to the "monitor-on-a-stick" look, how this panel styled iMac is what people have always said computers will be like in the future, it's down to it's most basic element - the SCREEN - and nothing more

As for accessing the ports it's got to be easier then my G4 MDD desktop/tower model. It would have been better to place the ports on the side with icons on front so you don't have to spin/tilt the machine around. However I assume most people will use the USB in the keyboard to switch devices... that's how I use the current desktop Macs. Wall mounting would actually work if the ports were on the side, but it would a touch ugly that way.

To each their own, but you'll see the copy-cats (Dell, HP & Sony) all over this design in a few months. It's just what people want in a computer: a space saving design with a tiny foot print with clean un-cluttered lines and NO cables to tangle up.

With the AirPort card installed this thing would RULE as other then the power cord it would be totally wireless. This is a BIG advantage in a home where you don't want to run Cat 5 cables just put your computer in a different corner of your bedroom

- John

[funkboy]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
I agree but consider this...

People who are exposed to PCs at a young age are more likely to use PCs later in life (all those fond memories; it's what they're used to). Kids like playing games. PCs have all the games. Kids use PCs to play games. MS gains new converts without even trying...

I submit that IF Macs had all the game titles that PCs have, and IF Macs were as affordable as PCs, THEN Apple would have a significantly larger market share. Parky may not be interested in games but I guarantee you that most computer enthusiasts are, as evidenced by the vast majority of software titles on display at CompUSA--and that holds true for the Mac corner as well.

-S

You hit the nail squarely on the head. This is one of the big reasons the tech industry is with Windows machines - kids growing up playing games on PCs, getting used to troubleshooting them, and not knowing what to do with Macs.

The new G5 design is growing on me, and I don't know if reading others' positive comments is helping that or not. The VESA stand really attracts me, since the sunflower iMac I absolutely love. Hopefully someone responds in my VESA thread...

Oh, and the 17" screen on iMac G5 is the same one, spec-wise, as the G4: the viewing angle was that crappy on the 17", strangely enough! It at least makes me feel comfortable getting a 17", though, since I don't mind my screen now, and actually like it a lot.

who wants to buy an iMac G4?

[Zoom]

Originally posted by turtle777:
In my opinion, most people bitchin' here are PC users, who'd just like to get a Mac with the same or better specs than a PC, and for the price of a PC. It won't happen. Never, ever !

And since most of them are not serious buyers anyways, all that arguing about "there is a market" and "I would buy" is nonesense.

It's such a waste of time to argue, but it's sort of entertaining

-t

People bitching here know what you can get in the PC world and are at a loss to justify why they would pay more money for something that is a lot less flexible. "It looks nice" rarely cuts it and "it's more stable" only goes so far.

It's absolutely logical to demand value when you're spending this kind of money on anything. You're basically saying "Macs cost more, deal with it". Why would you expect anyone to accept lower value? People argue that Macs are a better value because of intangible qualities, and most people can't see them; those that do still sometimes subjectively disagree that Macs are a better overall value.

I agree, though, that sampling this audience and extrapolating to an entire market is useless. But what we're saying is that we believe that there is such a market and that we're part of that demographic. It's pure speculation and opinion, though, since none of us have any market research to reference.

[wowway1]

Pointless bitch there. The bezel fits the internals. Besides I think it looks great. Read my above post and get a clue!

So you think it looks great and because of that I should get a clue? Please...

I was only posting my opinion, don't patronize me mister. If they made it an inch deeper perhaps they wouldn't need that rediculously large bezel at the bottom, giving the entire front of the unit a more uniform look.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by Zoom:
...Many people have said this, including me: there is no prosumer machine from Apple. You either have the consumer AIO machine with very limited options or you have the expensive, overkill machine with barely enough options. I'm trapped in that hell. There is no Apple machine made for me, and I know I'm not alone. This is not a niche, "geek" market - not at all. It's the next step up from the entry level models, and many people buy those. Apple needs three tiers of product: consumer, prosumer and professional (not counting the server products). In my view, they have no offering in the prosumer market.

Zoom, and I mean this respectfully, what do you define as a "prosumer"? What software does a prosumer use? What makes an iMac not enough and a PowerMac G5 too much?

I classify myself as a prosumer. Software I use daily (but not for money--my GF is a professor, so we get software cheaply): FCP3, DVDSP2, After Effects 5.5, Combustion, Cleaner, a smattering of Cinema 4D and Adobe CS Suite. My Mac: DP800 G4/1.5GB/GF3/300GB drive space and a 2x SuperDrive.

If my G4 were force majeured tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase an iMac G5 (if they were available) and am quite certain it would last me for at least three years. Adding memory and swapping the HD to have similar specs to what I have wouldn't cost me any more than what I spent in 2001. And I could use Motion.

For me, an iMac G5 would fit me to a T in the future, and my office would be much quieter.

[adamschneider]

I personally prefer CRT monitors, for a number of reasons. One of the biggest is that I already own one. Right now my ONLY option, if I want to get a new Mac to use with this monitor, is to spend $2000 on a G5 tower. That's ridiculous.

Imagine what a slick little package they could have if they re-packaged all the guts of the new iMac, minus the screen. Yes, it would basically be like The Cube... but they could probably price it under $1000, and it would be an excellent upgrade from my 933MHz G4 tower. Not to mention a great way to entice PC owners who already have a monitor that they'd rather not throw in a landfill.

This is all simply to agree with the statement that us "prosumers" have no good options in the current Apple line.

[mikemako]

I think the new iMac looks very nice! I always thought the previous model looked a bit akward. Great job, Apple!

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by adamschneider:
I personally prefer CRT monitors, for a number of reasons. One of the biggest is that I already own one. Right now my ONLY option, if I want to get a new Mac to use with this monitor, is to spend $2000 on a G5 tower. That's ridiculous.

Imagine what a slick little package they could have if they re-packaged all the guts of the new iMac, minus the screen. Yes, it would basically be like The Cube... but they could probably price it under $1000, and it would be an excellent upgrade from my 933MHz G4 tower. Not to mention a great way to entice PC owners who already have a monitor that they'd rather not throw in a landfill.

This is all simply to agree with the statement that us "prosumers" have no good options in the current Apple line.

What in the hell are you talking about? How much could your CRT be possibly worth that you can't sell it and get an awesome computer with a 17 or 20 inch LCD built in?

You really think Apple should make a headless iMac just so cheapskates can use the old $200 CRT sitting around? Look at just the cost of the LCD and you will see you are getting the computer itself for a low price.

[Evangellydonut]

err...everyone dissing the new iMac graphics card... maybe it's a heat issue? there are already a lot of threads floating around about how the piles of huge caps close to the powersupply can be a longevity problem in the current design, imagine that was a graphics card that dissipates 20W more heat -_-' (besides more cooling issues, there'll need to be a bigger powersupply...)

[Spliff]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
I am so glad somebody finally said that. If you want a gaming machine, get a PC. The iMac is not a Mac for gamers, it's a computer for people who like taking things out of the box and simply use it. For gaming, there are lots of better alternatives including the PowerMac, consoles or PCs running Windows. All three are better suited for gaming, the iMac is a computer for daily business like word processing, browsing, writing mails and stuff like that.

Some of us don't want to support the Microsoft monopoly by giving them ANY of our money. So buying a PC is not an option, unless we buy the box and pirate the f**k out of MS software.

And consoles aren't a great solution. Doom 3 will be graphically downgraded just so it can run on the Xbox.

Many Mac users want to play games on an affordable Mac. We don't want a console or a PC. That's why we bought a Mac. All we want is a BTO graphics card option. That's it. Is that so bloody much to ask of Apple? No.

[Evan_11]

If there were money to be made in releasing a screen-less (can't really say headless anymore can we.) iMac then you know they would of by now. Who knows they still might. If they can put a 17" display in for $1299 then I would guess they can make one without for around $800. But seriously how big is this market? To really make inroads they would have to price it below $500 and that just is not going to happen. It would be interesting if they did release a screenless version with it just being a "pizza box". They'd have to move the inputs to the one side and give it some sort of pedestal to rest on. People would still complain about the video card though!

[Spliff]

This picture was posted at Ars Technica forums. Look at all the improvements in features over four years, except the GPU.