Low End G4 Box?

[arn]

http://www.macplus.org/magplus/article.php?id_article=4525

translation by maradong:


Following a source, in which we got full trust, Apple would be planning to remodell it s office computers. On the Side of the iMac and the PowerMac a new "box" would make it s appearance. The distiny of that box would be to sit in the low proce segment ( We will probably see the disparation of the eMac ).
In a report of more than 400 pages, delivered some weeks ago, by a special cellula, people ask themself of the shape, the new computer will get. Will it be a pizaa box, or a cube, half - sperique or fine tower.
In the basic configuration, build up around a G4 cpu, with a video cart of 32 mb, and some 256 MB of RAM.
One of the possible conclusions is particulary "alléchante": A price of 599 $ is quite probable. The impact of the commercialisation, of such a machine is analysed as a very positive for the conqueration of the grand public market, and SOHO.
Previsions look like a production ranging from 70 000 to 80 000 units / month, in the first year.
The effect for the iMac would be like a lowering of the sales by 8-12 %.
As usual this information is to be taken with some salt.
****
arn

[maradong]

This may look like this in English :

Following a source, in which we got full trust, Apple would be planning to remodell it s office computers. On the Side of the iMac and the PowerMac a new "box" would make it s appearance. The distiny of that box would be to sit in the low proce segment ( We will probably see the disparation of the eMac ).
In a report of more than 400 pages, delivered some weeks ago, by a special cellula, people ask themself of the shape, the new computer will get. Will it be a pizaa box, or a cube, half - sperique or fine tower.
In the basic configuration, build up around a G4 cpu, with a video cart of 32 mb, and some 256 MB of RAM.
One of the possible conclusions is particulary "alléchante": A price of 599 $ is quite probable. The impact of the commercialisation, of such a machine is analysed as a very positive for the conqueration of the grand public market, and SOHO.
Previsions look like a production ranging from 70 000 to 80 000 units / month, in the first year.
The effect for the iMac would be like a lowering of the sales by 8-12 %.
As usual this information is to be taken with some salt.
****




Selon une source en laquelle nous avons toute confiance, Apple envisagerait de remodeler sa gamme d'ordinateurs de bureau : à côté des iMac et PowerMac serait commercialisé un "boîtier", destiné à occuper le segment de l'entrée de gamme (on verrait alors sans doute disparaître l'eMac). Dans un rapport de plus de 400 pages rendu il y a plusieurs semaines par une "cellule de prospective", on s'interroge sur la forme à lui donner (boite à pizza, cube, demi-sphère et "tour fine" ( ?) sont envisagés) ; sur la configuration standard (bâtie autour d'un processeur G4, d'une carte vidéo 32 Mo et de 256 Mo de RAM) et surtout le nombre de configurations devant être proposées à la vente.
L'une des conclusions est particulièrement alléchante : "compte tenu d'un prix de revient entre 480 et 520 dollars selon les options retenues, un prix de commercialisation de 599 dollars est envisageable". L'impact de la mise en vente d'une telle machine est analysée comme "très positive pour la pénétration du marché grand public et SOHO (PME-PMI)", avec des chiffres de ventes prévisionnels de 70 à 80000 unités/mois sur la première année, un impact limité sur les ventes de la "gamme professionnelle" et un effet induit de baisse des ventes d'iMac de 8 à 12%

Emettons quand même une réserve de taille sur la portée de ces informations : ce n'est pas parce que ce rapport (et sans doute des dizaines d'autres, de teneurs variées) circule dans certaines spères de Cupertino qu'il sera suivi d'effet.

[maradong]

Originally posted by scem0
can't offer a english translation but the babeldish translation sure is making me hungry.



that makes me hungry too, but for computers ;).

Could someone convert 480,520, and 600 francs into USD?
actually that are already dollars...
francs would be like 1/40 $. But there is a currency called €, did you hear of it :D

[visor]

....

hm....
hmm.....
hmmm.....

I figure I just don't like all in one solutions that are not protable computers.

And what is that with 256MB ram? I don't really do to much but with my 640MB I think I'm at the lower limit of reasoable computing and reloading time.

[robotrenegade]

Seems like a waste of money to me on apples part. They already have two other low end G4's. iMac and eMac.

[arn]

So, I'm sure a lot of speculation will come from this topic....

Let me state the obvious...

If Apple is going to introduce PowerPC 970 machines, then maybe the G4 can be pushed down to power these "low end" boxes.... making the cost of entry to get on a Mac much cheaper.... and still provide price differentiation between the low end boxes and the high end 970s.

arn

[Megaquad]

XMac!
Has big marketing value I think.
But all that iMac,eMac and so many species might be confusing for users?
They better come up with low-low-end PowerMac.
Or something like iMac base without screen would be cool.

[pyrotoaster]

Oh, they're talking about the G4 Cube! ;)

[MacFan25]

this would be a good idea. a low-priced G4. could probably lure a lot of switchers.

[gotohamish]

I think it's perfectly possible - and I hope it happens. It would make perfect transitionary sense for the intro of the next generation chip macs.

[joelc]

What's the market for this? I hope they dump the eMac if they do it. The eMac is already competition enough for the iMac. I fear a return to the Amelio era when no one knew what anything was or why. Everyone loves the iMac's design. If they keep it in the low 1000's (the $1800/2300 17" bothers me greatly) and have this cube-ish G4 in the mid-100's, I see a market. Otherwise, sounds risky. The differentiation of 970/G4 products seems plausible and acceptable.

[DGFan]

I don't care if it is terribly expandable as long as it is headless (no monitor). That's what is missing from the Apple lineup.

[Niknar]

This box's has to be a Cube v2.

Its going to be the switchers computer. By a cheap Mac that you can use with your old PC monitor with rather than by a all in one iMac or emac or spending alot of money getting a low end PowerMac.

[Bunzi2k4]

lol my thoughts exactly... its gatta be a cube its the perfect idea, just add a fan in there and there you go! lol this would be a great switch pc wonder how fast its gonna be... 800? 1ghz? or mayb 1.25?

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by arn

If Apple is going to introduce PowerPC 970 machines, then maybe the G4 can be pushed down to power these "low end" boxes.... making the cost of entry to get on a Mac much cheaper.... and still provide price differentiation between the low end boxes and the high end 970s.

arn


arn... i hope youre right. that is all.


:D

[maradong]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Oh, they're talking about the G4 Cube! ;)
that s what i thought as well, when i read the article....
seems like i m getting known :D yeah

[GulGnu]

Damn, that's sweet.... <struggles with wallet>

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[bennetsaysargh]

i want to know when these are supposed to come out! i need a new computer, and my dad is thinking of upgrading!:D i just hope it's soon enough:)
i can't WAIT!!:D:D:D:D

[MacManiac1224]

I think this is a good idea to get the mac in the business market place. Business do not want to buy a computer like the eMac, becasue if something goes wrong, then they have to send it back to Apple or get it repaired instead of fixing it in house. I think this is great if Apple actually releases it, and it will fill a big hole in Apple's current line up.

[pyrotoaster]

Does anyone remember that MacWhispers report from a few weeks back about a mysterious Cube possibly going into development? They suggested it might be a TAM, but it could very well be this machine.

Long live the Cube! ;)

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

I just want a cube.. With a fast graphics card.. Nice ammount of ram.. Decent harddrive.. And a good processor... A gamer mac.. Why is it so hard to come by? :/

[iJed]

This displayless machine would be the perfect switching tool. PC users could keep their old display and so not have to upgrade that to get a Mac.

[avus]

I just don't get the eMac - it is too bulky for my taste. And the iMac isn't what it used to be, as it transformed into the Apple's mid-range product. The high-end 17-inch SuperDrive is more popular, I believe.

I think that they should discountinue the eMac so they can be free of all the problems associated with all-in-one design and CRTs. It should be replaced by the no-frille G4 destop for under $700.

[hvfsl]

Well I would get one of these Macs if they came out. I dont have the money to spend $2000+ on a new computer every two years so I have to get PCs most of the time I upgrade my computer. And people are complaining about confusions in product lines, well Dell has several thousand and it sells far more computers. But I just hope the new Mac if it is true has the following:

1 AGP 4x slot
1 PCI slot
2 RAM DDR333 RAM slots
2 IDE connectors
Firewire400
USB1.1

I will upgrade most of the components with PC bits like getting a cheap PC Graphics Card and flashing its bios. But knowing apple if this is true it will be heavily crippled using very old tec like:
ATI 32MB 128ultra graphics
No expansion
PC100 RAM
Max 2 IDE devices
20GB HD

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by iJed
This displayless machine would be the perfect switching tool. PC users could keep their old display and so not have to upgrade that to get a Mac.
While I haven't used a Mac with an seperate since my Performa, I do know of Apple's constant changing of the connections required to make the whole thing work. Toss in a PC CRT monitor and it becomes that much harder.

While I see using the old PC monitor as a great idea, I see compatability issues (correct me if I'm wrong, of course).

[Windowlicker]

wasn't there an article stating that the apple stores have received boxes that are not to be opened until the 23rd?
Could it be this one? if not the 970's, then maybe this would be another option..

for me it also does sound good.. I'm probably gonna need a new computer after a year or so (if I move out). and I don't think that I'll have too much spare money as a student. I also know I can't live wihout a computer. maybe I'll end up buying some 12" laptop.. or this.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by Windowlicker
wasn't there an article stating that the apple stores have received boxes that are not to be opened until the 23rd?
No. That was an article that claimed there were boxes in warehouses somewhere with seals that said they weren't to be opened until the 23rd. It was MacBidouille, and it was referring to the 970s.

[Chef Ramen]

maybe it will be available as some sorta switcher kit

includes:
- that program for transferring your hard drive

- nessecary adapters

- .mac subscription

mmm

maybe

[Freg3000]

Good Apple. This is perfect. Exactly what we need for a potential switcher. :)

[From Win to Mac]

I think it would be good, since we're coming more and more to a realisation that the 970 will not be in PowerMacs, but in an Xserve type thing.

[dethl]

Forget the switcher, think about what it could do in the education market! Espically us poor college students! This machine would be perfect for starting out in computer science with! After a year, I would buy a PPC970, hopefully rev 2 or 3 :P

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by From Win to Mac
I think it would be good, since we're coming more and more to a realisation that the 970 will not be in PowerMacs, but in an Xserve type thing.
The 970 will come in the Powermac at WWDC. MacBidouille's motherboard is probably from a new Xserve that will also use the 970.

This G4 "box" is a good idea because the 970 will be in the Powermac line. People who want the angle of a pro machine, without the added price and power will have a new option.

[liudger]

Think about 10.3 multiple user login!!
One big fat 970 mac and the rest are clients hanging on that big machine. This would be great for small business. And maybe even large. And don't forget schools. An G4 could easily handle gui compositing the rest is done by those giant balls of the 970 chip.

That are my thoughts :)

[valek]

The problem is that currently the emac is cannibalising the imac. If they really come out with this new low-end box, they must set the emac end-of-life.
I think that there will be at maximum three price segments of mac machines. PowerMacs (based on 970) for Business Creatives / Pros, the iMac (at higher clockspeed) in the middle segment and at the lower end of their product line the iBox (or whatever). But this box would only be limited expandable (no agp, no pci, just one more ram expansion).

[_The_Man_]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
While I see using the old PC monitor as a great idea, I see compatability issues (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). I don't think there would be a compatibility problem. Monitor is as much plug n play as it gets, the only thing Apple would have to do is to have a VGA output or an appropriate adapter. I think that a computer like that could do wonders for their market share. One of the most imporatant aspects of such a computer would be a low price. A lot of people I know won't switch just because of the price, but they otherwise love macs. They would also need a very strong marketing campagin, worldwide. Let us hope that the prophecy does come true. :D

[animefan_1]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Well I would get one of these Macs if they came out. I dont have the money to spend $2000+ on a new computer every two years so I have to get PCs most of the time I upgrade my computer. And people are complaining about confusions in product lines, well Dell has several thousand and it sells far more computers. But I just hope the new Mac if it is true has the following:

1 AGP 4x slot
1 PCI slot
2 RAM DDR333 RAM slots
2 IDE connectors
Firewire400
USB1.1

I will upgrade most of the components with PC bits like getting a cheap PC Graphics Card and flashing its bios. But knowing apple if this is true it will be heavily crippled using very old tec like:
ATI 32MB 128ultra graphics
No expansion
PC100 RAM
Max 2 IDE devices
20GB HD


I think you should give Apple a bit more credit than that. The low-end eMac has better specs then that (apple.com/emac/specs.html) for $799. I agree moreso with the top list you gave. Except I think that it may have 2 PCI slots, support for 2 HDD's, and hopefully FireWire 800 and USB 2.0.

[pilotgi]

I see this as a way for Apple to make money off of their stockpile of G4 processors. I'm not so sure switchers would be too impressed with the specs of a G4 "box".

If they plan on switching to a PPC 970 after they've sold all their G4's, then they'll have something.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by valek
The problem is that currently the emac is cannibalising the imac. If they really come out with this new low-end box, they must set the emac end-of-life.
I think that there will be at maximum three price segments of mac machines. PowerMacs (based on 970) for Business Creatives / Pros, the iMac (at higher clockspeed) in the middle segment and at the lower end of their product line the iBox (or whatever). But this box would only be limited expandable (no agp, no pci, just one more ram expansion).
I know I won't be crushed if the eMac is discontinued (but it made such a good paperweight!!), but Apple needs to have an all-in-one machine available to the education market.

Maybe we'll see the eMac return to its old edu-only position, or maybe we'll a new machine take its place there. Either way works.

[scem0]

ohhhhh please!!!!!!!!!!!! Some people cant afford anything else.... :( :o ;)

[kylos]

I'd love it.

[Vlade]

That would be great! I almost convinced 2 of my friends to get macs, but there parents decided to go for the 600 dollar cheap PC that has a 4 to 1 GHZ/Price ration. Now if there was a 600 dollar mac that would play games, edit with imovie ok, and burn CDs fast I think apple could make alot of new mac users.

I just hope they don't ruin a good idea with a crappy product. Apple has a tendency to be awesome and crappy at the same time.

[Hozie]

Just FYI: the Macplus site expressly mentions that this is a CONCEPT in the form of a document going around Cupertino. (I was partly raised in French, so you can trust me, babelfish doesn't do the original text justice). It is by no means a product in development (let alone sitting in a warehouse somewhere, that's hopefully the 970's) by their account. They litterally state the following:

"ce n'est pas parce que ce rapport (et sans doute des dizaines d'autres, de teneurs variées) circule dans certaines spères de Cupertino qu'il sera suivi d'effet"

which means:

"It's not because this report (and undoubtedly many others, with different contents) is making the rounds in certain circles at Cupertino that its recommendations will be followed"


That being said, I definitely see a market for a headless low-end home machine or server box. At a lower pricepoint than they have mentioned, though...

[bennetsaysargh]

dye eMac dye! make way for the Cube!

G4 (Since 970s Are Now More Powerful)
Combo Drive (CD-RW/DVD)
Slot Loading Drive
Stainless Steel Outside
Fully Upgradable
Under $700!
:D:):D:):D:)

[MovieGuy]

I think this would be a good idea. Focus it at switchers who do not want to buy extra hardware. My parents are completely jelouse of what I can do on my mac, however, they do not want to shell out all of the money to buy an entirely new computer when their monitors, keyboards, mice, and so one work fine. This could be good, but only if it is marketed correctly! I want to see Apple commercials showing poeple how easy it is to use OS X and how cool the hardware looks.

[Cheese]

As history and my memory serves me, whenever a computer company takes a giant step forward, lots of older technology dies. We are on the edge of ushering in the debut of commonplace status for 64 bit cpu machines, and we are speculating that Apple will now market G4 based iCube-x's (or whatever we are guessing they will be) at a reasonably competitive price to lure more switchers. Are we overlooking the aspect of value to be found in OSX? Why would apple be introducing old technology as they pave the way for the rest of the computer world?

[yzedf]

Sounds like a winning idea that us PC guys have been clamoring for...

BRING IT ON!!!! :D

[sweetaction]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
arn... i hope your right. that is all.


:D

with my business expanding and the need for more customer service / support people, I would love to buy some cheap macs and run them all wirelessless with OS X. We are looking at cheap PCs, because they are cheap! web browsing, word processing, spreedsheets is what I am looking for. not buying a powermac for that.

go apple

[mkaake]

here's a thought for you - instead of creating a new segment machine, how about this: after the 970 (hopefully) comes out this summer/fall/winter/whatever, just take the leftover pm g4's and sell them for 700 bucks! :).

or not.

but imagine the switch campaign you could do with this: have some guy come up to his pc, slowly disconnect his monitor, mouse, keyboard n usb printer, and then just pick the peecee up and throw it on the ground. then he calmly picks up his new cube (or whatever), plugs the monitor, mouse, kb, and printer back in, fires it up, and away he goes!

matt

p.s. i'd really like to see that commercial...

[physicsnerd]

Originally posted by hvfsl
... But I just hope the new Mac if it is true has the following:

1 AGP 4x slot
1 PCI slot
2 RAM DDR333 RAM slots
2 IDE connectors
Firewire400
USB1.1


Apple if you can make this for $600 I'd buy one in a second.

Physicsnerd

[P-Worm]

This is some of the best news I have heard recently on this site because I think this is exactly what Apple needs. But it makes me wonder, this makes three expected computers does it not? The xStation, PowerMac 970's, and now this. How realistic is all of this?

P-Worm

[badika]

I could see the boys and girls in Apple's corporate sales division salivating over this. Especially, if this is a well designed and small box, it would have multiple user logins on a sturdy unix-based 10.3, and a fleet of these would be administered by an Xserve and backedup by an X-raid.

All that's missing is a complimenting cheaper than Cinema Display that's not CRT, but a small TFT that would look cool in an office environment. Does anyone have any news about an alternative display in the works?

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by P-Worm
This is some of the best news I have heard recently on this site because I think this is exactly what Apple needs. But it makes me wonder, this makes three expected computers does it not? The xStation, PowerMac 970's, and now this. How realistic is all of this?

P-Worm
I don't expect an Xstation. That's a crazy rumor. Assuming MacBidouille's info is true, that motherboard is probably from a new Xserve.

I'm expecting 970 Powermacs, Powerbooks, and possibly a 970 Xserve at the WWDC keynote. We should also expect new iBooks in the coming months.

This rumor is interesting, but it's definitely a while away (if correct).

[CMillerERAU]

I think the headless low-end machine is a great idea that should have happened a long time ago. I have a ton of friends who would love to get a mac except they're all too expensive with built-in monitors. Most people have a monitor they can throw on a machine from an old computer but don't want to spend the hardcore $$$ on a powermac. Oh, and about compatibility, I use the DVI-VGA adapter that came with my powermac and it works great, I don't think compatibility will be much of an issue.

[laukev7]

Yes, please. Oh please. Oh please, oh please, oh please!

I've been waiting for so long to switch! Could this be at last my opportunity to get a low-cost Mac, and keep my hardware?

Boy, do I look forward to the WWDC conference!

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by mkaake
here's a thought for you - instead of creating a new segment machine, how about this: after the 970 (hopefully) comes out this summer/fall/winter/whatever, just take the leftover pm g4's and sell them for 700 bucks! :).

or not.

but imagine the switch campaign you could do with this: have some guy come up to his pc, slowly disconnect his monitor, mouse, keyboard n usb printer, and then just pick the peecee up and throw it on the ground. then he calmly picks up his new cube (or whatever), plugs the monitor, mouse, kb, and printer back in, fires it up, and away he goes!

matt

p.s. i'd really like to see that commercial...

that would be an awesome campaign. they cold have little kids doing it, soccer moms. professionals and other people.

[Sol]

I just hope that this computer is sold and soon! If they based it on the Cube but upgraded the FireWire to 800, the AGP to the current standard (is it 4X?), the IDE to ATA 133 (with 2 hard drive bays) and the optical drive to a SuperDrive I would replace my dual 800 QuickSilver with it. Like the Cube I am sure someone will find a way to upgrade the CPUs but I doubt these would be underpowered for anything that I do with my current computer (video editing, QuickTime rendering, video games, DVDs, etc).

[vniow]

If this turns out to be true, I wonder what will happen to the iBox? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23512)

[andyduncan]

The most disappointing thing about the flat panel iMac was the price. The original iMac came out in the middle of the low-end price range. That range has fallen and something like this could be the true successor to the original iMac.
Of course I hope it has a case that can sit on its side on top of say, an AV receiver. I really want iTunes in my living room...

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
I don't expect an Xstation. That's a crazy rumor. Assuming MacBidouille's info is true, that motherboard is probably from a new Xserve.

I'm expecting 970 Powermacs, Powerbooks, and possibly a 970 Xserve at the WWDC keynote. We should also expect new iBooks in the coming months.

This rumor is interesting, but it's definitely a while away (if correct).

If it is true, the best timeframe for the product rollout out would be August-September, in time for the eduction and Christmas buying season. Apple could be ready to really shake up the product line, all at once. Good idea -- it's time. It's difficult to imagine them trying to announce as much as is rumored at WWDC. But then, it's the first time Apple won't be on the East Coast for MacWorld. I'm still looking for signs of a big media event at WWDC, but haven't seen any so far.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by vniow
If this turns out to be true, I wonder what will happen to the iBox? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23512)
Well there will be a iBox vs Apple lawsuit soon...

This is a good idea for apple, a little cheap, but sounds good, but still need s a monitor.

[Coca-Cola]

This would be great. I'll take three. One for me, one for my wife, and one for my parents. Sweet! And I will take them now please.

[mccoma]

The iMac's and eMac's are too expensive to replace a lab of PC's with. When you can get PClones at the $500 range, it becomes real tough to convince people to buy the Mac. TCO is a great argument, but it dies when talking about familiraity and yearly budgets.

A $400 - $600 external monitor Mac would allow a lot of groups that can't buy Mac's now, to buy a Mac.

I do wonder about using the G4. What was the price per 1,000 for the G3, G4, and 970 supposed to be?

[makkystyle]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
I know I won't be crushed if the eMac is discontinued (but it made such a good paperweight!!), but Apple needs to have an all-in-one machine available to the education market.

Maybe we'll see the eMac return to its old edu-only position, or maybe we'll a new machine take its place there. Either way works.

I have to disagree with this. I think the education market would be indifferent to whether the machine was all in one or not. In fact I think it would be better for Apple if the machine was not all in one. At my University all the macs we have are old multicolored imacs. All the windows machines we have are Fujitsu Siemens towers. There are a couple of all-in-one PC's in our library's administration, but from all the IS Services people I talk to they much prefer the towers. They actually can be worked on and upgraded if need be, and when they do need to do something with the machine they can leave the monitor and just carry back a box. Whereas with the iMacs they usually have to get dollies. Plus, monitors generally outlast many of the machines so it seems unnecessary and short-sighted to me to make educational institutions and businesses shell out extra money to replace a monitor that is in perfect working order just to get the processor specs up to date. All in one is great for families and kids. It is only a pain for any institution or firm. Get rid of the eMac!!!

If this is true it is one of the smartest things apple has done since OSX. They cannot survive with only a high-end (read expensive) product line. They need to diversify their range so that they can increase marketshare and continue to keep companies developing the major software programs for the platform. It is the only way to survive.

Low-end: G4 "box"

Mid-Range: iMac

High-end: 970 tower

[makkystyle]

Originally posted by mccoma
The iMac's and eMac's are too expensive to replace a lab of PC's with...

We are on the same wavelength mccoma :)

[StephenBeckwith]

I have a friend who is STILL using my old Quadra700 box. It still IS in many ways a box designed ahead of it's time. Given the level of integration today, one could easily create a rather potent machine out of these dimensions. It was a very quite, silent box tool! Don't need the floppy drive, replace it with CD/CD-RW/DVD or whatever and still have room for a decent say 60 - 80 Gig HD, plenty of RAM, and even a couple of slots, with all your favorite connectors out the back. One thing about the Q700: Could be "horizontal" in configuration or "vertical". User's Choice (an Apple speciality). Hmm, since the Q700 is after all 11 years old and has been reduced to a "glorified typewriter" running OS 8.6 and and old copy of Office, this would be a perfect replacement box for her (as she has a decent 17" CRT already). I await with baited breath!

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by Vlade
Apple has a tendency to be awesome and crappy at the same time.

HAHAHA, Well put, HAHAHA

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by vniow
If this turns out to be true, I wonder what will happen to the iBox? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23512)

apple kinda shuts it down without shutting it down, and it is never heard of again.

[Kurt]

Not just switchers. I have 4 kids who are starting to get into computers. They are using my old B&W G3 and it would be great to be able to buy 2 cheap Macs for them to use. Especially if I could buy a cheap monitor.

[DakotaGuy]

This might be an ok addition but I hope it would not take over completely for the all-in-one design. I love all-in-one. No wires, saves space and a simple solution. Apple does it well.

[bennetsaysargh]

it's true that apple is good at al in ones, partially because pc companies are so bad at it. i don't think this would be used in school though, because most schools (at least in my area) look for all in ones.

[kanaka]

Originally posted by Bunzi2k4
lol my thoughts exactly... its gatta be a cube its the perfect idea, just add a fan in there and there you go! lol this would be a great switch pc wonder how fast its gonna be... 800? 1ghz? or mayb 1.25?

My ideal machine right now actually would be a modernized cube... but only if it was still made without a fan. I like my machines to be ultra quiet! I don't need the mega-expandability of a PowerMac. I want a small, beautiful, powerful, quiet, mildly-expandable machine. Hmm, that last sentence kinda applies to this girl I have a crush on too!

[Mudbug]

Just to jump on the bandwagon, this would be a really good thing for Apple - this is a segment of the market that's been lacking for quite some time for them, so I hope they'll make a go of it. Too many times I know people who would have bought a mac if the entry price point had been lower, since they can see the "deals" in the sunday circular for Best Buy's POS of the week (if you have to ask what POS is, you don't need to know.)

While I don't think they need to have a sub-$500 machine, they should have some sort of non-refurb headless option for $500-$1000. Remember they're not just switchers, at this point they're upgraders. They've already got monitors and printers. Adding a built-in monitor can actually drive away more business than it invites.

[Zeke]

Originally posted by kanaka
My ideal machine right now actually would be a modernized cube... but only if it was still made without a fan. I like my machines to be ultra quiet! I don't need the mega-expandability of a PowerMac. I want a small, beautiful, powerful, quiet, mildly-expandable machine. Hmm, that last sentence kinda applies to this girl I have a crush on too!

What kinda of girl is small yet powerful and...mildly-expandable?

[avonterr]

The product this discussion has me imagining is a Mac "pizza box" that serves as a "digital hub" for iPod, digital cameras, AND a Wintel machine. The monitor can be switched between Windows and OS X -- or there's software on OS X that lets you run the Windows machine as a coprocessor inside a Mac Window (or on another "layer" of display).

This could be one way to get folks to switch without tossing the Wintel equipment and software they are familiar with. Any limitation of the MacBox could be solved by stepping up to an iMac or iBook.

Total speculation.

[cb911]

it would be so good if Apple brought out a low-end headless G4. but then this could also be bad for the PowerMacs. could this mean that Apple thinks more and more people won't be able to afford PM's? perhaps because they're planning to put up the price of the 970 PowerMac?

oh well, this would have to be good anyway.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by DGFan
I don't care if it is terribly expandable as long as it is headless (no monitor). That's what is missing from the Apple lineup.

i think there is still enough space in the apple lineup to accomodate this idea...and still keep the emac

for lots of models and confusion, look at dell or hp/compaq

[bennetsaysargh]

compaq and dell can do that because they confuse people. i was confused because they have so many different models. they don't even have names. just Dell Portable 507-90 or something like that.

[jefhatfield]

my compaq pc is a presario 1272 model among many 1200 series presario laptops of the time, while my mac is simply an ibook...easy to remember and recommend to other people

[seamuskrat]

I think we need to look a bit outside the box at this rumor. There will be room for all of these models in the new Apple lineup.
Lets assume that the iMac, Powermac, Powerbook all go 970. That covers high end expandable pros, higher end home consumer and portables.
Enhance the eMac for education with better processor speed in a G4, Video, etc. to keep it current, and keep it as an education machine. Have a box G4 for the low end market.
Lets be realistic, there are a number of cheapo PCs at the $600.00 price point. Costco has a eMachines 1.2 Celeron, 30 gig drive, 256 memory SHARED video, CDRW, 17 CRT. If apple has a 800 to 1.2 G4, with 32 Radeon 95xx series, plus at least 256 ram, it will kick this low end market nicely. Lower end P4 (crippled variety) exist sub $1000 but that is where the low end imac with 970 can come in. Keep in mind that there is a P4 that is fats and a P4 with old architecture that may clock fast but overall lacks in performance due to ram, an cache issues. Those are the barebones, Often they lack wireless, and firewire as a standard.
Schools and the education market need something like the eMac. an all in one is beneficial to schools. Less to get lost or separated. Most schools do not upgrade as much as wholesale replace machines, so the limited expandibility is less of an option. and I know at my university, the Dell baseline machine pales in comparison to the eMac baseline for the SAME cost.
I know we all would LOVE an expandable mac, with lots of ram, awesome video card, pci slots to spare, etc etc. But that is the tower. You want the low end market for peopel that use office, surf, and do email, play games like tetris, or the like. Not Doom 3. Few business situations demand high end graphics, and mass storage expandability. lets be realistic, the average home PC user does NOT need vast storage, the top of the line video card (keep in mind the avg PC in the US has less than a GeForce 2 MX, that is the LCD for games in the pc market), and expandability. In fact, most PC users I know that are not 'tech geeks' have never opened thier PC, and are happy with Compaqs and HPs even with the proprietery hardware inside. A box G4 would be ideal for them, as the performance of a 800+ G4 for TYPICAL uses liek Safari, appleworks/Office, email, simple games, would be more than adequate. Those that need more performance can go with a lowend tower or imac depending on needs. The folks that need expandability, upgradability, powerstorage, etc. will go with the tower. But apple is and has neglected the average consumer and they really do not know what they are missing or need and will buy the cheapest machines that allows them to do the basics. a G4 box for under $600 plus monitor (VGA NOT ADC!!!) will help this area.
Look at this from a business model and not what we all wish we could get from Apple. Look at some stats about what the average US household PC is. Last time I checked, it averages a P3, 700 mhz, 128 ram and shared video. The average business machine in offices is even less. Most consumers do not buy a new machines yearly, and you have to look at 3 and 5 year purchase cycles. That said, many PPC 603/4 are still out there on the mac side as well, that this box could be the 'sweet deal' to get them to finally upgrade. Keep the old monitor on that performa or quadra and upgrade to a G4. remember, moving to a 800 g4 from a 180 Performa 6400 is going to be magical. Likewise moving from a p2 333 to a g4 is going to be magic. This machine is not going for the p4 2.4 gig market, the 970 based Macs willd eal with that segment.

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
compaq and dell can do that because they confuse people. i was confused because they have so many different models. they don't even have names. just Dell Portable 507-90 or something like that.

Lol, BS. They have names......Latitude & Inspiron.

Infact, its funny, both lines use the same boards. They used to be different, now they are primarly the same machines, marketted towards different groups.

Infact, an argument to what some people have mentioned, an XStation could be possible. The XServe has been promoted as a workstation, but who wants a machine that deep? Apple could easily use the XServe motherboard in an XStation tower, add some drive bays, etc, and have a machine well suited for a different market, but with minimal overhead because its using the same components.

[mccoma]

Originally posted by cb911
it would be so good if Apple brought out a low-end headless G4. but then this could also be bad for the PowerMacs. could this mean that Apple thinks more and more people won't be able to afford PM's? perhaps because they're planning to put up the price of the 970 PowerMac?

oh well, this would have to be good anyway.

At this point, I don't think it will have much of an impact on the Power Macs. They will probably be using another chip (probably 970) by the time this hits. Power users will still buy the $1500+ machine and others will buy the miniMac (~$500 - cheapMac, cMac :D).

The eMac will probably be dead. The iMac should still be fine (although the 15" model needs to go at this point). If the the miniMac does not have the SuperDrive option, then the iMac is a little more secure.

I would like to see a new cube with:
G4 or new G3 if IBM does build one with Alitvec
combo drive (DVD/CD-R)
3 SIMM slots
2 USB 1.1
1 Firewire 400
speaker ports
no modem
airport slot (maybe extreme)
graphic card that gets full use out of Quartz Extreme (must out-of-the-box be able to hook to a PC monitor (adapter or native port)).
keyboard, mouse
$599

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by mccoma
I would like to see a new cube with:
...
2 USB 1.1


Why not USB 2.0? There's no downside to having USB 2.0.... Demand the current technology - not what was new in 1996!

[mccoma]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Why not USB 2.0? There's no downside to having USB 2.0.... Demand the current technology - not what was new in 1996!

Price. If it is cheaper and we are talking about using what Apple has ready, I'm cool with USB 1.1, firewire is Apple's speed product. If it is the same price as 2.0, then cool. Same reason I didn't say Firewire 800.

Also, I forgot the ethernet on my spec (been living wireless too long).

[davei]

Doesn't make much sense to me. If I was switching from a PC, I'd want to keep my PC (with monitor) around (backup, games, kids, whatever) and have a Mac with a monitor, so a headless doesn't excite me.

I can't see a large market for it in education either, the iMac has been around for 5 years, replacing an iMac with a headless & monitor makes no sense if you can go with an eMac for less.

Big business, forget about it, most corporations are notoriously conservative, heck, it's tough enough to get them to use AMD processors...

[ouketii]

apple has one of the largest product catalogues it has ever had, and i dont see them expanding it anymore with another consumer machine. that is what the eMac was for. and as far as letting users use their old pc monitors, it is pretty clear that apple doesnt want that to happen, it is why all their consumer products have built in monitors, and they have eliminated their low-end lcd's and crt's.

[irobot71]

This is what I was sort of looking for last year before I switched.

I had some ideas also about the design.

The name I came up with was the "MacBlock" (tm)

Apple does need a "budget Mac", but it also needs a better power line. (970)

-I.


17" iMac 768 ram Superdrive 1 ghz

[xDANx]

Originally posted by valek
The problem is that currently the emac is cannibalising the imac. If they really come out with this new low-end box, they must set the emac end-of-life.
I think that there will be at maximum three price segments of mac machines. PowerMacs (based on 970) for Business Creatives / Pros, the iMac (at higher clockspeed) in the middle segment and at the lower end of their product line the iBox (or whatever). But this box would only be limited expandable (no agp, no pci, just one more ram expansion).

i don't know that emacs are a big barrier to imac sales...i think it's maybe more the price of the imacs that is contributing to their stellar lack of success. everyone i know thinks flat-panel imacs are the coolest computers in the world, no one i know would ever actually buy one.

i'm not sure why everyone's so down on emacs...i have one, i've had it for almost a year, and it's great little (but heavy!!!) computer. the only thing i don't like about it is the inability to upgrade the graphics card. if a low-cost headless mac is introduced i think it would be a big mistake to greatly limit it's expandability. i don't think that a relatively expandable (RAM, video card, storage) low-cost mac would come into conflict with emacs...the differences in displays (with/without) and expandablity would be obvious. the emac still has a relatively short lifespan anyway though, if only because it still uses CRT technology which apple is obviously trying to phase out over time.

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by ouketii
apple has one of the largest product catalogues it has ever had, and i dont see them expanding it anymore with another consumer machine. that is what the eMac was for. and as far as letting users use their old pc monitors, it is pretty clear that apple doesnt want that to happen, it is why all their consumer products have built in monitors, and they have eliminated their low-end lcd's and crt's.

one of the largest catalogs its ever had? you got to be kidding me right? Plus, how can you compete with 5 products, when the competition is doing great with 10? You need a machine to fill every segment. What you dont need, like in the olden days, is multiple machines for every segment.

eMac makes sense....in education, kids break things...no LCD there is a good thing.

iMac makes since, some people like the all in one.
iBox makes sense, some people like low-end, barebones machiens.

PowerMac makes sense, fills its niche.
XStation & XServe also have their markets they fill nicely.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by ouketii
apple has one of the largest product catalogues it has ever had, and i dont see them expanding it anymore with another consumer machine. that is what the eMac was for. and as far as letting users use their old pc monitors, it is pretty clear that apple doesnt want that to happen, it is why all their consumer products have built in monitors, and they have eliminated their low-end lcd's and crt's.

I partially agree with you. However, I do think that people would switch if they had a cheaper headless computer that has limited upgradability. I wish Apple had kept the 15" Studio display. It would have been a good starter screen and at the right price could get people hooked on the dual displays so that maybe they upgrade to the bigger and better.

[ZeeOwl]

Here is a precise translation from French of the MacPlus article by your's truly. Sorry if it comes so late in the discussion, but I just saw this thread. It might clear up certain ambiguities and provide additional info:

"Cube or pizza box? (Rumour)

According to a source in which we have complete confidence, Apple would be considering remodeling it's lineup of business computers: alongside the iMac and PowerMac they would be selling a "box", aimed at the entry-level segment (this would then probably be the end of the eMac). In a report totalling over 400 pages turned in several weeks ago by a "marketing/design cell", they ponder different possibilities for it's enclosure (pizza box, cube, semi-sphere and "slim tower" are considered); on it's base configuration (built around a G4 processor, 32 MiB graphics card, and 256 MiB of RAM) and especially how many different configurations should be offered for sale.

One of the conclusions is particularily interesting: "taking into account a production cost of 480$ to 520$ depending on which configuration is retained, a retail price of 599$ is possible". The marketing impact of such a machine is evaluated as "quite positive towards penetrating the general public and SOHO markets", with estimated sales of 70,000 to 80,000 units/month the first year, limited impact on sales of "pro" machines, and an induced reduction of 8 to 12% on iMac sales.

Lets not get carried away on the impact of this information: even though this report (and undoubtedly dozens of others, of varying content) is circulating in the inner circles in Cupertino, it does not mean that action will ensue.

Ormerry"

Minor caveat: In the first paragraph of the original article, the term used in place of my "marketing/design cell" is «cellule de prospective». I'm not 100% certain that my translation for this is correct, as that expression is not used in Quebec. It's probably something particular to France. I extrapolated the meaning from the context.

[job]

I don't see the eMac going away. Why would they update it only to discontinue it a few months later.

I think the eMac fills a very nice niche for Apple. What happens to families who want a nice all-in-one for their first real computer? They don't need to know anything about expansion bays, PCI slots or how fast their AGP slot is. They don't want to fiddle with wires or upgrade their HDDs. They just want something that works when you hit the on switch, no questions asked.

I can see Apple hobbiests and do-it-yourselfers being drawn to a head-less Mac. A bare-bones kit with just enough expansion to keep you happy, at a price that won't break the bank. I'd buy one.

[job]

Hey ZeeOwl, you should become the official French translator/interpretor for Macrumors. ;) :D

Great translation. :)

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by job
Hey ZeeOwl, you should become the official French translator/interpretor for Macrumors. ;) :D

Great translation. :)

Geez Thanks :D

That's what you get for living in a French province surrounded by English. lol

I don't see the eMac going away.

Just an FYI in case it wasn't clear from my translation. The "Death of the eMac comment" is speculation on MacPlus' part. It is not part of the report from Apple.

[arn]

thanks ZeeOwl,

I've updated the main page story to reflect the details of this report.

arn

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by arn
thanks ZeeOwl,

I've updated the main page story to reflect the details of this report.

arn

You're welcome :)

[maxvamp]

After reading the updated article translation, I have this to say...

Long ago, IBM came up with a OS called WSOD ( Work Space On Demand ) . This was basically a network client system that was comprised of a thin client without a Hard Disc, but contained a strong processor and a decent video card. This machine booted from the network, and all storage was contained there. While it was not the rave success that many thought it would be, the concept has had success in the enterprise space.

Just think for a moment. Apple has an advanced fibre channel RAID system connect to ( possibly ) a new 64Bit XServe system that may be able to contain Many Many Gib of memory. The client would be a 733 MHz G4 cube with only a Giganet connector and a display.

Sounds like Apple is looking to create a larger niche in the Enterprise space. $500 clients can do this.


Max

[tazo]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
While I haven't used a Mac with an seperate since my Performa, I do know of Apple's constant changing of the connections required to make the whole thing work. Toss in a PC CRT monitor and it becomes that much harder.

While I see using the old PC monitor as a great idea, I see compatability issues (correct me if I'm wrong, of course).

VGA (connection for standard CRT monitors) is a standard across the computing industry. since when has apple come with its own proprietary connections?

[job]

Originally posted by tazo
since when has apple come with its own proprietary connections?

ADC.

Apple. Desktop. Connection.

http://a1280.g.akamai.net/7/1280/51/5041069d25bcfa/www.apple.com/powermac/images/graphicsports08112002.jpg

[Hawthorne]

Didn't Steve declare the death of the CRT a while ago?

The eMac is the only CRT machine in the Apple lineup, with the original iMac being gone. It seems to me a machine like this would be a great way to have a low-end Mac without a CRT.

Just a thought.

[MacWhispers]

If this is a lifted tale, straight form the pages of an internal Apple document, then every detail in this story should be correct. If one detail is wrong, it tells me the whole story is concocted.

This story purports that the Aple team stated that a $599 retail price would go well with a manufacturing cost in the $480 to $520 range. That's so laughably absurd, that it pretty well kills this whole story's veracity.

Apple works on a gross margin of about 50% against MSRP, meaning, if they are shooting for an MSRP of $599, then their hard production cost, retail packaged, would be at or under $300... not $500, as this silly story claims.

Do I doubt Apple is considering such a headless desktop system? No. They most certainly are considering such a product. Do I doubt the publishers of this article ever had access to the claimed internal Apple report?... oh yeah.

It's bogus.

[xDANx]

Originally posted by tazo
VGA (connection for standard CRT monitors) is a standard across the computing industry. since when has apple come with its own proprietary connections?

apple's had ADC (apple display connector) for some time now. they've been moving away from VGA connections for a while. ADC carries video, power, and USB so that apple could put USB ports on displays. and there's also a more standardized DVI port that most flat panel displays use...if i'm not mistaken they carry video and power, so ADC really only adds USB.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by Zeke
What kinda of girl is small yet powerful and...mildly-expandable?
A stunner who is is pregnant!

[mccoma]

Originally posted by davei
Doesn't make much sense to me. If I was switching from a PC, I'd want to keep my PC (with monitor) around (backup, games, kids, whatever) and have a Mac with a monitor, so a headless doesn't excite me.

Leave the PC next to the mac and switch cables. Monitors take space and most desks are only equiped to hold one. One monitor and 2 PCs are more manageable then 1 PC, 1 Monitor, and a fat Monitor with computer.

Thankfully, Microsoft is removing one of the reason to buy a PC over a Mac - Games. XBox is a better game machine than a lot of PCs and easier for programmers since there is one configuration.

I can't see a large market for it in education either, the iMac has been around for 5 years, replacing an iMac with a headless & monitor makes no sense if you can go with an eMac for less.

Actually, eMacs are poor for switchers in education. I am buying a monitor when I have a lab full of them that I can no longer use.

Also, eMacs are a pain for basic support because of the monitor built in (I do believe another poster gave a better explanation - have to lug whole unit, harder just to swap boxes).

Big business, forget about it, most corporations are notoriously conservative, heck, it's tough enough to get them to use AMD processors...

I agree on this one, but mostly it is a Mac vs PC issue. Business will be won over in specific markets with Power Macs and best-in-breed software.

-----------

The bottom line is Apple needs a machine that can replace the box used by a PC person so the cost of entry into the Mac market is lower. The iApps help. Apple shipping free AppleWorks (or the rumored replacement) with the new machine will help more. Letting them keep their 19" monitor (cheap at Best Buy these days) will help a lot. ~$500 and access to Apple Music service - kick butt.

[vniow]

Originally posted by job
ADC.

Apple. Desktop. Connection.



They also had a propietary VGA connector before they standardized it, it was the same signal, just the connector was propietary.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by vniow
They also had a propietary VGA connector before they standardized it, it was the same signal, just the connector was propietary.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the connector was one of the proposed connections for VGA, and Apple bet on it. Then the rest of the industry zigged instead of zagging and Apple got stuck with a proprietary connector. ADC is also an industry proposed connection - Apple just choose to market it as Apple Desktop Connection. Last I heard, this particular angle was also moot because Apple also shipped an ADC (or DVI not certain which) to VGA connector in the box so you could connect a VGA monitor.

[Ensoniq]

I think it's silly to even imagine that Apple is going to build a $600 G4 machine that is expandable and upgradable.

If you want expandable and upgradable, with slots to poke around in, then Apple wants you to buy the lowest price PowerMac G4 machine.

Theoretically, this could maybe be the "Cube 2", which was a good idea minus the expensive price tag at the time. But the Flat Panel iMac AND the eMac are already far superior machines to their distant sibling the Cube, with monitors thrown in with both for less than the Cube (WITHOUT A MONITOR) used to sell for.

It would make far more sense for Apple to get the eMac and iMac prices lower by $200-$300 each than to spend millions on an entirely new product without a monitor in this price range.

But even if they attempt this, it's a joke to think it's going to be expandable or upgradable. It's going to be an iMac/eMac without a monitor...designed to throw away when it dies, not to be upgraded. Especially at a $599 price point.

-- Ensoniq

[mkaake]

i'm gonna give my best explination of the monitor situation (it's not all that confusing really). the old mac proprietary vga connector worked with standard vga monitors, but the port itself is not just a reworked vga... i seem to remember somone saying to me that on the mac connector there was a separate channel for one of the h syncs or v syncs and green while the industry standard put two of them into one channel (or something like that). so while old macs could use vga monitors, pc's couldn't use mac monitors. i've seen a lot of ppls upset about that cause they loved the mac displays. i tell them buy a mac, but they didn't quite bite...

the dvi (that's the port that apple ships the vga adaptor for) does not carry power. it's a digital signal to a digital display (as in lcd). you can convert this to adc or from adc to dvi via connectors that either add or subtract the power and usb, but it's not the cheapest thing in the world.

and in fact, most of the pc users i know (about half of which i would call power users) won't touch the dvi with a ten foot pole. just one of those weird things. oh well...

so to sum it all up...

you can't use older mac monitors with pc's or even with newer macs (ie if you were upgrading from old quadras or performas). but any mac ever made (with the use of a simple n cheap adaptor) can use any standard vga monitor. so really, the only switcher who gets stuck is the one who is trying to update old hardware (like i will, my beige g3 has the old prop. connector), or the old hardware user who is going pc...

matt

[trebblekicked]

i wouldn't assume that apple would want to continue working with motorola once the 970 move is complete. to build a box intended for supersaturation of the market using a chief component provided by an irresponsible provider doesn't make good sense. Could the gobi g3 work in this box?

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by MacWhispers
Apple works on a gross margin of about 50% against MSRP...

A 50% margin would be phenominal. Apple generally leads the industry in margins, typically at around 20-25% IIRC.

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by job
ADC.

Apple. Desktop. Connection.

Wrong.

ADC = Apple. Display. Connector.

It says it right in the photo that you posted on page 4 of this thread...:rolleyes: :)

BTW, I knew this to be true even without your pic, so I would've posted this response regardless.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by andyduncan
A 50% margin would be phenominal. Apple generally leads the industry in margins, typically at around 20-25% IIRC.

Considering the strong euro and that Apple didn't lower the prices in europe so far, they must be close to 50% here meanwhile.

An example. The mid-range PowerMac costs 1,999.- US$ in the US Apple store, the same machine 2,099.- € in the German Apple store. Both prices before tax.

Considering the current exchange rate, the european price equals about 2,450.- US$!!! Also considering, that Apple has a 20% margin in the US price of 1,999.- US$, the original price without margin would be around 1,600.- US$. That makes a margin of 850.- US$ on that paticular machine in europe, or about 53%!!!

And as long as this doesn't change, I won't buy a new Mac. Promised! Apple didn't hesitate to go up with the prices of their hardware, when the euro was getting very weak two years ago. But they never lowered the prices again an now they just milk the european customers to an extend that is not funny anymore...

Just my 0.02€ ;)

groovebuster

[xDANx]

if that macwhispers article about the 970 being 25-30% less expensive than the G4 is accurate (could someone remind me about the historical standing of macwhispers in a 'rumorical' 'sense), then i would have to agree with them that apple will dump motorola entirely, leaving an apple line-up that has IBM 970s and G3s exclusively by next year. that would rule. here's hoping --> !

[Nebrie]

Has Macwhispers ever gotten anything right? I mean, other than through the miracle of time?

[The Shadow]

MacWhispers hasn't been around that long and they have only recently been embarrassed by admittedly not checking a source's credentials and unwittingly publishing a bogus rumor.

Therefore, I can't see any advantage to MW making this one up. If they are they are certain to lose all cred.

So, like many I certainly hope they are right this time, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by mccoma

Thankfully, Microsoft is removing one of the reason to buy a PC over a Mac - Games. XBox is a better game machine than a lot of PCs and easier for programmers since there is one configuration.


A little of topic but this is not true, there are not many good games on the three consoles and the xbox has one of the worst seletions. Each console has only a few good games the rest are rubbish, and you can only get great games like Generals and Warcraft 3 on a PC (I know war3 is also on Mac). Not to mention playing doom3 on the xbox will be nowhere near as good as playing it on a PC/Mac. The main reason I dont play many games on my Mac is i can never afford a fast enough one to play games on. As soon as I get a new Mac games come out that I can not run on it.

[Nebrie]

I don't see why this can't be done for this price. The eMac currently sells for $799.

Take out the 17" monitor, and you reap large savings. Factor in the lower shipping weight, lower packaging costs for a few bucks more and you've already taken it down to $699. Next, strip out all 3rd party software, and the eMac has quite a bit of it. Sacrifice a little extra margin in exchange for volume sales, slash volume discounts, and you have it down to $599.

Think that's a bit much? How about selling it online only. Cut out the middle man. More cost savings.

There's probably more cost savings you can squeeze out of it too. I completely disagree with Macwhispers that they can't do it.

[the future]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Has Macwhispers ever gotten anything right? I mean, other than through the miracle of time?

Cut them some slack, will you? They were spot on with the strange Firewire/USB2.0-Y-cable that will be available soon for PC iPod users - and noone else had ANY info about that, so it obviously was their own source.

They were very wrong about the new iPod themselves, though, but as they explained at the time, they are just in the process of seperating trustworthy sources from not-so-trustworthy ones.

As someone else mentioned it's much to early to decide how good their sources are because they haven't been around for very long and only time will tell. The METHOD they are following (trying to get info from the actual plants/manufacturers where the Apple stuff is made/assembled) is quite promising IMO.

[GulGnu]

If true, the MacWhispers rumor is great stuff - especially for Apple's possibilities of upping marketshare. And even if Apple dumps motorola, there is still the possibility of getting souped up G3:S for the really budget-oriented segment. Perhaps IBM could slap an Altivec unit on the G3:s to be used in a super-budget box like the one outlined in this thread.

The marketshare thing is what concerns me most about apple - unlike in, say, the auto business, marketshare is pretty important in the computer industry, as there are large fixed costs in software development that need to be recouped from software sales. If the potential market shrinks too much, software won't be developed / ported, and the platform dies. I think IBM will come through for Apple though - they seem to offer a viable long-term alternative in the processor department, unlike Motorola. So, on balance, I'm an optimist! :D

That's all the ranting for now.

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[jefhatfield]

i hear what you say gnu

i think apple's market share will not reach the levels of the late 90s anytime soon and development for the mac platform will suffer

mostly, the core base for macs should remain loyal even if apple shrinks in its market share...sure, there may eventually be fewer games and utilities, but adobe and macromedia will likely keep their graphics titles going for mac as long as there are even a few users dedicated to the platform

i can't think of any company in high tech that can operate so well outside of the mainstream and still keep their loyal following

one thing i am sad about is how the java people have not kept current with apple

[the future]

Here is Steve's take on the marketshare issue (from the D: interview transcript, M = Mossberg, J = Jobs):

M: The market share for Apple has not increased dramatically; why?
J: We ask ourselves that a lot. (Audience laughs.) We serve three primary markets: consumers, education and creative professionals. The pro market has been suffering economically for the last few years, same with education. We've more than doubled our share of the consumer market, it's now between 5-10%.

[pyrotoaster]

Assuming MacWhispers is right (I'm willing to cut him some slack), we could be looking at a 970 box introduced after Powermacs go over to the 980 next year. If this box is only in the development/pre-development stages, then that timeframe would be about right.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
mostly, the core base for macs should remain loyal even if apple shrinks in its market share...sure, there may eventually be fewer games and utilities, but adobe and macromedia will likely keep their graphics titles going for mac as long as there are even a few users dedicated to the platform

i can't think of any company in high tech that can operate so well outside of the mainstream and still keep their loyal following

I am not that sure about the loyality. If Apple's market share slips under 1% one day, it won't be senseful anymore even for big software houses to stick with Apple. If it doesn't make sense anymore economically to support a platform on the long run, they will halt any development for it. In first place the companies have to make profits and are responsible to the stock holders. If a department is losing money and reduces profits, they will get rid of it. Even Adobe is not a charity business, although they becamne that big thanks to Apple in the old days.

Here in Germany e.g. Apple's market share is under 2% meanwhile (Apple Germany is a joke regarding marketing efforts and the Apple prizes in Europe are astronomically high). A first impression what happens then is, that a lot of software isn't localized anymore and you have to use the english version of the soaftware. You have to imagine that... just the localization is too expensive. We are not even talking about real development of software. Not everbody is fluent in english... For those people it already renders pretty hard to stay loyal.

Also it is almost impossible to find an Apple dealer near you here in Germany. In the big cities you maybe find one or two, but as soon as you are on the country-side... forget it.

I know a lot of people meanhwile who were Apple users but switched to the dark side or people who are Windows users being in love with Macs but probably never will buy one because Apple hardware is too expensive or is not performant enough.

I still hope that Apple will gain some market share again with competetive hardware, no matter if it is a "cheap" low-end system or really performant high-end system. Since years Apple is promising to gain, but actually continuosly lost market share. It doesn't matter anymore whose fault it was, if they slip under a certain critical market share (and I believe it is around 2%, before that downhill pattern starts), they will be history very soon and even the few loyal Mac fanatics won't save the day anymore. Then it is "Game Over".

So let's see what's gonna happen this year on the hardware front. In my opinon this year is the year of truth for Apple. If they don't bring very competetive and performant hardware, they are dead! If they bring that hardware and they still don't gain market share, they are dead as well. And nobody really can predict how the market will develop... except for the case that no significantly better hardware will be released.

groovebuster

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by mkaake
and in fact, most of the pc users i know (about half of which i would call power users) won't touch the dvi with a ten foot pole. just one of those weird things. oh well...


Find this an odd comment - since DVI connections are becoming more and more common (I just got a new Dell workstation which came standard with a Quadro4 900XGL dual DVI card).

Do you really know people with DVI-capable flat panels who prefer the analog VGA connection?

More typical in my experience is that the people who get an LCD soon replace their VGA cards with a DVI card!

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by groovebuster


I know a lot of people meanhwile who were Apple users but switched to the dark side or people who are Windows users being in love with Macs but probably never will buy one because Apple hardware is too expensive or is not performant enough.

groovebuster

I know what you mean, Apple has the best OS but the worst hardware (in terms of tec). The whole point of the PPC was that it was meant to be faster and cheaper than the pentium (which Apple was thinking about moving to after the Moto 68xxx series cpu). I am looking to get a new laptop at the moment to replace my old Apple laptop, but I would have to spend £2000 to get anything good, while I could get a PC one for £1200 that may not look as good but is a lot faster. So I will wait to see if Apple comes out with anything good or I will have to go for a PC.

[djtet]

A while ago, someone started a post titled "What would you like to see from apple"...
My response was...
"i think it would be a smart move for apple to release a low end mini-tower... something for under $1000, no monitor, some room for upgrade options (doesn't need as much expandability as the powermacs). maybe have a lineup of ibooks and powerbooks...then imacs, itower , and powermacs... if this was to happen, it would be nice to see some sort of apple-made monitor for under $699..."
I think it would be great for apple to offer a g4 mini tower (itower) of some sort with maybe a reasonbly priced optional monitor.
Until I find a decent paying job, I just can't afford a new mac. So for me, this would be an upgrade from what I'm currently using at a price I would currently be able to afford!

[jefhatfield]

i have not thought much about how apple does in other countries or their availability and service

where i live, right in the region where macs are most popular, i couldn't imagine macs just dying out

apple has operated as a very small company in its past *the early years, and if it has to again, i am sure they can do that

where there is a loyal user base, however small, there will be a need for apple to go on

it's just that most of the rest of the computer industry is much more dedicated to profits over quality...apple has sacrified market share for simply making the best machine out there...for the sake of making the best machine and not for making money like dell and his common thrown together computers

i am sure apple can go after the money, but if they did, they would not be nearly as nice or innovative

true believers can make a cause/technology/platorm go far, even without tons of money coming in...think linux or free bsd

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by MacWhispers
This story purports that the Aple team stated that a $599 retail price would go well with a manufacturing cost in the $480 to $520 range. That's so laughably absurd, that it pretty well kills this whole story's veracity.

Apple works on a gross margin of about 50% against MSRP, meaning, if they are shooting for an MSRP of $599, then their hard production cost, retail packaged, would be at or under $300... not $500, as this silly story claims.

The exact wording used in the French article is «prix de revient», which I translated to "production cost". "Total cost" might have been a better choice of words. It does not mean "manufacturing cost", but the total cost to the reseller; most certainly including shipping, marketing, packaging, etc. Apologies if my translation wasn't clear enough.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i have not thought much about how apple does in other countries or their availability and service

where i live, right in the region where macs are most popular, i couldn't imagine macs just dying

Apple makes about 50% of their money with sales outside the US. They neglected those markets for quite a long time now. And if those markets go down the drain...

No computer company that is developing hard- and software can afford to be just a "local" player. If you want to be and stay(!) succesful, you have to be in business world-wide.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
apple has operated as a very small company in its past *the early years, and if it has to again, i am sure they can do that

The old days were totally different to the situation you have today. R&D burns a lot of money these days. Something a small company can't afford. It wouldn't take long and the difference between Mac OS X and the other OS' on the market would feel like the difference between MacOS 9 and MacOS X...

Originally posted by jefhatfield
where there is a loyal user base, however small, there will be a need for apple to go on

Amiga? Atari? BeOS? They don't have any relevance anymore...

Originally posted by jefhatfield
it's just that most of the rest of the computer industry is much more dedicated to profits over quality...apple has sacrified market share for simply making the best machine out there...for the sake of making the best machine and not for making money like dell and his common thrown together computers

Your idealism is nice, but far from reality... Apple didn't sacrifice market share, they just lost it because they were not able to develop a marketing strategy that worked for years. And in the last few years Apple is still struggeling to survive, still losing market share because of having weak hardware to offer.

Apple is in a struggle to survive! They don't have many options what to do. Did you ever think about where Apple would be today if MacOS X wouldn't have been released by now?

Apple is doing things at the moment because they have to, not because they feel like it...

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am sure apple can go after the money, but if they did, they would not be nearly as nice or innovative

Last time I checked, I didn't get my PowerMac for free, as well as my PowerBook or MacOS 10.2... Actually they were quite expensive...

They already go after the money... otherwise we would all have Windows XP machines already. ;)

Originally posted by jefhatfield
true believers can make a cause/technology/platorm go far, even without tons of money coming in...think linux or free bsd

That sounds almost relgious! ;) But MacOS X is not OpenSource (which is a totally different story anyway) and will never be. If Apple goes bancrupt the sources of Apple software (including MacOS X) will be part of the legal estate and most likely will be sold to another company. And who knows what they gonna have in mind with it then...

groovebuster

[GulGnu]

"The exact wording used in the French article is «prix de revient», which I translated to "production cost". "Total cost" might have been a better choice of words. It does not mean "manufacturing cost", but the total cost to the reseller; most certainly including shipping, marketing, packaging, etc. Apologies if my translation wasn't clear enough."

Even then, I would say it's time for Apple to use some of that cash that's sitting in the bank to build marketshare when the 970-ies hit the market. Sales have been anemic in many segments for a rather long while, and if marketshare slips below an unknown critical level, Apple could be in big trouble, as software houses stop porting, IBM increase processor prices due to small production runs, etc. Marketshare should be the n:o 1 priority for Apple. This isn't just important for Apple's sake - it's important for the entire computing world. Leaving MS without major corporate competition would be a very, very bad thing...

/GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I am not that sure about the loyality. If Apple's market share slips under 1% one day, it won't be senseful anymore even for big software houses to stick with Apple. If it doesn't make sense anymore economically to support a platform on the long run, they will halt any development for it. In first place the companies have to make profits and are responsible to the stock holders. If a department is losing money and reduces profits, they will get rid of it. Even Adobe is not a charity business, although they becamne that big thanks to Apple in the old days.

Here in Germany e.g. Apple's market share is under 2% meanwhile (Apple Germany is a joke regarding marketing efforts and the Apple prizes in Europe are astronomically high). A first impression what happens then is, that a lot of software isn't localized anymore and you have to use the english version of the soaftware. You have to imagine that... just the localization is too expensive. We are not even talking about real development of software. Not everbody is fluent in english... For those people it already renders pretty hard to stay loyal.

Also it is almost impossible to find an Apple dealer near you here in Germany. In the big cities you maybe find one or two, but as soon as you are on the country-side... forget it.

I know a lot of people meanhwile who were Apple users but switched to the dark side or people who are Windows users being in love with Macs but probably never will buy one because Apple hardware is too expensive or is not performant enough.

I still hope that Apple will gain some market share again with competetive hardware, no matter if it is a "cheap" low-end system or really performant high-end system. Since years Apple is promising to gain, but actually continuosly lost market share. It doesn't matter anymore whose fault it was, if they slip under a certain critical market share (and I believe it is around 2%, before that downhill pattern starts), they will be history very soon and even the few loyal Mac fanatics won't save the day anymore. Then it is "Game Over".

So let's see what's gonna happen this year on the hardware front. In my opinon this year is the year of truth for Apple. If they don't bring very competetive and performant hardware, they are dead! If they bring that hardware and they still don't gain market share, they are dead as well. And nobody really can predict how the market will develop... except for the case that no significantly better hardware will be released.

groovebuster

Nicely put.
But anyway, if Apple's marketshare comes under 1.5% i betcha, that we'll get OSX for Intel.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Nicely put.
But anyway, if Apple's marketshare comes under 1.5% i betcha, that we'll get OSX for Intel.

That wouldn't really help... With a market share of 1.5% you are not going to make enough money to pay your R&D department when you are just developing an OS and not selling hardware. Still you would have the problem that the software has to be ported to MacOS X, so the problem would be still the same for the software houses... not to foret that they would have two Mac platforms they would have to support then... that would be crazy.

groovebuster

[allpar]

Originally posted by robotrenegade
Seems like a waste of money to me on apples part. They already have two other low end G4's. iMac and eMac.

Then you know nothing of the needs of a huge number of users. We already own big, high-quality monitors. We don't want machines with built in monitors. We want realistically priced Macs. $600 is just about what I would spend now, knowing that the 970s are coming very soon.

[GregA]

Sell it with TIVO, and DVD drive, TV/RGB out, a snazzy bluetooth keyboard with trackpad, and of course a TV remote control.

Ahh dreams. Actually I'm not sure if that'd be worth it for the cost anyway. Hmmm?

[cubist]

I think that if this comes true, it'll just be an iMac with no screen... The purpose of which would be to flush a lot of inventory of completed iMac motherboards and G4 chips to clear out space for the 970 hardware. This will be a machine with a very short future. Nevertheless, it will be a good introductory machine for a lot of folks.

I'm surprised this is such a hot topic.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by andyduncan
A 50% margin would be phenominal. Apple generally leads the industry in margins, typically at around 20-25% IIRC.

This is correct. If this rumor turns out not to be true, it won't be because Apple's margins are 50%.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Apple makes about 50% of their money with sales outside the US. They neglected those markets for quite a long time now. And if those markets go down the drain...
I have some mixed feelings about this. Mac OS X is "world ready", do you remember when we had to wait for days or weeks to get a localized upgrade? The .app wrapper renders the localization process way easier. On the other hand Apple did not translate .mac services.

From the sales point of view, pricing, advertising... things do no not look good in Europe. The switch campaign did not reach our shores, prices do not reflect the Euro/Dollar exchange rate...

Jean-René Cazeneuve (head of Apple Europe) gave these figures last month:
The iPod has 21% of the market share in Europe (only 15 % in France)
Education: 16% of the market in France during the year 2002 (9 % in 2001).
Consumer: 5% of the market in France and in the U.K. (U.K. has a bigger volume of sales)
He admitted that the pro sales have stagnated (no figures, this could mean slumped), he said that by the end of the year many breaks that hinder sales will have disappeared, and that time was on Apples side.

[JasonElise1983]

I think it is a great idea for Apple to bring a lower end "powerMac" into the line up. If apple does bring in this supposed computer, it would also be smart of them to try to get more third companies to make Mac Specific hard- and software. NVidia,ATI, and Creative Labs would be a great start. These are all expandable items that PC are easily capable of that Macs aren't. Just a thought.

[Laurent]

They should have named the Xserve xServe... That would have been perfect:

iMac (Flat display)
eMac (Normal display)
sMac (Headless Single PPC 970 for Individual use)
xMac (Headless Multi PPC 970 for Professional use)
xServe (Headless Power4 for Server use)

I also think that, since IBM's CPU is so cheap, that Apple will litterally drop every Motorala-CPU off their current line. You can FORGET about another Cube! Altought I love mine, Apple won't sale this one for cheap. I think it's safe to think of it as a thin tower with a vertical slot loading Combo Drive...

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Laurent
vertical slot loading Combo Drive...

They probably won't do that - turning a drive on it's side slows it down a good bit - even a 16x burner on it's side will only get 6x burn speeds without problems on a good day...

[allpar]

...because a huge number of people do have extra periperals and want to upgrade from their G3s to something more modern, but don't have $1,600.

It's amazing to me that with Wintel machines down at $500-600 for a wicked fast model, we're still talking about $1,600 for a Mac without a monitor. I mean, that's going back to the Lisa days of pricing. No wonder they're having a hard time selling desktops - for a relatively small increase in performance, and the ability to NOT have a built in monitor, you pay another $600 or up?

Senseless.

I would gladly pay $600 for a headless iMac. I have a perfectly good monitor - several, in fact - a keyboard and mouse I like, too. What I don't have is speed. I don't need to be state of the art, just closer than a G3 upgraded to 400 MHz G4. And those with beige G3s would probably buy this thing in an instant - not a wallet-buster, but plenty more punch than the ol' 66 MHz-bus beige bomber (which I remember as crushing similarly priced PCs!).

Apple's just not competing in the real world right now except in laptops. And iwth the strength of Linux, they can't get away with that much longer. Seriously, I am considering Linux - the KDE desktop is nearly as good as X, the price is far better, and the software seems to be just about there. I can still run some Windows apps with WINE... I WANT to stay in the mac world, but no, can't drop $1,600 on a new machine and won't buy one with a built-in monitor.

[steveh]

Originally posted by job
[B]ADC.

Apple. Desktop. Connection.


Actually, the ADC connector isn't exactly proprietary; it's a corner variant of the VESA digital video spec.

[job]

Originally posted by steveh
Actually, the ADC connector isn't exactly proprietary; it's a corner variant of the VESA digital video spec.

Meh. :)

It comes close enough to what tazo was asking with regards to a "proprietary" connection.

It's all good.

[anonmac]

on what planet? or are you andrew carlssin (the time traveler from the future- google it) and you have kde 60.40.02 dated 5/7/2056?

i use kde gnome etc. all the time because i have to. then i come home to a real gui -os x. there is no comparison. the only reason you think there is, is cause you are blinded by your own cheapness.

i can get a free word processor off versiontracker...yet i gladly pay for appleworks. why? because IT IS BETTER. THAT IS WHY A MAC COSTS MORE THAN GNU/LINUX WITH KDE. (if you were a real linux user you'd give rms his due and call it gnu/linux.) poseur.

[allpar]

Works pretty darned well. Costs $1,100 less for the computer - plus $xxx for Appleworks, $500 for Photoshop, etc.

I'm rooting for Apple. I want a Mac. I just DO NOT HAVE THE $$$. Do you UNDERSTAND that some people aren't wealthy or have other needs and priorities?

And as for poseur - jerk.

[anonmac]

you are not spending money on the apple, so you say 'what i have is just as good'...
i don't really care either way....but kde = os x?

no freekin way. that is way too lame to pass up.

sorry if i seem harsh. if you think mac fans are harsh, say something bad about linux.

sorry if i offended you; but you should really have a better defense prepared if you are going to say things like you did.

if you just said...i dont have the money, you'd have had no arg. from me...but you did not. you said kde is 'just as good' as os x. it is not. i argue your point. (and i still run photoshop 6 in classic with no repercussions. what you have will run- it does not cost extra. oooohhhhhh, wait, you want all the integration features that ID,PS,ILL, etc share under os x. well, for that you have to pay, or continue claiming kde is just as good. but if you do that, you had better be ready for a lot more abrasive responders than me. they will tear you anew one.)

NOTE: 'works pretty darn well' is a far sight from the original 'just as good' claim.

[allpar]

Where exactly was "just as good"? Was it "the KDE desktop is nearly as good as X, the price is far better, and the software seems to be just about there." ... ?

[vniow]

Wow, I've never seen a story be this popular and very one-sided at the same time:

[RIP]

If UMAX was able to make a $500 Mac clone in the C500, which I owned and liked very much, then Apple can make a $500 G4 and make money with it.

I agree with everyone here, this is was the Doctor has ordered.

[Qball]

They could call it the "Big Mac." Does anyone have that name wrapped up yet?!?

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
While I haven't used a Mac with an seperate since my Performa, I do know of Apple's constant changing of the connections required to make the whole thing work. Toss in a PC CRT monitor and it becomes that much harder.

While I see using the old PC monitor as a great idea, I see compatability issues (correct me if I'm wrong, of course).

Agreed. I would also like to see a utility that lets you load PC print drivers and attach PC printers using parallel port and USB to this mac, even if an extra cost addon, BY APPLE.

Rocketman

[niemau]

Originally posted by allpar
Where exactly was "just as good"? Was it "the KDE desktop is nearly as good as X, the price is far better, and the software seems to be just about there." ... ?

ya know, although i wouldn't compare OSX to KDE, i can't exactly understand why any mac advocate would put down KDE. does nobody remember where Safari was born?

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by mathiasr
I have some mixed feelings about this. Mac OS X is "world ready", do you remember when we had to wait for days or weeks to get a localized upgrade? The .app wrapper renders the localization process way easier. On the other hand Apple did not translate .mac services.

The localized OS alone doesn't make a summer. If you don't have enough software in your language the OS renders pretty useless for most people...

And fact is that the number of professionally developed software for the Mac declined massively the last few years. I always wonder what they are talking about when they claim thousands of software titles to be available. They just count in all the Shareware and UNIX-Software that can be recompiled under Mac OS X. Too bad that most of the stuff is pretty useless for most of the people. On top of that (as already mentioned before) that kind of software normally comes exclusively in English...

How many software titles are available in German and are not from Adobe, Macromedia or Microsoft? Maybe 20? It is soooo sad... :(

That .mac is still not available in a european version just fits into the big picture. Steve doesn't give a damn about the market outside the US more than just milking the Mac enthusiast that are still sticking with Apple there. And it starts to backfire, at least here in Germany... Apple is no consumer product at all (I don't know anybody who has a Mac just for private use at home, except my wife). Just a few pros still use Macs. And edcuation market is also almost not existant.

groovebuster

[Sol]

Originally posted by Qball
They could call it the "Big Mac."

A headless G4 would hardly be the 'Big' Mac in Apple's line-up. Perhaps PowerMacs should be called the Big Macs and this proposed system the Mini Mac.

[MacWhispers]

Originally posted by andyduncan
A 50% margin would be phenominal. Apple generally leads the industry in margins, typically at around 20-25% IIRC.

Let me say that again. Apple typically works at a 50% margin against MSRP. The reported "gross sales margin" cited in their financial reports is a compsoite value drawn against all sales, both wholesale and retail. By revenue about 40% of Apple's computer selling is done directly, at MSRP, and about 60% of their selling is done at wholesale, with half of that going to Ingram Micro. Some of the higher volume models go to Ingram at as little as a 10% markup. I know CompUSA buys directly from Apple, and the average markup there is only about 14%.

And, the way Apple books sales made through both its online store and its retail stores is as a wholesale to the stores; and, the store divisions then book the profit from the retail markup... and, I have no clue what those pricing tiers might be. Although, looking at the resulting composite margins reported by Apple corporate, it seems the discount given its own retail divisions is pretty slim.

Apple's composite gross margin was at about 28% two years ago, and now runs about 24%, still pretty high for the industry.

Again, those numbers include mostly sales made at wholesale pricing, not MSRP.

I hope this helps you understand this a bit better.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by RIP
If UMAX was able to make a $500 Mac clone in the C500, which I owned and liked very much, then Apple can make a $500 G4 and make money with it.

Your comparing two completely different business models tho. UMAX isn't developing anything - they pretty much got everything from Apple and added mark up to make their profit. Whereas Apple making a $500 machine would also have to use it to pay for their development efforts. While they both may make $150 gross profit on the machine (i.e. cost over components) Apple would keep far less of that than a clone maker would because Apple's fixed costs per machine would be higher. Fixed costs keep certain products off the market.

If Apple did make a $500 tower, then you can bet it will basically be like the previous rev of an eMac - G4/700 max. It will not be anything close to a PowerMac in performance.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Sol
A headless G4 would hardly be the 'Big' Mac in Apple's line-up. Perhaps PowerMacs should be called the Big Macs and this proposed system the Mini Mac.

Ermm... I think it was a joke ;) "Big Mac" is a trademark of McDonald's, if I'm not mistaken... :)

"Mini Mac"! lol Shagalicious baby!

[Laurent]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
If Apple did make a $500 tower, then you can bet it will basically be like the previous rev of an eMac - G4/700 max. It will not be anything close to a PowerMac in performance.What?! Those eMacs are already at 1GHz max, exactly where iMacs are and where Power Macs begins. Except maybe for cache, I don't see your point...

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
If Apple did make a $500 tower, then you can bet it will basically be like the previous rev of an eMac - G4/700 max. It will not be anything close to a PowerMac in performance.

Actually, to be perfectly precise, it would be a 600$ mini-tower. If the processor is on a module (upgradeable), and it has AGP 2x, GigaBit Ethernet, at least 2 PCI slots, and 2 DIMM slots, I think it would be a great buy. Bundle it with OS X, iLife & AppleWorks (near-zero cost to Apple), and it's a bargain. I think a lot of wannabe Switchers would jump on it.

What does the average home PC owner do with their machine? Surf the Web, eMail, play Solitaire. Don't laugh. A fair portion of the people with PCs I know rarely do anything else with their's. Some will play a few games, and maybe do some Word sometimes. What is the average office PC used for? Surfing the Web, eMail, Word, occasional Excel. A 700 MHZ G4 would be overkill for these applications. And my guess is that Apple would be including an 800 MHz G4, or maybe more... Were talking a year from now here. This product is still at the concept phase.

At that price, I'd even consider it as a render farm unit. Just max the RAM (2 x 1 GiB modules) & upgrade the processor with a 1.33GHz/2MiB-L3 dual G4. Not including RAM, that works out to about 1,580$US. A stripped-down 1.25 GHz/1MiB-L3 dual costs 1,920$US. The new mini-tower would probably be smaller than the PowerMac, which also includes a bunch of stuff I don't need. A 340$US per (faster) machine saving is substantial for a small setup like mine. Multiplied by 4 (that's about how many I'd need), and that is a sweet deal. Of course, if Apple comes out with a 1.8 GHz dual PPC970 XServe Cluster Node, and keeps the price at 2,800$US, that would be an even sweeter deal! :D For me... But the mini-tower is just what the average home/SoHo/business needs right now, from Apple. A low-end upgradable Mac.

[AidenShaw]

You can buy a Mac for $599 at Fry's today - snow iMacs are on sale for $599. ($200 off the normal $799 price)

Snow's specs are:

600 MHz G3
128 MiB 100 MHz SDRAM
40 GiB
CD-ROM
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
Rage 128 Graphics 16 MiB
OS X


There's also an HP mini-tower on the same ad for $599:

2.2 GHz Pentium 4
256 MiB 266 MHz DDR
16x DVD-ROM
40x10x40 CD-RW (two optical drives)
Intel Extreme (64 MiB shared)
6 USB 2.0 ports
3 PCI slots (2 open)
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
XP Home
WordPerfect, HP Picture Toolkit, WinDVD, MusicMatch Jukebox, Quicken

[allpar]

Or you can get a Dell 4600. I hate Dell because ol' Mike Dell is such a @#&#@! with his public statements on Apple being better sold off as bits and pieces, but here's what they're offering, and others are selling similar machines soon. Mind, this is an $800 machine so maybe it's not a completely fair comparison, but their three-year on-site care is cheaper than AppleCare, so it may work out similarly for AppleCare buyers:
"Up to" 3 GHz Pentium 4
8 USB ports (2 in front)
Ultra ATA 100 HD
100 M-bps Etherent
800 MHz front side bus!!
Hyperthreading FWIW

HP's d530 is similar. These would be terrific Linux machines...!

Gotta admit, tho, Apple's iApps are starting to be a real factor in my future thoughts. As is the 930. As is all my legacy software which I can still run under Classic, and the promise of future improvements to OS X 10.3 and beyond.

I was astonished at how easy it is to install Linux, though, and how it easily recognized all my hardware. Much better to install than Windows, and what's really funny is that it installed itself and KOffice (Word, Excel, PowerPoint equivalents along with QUicken equivalent), GIMP (Photoshop), and many other programs...in far less time than it takes ot install Win98 or WinXP. And no activation codes!!!! Took less time than installing OS X, too.

So it's nice to have an alternative, but my decision to stay with the Mac hurts my brain, and I really hope that they do something about their price/performance. I find the latency of OS X really annoying, and that's the main reason I'd like more power. A more efficiently coded interface might be a good substitute for fast chips...! I think a dual 1 GHz machine would do me just fine, but again, the $1,600 thing gets to me. The Fry's sale is starting to look good, but I guess I should wait three weeks and see if the rumors pan out!

[allpar]

Well, I see on the Apple Store a refurbished 1 GHz machine for $1,300.

Certainly makes me think. Power Mac G4 1Ghz 256MB/60GB/Combo/GigE/56K.

I might just go for that ... if the 970 doesn't show up.

I'd still prefer a non-refurb $700 machine with 800 MHz...

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Laurent
What?! Those eMacs are already at 1GHz max, exactly where iMacs are and where Power Macs begins. Except maybe for cache, I don't see your point...

Dropping the monitor from the $799 eMac (which is a G4/800) would drop the cost maybe as much as $150 (and I seriously doubt that much). That's still a $650 tower (vs the $500 proposed). The only way they are going to shave off the remaining $150 is to use cheaper parts, like a G4/700 or slower.

[vollspacken]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Apple is no consumer product at all (I don't know anybody who has a Mac just for private use at home, except my wife).

here, here, here *cough*

I do, one of my friends does too...

but I agree with you on the other points you made! Apple HAS TO GET THEIR SHIZZNIT TOGETHER IN EUROPE!!! at this point in time, NOONE will switch...

vSpacken

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Actually, to be perfectly precise, it would be a 600$ mini-tower. If the processor is on a module (upgradeable), and it has AGP 2x, GigaBit Ethernet, at least 2 PCI slots, and 2 DIMM slots, I think it would be a great buy. Bundle it with OS X, iLife & AppleWorks (near-zero cost to Apple), and it's a bargain. I think a lot of wannabe Switchers would jump on it.

You won't see it with upgradable CPUs, and you probably won't see it with Gigabit ethernet or PCI slots. If your going for absolute lowest price, these things will be absent (see the 12" PowerBook for examples of things that will be cut first for lower price).

What does the average home PC owner do with their machine? Surf the Web, eMail, play Solitaire. Don't laugh. A fair portion of the people with PCs I know rarely do anything else with their's. Some will play a few games, and maybe do some Word sometimes. What is the average office PC used for? Surfing the Web, eMail, Word, occasional Excel. A 700 MHZ G4 would be overkill for these applications. And my guess is that Apple would be including an 800 MHz G4, or maybe more... Were talking a year from now here. This product is still at the concept phase.

I completely agree with you on how little typical home users actually use thier computer for. But I can also assure you that just cutting the monitor off the eMac isn't going to save enough from the price of the machine to give you a $600 tower. You may be able to squeeze $650 out, but you will have to cut out more if you wanna get beyond that. And you certainly won't be adding more. Prices simply aren't going to drop that much in a year (and I presume that G4/800s won't even be available in a year, regardless of Apple's relationship with Motorola, or if IBM makes a lower end Altivec enabled chip).

At that price, I'd even consider it as a render farm unit. Just max the RAM (2 x 1 GiB modules) & upgrade the processor with a 1.33GHz/2MiB-L3 dual G4. Not including RAM, that works out to about 1,580$US. A stripped-down 1.25 GHz/1MiB-L3 dual costs 1,920$US. The new mini-tower would probably be smaller than the PowerMac, which also includes a bunch of stuff I don't need. A 340$US per (faster) machine saving is substantial for a small setup like mine. Multiplied by 4 (that's about how many I'd need), and that is a sweet deal. Of course, if Apple comes out with a 1.8 GHz dual PPC970 XServe Cluster Node, and keeps the price at 2,800$US, that would be an even sweeter deal! :D For me... But the mini-tower is just what the average home/SoHo/business needs right now, from Apple. A low-end upgradable Mac.

Apple doesn't want to sell this type of machine. They want you to buy the Xserve Cluster Node instead if you want a render farm. They are most certainly not going to risk canabalize this fledgeling market with a cheaper upgradeable tower (even if it isn't rack mounted).

In the end, there is a reason why the PowerMac starts at $1500 (even if the costs to Apple start at $1200ish). It is the fact that you get an upgradeable CPU, 4 PCI slots, 4XAGP slot, Gigabit Ethernet, a Dual Head video card, FireWire 800 (at least until it makes it to other models), and L3 cache.

Comparing the highend eMac to the lowend G4 gives a price difference of just over $400 (put PowerMac to 80GB HD and SuperDrive) and that still gets you 1MB of L3 cache, a better video card with twice as much VRAM, and all the other advantages that a PowerMac has over an eMac. That alone should say that a low-end expandable tower that Apple decides to make will cost at least half that difference more that a comparable eMac. Take away the expansion possibilities and you may be a contender for eMac prices or less with some of the PowerMac's advantages. Take away the PowerMac's advantages, and you'll get your $600 tower.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
You won't see it with upgradable CPUs, and you probably won't see it with Gigabit ethernet or PCI slots. If your going for absolute lowest price, these things will be absent.

It's quite possible that the new machine wouldn't have the expandibilty I think it should have. I was looking at this from a pure marketing viewpoint. What are Apples two major problem's right now?
1) It's high-end machines are becoming the laughingstock of the computer industry, speed-wise. Their market-share in their traditional strongholds is slipping. Solution: PPC 970.
2) Their global market-share is too low. Not enough inertia. Solution: A low-end upgradeable Mac to attract PC switchers, both from the home and business markets. Why are there not more switchers? Mac OS X is way superior to Windows in most respects. Apple software is standardized, powerful and easy to use. Macs are truely plug & play. And, yes, they (and OS X) are pretty & fun. So why? Because there are no (low-end) upgradeable Macs. The eMac/iMac lines are great for certain niche markets. All-in-one is just what some people want. And they probably don't care so much about upgradeability. So, maybe you're right in saying that Apple doesn't want to sell this kind of machine. But I'm convinced that they're capable of doing it, and at a (albeit small) profit. So, if they choose to come out with just a headless eMac/iMac, I think that it will increase their market share very little. If they come out with what I suggested (OK, I'll settle for 100Mbps Ethernet ;)), that would make their market-share skyrocket.

Just a side-note: another place where they could cut costs a little is to not bundle any non-Apple software. That's why I specified only including iLife and AppleWorks.

Apple doesn't want to sell this type of machine. They want you to buy the Xserve Cluster Node instead if you want a render farm. They are most certainly not going to risk canabalize this fledgeling market with a cheaper upgradeable tower (even if it isn't rack mounted).

My idea was for my own personal use. I think this would be a viable alternative only for a micro-studio, like me. I only have 1 modeling workstation. It's a super-charged PowerMac G3 Blue & White :). I'm an amateur moviemaker/animator, so my #1 priority is price. The XServe Cluster Node is for at least a medium sized studio with more than 1 animator. And I think the folks buying those are probably using more than 2 :D. Right now, that machine is way out of my means. I'd need at least 4 of them. That's 11,200$US, not even counting the rack. PowerMacs would cost 7,680$US, take up a lot more space, and be a bit slower. Using "xMacs" would total 6,320$US, faster than the PowerMacs, and a bit smaller. Of course, as I mentioned before, if Apple comes out with PPC 970 XServe Cluster Nodes soon, those I would snap up in an instant. Only 2 needed, 5,600$US + the rack. So if they don't come out with either a 970 XServe or an upgradeable "xMac", they're not going to sell me anything. I'll buy 8 used Blue & Whites, and outfit them with overclocked 900 MHz G3s, like my current workstation (1.8 GHz if the 750GX comes out soon, hehe). Total cost: about 6,400$US. I'm saving 1,300$US by not buying new PowerMacs. For a small operation like mine, that's mucho cash. And I'm sure I'm not the only person on this planet who has limited cash. That's why Apple's market share is still so low, even though they have a superior product. Rich people are a minority. Of course, if they enjoy having such a small market-share, that's their right.

[bennetsaysargh]

here are the specs as i see it so far...


1Ghz G4
3 USB
1/2 FW 400
combo drive (cd-rw/dvd-rom)

that's pretty much all that needs to be included. no fw800. no superdrive. NOTE:the 970s will be in use by most of the product line at the time of this release, so it will be less $$ than what you people think.

[Laurent]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
here are the specs as i see it so far...


1Ghz G4
3 USB
1/2 FW 400
combo drive (cd-rw/dvd-rom)

that's pretty much all that needs to be included. no fw800. no superdrive. NOTE:the 970s will be in use by most of the product line at the time of this release, so it will be less $$ than what you people think.I'm pretty sure that if Apple switch from Motorola to IBM, they will switch for good. It would be better if they brought a new econo-Mac with a new CPU IMO...

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Laurent
I'm pretty sure that if Apple switch from Motorola to IBM, they will switch for good. It would be better if they brought a new econo-Mac with a new CPU IMO...

Sure. A 1.2 GHz 750GX would be just fine too. Doesn't have to be a G4.

[primalman]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
dye eMac dye! make way for the Cube!
:D:):D:):D:)

Why do you want to 'dye' the eMac? Longing for colors from years gone by?

:p

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by primalman
Why do you want to 'dye' the eMac? Longing for colors from years gone by?

:p

lol. sorry. typo. why don't we dye it a cool blue! that wold be cool. anyway, a re-do i think is suitable.

die eMac die! Make way for the cube!

[irobot71]

I think the most important feature would be DVI/ADC out.

I-

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by irobot71
I think the most important feature would be DVI/ADC out.

I-

Not on a low-end box. The people who buy this thing will have 1 priority: cheap. They're going to be hooking up a used PC monitor to this. They're very unlikely to own an LCD, and even less likely to buy an Apple Display. Who hooks up a 1,300$ monitor to a 600$ computer? Needs VGA out standard. If they want DVI/ADC, they can build-to-order a better graphics card. But I seriously doubt they would.

[bennetsaysargh]

i would love to hook up a computer to a tv screen via VGA output. that would be cool.

[Cheese]

No one will buy any computer if they think it is outdated technology. Anyone that hasn't been burnt by the mishaps of the past by IBM and all of the others, has certainly heard of the horror stories. Everyone wants a machine that won't be obsolete before they plug it in. The newest technology at the lowest price point would stand the computer industry on it's ear. I say give 'em a PPC970 DP something l ike 2ghz, at least 512 mb RAM, VGA output with upgrade cards available for those who can utilize them, no periphery, and the best OS on the planet (IMHO), Panther. 2 FW400 and 5 usb1 ports. Give the ability to obtain what has been up till now impossible... An affordable way for ANYONE to obtain the top technology in any machine out there for the lowest price on the market. Forget the G3-G4... whatever. Take it to the limit and go 64 bit computing for less than the average price of current PEECEE'S. I have seen the future and there is an Apple in every fruit basket! The best thing that could happen to Mike Dell is for him to sell his outfit off in bits and pieces. There is no need for a "cute" machine with cute hardware and uselessly cute software that doesn't work.
I will admit that my Wife forced me to by the iMac because of it's aesthetic value, and I was dragged kicking and screaming from the local Sears, hoping that no one would see me put the box in the car, or take it out, and into the house. After the first 10 minutes with OS9, I knew I would never go back. MS is going to have to do a lot to get me to turn my head back in their direction. I do more with my older iMac than any of the PEECEE acquaintances of mine can with their MS polluters, (except burning DVD's, but I can if I get the drive!) I am sure that there exists a statistic as to what the average peecee has as it's spec's. All Apple needs to do to get most of the market share is to wait until Longhorn, and then release a killer cube with all of the top internals for way less than the HP/COMDELL/ whatever peecee64bit machine costs, that will use all of the peecee's periphery. $599.00 seems to be the price of the year for some reason. The majority of people will not understand the importance of going with a 64 bit processor. If you are going to hit hard in main stream, you've gotta keep it too simple and make everyone believe they are getting the deal of a lifetime along with a giant hedge against obsolesence.
just my 2 cents...
Sorry if I bored you...