1 ghz G3, 17" CRT iMac!

[sjs]

My family very happily uses our iMac 600 about eight hours per day for: the internet, word processing, MSN Messenger and Quicken. In other words, about what 90% of all computer users do. Plus iTunes and iPhoto work beautifully. Just one thing - the 600 is a bit sluggish, though really, no one complains.

Now, with the new iMac starting at $1400, it looks like the old model will hang around for some time. I think that by MWSF we will see the G3 at 1 ghz, and if you made the CRT 17 inches and sold it for $999 I believe Apple would sell 500,000+ "old iMacs" per year without interfering with sales of flat panel iMac, since it would be competing in a completely different market. And Apple needs to have something in the $999 range since Steve is intent on converting PC users.

What do you think? Will we see the CRT iMac in a faster, bigger mode?

[strider42]

Originally posted by sjs
My family very happily uses our iMac 600 about eight hours per day for: the internet, word processing, MSN Messenger and Quicken. In other words, about what 90% of all computer users do. Plus iTunes and iPhoto work beautifully. Just one thing - the 600 is a bit sluggish, though really, no one complains.

Now, with the new iMac starting at $1400, it looks like the old model will hang around for some time. I think that by MWSF we will see the G3 at 1 ghz, and if you made the CRT 17 inches and sold it for $999 I believe Apple would sell 500,000+ "old iMacs" per year without interfering with sales of flat panel iMac, since it would be competing in a completely different market. And Apple needs to have something in the $999 range since Steve is intent on converting PC users.

What do you think? Will we see the CRT iMac in a faster, bigger mode?

they might sell a load of them, but that doesn't mean there would be any profit in them. you can't just slap a 17 inch monitor in those cases, the entire things would have to be redesigned, including making sure all the cooling works alright. thats a lot of money to put into a low margin product, whcih would be mde even lower by the fact that its got a bigger monitor and a faster chip. I don't think they'd sell as many as you think they would either. a 17 inch case would be very, very large and rather ugly looking in all liklihood. and of course, apple can't put a 1 ghz chip into a low end model until its at least in the flat panels, and those 1 ghz g4's are expensive, and probably there aren't a lot of them out there. we all want the fastest, cheapest computer with the biggest monitor and all the extras, but trying to do that is precisely why almost all of the computer industry is losing money left and right. Apple's making money and looks to be continuing that trend, so i'll trust they know what they're doing for now.

[kishba]

i'd love to agree but steve probably wouldn't want to do this... he bravely said that "i think we can safely say this is the official death of the crt"

although maybe it wasn't so 'safe' to say... he might change his mind

i do know i would rather save another few months and get an imac g4

[pixelpete]

G3 is goning bye bye so don't get to attached to it. Buy a G4,Period.

I think this guy is trying to make his 600mhz into a bong.:o

[sjs]

Of course it would take a new case. And yes Steve said its the end of the CRT. So what?

The design of a new case, amortized over a million or two machines is nothing. As for killing off CRTs, with the addl cost of flat panels, things may need a rethink. Is Apple going to try to convert PC users, but only thoses willing to spend $1500? And abandon the $1000 market? I'd bet not.

As for "low margin": Apple now sells the old iMac very profitably. A 17" CRT is what, $60 more? A 1ghz G3 6-9 months from now should cost no more than a 600mhz does now. I have to believe the margins would be at least equal to those of the new iMac...maybe better.

1 ghz G3, 17" iMac for a grand would re-ignite interest among the unwashed, needing-to-be-converted masses. (That's Apple's target now).

[kishba]

Originally posted by sjs
1 ghz, 17" iMac for a grand would re-ignite interest among the unwashed, needing to be converted masses. (That's Apple's target now).

Although Apple's hardware is impressive I've found that the main reason my friends and family are beginning to really consider Macs is because of their software. I think people are just attracted by Apple's hardware and then captivated by Apple's "solutions"

A remodeled old school iMac would be overkill--the new iMac is enough to gain attention

Once people learn about all they can do, then they'll switch (which is why my gaming friends just won't convert--but they'd like to)

Looks just aren't everything (luckily)

[sjs]

kishba, I agree that the software is the main thing. In fact thats why I think Apple needs to be in the $1000 market, because once someone tries a mac, they will love it and later move up.

However, a $1000 mac has just gotta get a bit faster. AND, I don't think anyone, even regular consumers, want a 15" screen anymore.

[kishba]

Originally posted by sjs
kishba, I agree that the software is the main thing. In fact thats why I think Apple needs to be in the $1000 market, because once someone tries a mac, they will love it and later move up.

However, a $1000 mac has just gotta get a bit faster. AND, I don't think anyone, even regular consumers, want a 15" screen anymore.

Well I just talked with a friend who's getting a new computer (sub $1000) and he just said the same thing... I guess most people just don't have the patience to save up for a year or two (like I did)

But the wait is ALWAYS worth it :)

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by sjs
However, a $1000 mac has just gotta get a bit faster. AND, I don't think anyone, even regular consumers, want a 15" screen anymore.

Which is what the new iMacs have.. and they're G4's. Wanting something, no matter how badly, does not magically confer good sense onto its creation. When the iMac was all one form-factor, the old CRT version, every time an Apple executive appeared in any capacity, at any event, everyone was *SURE* it was to announce an iMac with a 17" screen. It didn't happen.. and it never will. A 15" iMac weighs in at 35 pounds. A 17" iMac would look like one of those ill-conceived all-in-one G3's that they built for schools.. only in amazingly gaudy translucent plastics.. and weigh 30% more than the 15" ones. That means a complete redesign. Really. Not just a nip and tuck.. the cooling, the power supply, the enclosure, the handle... everything. That is a huge deal. And as for amortizing it across millions of units, that would be true.. but no way are they going to sell another million G3, CRT-based iMacs. No way. In short, this is never going to happen. It's money spent on entirely the wrong segment of their business, for a product that is a niche item even within Apple.. the king of niche products.

[kishba]

Originally posted by IndyGopher
It's money spent on entirely the wrong segment of their business, for a product that is a niche item even within Apple.. the king of niche products.

That was a problem with the cube... I still would have bought one though (I felt the noise from a tower was just too annoying)

I guess I'm part of that niche though :D

[sjs]

IndyGopher, I'd like to challenge your response on a couple of points:

1- You say "No way, this is not going to happen" in regard to the 17" screen, due to its size and weight. That's illogical from a marketing point of view. Millions of 17" monitors are sold every year and sit on people's desktops, with the computer on the floor. In the same space as the just their monitor takes up, Apple would give you the whole system. That size has met the approval of the market, and will continue to as long as some people have less than $1500 to spend on a new iMac.

2- You said this would be "money spent on the wrong segment of their (Apple's) business". Once again, I think you are reflecting your own feelings about computing and are not listening to what Apple is saying. Steve says the future of the computer is the digital hub. That means ordinary people using iMacs for music, pictures, movies and whatever else. Steve has made it very clear he wants to convert PC users. I cannot believe this means he wants to abandon the part of that market below $1500. That would be stupid, which he certainly isn't.

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by sjs
IndyGopher, I'd like to challenge your response on a couple of points:

1- You say "No way, this is not going to happen" in regard to the 17" screen, due to its size and weight. That's illogical from a marketing point of view. Millions of 17" monitors are sold every year and sit on people's desktops, with the computer on the floor. In the same space as the just their monitor takes up, Apple would give you the whole system. That size has met the approval of the market, and will continue to as long as some people have less than $1500 to spend on a new iMac.

You left out all of the reasons I listed for this being impractical, save the one you thought you had a rebuttal for. The size for an all-in-one computer with a 17" CRT has NOT met the approval of the market, because there ARE no all-in-one computers with 17" CRTs. Again, we are not talking about just a puffed up iMac with a couple inches added to each of its dimensions. The added weight means the little flippy foot will no long support it for tilt. The handle, which already gets dicey on older iMacs, certainly has to be redesigned or removed, else each dropped iMac or broken handle becomes a PR nightmare. The power supply has to be beefed up to run the larger monitor.. the heat output increases.. now you need a fan again. You have a 17" CRT now. Looks good. You need a better video chipset than in the previous CRT iMacs.. oh, those need fans, too. Ok, so now you have an entirely NEW, NON-G4 iMac motherboard to design, build, support, etc. This is not going to happen. Really. Get over it.

2- You said this would be "money spent on the wrong segment of their (Apple's) business". Once again, I think you are reflecting your own feelings about computing and are not listening to what Apple is saying. Steve says the future of the computer is the digital hub. That means ordinary people using iMacs for music, pictures, movies and whatever else. Steve has made it very clear he wants to convert PC users. I cannot believe this means he wants to abandon the part of that market below $1500. That would be stupid, which he certainly isn't.
Cutting margins, pouring money into G3 anything, with the CRT's he made a big deal about dismissing a year ago... I do not see any of this happening. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe good ol' Steve Jobs will decide it's better to put design and support money into the G3, giving the CRT iMacs larger screens than the G4, flat panel iMacs. Maybe instead of using the existing inventory of parts, and the fab units to create them, they'll retool everything for a new iMac G3. Whatever.

[eirik]

I think we're more likely to see a 17" iMac LCD than a CRT. And, I'm not holding my breath on this one either.

While a 17" LCD iMac will eventually make its way to the market for obvious reasons, the supply problems that Apple is experiencing now might necessitate a move to 17" LCD sooner than Apple intended.

All this is based upon assumptions that Apple will continue to struggle to get enough 15" LCD's to meet demand and that quickly developing a 17" high-end LCD would be relatively trivial.

Grant it, the 17" model may well be $300 or more per unit higher than the present high-end iMac. But, if the demand is as strong as the periodicals indicate, I expect Apple would sell a lot of them, well worth the effort.

The supply constraint not only means some units may not be sold today but it may also curtail the current market momentum for the iMac, which would mean considerably more units never sold.

All this said, I still doubt Apple will do this. But, from what little I know, I probably would, unless data that I would have as an Apple decision-maker would suggest otherwise.

Eirik

[strider42]

Originally posted by sjs
Of course it would take a new case. And yes Steve said its the end of the CRT. So what?

The design of a new case, amortized over a million or two machines is nothing. As for killing off CRTs, with the addl cost of flat panels, things may need a rethink. Is Apple going to try to convert PC users, but only thoses willing to spend $1500? And abandon the $1000 market? I'd bet not.

As for "low margin": Apple now sells the old iMac very profitably. A 17" CRT is what, $60 more? A 1ghz G3 6-9 months from now should cost no more than a 600mhz does now. I have to believe the margins would be at least equal to those of the new iMac...maybe better.

1 ghz G3, 17" iMac for a grand would re-ignite interest among the unwashed, needing-to-be-converted masses. (That's Apple's target now).

60 bucks per unit is a huge amount in terms of profit margins, plus you don't take into account the extensive reengineering and testing that would have to be done, lining up suppliers, all for technologies that are dead in the water as far as apple is concerned (CRT's and the G3). On top of all that, there is no way they'd sell a couple million of them. you castly over estimate apple's market. preorders for the g4 iMAc was like 150 thousand, over the course of a year, a million or 2 max. there's no way there is double that amount out there for what would look like a very ugly, bloated, outdated iMac. to convert the masses, you get their attention. you do that with a flat screen and the superdrive.

I might also point out the flat panel iMac's viewable screen area is the same as a 17" crt. So if you wanted to use a g3, it would make much more sense to simply put the g3 into the new iMac design rather than make a whole new computer line.

[Ensign Paris]

I think there may be processor updates to the iMac at some point but I think the chance of a redesign is pretty near zero. What would be the point? They are trying to get the iMacG4 more popular so if they make a PR buzz about the older iMac it may cause problems.

Ensign

[iGav]

The flat panel iMac's viewable screen area is the same as a 17" crt I think everyone missed this point...... it completely nulifies the argument!!

Why would anyone want a 17" CRT iMac anyway??? it'd be huge!!! a backward step...... keep the 15" iMac and sell this as cheap as possible, this way people that can't afford a new iMac or iBook can still buy a Mac..... not everyone can afford the latest or the greatest hardware!!

I think it'd be a shame to get rid of the old iMac just for the sake of it!!! It's still a decent little machine and an affordble entry point to the Mac World!!

[Wry Cooter]

I don't think the people wishing for a 17 inch iMac realize how much a 17 inch monitor really weighs.

Apple is probably saving a fortune on shipping costs by selling LCDs wherever they can.

[Ensign Paris]

Hey iGAV, the first F1 fan I have met on MacRumors (I am a schumacher fan, although I will not say which schumacher)

The cheap 500mhz iMac is perfect for people who wish to enter the Mac world, its cheap enough to not be a risk buying and expensive enough so people don't laugh at it!

Ensign

[GoCyrus2]

[Ensign Paris]

I have a suspicion that this is one of my PC friends, I was telling him about MacRumors.com and GoCyrus last night. For the gods, he should have a similar IP to me (along the line of 10.32.64.##) because we are inside the same firewall. Unless it uses 1 IP for the whole company, although I doub't this as its got 1000s of people behind it.

He most probably was in the room I was when he did it, so I will try to find out. Sorry if it was!

Ensign

Update:

According to my friend (his name is Chris Lucius) he was in his words:
"Just havin a laugh" so I advise you ignore him. He will be dealt with in according with my agressive nature.

Sorry about this,
Ensign

[iGav]

Aha Schumi........ I'm a MS as opposed to a RS fan...... also a big supporter of Ferrari, have been since 1986....

Brazil was a brilliant race, it's gonna be the Schumi brothers and montoya all the way I think this year!!! As long as Montoya doesn't tantrum his way out of the running that is!!!:p

GoCyrus2, I missed joining in the first time, I look forward to duelling with you in your new re-incarnate form.....

Please select you computer of choice........:p


UPDATE!!!

Imposter.......... speaking of imposters, anybody that frequents the Designers Republic disscussion boards.... www.thedesignersrepublic.com will notice that they had problems with a poster, called Mr 8 bits, he causing all kinds of ****** on the board, so TDR tracked down his details, portfolio, website email address etc, and posted online for everyone to read!! truely superb way of embarrassing someone!!! Heh heh!!

Also tracked they tracked his home address, and put a message up saying "We know where you live!! check your email!! love TDR" :p

Oh to keep in line with the post topic, CRT iMacs just need to have the odd speed increase, bigger hardrives, and when decent graphics cards become cheaper they can install those too!! anyway 600 iMacs are still quite zippy!!!

[Ensign Paris]

right, I can admit it now, I am a MS fan since about 1994 (when I first started watching F1) I really really dislike the williams team for some reason.

Ensign

[iGav]

Because they're are sponsored and use Compaq computers......... :rolleyes:

Schumi Snr will win this years title, especially when he keeps knocking Montoya back into his box every race!!:p

[sjs]

All of you brilliant strategic thinkers have pointed out that:
CRT's are old tech; a 17" CRT is big; it would take a redesign...etc.
You all have a firm grasp on the obvious.

That still leaves the underlying need unmet.

There is a huge group of PC users that Steve would like to convert. The cheapest new iMac is $1400 plus you need more RAM and you may have tax or shipping...now your cheapest offering is $1500+.

So since my concept is "never going to happen" (and you may be right)...what is Apple going to do about the $1000 market?

Keep the current old iMac? Bump the speed?

Or drop it and hope component prices fall to eventually get a G4 LCD iMac down to $1000?

[Beej]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
Hey iGAV, the first F1 fan I have met on MacRumors (I am a schumacher fan, although I will not say which schumacher)

The cheap 500mhz iMac is perfect for people who wish to enter the Mac world, its cheap enough to not be a risk buying and expensive enough so people don't laugh at it!

Ensign Aw, what about me? Remember our conversation about Webber? You've hurt my feelings now :(

[iGav]

You another F1 fan aswell?? Okay who's your favourite Driver, Team ever!??

keep in mind though there's already 2 Schumi Snr fans here!! I look forward to talking Macs and F1 with you and Ensign!!:D

sjs with regards to the current iMac and sub $1000 problems..... my view is that they should keep the old iMac and do upgrades on it for the next 12 months until the price of the current iMac falls to a lower price! then consign the sucker to the Apple Museum!!

As Ensign said the cheap 500mhz iMac is perfect for people who wish to enter the Mac world, its cheap enough to not be a risk buying and expensive enough so people don't laugh at it! And with minor upgrades over the next 12 months, would make it an even better purchase!!;)

[Ensign Paris]

Schumi Rules, do you miss Murry at all? I thought I would but I haven't much!

The 500mhz Mac is very useful for people like me (techie) who can use them at work for FTP machines, Font Servers, Distiller Servers and Toast macs. Cheap enough to not be noticed by bosses and still alot of performance in OS9.

Ensign

[iGav]

Can't say I really miss Murray, I thought I may do when something happened and he'd scream into the mike, but I quite like Brundell, he's quite a knowledgeable chap..... and got a dry sense of humour!! :D

Although murrays best was at Hungary in 1997 or maybe 1998, a car was going round the last corner of the lap, and he just went straight off the track like a right pratt!!

"Oh no, he's run out of talent!!" Murray retorted, it just suited the mood of the moment so well!! :p :p :p

Schumi Snr's mid stint though at Brazil was fantastic, he just put his foot down and put fastest lap after fastest lap....... pure poetry in motion!!

The iMac is still a handy little machine, sure it's not as fast as the current machines, but is ideal for a 'My First Mac' kind of thing!!!:D

[eirik]

Originally posted by sjs
All of you brilliant strategic thinkers have pointed out that:
CRT's are old tech; a 17" CRT is big; it would take a redesign...etc.
You all have a firm grasp on the obvious.

That still leaves the underlying need unmet.

There is a huge group of PC users that Steve would like to convert. The cheapest new iMac is $1400 plus you need more RAM and you may have tax or shipping...now your cheapest offering is $1500+.

So since my concept is "never going to happen" (and you may be right)...what is Apple going to do about the $1000 market?

Keep the current old iMac? Bump the speed?

Or drop it and hope component prices fall to eventually get a G4 LCD iMac down to $1000?

If I made decisions for Apple, I would do some market research to verify the following idea: offer A LOW END MAC THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A MONTITOR AND IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, call it the iBrick.

This would target users that have very minimal computer needs: email/web, games, and very limited interested in application software. I'm talking about Grandma and Grandpa and people with very limited interest in computing or very very limited budgets. And BTW, there are millions of idle used CRT's out there. Apple could possibly give away used CRT's. I'm talking about a $500 or less computer.

The iBrick (project name, not the actual product name) would be very cheap, very feature limited, and be made to sell in very large numbers to increase market share. It would look like a large but somewhat stylish brick (or some other shape but inexpensive form factor), featuring a low end CPU, adequate RAM with limited expansion potential, a modest hard drive, a cheap video card, cheap speakers, CD-ROM drive, USB/Firewire ports, Ethernet, phone port, and a VGA port for an external monitor.

The iBrick would not overlap the iMac or PowerMac lines. Anybody willing to spend over $1200 for an iMac, given its less than astronomical performance and features, is not obsessed with price. People who buy the low end PowerMac are buying performance, expandability, and flexibility. The iBrick is a take it or leave it closed system, a disposable Mac. Its the affordable Mac that you either wouldn't otherwise get, the nth Mac for the household, and/or its the 'starter' Mac for someone with little experience and little compulsion to explore the personal computing universe thoroughly.

Eirik

[iGav]

The Cube specs..........:p :p :p

[strider42]

Originally posted by sjs
There is a huge group of PC users that Steve would like to convert.

steve and co. is more interested in making a profit than winning more users. You dno't make money by selling the most products, you make the most money by selling as many units as possible at as high a profit margin as possible. simply having a $1000 computer does not mean a bunch more people will convert. apple's had a $1000 machine for a while now. considering that it would probably drive some people who would have bought the higher margin machines to buy the low end instead, thats even mroe money lost. You see, its much more complicated than simply having a low price machine to win converts. If you don't make any money on doing so, a company has no business doing it. Apple is responsible only to its shareholders, who obviously want apple to make money, not become ubiquitous but unprofitable.

[macktheknife]

There is absolutely no way Jobs is going to bring out a G3 iMac with a 17 inch CRT. First, it would be a step backwards--iMacs have now been upgraded to G4 processors, and once the G5 is released, the G3 will be officially retired.

Second, the math doesn't work out. I have taken the following prices for the components that would go into the "new" G3 iMac from amazon.com:

17" Monitor - $200
60 GB HD - $140
DVD-R - $400
256 RAM - $150

Of course, these are retail prices, and even if Apple got them, say, 20% cheaper, the total price would come out to be $712 (i.e. 80% x $890). This does not include the cost of other components including the processor, motherboard, fans, the special iMac case, and, of course, the design that this would require. Assuming Apple wants to earn a 30% margin on this, if it wants to sell it for $1,000, it would have to earn $700, and we can already see that the four components themselves already cost this much. Add in the other stuff (processor, design, etc.), and the cost alone could easily drift above the $1,000 limit.

Third, introducing a new iMac would dilute the current new iMac campaign. After all, why release something that would signify "the death of the CRT" and wow the world on a new design only to introduce something that is not only bulky but slower?

That's my $0.02 on why a new G3 iMac is not going to happen.

[kishba]

Originally posted by macktheknife
There is absolutely no way Jobs is going to bring out a G3 iMac with a 17 inch CRT. First, it would be a step backwards--iMacs have now been upgraded to G4 processors, and once the G5 is released, the G3 will be officially retired.

Second, the math doesn't work out. I have taken the following prices for the components that would go into the "new" G3 iMac from amazon.com:

17" Monitor - $200
60 GB HD - $140
DVD-R - $400
256 RAM - $150

Third, introducing a new iMac would dilute the current new iMac campaign. After all, why release something that would signify "the death of the CRT" and wow the world on a new design only to introduce something that is not only bulky but slower?

That's my $0.02 on why a new G3 iMac is not going to happen.

hehehe... and the old iMac just isn't part of Steve's new fashion sense... to curvy and wild :)

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by sjs
All of you brilliant strategic thinkers have pointed out that:
CRT's are old tech; a 17" CRT is big; it would take a redesign...etc.
You all have a firm grasp on the obvious.

That still leaves the underlying need unmet.

There is a huge group of PC users that Steve would like to convert.




You would need a large screen iMac that takes full size AGP and PCI cards,
or a cheap tower. And about five to ten more westlakes and aspyrs. And about 4000 "IT professionals" seeded with free top of the line macs.

The new bottom tier really is the flat panel iMac, but the fifteen inch iMacs will hang around too. Perhaps they will have a flap on the side to install a gaming card, but you are not likely to see many exterior redesigns, just faster chips inside the bubblemacs. The gamers at the low end will go to consoles.

The next wave of conversion will probably be via a telephony iApp which will get mom and pop businesses to buy them as Voicemail/ mail order taking kiosks and cashregisters. How about something that grabs and logs the incoming caller ID of your bluetooth cellphone, and pulls up a customer database file ?

[sjs]

I like the iBrick idea...not the name of course. How come with Apple the pro buyers get to choose their own monitor, but "consumer" buyers have to take the built in 15" CRT (old mac) or 15" LCD (new mac)?

Here's my idea for a $1000 computer:

Sell the new bottom iMac with no arm or screen for about $900.
Make available a choice of 15 or 17" LCDs ($1399 and $1699).

That would be pretty cool...you'd just be buying a white base (looks a bit like airport) and hook up your existing monitor. Or would there be a problem with digital vs analog signals?

[sjs]

Wow, that would sure make your old monitor look ugly.

[eirik]

Originally posted by iGAV
The Cube specs..........:p :p :p

Hey iGAV,

When Apple introduced the LCD iMac, I thought they should resurrect a cheap but somewhat stylish Cube. Thanks for pointing this out! :cool:

People are not just buying a personal computer when they buy an iMac, they're buying something incredibly cool: the Mercedes of low-end computing.

A low-end, closed architecture Mac, with no monitor, would be the Chrysler/Dodge of low-end computing with all of the simplicity, elegance, and productivity of a Mac.

To make my point a little more clear, the iBrick (I wouldn't think of actually calling it that. I just don't feel like thinking of a clever Steve Jobsian name.) would fill a void in the Apple product line up. There would be very little cannibalism of other Apple products due to the iBrick, particularly if the components are notably differentiated from the iMac.

Also, depending upon some detailed market research (conjoint analysis), I would endeavor to equip the iBrick with low-end, cheap components so I could still enjoy my target margin at a price point near $500. If Dell and Gateway can sell fairly full-featured beige boxes with monitors around $600 to $700, Apple ought to be able to get close.

BTW, this unit should not do DVD, period! It would NOT need a fast CD-ROM. It would not need a fast large hard drive. A G3 would help differentiate it from the iMac and low-end PowerMac, although a G4 ought to be considered (w.r.t. the conjoint analysis) if there would be a significant unit volume benefit on G4 production that would benefit the entire Mac product line. I do not have the benefit of decision-making data to conclusively dismiss the G4 but it probably wouldn't help (just a guess) the overall product line earnings (net).

Eirik

[Tenniru]

Apple pretty much gave G3 the can once the new iMac came out. Yeah, my sister and I use G3s, but Apple is about to do a dumpster. However, the iMac G3 would probably go for another...say, 5 months?

[Mr. Anderson]

If we get speed bumps in the G3 will see it for long while. In the iBook at least.

[sjs]

Wintels still come with Celerons and Pentium 3s. A Celeron is half P2 and half P3 for heavens sake! They do this so they can have a low end model.

That's why Apple will speed bump the G3 to 1 ghz and more and it will be VERY adequate for non-pro users, especially since that iMac won't be offered with DVD-R.

The only real question here is whether it will be in an old iMac case or something newer that allows people to get a bigger screen and yet get entry into mac-life for $1000.

[iMax]

Love the iBrick iDea. It makes a lot of sense. But it shuld be a G4, if a low speed one, like 500 mhz, because of ma osX

I see this: 500mhz G4 / 10 GB HD / Geforce 2MX or equivalent / CDRW / 128 RAM. All in a cylinder, whtever color, blck silver, white (chrome!) that is the diameter of a cd, with the cd drive on top.

$899 if not the G4, then at least 700 or 800 mhz G3

[Wry Cooter]

The iBrick is what the Cube should have been. When I first heard rumors of the cube (something that fit in a eight inch box, I thought they were finally going to go for the business market (who may already have monitors they wish to use).

But when does an iBrick become an Xbox instead? Don't forget there is that segment of the market biting on the 500 -1000 buck range.

Just redesign it so the memory and the hard drive are accessible for upgrades and give it a zif socket CPU

Let them clump together to go in a server rack. (although I think the servers should have multiple CPU space per motherboard.

[madamimadam]

I have not the time at the moment to read the whole thread so sorry if someone has already written this.

I think the issue with the different types of macs that we would like to see is answered in Apple's history. Remember the times before Steve came back on the scene and Apple and a computer to suit almost every possible situation. If so, you would remember the trouble it caused Apple financially. Unfortunately, it just can not be done if the company is to stay profitable.
:(

[eirik]

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
I think the issue with the different types of macs that we would like to see is answered in Apple's history. Remember the times before Steve came back on the scene and Apple and a computer to suit almost every possible situation. If so, you would remember the trouble it caused Apple financially. Unfortunately, it just can not be done if the company is to stay profitable.
:(

A manufacturer/retailer must match its product assortment with its target market's expectations. Ultimately, Apple's target market is driven by earnings.

Apple has been targeting the upper end of the personal computer market out of expediency, because Mac's were losing its differentiation from other makers, particularly with low-end consumers. MacOS X and the iApplications have changed that and it won't last forever, not with Bill Gate's around.

So, Apple must not make the classic mistake that many manufacturers and retailers have made repeatedly. Harley Davidson, General Motors, and Xerox, all neglected the low ends of their respective markets. This allowed Japanese competitors to make very significant market share gains in low-end (Or, in Apple's case, Apple is squandering an opportunity to steal market share from the others.) motorcycles and later encroach upon Harley Davidson's upper end. Though, Harley is in good shape now because of its incredible Brand Loyalty, it would have greater market dominance today had it not let new competitors establish beach heads at the low-end and then creep upward. The same applies to Xerox in not pursuing small copiers. General Motors utterly neglected the low-end and found itself struggling to penetrate a market with entrenched Japanese auto makers.

Apple has a golden opportunity to steal market share because of this differentiatiion and the perception (which is only what matters) that a Mac is simpler to use and has fewer problems. Simplicity and reliability are very important to low-end consumers because they tend to be less computer literate than those at the upper end.

A large percentage of computer buyers are satisfied with low-end computers. A large percentage of these consumers are not concerned with compatability with their office. And, the Internet has knocked down many barriers for Apple as well, particularly as web surfing and email are significant drivers for low-end consumers.

Apple's lowest end model is priced at $799, the old CRT iMac. Dell, Gateway, and the others offer comparably priced models with significantly more features. Why do consumers buy this CRT iMac today? I wish I had some credible market data rather than speculation. I suspect the novelty of this unit has worn off dramatically. Though its does look way more cool than competing products so the style edge is not completely lost. However, the low-end typically is targeting newbies and customers buying their nth PC. Such consumers are considerably more price sensitive than higher end consumers and less driven to buy 'style'. I'd like to see what a sound conjoint analysis would show us in terms of market share and earnings for CRT iMac versus iBrick as well as the two combined. Remember, price elastisity (aversion to perceived high prices) is much higher at the low end.

The CRT in the old iMac adds costs, which thins margins, in several ways: form factor, storage, inventory, and opportunity cost of capital. On the other hand, it saves costs in sparing Apple from worrying about 3rd party monitor drivers and support. However, all these drivers are relatively easily ported from Linux to MacOS X. And low-end consumers will generally be satisfied with generic drivers anyway. So, I wouldn't expect much trouble with 3rd party monitors in the way of technical support.

I must confess, however, that my idea for the iBrick was based partly on the assumption that the CRT iMac would be discontinued. As the above two paragraphs imply, there would be some cannibalism from the iBrick onto the CRT iMac sales. However, given the lower manufacturing and operations costs, Apple should be able to more easily enjoy fatter margins with the iBrick than with the CRT iMac.

Additionally, 15" and 17" CRT's are not only commodities to those that manufacture them, but they are also commodities to OEM's like Apple that resell them. Meaning, for every dollar that Apple spends on a CRT for an iMac, Apple realizes a relatively small return or margin on that investment. It effectively brings down Apple margins as a percentage on average. Not a good thing for share holders!

Let's not forget opportunity cost, low-end consumers being highly price elastic, means that the CRT iMac would sell considerably fewer units than an iBrick. Only a detailed conjoint and production/operations analysis could absolutely confirm higher earnings. But, I'm very confident that the iBrick would generate greater earnings for Apple as well as generate greater market share and hence greater software diversity and mindshare.

And let's not forget another market consideration, a significant percentage (supposition) of low-end consumers prefer a 17" CRT to a 15" CRT enough to make a decision-making difference. In the case of elderly with poor eyesight, this can be a huge factor. My father didn't want an iMac for that reason alone.

The iBrick expands the market segment at the lower end by giving consumers greater flexibility with monitor selection as well as lowering the low-end Mac price point into a larger pool of potential buyers.

So, I would seriously consider killing the CRT iMac. But, even if Apple kept it, I do not believe the availability of both a CRT iMac and an iBrick would generate adverse product assortment conflict, in other words: confusion.

One last element to consider in product assortment (the product line) is manufacturing/operations. Obviously, a more complex assortment can increase production costs on average and lead to diminishing returns targeting discrete market segments. At some point, an assortment becomes too complex.

The iBrick concept is premised on low-cost. Someone earlier suggested that Apple simply sell iMac domes without the arm and monitor. While this idea has obvious benefits in terms of production, it might generate assortment dissonance and even incite pressure to close the price gap between the LCD iMac and the iBrick because the difference between the two units could be rationalized as simply a piece of steel and an LCD, undermining the value of the LCD iMac's style and novelty. No, the iBrick should have a considerably different form factor from that of the LCD iMac.

That doesn't mean that they cannot share common components, however. To further differentiate between the iBrick and the iMacs, I wouldn't offer CD-RW or DVD-R for the iBrick. Besides, low-end consumers are apt to be less interested in those features anyway. Again, a conjoint analysis would quantify this very effectively so a smart product assortment decision could be made. I'd also look at other ways to differentiate the iBrick from the iMac in terms of features/components.

The years before Steve Jobs returned to Apple did indeed feature a confusing, overlapping product assortment for the Mac product line. I personally recall the confusion among consumers and sales clerks. It was bad enough trying to debunk negative myths and truths about Mac's in general only to further complicate sales with an incoherent product assortment.

I do not believe adding the iBrick to the Mac product line would unduely complicate it, with or without continued production of the CRT iMac. If anything, the current Mac product line has a giant hole that ought to be filled to maximize Apple's market share and earnings. The iBrick would greatly appeal to the price sensitive low-end consumer market yet add greater choice and enable them to re-use their existing CRT's.

Well, there I go again, I set out to tell the time and described how to build a watch.

Cheers,

Eirik

[Beej]

Damn that's along post. I had to take a cut lunch :D


completely off topic
Sorry to get off the point, but have a look at some of Murray Walkers quotes... they're hilarious!

http://www.worldmotorsport.com/murray/

Favourite team: McLaren.
favourite driver: Webber (cuz he's an Aussie.)
Schumi Sr will win the championship this year.

And now, the moment everyone but Ensign Paris and iGav have been waiting for...
end completely off topic

[Ensign Paris]

Originally posted by Beej
Aw, what about me? Remember our conversation about Webber? You've hurt my feelings now :(

Doh! Sorry, I forgot.

Go Minardi!

Ensign

[sjs]

Eirik, thats some post! From a marketing standpoint I totally agree that Apple should not abandon the low end ($1000 computers). Its the entry-point to mac-life and once a PCer comes aboard they will want to stay and later move up.

So what should the low end product be?

The old iMac has two problems: speed and small monitor.

They can easily fix the speed problem by bumping G3 to around 900 or 1000 mhz.

The monitor problem ( no one WANTS a 15" CRT anymore) can be solved by 17" CRT all-in-one OR:

A Cube or Cylinder or Brick design for well under a grand, and you select your own monitor.

Personally I would love to have a Cube with entry level guts for about $899. The Cube is still the coolest computer ever designed.

[iGav]

Go Go Go......

Out of all the teams who I'd love to see win a race.... Minardi is at the top...... If they could just get a decent budget!!!......:D

I look forward to McLaren getting their race pace back, it's been a very long time since 3 teams were really, really close....... I'd still say drop DC and get Villeneuve in though!!!:D

Back on topic, I can't see Apple producing such a machine as the iBrick.... it sounds so similar to what the Cube was, and fair enough the Cube was expensive, but everybody whinged about the lack of expandability, lack of power, you name it people complained about it, except the looks...... and ultimately because it was expensive for what it was and the fact the the super tech heads couldn't hot rod it up... it failed..... (I personally took it for what it was, a superb example of design and engineering...... and a great consumer computer!! and thought it was great, it just wasn't suitable for my needs)

In concept a machine such as the iBrick sounds good....... but who would buy it?? if Apple skimp on features, people will still buy a more powerful PC, with a digital camera, printer, scanner, speakers, CD-RW, giant HD, monitor, etc etc for $250 less, they'll still go for the PC...... they believe they'll get more for their money, which they most certainly would do if you were to compare it to a ultra-lo-fi mac..... thing is the concept it self is so good, and I for one would be very interested in such a machine, but only if the specs were good enough!!

This thread started off with someone complaining about the lack of performance of the 600Mhz G3 iMac, for such power hungry things as Word Processing, Browsing, emailing and they're complaining about the lack of performance...... So where would Apple go??? G3 800Mhz.... well thats faster than the current iBooks, yet this iBrick would be cheaper?? If it went to G4 then the new iMac has problems......

I'm pretty certain Apple have considered such a device, and ultimately if they believe it to be viable then we will see such a device......... But personally with the current price range of other machines and the desire by users to have more power (even consumers now that they can make their own movies and have photo albums on their computers) that such a machine would go the same way as the Cube...... and nobody wants to see Apple fail with a product again!!!

[iGav]

Go to 17" CRT when a 15" LCD gives almost identical viewing size???

Nobody wants CRT anymore, even Steve Jobs had said this...... You can get incredibly cheap 15" LCD's at the moment, so shifting up to a 17" CRT is almost pointless!!! Think space saver, think power consumption, think brightness, think quality and you will come up with a LCD!!!

The Cube ain't never coming back, and I for one, don't want it too!! I love Apple because they're are one of the most forward thinking companies in the world!! Going back to the Cube would be wrong!!!

At the moment Apple haven't abandoned the sub $1000 market, the old iMac is way below, the gripe of a 15" CRT is valid, but completely forgetting the fact that people who buy these machines are only going to use it for emailing, browsing, and not ultra-intensive tasks!! And this machine is fine for them!!!

The 2 problems and solutions you pointed out whilst all fantastic in theory, won't happen, the G3 if Apple ever take it to 900 to 1000 Ghz machine will be in the the iBook first (I think the iBook will be shifted to G4 before a 900 or 1ghz G3 is considered, just because what Jobs has said about OS X NEEDING A G4 chip) and most certainly not a machine as old as the original iMac!!!

With regards to a 17 CRT..... as many people have pointed out, it would require the whole thing to be re-designed from the ground up.... this is not a 2 month job!! Remember how long Steve Jobs said Apple were working on the Flower Power and Blue Dalmation printing process..... 6 mnths or something and thats just for a paint job!!!

The logistics of redesigning the case would be minimal 12 months nearer 14 to 16...... design and development!! also a 17" CRT would make the iMac ********* huge!! A true monster in size!! No body would want this (well except for yourself!) When a 15" LCD offers almost identical viewing size!!

Apple is not going to be wasting time trying to re-design a machine that is around 6 years old... it simply will not happen..... Apple have more important things to be working on, like the G5 and other goodies that are lurking around the Infinite Loop campus than working on a machine that is coming very close to the end of it usable life!!!

Lets not mourn the death of the original iMac... celebrate it's life, and thank it for radically changing the worlds perceptions of what a computer should be!!!

A cylinder or brick idea sounds great in theory!!! but if all you want is a cheap computer with a choice of monitors why rather than waste money developing another Cube type product, why not just keep a low range tower say G4 450 or 500 and sell it seriously cheap and then let the user choose their monitor???

[sjs]

iGAV you keep referring to a 15" LCD and a 17" CRT as though they were interchangeable.

Don't you know that at retail a 17" CRT is $170 and a 15" LCD is $450 (and up).

And IBM has been able to make G3s at 1ghz for at least two years.

The whole point here is that Apple needs a computer for less than the current $1400+.

[iGav]

1: a 15" LCD is not interchangable with a 17" CRT..... The 17" CRT would allow you a 17" LCD!!:p (the same almost as a 19" CRT) You seem to have a hard on about having a 17" CRT but why????? Cos it's cheaper??? what about the costs of redesigning an entire new casing to go around this leviathon of a screen??? It would add cost!!! No matter what figures you come up with, designing and developing a new computer is not cheap!! and takes time!! Time that Apple I wisely expect is putting in on coming up with the new G5, Powerbook, and other yummy goodies!!!

2: Apple are not going to make a 17" CRT machine out of the old iMac case and certainly are not going to waste a ********* boat load of cash trying to design and engineer one!! no matter how much you want them too!!

3: Lets not forget to add that Steve Jobs has acknowledge the death of the CRT in Apples range, or did you miss this fact!!

4: So what that IBM have been making 1Ghz G3's for 2 years!! What does this have to do with a cheap computer?? 1 Ghz chips if they were so cheap would find there way into Apples current range..... they have not, and indeed if IBM had 1Ghz chips 2 years ago what speed are they on now?? 1Ghz?? and why don't Apple use these marvels in current low end Mac's.......?? I personally think that the G3 is at the end of it's life!! 1 Ghz or not... Jobs has said that OS X needs a G4!!

5: Apple do have 2 machines that come under $1400 price.... We have the iBook starting at $1,199 and the old iMac.... a bargain at $799 flat...... Both clearly under the $1400 price tag you quoted!!

6: With regards to LCD prices, I can't comment on the cost of them in the US, I have seen 15" LCD here in the UK starting at £150........ 17" CRT around £100 maybe alittle less if I went to PC World!!!

7: This discussion, whilst I do understand the need for a cheap machine, making one that is underpowered, and lacking in features is not what Apple is about to do, there have been other posts here explaining the overheads on each machine etc!! And I don't forsee Apple trying to get into the PC price war that other manufacturers have stupidly got themselves into!!

But in response to your main point "is that Apple needs a computer for less than the current $1400+." They have 2..... so there!!!:p

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by sjs
The whole point here is that Apple needs a computer for less than the current $1400+.

Yes, but one that can be modified, expanded or have interchangeable monitors. Not everyone wants to have a 15" monitor. That's what the cube was supposed to be. But the question is, does Apple want to compete with itself? If they offer too many options, things don't work. By keeping the selection somewhat limited, they sell more. This might change, but for now its the way they have to do it.

[ilikeiBook]

Originally posted by sjs
Wintels still come with Celerons and Pentium 3s. A Celeron is half P2 and half P3 for heavens sake! They do this so they can have a low end model.

That's why Apple will speed bump the G3 to 1 ghz and more and it will be VERY adequate for non-pro users, especially since that iMac won't be offered with DVD-R.

The only real question here is whether it will be in an old iMac case or something newer that allows people to get a bigger screen and yet get entry into mac-life for $1000.

Maybe the same case just bigger! Think of the 14" iBook (http://www.apple.com/ibook)! I'd also like some new colours or bring back Sage and Ruby. The originl design was great, we should keep it.

[iGav]

If they were to keep the same old iMac case..... you could (probably, but still with alot of re-engineering) squeeze a 15" LCD screen into the old iMac case!! this would give an equivilent viewing size as a 17" CRT screen. without all the expense of re-tooling and redesigning the old case to fit a 17" CRT and all the necessary cooling that would be required etc. But to make the old iMac be able to handle a 17" CRT screen, would involve alot of work!! and i really believe Apple is not going to attempt to do this!!!

Increasing the size of the iBook is a relatively easy task in comparison, as it is of a far more simple and conventional design and construction!!

I'm all for keeping the old iMac as a means to get into the Mac World, and I believe that with moderate speed increases and improved graphics and hardrive they might be able to eek out maybe another 12 months from it, further reducing the price and by which time the cost of the new iMac might have reduced alittle......

With Apple though, you never do know!!!;)

[eirik]

I agree that the 17" CRT iMac just won't float. Its price would get closer to that of the low-end LCD iMac, causing cannibalism of the higher margin LCD iMac unit sales. Remember, manufacturers and those that OEM CRT's are realizing increasingly razor thin margins. For a maker of Apple's size, it has to be very careful about its use of its precious capital.

Maybe a moderator would be kind enough to move all of these iBrick posts into a new thread because this discussion seems to be leaving the CRT behind and moving to the iBrick: good and bad.

The iBrick would not be going back to the Cube, it would be going to where the product position maps of Apple's product line clearly show a huge gap, a huge market opportunity.

First off, the iBrick is NOT the Cube. The Cube targeted relatively price insensitive customers that would be more for style over substance. Unfortunately, the Cube caused immense product line dissonance and confusion. And they turned out to be not so price insensitive in the face of choices among Cube, iMac, and PowerMac.

Its component specifications either overlapped and/or were too close to that of other Apple products such as the iMac, the PowerMac, and the iBook to a lesser extent. The primary differentiator between the Cube and these machines was style. And baby it was cool!!! But, it wasn't cool enough. For a little less, one could get an iMac that had almost as much (except no G4). For a little more, one would get more features, functionality, and expandability potential, whether one actually had intentions of using it or not.

The Cube also consisted of expensive components, largely laptop components that cost Apple more to acquire and integrate. And, these components actually offered slightly less performance.

I'll not repeat my description of the target market. Instead, I'll bring up an interesting phenomenon in the computer industry. Personal computer reviews are usually performed by geeks such as myself, or by super geeks. That is not a problem. However, most geeks fail to review products within the context of the products' target market. Almost certainly, all of the participants and readers in this thread, fall in the geek or super geek category. Take no offense; geek is cool now!

Low-end consumers or nth PC consumers rarely upgrade their machines. I've heard less than 5% (I'm sorry, I'm not certain of this figure so please take it as a swag.)!

As an iBrick critic pointed out, perhaps after saying that users want more power (?), the current iMac satisfies the needs of many consumers that just use PC's for email, web surfing, games, and limited software applications.

Well, while $799 is clearly getting Apple close to the right ballpark for the iBrick's target market, compared to what Wintel machines offer and what few hundred more dollars would buy, the CRT iMac is not a clear choice. Further, it is a low margin machine that consumes a lot of precious capital to acquire the CRT components.

Price elastisticity is very high at the low-end. Such consumers are less apt to spend a few hundred dollars more on intangible benefits and/or unquantifiable benefits. LCD iMac buyers are upper low-end consumers or lower high-end consumers.

I'll bet a conjoint analysis (market research...part survey, part statistics) would make my point very effectively, showing that the iBrick would realize considerably higher unit volume at a higher margin than the CRT iMac and would incur very little cannibalism on the LCD iMac. Remember, the LCD iMac is targeted a different segment than that of the iBrick, and the CRT iMac to a lesser extent.

As for what the iBrick would be in terms of components, I don't really know. That is why smart product managers employ conjoint analyses to statistically determine the value and market share of the various feature combinations as well as brand value. So, I can only speculate a little to narrow it down.

G3 or G4. It would be nice if the G4 supply provided a broad enough range so as to not cause a significant differentiation problem with the LCD iMac. More G4 sales means lower unit cost for G4's and more R&D into PPC manufacturing and technology relevant to Apple. However, G3 may be best for differentiation purposes, provided supply is not an issue.

I believe I've been fairly clear on my perspective of iBrick components/features. I'll just add something on form factor. It should appear cool enough to look like an Apple product but it shouldn't be so stylish that it causes product differentiation problems.

Also, I would suggest the form factor be rather thin (no more than 2") and modular. First, the iBrick shouldn't take up a lot of space. Second, it should be modular such that many units can be stacked. BTW, the optical storage component should just be CD-ROM, enough to load software, data, and audio. Some of you have probably heard of examples where Cubes were hooked up in a grid or distributed computing architecture (cluster, firewire or Ethernet).

The form factor should not be totally linear. It should be curvy enough to give it cool Apple character and it should be able to operate with its wide side on a desktop or on its side in a rack. Finally, the curves of the iBrick surfaces should be conducive to airflow when iBrick's are statcked. Apple might even consider two iBrick models. One would lack an optical drive and maybe even a hard drive. This would target the rack and stack folks.

Well, I did it again. Another LONG POST.

Cheers,

Eirik

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by eirik

Maybe a moderator would be kind enough to move all of these iBrick posts into a new thread because this discussion seems to be leaving the CRT behind and moving to the iBrick: good and bad.


That's because a lot of people think a 17 inch iMac is folly. It was sort of a gamers lust that always fueled this rumor. What gamers want is a low end tower with a graphics card they can swap out so they can have a "my framerate is better than yours" battle





First off, the iBrick is NOT the Cube



It could have been, or rather, the cube could haved been the iBrick, if the price were only different. It was priced about 200 percent above where it should have been to succeed.




The Cube also consisted of expensive components, largely laptop components that cost Apple more to acquire and integrate. And, these components actually offered slightly less performance.



It was actually at the point in the cycle where they had finally gotten much of their line under a common mother board design,.. laptops and iMacs could share the same economy of scale. Component wise, it was a screenless iBook with a chimney for a hotter chip. An iBook that took up little desktop space and didn't have to be concerned about weight.

Would the iBrick concept be nearly attractive to people if someone said it should be an iPizza Box?

the imac is made to be a one hander, like a notebook, but at lower cost. Something 90 pound second grade teachers can move 20 of in a day if they have too without complaining. Something a poor college student can take to their broom closet sized dorm room in one hand, and still have a desk for other items.

If you want it to have an interchangeable graphics slot, wireless bluetooth keyboard and mice, ask for that and you might get it.
But if you want that 17 inch diagonal, you may have to wait until LCD panels of that size are closer to 100 dollars each.