Apple Patent: Adjustable Screen Snake Arm

[MacRumors]

MacObserver notes (http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2004/20030407.shtml) that Apple has been issued a patent for a "display device with moveable assembly.

MacObserver reposted photos of the display arm from the patent application and resembles the LCD iMac with a (more) adjustable neck.

The patent was filed on November 8, 2001 which predates the release of the LCD iMac. This may simply represent an early prototype design rather than an upcoming product.

[Le Big Mac]

MacObserver notes (http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2004/20030407.shtml) that Apple has been issued a patent for a "display device with moveable assembly.

MacObserver reposted photos of the display arm from the patent application and resembles the LCD iMac with a (more) adjustable neck.

The patent was filed on November 8, 2001 which predates the release of the LCD iMac. This may simply represent an early prototype design rather than an upcoming product.

That sounds like all kind of cool if they could make it work, but given tehproblems with the imac arm as it is, it sounds like a warranty disaster.

[yoman]

It is wierd lookin.

Based on the pictures

[yoman]

That sounds like all kind of cool if they could make it work, but given tehproblems with the imac arm as it is, it sounds like a warranty disaster.

What problems are there with the current arms?

[PlaceofDis]

it will probably never come out, the patent was applied for before the current imacs came out.....probably not a big deal

[Niknar]

I think its pretty cool. Looks like they had the rest of the imac design done but just had the arm to work out.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Glad that they went with the other one. I like the 17 * 20" iMacs.. just wish they were faster, as we all do.

I think its pretty cool. Looks like they had the rest of the imac design done but just had the arm to work out.

[Dont Hurt Me]

current arm is fine, just throw in G5 2.0 and 9600xt and ill order 1.

[thatwendigo]

current arm is fine, just throw in G5 2.0 and 9600xt and ill order 1.

What happened to AMD being the savior of gaming, DHM? A little skittish over the jump, after all? :rolleyes:

You still have yet to address the problems with head dissipation that I brought up some time ago. If the current G4s already push the limit of cooling ability in the enclosure, how will a massively hotter architecture and graphics card fit in there without baking?

[Phaedrus]

Well now I completely get Job's comparison, which baffled me at the time, of the imac to one of the sunflowers in his wife's garden. Maybe Ive talked him out of it at the last minute.... But it does have a weird organic beauty.... I'm just afraid that if I got too close it would spit spores into my face and I wouldn't want to leave the planet....

[keysersoze]

oof.

am i the only one who thinks that thing is total butt?!


stupid snake.

[Trowaman]

Me no likey.

Too complex, it's not "simple" enough.

[areyouwishing]

Just give me a headless iMac already.

Call it the PowerMac LC. 700 Bux, make it bootable into OS 9 and X (to kill the PowerMac G4 off) G4 1.25 at least, 256mb of RAM, Replaceable Hard Drive and Ram... thats it, maybe video card. No Expansion slots, and I am SOLD.

[thatwendigo]

Just give me a headless iMac already.

Call it the PowerMac LC. 700 Bux, make it bootable into OS 9 and X (to kill the PowerMac G4 off) G4 1.25 at least, 256mb of RAM, Replaceable Hard Drive and Ram... thats it, maybe video card. No Expansion slots, and I am SOLD.

If there were going to be a headless iMac, that would be the least of Apple's hardware worries, and it would be out already. The other problem, one that it seems will never get through to a certain kind of person, is that the Mac is not a bargain bin computer. To push it down into the $700-$1000 space requires using second-rate components, as we see with the eMac and iMac of today.

That being said, for what most home users do, both of the current machines are more than adequate for the task. I use an eMac 700 as my primary machine, and I do everything besides FPS gaming on it. Sure, it would be nice to have a SATA drive or the option to upgrade the hardware a bit, but the fact of the matter is that this computer (and most of the x86 market, for that matter) is more than home users require.

Lastly, TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for, and if you want a cheap box, then there's already a market overflowing with them. I hope you enjoy the hardware problems they have.

[voicegy]

Well now I completely get Job's comparison, which baffled me at the time, of the imac to one of the sunflowers in his wife's garden.

You totally beat me to it. Exactly. Whether it was design complications or the way it ended up looking when prototyped or Jonathan going "ewwwww" when he saw the sunflower design in 3D, I'm glad this one never saw the light of day.

[neonart]

This just looks like iMac prototypes. It would be outstanding if adjustable displays where on the way, but I doubt it.

We may be stuck with picture frames for a while...

[ChrisH3677]

One thing did catch my eye in the MacObserver article
The reality is the iMac desperately needs a serious redesign. Preferably, one that involves severing the screen from the base. If Apple is to increase its market share, it needs to target some of its machines at the corporate market. To do that, it needs a modestly priced G5 powered replacement for the iMac. One where the user can pick up a reasonably priced monitor of their choosing.
I am the IT manager of a small council. We have approx 80 desktops. We are a Windows site (except for my PowerBook!! :D ). I just this week began re-thinking my computer purchasing strategy. I am seriously considering phasing out desktops in favor of laptops. I can now get acceptable laptops with 15" displays within my pricepoint ($2000 AUD).

The physical manageability is what really appeals. Tho higher end workstation would still need to be desktops.

edit: Yes, I would have external mouse and keyboards attached to them.

Makes me wonder tho if Apple, may never release a corporate desktop and instead expect ppl to buy laptops...

And why not? Give me a laptop under my pricepoint that can run all my apps... why wouldn't I? Desktops are shrinking away to nothing anyway.

Food for thought.

[legion]

One thing did catch my eye in the MacObserver article

I am the IT manager of a small council. We have approx 80 desktops. We are a Windows site (except for my PowerBook!! :D ). I just this week began re-thinking my computer purchasing strategy. I am seriously considering phasing out desktops in favor of laptops. I can now get acceptable laptops with 15" displays within my pricepoint ($2000 AUD).

The physical manageability is what really appeals. Tho higher end workstation would still need to be desktops.

edit: Yes, I would have external mouse and keyboards attached to them.

Makes me wonder tho if Apple, may never release a corporate desktop and instead expect ppl to buy laptops...

And why not? Give me a laptop under my pricepoint that can run all my apps... why wouldn't I? Desktops are shrinking away to nothing anyway.

Food for thought.


Because maintenance and repair of a laptop is quite a bit more expensive and a hassle compared to a desktop. In the end, it doesn't workout well in TCO for longterm use as a desktop machine in business.

What happens when you have a laptop where the graphics card dies? On a desktop, you could keep some spare parts around and just swap one in while the warranty replaces the dead one. On a laptop, you're talking about sending the machine out for repair and hoping it comes back reasonably soon. Even if you are smart enough to keep a stock of laptops around as replacement/loaners, that's an added burden to cost (plus the hassle of moving data back and forth from one laptop to the other before sending the broken one out.)

[numediaman]

MacObserver posts this garbage -- and AppleInsider and MacRumors passes it on. Sorry, but are we a little desperate here, or what?

[inkswamp]

given tehproblems with the imac arm as it is

Such as?

I've owned a G4 iMac for a year-and-a-half and it's been one of the most amazing and sturdy designs I've ever used. Really incredibly useful and quite solid. My daughter drags the monitor down to her level when she uses the machine. I drag it back up. My wife and I turn the screen to face our bed when we want to watch a movie. I have friends who also own G4 iMacs and none of them complain about problems with it.

What on earth are the problems you're talking about?

[wdlove]

If that was the prototype that they decided against, they tells us all we need to know. It looks like with normal wear and tear would fail.

[neonart]

Such as?

I've owned a G4 iMac for a year-and-a-half and it's been one of the most amazing and sturdy designs I've ever used. Really incredibly useful and quite solid. My daughter drags the monitor down to her level when she uses the machine. I drag it back up. My wife and I turn the screen to face our bed when we want to watch a movie. I have friends who also own G4 iMacs and none of them complain about problems with it.

What on earth are the problems you're talking about?

Yes, please explain. We had our iMac for 2 years and it was OUTSTANDING! We miss it big time!

The screen was such a great part of it! I don't think anyone knows how cool it is until you use it for a while.

[medea]

Such as?

I've owned a G4 iMac for a year-and-a-half and it's been one of the most amazing and sturdy designs I've ever used. Really incredibly useful and quite solid. My daughter drags the monitor down to her level when she uses the machine. I drag it back up. My wife and I turn the screen to face our bed when we want to watch a movie. I have friends who also own G4 iMacs and none of them complain about problems with it.

What on earth are the problems you're talking about?
The only problem was where some of the screens were loose and titled to the side, but it was only a handful of them and apple fixed the issue.

[rubikcube]

OMG!!!

You all will never believe me on this one. While I was at WWDC2003, there was an event called the apple campus bash. Apple busses everyone from SF to cupertino so we can all get drunk and talk with the apple engineers. While I was there, I noticed that one of the windows was open, and I saw THIS iMac in the window. I remember telling someone about this and they thought that it was an aftermarket mod that one of the engineers might have done.

So crazy to see it here...

[ClimbingTheLog]

If there were going to be a headless iMac, that would be the least of Apple's hardware worries, and it would be out already. The other problem, one that it seems will never get through to a certain kind of person, is that the Mac is not a bargain bin computer. To push it down into the $700-$1000 space requires using second-rate components, as we see with the eMac and iMac of today.

Baloney. Computers get cheaper all the time. Take a $1299 iMac. Knock off a hundred buck for the new model year. $1199. Now take off the 15" LCD Panel and the arm - $999 is certainly possible.

[ClimbingTheLog]

The patent was filed on November 8, 2001

Lemme guess - Lisa gave Steve a Black and Decker Snakelight for Father's Day 2001?

[acj]

Assuming you can afford to, it is wise to patent a new idea even if you don't think it's a good one.

[neonart]

Baloney. Computers get cheaper all the time. Take a $1299 iMac. Knock off a hundred buck for the new model year. $1199. Now take off the 15" LCD Panel and the arm - $999 is certainly possible.

And what's an eMac worth if you remove the monitor, the extra case parts, the larger power supply, etc.?
Apple *can* make a less expensive headless machine. They just don't. This would bring in tons of folks- including the frugal Linux nuts that always tell me- "Apple has some sweet boxes- but the're too high for me..."

It's beyond my comprehension. :confused:

[iMeowbot]

That sounds like all kind of cool if they could make it work, but given tehproblems with the imac arm as it is, it sounds like a warranty disaster.

Concidentally, the place where I work built virtually identical LCD display arms for video microscopes a couple years ago. Those ball-and-tube tension arms are in common use for holding measurement instruments like indicators. They work beautifully for 4-to-5 inch monitors, but would definitely have been unwieldy for the iMac's 15-inch and larger displays.

Reliability would not have been an issue, but the two-handed adjustment would have been vastly inferior to the fingertip control that was ultimately chosen. (For the scopes, we needed the ability to bend around corners, so a swing arm wasn't in the running.)

[thatwendigo]

Baloney. Computers get cheaper all the time. Take a $1299 iMac. Knock off a hundred buck for the new model year. $1199. Now take off the 15" LCD Panel and the arm - $999 is certainly possible.

You're talking about the general computer market, of which Apple is only a subset, and one with its own special economic issues. Unlike other OEMs, Apple is restricted to a number of proprietary formats that severely limit the ability to cut down pricing. Even if they were to accept a profit margin as low as, say, HP or Dell, they'd not be able to meet the same price point. This is simply a function of the extra cost in shorter runs of manufacturing, using parts and formats that are not industry standard, and even the parts that Apple has to build for itself, rather than having some off-the-shelf solution like other companies do.

It all adds up, and the only reason that the eMac is that cheap is that it uses parts that are out of date (PC133, PATA, and so on), to cut around the more expensive components. I'd not be surprised if the margin on the eMac is also far, far lower than their other machines, and that they're taking a hard hit on them in order to be able to claim a sub-$1k setup.

And what's an eMac worth if you remove the monitor, the extra case parts, the larger power supply, etc.?
Apple *can* make a less expensive headless machine. They just don't. This would bring in tons of folks- including the frugal Linux nuts that always tell me- "Apple has some sweet boxes- but the're too high for me..."

Once again, Apple cannot compete in the pricing game. There will be a company out there, using parts that are more standardized, more easily available, and cheaper, that will undercut them every time.

They need to keep focusing on quality.

[ChrisH3677]

Because maintenance and repair of a laptop is quite a bit more expensive and a hassle compared to a desktop. In the end, it doesn't workout well in TCO for longterm use as a desktop machine in business.

What happens when you have a laptop where the graphics card dies? On a desktop, you could keep some spare parts around and just swap one in while the warranty replaces the dead one. On a laptop, you're talking about sending the machine out for repair and hoping it comes back reasonably soon. Even if you are smart enough to keep a stock of laptops around as replacement/loaners, that's an added burden to cost (plus the hassle of moving data back and forth from one laptop to the other before sending the broken one out.)

Altho a fair comment... 17 years in computer support has shown me that hardware is not the problem. Hardware is quite reliable. If software was as reliable as hardware... us support guys would be out of a job. :D

In our fleet we have already about 20 laptops. A mix of Compaq and Dell. They have been quite reliable and on the rare occasion repair has been necessary it hasn't been a problem. Also, we have next business day repair agreements, so time delays aren't a problem either.

Moving data isn't an issue - we are on a network, users aren't supposed to keep anything on their computers.

Granted all that tho, we only keep our hardware for 3 years. Experience says beyond that you do see more problems.

PS As always, I do wish I could change us over to Macs. It's just those two mission critical Windows-only, resource-hogging Office-interacting apps. :(

[sonyrules]

MacObserver notes (http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2004/20030407.shtml) that Apple has been issued a patent for a "display device with moveable assembly.

MacObserver reposted photos of the display arm from the patent application and resembles the LCD iMac with a (more) adjustable neck.

The patent was filed on November 8, 2001 which predates the release of the LCD iMac. This may simply represent an early prototype design rather than an upcoming product.


Its a new verision of the Snake Light.. Called iSnake

[whooleytoo]

And what's an eMac worth if you remove the monitor, the extra case parts, the larger power supply, etc.?
Apple *can* make a less expensive headless machine. They just don't. This would bring in tons of folks- including the frugal Linux nuts that always tell me- "Apple has some sweet boxes- but the're too high for me..."

Ditto! When the G5s came out, I scanned several pc website forums to gauge the reaction, and was suprised how positive it was (apart from the SPEC rating hullabulloo). But the universal reaction was, they're just too expensive.

Speed bump the PowerMacs, introduce a cheap, single processor iMac; make shedloads of cash from OS & iLife upgrades and AppleCare, and I'm a happy camper!

[aswitcher]

Its a new verision of the Snake Light.. Called iSnake

Of course ;) ...this is all about the Eden story. The Serpent uses the Apple to tempt the Mac... :eek:

[Wonder Boy]

MacObserver posts this garbage -- and AppleInsider and MacRumors passes it on. Sorry, but are we a little desperate here, or what?

we are very very desperate, yes.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What happened to AMD being the savior of gaming, DHM? A little skittish over the jump, after all? :rolleyes:

You still have yet to address the problems with head dissipation that I brought up some time ago. If the current G4s already push the limit of cooling ability in the enclosure, how will a massively hotter architecture and graphics card fit in there without baking?Man you are allways right there, worse then no seeums! Allways to APPLE'S RESCUE!
AMD does have a heck of a chip make no mistake. How do i know thatwendigo? because one is still matching what 2 G5s are doing thats how.
Im glad they didnt do the snake light thing. would have removed all the class the Imac has.

[johnpaul191]

if you remember when the LCD iMac first hit there was (is?) a quicktime vid on apple.com that had Jobs, and Ives and whomever else doing the "meet the new iMac". i*think* that's where i remember hearing this.... anyway they said the initial inspiration for the LCD iMac was a sunflower and the initial prototypes used a gooseneck design for massive adjustability of height and angle. they said the problem was that the gooseneck design was prone to tilting .... as in the screen not being square with your desk....

i'm sure working prototypes exist(ed).... but it was replaced with the more robust neck they produced.

[dukemeiser]

I'd say it was just a prototype that was rejected. That arm system would look ugly compared to the current one.

[Le Big Mac]

What on earth are the problems you're talking about?

There have been numerous reports/complaints about too much looseness in the pivot points such that the arm won't keep the screen at teh desired height. Not a problem for everyone, but when i've gone into apple stores, I usually see a couple of forlorn looking imacs with the arms in unnatural positions. The bigger problem than the fact that the joints get loose is that you can't just tighten the screws at home.

[uzombie]

current arm is fine, just throw in G5 2.0 and 9600xt and ill order 1.

Exactly!

And WTF is with Apple NOT adhering to VESA standards with their Cinema Displays???
You would think arrogance was only for Gates & Co.

They got the hint with having both ADC and DVI (DVI wins in numbers).

Sometimes NOT going with the flow results in a clog.

[kgarner]

I looked at this patent last year, just after I started getting into patent drafting. This is in the same patent as the arm design they did use. This is what patent people call an embodiment. It is just meant to keep other people from finding a quick and easy route around your patent. You basically patent this to keep your competitors from doing it. I agree, that it is good they went with the other design, though.

[ldkaplan]

The arm on my iMac is a bit loose. I was a tad mad at the fact that I can't tighten it back up. It's a secondary computer now so I don't worry too much, but it's fact that it does happen. The gooseneck approach would have been ugly IMHO...they went the correct route.



There have been numerous reports/complaints about too much looseness in the pivot points such that the arm won't keep the screen at teh desired height. Not a problem for everyone, but when i've gone into apple stores, I usually see a couple of forlorn looking imacs with the arms in unnatural positions. The bigger problem than the fact that the joints get loose is that you can't just tighten the screws at home.

[robbieduncan]

Just give me a headless iMac already.

Call it the PowerMac LC. 700 Bux, make it bootable into OS 9 and X (to kill the PowerMac G4 off) G4 1.25 at least, 256mb of RAM, Replaceable Hard Drive and Ram... thats it, maybe video card. No Expansion slots, and I am SOLD.

There is no chance that Apple will introduce any new hardware that is bootable into OS 9. This simply will not happen.

[agreenster]

I'd say it was just a prototype that was rejected. That arm system would look ugly compared to the current one.

Yep. You're right.

Most people havent bothered to read the article, and had they, they would have realized that this patent is very old, pre LCD iMac. It was probably just one of the designs while they were still designing the LCD iMac.

[morkintosh]

And why not? Give me a laptop under my pricepoint that can run all my apps... why wouldn't I? Desktops are shrinking away to nothing anyway.

Food for thought.

I go back and fourth on this. At IBM we all had our Thinkpads and the ability to work anywhere, which was nice. We also had the ability go home and dump the contents of the HD every night and walk of with millions in IP or install every class of spyware known to man and then bring it back into the office.

Laptops make a lot of sense in a lot of ways for corporate deployment, but the security issues alone would make me cringe if I were an IT support manager.

[morkintosh]

current arm is fine, just throw in G5 2.0 and 9600xt and ill order 1.

depends on how you define 'fine'. true, I have my monitor exactly where I want it, but if I have to be careful not to breath on it or else it starts an endless slide down onto my desk and I get to spend the next hour trying to get it to stay in place again.

[voicegy]

And WTF is with Apple NOT adhering to VESA standards with their Cinema Displays???

Yeah, well, that's a point well taken, but these babies took care of it for my Cinema Display at work - and I'm very pleased with the results.:cool:

http://www.macmice.com/products_ergomac_1.html

[thatwendigo]

Man you are allways right there, worse then no seeums! Allways to APPLE'S RESCUE!

Someone has to counter your FUD.

AMD does have a heck of a chip make no mistake. How do i know thatwendigo? because one is still matching what 2 G5s are doing thats how.

Find a single post where I say that AMD doesn't do decent chip designs, DHM. I don't, because they're the only PC company I have any real respect for, largely because they're following along in a RISC-like attitude. They'd rather redesign a chip to get better performance than pull stupid crap like endlessly extending the pipeline and tacking on cache so that a dying model can keep going.

If I had to use a PC, it would be an Athlon of some variety.

[&RU]

The cost of manufacturing that monstrosity would have been prohibitive. With all of those pieces -- each one needing some sort of locking mechanism, probably triggered by the lever behind the LCD... Like they say "Keep It Simple, Stupid!".

[Dont Hurt Me]

Someone has to counter your FUD.



Find a single post where I say that AMD doesn't do decent chip designs, DHM. I don't, because they're the only PC company I have any real respect for, largely because they're following along in a RISC-like attitude. They'd rather redesign a chip to get better performance than pull stupid crap like endlessly extending the pipeline and tacking on cache so that a dying model can keep going.

If I had to use a PC, it would be an Athlon of some variety.I agree, in fact my wife has giving me the word order the Aurora! they just added a 5900se video card option for only 60 bucks more then the fx5200. Why am i waiting? time to jump off this TiTanic??

[ChrisH3677]

I go back and fourth on this. At IBM we all had our Thinkpads and the ability to work anywhere, which was nice. We also had the ability go home and dump the contents of the HD every night and walk of with millions in IP or install every class of spyware known to man and then bring it back into the office.

Laptops make a lot of sense in a lot of ways for corporate deployment, but the security issues alone would make me cringe if I were an IT support manager.

Quite so. For that reason we've already established that if we go that way, staff will not be allowed to take the laptop out of the office.

Also, I don't see theft as any greater issue than for desktops now that they've become so small and light.

[aswitcher]

Also, I don't see theft as any greater issue than for desktops now that they've become so small and light.

But desktops dont transit very often, whereas laptops go on the bus, train, plane, and are then left exposed in cars (like mobile phones), on cafe counters, etc making them much more vulnerable.

[solvs]

Lastly, TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for, and if you want a cheap box, then there's already a market overflowing with them. I hope you enjoy the hardware problems they have.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Now don't hurt me for saying this :p but Apple does need a lower end machine. The eMac is great for some things, and I doubt Apple is losing money on them, but most people would prefer a headless Mac. Doesn't have to be the latest tech, doesn't have to be low quality either. Just needs to be cheaper. And the G4 Tower is too expensive for what you get. Some of us can't afford to spend a lot on computers, you know.

See, we'd rather not have to buy a PC. Besides, there was an article on billpalmer.net about how those $499 PCs aren't really that price (rebates, upgrades, etc.), but all I'm asking for is a new, sub-$1,000, Mac. G4, G5, replaceable video card... doesn't matter. All it's got to do is run the current apps at acceptable speeds, and not have an attached monitor.

Take the monitor off the eMac or iMac. Update it a little, sell it for $700-$1000. It will sell like hotcakes. Just like the original iMac, and the original Mac. The computers for the rest of us. I'll be hoping for a GHz G4 iBook for $999 (least it's portable and I can always attach my own monitor) or a second hand, upgraded Tower to replace my aging Beige G3. Or a nice refurb iMac (just use the hack to allow spanning to your own monitor instead of mirroring). Or a price drop on the "current" G4 Towers. Whatever, I'd be happy.

But try telling someone they should buy a Mac, they always say they're too expensive. And they're right. At least as of right now. True you get what you pay for, but it wouldn't hurt to have a cheaper box for switchers, etc. Cheaper doesn't have to mean lower quality, just less of the stuff some people don't need. Like a non-removable monitor.

[thatwendigo]

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Now don't hurt me for saying this :p but Apple does need a lower end machine. The eMac is great for some things, and I doubt Apple is losing money on them, but most people would prefer a headless Mac. Doesn't have to be the latest tech, doesn't have to be low quality either. Just needs to be cheaper. And the G4 Tower is too expensive for what you get. Some of us can't afford to spend a lot on computers, you know.

I'm sorry, but the eMac is already about as low end as things are going to get for a while. I agree with you that the G4 towers are now overpriced, if you consider what's in the G5 towers, but I'm also pretty thoroughly convinced that the eMac is being undersold. The reason for that is that the chip in the eMac is actually a G4 1.33 underclocked to whatever rate they leave it at for heat reason, not to mention the cooling system and the integration that was needed to create it.

See, we'd rather not have to buy a PC. Besides, there was an article on billpalmer.net about how those $499 PCs aren't really that price (rebates, upgrades, etc.), but all I'm asking for is a new, sub-$1,000, Mac. G4, G5, replaceable video card... doesn't matter. All it's got to do is run the current apps at acceptable speeds, and not have an attached monitor.

Well, I'd rather have a G5 dualie for free... Unfortunately, Apple and I don't see eye to eye on that one, and I don't think they're going to do it. I agree that the bargain PCs are really just traps for the computer illiterate, and I've basically said that for a while. And, on your last point, my eMac rev A does run most things pretty acceptably. I'm currently running five programs at once (iTunes, Firefox, Safari, Photoshop, and Cantrip), with my processor monitor ticking over at 20-30% when I'm not doing things with filters and my RAM showing 336 out of 512MB in use.

Take the monitor off the eMac or iMac. Update it a little, sell it for $700-$1000. It will sell like hotcakes. Just like the original iMac, and the original Mac. The computers for the rest of us.

Except it won't be like either, because it's not an all-in-one, it's not as simple, and it takes more cables. You lose a large portion of the simplicity when you take the monitor out, because that's at least two more wires to be strung.

But try telling someone they should buy a Mac, they always say they're too expensive. And they're right. At least as of right now. True you get what you pay for, but it wouldn't hurt to have a cheaper box for switchers, etc. Cheaper doesn't have to mean lower quality, just less of the stuff some people don't need. Like a non-removable monitor.

Wait, wait... What? Macs are too expensive, but you get what you pay for? Make up your mind, man!

Actually, it would hurt to have a cheaper box for switchers, for one reason alone. You pointed out the first thing every PC user "knows" about the mac, which is that it's supposedly too expensive. The second one is that they're "too slow," and a low-end machine won't fix that at all. In fact, it'll make it worse, because Apple can hardly afford to throw top of the line speed into a cheap box.

Oh, and cheaper does mean lower quality, since most of the expense in a G5 sytem is the parts that make it speedy. CRTs are cheap, these days, and not a whole lot more expensive for flat-CRTs like the ones in use in eMacs... You might cut $100, at most, off the price at the OEM level, for a machine that will still have DHM crying in the morning.

[ChrisH3677]

But desktops dont transit very often, whereas laptops go on the bus, train, plane, and are then left exposed in cars (like mobile phones), on cafe counters, etc making them much more vulnerable.

Ah! That was in response to my earlier suggestion that I'm considering replacing desktops with laptops. Thus they wouldn't be transient.

[aswitcher]

Ah! That was in response to my earlier suggestion that I'm considering replacing desktops with laptops. Thus they wouldn't be transient.

Well if you can lock them up after use I guess thats fine. Seems like a more expensive way to do business considering desktops are usually signficantly cheaper.

[solvs]

Well, I'd rather have a G5 dualie for free... Unfortunately, Apple and I don't see eye to eye on that one, and I don't think they're going to do it.

Oh, and cheaper does mean lower quality, since most of the expense in a G5 sytem is the parts that make it speedy. CRTs are cheap, these days, and not a whole lot more expensive for flat-CRTs like the ones in use in eMacs... You might cut $100, at most, off the price at the OEM level, for a machine that will still have DHM crying in the morning.

The difference being that Apple will lose money on a free G5, but gain new sales on a headless, under $1000 system. Like the iPod mini. Lower margins, but higher sales. Apple will still make a profit. Not that I hope they become like Dell... I agreed with the "you get what you pay for" remember. I don't want cheap, just cheapER. Lop off that CRT (or LCD), take that $100 off, and you tell me people won't be scrambling for it. I already have nice monitors. I don't mind the cables. I mind Windows. Look around, a lot of people are like this.

Of course, there are always people that will never be happy. But I'm not him. :p :cough:

Remember, I'm going to "settle" for an updated iBook and external display to replace my Beige G3 running 10.2.8 (along with my Performa 6400, and my Mac Classic). Hey, I love Apple. Their products are usually pretty good. Plus a hundred dollars.

[musicpyrite]

It is wierd lookin.

Based on the pictures

I second that.

[Dont Hurt Me]

[QUOTE=thatwendigo]I'm sorry, but the eMac is already about as low end as things are going to get for a while. I agree with you that the G4 towers are now overpriced, if you consider what's in the G5 towers, but I'm also pretty thoroughly convinced that the eMac is being undersold. The reason for that is that the chip in the eMac is actually a G4 1.33 underclocked to whatever rate they leave it at for heat reason, not to mention the cooling system and the integration that was needed to create it.

Actually I dont think its Heat since people are running them at 1.33 and gaming with no problem. Apple wants seperation between models so they( cripple ) if you will. Cant have Emac as fast as Imac and since Imacs space is so tight it might be hard to crank up the chip or cant have Imac running as fast as Powerbook. So what happens is Emac has been crippled because of Imac because of Powerbook because of Powermac. so the Consumer line ends up being way less then it should. They did the same thing with the videochip. Cant have Low performing FX5200 in Emac because Imac has it so they give Emac a really old radeon 7500 chip. Fx5200 are dirt cheap but Apple still had to do this to protect Imac. Crippling game is not the way to market computers,a better way is to have several models and let the consumer choose whats in it. This is Huge on the PC side and all the leaders do this. Apple on the otherhand removes the consumer choices and forces the buyer up the tier to get the one item that may be important to the buyer. so now the buyer may have to spend more to get a decent cpu or video card or monitor. I wonder how many people would have loved a 1.33 Emac or a 15" 1.25 G4 Imac. Its about choice and Apple takes that away while the otherside will bend over backwards to build a machine that suites you the consumer. Consumer is King!

[Urdam]

I agree