$599 eMac by 2005?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by JediL1, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. JediL1 macrumors member

    JediL1

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    #1
    Ok, we know that Microsoft is using PPC 970s for Xbox2 due for release in 2005. No matter what, I can't see them wanting to price it any higher than $299.

    Seeing as how IBM is going to be seriously ramping up production (i.e lowering cost of each chip) for the millions of Xbox2s with graphics cards and stuff inside selling for $299, doesn't it seem possible that Apple could use the low cost G5s to finally compete in the low end desktop market? for example, a $599 eMac?

    If Apple is the BMW or Mercedes of computers, wouldn't a $599 eMac work the same way that the BMW 3-series or C-class Mercedes? For example, young professionals that buy low-end BMWs and Mercedes and eventually work up to the flagship models.
     
  2. mklos macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #2
    I don't think you will see a G5 in an eMac for quite some time. The eMac is a low end consumer machine that doesn't need the power of a G5. That is what the iMac is for. As for a $599 G4 eMac, well that might be possible. You may see Apple use this new G3 processor IBM has developed which is capable of running at higher clock rates and has support for a 400 MHz FSB. It also has more legs in it than the G4. Apple said not too long ago that they weren't interested in making a $499 Mac. While that would compete with the Gateway's and the Dells they wouldn't make hardly any money on it if at all. They even said that Gateway and Dell aren't making any money off their $499 PCs. It would be kinda neat to see a $599 Mac though, but I'm sure they will stick with a $699 or $799 eMac for now.
     
  3. dukemeiser macrumors 6502a

    dukemeiser

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Iowa
    #3
    If Apple was smart, they'd sell a $599 headless eMac right now or $699. I'd buy one today.
     
  4. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #4
    Personally, I don't see IBM ever making this chip for sale. The problem is, besides Apple, who would have interest in using this chip? IBM certainly won't use it themselves since it's not really a server/workstation chip. IBM isn't in the networking chip business. There's just not enough volume there for IBM to justify the costs of producing this chip.

    Apple will continue to use Motorola G4's until they are ready to put G5s in all of the lines. Probably mid-late 2005.

    Just my opinion.
     
  5. flyfish29 macrumors 68020

    flyfish29

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    New HAMpshire
    #5
    I don't think these chips will be so cheap. Remember, X-boxes sell for much cheaper than they cost to produce. I think the last x-box cost $500 to produce and they sold for $299 to begin with M$ only getting $150 from each sale. So in other words, they were taking $350 hits from each sale...of course they saw this as good as it was the only way they can compete with PS2 right now.

    I was also reading the other day http://www.theinquirer.net/?page=11 that they expect the new x-box to not include a hard drive (just like PS2's) so that will allow M$ to put in the G5 chip and produce a cheaper machine. They are still going to price the x -box so it will compete and it will most likely still cost them more to make it than they will get from the selling price.
     
  6. mklos macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #6
    Actually I think this new G3 chip is already being used. I don't think they're being used in computers, but rather other electronic devices.

    IBM wouldn't spend Billions of dollars developing a processor if they weren't going to spend it. When the G5 was being developed I believe Apple was their only customer at the time.
     
  7. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #7
    there's a reason apple hasn't offered anything but all-in-one computers at consumer level for quite some time. they are not in the commodity computer market. about the only thing $599 headless Mac will do is dilute their profit margin - $599 headless Mac will sell well, but at the expense of lost sale of other Macs.

    they are being smart.

    just because they don't cater to the "cheapest" section of the computer market doesn't make apple "stupid."
     
  8. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #8
    exactly. do you see those commodity $499 PCs carrying Pentium 4's? didn't think so.

    if you need the power of G5, then you are not in the target market of eMacs. you need something more powerful and are just being cheap. :D
     
  9. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #9
    eMacs have almost the same processor speeds as iMacs, just without the flat screen, if you haven't noticed...

    If I see a single processor eMac by this summer, it's MINE.

    BTW...$499 PC's carry Pentium 4's? I can find you one. It probably won't have much in the way of graphics card though- but then again, the eMac has what, a geforce 2, last I checked?

    The G3 is being used in the GameCube, so you know- G5 will be in the XBox 2.
     
  10. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #10
    I haven't heard of any devices using IBM G3+Altivec chips, but if you say so. I have no evidence to prove you wrong.

    As for developing the G5 with only one customer. IBM developed the G5 with Apple as the main customer, but they knew that the G5 would go into other IBM products as well. The G5 could be used in IBM workstations and servers and that would help offset the development costs. Plus, they may have had an idea that the G5 (or it's derivatives) may be used in game boxes (Nintendo's Game Cube already uses an IBM PowerPC).

    I still stick by my opinion that Apple won't be using the G3+Altivec chips in any Mac product.
     
  11. dukemeiser macrumors 6502a

    dukemeiser

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Iowa
    #11
    But think of how many sales they lose by not offering a low end version. I'm not going to buy an eMac, or a PowerMac. But if they offered a headless eMac I would buy one today. People who want a Mac will still buy one, but those who don't have the cash will probably go Windows instead. If Apple wants a bigger share of the market, they need to cater to those who are money conscious.
     
  12. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #12
    again, this goes with apple not being interested in entering a commodity market. you are absolutely right, people who aren't willing to pay for the cheapest mac currently offered will go to windows. apple knows that and that's fine with apple.

    expanding marketshare for the sake of expanding is not a very good business decision.

    similar reason high end car companies don't make cheap cars. BMW can certainly expand its marketshare by offering a sub $15,000 cars - but it's not interested in doing that for several reasons. 1) doing so dilutes their brand (in their mind) and 2) they would be entering a market where there's a constant price undercutting - unless you sell a lot of units, it will just become a money drain because margin is razor thin.
     
  13. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #13
    Any $499 PC will have Intel Integrated "Extreme" Graphics. Blech. ANd yes, there are $499 PIV PCs.
    The eMac has a 32 MB Radeon 7500 GFx card...blows the Intel "solution" out of the water.
     
  14. mklos macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #14
    PC companies like Dell, Gateway, Compuke, etc... are selling $499 PCs with Pentium 4's in them, but they aren't making any money off them. I'm willing to bet the P4 processor costs about half of the $499. Then you have to add in all the other parts, the wonderful Windoze XP OS, plus any other software it came with (which probably isn't much at all). That adds up to over $499. Then you have to pay someone to assemble the machine. It just doesn't add up. Apple wouldn't be making any money off a $599 eMac. They just cost too much for whats involved in creating a computer.
     
  15. mklos macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #15
    Remember what the eMac was originally made for? It was made for the educational market. Educators wanted a rugged, cheap computer with a G4 processor and a 17" CRT in an AIO design. So Apple design this for educators. The eMac should stay the way it is. Schools aren't in interested in buying something that takes up a large amount of space with towers and displays. The eMacs main target is schools/colleges.

    If you want a tower then thats why I say Apple should make a headless iMac. I'm sure you would spend the extra $100 or $200 to get a headless iMac. If not then I guess you really don't want a headless computer.
     
  16. TyleRomeo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #16
    young proffesionals with 3 series wouldn't be buying a low end $599 computer. I hate the BMW to mac comparison. Besides the small market share they have very little in common. You buy a freaking $30,000 3 series and you get a tape player. your 5 series has a nice cd-player located in the trunk. fantastic. Stick with apple but forget about BMWs.

    compare an ACURA TL vs. 3 series BMW. and you have a far better car.

    Tyler
     
  17. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    The old car analogy is a poor one in my opinion. Besides, BMW, Mercedes and other luxury car makers are offering entry level models at prices never before seen in their line. You can bet they are not selling these at a loss. BMW offers a 325 at $28K; Mercedes offers C class cars starting under $30K. A few years ago, neither offered a car under $40K. That's a 25% difference in price.

    Apple needs to be more competitive or their market share erosion will continue. It's bad enough a typical consumer can't see a Mac where they go to buy a PC. I'm not advocating they enter the commodity, sell at next to no profit market but look at their line. It is just not competitive with Wintel offerings. The G4 is on social security with a bus that my grandmother can outrun. Apple's head up its ass marketing underclocks these machine to protect their other aging, over priced offering called the iMac.

    Can't make the iMac more powerful, we have to protect the PB. Like those markets overlap. Oh wait, let's slap a 20" LCD on it and we've just reinvigorated our line. Now we can finally silence all those screaming for a 20" LCD botox solution on the sagging G4 face.

    Why won't Apple make a headless computer? While their LCD iMacs are beautiful (I'd snap up a G5 model in a heartbeat), people don't want to buy such an expensive PC and not be able to use the monitor later. Those of us who post here are not typical of the market at large.

    Apple needs to build the best damn computers they can in boxes of their matrix and let the market decide. Their strategy of trying to protect higher end, higher margin lines is a dismal failure.
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    hm because of that mercedes offeres their A-klasse /which starts at 15.700 euro without taxes)
    audi A2 at the same price range
    bmw 1series is in development and should be released this year..... as a oppenent for the VW golf, audi a3

    all those are the cheapest(most affordable would be more exact) bmws,audis,mercedes ever made ...all those come from racing & sport luxery cars not like VW or ford with massproduction

    the opponent of BMW isnt any japanese manufacturer they are competing with mercedes since 70 years about the car with the highest prestige

    sure some japanese cars will offer more for less but they cant offer prestige,resell value and a own service car fleet.(if you have a problem with your mercedes during traveling on the autobahn you can call the mercedes-club hotline and a mercedes-only-service car will arrive with laptop for error finding,spare parts etc.)
    you pay premium and receive premium service
    audi offers 12 years warrenty against rust... standard

    my father drives a C-klasse since 5 years the car is now 11 years old and it drives like new ...my grandfather has more than 30 year old E-klasse with hardly any rust and drives like on its first day ..not a single problem with them ever

    stop comparing bmw,mercedes and apple
    apple has good nearly error free products but they cant compete with 1 year warrenty and their service (which is very good nonetheless)
    bmw is selling 10 times more cars in the US than apple sells in germany,and they have a 10% marketshare just like mercedes
    /offtopicrantoffer
     
  19. varmit macrumors 68000

    varmit

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    #19
    beef up the g3

    If IBM could beef up the G3 to preform better than the G4, we would be see that 599 eMac. And you are right, 3 chips are going in the xbox for 299, a eMac with the 1.6Ghz should be going for 599, and would be perfect, people would get the power they need, and we would have more switchers. Just that you need time to have the PB to have the G5s first to get that market so this puts the eMacs back a bit.
     
  20. dudeami macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    I normally only respond to technical questions on these forums. But the car analogy is so horrible, that I felt compelled to try to stop this non-sense.

    To try to accomplish that goal, I'm going to have to continue to use the car anaology, but truely expand on the analogy.

    First besides the freeware community most companies are driven buy profits. Agree?

    Performance and maintenance -- If I buy a 3 series BMW ($35,000 by the time you get out of the lot) instead of a $24,000 car I should expect several things for the price. It should out-perform the less expensive car. This is true, agreed?It should require less maintenance. In general true, they have a much better mainenance record.
    If I buy a low-end Mac like the eMac and pay more for it then a PC with a monitor. It does not out-perform the cheaper PC, but does have a better maintenance record. So here you can't really compare cars and computers.

    Infrastructure -- Now lets add some other analogies, BMW and cheaper cars can use the same infrastructer right, they can both drive on the same roads. Fine PC's and Mac' can both use ethernet, TCP/IP, modems etc. This analogy holds true.

    Parts -- Some parts for BMW and cheaper cars are both the same price, for example tires. Some parts are more expensive on the BMW. Same is true on the computers, I can buy a 120 GB ATA 100 drive from Western Digital and put it in either a Mac or a PC same price. If I want an ATI 9800 w/ 128MB RAM it is more expensive on the Mac. Supply and demand. Analogy works here.

    Software -----

    Here I will use Gas as the software for cars. Seems reasonable.

    If I am in a BMW or a cheaper car, I can pull into any gas station and browse for gas. They won't close the entrance because they see me in a BMW. If I am on a computer browsing the internet for software, I can not get in everywhere with a Mac. So here you can't really compare cars and computers.

    If I pull into a gas station in either car, I have the same choices for what gas I can put into my car. If I walk into a store I have a very limited selection of software to choose from for the Mac compared to the PC. Analogy does not work.

    If I am in a BMW or a Cheaper car, and I fill the tank with 93 octane gas. The BMW will outperform the cheaper car using that same gas. If I load the same game on a Mac and a cheaper PC, the cheaper product will run that software better. Look at the game specs. I see all sorts of games that for example require an 800MHz G4 or better but will run on a 400 MHz pentium. Analogy doesn't work.

    If I pull into a gas station with a BMW, they don't raise the price of gas just because of my car. This happens with software for the Mac, again just look at the price of games. Analogy doesn't hold true.

    If a buy gas in a BMW I can expect it to be the same gas as if I bought it for a cheaper car. This is not true for the computers. Most Mac software is lacking functionality when compared to the same product on the PC.

    The Car and Computer analogy just does not hold true.

    Apple needs to increase its market share. If not more and more "gas stations" will close there doors. Apple can not make all of the gas themselves, and without gas being available would you buy a car that requires gas to run?
     

Share This Page