[yikes600]

No AGP slot... no thanks.
You can already buy a refurb eMac at the Apple store for $540.

[Nebagakid]

why would there not be an AGP slot? what else would Apple use for its graphics. PCI?

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Nebagakid:
why would there not be an AGP slot? what else would Apple use for its graphics. PCI?

From the sound of it, it's going to be integrated into the motherboard like the eMac and iMac.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Nebagakid:
why would there not be an AGP slot? what else would Apple use for its graphics. PCI?

Likely the graphics will be AGP, but that doesn't mean there will be an AGP slot with a graphics card. Probably there will be a soldered GPU just like the eMac, iMac, iBook and PowerBook.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
It might be $500 - pc user would use existing monitor and speakers

Apple Insider (a more reliable source than TS, IMHO) places the price at "<$600", I'm guessing $599 is more likely. Even if it is $499, the eMac is probably due for a price drop that would balance the equation. And as I've already said, I think the "existing monitor" scenario is pretty unlikely, but maybe that's just me.

Then this ain't for you. Read the Ts article.

For gosh sakes, read my posts all the way though instead of just picking out a few words that you can disagree with if you take them out of context. I said in the very next sentance that unexpandability is fine in this market segment and I'm not complaining about it, it's just that the unexpandability puts it in the same market segment as an existing product.

When people make blanket comments like this "apple should just go g5" it really bugs me since its obvious very little thought was put into the statement. A little sarcasm helps to keep things inline. To be nice though. I will apologize.

Thank you, then that was just a misunderstanding, because I completely agree with you on that.

Obviously potential customers have asked for a cheap headless try-it-out-Mac and Apple is giving it to them. I can see no harm. Even if it eats into eMac sales, that's no problem. The eMac was designed for EDU and doesn't generate much revenue. If it eventually sells less that this iMac mini so be it. The main thing is Apple increases the Mac market share by any means.

And this is really where we disagree. As the only Macintosh fan among a couple dozen PC users at work, that's not what potential customers have been asking for that I've seen. In all my discussions it nearly always comes back to the subject of upgradability; PC users don't like Macs because they can't jack up the video card to play Doom, or add a $35 CD-RW themselves. At least not without paying big bucks for a G5 tower. As one of my coworkers sarcastically put it: "With a PC it's so hard, you have to open the case, swap video cards, change jumpers... But with a Mac, you just pick it up, throw it away, and go buy another one. Now that's convenience!"

From my point of view, this new headless Mac has no better chances of taking PC marketshare than the eMac did. It's basically the same system. In my experience, the only people who care about whether it's headless or not are the people who care about having AGP and PCI slots and spare drive bays. A headless G5 with an AGP slot, at, say $999, now that would have some serious appeal to PC switchers in my experience.

[osxisfun]

i think you are just coming from a different place then most of the people apple is targeting with this machine.

Apple seems to be targeting the "guy that does not know much about technology but just bought an ipod" market.

let's call them the ipod demographic.

they want simple
it just works
frustrated by pc solutions
likes a mac but they cost too much
just needs to email and browse and sync their ipod

this machine is for regular folks that don't really do much but email, browse exchange photos.

this market is massive. the ipod has given them a taste of what's possible with tech and since they are about fed up with viri and spyware, they might be in the mood for a change.

that change must be cheap.

and that change does NOT require all the expand-o game card specs that you are i may want.

this machine is not for the game-y , moddy fan boy PC crowd.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
As one of my coworkers sarcastically put it: "With a PC it's so hard, you have to open the case, swap video cards, change jumpers... But with a Mac, you just pick it up, throw it away, and go buy another one.

I used to say that before I switched. But there are a lot of PC users that won't open up their case for an upgrade either. They'd just throw away their PC and go buy another (besides, PCs are a lot more disposable anyway). This headless eMac would work fine for them, and not cost any more than their disposable Dell.

Originally posted by deboerjo:
In my experience, the only people who care about whether it's headless or not are the people who care about having AGP and PCI slots and spare drive bays. A headless G5 with an AGP slot, at, say $999, now that would have some serious appeal to PC switchers in my experience.

Maybe gamers/pros care about AGP and PCI slots, but I don't think your average user does anymore. There are around 200 people in my office, and I have talked to a lot of them about their computers, and not a single one has spent $999 on a computer before. They all come to me with their Dell catalogs, point at the cheapest $399 system with mail in rebates, and ask, "is this a good system?" I've learned to just say 'Yes' because they're going to buy it anyway, and it gets rid of them faster.

[osxisfun]

>y 'Yes' because they're going to buy it anyway, and it gets rid of them faster

You are sooo mean....

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
let's call them the ipod demographic.

they want simple
it just works
frustrated by pc solutions
likes a mac but they cost too much
just needs to email and browse and sync their ipod

this machine is for regular folks that don't really do much but email, browse exchange photos.

I completely agree with what you're saying about the iPod demographic, this market certainly exists. I still think you're missing my point; the eMac is already filling this market. It's cheap, and it can't possibly be any simpler. This rumored new system has little to differentiate it from the eMac.

In other words, any company selling a lineup of products needs to differentiate thier products so that each product has it's own target market. This is how you maximize sales, minimize costs, and satisfy as many people's needs as possible. The problem here the way I see it is that Apple is offering two products to the same market.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
The problem here the way I see it is that Apple is offering two products to the same market.

this is why i'm hoping this new machine is a replacement for the emac.

-r.

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
I completely agree with what you're saying about the iPod demographic, this market certainly exists. I still think you're missing my point; the eMac is already filling this market. It's cheap, and it can't possibly be any simpler. This rumored new system has little to differentiate it from the eMac.

In other words, any company selling a lineup of products needs to differentiate thier products so that each product has it's own target market. This is how you maximize sales, minimize costs, and satisfy as many people's needs as possible. The problem here the way I see it is that Apple is offering two products to the same market.

oh i disagreee for two reasons:

a) for now say its $499

that is one magic number for many folks. yes its in the mind but it will change many minds.

b) the marketing of the emac will not even be in the same universe as the marketing for the imac mini. remember when the new imacs came out "from the makers of the ipod" is what apple put on its site. Well now you are going to see that angle played to the hilt.

and if this thing has even a hint of digital living room type software then its going to be even more revolutionary in its marketing.

think of the ipodbox, its marketing, its demographic. non of this is how the emac has been marketed.

this is a consumer machine not a computer. (is the way i see it)

the emac is not filling that niche. its not selling as well as it used to. its 800$, its not "sexy" its not "ipod" like... apple is going to have a field day selling this to regular folk.

this is what the emac should have been all along but the tech forbid this until next month.

[Simon]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
this is why i'm hoping this new machine is a replacement for the emac.

Bingo.

Unless EDU really wants that built-in CRT. The eMac started as EDU-only, I hope it goes back to being just that.

[Simon]

Hmmm, could it be that this is actually the new eMac?

Maybe Apple is dropping the built-in CRT because a) CRTs suck and b) TFTs are too expensive for a low-cost Mac.

So, assuming they don't want the CRT, but they want a low cost entry-level: viola, the leeked specs.

[osxisfun]

interesting...

weren't there rumors of a 500 emac a while back?

if it the new emac they would make a name change though:

i like imac mini..

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
this is why i'm hoping this new machine is a replacement for the emac.

-r.

I'm going to end this discussion for my part by giving this guy a big AGREED!

[osxisfun]

me too.

how many more days???

are we there yet?

[babywriter2]

My guess is that Apple will keep the eMac for education (with perhaps a price drop) because schools REALLY like the all-in-one concept. This "iMac mini" concept would not be a good school computer because its small size would make it more likely to, um, walk away.

So if Apple plays their marketing cards right, I don't see why the two couldn't be differentiated properly. Especially if the "iMac mini" continues the iPod lookalike theme....which I'm virtually certain it will.

I would think Apple wouldn't mind relegating the eMac to education-only if they could get away with it. It would save them the trouble of reengineering it to accomodate a G5......and the "iMac mini" would be way less expensive to produce.

Here's where I stick my neck out, though: I think Apple will also announce a matching display...probably an inexpensive 17" LCD. However, a really interesting move would be if they could package a 17" CRT display that would naturally complement the new computer - and sell it for $150 or so - or $100 when ordered with the machine.

That would give the buyer a stylish system for, say, $600 - not far from the budget PC sweet spot, price wise, that Windows machines fall into.

Do I think they will do a CRT? Not really. More likely they would recruit a third party vendor to co-announce such a monitor. But it sure would be cool to watch - and if market share is the driver here, who knows? Apple might surprise us.

-b

[CincyGamer]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
No, a G4 is NOT still considered cutting-edge technology, except as a laptop low-power solution. Welcome to the computing industry, one day's cutting edge becomes entry-level 6 months later. Apple was being left behind by the rest of the industry, he transition to G5 was overdue, and it is most certainly NOT too soon for the G4 to move into the low-end. In fact it's already happened. The G4 is perfect for a low-end system such as this.



Why not? 256MB isn't expensive these days. If Dell can sell a computer with 256MB for $499 with a monitor, surely Apple can sell one for <$600 without a monitor. This is NOT unrealistic.

The new iMac G5 has been out since August 2004, (apple-history.com). Thats only a couple months. Before that, Apple raved about how fast the G4 iMac could play Tony Hawk etc. and that the iMac was good. Now on the official PowerBook page still says "Ready to show off the graphics capabilities of the new PowerBook G4s, ..." and all PowerBook G4 models blaze away at over 100 frames per second(2). " and "The unparalleled graphics performance of the PowerBook G4" (apple.com) Before that was "G4.. the supercomputer in a chip" when really a G4 is same class as a fast P3.

The poit I was making about the memory is still true. The third fastest computer Powermac (dual 1.8) for $2000 only has the bare minimum 256 memory. I agree with you a 256 MB is cheap, but Apple
does not want to eat the $30 per computer or so from their margins.

[turtle777]

I am amazed that no one in this thread has yet cussed out Apple for including a low-end GPU.

Where are those guys that expected a headless box with G5 2.0 GHz, high-end GPU, 512 MB RAM, FW2 etc, for less than $500 !

-t

[pman68]

Don't forget, I think this thing will look pretty slick. It's going to have a "I want one" factor. More so than an eMac.

Perfect companion to an iPod.

[CincyGamer]

Thanks for www.barefeats.com for pointing this out.. Apple changed their G4 vs G5 charts. http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html

If you really look at the graph they used the G5 1.8 GHZ.. not the slower model 1.6 GHZ. So the chart is saying that a 1.25 G4 vs 1.8 G5 is 47% faster. Take away the extra 200 MHZ and is is maybe 30% faster.. I dont know.

Anyway, the graph is showing how fast the G5 is vs the G4, but the pricing does not reflect this as last summer a G4 iMac, the current iBook, current eMac and current PowerBook are still considered expensive. I said the G4 was current technology, I still stand by my opinion until they replace it in these other expensive lines. I never said "cutting-edge", I know the G4 leaves alot to be desired..

Seasons greating friends.

[P]

Originally posted by CincyGamer:
Everyone is missing the point. There is no way that Apple can release such a model currently.

Points:
1. The PB's top speed is 1.5 G4 GHZ currently and $2000 G4 1.33 GHZ. So, the iBook and PowerBook lines need to be G5 based before this happens IMHO.

2. Apple will be transitioning everyone to the new G5 lines for eMac, iBook, Powerbook. Adding a new computer line is not going to happen currently as it does not help the other lines.

3. It wasnt too long ago that the G4 1.42 PowerMac was the best. A fast G4 is still considered current technology. Doom 3 is the first major game that requires a G5 for instance. Its too soon.

4. Apple seems more focused on its music sales than its hardware sales. The Apple hardware has some very serious problems such as
the lack of memory/GPU power in a G5 based machine. Apple's profit margins have historically been 25% on desktops (Apple Confidential 2.0 book).

5. The new box must support the current OS Tiger and that means at least 256 MB ram etc. I just dont see them giving away a computer with Tiger for < $600 as rumored.

6. Apple is raking in the dough. They are not going to cheapen their image and do the dell route. There are plenty of people waiting for the Powerbook G5 and 3 GHZ PMs. Steve even apologized in the last keynote for not having 3 GHZ yet. Various Sr. VPs last year already commented on the PB G5.


But I hope Im wrong. I would buy them as gifts to my family. But we are talking about Apple here.. home of the $500 iPod.

1. Why? This thing won't compete with them anyway.

2. True, in a way, but if they just use a mobo from an eMac they're not designing anything new.

3. Not outside the Mac market, it isn't. The G4s slow FSB has been a joke in the business for quite some time now.

4. Here we go again... But it doesn't really matter to this discussion anyway, does it?

5. Why not? Just look at the eMac and remove the screen, that's your headless Mac.

6. Maybe... This is the best agument of them all, but I'm not so sure. Something to consider, yes, but not a dealbreaker in itself.

[P]

Originally posted by CincyGamer:
Thanks for www.barefeats.com for pointing this out.. Apple changed their G4 vs G5 charts. http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html

If you really look at the graph they used the G5 1.8 GHZ.. not the slower model 1.6 GHZ. So the chart is saying that a 1.25 G4 vs 1.8 G5 is 47% faster. Take away the extra 200 MHZ and is is maybe 30% faster.. I dont know.

Anyway, the graph is showing how fast the G5 is vs the G4

In the specific case of gaming where the graphics board does most of the work, yes. I'd say the G4 test is CPU limited and the G5 is GPU limited.

The big win for the G5 is the faster FSB. This was what killed the G4 - it was constantly starving for memory bandwidth.

[P]

Originally posted by osxisfun:
>
>he transition to G5 is overdue,

Perhaps IBM should break the laws of physics then. since a low cost g5 chip is in their hands not apple's.

The G5 is already cheaper than the G4, this is why the new iMacs are cheaper than the sunflower models. The cost comes from the surrounding chips, which are more expensive for the G5, but that is actually (partially) in Apple's hands. That cost is coming down, don't worry, and it's going to play into Apple's hands in a very nice way. This is why I think the eMac might go G5 fairly soon - Apple might actually be able to lower the price that way.

[ApeInTheShell]

Apple Pippin revisited

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by ApeInTheShell:
Apple Pippin revisited

Apple iMac(original) Revisited.

[Eriamjh]

Slap a video-in port and make it an Apple Tivo/DVR.

[chrisutley]

You may very well turn out: Wrong.

Apple is trying to have their cake and eat it too (if this is indeed what they put out there). What they really need is a sub-$1000 machine without a display. If it's $999 fine, but it better be snappy�. If this machine is at all sluggish or underpowered, they could end up looking very stupid. I have a like 5-year PIII box that runs IE as fast if not faster than Safari runs on my 1GHz Al PowerBook. It matters not what's really under the hood, only what the user perception is.

The price of this machine is going to attract lots of families with kids, kids that want to run games. Apple doesn't want to target gamers? I don't care - they better at least target casual gamers that still are aware of things like framerates and how it sucks to disable all the cool visuals that real graphics cards can handle.

Mac users will buy enough of these novelty items to break them even on the product, but it will not achieve the underlying goal of converting Windows users unless it's more robust than these $500 rumored specs. Personally, I believe it will turnout lots of existing Mac users using super old machines, and it will also be a novelty item for the kind of loyalists that frequent this site. As for Windows users, they need something beefier in the $800-$900 price range to catch their attention, and even from there it's an uphill climb.

Originally posted by Simon:
Wrong.

You don't understand Apple's reasoning behind this machine.

In this machine a G4 is perfect. This box is about the Mac experience only. iLife, Tiger, etc. all run just perfectly fine on a 1.25GHz G4 and that's all that counts. Apple isn't targeting gamers, they are targeting PC users that would like to try a Mac and see for themselves what it's about. And that crowd will be perfectly fine with a 1.25GHz G4.

If you need more than a 1.25GHz G4 you are in the market for another system (chose one): iMac, PowerMac or game console.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
The price of this machine is going to attract lots of families with kids, kids that want to run games. Apple doesn't want to target gamers? I don't care - they better at least target casual gamers that still are aware of things like framerates and how it sucks to disable all the cool visuals that real graphics cards can handle.<snip> As for Windows users, they need something beefier in the $800-$900 price range to catch their attention, and even from there it's an uphill climb.

I have to disagree. There are plenty of families with kids that buy celeron machines with integrated video. These systems can't play (decent) games, yet they're happy with the speed of their system at first, until it gets bogged down with spyware. I think the price, along with the promise of less operating hassle, will attract them more than anything else.

[teknopimp]

has anyone yet mentioned it will have a low end graphics card? and no built-in a/p, b/t or expansion slot. but good enough specs for the money and i think it is perfect for its target market. i would consider acquiring one but i already purchased two computers this year.

[sledsbehave]

my poor powermac G4 1.4ghz is gonna be worthless after this

maybe i can get it on ebay before january 11th

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
I still think you're missing my point; the eMac is already filling this market. It's cheap, and it can't possibly be any simpler. This rumored new system has little to differentiate it from the eMac.

In other words, any company selling a lineup of products needs to differentiate thier products so that each product has it's own target market. This is how you maximize sales, minimize costs, and satisfy as many people's needs as possible. The problem here the way I see it is that Apple is offering two products to the same market.

Aesthetics.
Mostly, because you can pick up a 17� flat panel around $200 now.
A lot of people who aren�t computer savvy want one because they are popular and look like higher tech than CRTs. 13 year old kids, college students, soccer moms�all want the small footprint computer. This box could be stored on a small shelf and the flat panel takes up less room than the eMac and looks �newer� to them.

With that said, I won�t buy into this rumor until it is released. Unless they throw back the eMac to the EDU only market and this only hooks into a TV set I don�t see why Apple would complicate the product line any further. The iMac is supposed to be the consumer machine and it is a good one at that. The xMac would hurt the sales of the iMac since it has all the advantages of it sans the G5. In the eyes of switchers a G5 is not worth a $500 premium for a consumer machine. The non Pro consumers look at CPU speed to gauge a computer. And for $500 less a 1.25 G4 versus a 1.5 G5 will win out and I even included a $200 bump to the xMac to account for a new monitor.

[roosta]

i'm hoping its kid proof.

[Randman]

It's funny that all of the experts are crawling out of the woodworks, over a rumor. And as far as marketing and creating market niches, I think Apple does a pretty good job of that as of late.

[jebjeb]

As others have said, I think there are two different discussions going on here. One is for a low-level consumer mac and the other for a machine between the iMac and the towers.

I would love the latter machine. To be able to change the graphics card, easily swap the optical drive, maybe 4 memory slots and two HDD bays. Run two 20's and it would be sweet.

However, this rumor is all about a low end machine to get more people into the mac fold as well as, by the looks of it, to sell lots as 2nd, 3rd and 4th machines to existing Mac owners.

I have so many colleagues that have asked me about what computer to buy and this machine would finally provide a competitive answer at most of their price-points. All they want to do is surf the web safely, play some music, organise their photos and the odd document or two. Here in the UK, huge numbers of people have a games console as well. There is no need for this machine to be a gaming machine. I am basing this on the 20 or 30 people who have asked me for a machine like this. All but about 3 of them have a PS2 or Xbox (generally for there kids) and just want a machine that will do what I mentioned above.

Something I am intrigued about is what all the people who are talking about buying 4 or 5 of these rumored machines are going to do about displays? Have you already got heaps of old displays lying around or are you just going to buy some cheap 15/17 LCD's?

[Simon]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
As others have said, I think there is two different discussions going on here. One is for a low-level consumer mac and the other for a machine between the iMac and the towers.

Absolutely correct. These rumored specs belong to the former, the latter would be something along the line of a PowerMac light. Something like the PowerMac 7xxx series used to be.

I would love the latter machine. To be able to change the graphics card, easily swap the optical drive, maybe 4 memory slots and two HDD bays. Run two 20's and it would be sweet.

I'd love it as well. But I really don't see Apple catering to that market. I could imagine they believe it would be too small unless of course, they would allow it to eat PowerMac sales which they probably don't want due to loss of high margin sales.

However, this rumor is all about a low end machine to get more people into the mac fold as well as, by the looks of it, to sell lots as 2nd, 3rd and 4th machines to existing Mac owners.I have so many colleagues that have asked me about what computer to buy and this machine would finally provide a competitive answer at most of their price-points. All they want to do is surf the web safely, play some music, organise their photos and the odd document or two. Here in the UK, huge numbers of people have a games console as well. There is no need for this machine to be a gaming machine. I am basing this on the 20 or 30 people who have asked me for a machine like this. All but about 3 of them have a PS2 or Xbox (generally for there kids) and just want a machine that will do what I mentioned above.

I have experienced exactly the same. Most possible switchers I know don't care about having a 9800 or a 6800 as a GPU for games. All they want is a cheap small box to surf, send e-mails, organize their digital photos and archive their music (iPod docking machine). For those people this box is perfect. The question is basically, how many of those people are there? Apple obviously believes many. I can't see any harm in trying that out. And even if it fails, they certainly won't lose nearly as much money/prestige as they lost on the Cube.

Something I am intrigued about is what all the people who are talking about buying 4 or 5 of these rumored machines are going to do about displays? Have you already got heaps of old displays lying around or are you just going to buy some cheap 15/17 LCD's?

In my case I'd be using two TVs (there the iMac mini would just be a set top box), an old 17" CRT and an old 15" TFT that are just lying around. If I would have to buy a new TFT display I'd rather get a real full-blown G5 iMac. And then again, with ARA or remote SSH you don't need a dedicated screen if the box is just used for light media serving or for testing purposes.

[Randman]

I think it should be the size of a CD and as deep as an iPod. It should have a 250GB hard drive, AirPort and bluetooth built-in. It should have the best in video cards, sound cards and yet still be upgradeable, but also attractive and simple to use.
It should run G5 at no less than 2.2 GHz and be able to run until 4Gb of ram.
It needs full video-out features as well as a remote control and wireless keyboard mouse combo, fingerprint detection, voice commands and it should cost US$99. It should be bundled with Doom3 and also it needs color-shofting capability so it matches my office.
It should also be more silent than a whisper. And be solar-powered.

Any less and Apple will be P&WN4D.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Simon:
I'd love it as well. But I really don't see Apple catering to that market. I could imagine they believe it would be too small unless of course, they would allow it to eat PowerMac sales which they probably don't want due to loss of high margin sales.

I agree. I don't think they are going to do that mid-range machine for quite a while otherwise it would seem they are offering too many levels. I think we sometimes forget that us geeks are the minority. There is certainly a demand for a headless between-iMac-and-towers machine but is there really enough of it?

In my case I'd be using two TVs (there the iMac mini would just be a set top box), an old 17" CRT and an old 15" TFT that are just lying around. If I would have to buy a new TFT display I'd rather get a real full-blown G5 iMac. And then again, with ARA or remote SSH you don't need a dedicated screen if the box is just used for light media serving or for testing purposes.

It would be interesting to use a machine for a while on a TV. I have never been that impressed on the output from my TiBook on a TV (using S-video) but of course you can't compare it to using a proper monitor. For any extended use you would really want to have a 100 Hz TV. Of course, you can't push the res that high but for running iTunes, some video and maybe the odd bit of web surfing, it would be alright on a decent TV.

If this thing was to be pushed as a set-top box then there needs to be some nice new input device. I find it rubbish perching the keyboard on my lap and then using the arm of my chair for the mouse. I am not a great fan of the trackpad-built-into-the keyboard devices but a bluetooth version of something like that would be fairly nifty.

Keyspan would need to get a matching IR reciever out so one does not have to have the current ugly one hanging off the new machine. Either that or Apple has to incorparate IR into it which I am not sure is going to fit the price model (I know, it probably only costs a few cents but these things and the associated engineering add up).

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Randman:
I think it should be the size of a CD and as deep as an iPod. It should have a 250GB hard drive, AirPort and bluetooth built-in. It should have the best in video cards, sound cards and yet still be upgradeable, but also attractive and simple to use.
It should run G5 at no less than 2.2 GHz and be able to run until 4Gb of ram.
It needs full video-out features as well as a remote control and wireless keyboard mouse combo, fingerprint detection, voice commands and it should cost US$99. It should be bundled with Doom3 and also it needs color-shofting capability so it matches my office.
It should also be more silent than a whisper. And be solar-powered.

Any less and Apple will be P&WN4D.

Now THAT'S sarcasm!

[ajprice]

/ajprice slaps Randman

OK, if this is real (some are non-believing because it was originally posted on the Spanish version of April Fools Day or something), then it would follow with the iPod/iMac cross advertising that this would be aimed at the iPod owning PC people.

Isn't this also the kind of machine that would sell s**tloads to businesses as an alternative to the under $500 computer for an office full of terminal machines (telesales offices etc). Combo eMacs sell on the UK business store for �468 (instead �549 inc VAT), and Jigsaw24.com sell eMacs with no optical drive or modem (ie, network machines) for �454 inc VAT (�387 without). So there is room for a business spec network machine based on this box, which could be sold well under �400 to businesses which use these things, and that market would be an absolute goldmine.



http://www.jigsaw24.com/cats/compute...lays/emacs.asp

[Mr Heliums]

I don't think this is a replacement for an eMac; I don't think its primary market would even be as a desktop machine - although if it attracts price-conscious Windows users, then fine.

I do expect this to be a media server of some sort.

I'm hoping it might address a long-standing problem of mine. I have two or three Macs at home, each with its own iTunes database, only accessible from other machines when it is turned on. Same goes for iPhoto stuff. Another problem: if you have filled a 60Gb iPod and are synchronising it on a two-year-old Mac, you haven't got much space left for everyday use.

What I've been craving is a low-cost, always-on mini server. It would be solely responsible for my iTunes and iPhoto database. With Airport connectivity and a FireWire port, this could be perfectly possible. For these purposes, it absolutely does not need a processor faster than a 1.25 GHz G4.

And if iTunes is upgraded to allow me to synchronise my iPod over a network so that I could just plug my iPod into the server, even better...

One reason I can't see it being marketed as a desktop machine is that the specs just aren't good enough; it's clearly a second-rate desktop machine. But it's a fine server product.

[jebjeb]

Slightly off topic but related - Another thing I wonder about people who have quite a few machines at home is profiles. Do you just have individual users on each machine or do you setup a small network with centrally stored profiles (I don't know too much about this side of things).

If this rumored machine is not only to serve the purpose of getting users off there PC's but also as a way to bring multiple machines into an existing Mac housegold, there needs to be an easy way of having a profile that roams with you. If I was to install, say, VLC on one machine I would want that installed on all machines with the icon in the same position on the dock etc.

Please let me know if this is easily done already. I imagine OS X Server does this but is there an easier solution?

I a better solution for many of those that want machines dotted all over their house is an iBook on a wireless network. But each to their own...

[Randman]

Well, eMac is supposed to be the education version, for schools and students and people on budgets.
This new iMac mini could take a little away from such a market, but not much I think. Aimed at PC users fed up with viruses and what not, and also for people wanting a second (or third Mac), it could be a hit. And also for this target, I think looks (which Apple excels in) is as important as performance.
Maybe not from the people on this forum, but there's a sizeable amount of people who aren't tech savvy, who don't care to upgrade their machines and who don't want lots of fuss and muss (and I don't think they're heavy gamers).
If done right, Apple could make this a huge deal for them while not doing much to cannibalize sales of all of the other lines.
If anything, this gives them flexibility with the eMac, either to upgrade it or kill it all together.

Oh and priceboy, while my earlier comments was made in sarcasm, it was about as silly as some of the other rants in this thread.

[Randman]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
Slightly off topic but related - Another thing I wonder about people who have quite a few machines at home is profiles.
If this rumored machine is not only to serve the purpose of getting users off there PC's but also as a way to bring multiple machines into an existing Mac household, there needs to be an easy way of having a profile that roams with you. If I was to install, say, VLC on one machine I would want that installed on all machines with the icon in the same position on the dock etc.

Hmm, .Mac Sync (which will replace iSync) that comes with Tiger might serve this purpose as you can already access and sync stuff. Or your iPod, as you can already use it as a bootable HD.
Maybe this will be the long-awaited return of "Home on the iPod" from that rumor from a few years ago.

[ajprice]

Randman, yeah I know you were being silly, its mac silly season so everyone has a right to make stuff up right now Then there's the dodgy digi cam photos of a cardboard box with an apple logo on it that will come out, and the accidental website slipup of the new specs on the apple store. All this joy is still to come!!! Oh how we laughed at that picture of what turned up as the MDD G4, thats got to be a fake!! we said...

[Randman]

Originally posted by ajprice:
Randman, yeah I know you were being silly, its mac silly season so everyone has a right to make stuff up right now Then there's the dodgy digi cam photos of a cardboard box with an apple logo on it that will come out

Like this?

[P]

Originally posted by Randman:
Like this?

Oh, that's baaaad. The painted Apple logo in particular, that's comedy gold.

[ryarber]

Look, apple has something that you or I don't, market data. I really see a huge market for this machine. The IT guys at work and the gamers won't want this machine. If they want an upgradeable machine for such purposes, then they will stay with their PC towers or rarely buy a PowerMac.

The market for these machines is people like my sister. She went to Circuit city and bought what the guy there recommended . She got a Sony machine with a flat panel monitor. A few months later, she bought an iPod. When she bought the iPod, her son really wanted a 12" Powerbook so she bought one of those for him to use. Now, browsing with her Sony has become so slooooooow because of all the spyware, etc. that they only use the mac now. She has a nice flat panel sony monitor and speakers that she would want to reuse if she got another computer. She perceives that her computer has just gotten too slow and needs another, faster computer so she can get her email and surf without all the frustration. After learning about why the PC is slow and the mac is still pretty quick, she decides she wants a mac instead for her next computer. "But I don't want to have to give my monitor and speakers away also when I donate my Sony to the school." Voila! A new, headless mac where she can use her nice flat panel monitor and speakers.

For everyone out there that says they don't want a mac because it isn't upgradeable, there are 200 like my sister. I only wish that these had been available last year as they would have sold a ton of them from folks coming in to buy their iPods. Apple has been asking people for over a year what they would need to consider switching from a windows machine to the mac. This mac is made for the masses, not for the gamers or the IT guys or windows power users. This machine, if it connects to a TV (as per appleinsider) could also fill another roll that has been absent for a long time. A low cost machine that an older person might be attracted to. A set top box that would allow them to see pictures of their grandkids, get email, do some web surfing, and a DVD player.

Can anyone speculate if they'll be available at places that iPods are sold, eg. best buy, circuit city, sears, walmart, etc. This would be a great product to allow them to get back into those retailers where they have been absent for so long.

[Randman]

iMac mini: Works great with iPods, works great with Microsoft Office. Viruses, spyware not included.

[Voch]

My current thinking is that even if it's "just" a G4/1.25Ghz I'd get one immediately for myself and use it as a second "always on" Mac (as opposed to my TiBook). I've wanted one for a while and it'd be perfect for offloading some of the work I do on my TiBook.

Then in the coming year as I get more frustrated helping my Dad with his Celeron/900Mhz Windows 2000 box I'd pass it off to him and buy the next revision for myself. I got him hooked on Eudora for e-mail and Firefox for web surfing so the transition should be easy.

This model, if it really happens, seems like a very inexpensive way to start Mac-ifying families. Buy an inexpensive Mac, use it for a while, pass it on, etc...