Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

20 inch iMac Released

Originally posted by Awimoway
The pod is really dwarfed under that 20" display.
Click to expand...

that's what everyone said about the 17", but look at how nice it is, and how well it sells...

this is a nice update. while the specs are nothing better, and the price is kind of high, people wil pay for the much larger screen, and apple knows it.

hopefully, they'll suprise us like they did last january and update everything.
 
I like the 20 inch screen... but it makes me wonder if we'll see the G5 in the iMac anytime soon...

I doubt the heat is too much of a factor... you could simply enlarge the slots in the base. And the use of an aluminum case would help with heat conduction...

But if there are going to be delays and problems with getting the G5 in the Powerbook ( we'e hearing into 2005 maybe ) then Apple may be loathe to put it in the iMac until their professional laptop can use it. Which means that the iMac will lag power wise for a while... Too bad - 2.0 GHz G5, a 20 inch monitor, a nice graphics card, AND a non-handicapped bus would open my wallet wide!
 
Yeah i'm talkin about the top of the line model.
Originally posted by Lancetx
The 17" was $1,799 yesterday and remains unchanged today. You're probably thinking of the maxed out build to order model which still costs the same too, it's just not on the store page, you have to actually go in and configure it now to add the extra RAM and larger hard drive, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by Lancetx
I still don't see how this will help improve the slow iMac sales one bit. Had the 20" come in at $1,999 along with a $200 price cut on both the 17" and 15" models this would have been good news, but if $1,799 17" iMacs weren't selling well, then $2,199 20" models certainly won't. Especially considering they didn't bump up the RAM, hard drive, graphics or anything else over the existing 17" model. I must say I'm rather disappointed.
Click to expand...

The iMac's sales were pitiful. Doesn't Apple realize it was the cost of the machine not the screen size. Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor. They sure as hell aren't going to spend $2199 now. What good is that beautiful 20" monitor going to do you in two years when this computer is useless.
 
they wont expand nothing if they dont get with it on the imac and stop using the old and slow g4 and the slowest graphics chip on the market. i would advise no one to get this machine except grandma's and grandpa's who want to view photo's or movies. you want to crunch numbers or run games you will be sorry. iam not a troll just telling it like it is. the 1.25 g4 is allready way behind this year let alone next.
 
Lots of people are saying this machine won't sell well. To that I reply:

1. some people don't care about top speed anymore. It's fast enough for all office applications. In fact it's fast enough for everything except pro animation and gaming.

2. some people want to show off their machines.

3. it's not a new machine, just an alteration to an existing machine. The cost of producing this product must have been extremely low.

4. imacs are no longer the cheap computer from apple. the emac is. They aren't the fastest, see the G5 for that. They are just the nicest.

My boss comes to mind. He bought the 17" imac when it came out, then a 12"PB when that came out, and no doubt he'll get this machine as well. I don't think he's done ANYTHING with them except email.

He's got the cash, the machine offers an unbeatable user experience, so he'll get it. I'm so jealous. Maybe I'll get to borrow it :D It's surely the nicest computer to use in the world right now, modest performance permitting.
 
Funkywhat2, the imac sales are pitiful

Originally posted by funkywhat2
that's what everyone said about the 17", but look at how nice it is, and how well it sells...

this is a nice update. while the specs are nothing better, and the price is kind of high, people wil pay for the much larger screen, and apple knows it.

hopefully, they'll suprise us like they did last january and update everything.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you got the idea that it is selling well. Sales are very low. Its an overpriced consumer machine that gets killed in performance and cost from the low end PC's. And it can't get cheaper because it costs Apple too much to manufacture.
 
For those grumblers

For those who are grumbling about how mediocre this update is (i.e. only a display) and about the price, well, bear in mind the following:

1) 20" cinema display costs 1299 USD
2) 20" imac costs 2199

So, the innards come in at 900USD which isn't that bad, really.
(Compare with 17" model - 1799USD for the machine, and 699USD for the 17" Normal Aspect Ratio display.)

Based on the 20", I'd suspect we are in for a revision in the pricing of the cinema displays... (And probably a revision of the models as well.)
 
I would

Last year I would have bought something like that. The only thing missing for me on an iMac or eMac was the resolution.

I ended up buying the low-end tower of the time (MDD 2x866) and connecting it to my old 19" CRT. Now I'll wait at least another year.

My next computer is a 20" 3GHz G5 iMac. I can wait for it to arrive.
 
I'm sticking with my 17" imac. I dont see me needing a 20" screen. I'm just waiting for the cheaper iPod and a new 12" powerbook in the next few months.
 
Originally posted by iJed
The price of the LCD iMac is simply too high for many people. If Apple really want PC users to switch then they need to start making a cheap, powerful, affordable and headless box that will make the system truly mass market.

There is simply no way that I'd buy the 20" iMac since its massive screen would become totally useless when the machine became obsolete!
Click to expand...


Sadly, I have to agree. I don't see a market for a 20" iMac. Apple already knows the 17" isn't selling well, but it's not because the screen is too small!

A headless, powerful Mac with whichPC users can use their own displays would intice many more users to switch in my opinion. Many PC users have displays that work just fine for them and don't plan on buying a new one when they need to upgrade to a new machine. But with Apple's low end machines you are forced to buy the display. Or you have to pay almost $2000 to get a "headless" G5.

Maybe Apple stopped the "Switch" campaign because they knew they would look like fools asking PC users to buy their Super-Sized LCD iMac.

I hope Apple's vision is greater than mine.....
 
I would sure like someone who mentions the sales of iMacs - good or bad - to quote some actual sources. We can all sit around and say "the iMac has been a great seller" if we just like the way the machine looks. Just because you or someone you know owns an iMac does not make it a great selling computer. The converse is true as well - if you don't know a single person who owns an iMac it doesn't mean that nobody is buying them.

While my personal opinion is that these will not sell like hotcakes, they do fill a small niche - which Apple likes to do from time to time. My guess is that the bases are identical for the 17 and 20 - heck maybe even the 15 and they just stick whatever monitor is ordered on there. In short, they probably don't need a 20" iMac in every home to make back their R&D + manufacturing costs and turn a small profit. A small profit is better than no profit.

I am quite happy to see the Dual 1.8's and if I were in the market, it would be my drug of choice.
 
Originally posted by jxyama
most consumers apple's targeting won't care if their games run at 60 fps as opposed to 250 fps.

if you want to play games, build a gaming PC or buy a console. apple will not spec its machines just to cater to gamers when there are few games for Macs to begin with.
Click to expand...
the only game that will get 60 fps on that imac is maybe quake 3,ut2k3 wont,halo wont,doom3 will make anyowner of that machine cry i promise. this machine has i repeat the cheapist slowest videochip being made currently FX5200 is garbage, we had dual 1.42 powermacs a year ago and still the best we get is a single 1.25 g4? this machine is very underpowered and over priced. who knows maybe the had a xtra million of those g4 bases they needed to get rid of and slapping a bigger monitor was the way to do it?
 
If they would throw a cable TV tuner in it, this could be a useful device in a living room or family room as a computer/Small TV/DVD player. Even with an EyeTV, it might be nice. Either way it could make a lot more sense than buying a 17 Flat Panel TV (Dell $829) and a seperate computer. "A complete Home Entertainment/Digital Hub" View TV, DVD's, listen to you iTunes music collection, and oh yeah, surf the web, get your e-mail, create your own DVD's, work on Keynote presentation, have your kids play educational games, and etc..

Wild speculation - but maybe that is the path they are taking with this somewhat puzzling upgrade.
 
Re: Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by jocknerd
The iMac's sales were pitiful. Doesn't Apple realize it was the cost of the machine not the screen size. Consumers weren't going to spend $1799 on a machine that had an attached monitor. They sure as hell aren't going to spend $2199 now. What good is that beautiful 20" monitor going to do you in two years when this computer is useless.
Click to expand...

while i agree with your point that most consumers won't spend $2199 on a computer, it's not because it has a monitor attached. in fact, no consumer would spend that much unless it included a flat panel. most consumers are cheap, that's all, it has nothing to do with monitor being attached or not.

and for most people buying these iMacs, it won't become obsolete in two years. i got my parents the bare-min. eMac (1 GHz G4) i fully expect them to use it comfortably for 5 years or more - until the machine breaks. they are going to use it for email, internet, word and iphoto. tell me how that will go obsolete in two years? and believe me, there are a lot of people out there who'll use their computer only for those tasks.

i've know at a least a few people who saw dell's ads for $500 desktop/$700 laptop, got enticed, called dell and was given the whole sales spiel about how the basic config. is not good enough and ended up spending $1500+. talk about being baited...

for the most part, macs don't do that. the only thing you need to upgrade is the RAM. otherwise, most of them come competently equipped.
 
It would be neat if in a year or two you see hacks to let an external tower use the 20 inch screen of the iMac and basically use the the computer part of the setup as the "base" for your 20 inch monitor...
 
I wish Apple at least placed a G5 1.5 Ghz chip in it to please us... :( now I won't be able to buy one cause I made a promise to myself I wouldn't until they come with a G5 Processor :(
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
hate to say this but a 1.25 g4 gets its butt beat bad by machines at half the price, i would say this is apples worst value of all computers they make. i cant imagine having such a great display only to be saddled down to a obsolete g4 and worst performing video card/chipset on the market. i see it now iam a new owner of a imac 20" and cant play doom3,barely run ut2k3 and struggles through halo if they are lucky, then when some really great stuff is out for next year what are you going to do with that monitor??i guess apple feels consumers dont play games.
Click to expand...

I would not touch this 20" iMac with a barge pole. Value/cost is pathetic.

One might hope for a G5 in this thing by early '04. But, the form factor would have to change a bit for cooling. I would have prefered the move to the 20in then.

Not sure this thing is gunna sell. Not sure why this would sell? Hello? Steve? Are you on vacation dude?
 
thats a good promise, and very wise in my opinion, the g4 is just way way behind. apple didnt beat there chest much on this one, i would say this was a half step till the real deal comes out next march.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the only game that will get 60 fps on that imac is maybe quake 3,ut2k3 wont,halo wont,doom3 will make anyowner of that machine cry i promise. this machine has i repeat the cheapist slowest videochip being made currently FX5200 is garbage, we had dual 1.42 powermacs a year ago and still the best we get is a single 1.25 g4? this machine is very underpowered and over priced. who knows maybe the had a xtra million of those g4 bases they needed to get rid of and slapping a bigger monitor was the way to do it?
Click to expand...

you just missed the whole point of my post. my point was that no "consumer" will quote those game related specs you just pulled out. i just pulled 60/250 fps numbers out of thin air because it was completely irrelevant. not many will buy an iMac to play video games. i'm not *at all* interested whether halo can pull 60 fps on the new iMac.

you can take digital still images with digital camcorders, but they will be of lower resolution and the camcorder will be much bigger than compact digital cameras. are you going to criticise the priciness of digital camcorders based on their usability as a digital camera? :rolleyes:

btw, i think 20" iMac is an overkill. i don't think it will do very well, but i assume it didn't cost apple much to develop.
 
No matter what is released, some people just are not satisfied. I use Maple on my 17" iMac, and the screen space in needed for all the graphs and charts, and more screen space is welcomed.

**i just can't afford to by another iMac right now:)**
 
Come on, the GeForce FX5200 Ultra in the iMac isn't that bad a graphics chip. People are making it sound like the bastard cousin of a Rage128 PCI card.

Unless you're some radical gamer type, who would have bought a PC anyway with a $500 graphics card, it's a fine graphics chip for a consumer computer. It's not like the Mac is a top games platform.
 
the point is consumers are gamers sorry to point this out and i know the mac community has a problem with this, it looks like apple does to because they have a crappy cpu mated with a crappy videochip mated to a wonderful display and then want the old arm & leg. go to inside mac games or macgamer or... tell me consumers are not gamers and also tell me why a brandnew 2 thousand dollar machine struggles with UT2K3?this means newer stuff will only get worse? face it apple is pawning off old & slow technology to the unknowing and imac sales show that perhaps the consumer is smarter then they give them credit for. the fx5200 is the worst go to any benchmark page on that,toms hardware,barefeets whatever. anyways this is a dog my advice is to stay clear get a emac or protower or wait and perhaps they will get it right next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back