Why Have No PC Makers Copied The iMac?

[phairphan]

I understand and agree that corporate America doesn't care about aesthetics like we Mac users do. As much as I would like to walk into an average company and see a sea of iMac-filled cubicles, I realize this will not happen for many reasons (cost, upgradibility, compatibility, etc.) The Profile 6, however, has a face only a mother could love. It seems to miss completely one of the key selling points of an all-in-one: a small footprint. Elephants have smaller footprints than that monstrosity. It looks like the Gateway designers got together and pondered, "What would we get if we took an Optiplex mid-tower, glued an LCD to the side of it, and then mounted the whole thing in a block of frozen carbonite?" Answer: the Profile 6.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If Apple wants to increase their market share, they need to get into corporate America, the Government and DoD. Asthetics will not get you far. Other considerations are more important. My bet is that until Apple chooses to make some designs specifically for corporate America their market share will not increase significantly.

First, please, let's not confuse aesthetics with good design. These are very different concepts.

Second, Apple can grow their market share quite a lot without any significant penetration into government and corporations. The fastest growing segments of employment in the U.S. are self-employment and small business. The Mac appeals to people who don't have an IT department to support them, and who also don't have IT departments telling them what they can buy.

 

[sushi]

First, please, let's not confuse aesthetics with good design. These are very different concepts.

Okay.

So the current iMac fails on some very important points of good design such as: HD, video card, optical drive and CPU upgradability.

Second, Apple can grow their market share quite a lot without any significant penetration into government and corporations.

Completely disagree.

Government, DoD and Fortune 500 purchases drive the train. Life cycle purchases by government and DoD creates a constant turnover of computer equipment whether they need it or not. Been there done that got the T-Shirt many times already! Your tax dollars at work.

The fastest growing segments of employment in the U.S. are self-employment and small business. The Mac appeals to people who don't have an IT department to support them, and who also don't have IT departments telling them what they can buy.

This helps but pales in comparison to the big three mentioned above.

 

[sushi]

As much as I would like to walk into an average company and see a sea of iMac-filled cubicles, I realize this will not happen for many reasons (cost, upgradibility, compatibility, etc.)

Me too!

After working for many years in the government/DoD, I am tired of working with Winders!

Here is what I see that would make a big difference:

- A version of the iMac that does not focus on the creative side of things such as the iLife suite and other related features.

- 100% compatible Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and PowerPoint as a minimum) suite for Mac and PC with interchangeable licenses.

- Ability to easily open up the iMac to change/swap out internal components such as the HD, optical drive, etc.

- Exchange back office compatibility with Entourage.

Believe me when I say I would love to see iMacs in all offices. Here's hoping to see a change in this direction.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So the current iMac fails on some very important points of good design such as: HD, video card, optical drive and CPU upgradability.

I believe I addressed this issue above. If upgradability is important to you, then the iMac is not your computer. Buying an iMac and then complaining about its limited ability to accept upgrades makes as much sense as buying a Honda Civic and complaining that it doesn't seat eight adults.

Completely disagree.

Government, DoD and Fortune 500 purchases drive the train. Life cycle purchases by government and DoD creates a constant turnover of computer equipment whether they need it or not. Been there done that got the T-Shirt many times already! Your tax dollars at work.

They drive the government, Fortune 500 and DoD train. But they are not the only train on the tracks.

This helps but pales in comparison to the big three mentioned above.

Perhaps, but if the question is whether Apple can significantly grow the Mac's market share without them, then the answer is still yes.

 

[SeVeN]

i think its ugly.


http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/22/sonys-imac-like-vaio-vgc-ls1-announced-reviewed/

 

[Mr. MacBook]

haha kill yourself that little all-in-one optiplex

the Vaio is nice, but too copy-ish

I remember eMachines copied the eMac and they lost 100k cash from apple's lawsuits

 

[Xeem]

Gateway still offer the Profile 6 - http://www.gateway.com/programs/profile6/
If that link ends up no longer available, try the CNET review http://reviews.cnet.com/Gateway_Profile_6SB/4505-3118_7-31814646.html?tag=pdtl-list

I just recently saw one of these at my friend's computer repair shop, and they are even uglier in person. After viewing this thing, even my anti-Mac friends gained a little respect for the iMac.

 

[TheManOfSilver]

I think it's only a matter of time before people start trying to duplicate Apple's success. Check out this upcoming model.

 

[Naimfan]

I think the upgradability argument with respect to the iMac not achieving better market share in corporations etc is specious. I've worked in enormous corporations and tiny ones, and I have never seen a big corporation "upgrade" a computer's CPU, HD, graphics card, etc. Rather, what they do is to have required specifications and then replace them when the lease on the machine runs out.

I think there are two related reasons. The first is cost--doesn't take a genius to figure that out! The second is the integrated display. I've seen lots of corporations replace the computer but not the display. The iMac is thus not terribly practical for companies that do that. I think with the switch to Intel Apple has a real opportunity to agressively enter the corporate and government markets, but they need a computer to do it with. That is, in my opinion, the best reason for Apple to produce the so-called "headless" iMac, or a mid-range Mac desktop sans display.

Best,

Bob

 

[szsiddiq]

i didnt get a chance to read through everything, but wanted to drop in my 2 cents:
basically, those who discussed the increased cost to manufacturers are probably right. mainly cuz PC manufacturers don't have to try so hard to sell their computers. for most of them, sony, hp, etc, its not their primary business, so they don't care to grab too much market. other companies, like dell, will (for the time being) sell no matter what they make. for apple tho, design is so critical in terms of sales, but also in terms of philosophy. since they make the software and integrate the hardware, they have the freedom (and responsibility) to make the whole experience flow and "match".

that said, one of the few companies that puts great emphasis on design aside from Apple is Sony. They've got problems, but they still shine in some areas (Vaio notebooks, especially the high end ones. Man, no one can beat an Xbrite screen!)

 

[Deenoe]

Personally, I like the Gateway Profile series.

One area that the Gateway Profile 6 series is much better than the iMac, is access to the innards.

Bof, it's not bad. Just to point out, most photo development shops (like Japan Camera, Black's, or pharmacies) use this PC for their "do-it-yourself, select your pictures from your memory card" booths.

Although, after having an eMachines, I will never buy an eMachines or a Gateway.

 

[iW00t]

Who do those PC makers intend to target an iMac-like PC towards?

Corporations?

No company will buy a computer their own people can't crack open, and speaking of which we all know how good Apple's support for the Enterprise is (what is Enterprise?)

 

[sushi]

I've worked in enormous corporations and tiny ones, and I have never seen a big corporation "upgrade" a computer's CPU, HD, graphics card, etc. Rather, what they do is to have required specifications and then replace them when the lease on the machine runs out.

Unfortunately, many organizations want the flexibility to upgrade their computer equipment even though most times they just replace with newer systems.

The government and DoD are on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.

One factor that DoD prefers is the ability to replace HDs, either due to failure or for users needing more space. If the iMac has user upgradable HDs, that would be a nice feature.

HD and RAM upgrades are key.

 

[BenRoethig]

The 24" iMac I purchased a few weeks ago is one of the most elegant examples of electronic hardware I've ever used. When you think about it, though, what Apple did with the iMacs was to incorporate a powerful laptop system into the back of a very sharp and bright monitor. I don't know if Apple was able to patent this concept or not, but I doubt it. It surprises me that Dell, HP or one of the other PC makers hasn't esentially copied the iMac with a Windows OS. All of them have access to laptop motherboards and monitors. It would take some retooling to incorporate the two devices together, but no real novel engineering.

Who knows, maybe they've done prototypes and figured they can't produce a product at a price point they think will work.

MIKE

To be perfectly honest, the all in one market isn't all that large and most of those users are firmly in Apple's hands. Many have tried to make one, but the traditional PC crowd won't buy them.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Because it's very hard to manufacture and design such a product, they spent 4 years designing the imac G5, it's very, very hard to cram all those parts into such a small space, and other manufacturers just can't be bothered, i have seen a few that try to get the all-in-one factor but there about 3 X as thick as the imac, plus apple spends a lot more on the case than every other PC manufacturer

Which is, to me, why the iMac G5 design is no good. They've crammed to much into to small a space, which is just bad design, imo. They chose form over function and it's hurt that machine in many ways. I think the iMac G4 was a cool looking little machine, and was functional above all. Definitely the best AIO, imo.

Has Apple ever done a "clear case" version of the iMac to show how all the pieces fit together?

No, and i don't think they ever will, personally i think products like that look untidy, but others like them

Maybe it was me, but I read that question as being more like a short run of clear cased iMacs for trade shows/Apple store displays to show off the "precision engineering".

I don't remember the model name, but Gateway had an LCD with notebook behind similar to the current iMacs well before Apple ever did one. I never liked it much because the performance was not very good (comparable to a notebook of that age, which is to say s-l-o-w). It was also smaller than the current iMac, but the performance of notebooks at the time was I believe what killed it.

They've got a few of those as my local library. Hideous things. What's wrong with just having your computer be separate from your monitor? If you want an AIO buy a laptop. :/

 

[szsiddiq]

They've crammed to much into to small a space, which is just bad design, imo. They chose form over function and it's hurt that machine in many ways...

How has it hurt the machine?
Part of the machines function is to allow for an easy no hassle workspace. The clutter that the current line of iMacs clears up is a huge functional selling point. I loved the way the iMac G4's looked, more than i like the current line. But, thats purely a matter of taste (form). In terms of function, the only upper hand the G4's had was their flexibly reoriented display.

...What's wrong with just having your computer be separate from your monitor? If you want an AIO buy a laptop. :/

Like i said before, I know PLENTY of people, from professionals to grandmas, who love the all in one design not only because it looks nice, but because it takes up much less space. In small kitchens, cramped bedrooms or crowded small businesses, this is actually a big deal.

 

[Cybergypsy]

Let's not forget about HP's new flagship!

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/computers/desktops/IQ770_series/rts/4/computer_store/RN635AA%2523ABA

I have that one and let me tell you, It a pleasure to use and has soo many more toys then my 24: imac did, I will go back tto a mac...howevermy sig says it all

 

[szsiddiq]

I have that one and let me tell you, It a pleasure to use and has soo many more toys then my 24: imac did, I will go back tto a mac...howevermy sig says it all

kinda what im going for with my PowerTV

 

[a456]

I think it's only a matter of time before people start trying to duplicate Apple's success. Check out this upcoming model.

If that's a webcam on top of the screen it looks fragile. This is exactly the problem with most PCs - things just look stuck on, clunky and out of place.

 

[mrgreen4242]

How has it hurt the machine?
Part of the machines function is to allow for an easy no hassle workspace. The clutter that the current line of iMacs clears up is a huge functional selling point. I loved the way the iMac G4's looked, more than i like the current line. But, thats purely a matter of taste (form). In terms of function, the only upper hand the G4's had was their flexibly reoriented display.

Like i said before, I know PLENTY of people, from professionals to grandmas, who love the all in one design not only because it looks nice, but because it takes up much less space. In small kitchens, cramped bedrooms or crowded small businesses, this is actually a big deal.

It's hurt it in many, many ways, imo. First, it's limited what hardware they can put in there. Back in the G5 days, there was a long delay getting speed bumps as they had to wait for a lower power consumption/lower heat chip. Now they are stuck using laptop components, which make the machine slower and more expensive than it could be. The optical drives are slow, due either to the orientation they are mounted at or the limitations of the type of drive they use, or both. The minimal space for heat dispersion caused lots and lots of trouble for the iMac G5s, and it's a small problem for the current line up.

There's almost no overall space usage difference between an LCD+mini and an iMac... in fact, the mini lets you use space more efficiently because you can chose to use a smaller LCD if you really want to. You can mount the computer somewhere out of the way, if you want. If the best reason we can come up with for having the ENTIRE MIDRANGE Mac lineup be AIO is so people can put it in their kitchen... well, there's a problem.

I know lots and lots of people who don't like the AIO design for a number of reasons (look at the number of people on this board who talk about this every day). Both pros, grandmas, and little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri (ok, not really the last ones)... does that mean that it's not a great answer for everyone? No, of course not! There should be CHOICE.

The iMac G4 had more going for it than the positionable display (which was a really nice feature). It had a system housing that could accommodate a proper optical drive, could be redesigned without it mattering what LCD they tacked onto it, etc. The iMac G5 is just a lousy case of choosing form over function, and the product reflects that, imo.

 

[szsiddiq]

No, of course not! There should be CHOICE.

Thats one point i COMPLETELY agree with you on. It'd be nice if the Mini's got a bump in specs in terms of processors and graphics. Unlike companies like Dell, who have a hoard of various lines to suit all most every possible customer need, it seems Apple has broken down their customers with 4-5 well defined requirements. The only major group ive seen left out is the group u describe, who want the power of the iMac, in the form of a mac mini.

Now they are stuck using laptop components, which make the machine slower and more expensive than it could be.

Hmm, aside from the superdrive, i can't think of what else is a laptop component. i havent had a chance to dissect one yet! what other laptop components are in there? i guess the Core 2 Duos are technically meant for a mobile line up. Are they far off in performance from the Core 2 Extremes?

The optical drives are slow, due either to the orientation they are mounted at or the limitations of the type of drive they use, or both.

Lol, this makes sense logically, but i've never seen it happen, or ever had trouble with it myself.

The minimal space for heat dispersion caused lots and lots of trouble for the iMac G5s, and it's a small problem for the current line up...........
.......in fact, the mini lets you use space more efficiently because you can chose to use a smaller LCD if you really want to.

Even a Mini wouldn't solve this problem, right? Basically, you'd need a new midrange desktop, between the Mac Pro and the iMac, and not between the iMac and the Mac Mini.

I personally feel like that would be a very niche market (relatively). Just based on my own weirdo logic - i've no statistics to back it up, so i won't argue with anyone who feels differently

 

[zen]

This thread is hilarious! I just about choked on my tea when I saw the Gateway Profile 6 All-In-One. It is incredibly, incredible awful.

But then someone linked to HP's latest and greatest. Good grief! Words fail to describe how awful some PC designs are!

 

[mrgreen4242]

Thats one point i COMPLETELY agree with you on. It'd be nice if the Mini's got a bump in specs in terms of processors and graphics. Unlike companies like Dell, who have a hoard of various lines to suit all most every possible customer need, it seems Apple has broken down their customers with 4-5 well defined requirements. The only major group ive seen left out is the group u describe, who want the power of the iMac, in the form of a mac mini.

This discussion is really about the iMac, but you're right that Apple has made basically 4-5 different groups of machines, when there really should be 7 or 9.

Hmm, aside from the superdrive, i can't think of what else is a laptop component. i havent had a chance to dissect one yet! what other laptop components are in there? i guess the Core 2 Duos are technically meant for a mobile line up. Are they far off in performance from the Core 2 Extremes?

Everything in the iMac is a laptop, except the HDD. The optical drive, the CPU, the RAM, the GPU, the motherboard. It's a laptop in a bigger case with a bigger HDD and no battery.

Lol, this makes sense logically, but i've never seen it happen, or ever had trouble with it myself.

Don't rip may DVDs do you? Or you haven't done it on a PC, at least. The laptop drive they use in everything but the MacPro SUCKS. It takes ~40 minutes to copy a disc, compared to about 15 to copy AND transcode a DVD on a 2 year old PC that was low end when it was new. It's the optical drive, it SUCKS.

Even a Mini wouldn't solve this problem, right? Basically, you'd need a new midrange desktop, between the Mac Pro and the iMac, and not between the iMac and the Mac Mini.

I personally feel like that would be a very niche market (relatively). Just based on my own weirdo logic - i've no statistics to back it up, so i won't argue with anyone who feels differently

Mini doesn't really enter into it, imo. The iMac design is the flaw here. If they had stuck with the G4 design, or something that was similar to it rather than completely different (that is to say they didn't cram a whole lot of computer into such a tiny space) they could have offered a LOT more in terms of functionality. Also, there's nothing niche about a midrange desktop. That's pretty much ALL of the rest of the computer market. The AIO iMac is the niche, and it only survives because Apple artificially limits the alternatives.

 

[szsiddiq]

Everything in the iMac is a laptop, except the HDD. The optical drive, the CPU, the RAM, the GPU, the motherboard. It's a laptop in a bigger case with a bigger HDD and no battery.

are the GPU and RAM really laptop parts? i kno the GPU isnt the highest performance GPU, but i didnt think it was a laptop GPU.

Mini doesn't really enter into it, imo. The iMac design is the flaw here. If they had stuck with the G4 design, or something that was similar to it rather than completely different (that is to say they didn't cram a whole lot of computer into such a tiny space) they could have offered a LOT more in terms of functionality. Also, there's nothing niche about a midrange desktop. That's pretty much ALL of the rest of the computer market. The AIO iMac is the niche, and it only survives because Apple artificially limits the alternatives.

i only bring up the Mini because you did, in order to demonstrate the footprint comparison with the iMac. Yea, they did cram a lot into it, but I think for Apple's target consumer, it works out just fine. not saying it can't be improved, though (ie. that optical drive issue does suck). however, in terms of performance, the GPU, CPU, RAM, etc., do what the machines are made to do. in my view, the only issue is that the boxes don't allow for much expansion or "upgradibility". again, they weren't designed to.