The Return of an Apple Cube... as an iMac?

[MacRumors]

On November 7th, Kodawarisan posted (http://www.kodawarisan.com/ug/) a curious rumor about a redesigned iMac case... in the form of a Cube. Translation by yamabushi:

A completely new case for the iMac is said to be due to be announced at Macworld SF 2004. According to information from a resin mold manufacturer in Taiwan the completely new case is curiously different and a cube shaped iMac case is currently in production.


By itself, Kodawarisan has had a variable (http://www.macrumors.com/searcharticles.php3?searchterm=kodawarisan&submit=Search) accuracy rate, but combined with some other recent rumors, it makes for an interesting possibility.

Last month, AppleInsider independently claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/10/20031015124246.shtml) that Apple was working on an "entirely new form-factor" for the iMac due in early spring of 2004. No actual details of the case redesign were offered at that time.

Meanwhile, a recent Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031107015410.shtml) predicted the return of the Cube form-factor, with similar claims made earlier this year. (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030519031019.shtml).

While the likelihood of a iMac Cube remains uncertain, more details may arise as MacWorld approaches.

[arn]

Before people start asking. Page 1 for interest and due to the intersection of a number of rumors.

arn

[Billy_ca]

I love the existing iMac. They just need to throw a 1.6 GHz G5 in there and up the RAM and I will buy one.

[MacsRgr8]

Hmmm... sounds sweet.

Would this be the "new" iMac, or a new anniversary Mac (thus limited quantity)?

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

Would this be the "new" iMac, or a new anniversary Mac (thus limited quantity)?

I would say that the tone of the note at Kodawarisan implied the former. However it may be marketed as a special edition.

[Phil Of Mac]

What is it with Steve and his cube obsession? Perhaps his heavy LSD use during his youth? (Sugar cubes were a common means of ingesting LSD in the early days.)

[punter]

yeah i think the current 17" imac is almost perfect. Maybe the ports (fw, usb) could be at the front? But the swivelling display is just BRILLIANT. I want a display I can move like that to plug into my laptop.

But a cube would be nice as well, one with no fan. I'm sure whatever they're coming up with is goign to be good! They seem to be on a bit of a roll.

[yamabushi]

If the new iMac has ATI 9600 graphics or better I will be very tempted to buy one. A cube shape would be fine by me.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Cube? Somehow that doesn't seem nearly a graceful as the hemisphere design used now. Yeah, it'd fit into the whole industrial design scheme of the PowerMac, but put it next to the current iMac and I'd probably take the latter. Oh well, we'll see soon enough.

[Makosuke]

This actually more or less makes sense; people have been clamoring for a headless iMac or less expensive desktop w/o monitor for a while. Some people, now that they're dead, love the Cubes, both for that reason and the style. And we all know that Apple (or at least Steve) liked the cubes, even though the original price was too high for them to succeed.

Put these things together, and there's a real chance of a cube-shaped headless iMac, special edition Mac, or both. Heck, if they didn't reintroduce some cube as a special 20th Anniversary Mac I'd be surprised, so why not just combine that with a headless iMac form to kill two birds with one stone.

I really, really hope that the current form factor iMac persists in some very similar form, though--it's an awesome design, and hasn't been around nearly as long as the original shape, so I'd say it has lots of life left in it.

[arn]

Some conflicting but interesting intersection of rumors...

New iMac? If so, will it have a built in screen? Or not? Maybe the iMac will remain in it's current form and this will be a headless version?

Maybe not iMac at all.... perhaps it will be a 20th anniv Mac special-edition sort of deal.

(Note: 20th anniv of the Macintosh. The previous 20th Anniv Mac celebrated the 20th anniv of Apple itself. The 20th Anniv of the Mac is Jan 2004)

arn

[arn]

From Apple's press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/jul/03cube.html) for the original Cube's discontinuation:

"there is a small chance [Apple] will reintroduce an upgraded model of the unique computer in the future, but that there are no plans to do so at this time"

Just a curious thing to add to the press release. Doesn't mean much by itself.

[CraigMiami]

I'm still waiting for the G5 octagon or whatever it was that MOSR was predicting a year or 2 ago. It was the first time i can recall laughing out loud while reading a mac rumors site.

Just rediculous.

[finelinebob]

PowerLogix has released a new aluminum enclosure (http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/enclosure/) for Mac Cube owners wanting to upgrade their Cubes as much as possible. I've even seen aluminum "bare-bones" cases at CompUSA for people who want to build their own fanless Wintel machine. It's apparently a big enough scene that Wired has covered the quest for quiet PCs (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61156,00.html) and as recently as last summer has posted a story on the Mac Cube's continued popularity (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,59764,00.html?tw=wn_story_related) .

If they're going to release a new Newton, might as well release a new Cube, too! Ah, rumors....

[grahamtriggs]

Originally posted by Makosuke
This actually more or less makes sense; people have been clamoring for a headless iMac or less expensive desktop w/o monitor for a while. Some people, now that they're dead, love the Cubes, both for that reason and the style. And we all know that Apple (or at least Steve) liked the cubes, even though the original price was too high for them to succeed.

Well, you're almost right! Many people liked the cubes - I don't think that anyone that likes them now didn't like them then. More importantly though, you can't combine it with 'clamoring for a less expensive desktop'. Because the cubes weren't. They were expensive. Damn expensive. That's why people liked them before, but weren't prepared to buy one.

A cube would be great for a headless desktop. But they need to pitch it right - ie. not try to make it a full blown PowerMac with the price tag that goes with it. But a bit more than an iMac.

Oh, and chances are, it won't be fanless... what's the point? The engineering for a fanless cube (and/or resulting lack of power) would kill it like the old one. With the recent work they've done on the G5 for quiet fan cooling, it would make far more sense to use that knowledge.

[arn]

Originally posted by finelinebob
PowerLogix has released a new aluminum enclosure (http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/enclosure/) for Mac Cube[/URL] .


:) You know, it's not impossible that these rumors arose from PowerLogix' production of these. I guess you have to trust that the "sources" knew which company these were being developed for.

arn

[BurntCalc]

Hmm... It hardly sounds likely that Apple would choose a design that has already proven to be a bust. Then again, the iMac is due for a refresh soon. I'm just a bit surprised that they'd redesign it this soon.

My money is that, if true, this isn't an iMac at all but a new device altogether. I just can't for the life of me think what that might be. Maybe it's a new Airport module. Or the famed X-Grid.

[Poff]

A cube would be real cool.
I got interested in them a little while ago, the fanless design would make them great for a home-studio.

The problem then was without a doubt the price. Noone in their right mind would make a computer like that and expect people to look at it and say; "hey! This is a really powerful computer!" No- it would have to be sold like an iMac to succeed. The lack of expansion possibilities also assured that no serious computer user would find it useful.

We'll just have to wait and see, but a fanless cube with one slot for cards so that you could put a decent audio-card in there would be a killer! :D

[joshbuddy]

the things that made the original cube suck so much are easily overcomable these days. Firewire and USB2 are both adequate technologies for expansion. You COULD build in a PCI slot, even an AGP slot to allow more expansion. SATA is great in terms of less cables blocking airflow, and even then, watercooling (if its even needed) could make a very quiet G5 cube for us....

the price is really the important thing here. i remember reading the review for the cube on ars, and how there were little cracks in the plastic. i mean.. how much money do i have to pay to get crappy little cracks in the plastic? the original cube pricing just looks bizarre in retrospect.

*j*

[Trimix]

Originally posted by Billy_ca
I love the existing iMac. They just need to throw a 1.6 GHz G5 in there and up the RAM and I will buy one.

i am with you all the way - my 800mhz 15' runs every day for 16 hours - had it for 1.5 years now - never ever a problem

[Trimix]

Originally posted by arn
Some conflicting but interesting intersection of rumors...

New iMac? If so, will it have a built in screen? Or not? Maybe the iMac will remain in it's current form and this will be a headless version?

Maybe not iMac at all.... perhaps it will be a 20th anniv Mac special-edition sort of deal.

(Note: 20th anniv of the Macintosh. The previous 20th Anniv Mac celebrated the 20th anniv of Apple itself. The 20th Anniv of the Mac is Jan 2004)

arn

ooops, i remember the first mac, am i that OLD ????

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by grahamtriggs
Oh, and chances are, it won't be fanless... what's the point? The engineering for a fanless cube (and/or resulting lack of power) would kill it like the old one.

Heat rises.

You have an open grill on the top of the cube and heat escapes.

It's the same basic design as the chimney.

That said...if Apple released a special edition Cube every once in awhile, they would sell. The reason they didn't sell in the first place is because we all figured they'd be around forever. As soon as they were discontinued, guess what? They sold!

[joshbuddy]

Originally posted by Trimix
i am with you all the way - my 800mhz 15' runs every day for 16 hours - had it for 1.5 years now - never ever a problem

the problem really isn't with the iMac. the iMac is great. the problem is with having a cheap computer that won't look terribly out of place in people's homes. being able to buy a headless mac would fill a niche that is currently UNFILLED. and who knows, make the new studio displays will incorporate the arm idea of the imac, so you can have the best of both worlds...

*j*

[ipiloot]

Originally posted by BurntCalc
Hmm... It hardly sounds likely that Apple would choose a design that has already proven to be a bust. Then again, the iMac is due for a refresh soon. I'm just a bit surprised that they'd redesign it this soon.

My money is that, if true, this isn't an iMac at all but a new device altogether. I just can't for the life of me think what that might be. Maybe it's a new Airport module. Or the famed X-Grid.

I think, you're all wrong here. The cube form factor wasn't a bust. The problem with cube was the consumer group that it targeted - an upper end home user who are a very small majority. Thus the price and the features that it offered were plain wrong for conquering any significant market. And this is the market where they are traded today.

I really-really hope that it'll be the market-conquering dirt cheap low end headless G5 in $500 price point. iMac would stay a fashionable all-in-one solution as it is today, only it shall be upgraded with new innards. The form is just marvelous.

[Sabenth]

Hmm whos in charge of all the old stuff.. do you think that some one at apple has thought well we were wrong about the time of relasing such products like newton and cube and gone hmm now is the time just having one of my many many many thoughts on this old skool revivel .....


Fanless pcs he he he he bring it on

[pianojoe]

I think we all agree that the iMac needs to see another speed boost soon, and what will that be? I think the current form factor wouldn't allow for a squeeze-it-all 1.4 G4, and for a G5 the cooling should be more sophisticated, too. It's clear Apple will (have to) redesign the case.

I love the current design though. Just bought one for my girl friend.

[caveman_uk]

I think the current imac is a beautiful machine and most people I've tried to convert to macs have thought so too (the girls especially like it).

They all think it's too expensive though and I'm inclined to agree. Look at the price of the emacs and the price of the imac. That difference is too big to just be the cost of the TFT screen.

[rdas7]

If you recall, when the Cube came out it went against the new division of the Apple product line up:

One of the first things that Jobs did when he came back to Apple was clean up the product line which consisted of a thousand variants of machines (The myriad of PowerMac 5500/6100/8100/5560/6580/ etc. etc.) and reduce it down to 4 products: Pro, Pro Portable, Consumer, Consumer Portable.

The Cube went against this as it was neither Pro, nor Pro Portable and was too powerful to be Consumer.

At the time, there were only the blue and white G3, the PowerBook Wallstreet, the Bondi iMac, and the clamshell iBooks. The Cube was in between each of these categories.

With the categories now a firmly established staple of Apple now, it seems likely that the Cube would have been better suited to the Consumer range of products. After all, it has limited internal expandability in the same way that the 17" iMac does. What made it Pro when it came out was that it was a G4, and that sort of power was "reserved" for professionals.

Now that we're seeing the iBook and iMac line using the G4 chip, and pro moving to G5, the "old" cube would only need to be painted white to fit in perfectly to the lineup.

The question remains: how will they ever top the sheer genius of the connecting arm for the 17" screen?

[Nightstalker]

20th anniv mac?
new cube?

there was a recent rumor about a water cooled g5 powerbook.
the original cube used much powerbook technology (afaik).

maybe a water cooled (and therefore quiet) G5 cube?

Nightstalker

[DrBoar]

On the PC side there are those shuttle cases that really is similar to the cube in size. In Mac terms this could be implemented as either a iMac with a replaceable AGP graphical card (and perhaps a PCI slot as well) or as a headless box with similar features. A upgradeable CPU would be nice but if the CPU is good to start with (1.6-2.0 GHz G5) it is less of a problem.

If the towers move to all duals then the iMac and iCube will have some space:D

[s10]

http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/programs/academserv/ADC/media_services/images/retro_tv.gif

[AhmedFaisal]

For a year now I have been hoping that Apple would finally come out with a revival of the legendary 7100 PowerMac. Nope. I want a Mac for my home entertainment system in the living room but I don't need a dumb iMac with a screen attached to it nor do I want a huge PowerMac G5 or a Cube either. I want a slim flat Pizzabox. By the end of this year I will buy one, but its going to be a PC the way things are going with Apple. Since stuff like VLC finally works on Opendarwin as well I will just run OpenDarwin with Gnome on it. www.hush-technologies.com offers this fanless beauty. If only it were a Macintosh... *sigh*

Ahmed

[reyesmac]

If Apple makes the iMac more like the cube but then cripples it by not allowing you to take it apart and upgrade components like you can with the cube it would be a huge disappointment. Its about time Apple had a consumer machine that you could add more than ram too. The original cube can be upgraded with graphic cards, processors, hard drives, dvd drives, and a few other parts. If the iMac had this it would once again become the hot seller it once was.
People shouldnt have to spend over $2,000 just to have a computer they can upgrade.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
For a year now I have been hoping that Apple would finally come out with a revival of the legendary 7100 PowerMac. Nope. I want a Mac for my home entertainment system in the living room but I don't need a dumb iMac with a screen attached to it nor do I want a huge PowerMac G5 or a Cube either. I want a slim flat Pizzabox. By the end of this year I will buy one, but its going to be a PC the way things are going with Apple. Since stuff like VLC finally works on Opendarwin as well I will just run OpenDarwin with Gnome on it. www.hush-technologies.com offers this fanless beauty. If only it were a Macintosh... *sigh*

Ahmed


Tastes differ, but I think that thing looks more like a dvd player or my mc intosh power amplifier....

[jncrow]

Originally posted by Trimix
ooops, i remember the first mac, am i that OLD ????

There are probably a few of us that remember the first mac and our gui (grapical user interface) when our friends were fumbling around in DOS.

Let's hear it for the first mac....

[nagromme]

I imagine the next iMac having a flat, wide, base, shaped almost exactly like the 17" screen.

The arm could attach closer to the bottom of the LCD, and close to the back of the bottom box.

A cube would be cool too, though. Just so the arm mechanism doesn't change--it's great!

[BJNY]

What I want is a Slab. Basically, a 15" AluBook without the display. About two inches thick to allow for dual CPUs, etc. Fitting nicely underneath a Cinema Display, or by a TV.

[CmdrLaForge]

For me the real question is if an LCD is attached or not. If as the topic said is the new iMac - then it means the Screen is attached. But the good thing about a cube would be you can buy any screen.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What is it with Steve and his cube obsession?

Perhaps he want's to assimilate new customers?

[Eric_Z]

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
For me the real question is if an LCD is attached or not. If as the topic said is the new iMac - then it means the Screen is attached. But the good thing about a cube would be you can buy any screen.
I'd just like to note that Apple is free to name there products whatever they whish, so iMac does not automatically mean AIO, even thought it has done so in the past. And besides does not the iMac name indicate that it's a machine that fills the consumer desktop "slot" in the current product matrix?

My own "line-up speculations":

The Power Macs go all dual and gets increased internal expantion, the iMac(Shuttle formfactor) is all single G5s and is sporting one AGP and one PCI slot for internal expantion, the old iMac(perhaps slightly redesigned) becomes the new eMac, the old one gets phased out. The Power Mac G4 (unfortunately) gets cancelled so that it won't cannibalize the iMac.

[kangaroo]

It’s an interesting design challenge. The iMac is Apples primary computer icon; the dome base w/floating display, even taken as a 2 dimensional front image, = Apple. I doubt they would give that up. Just like car manufacturers make subtle changes to a model and it creates the appearance of a ‘new’ car—I think Apple can tweak the iMac form and achieve the same result. The size/shape of the iMac’s base and display are nicely balanced; one seems neither too big nor small for the other. I would like to see a larger/higher quality display coupled w/an aluminum enclosure containing a G5. To do this, the base would need to grow a bit to stay in balance with a larger display. (A larger base would presumably help with the G5’s heat dissipation). Add a slotted drive (without the drawer), integrated speakers, a Bluetooth multi-button, scroll-wheel mouse and wireless keyboard and you’re there.

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
For a year now I have been hoping that Apple would finally come out with a revival of the legendary 7100 PowerMac. Nope. I want a Mac for my home entertainment system in the living room but I don't need a dumb iMac with a screen attached to it nor do I want a huge PowerMac G5 or a Cube either. I want a slim flat Pizzabox. By the end of this year I will buy one, but its going to be a PC the way things are going with Apple. Since stuff like VLC finally works on Opendarwin as well I will just run OpenDarwin with Gnome on it. www.hush-technologies.com offers this fanless beauty. If only it were a Macintosh... *sigh*

Ahmed

Sounds to me like you want an Xserve... It's not fanless, but it fits the form factor you're talking about and it's an amazingly attractive pizza-box.

[the_mole1314]

This is REALLY interesting. I havn't heared anyting about this yet, so I'd bet that we won't see 'return of the cube', but I bet that the iMac will get a somewhat new form factor. That's just my guess. My channels don't say anything.

[Analog Kid]

The cube as a headless iMac makes a lot of sense. I don't think the problem with the original cube was that it cost that much to manufacture but that it had to get priced between the iMac and PowerMac to differentiate itself.

Here's the rub-- If this turns out to be true, I'm guessing it'll be a G4.

I don't think they can put a G5 in a fanless cube, and I think it's going to stay fanless. Once you water cool it, or do whatever you'd have to do (for any G5 iMac, not just a cube shaped one), I think it would force it out of the consumer space.

It might be the last G4 iMac, but if it shows up early next year I think it's going to have to stay G4.

[kristianm]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
Sounds to me like you want an Xserve... It's not fanless, but it fits the form factor you're talking about and it's an amazingly attractive pizza-box.

I thought the Xserve was extremly loud, even compared to the old G4's. The new iMacs are quiet, but not really silent. They have a fan which makes a bit noise.

[bikertwin]

Everyone's saying how expensive the Cubes were. Just how expensive were they?

[themadchemist]

why does apple have to make it so hard to decide! I would possibly buy a cube over a g5 tower (esp. if the cube had a g5 in it)!

[stockscalper]

And to be announced at Mac Expo Jobs is changing the name of the company to the NeXT Apple :D

[mrnoone]

I think we are going to see something very close in design to the current imac... people seem to like the swivel monitor.

HOWEVER, does anyone remember the patent apple had a few months back for an LED case that can change color?

Check out this link for something similar.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/5da2/images/

I think you will be able to change the color depending on your mood or if an event triggers a color change... for instance, if you get new mail... it will turn red or something. You could have it be a different color in the morning verses the evening. Or a different color for difference users (fast user switching).

Just a thought....
~Ryan

[ipiloot]

Originally posted by stockscalper
And to be announced at Mac Expo Jobs is changing the name of the company to the NeXT Apple :D

BTW! Not that bad idea as it sounds first. I think that it'd be good idea to label the rumored multiprocessor Pro workstations with the NeXT theme. NeXT Mac?

[jayscheuerle]

1st iMac – simple, durable, ground-breaking form

iMac2 – elegant, fragile, expensive. Required the creation of a new product line to address the education market.

eMac – durable, inexpensive.

A headless, affordable iMac alongside the headed iMac would create a 3rd line where one existed before AND it would completely cannibalize headed iMac sales (which haven't been great anyways. Not cube bad, but nowhere near expectations).

Apple would do well to kill the headed iMac, no matter how nice the design is. If they can give us an iBook for less than a grand, they can put out a headless iCube for under $700 bottom line. You'd still be free to pump up the price to $1400 by adding an Apple 17" display if you wanted, but you could use your current display as well (as long as Apple doesn't change connectors again).

[Untitled]

Originally posted by Eric_Z
I'd just like to note that Apple is free to name there products whatever they whish[...]

For example, they could rename the iMac the Cube... (And leave it a hemisphere.)

[kerryb]

I think if anything Apple would revive the cube as "cheap" headless (no monitor) CPU. Imagine a $500 brain in box that allows schools, business', government offices to use existing cheapo monitors instead of a still expensive flat screen.

[cubist]

Originally posted by arn
:) You know, it's not impossible that these rumors arose from PowerLogix' production of these. ...

But those are aluminum, not plastic.

For the "fanless" proponents: Forget it! Convection only works reliably when the internal temperature is very high - hot enough to decrease component life substantially and cause failures. As soon as I had Thermoindock running on my Cube, I shut it down and stuck a PC case fan inside. It was 56C in there! The Cube has mounting ears for a fan and space for it - I think someone deleted it as an afterthought.

If you've got a Cube without a fan, and want to keep using it for a while, do yourself a favor and put a fan in there.

[chazmox]

I liked Kangaru and Eric_Z's ideas...

But what about a cube/iMac that are designed to be mated to a new line of displays that Apple will produce. The Cube/iMac will have an attachment on top that the swing arm ( on the lines of the current iMac's swing arm ) can be mounted to. The monitor's can be purchased separately and can be used with their own base with the PowerMac series. This would give the iMac monitors adjustability ( very addicting if you have ever lived with it ) to the PowerMac line and also allow a headless, entry level computer to be sold. Also, screens up to 20 inches in size could be used with the Cube/iMac. Which size do you want? You get to choose...

The industrial design challenges would be tough here - to make the system not look like a hack - but if any company could pull it off, then Apple could.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by chazmox
I liked Kangaru and Eric_Z's ideas...

But what about a cube/iMac that are designed to be mated to a new line of displays that Apple will produce. The Cube/iMac will have an attachment on top that the swing arm ( on the lines of the current iMac's swing arm ) can be mounted to. The monitor's can be purchased separately and can be used with their own base with the PowerMac series. This would give the iMac monitors adjustability ( very addicting if you have ever lived with it ) to the PowerMac line and also allow a headless, entry level computer to be sold. Also, screens up to 20 inches in size could be used with the Cube/iMac. Which size do you want? You get to choose...

The industrial design challenges would be tough here - to make the system not look like a hack - but if any company could pull it off, then Apple could.

Though outwardly identical, there are differences in the armature for the 15" and 17" iMac screens. These are precisely set up for that weight and would not be interchangeable. A screen that is also to be used as a stand-alone would be much heavier. This is not as simple as anyone here is imagining.

Nice idea in a "transformer" kind of way, but an engineering headache that would require it's own forum on the Apple boards to deal with...

[1macker1]

Blah @ a headless cube. They already have those, they called them Power Mac G4's and G4's. **might not be cubed shaped** but oh well.

[macspazm]

YUM!:D

[Marianco]

I think it will be small and rectangular, the size of a tape deck or small stereo receiver. It will be quiet! On a Rack, it can be 3U high.

THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES with this!!!!

Without the monitor, the cost may be reduced below $700.

With a remote control, it can become part of your stereo system! It can become your music center. It can become a personal video recorder. It can be the center of your home. Think about it as you games player. It replaces your stereo - trumping Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft - for the living room.

With the reduced cost, it can be more easily bought by school systems and consumers.

A G5 will make it a killer machine.

The ports already make it very expandable. The iMac - even without slots is a great consumer machine. If Apple added at least one PCI and one AGP slot, it's a super killer machine.

Think about creating a new supercomputer with racks of these stereo-receiver-sized iMacs!!!!

[xelterran]

1.6ghz G5 aluminum cube.. i can imagen it! :)

[jamesatzones]

I like the idea of a new iMac, but I feel that Apple also needs to come out with a low priced no thrill cube or something like it for $800 or less. A machine of this sort will open the Mac market even more, while also allowing businesses to upgrade their aging fleet of orginal iMacs and even B&Ws.

Just my two pennies worth...

[1macker1]

Seems like too many products to me. imac, emac,g4,g5, seems to fill all the voids, I dont really see a reason for another product line.

[wymer100]

Originally posted by bikertwin
Everyone's saying how expensive the Cubes were. Just how expensive were they?

If I remember correctly, the cubes were something like $1799. You could buy a new powermac G4 for $1599. Everyone liked the design and concept, but why pay the extra $200 for less expandability? That is what screwed Apple. Had Apple simply charged $1599 for it, cube sales would not have been cannibalized by the powermac.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Seems like too many products to me. imac, emac,g4,g5, seems to fill all the voids, I dont really see a reason for another product line.

Huh? There's a giant gaping hole in the "I don't need a power tower but want to use my own monitor" group.

eMac power without the 50lb., built in monitor design.

What isn't needed is the iMac.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by wymer100
If I remember correctly, the cubes were something like $1799. You could buy a new powermac G4 for $1599. Everyone liked the design and concept, but why pay the extra $200 for less expandability? That is what screwed Apple. Had Apple simply charged $1599 for it, cube sales would not have been cannibalized by the powermac.

Or if they had charged $1099, they may have actually sold.

[Tux Kapono]

Why I think it's a great idea:

1. Don't force people to buy flat panel monitors. Monitors don't need replacing, computers do. I'm probably one of the few that thought the latest iMac was too 'new luxury' like the cube. At least their sales are tanking big time just like it.

I find it strange that the iBooks are way less than the desktop iMacs. No wonder iMac sales are so bad - what's the point of buying one - really?

2. If you're thinking of 'switching' or upgrading, chances are you want to keep your existing monitor.

3. They need market share not just for programs, but increasingly for web sites. A lot of them just don't work on Macs.

4. I have a feeling we'll be surprised at the introductory price point. This may be the $599 G4 box mentioned a while ago that overwhelmingly received positive feedback. I personally think it's Apple's key to salvation.

[1macker1]

So the real question will be pricing. They have to make it cheaper than the power mac G4, which is only 1200. But at the same time, make it pricey *i know this isnt a word* enough for it not to take sales away from some other product. That's why I think the product line is fine as is. But i'm sure they'll figure out something. (End of the power mac G4)?

$599, that's just 100 dollers more than an iPod (mp3 player). I dont really see this happening.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by 1macker1
So the real question will be pricing. They have to make it cheaper than the power mac G4, which is only 1200. But at the same time, make it pricey *i know this isnt a word* enough for it not to take sales away from some other product. That's why I think the product line is fine as is. But i'm sure they'll figure out something. (End of the power mac G4)?

Just make it inexpensive.

It doesn't need the power or the expandability of the towers.

It doesn't need a built in monitor.

The only reason it would cannibalize sales of other products would be because Apple would finally be delivering the product people have been clamoring for. I need to upgrade my beige box, but I sure as heck don't need a G5 or even a 1.25 G4. I don't want a built in monitor and I'm not keen on spending $600 for a 3 year old machine on ebay.

The only people who are against a competitively priced Mac are the elitists who are into the Mac "lifestyle as the BMW of computers" thing. Get over it!!

[jncrow]

I would certainly think a headless entry level mac would be great. I could possibly afford to get one for home again and not just have my laptop. Could get an LCD from someplace else cheaper then an apple cinema display not as good I am sure but much less expensive. Or use the monitor I have for my pc or the old 15" from the families dead performa 6400/200VEE. There would still be room for sales of the high end for those that need them.

Most likely will be the end of the powermac G4 line.



Originally posted by 1macker1
So the real question will be pricing. They have to make it cheaper than the power mac G4, which is only 1200. But at the same time, make it pricey *i know this isnt a word* enough for it not to take sales away from some other product. That's why I think the product line is fine as is. But i'm sure they'll figure out something. (End of the power mac G4)?

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by jncrow
Most likely will be the end of the powermac G4 line.

Don't you mean iMac?

[xtekdiver]

Originally posted by arn
Some conflicting but interesting intersection of rumors...

New iMac? If so, will it have a built in screen? Or not? Maybe the iMac will remain in it's current form and this will be a headless version?

Maybe not iMac at all.... perhaps it will be a 20th anniv Mac special-edition sort of deal.

(Note: 20th anniv of the Macintosh. The previous 20th Anniv Mac celebrated the 20th anniv of Apple itself. The 20th Anniv of the Mac is Jan 2004)

arn

I don't think you can have an iMac without a built in monitor. A headless iMac doesn't make sense, but a new form factor mac is possible, along with the new cimema displays (20", 23", & 30")

[1macker1]

"The only people who are against a competitively priced Mac are the elitists who are into the Mac "lifestyle as the BMW of computers" thing. Get over it!! "

I dont care how much it's going to cost, I also dont need a G5, nor will i ever pay 3000 for a computer, i'm just wondering how they are going to price it without taking sales from other products.

I'd love to own a new G4 for 500 bucks.

[jaybonner]

This does fit into the G5 pattern with the aluminum enclosures and industrial design. I wonder if the air flow issues with the G5 require a non-round case?

[rastalin94]

As far as I know Apple has never built a computer with the average business user in mind. If Apple is serious about getting into the corporate arena they need a machine that IT people can honestly recommend. This “Cube” item would be a good choice, but price is what is going to really matter. Does an average office worker using Microsoft Office, a web browser, and maybe a couple of other simple programs need a G5? It does not need to expandable because there is no reason to upgrade a computer. If the computer itself costs around $600 why pay a Tech $99/hour to upgrade the machine. Computers are throwaway in the main stream business world. If Apple is serious about getting into the business arena they need something equivalent to a Dell Dimension computer. Something designed to be used by an “average” office working, not a creative professional, which is inexpensive and easy to manage.

[primalman]

Originally posted by rdas7
At the time, there were only the blue and white G3, the PowerBook Wallstreet, the Bondi iMac, and the clamshell iBooks. The Cube was in between each of these categories.

Actually, both the B&W G3 and the Bondi Blue iMac were gone from the line up.

We were on PowerMac G4 Gigibit Ethernet [PMG4 v.3], iBook [FW version clam], iMac DV/DV+ [snow, graphite, sage, ruby, indigo], PowerBook G3 [firewire, "Pismo"]

www.apple-history.com

But you are right to think that it was going against the proguct grid a little too early. I think that now is a good time to spread out a little...slightly. Actually it just completes the new grid:

Consumer Pro/Prosumer
High iMac PowerMac
Portable iBook PowerBook
low eMac [Cube-ish?]
server Xserve

[pbooktebo]

Originally posted by bikertwin
Everyone's saying how expensive the Cubes were. Just how expensive were they?

Here's an excerpt from an apple history site (link at bottom)

Shortcomings aside, the Cube was a remarkable feat of engineering, crammed inside an elegant case. The Cube shipped to retail markets with a 450Mhz G4 processor, a 20 GB hard drive, a 56k modem, 64 MB of RAM, and Apple s Pro Mouse, for $1799. Another configuration was available through the Apple Store, with a 500 Mhz G4, a 30 GB hard drive and 128 MB of RAM, for $2299.


The Cube was not nearly the success that Apple had hoped it would be. The consensus was that Apple had misjudged the market, making the Cube an expensive "luxury" computer instead of a cheaper monitor-less iMac. In december the low-end configuration received a price cut to $1499.


In February 2001, The cube received a feature and price change. The low-end configuration was repriced at $1299. A "better" configuration was made available, with a CD-RW drive and 128 MB of RAM, for $1599. Finally, the high-end version got a 60 GB hard drive, 256 MB of RAM, a CD-RW drive and an 32 MB NVIDIA GeForce2 MX video card, and sold for $2199.


The complete Cube page:
http://www.apple-history.com/frames/body.php?page=gallery&model=g4cube

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by 1macker1
Blah @ a headless cube. They already have those, they called them Power Mac G4's and G4's. **might not be cubed shaped** but oh well.


exactly... all this talk about not needing an imac is silly... i think that this is a special edition something or other for the upcoming aniversary. the imac is the entry level consumer and the power mac is the prosumer. this can be a fun looking extravagance like the original cube

[imamacguy17]

Originally posted by BurntCalc
My money is that, if true, this isn't an iMac at all but a new device altogether. I just can't for the life of me think what that might be. Maybe it's a new Airport module. Or the famed X-Grid.

I made a similar suggestion when the cube went bust about the xgrid (didnt call it as such) but because of their cute handles on the bottem i thought that creating a hot swapable cluster machine that used the cubes inards network administrators would eat them up because if one machine goes done the entire network is still up and he/she just removes the machine makes the repairs and returns or just adds a new machine.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Tux Kapono
I find it strange that the iBooks are way less than the desktop iMacs. No wonder iMac sales are so bad - what's the point of buying one - really?

Personally, I don't like portables. Slow - for the price, poor keyboards - lack of key travel, smaller monitors. That leaves me with the eMac, which is bulky, cumbersome and ugly (IMO) or the PowerMacs - which are still too expensive, especially if you include the price of an Apple monitor.

That leaves the iMac as the only attractive option for a lot of people like me.

[Spades]

There's a niche for a cube like this somewhere. Over in the PC world, small form factors are doing well. Some people use them as desktops, but there's a good number of people using them for other things. I'm planning on getting an SFF PC myself to use as a server. If there was a Mac that fit the niche of cheap, small, and quiet (and headless) I would probably get that instead.

And if it happened to use a G5, you could build your own supercomputer at a fraction of the price Virginia Tech paid. :D

But, as much as I would love a cheap headless cube, it all depends on what's good for Apple.
:(

[kristianm]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Just make it inexpensive.
Right, that would be apple.


The only people who are against a competitively priced Mac are the elitists who are into the Mac "lifestyle as the BMW of computers" thing. Get over it!!

Those people and Steve. Macs might not be expensive for what you get, but if you want a little less they are quite costly.

[PGant]

I'm rather sceptical of all the speculation that Apple might be planning yet another new form factor for the iMac. Granted, there might be a limitation in the current design that prevents the installation of a G5, but I still think that the current shape is still too new to dump. Apple has spent a lot of money getting people to take notice of this design and it seems to have been selling well (notwithstanding market conditions). A spruce up may be in the works (I for one would like to see the headphone jack moved to the front of the base), but I think the Cube rumours are, at best, connected to some kind of special edition Mac...but this is just idle speculation on my part.

[finelinebob]

Originally posted by Poff
A cube would be real cool.

That is the point, isn't it? ;)

Seriously, tho, the several people I know who bought Cubes are, in some sense to me, the purest of the Apple purests in how they really didn't care about price or relative performance but were buying it purely for its asthetic value. None were disappointed by its performance then, and all of them (still using their Cubes!) remain happy with what they get out of them now.

If Ivy's design team is working on something new (including the Newton here), it'll be interesting to see just how different they can make it from the original a la clamshell vs sunflower iMacs.

I mean, a cube's a cube ... and the portions of the Cube that extended beyond that shape were made out of a clear material. Can a new design stay as "minimalist" and still be radically different?

[BobVB]

Originally posted by ipiloot
I think, you're all wrong here. The cube form factor wasn't a bust. The problem with cube was the consumer group that it targeted - an upper end home user who are a very small majority.

Exactly! The original Cube without screen sold at powermac prices with little more than iMac configurability. They looked cool, but the majority of serious users wanted more options for expansion and conversely the iMac customer wanted first and foremost a low price- not possible with the price of the Apple LCD & the Cube in those days and one without the other was just not an option.

Today, a Cube (with screen) at iMac pricing would be hot - I'd probably get one as my kitchen computer. An iMac priced Cube with screen would sell like hotcakes.

[Hugh]

Originally posted by Trimix
ooops, i remember the first mac, am i that OLD ????

Nope not at all.. I go back to the days when the Apple // and the Apple //+ came out.. :D

-Hugh

[jocknerd]

Apple needs a consumer line that can compete with the Dells and HPs of the world. The current iMac is a beautiful machine but it costs Apple too much to produce it. Thats why it can't compete with the low end PC's out there.

A cube would be the perfect replacement. Start it around $799 with a 1.6ghz G5 and 256MB of memory and a 40GB hard drive and a low end video card.

[imamacguy17]

the ibook is not actually i better deal. the imac in its lowest form is a better machine than the top of the line ibook and the top of the line ibook costs 200 dollars more than the entry imac. while i agree imac prices could easy drop 100 bucks it still is in the "right" range in terms of features. the emac compares to the 15 inch low end imac in screen size too.


just my $0.02

[primalman]

Originally posted by primalman
…But you are right to think that it was going against the proguct grid a little too early. I think that now is a good time to spread out a little...slightly. Actually it just completes the new grid:

Consumer Pro/Prosumer
High iMac PowerMac
Portable iBook PowerBook
low eMac [Cube-ish?]
server Xserve

what that chart should have looked like:

[snahabed]

I don't think Apple should introduce a headless iMac.

Apple should introduce a headless eMac.

The iMac needs to be the midpriced consumer all in one with the beautiful flatscreen and revolutionary arm. And it needs to be upgraded to a G5.

The eMac will be G4 for a long time to come, I'd imagine. Make a small G4 cube like people are saying... it surely could be a $500-$700 price point. Give it a couple PCI slots for some upgradeability. Give it a normal monitor connector to minimize the cost for switchers.

But don't kill off the iMac, which can stay in the 1400-1700 range as a G5/flatscreen combo.

[blueBomber]

if it is an anniversary mac, maybe it'll be biege and monochrome. OSX in B&W... hmmm....;)

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by joshbuddy
the things that made the original cube suck so much are easily overcomable these days. Firewire and USB2 are both adequate technologies for expansion. You COULD build in a PCI slot, even an AGP slot to allow more expansion. SATA is great in terms of less cables blocking airflow, and even then, watercooling (if its even needed) could make a very quiet G5 cube for us....
I agree with you. In addition I think at the time of the first cube people were still in to big fast computers that could put anything into and forever expanding. Today I think people want something small and quite.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jncrow
There are probably a few of us that remember the first mac and our gui (grapical user interface) when our friends were fumbling around in DOS.

Let's hear it for the first mac....

I used to play Net-Trek at our school computer lab. It must have been one of the first multi-player games, what ever happened to that.

[sethypoo]

I personally hope that Apple, if they do interduce a cube, keep the form factor of the iMac that they have right now.

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they got rid of the current hemispheric shape and *built in flat screen*. It's that swiveling flat screen that draws people to the iMac.

The iMac has also always been a all-in-one system. To completely do away with the screen and give people a cube would be breaking tradition and just stupid.

Not every new Mac user or person interested in buying a Mac will have an extra monitor around.

I hope that Apple does the smart thing and keeps the flat screen design they have now. I just can't see a flat screen poking up from a cube looking "good".

:(

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by greenstork
I used to play Net-Trek at our school computer lab. It must have been one of the first multi-player games, what ever happened to that.

I just downloaded Oregon Trail. Anyone remember playing that in elementary?

Oh, the memories.

:)

[iMeowbot]

The missing product from Apple's product grid is obviously the PowerPod, designed especially for the professional gnutella leech. The cubic enclosure will contain 5 terabytes of storage, Superdrive, dual G5s running a port of the Newton OS, network port, built-in 9-inch color TFT, dock on top to feed the included special edition iPod, and a VGA port so you can plug in your 15" Packard Bell monitor with the fuzzy picture and C:\> burned into the top left to watch selections from the new iFlicks store.

[mrsebastian]

holy ****** the rumor mills are running in overdrive! somehow i'm not buying this cube thing, but i do think there is a possibility that apple will change the imac's form to be similar to the cube in concept. i guess apple could simply offer bundles which would include a box (cube?), keyboard and mouse (wireless?), and a choice of display size to go with it.

[Tux Kapono]

The more expensive pro line PowerMacs are outselling the less expensive consumer line flat-panel iMacs 2:1. Just research Apple's financial reports.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Conclusion: The flat-panel iMacs are simply too expensive (at $1300, about twice as much as it needs to be, seriously) to be consumer models, and the eMac is a big, ugly toy.

Prediction: I'm confident Apple will solve this now that Steve's got his cube/flower pot fetishes out of the way. Apple has now hit the tipping point in being more valued for its software than its hardware - it's time to build simple inexpensive machines to run them.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Tux Kapono
The more expensive pro line PowerMacs are outselling the less expensive consumer line flat-panel iMacs 2:1. Just research Apple's financial reports.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Conclusion: The flat-panel iMacs are simply too expensive (at $1300, about twice as much as it needs to be, seriously) to be consumer models, and the eMac is a big, ugly toy.

Prediction: I'm confident Apple will solve this now that Steve's got his cube/flower pot fetishes out of the way. Apple has now hit the tipping point in being more valued for its software than its hardware - it's time to build simple inexpensive machines to run them.

At the same time, not getting ride of their great pro line models. :D

[Tim Flynn]

I throw some more fuel on the fire ...

The G4 PowerMacs have (had) a very fluid shape. Curves abound !
The current iMac has curves, the bread dough drop, one big curve.

The G5 Powermacs are much more squarish. Lots of straight lines with rounded corners.
So the industrial designers maybe on a "trend".
So a cube shaped iMac does sound plausable :)

oh and fans are ok, the machine just needs to be quiet (G5 are)

[iPC]

What if it is offered as the standard iMac style, as well as headless? That is one thing that is missing from the Apple product line right now... decent priced (~$800) headless (no monitor) box.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jamesatzones
I like the idea of a new iMac, but I feel that Apple also needs to come out with a low priced no thrill cube or something like it for $800 or less. A machine of this sort will open the Mac market even more, while also allowing businesses to upgrade their aging fleet of orginal iMacs and even B&Ws.

Just my two pennies worth...

I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest appeals of a system like this (besides monitor flexibility) is price. $800 seems just about right too.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by wymer100
If I remember correctly, the cubes were something like $1799. You could buy a new powermac G4 for $1599. Everyone liked the design and concept, but why pay the extra $200 for less expandability? That is what screwed Apple. Had Apple simply charged $1599 for it, cube sales would not have been cannibalized by the powermac.

Ironically, cube resale value has remained relatively high, due to the limited edition coolness factor and that fanless design.

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by iPC
What if it is offered as the standard iMac style, as well as headless? That is one thing that is missing from the Apple product line right now... decent priced (~$800) headless (no monitor) box.

That would be fine, so long as they didn't get rid of what they have now.

[yoman]

Originally posted by sethypoo
That would be fine, so long as they didn't get rid of what they have now.

I agree. The current imac model is an excellent design and should be kept. Adding this new "cube-like" lineup will probably fill quit nicely within the current products offered by Apple.

:) I do look forward to seeing this new creation of apple though :)

[greenstork]

Originally posted by BobVB
Exactly! The original Cube without screen sold at powermac prices with little more than iMac configurability. They looked cool, but the majority of serious users wanted more options for expansion and conversely the iMac customer wanted first and foremost a low price- not possible with the price of the Apple LCD & the Cube in those days and one without the other was just not an option.

Today, a Cube (with screen) at iMac pricing would be hot - I'd probably get one as my kitchen computer. An iMac priced Cube with screen would sell like hotcakes.

I say this only in jest but anyone who needs a kitchen computer has got to get out more.

[1macker1]

LOL, i was thinking," who needs a kitchen computer"
Originally posted by greenstork
I say this only in jest but anyone who needs a kitchen computer has got to get out more.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by mrsebastian
somehow i'm not buying this cube thing, but i do think there is a possibility that apple will change the imac's form to be similar to the cube in concept. i guess apple could simply offer bundles which would include a box (cube?), keyboard and mouse (wireless?), and a choice of display size to go with it.

A more squared-off cabinet would make some sense, even if the overall form doesn't change all that much. It would look more like what consumers expect a "real" computer to look like. (old iMac and eMac did still look like monitors, so this wasn't as big a stretch.) Getting really pragmatic, component makers do still like all the things they make to be more or less rectangular, so it's still going to be somewhat easier to cram lots of parts into a cabinet with corners, in turn leaving more ways to fit cooling goodies for faster parts. Working on the inside of the current iMac is a pain, and I'll bet it's a real chore to build it too. Smoething a bit more conventional on the inside might help with the cost.

[BobVB]

Originally posted by greenstork
I say this only in jest but anyone who needs a kitchen computer has got to get out more.

Don't know about you, but the kitchen is the most important and highest traffic room in the whole house here - it is the room for 'hanging out'. As it is right now I use my wifi iBook for recipe and internet access while there, but if they had a iMac Cube I may not *need* one there, but I sure as heck would *want* one, and as we know, wants always trump needs. ;)

[mrsebastian]

not that apple will, but we've been talking about a cheap consumer size mac for a long time when ever these rumors come up. considering apple latest trend with ipod and itunes, they may be actually be serious about producing a mac for the masses. as others have mentioned. the key is the price factor! i'd venture $999 or less for a complete system with monitor and apple may have something.

[SeaFox]

I just have to say:

NOOOOOOOOO! :eek:

Isn't the whole idea of the iMac a machine that's simple and has a built in monitor?

The very reason I'm interested in a cube comeback is for a machine that lets me use whatever display I want and isn't as expensive or large as a tower.

Besides. How do you pull off a cube with a flat screen attached? That sounds so ugly now that I've grown use to the flat-panel iMac design.

[Spades]

Originally posted by primalman
what that chart should have looked like:

Your chart also has a hole in the consumer server spot, which is what I want one for. Maybe it really could happen.

[TomSmithMacEd]

A headless iMac for IT would be perfect.
eMac = consumer machine
g5 = pro machine
iMac = business machine Like the iMac was originally going to be. Just a server computer.

[machinehien]

that would be the best way to drive demand for a new cube rather than invest the resources to make it a permanent addition to the lineup. Plus Apple can still justify a high price on it.

I seriously doubt the new cube would be inexpensive. In order to creat a $500-600 machine apple would have to cut so many corners and economize on so many components it would really do themselves a disservice. Plus companies like Dell and HP specialize in stripped down machines for bulk sale, machines sans sound cards or graphic cards, built from the cheapest components at the moment.

[jimh123456]

To me, it seems that Apple could make a new "ultra-affordable" (say, $400) Macintosh by requiring customers to "bring more to the table" themselves (power supply, case, memory, etc.). Think about this...

Take an iBook and strip away all the following: the LCD display, the case/keyboard/trackpad/button, the battery, the hard drive and optical drive, all the ports and connectors, the memory, and the video/audio chips. Now rearrange what's left (which wouldn't be much more than the G4 itself and the Apple BIOS) onto a single PCI-slot card and package it with some software CDs in a box titled "Mac OS X 10.3 Panther - for Intel Hardware ".

Obviously, some additional supporting hardware would be needed on the card, as well as some software that ran on the Intel side to control peripherals, manage the video/audio/memory, etc. The Intel CPU could even be used as some kind of co-processor, perhaps. Admittedly, developing this software might be the sticky wicket in all this, but I'm sure Apple's engineers are up to the challenge (especially after seeing the success of iTunes for Windows).

Essentially, Apple would be selling the "guts" of a Macintosh and the software to run it (including whatever emulation/control software would be needed to support the card), allowing PC users to transform their computers into fully-functional Macs without having to give up their beloved monitors, keyboards, multi-button mice, kick-butt video cards, etc. that they've accumulated over the years. This system could be dual-booted - that would allow the Mac and the PC to coexist nicely (even, perhaps, sharing the same files on the hard drive).

I can't believe that this hardware would cost more than $300 to manufacture, since the iBook itself sells for about $1000 (so the manufacturing cost must be significanly less). At half the price of the next least expensive Mac (the eMac), and the same price as a mid-priced iPod, many PC people might finally take the plunge and try the Macintosh experience, providing Apple a nice 25% margin.

If Apple made something like this, I would buy three for myself immediatly (forgive me: I have three PCs), and maybe a few more as gifts for friends/family. At $800 a pop, a bare-bones eMac isn't quite worth replacing a fully-functional PC, but at $400, it's well worth an add-in card to turn an existing PC into a Mac.

Thoughts?...

[primalman]

Originally posted by Spades
Your chart also has a hole in the consumer server spot, which is what I want one for. Maybe it really could happen.

It was meant to be blank…forever.

I really doubt that it could happen. Servers in general are meant for IT and professional circles. If you want a consumer-level server, get an old iMac or G3/G4 tower, and, if you got the money, OS X Server. Otherwise, you can pretty much do whatever you need to do, other than route DHCP, with the standard OS X system.

It's what I used to do:
PowerMac G4 450/OS X.2/20gb system drive/2x60gb storage [OS X RAID]. Sits on the network behind the router and gives file/media services to the house of mixed PCs and Macs.

At work I run an OS X Server box, but the big difference is that is runs the network services there.

My buddy runs his home network with an old PMG3 with OS X Server 10.1 on it. Got it all used for a song.

[Spades]

I know many companies have made failed attempts at creating consumer servers, but I don't think that's an indication it will never happen. There are two reasons for that. First, almost everybody I know with the skills to do it has done has made their own servers. Much of the reason they've made their own servers is probably because they enjoy it, but there's no question to any of us that having your own server is really handy. The second reason is .mac. .Mac provides some of the features that a consumer server would, and it makes it easy. There's definitely demand for those types of services. I would say that consumers do have a use for a server in their home.

While it's true you can buy an old system to use as a server, that's not very consumer friendly. Also, I'm currently using my former desktop computer as a server, and I still want a new small form factor PC to replace it. My desktop is loud, hot, and too big to stick in a closet. Even an old Mac would have some of those problems. A cube, especially a fanless one, would be quiet and unintrusive.

Anyways, I don't see why a cube couldn't fit both the low-end pro and consumer server markets, unless selling the same system to two markets is a bad idea.

[iPC]

Originally posted by greenstork
I say this only in jest but anyone who needs a kitchen computer has got to get out more.
What else am I supposed to do with one of my Mac Plus' and that nifty external hdd? Recipe holder it is!

[~Shard~]

I’m not sure if these rumors of new iMacs make sense. So far I have read that the iMacs are getting completely redesigned, are getting G5s, are going to have huge updates, etc. etc. – and all of this announced at MWSF. Although I know these redesigns and updates will eventually happen, I question whether or not they will occur as early as MWSF. After all, the current iMac design hasn’t really been around for THAT long - and it’s definitely not outdated by any means. Plus, the latest speed bumps for the iMacs occurred only 2 months ago...

And logically, shouldn’t the xServes and LCDs be updated before anything else? I can’t see too many major announcements occurring at MWSF, especially when Mr. Jobs isn’t giving the keynote or anything major like that. If anything is getting a G5 it should be the xServes, followed by the PowerBooks. And wouldn’t there be a lot of unhappy people if the iMac (consumer model) received a G5 before the PowerBook (Pro model)?

Plus, relatively speaking, the G5s just came out after all, and I don’t know if we’ll be seeing them in the iMacs so soon. Of course, now that Apple is dealing with IBM and not Motorola, who knows I guess!

[primalman]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
I can’t see too many major announcements occurring at MWSF, especially when Mr. Jobs isn’t giving the keynote or anything major like that.

Where are you getting this info? Jobs will probably never give another Keynote at the summer Macworld, be it in NY or Boston ;) , he will no doubt be there at MWSF.

[Awimoway]

Two points:

1. If the iMac is going to go G5, then I think they almost have to alter the form so that it can be properly ventilated. Huge fans in a pro model (PowerMac) are acceptable as long as they are aren't too loud. But the consumer model should be sleeker and even quieter. So maybe that is why they are returning to the Cube's form.

2. It has been rumored (I can't remember where I read it, but it was almost certainly here since I pretty much let MR do all my rumor-gathering and filtering for me nowadays) that the iMac arm costs way too much and Apple wants to bring the price of the iMac down. Maybe they will go with a completely headless consumer line of computers from now on. Before I switched, I was often turned off by the fact that the computer would come with a display I didn't need. It was only when I needed a display, too, that I finally made the switch.

Perhaps more importantly, with Steve's well-known liberal sentiments and an environmentalist (Gore) on the Board of Directors, perhaps Apple will move to a more environmentally friendly headless consumer model that lets you keep the same display when you upgrade to a new machine. As it is, a lot of displays are being needlessly trashed on one end, wasting landfill space, and manufactured on the other.


Originally posted by jocknerd
Apple needs a consumer line that can compete with the Dells and HPs of the world. The current iMac is a beautiful machine but it costs Apple too much to produce it. Thats why it can't compete with the low end PC's out there.

A cube would be the perfect replacement. Start it around $799 with a 1.6ghz G5 and 256MB of memory and a 40GB hard drive and a low end video card.

Although I'm not sure the so-called "BMW of computer" companies agrees with you, I agree completely. A couple of months ago my Dad decided he wanted a new computer. I tried to sell him on the idea of a Mac, but he had a wide variety of PC choices for a basic consumer with plenty of bells and whistles for $800 or less. Even the eMac can't cpompete. It is said too often in the Mac community that you can get a "stripped down" computer for less than the price of an eMac, but I disagree. Or maybe I don't know what you mean by "stripped down." If stripped down is a basic consumer model, then the iMac--which is also a basic conumer model--can't compete at literally twice the price, can it? The marvelous advantages of the OS aside, there really isn't that much difference in quality to warrant twice the price, is there?

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by cubist
For the "fanless" proponents: Forget it! Convection only works reliably when the internal temperature is very high - hot enough to decrease component life substantially and cause failures.

That's what Conduction is for.

The new iMac will be a cube machined from a solid piece of aluminum. The case is the heatsink. The G5 and the hot switching transistors will be mated to the 'case' for cooling.

Fanless G5.

Jonathan Ives will do a tapdance on stage to further show how cool he is. :D

[kryten2000]

Originally posted by Billy_ca
I love the existing iMac. They just need to throw a 1.6 GHz G5 in there and up the RAM and I will buy one.

New video cards are badly needed in the imac lineup as well
How about the Radeon there using in the g5's now. How they would do this in the current form factor is beyond me but I'm sure Apple's engineers have some tricks up htere sleave.

[Phil Of Mac]

I think Apple's desktop product line should go something like this:

Power Mac G5
Dual Processor (2.0, 2.2, 2.4)

G5 Cube
Single Processor (2.0, 2.2), Fanless, made for business and upper consumers, can be connected into XGrid.

iMac G5
Single Processor (1.8, 2.0), lower price, all-in-one, price comparable to Cube.

eMac G4
Pumped to G4 max.

I honestly think that the reason Power Macs are outselling iMacs is all the pent-up demand for the 970. The iMacs are pretty overpriced now, but that's only because they're G4's. And heck, I almost bought one. But I'm happier with Kira.

[itsbetteronamac]

Ok I have a 17inch imac and I just love it to death. The only thing that I ever complain about is no audio in which has been fixed, and that ports could swivle out to the front or a automatic port door. The dome part of the imac is what makes it so great. It is sofisicated, yet friendly which caters to almost everyone.

I hope that they use a G5. But, I don't want them to change the incloser. Maybe if they just made a very powerful headless one. With a headless dome apple could fit more stuff in to it, and people could use them as regular computer, or even a very stable server.

I also think that a headless imac would have some educational benifits. Schools could use exsisting monitors, if they have them and save some money.

Couldn't u just imagine a bunch of cute smiling domes all lined up it a row. I like having a cube, but I like the imac the way it is.

[blueflame]

how about a 12 inch laptop bottom, no screem, no mouse, no keyboard, all ports on the back except for one audio usb and firewire, with slot loading drive, the moniter lays down on top of it, then folds up, sorta like a reverse book. ultra thin, or even keep it kinda like the one now with an arm
this seems like it would be a good emac? something good for schools, still could be cheap, and takes up less space. good for edu and computer labs. mabye the same thing as a 12 inch ibook, just no mouse no keyboard, no screen. ulta small headless computer. thin too
Andreas

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by primalman
Where are you getting this info? Jobs will probably never give another Keynote at the summer Macworld, be it in NY or Boston ;) , he will no doubt be there at MWSF.

I just assumed that since no news has been made yet about Jobs giving the keynote, that he probably isn't going to. And I guess based on that, I assumed that nothing too earth-shattering would be announced. Sure, maybe a couple product announcements (G5 xServes, LCDs, ???), but not a whole lot of amazing news.

So, a couple assumptions I guess - that's all! Just my $0.02... ;)

[hulugu]

Originally posted by greenstork
I used to play Net-Trek at our school computer lab. It must have been one of the first multi-player games, what ever happened to that.


Net-Trek, yay I freakin' loved that game, that and Sim City.

[Dont Hurt Me]

you know if apple did a cube or new imac that it would look different because they think different, so what would it look like? aluminum? plastic? colors? changing colors? who knows? any concepts? Arn is going to hate me

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ~Shard~
I just assumed that since no news has been made yet about Jobs giving the keynote, that he probably isn't going to. And I guess based on that, I assumed that nothing too earth-shattering would be announced. Sure, maybe a couple product announcements (G5 xServes, LCDs, ???), but not a whole lot of amazing news.

So, a couple assumptions I guess - that's all! Just my $0.02... ;)

They usually don't announce those things three months in advance. More like three weeks. And MWSF has always been huge.

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
They usually don't announce those things three months in advance. More like three weeks. And MWSF has always been huge.

Fair enough - you guys have been following these events far longer than I, (I've been into Macs for only 8 months or so!), so I stand corrected! :)

[mgcman]

see http://www.macgamecube.com for the details. The GameCube is, of course, a cube

[GregA]

I think there's a lot to be said for a headless eMac (or headless iMac - once it's headless... it's the same thing right?).

Many PCs are small boxes now, and people like options for their monitors. Whether you imagine an iMac or eMac without the screen, a cube, or even an iBook without screen or keyboard - there are a few options for Apple. Some buyers might already have their own speakers (& USB mouse?), so another place to cut price. Many people want to put the computer under their monitor so a flat top could be useful.

On the topic of various product lines, a few people suggested Apple stereo appliances. Steve Jobs said he didn't want the PC merging with the TV - but that leaves lots of consumer-appliance options. The iPod was a new way of thinking about walkman - what can Apple do for your TV & stereo space? NOT computers, but stereo appliances built for specific functions.. (and hence cheaper!)

Lastly... a home server? Great idea but it would have to be VERY different to a business server. For instance - it might be an all in one box, preconfigured, with little expandability. A firewall, proxy, router, network hub, airport, mail server, and share files and profiles. Who knows, maybe it would look like a cube?

... Actually, give me 2 of those servers for a couple of small offices, and throw in an easy configurable VPN between them (use iChat to find each other?) and I'm a buyer.

[iEric]

All I'm waiting for is the iMac with a G5..i dont care if its the same casing or the cube. Anythinig that Apple makes is beautiful :D :rolleyes:

[finelinebob]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
That's what Conduction is for.

The new iMac will be a cube machined from a solid piece of aluminum. The case is the heatsink. The G5 and the hot switching transistors will be mated to the 'case' for cooling.

One friend who has a Cube has one huge problem -- her cat loves to sit on top of it. Nice, warm spot. Flat. Big enough for her when curled up (small cat). Sure, it's a bit problematic for the Cube (covering the vent, rolling on and off of the on/off button, etc.), but kitty's gotta have her warm spot.

Given the amount of heat that would need to be conducted away from a G5 and all of its required circuitry, I'm afraid the poor kitty would get fried on a G5 Cube. So, given several posters' love of the half-dome iMac and the need for a conducting surface that could maxmimize heat dispersal, maybe the next Cube should be a Sphere [if I remember my calculus correctly, a sphere maximizes surface area/volume]. :D

[ps: my friend uses a very swanky, small aluminum mesh wastebasket placed upside-down over the Cube to keep it cat-free ... for those overly concerned about either the cat's or the Cube's welfare ... please don't call the SPCA or SPCM(acs)!]

[TomSmithMacEd]

What do you guys have against the eMac? In benchmarks with the same memory it outperforms the 15" flat panel iMac, if you aren't gaming (which macs aren't for) then you are set! I know I am.

[joshbuddy]

[if I remember my calculus correctly, a sphere maximizes surface area/volume]. :D

err.. its the other way around
:)

a sphere minimizes the surface area to volume ratio. i still think a cube (cube-ish) design would fare best... i mean, a semisphere sitting on my desk would just look out of place. the inability to stack them is also a bit of a liability. Why would you EVER want to stack them i hear you ask?

http://space-simulator.lanl.gov/photos/ss1.jpg

let that be your answer :D

*j*

[macMaestro]

The cube has a very nice spot in Apple's lineup - a spot that otherwise is conspicuosly empty.

Also, I think Apple will go with an aluminum apple on white plastic look. Aluminum will stay a pro material.

[lind0834]

Anybody remember how long the G3 was in the CRT iMac after the G4 was introduced? It was like a year or two wasn't it? I think it would take a miracle to get a G5 into the FP iMac that fast.

I would like to see an update to the iMac though. The first G3 iMacs where tray loading, then they got slot loading. The first G4 imacs where tray loading.......

Here's to hoping.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac I think Apple's desktop product line should go something like this:

Power Mac G5
Dual Processor (2.0, 2.2, 2.4)

G5 Cube
Single Processor (2.0, 2.2), fanless, made for business and upper consumers, can be connected into XGrid.

iMac G5
Single Processor (1.8, 2.0), lower price, all-in-one, price comparable to Cube.

eMac G4
Pumped to G4 max.

I honestly think that the reason Power Macs are outselling iMacs is all the pent-up demand for the 970. The iMacs are pretty overpriced now, but that's only because they're G4's. And heck, I almost bought one. But I'm happier with Kira. [/B]

Thats really nice... but I think alot too powerful for the machines to be upgraded to.

You would have the iMac G5 and the cube G5 duking it out...

They would kill each other.

Along with the fact that
Its impossible to have 0 Fans for the G5 Processor

Sorry, even if there we 5 fake fans in the G5 PowerMac you would still need 2 fans.

That is absurd...

Originally posted by mgcman
see http://www.macgamecube.com for the details. The GameCube is, of course, a cube
Measure the gamecube, tell me its a cube without lying when you come back.

I have one, its very nice... but not a cube.


I'd rather the iMac (still G4) be at like:
1.0
1.2
1.4 Models

The Cube is a G5:
1.6
1.8
2.0 Models

PowerMac G5:
2.0
2.2
2.4- 2.6?

[NeXTDev]

I don't think we need an iMac. Like the grid shown earlier, the eMac is really what people want in the low end - bare bone cost, harder to damage and does well in a variety of resolutions CRT, all-in-one construction for durability and compactness. It is what should have been the new iMac instead of the iLamp.

As for the cube... make it larger so that it isn't as difficult to build. The market segment is prosumer/corporate or pros that don't need the slots. It has to have a G5 for marketing reasons - 1.4 and 1.6GHz G5's, 700/800MHz FSB, 333MHz DDR SDRAM, GeForce FX 5200/Radeon 9600 (dual display) AGP4X, 512MB RAM with 3 DIMM slots for 3GB max, single 7200rpm low noise ATA 80/120GB hard drive (no need for SATA here), Combo/SuperDrive, USB2, Firewire 400 & 800, Gigabit Ethernet, Bluetooth ready, Airport Extreme ready, no modem, no slots. It should cost $999 in its base config and be $1499 in its max "better" config.

It should also have cooling zones with temperature controlled slow speed fans just like the PowerMac G5, but the zones are vertical, not horizontal.

It should be steel - not aluminum or polycarbonate. It can have a brushed steel exterior, but the emphasis should be on low cost while still looking good and distinctly Apple (at least, Apple's current industrial design).

I think such a system would sell - and sell well.

In conjunction, the PowerMac G5 should be boosted to 1.8GHz, dual 1.8GHz, and dual 2.2GHz with the entry machine dropping the SuperDrive to go Combo and sell at $1699. The middle machine should move to $2499. Drop the silly non-PCI-X in the base machine and bump to to a full DDR400 with 512MB on the base machine and 1GB (using 4 slots) on the upper machines.

That would then be a strong lineup with few weaknesses. Apple can't afford to fall behind here - it must keep the pressure on and gain some serious marketshare NOW!!

[wdlove]

I'm definitely looking forward to MWSF January '04 to celebrate the 20th aiinversary of the Mac. Never really liked the look of the base of the iMac. I think that the Cube look would be much more stylish. The added aluminum look would be awesome.

[sXe]

this won't happen. why would apple make the iMac with a G5? that would totally disrupt the pro/consumer lines and there doesn't appear to be a new chip in the future anytime soon for apple. maybe as a 20th anniversary machine, but not an iMac. the iMac part is wrong, the cube is right, and the 20th anniversary part is also carrying some truth. don't get all excited and expect a new iMac at MWSF in January. They'll keep the old form more likely than not.

[BWhaler]

All I know for a fact is AI is wrong. That's all I'll say since I have my own interests to protect, but don't get yourself too worked up about a iMac cube anytime with no monitor any time soon.

For those of you who don't have the fact base to know for sure, it should be pretty obvious if you think about it from a company trying to make as much money per unit perspective.

Sure, I'd love one too. But come January, there are going to be some pretty disappointed people, I suspect.

I honest to God think AI just makes stuff up.

[blurtigo]

I'd love to see the Cube return, as I'd go for that rather than getting the upcoming fanless accelerator card for it. But if it does I expect it to be as a limited 20th anniversary Mac. They know this will sell, as it will be perfect upgrade to those who still use and love the Cube.

But I think a cube iMac with screen would be pretty ugly. I think the base of the current ones is already a bit too big, especially on the 15" model. A cube base would only make that stand out even more. And I don't think you can change the iMac from an all-in-one design with screen either, as that is what has always defined the iMac.

I think the next obvious step for the iMac is to do ayway with the base altogether. A tablet, with a docking station for when you want to use it at the desk. Combined with the bluetooth keyboard & mouse, it would make one very funky system. Totally wireless.

The only question is whether the consumer is really ready for something like that just yet.

[xDANx]

Originally posted by Tux Kapono
3. They need market share not just for programs, but increasingly for web sites. A lot of them just don't work on Macs.

4. I have a feeling we'll be surprised at the introductory price point. This may be the $599 G4 box mentioned a while ago that overwhelmingly received positive feedback. I personally think it's Apple's key to salvation.

this is only vaguely off topic...

i'm beginning to think that apple isn't interested in expanding market share (much). they seem to be quite happy remaining around the size they are with a customer base generally equally as happy spending more than everyone else on computers. and apple's size allows a degree of control over the entire computing experience that a much larger company would probably get taken to court over every other week. apple likes it's fat margins and brand image as the computer for creative professionals and discerning end users. apple could probably put out a cheap headless mac in a heartbeat...but why would they even want to? the only thing it could possibly bring is increased market share...which everyone seems to assume, for perfectly understandable but cliched reasons, is a positive thing. but it doesn't necessary mean higher profits and more control...in fact, with the current state of the computer industry a good case could be made that it means opening up a very large door to the opposite. apple's current business model seems to be working just fine, especially considering its new technological inputs (IBM/G5).

apple doesn't need saving anymore. i can't see them introducing a low-end headless mac...apple simply doesn't compete on price and probably never will. if you think huge market share is really important then you'll probably disagree, but stop and think about what it would mean for apple to grow a great deal beyond where it is now and how hard it would be for everything that makes apple apple to remain intact.

niche: n 1: a position particularly well suited to the person who occupies it

[xDANx]

Originally posted by macMaestro
The cube has a very nice spot in Apple's lineup - a spot that otherwise is conspicuosly empty.

i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by xDANx
i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.

I'd like to know what Wintel machines qualify as "Pro" All-In-Ones. Seems like an oxymoron to me.

I also wonder if the 12" Powerbook could be listed in the High-End Consumer Laptop slot. Or the 1.6Ghz G5 in the High End Consumer Headless.

[voicegy]

Originally posted by wdlove
I'm definitely looking forward to MWSF January '04 to celebrate the 20th aiinversary of the Mac. Never really liked the look of the base of the iMac. I think that the Cube look would be much more stylish. The added aluminum look would be awesome.

I'm trying to imagine the current iMac chrome arm and flat screen on top of a cube, and my gag reflex starts up...talk about looking even MORE like a table lamp...ah, but to each his own, my kind-hearted fellow MacRumor's member...:)

When the iMac got its bigger screen, that made the machine just about perfect...it was a better balance between the dome and the screen size. Chuck that stupid cd tray for a slot loader, couple it up with wireless keyboard and mouse, and that's a handsome machine, IMO.

To mess with the iMac current form factor would be a high challenge, and I'm most curious to see if the rumored "face lift" of the iMac turns out to be true.

No doubt that there is much anticipation and excitement regarding an "anniversary" machine. The last special edition machine (the 20th Anniversary Mac, which was actually a celebration of Apple Computers' 20th Year as noted by arn) was NOT done on Steve's watch...when he came back, as you all recall, he bargained-basmented the price of the remaining stock (those baby's went for 10 grand...he reduced the remaining down to just under 2 grand) and, of course, they flew out the door and still fetch around 2 grand on the open market.

That action by Steve showed that he didn't want to be associated with it...now, if that means he just didn't want to be associated with THAT particular machine (makes sense, since he had no hand in it) or that he doesn't want to be associated with ANY machine that is part of a limited-edition anniversary-marking device....well, that's anyoneÕs' guess.

He may feel that, in these times, to market such a device "wouldn't be prudent"...but I'm willing to bet that the significant upcoming dual anniversaries (20 Years of Macintosh / 25 Years of Apple Computer) is just too tempting of a milestone for his beloved garage-started company to pass up.

It is with baited breath that I wait eagerly for January's MacWorld...this is one NOT to miss, is bound to have a surprise or two, and may, just MAY, give us a "babe" limited-edition machine (albeit expensive, but who cares, we'll ALL want one!) that reflects the many years that Apple has survived the worst of times and will, hopefully, KNOCK OUR SOCKS OFF!!!

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by xDANx
i'm beginning to think that apple isn't interested in expanding market share (much).
. . .


Your whole post is very well put. I think the comparisons Jobs has made to BMW ought to be a clue. It's not for everyone, but it is a vastly superior experience for those who are willing to sacrifice for it. On the other hand, Apple does need to make a profit. Are they making much of one? And it does seem that even in the last couple of years they have, fairly often, made statements about gaining marketshare or lamenting the fact that no matter what they do, they don't seem to gain much. Maybe I'm wrong about that and I'm confused by the daily statements of this nature by Mac fans. I know I'm going to start paying a lot more attention to whether Apple itself ever says anything like this.

But another possible flaw in this take is that Apple does answer to its shareholders. I'm not sure they are or would be satisfied with an elite, high-paying 5% marketshare. A minority, certainly, of say 10-20% might be acceptable, but I don't think Apple is making much of a profit right now (correct me if I'm wrong; I think most of their financial security comes from cash, savings, stocks, etc.) and Apple has been particularly cryptic about the profitablity of their Apple Stores.

But it's a good thought that likely has a lot of truth to it.

[voicegy]

A quote I picked up from the net:

"Analysts shouldn't view the stores solely as a profit/loss balance sheet, but instead see it as a marketing program to change public perception."

From the same article, something that I really took no notice of the many times I've been in our local Apple store, but now that I think about it, is pretty darn cool:

"Apple doesn't have those terrible security gates at the doorway. You know the ones that screech with malice when you walk out with a product for which they forgot to deactivate the theft-deterrent security tag. The Apple Store runs on the honor system, and as one leaves the store one has the sensation of being a person and not just another number in the consumer herd. It's a first-class experience from entrance to exit."

Not to mention the best public restrooms you'll ever find in a mall. (point those out to someone next time you bring a newbie to an Apple store..it always makes 'em gasp)

[Jackrabbit Slim]

if apple upgrades the iMac to a g5, wouldn't they sort of be forced to upgrade the powerbook to a g5 at the same time? If they didn't, they'd be forced to justify why their consumer-grade product has a better processor in it than their pro-grade product.
i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim
if apple upgrades the iMac to a g5, wouldn't they sort of be forced to upgrade the powerbook to a g5 at the same time? If they didn't, they'd be forced to justify why their consumer-grade product has a better processor in it than their pro-grade product.
i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim

Well, look at it this way. Sometimes a particular line is held back by circumstances beyond Apple's control. Apple has admitted that they are working on a G5 Powerbook, but it's going to take some time to engineer. So just as the PowerMac was less than it should have been for a while, the Powerbook may follow suit. I don't think they'll let the weaknesses of one line hold back others. That just doesn't make sense.

[finelinebob]

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim
... i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome...

... and there's a very good reason why the eMacs are that way. Heavy, cumbersome computers tend not to "grow legs". iMacs are too easy to carry off from the computer lab while no one is looking without some sort of security cabling. Heavy is cheaper and eMacs are still less cumbersome than any type of Mac tethered to a table, so those two terms are winners as far as a lot of educational administrators are concerned.

[CmdrLaForge]

Originally posted by machinehien

I seriously doubt the new cube would be inexpensive. In order to creat a $500-600 machine apple would have to cut so many corners and economize on so many components it would really do themselves a disservice. Plus companies like Dell and HP specialize in stripped down machines for bulk sale, machines sans sound cards or graphic cards, built from the cheapest components at the moment.

Cannot agree on that. I really depends on the components used. E.g. they can make an iMac and sell it for $800. If you take the monitor out - why not make a Cube with eMac Specs for $600 ?

[CmdrLaForge]

Originally posted by jimh123456
To me, it seems that Apple could make a new "ultra-affordable" (say, $400) Macintosh by requiring customers to "bring more to the table" themselves (power supply, case, memory, etc.). Think about this...

Take an iBook ....

Thoughts?...

Not going to happen.

If you look where Apples profits come from you will see that its mainly from selling hardware. What you are suggesting profit margins as well as absolute profit per unit sold are not high or zero.

Thats why Apple will not do that,

[GregA]

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Cannot agree on that. I really depends on the components used. E.g. they can make an iMac and sell it for $800. If you take the monitor out - why not make a Cube with eMac Specs for $600 ? With a SMALL amount of money Apple makes from software - for iTMS, .Mac, Panther, Quicktime Pro... if Apple can work out what they make on average from each low end (eMac) user they may decide that a low-profit entrance machine will make them money in other areas.

Other than that I think (unfortunately) they won't use cheap machines to make inroads - they'll have totally different ways. Come on... one cube, 2 users/displays (good for schools).

[macMaestro]

Originally posted by xDANx
i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.

I never said that the pro all-in-one was a hole. Simply that Apple doesn't make one. I entirely agree that such a product would be doomed to failure.

[jimh123456]

Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Not going to happen.

If you look where Apples profits come from you will see that its mainly from selling hardware. What you are suggesting profit margins as well as absolute profit per unit sold are not high or zero.

Thats why Apple will not do that,

I know Apple makes most of their profits from the hardware. That's why I was suggesting a physical PCI-slot CARD (hardware) that is installed in a PC as opposed to just an Intel port of OS X (which would just be pirated - hard to make a profit like that). Without the associated hardware, the software would be useless.

So if the card costs less than $300 (theoretically/hopefully) to manufacture, they could sell the entire package (card plus "OS X for Intel" CDs) for $400. Assuming it costs very little to manufacture the OS X CDs, printed manuals, etc., that's a 25% profit margin, which is not insignificant, and certainly not "zero".

[AirUncleP]

Originally posted by Jackrabbit Slim

i hope they release a cube and drop the emac. I hate those things. They are heavy, cumbersome, and I think apple really only needs one all-in-one solution.
Anyhow, I'm waiting to upgrade my ibook until they get a 15" g5 powerbook.

much love,

Jackrabbit Slim

Drop the eMac? Have you heard of the education market? The iMac in not even a consideration for k-12 schools. The eMac is perfect for schools. Period.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by MrMacman

Along with the fact that
Its impossible to have 0 Fans for the G5 Processor


Hogwash.

The current G5 requires sufficient cooling, that's it.

There's nothing precluding other means of cooling (metal or liquid conduction). There's nothing precluding a cooler G5, what with IBM running full-tilt at 65nm lines. There's nothing precluding running the G5 at a slower clock so it dissipates less heat.

In fact, the iMac would be a great machine to introduce the concept of variable-clock CPU's. When the CPU load is low, throttle the CPU back to 100MHz. The G5 would barely feel warm. When Photoshop is crunching through a filter, crank the clock, maybe even turn on a fan. But when it's sitting on the desk and you're not doing anything but wasting time at MacRumors, keep it quiet.

Apple's had similar technology since 1991 in their powerbooks, and Intel is doing it as of last year in their laptops, in increments, so increasing the number of increments and controlling it via the OS is a logical next step.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by xDANx
i'm not convinced that "pro all-in-one" is a big hole in apple's lineup. actually, i'm not even sure it's a hole at all...more like a chasm...like the one that the marketing department would fall into should it ever try to promote something like this.

Look at the nice picture he posted again, Danny boy. Look for the cubes. There they are. ;)

[Tim Flynn]

What's the problem with having a fan in the machine?
As long as its quiet, does it matter?
The iMac has a fan, I had never really heard it, but if you look close you can see it.
Out of ear, out of mind :D

[finelinebob]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
What's the problem with having a fan in the machine?
...
Out of ear, out of mind :D

Might have mentioned this before, but the silence of my friend's Cube is lost in the noise of her external Firewire HD and laser printer. Until peripheral manufacturers play along, maybe there's not a lot of difference between "quiet" and "silent".

Given the approach the new G5s take with their use of fans, I wonder (1) how few they could get away with in a Cube or other design that makes maximum use of conduction and "environmental" convection, and (2) since the user would probably be typing and mousing when the fan kicks in, what the dB output of the fan(s) would be compared to all the clatter you make when you type.

[udannlin]

I've always wanted a Cube but it was just once again ahead of its time. Look at all the shuttle craze in the PC world now. I think timing is much better now versus then.

[xDANx]

Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
Look at the nice picture he posted again, Danny boy. Look for the cubes. There they are. ;)

i'm lookin', i'm lookin'...

...and i see the cube sitting in high-end (and low-end) consumer headless. so far no problem. next we come to the hole in question...you know, that blank space in the chart...pro all-in-one. i think that there's nothing there for a good reason...because it would be a very bad idea.

[Dont Hurt Me]

yeah we dont need a pro all in one, but there is a gigantic enormous hole between imac g4 1.25 and powermac g5. all this talk of a cheap headless mac just makes me laugh, the original cube was like $1800 bucks starting, priced between the imac g3 and g4 pro tower. i would look for a price tag between $1300-2000 which again would place the cube between the g4 imac and g5 pro tower. if the cube returns it will be as the cube special edition or something.

[GregA]

Originally posted by jimh123456
I know Apple makes most of their profits from the hardware. That's why I was suggesting a physical PCI-slot CARD (hardware) that is installed in a PC as opposed to just an Intel port of OS X (which would just be pirated - hard to make a profit like that). Without the associated hardware, the software would be useless.

So if the card costs less than $300 (theoretically/hopefully) to manufacture, they could sell the entire package (card plus "OS X for Intel" CDs) for $400. Assuming it costs very little to manufacture the OS X CDs, printed manuals, etc., that's a 25% profit margin, which is not insignificant, and certainly not "zero". I don't think it would work, my experience with the Orange x86 card for the MacII was pretty dismal. On the other hand, I'm wondering why you'd pick a card anyway. You could do a small external box with Firewire 800 and everything else as you describe (and sell an optional PC firewire 800 card). It'd remove cooling problems etc too. But I think either solution would not really give a great Mac experience, and as such won't happen.

[finelinebob]

As said elsewhere, not gonna do it.

Jobs spoke recently (sorry, can't find any links) about how its technically feasible and maybe not even that much of an engineering task to accomplish, but as many have brought up in this thread Apple sells hardware ... the software is there to get you to buy the hardware.

That's why, as much as I complained at the time, killing off the Mac clones was a Good Thing. I used to feel the same way about MacOS X on Intel -- but after seeing just how hot Apple's hardware products have become over the last 4 years or so has convinced me on this point as well: No MacOS X for Intel is a Good Thing.

With Motorola rumbling about getting out of microprocessors, reaffirming Apple's commitment to IBM's development is critical. The Power970 is impressive enough that Micro$oft is looking at it as the basis of the next generation of the X-Box (called right now X-Box Next ... what else is Redmond going to steal from Cupertino? The character for the command key? No, wait, they've done that, too (http://office.microsoft.com/home/default.aspx)!! ... look at the logo).

IBM has come up with some incredible innovations in chip design and manufacturing that has brought the PowerPC line back to life. It also looks, from this article (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61118,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2), that they are looking to the future of chip manufacture more than Intel, who apparently can't be bothered with non-incremental approaches to a manufacturing technology that has maybe 20 years of life left before it is no longer viable.

[yamabushi]

A 2.0 GHz G5 Cube with a radeon 9600 or better would be great for LAN parties. Just stick a Cinema Display under your other arm and you're good to go.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by yamabushi
A 2.0 GHz G5 Cube with a radeon 9600 or better would be great for LAN parties. Just stick a Cinema Display under your other arm and you're good to go.

What? Do you think the G5 towers are that big for aesthetic reasons? It's not like there's tons of room for upgrading in them (2nd optical anyone?). All that room is for controlling, carefully controlling, airflow, lots of airflow, across their toasty processors. A cube with a 2Ghz G5 would float about 8" off the ground with the fan it would need to keep it cool.

Is Apple really ready to enter the "beautiful machine, stupid idea" arena again by making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE? Not that I doubt it, they're arrogant to a fault, but even children learn from their mistakes. An overpriced art-box isn't going to cut it. Can Apple rise to the challenge of making something smart and beautiful like the iPod, but in a computer form? The cube and iMac2 were big miscalculations. 3rd time, they're out...

[kenjah]

The imac at the January show will definitely
be a G5 at the same time the New Power Mac's
will go up to dual 2.5GHz and a single 2.7 GHz
processors. The Imac will be available in
1.6GHz, 1.8GHz 2GHz. The New imac will
look more like today's G5's with a square like
base but flat like two power books stacked
on top of each other. Same type of arm holding
the screen but a flat and wider arm. There will
be a New 20" flat screen for the highest end
model and 17" for all the lower end models.
All models will have Super Drives.

Also a special anniversary mac will look
an imac but a different color and a slightly different
shape and a 2.5 GHz G5. It will come with a
wireless keyboard and mouse. It will have a
detachable ipod built in. Pop in pop out upright
draw that pushes inside the base. And of course
all the other goodies the imac but a 17" flat display.

[voicegy]

Bold predictions there, kenjah...I like, I like.:)

Though you tease me with: "...special
anniversary mac will look an imac but a
different color and a slightly different
shape..."

Pray tell...more on the "shape".:)

[kenjah]

Originally posted by voicegy
Bold predictions there, kenjah...I like, I like.:)

Though you tease me with: "...special
anniversary mac will look an imac but a
different color and a slightly different
shape..."

Pray tell...more on the "shape".:)

It will be square with rounded
edges. It will look like
the Powerbook and the PowerMac G5
had a baby.

[jimh123456]

Originally posted by finelinebob
As said elsewhere, not gonna do it.

Jobs spoke recently (sorry, can't find any links) about how its technically feasible and maybe not even that much of an engineering task to accomplish, but as many have brought up in this thread Apple sells hardware ... the software is there to get you to buy the hardware.

That's why, as much as I complained at the time, killing off the Mac clones was a Good Thing. I used to feel the same way about MacOS X on Intel -- but after seeing just how hot Apple's hardware products have become over the last 4 years or so has convinced me on this point as well: No MacOS X for Intel is a Good Thing.

With Motorola rumbling about getting out of microprocessors, reaffirming Apple's commitment to IBM's development is critical. The Power970 is impressive enough that Micro$oft is looking at it as the basis of the next generation of the X-Box (called right now X-Box Next ... what else is Redmond going to steal from Cupertino? The character for the command key? No, wait, they've done that, too (http://office.microsoft.com/home/default.aspx)!! ... look at the logo).

IBM has come up with some incredible innovations in chip design and manufacturing that has brought the PowerPC line back to life. It also looks, from this article (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61118,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2), that they are looking to the future of chip manufacture more than Intel, who apparently can't be bothered with non-incremental approaches to a manufacturing technology that has maybe 20 years of life left before it is no longer viable.

My original concept of a Mac-on-a-card (for a PC) was to address the complaints of a PC-using friend of mine. He loves Mac OS X (the little he's seen of it), but he can't justify buying a Mac: the machine that he wants (headless/low-cost) doesn't exist in Apple's product line. The PowerMac and XServe are headless, yes, but outside the price range of someone accustomed to buying PC hardware. The only Mac (the eMac) that is in his price range includes a set of redundant, ancillary hardware (display, mediocre keyboard, nearly-unusable mouse) that he doesn't need and refuses to pay for, not to mention the inability to add/replace internal components (faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, you know the tune).

So my idea was to create a Mac that appealed to cost-conscious PC-users that didn't require them to clear room on their desks for yet another monitor/keyboard/mouse. Again, the add-in card would contain a PowerPC processor, so no Intel port of OS X would be required - just some supporting software for interfacing the card with the rest of the PC hardware. Apple would, as always, make their money on the sale of this card (again, hardware) - not the OS X software. I'm not sure why some people have thought that I meant that Apple should produce a port of OS X to Intel - this is absolutely not what I am saying.

Anyway, I don't hold out much hope that Apple will really do this, but I do feel that Apple desperately needs to produce a headless Mac in the magic sub-$1000 range (preferably well below the cost of an eMac). I wouldn't even mind if it had a G3 in it, just so long as Apple provides a viable alternative to the low-cost dreck found in the PC universe.

BTW, I understand the whole "superior user experience" argument that people use to justify the expense of a Mac, but the computer industry is not the auto industry, and comparisons with BMW, say, don't hold water. If you buy a BMW, you can still drive anywhere you want - every road will allow your car to travel upon it; you can get gas at the same place as those who drive Fords and Hondas; you don't have to learn how to drive again (same steering wheel, gas/brake pedals, etc); traffic lights/signs/laws still apply to you; and so on... The only significant difference between a Honda and a BMW is cosmetic.

This is not the case in the computer world: a Mac cannot run Windows software (without additional, expensive software, and even then, slowly and incompletely at best - good luck running any decent PC game in VirtualPC). Many file formats are incompatible. The Mac OS X programming API is completely different than the Windows API, making cross-platform software development extremely difficult. If Apple continues to lose market share, software developers will stop spending their valuable time supporting it (many already have), and the Mac universe will eventually become untenable.

Apple needs to produce some kind of ultra-low-cost Mac before it's too late.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Originally posted by xDANx
t...pro all-in-one. i think that there's nothing there for a good reason...because it would be a very bad idea.

Agreed - my point was that the cube isn't that hole in the chart, the poster had it properly placed in consumer and prosumer.

BTW, AppleInsider is carrying details on the 980 at 90 microns. I'll take a nickel from anybody who wants to bet that the iMac G5 won't have a 90nm G5 in it. ;) The 980 will be ready for a summer G6.

Word is IBM partnered in August with 2 fab producers who developed a fab that can run at 90nm, 65nm, and 45nm over time. They're installing it at Eask Fishkill.

We need a mole in there.

[jayscheuerle]

For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

[jncrow]

Very true need a lower end headless like stated earlier to encourage some of those fence sitting pc users to come over. Would be cheaper for them to be able to use there existing monitor. Could package it with basic low end keyboard and mouse and give option to upgrade.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?

Apple's product-line hole is in its lower end, not in the upper end.

The iMac is going to G5, and so should a cube. The G5 is the upper end now, but like the G3, it will become the standard across the entire product line.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The iMac is going to G5, and so should a cube. The G5 is the upper end now, but like the G3, it will become the standard across the entire product line.

A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

A G5 cube would not necessarily be a high-end computer. The G5 is a high end processor now, but it does not necessarily have to be so. Like the G3, it should spread across the entire product line.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
For all you people clamoring for a G5 cube over a lower priced G4 one– Why don't you just get a tower? Is it purely aesthetic?


I think the main advantage of the cube design is flexibility. The compact size would be useful for many people. You could put it on the corner of a small desk or even on a bookshelf. You have the advantage of a seperate display so this also gives you more flexibility in placement of the display as well as choice of display size.
You could even attach it to a standard TV (trading resolution for size and convenience) and use a wireless mouse and keyboard.

The unit also would be far more portable than any other consumer or pro desktop. This means you can have more power than a Powerbook with a larger display at the cost of a bit of bulk and weight and a constant power supply. That's why I said it would be great for LAN parties.

A fan that blows hot air up out of the top of the case would be very efficient. This would likely be adequate cooling when combined with a heat sink for a 90nm G5 without excessive noise. This also increases the number of possible locations you can put the unit. You could place the mac flush inside a countertop or desk. You could even mount it sideways inside a wall. How about a temporary or permanent mounting in your car for family road trips?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
How about a temporary or permanent mounting in your car for family road trips?

That reminds me. We need a power adapter that you can plug into a cigarette lighter.

[scat999999]

Originally posted by rastalin94
As far as I know Apple has never built a computer with the average business user in mind. If Apple is serious about getting into the corporate arena they need a machine that IT people can honestly recommend. This “Cube” item would be a good choice, but price is what is going to really matter. Does an average office worker using Microsoft Office, a web browser, and maybe a couple of other simple programs need a G5? It does not need to expandable because there is no reason to upgrade a computer. If the computer itself costs around $600 why pay a Tech $99/hour to upgrade the machine. Computers are throwaway in the main stream business world. If Apple is serious about getting into the business arena they need something equivalent to a Dell Dimension computer. Something designed to be used by an “average” office working, not a creative professional, which is inexpensive and easy to manage.

[cubist]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
A high-end cube shouldn't be made (again).

Won't sell (didn't sell). Bad business (but nice press the first time. Press isn't so generous on the same mistakes made twice).

The Cube didn't sell because it was priced too high. When the price dropped to $1295, they started selling well (that's when I bought mine) but the decision had already been made to axe it, I think.

They priced it as a shrunken tower, instead of as a headless iMac. Also, it had a G4 in it, and upgradable video. To do the Cube today, it has to be a G5; it should probably be priced around $995.

Switchers are not going to buy G4 desktops no matter how cheap you make them. They're just not performance-competitive. If the new Cube is a cheap headless G4, schools may buy them as replacement units, but I think sales will be disappointing.

[~Shard~]

I really want to buy an iMac and was pretty certain that a G5 iMac wouldn't be coming so soon. The G5 is still relatively new, and I thought Power users would complain if the consumer-end iMac received a G5 before the PowerBooks. If a simple speed bump was scheduled soon for the iMacs, I wouldn't care, but now with all this talk and people being so sure that a big change will be happening to the iMac, and only 2 months away, I'm not sure if I should buy the 1.25 G4 anymore!

I don't want to keep waiting and waiting of course, but 2 months seems like a short period of time to wait for such major upgrades. Of course, maybe they will just announce the new iMacs at MWSF, won't ship them for 2 more months, and then we're looking at spring anyway. I'm thinking my 1.25 G4 would still suit all my needs, but a G5 would be nice... ;)

Or, perhaps we will see no sign of G5 iMacs at all at MWSF. I think if anything is getting a G5 upgrade first it is the xServe, followed by speed bumps for the PowerMacs. Also, with LCDs due for updating soon, I question how many updates (especially G5 related) Apple will announce all at once in January. But I guess we'll have to see...

[Hattig]

i.e., people will start getting deliveries in February and March :)

I don't think that Apple will release any new G4 machines after this year.

Apple also has lots and lots of holes in its product lineup. This gives it the advantage of only having a few products to manage, which is less confusing, but I imagine sales are lost by not having specific products for some areas.

What I would like to see (and I'm trying to be perfectly reasonable here!) in January is:

PowerMac G5 speed bump, all Dual Processor. 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 based machines. Video card, etc, updates as necessary. The professional machines should all be dual processor to differentiate themselves from the new "Cube" machine ...

"Cube" G5 new product, all single processor. 1.6, 1.8. 2.0. Case in same style as PowerMac, but more compact (but not so compact as to require the use of higher cost components). 1 AGP 8x, 1 or 2 PCI, Firewire, USB2. 2 or 3 DIMM slots. Maybe similar to PC SFF systems, but with that Apple 'extra'. Product areas: Standard corporate desktop where a PowerMac G5 is too expensive. Home use where an iMac isn't suitable. Cost without display: under $1000 for the base config ($799 is a good price point).

iMac G5 revised product. Same basic form factor as current iMac. Totally integrated, not much expandability. 1.4, 1.6, 1.8. Product areas: Corporate front desk, and consumer. Low volume as this system isn't that popular. Cost: higher than Cube due to display and miniaturisation costs.

Laptops won't get updated until the middle of next year, so I won't mention them.

[primalman]

In respose to the above poster, I agree, except for a couple of things, and a couple of additions.

The iMac will have at least one more update as a G4, perhaps to 1.42/1.5. The iBook will remain a G4 for at least 18 months, more like 2 years. The eMac will be a G4 for that same time period.

There still is the possibility for a G4 based cheap headless Mac. I don't think the Cube G5 could be $799, maybe start at $1099 or so.

[Hattig]

Originally posted by primalman
There still is the possibility for a G4 based cheap headless Mac. I don't think the Cube G5 could be $799, maybe start at $1099 or so.
I read a long long time ago that IBM are charging less for the 970 than Motorola were for the 7455 G4. The 7457 might be cheaper however, and I have no idea as to the current prices ... but if this remained true, then there would be very little reason to keep on using the G4 as opposed to the G5 in a non-heat-constrained case :)

[primalman]

Originally posted by Hattig
I read a long long time ago that IBM are charging less for the 970 than Motorola were for the 7455 G4. The 7457 might be cheaper however, and I have no idea as to the current prices ... but if this remained true, then there would be very little reason to keep on using the G4 as opposed to the G5 in a non-heat-constrained case :)

But before Apple can charge less for the whole enchilada, they must amoritize the cost of the design of the systems, the controller [which was probably expensive to design and expensive now to make], interconnect, etc. before they can really offer it as low cost. it took the G4 more than two years before it made it into a consumer system, the iMac.

There are the real costs of the system.

2¢

[Awimoway]

I'm not sure Apple execs have any idea what affordable is, anway.

[Dont Hurt Me]

could this be it?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by primalman
it took the G4 more than two years before it made it into a consumer system, the iMac.

And it took the G3 about a year, and that was with a complete architecture change.

[cubist]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
could this be it?

If the optical is in the bottom, it doesn't need handles on the bottom, since the air will have to come from the side. Make the bottom flat.

I was thinking earlier today about the dichotomy at Apple between the AIO designs and the modular designs. It goes back to the Mac II. Jean-Louis Gassee was the champion of the modular Mac, and Jef Raskin the champion of the unopenable, unexpandable AIO. This dichotomy exists to this day, and there never have been crossover products: the AIOs never have slots (or at least not standard ones) and the modulars never include monitors. The G4 Cube came from the modular side - it was a repackaged Sawtooth.

The iMac is from the AIO side, however. Going from history, there will never be a headless iMac, nor will the iMac ever have a replaceable video card. If there is to be a new Cube, it will be a small PowerMac, as its predecessor was.

[supertex]

Here's my question, while I'm an uber-newbie here, and I don't know a whole lot about microprocessor manufacture and Apple's relationship with Motorola, why would Apple, if Motorola's inability to achieve with the G4 has been Apple's ball and chain for the last few years, and IBM is doing such a great job, why in the world would Apple introduce any truly new products with a G4 inside. I would think that Apple would want to move everything to a 64-bit processor as soon as possible so that their software offerings such as Mac OS X can start taking advantage of 64-bit architecture across the board. As Apple has historically been the first to do many things, I think the first company to shepherd the average user into the wonderful world of 64-bit processing would be another great feather in Apple's cap. Cut Motorola off and know that IBM is who butters your bread now is what I say. Allegedly the PowerPC derivative of the Power5 architecture could be in production units next year, so it seems Apple would start prepping for that now with G5's in iMacs and so on, and then use next year's chip in the pro line. What they call it is really irrelevant, whether it be G6 or maybe super G5 or even, a new naming scheme that designates pro processors from consumer processors. (would be my suggestion)

Anyway, doesn't matter, point is that keeping the G4 in machines seems like it would be prolonging the agony as I doubt Motorola is even capable of producing one that could be competitive in the market beyond say, Summer of next year.

[Awimoway]

I think Apple is stuck with the G4 a while longer because

1. Engineering the G5 chip into smaller machines is not easy because it requires a lot of cooling.

2. They can't bring the consumer models up to G5 until the pro models are already there. So a consumer Cube or iMac is not out of the question because the PowerMac already has the G5, but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by cubist
I was thinking earlier today about the dichotomy at Apple between the AIO designs and the modular designs. It goes back to the Mac II. Jean-Louis Gassee was the champion of the modular Mac, and Jef Raskin the champion of the unopenable, unexpandable AIO.

I wouldn't call the AIO's unopenable. The 5xx series machines (LC 520, Performa 550, ect) and the updated version of this case design, the 5xxx series, could be opened in as much as a drawer could be pulled out, giving one access to the motherboard. Full openability would have been a safety hazard with the monitor tube built into the chassis.

This dichotomy exists to this day, and there never have been crossover products: the AIOs never have slots (or at least not standard ones)

While the AIO's didn't have industry standard slots, the LC PDS slot appeared on many different models over the years, and third party developers created cards for them, making them rather standard on consumer AIO models.

and the modulars never include monitors.

The PowerMac 6200 was a 5200 in a Quadra 630-style case. The 6200 was sold only in Europe, but was released in the US as the Performas 6200CD, 6205CD, 6210CD, 6214CD, 6216CD, 6218CD, 6220CD, and 6230CD, each bundled with a 15" monitor, and a different hard drive.

source: Apple-History.com

The G4 Cube came from the modular side - it was a repackaged Sawtooth.

Considering the Cube...

1) Used different sized graphics cards, on a
2) complete different motherboard that
3) had a power supply separate from the case which had
4) no similarities to the B&W G3/G4 tower case and
5) used slot loadng optical drives instead of standard tray-loaders and was
6) not really designed to be expandible, unlike the Sawtooth,

I think calling the Cube a repackaged Sawtooth is a gross oversimplification. :rolleyes: The only similarities are that they both had G4 processers (perhaps resulting in similar performance figures) and both used AGP busses for graphics cards.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I think Apple is stuck with the G4 a while longer because

1. Engineering the G5 chip into smaller machines is not easy because it requires a lot of cooling.

2. They can't bring the consumer models up to G5 until the pro models are already there. So a consumer Cube or iMac is not out of the question because the PowerMac already has the G5, but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

But they don't have to. I can see iMac (and Cube) going G5 at MWSF, PowerBook in the summer, iBook in time for Christmas.

[supertex]

Originally posted by Awimoway
...but the notebooks can't make the jump until the engineering is there. The iBook certainly won't go G5 until well after the PowerBook has. That could easily keep G4s in new Macs well into 2005 if not 2006.

In product revisions maybe, but this thread is about a new product offering and/or redesign of the iMac. Just doesn't make sense to me to engineer new enclosures for an old processor. AND, if the 90nm G5 is as much cooler as they claim it is, it wouldn't be all that hard to slip it into an iBook, keep clock speeds down, cripple the performance a little via RAM and cache limitations, and voila! a consumer portable with a G5. Besides, the PowerPC derivative of the Power5 would seem to me to be another generation of processor, and thereby make the G5 the consumer chip and whatever they call the next one the pro chip, right? Then again, I have a bad habit of being wrong about such things, and if that's the case, I imagine I'll be quickly corrected, which is fine by me. :D

P.S. - I like Phil's Timetable, quick upgrades, but not so quick as to tick off those who are currently purchasing these machines.

[Awimoway]

To reply to both Phil and Supertex at the same time...

I certainly hope you're right, but experience has taught me that even Apple doesn't move as fast as they would like, sometimes, on engineering issues. Don't get me wrong, they're still nearly always ahead of the rest of the pack. But not always. The very fact that we are still saddled with the G4 is evidence of that.

But we who populate the rumor sites wouldn't be here if we weren't naturally over-optimistic, would we? ;)

[supertex]

But really, it seems that the problem has been with Motorola and not with Apple. Now that Apple seems to have solved their chip production woes with the help of IBM, upgrades should come faster, more like the transition to the G3 (if I'm correct) than from the G4 to the G5.

[Awimoway]

Well... yes and no. Recent stories here at MacRumors indicate that Apple is sending out warning flags that putting a G5 in Powerbooks is proving troublesome and is going to take a while. Maybe it's a bluff. Maybe they'll blow us away as early as this January at MWSF. But I doubt it.

[the future]

Well, if I was Apple and wanted to sell some G4 Powerbooks, I certainly would hint at G5 Powerbooks being far from near, even if they are not. Which doesn't mean that they are. ;)

[AnotherMortal]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I think Apple is stuck with the G4 a while longer because

1. Engineering the G5 chip into smaller machines is not easy because it requires a lot of cooling.


Did anyone read the posts from Hector, plinkoman and myself regarding the heat fallacy ?

*Please* read the links from arstechnica.com about the PowerPC 970 processor which is (as most well know) the Apple G5 processor.

A PowerPC 970 could be manufactured at 1.4GHz, or 1 GHz if IBM and Apple so desired, and place them in smaller enclosures if Apple so desired.


http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html

[speculatrix]

I'm fairly confident we'll see a landmark product family announcement at the beginning of 2004 to commemerate 20 years of the Macintosh platform.

I think it could take the form of something like a cube/dome/cylinder iMac type of computer with a detachable/dockable touch sensitive LCD which could be wirelessly connected to the computer. So it could function as an all-in-one desktop computer or as an ultra thin tablet mac.

Nah... that sucks. Oh well, I'm glad Steve and Jono seem to have a clue, 'cos I'm clueless...

[jncrow]

I like the thoughts of a post in a different thread can't remember which that suggested a intigrated phone/ichat av wireless system based off the airport extreme base station. Sounds like a killer product to me...

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by jncrow
I like the thoughts of a post in a different thread can't remember which that suggested a intigrated phone/ichat av wireless system based off the airport extreme base station. Sounds like a killer product to me...

Voice-over-WiFi is already being done. Plus, because of the bandwidth requirements, it needs to have a network all it's own so 802.11a has been recognized as a better choice for it.

[RAMd®d]

The iMac never was a Cube, and was not a replacement for it.

The Cube allowed you to upgrade the video card and hard drive (without voiding the warranty).

The Cube never sucked, but it was priced too high and poorly marketed. Stevie admitted as much.

Bring out an iMac with a Cube shaped base, and it's still an iMac.

Give me the original form factor. Better yet, make it smaller, or make more room for standard video cards by using an 80G 2.5" HD. Or even a 60G, 7200rpm 2.5" HD.

This would keep the Cube's small size, allow for standard AGP video cards, and let us select our own display!

Add a couple of ultra quiet, thormostatically contolled fans and the Cube II lives!

I don't want that PowerLogix BLOCK sitting on my desk. I don't want a Borg Wannabe. I just want the Cube back, new and improved.

I don't want an entertainment center, phone, make up mirror, or George Forman grill. Just the Cube- simple, elegant, compact, with modern if not bleeding edge performance.

Repeat after me- a cube shaped iMac is not a Cube!

[spencecb]

I don't know if anyone has thought of this yet...but what about the G5 Cube, offering only single processors, once the PowerMac line moves to all dual processors. Then that gives the Pro line more flexibility...letting people have their headless Mac that they are asking for, while the iMac remains with the G4 as an AIO. Just a thought that I had while I was reading some posts.

[Spagolli94]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I need to upgrade my beige box, but I sure as heck don't need a G5 or even a 1.25 G4. I don't want a built in monitor and I'm not keen on spending $600 for a 3 year old machine on ebay.

The only people who are against a competitively priced Mac are the elitists who are into the Mac "lifestyle as the BMW of computers" thing. Get over it!!

You have describes a person that Apple is not going after. Basically, you don't want to buy used, but are trying your best to buy new, at used prices. There are plenty of cheap comuters out there without monitores... They are called PCs.

Apple survives for one reason... because it has a cult like following. Why? Because it doesn't conform to the norm. It insists on make products that are a cut above the rest, even if this means a bit different to some. It may not appeal to the masses, but it appeals to who it needs to.

[Spagolli94]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
The cube and iMac2 were big miscalculations. 3rd time, they're out...

What do you have against the iMac2?