1 ghz G3, 17" CRT iMac!

[iGav]

Of course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mr. Anderson]

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

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

 

[ilikeiBook]

Big iMac

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

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

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

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

 

[iGav]

Same case......

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

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

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

With Apple though, you never do know!!!

 

[eirik]

iBrick defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I did it again. Another LONG POST.

Cheers,

Eirik

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: iBrick defense

Originally posted by eirik

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

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

First off, the iBrick is NOT the Cube

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

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

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

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

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

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