PDA

View Full Version : Would a high-end iMac really hurt PowerMac sales?


Shrek
Jan 30, 2003, 09:33 PM
IMHO, absolutely NOT! I say a 1.25GHz iMac with a 20" display would not hurt a bit. Here's why:

The number one reason is that Apple needs to appeal to PC users (switchers) and PC users (like me! :)) love bang for the buck! They like to buy as powerful of a machine as they can for the least amount of money as possible. And the fact is, for most PC users, PowerMacs do not appeal to them because they are too expensive. If Apple makes a high-end iMac they will please PC users, making them happy, and make them more likely to buy the iMac, and more likely to buy a Mac period. If they don't, they are cheating PC users, and will not make their bottom line. Think of it this way: High-end iMac sales will not hurt PowerMac sales at all because it is likely that the number iMacs sold to PC users will offset any money lost on PowerMac sales.

The second reason why is because the single processor 1GHz PowerMac still has support for up to 4 hard drives, two displays, and has Gigabit ethernet and the iMac couldn't even come close to this.

That's just my opinion. ;)

arn
Jan 30, 2003, 09:38 PM
Would you pay $2400 for a 20" iMac?

Because that would be how much it would cost roughly. (rumored new 17" iMac cost, $1799,plus cost differential between 17 and 20" LCD's)

arn

Shrek
Jan 30, 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by arn
Would you pay $2400 for a 20" iMac?


Absolutely! :D

arn
Jan 30, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Shrek


Absolutely! :D

But do you realize you could get a:

Dual 1.42GHz PowerMac G4
512MB RAM
SuperDrive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro

for $2699... and just use your old/current monitor.

Or a Dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac for only $1999.

arn

Shrek
Jan 30, 2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by arn


But do you realize you could get a:

Dual 1.42GHz PowerMac G4
512MB RAM
SuperDrive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro

for $2699... and just use your old/current monitor.

Or a Dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac for only $1999.

arn

And that I am not going to do. Like I said, PowerMacs do not appeal to PC users. I am going to give my old computer to somebody else, with the monitor. Besides, my monitor sucks anyways and I don't think that it's Mac compatible.

Vector
Jan 30, 2003, 10:07 PM
I do not know whether it would hurt powermac sales or not, but i would much rather have a powermac than an imac. A 20" imac would be too expensive for a computer with so little expandability. Also i do not think that a 20" imac is a very feasible idea. First of all, the current 20" monitor weighs 18.9 lbs, and while jonathan ives is a genious I think that even he would have trouble putting that size monitor on the metal imac connector. Second, I do not think that that size monitor would look good on such a small base.

arn
Jan 30, 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Vector
I do not know whether it would hurt powermac sales or not, but i would much rather have a powermac than an imac. A 20" imac would be too expensive for a computer with so little expandability. Also i do not think that a 20" imac is a very feasible idea. First of all, the current 20" monitor weighs 18.9 lbs, and while jonathan ives is a genious I think that even he would have trouble putting that size monitor on the metal imac connector. Second, I do not think that that size monitor would look good on such a small base.

right... you're effectively spending over $1000 on a 20" LCD you can't take with you... you'll lose it when the iMac becomes obsolete.

arn

hobie
Jan 30, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by arn


right... you're effectively spending over $1000 on a 20" LCD you can't take with you... you'll lose it when the iMac becomes obsolete.

arn

You could be right on that.

BUT

Has anybody of you ever thought what to do with your old notebook screens...:rolleyes:

When my iBook gets obsolete I can't simply take off the screen and make a mobile picture frame out of it or use it as a palette screen. So what?!? Once I buy the next laptop there's a screen attached anyway. In fact, I don't think the 17" PB screen is cheap either. But nobody moans around it's too big or too expensive or whatever.

Same game with the iMacs. I'd happily buy a 20", particularly because I can't simply plug in a second monitor to expand my desktop. And when it gets replaced, I can either sell it for a good price, or pass the whole thing over to somebody else, or simply use it as a nightlamp (or rather floodlights:D ).

arn
Jan 30, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by hobie

Same game with the iMacs. I'd happily buy a 20", particularly because I can't simply plug in a second monitor to expand my desktop. And when it gets replaced, I can either sell it for a good price, or pass the whole thing over to somebody else, or simply use it as a nightlamp (or rather floodlights:D ).

True... but as the size and cost of the monitor go up... this discrepancy increases.

For example... would you pay $8000 for a 1GHz iMac hard-wired to a 42" Plasma Screen?

The 20" just exagerrates this sort of issue... and the cost of the screen on the iBook and Powerbook tends not to make up quite as much... but indeed... it does make a significant amount... but you do gain portability.

arn

yamadataro
Jan 31, 2003, 01:31 AM
For personal use, iMac is nice I think. But for professional day-to-day operations, there's no other options than the high cost-to-performance ratio of PowerMacs. iMacs are all about the nice case design! Nothing beats PowerMac's expandability and speed.

So for graphics and other professionals, iMac is no juicier than PowerMac.

For consumer audiences, I think iMacs are hurting the PowerMac sales. I don't know how much, though.

hobie
Jan 31, 2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by arn

For example... would you pay $8000 for a 1GHz iMac hard-wired to a 42" Plasma Screen?


Heck no...! But I also wouldn't pay 4000$ for the Plasma Screen alone. (This is mainly because I'm not really impressed by the resolution and picture quality of those screens).

Shrek
Jan 31, 2003, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by arn
For example... would you pay $8000 for a 1GHz iMac hard-wired to a 42" Plasma Screen?


Here we go with that stupid argument again: "Oh yeah, if they come out with a 20" the next thing you know you'll be wanting a 20' iMac." :p Pathetic. 20" is enough.

hobie
Jan 31, 2003, 06:23 AM
However, if screen costs would be a valid argument, then the original iMac never would ahve been a succes. It doesn't matter how big or small, hor chep or costly the installed monitor is, it's always an additional cost! And money paid for something, which can't be used anymore after a model is outdated. Or does anyone of you use his old iMac CRT as an extra monitor?

My point is, give me the machine I want with the monitor I want! And NOT, give me the machine I want with the monitor you want me to take!
I know, I could take the PM as well, but that's not the machine I want :rolleyes:

Shrek
Jan 31, 2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by hobie
My point is, give me the machine I want with the monitor I want! And NOT, give me the machine I want with the monitor you want me to take!
I know, I could take the PM as well, but that's not the machine I want :rolleyes:

Good point. Mine, too.

Chow for now. Have to go to work. ;) Talk again in about 10 hours. :p

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 31, 2003, 07:09 AM
Just got on before work and saw the post. I have seen the 17 imac and i think its perfect.Rather then going bigger and bigger displays i would like to see faster cpu's and better video cards just because none of it is upgradeble. I would like to know which platform sold the most?Power mac or Imac? if the answer is imac then this needs to be done. if the answer is powermac then steady as she sails i guess.

hobie
Jan 31, 2003, 07:12 AM
You're right, faster CPUs would be really nice. But for the same reason bigger monitors would be nice, too. ...Or can you upgrade an iMac monitor?!?

The 15" just looks too small for that base, teh 17" has a far better geometry.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 1, 2003, 02:20 PM
one more comment and this is for shrek,after looking at the 17 i think they could put in a 19 or 20" and still have the same outside dimensions of the 17. just use a thinner white area around the monitor so we could have a bigger screen! who knows? i guess we will all know next week! Apple does like to surprise!here is to hoping for a 1.25,radeon 9000 pro and 19"monitor.

arn
Feb 1, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Shrek


Here we go with that stupid argument again: "Oh yeah, if they come out with a 20" the next thing you know you'll be wanting a 20' iMac." :p Pathetic. 20" is enough.

actually that wasn't my point...

my point was as screen costs increase (and they do increase disproportionately to screen size), the cost diff emphasizes the fact that you are tying a very expensive technology (the 20" or 42" plasma screen) to a soon to be obsolete box (1ghz iMac)

While this is true in many ways for many items- such as your ram, hard drive (even maybe 15" lcds) etc.... the cost of those tends not to be proportionally as high...

but like my example, most people who pay $7000 or so for a HD Plasma TV want to be able to use it on future hardware/receivers/etc....

Maybe you're willing to pay a $1000 premium on yor iMac to get a kick-ass screen attachted to it... but I am not and my point is that this is a valid opinion, and may be why Apple would be less likely to do so.

arn

GeneR
Feb 1, 2003, 02:42 PM
I thought expandability is the key factor with PMs over iMacs, that's why they will sell well apart from iMac sales.

I know the market for PM has been dropping for a while, but perhaps that will change with a new Chip and speed boost? I'm definitely waiting until that happens before I invest in a new PM. Who wants to have a PM now if they can afford to wait for a faster processor? Not me. Anyway, hopefully this will happen soon enough.

:)

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 1, 2003, 02:44 PM
good post arn, probably some slight mods to the base, airport extreme,1gig cpu,same geforce4mx . But would sure like to see apple pull a rabbit out of its hat!

LethalWolfe
Feb 1, 2003, 03:13 PM
Would a super iMac take sales away from a PM? Probably not. Would an iMac running the same speed (proc, cache, and FSB) as a PM hurt the PM's image and possibly discourage people from buying it? Yes.

The minute there is no longer a black and white, night and day difference between the consumer and pro line of computers pro's will start second guessing buying a PM. Pro's want to buy professional equipment, and professional equipment is not used by consumers.

A perfect example is DV. If you compared footage shot w/a hi-end DV camera and footage shot on BetaSP (the industry standard video format) the difference is minimal<sp?>. But since consumer DV cameras can be purchased at Best Buy and Circut City it gets shunned by many video pro's. Not because it's an inferior format, but because of its image.

Apple obviously has to upgrade the iMacs, but they will also keep "crippling" them until the G5 (or whatever) comes out and the PM line is again on a seperate proc.


Lethal

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 1, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Would a super iMac take sales away from a PM? Probably not. Would an iMac running the same speed (proc, cache, and FSB) as a PM hurt the PM's image and possibly discourage people from buying it? Yes.

The minute there is no longer a black and white, night and day difference between the consumer and pro line of computers pro's will start second guessing buying a PM. Pro's want to buy professional equipment, and professional equipment is not used by consumers.

A perfect example is DV. If you compared footage shot w/a hi-end DV camera and footage shot on BetaSP (the industry standard video format) the difference is minimal<sp?>. But since consumer DV cameras can be purchased at Best Buy and Circut City it gets shunned by many video pro's. Not because it's an inferior format, but because of its image.

Apple obviously has to upgrade the iMacs, but they will also keep "crippling" them until the G5 (or whatever) comes out and the PM line is again on a seperate proc.


Lethal True they might even just put a 133 bus in it with a 933 and say here you go we have really improved the new imac compared to the old! A brand new 133 bus and ultrafast 933!then pull out specs comparing it to the current 800.

Thanatoast
Feb 1, 2003, 04:08 PM
i don't think powermac sales would slide too badly, especially with their new reduced prices. the main advantage i see to a high-end imac is the switcher argument. a seventeen inch imac with a fast proc and a nice video card (enough with the mx already) would be the perfect machine to lure pc users with. professionals would continue to buy the power macs, consumers would continue to buy the imacs. pc users would be more tempted by a machine that doesn't sound so pathetic presented next to a pc. you could even still argue the megahertz myth b/c it's now got the same video card as the alternate pc. how much proc do you really need when you're running a radeon 9700, or gf4ti?

CrackedButter
Feb 1, 2003, 04:31 PM
Had Apple put duals in ALL PM then this wouldn't be a problem. How would imac hurt PM sales if all PM had 2 processors when the imac would have one and Apple could limit the Imac to 1Ghz with a faster bus than the current one.

There you would have a clear difference between the 2 lines. Anyway i realise the difference between the 2 and if i wanted to buy an imac (i will if the new ones are tempting :)) i would because i don't want the power and the expandability of a power mac. I'm after a space saving option, so i would either buy the imac or an ibook.

scem0
Feb 1, 2003, 10:46 PM
After having an iMac forever, and then buying a powermac, I think
that the powermac is a much better option... but everyone has
their opinions. I don't particularely care that much for looks, but
I do love expandability, speed, and cost, which is why I am going
to get a powermac for my next computer (probably the low end :().