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

<I agree with Ambrose, you'd think that there would be more beyond just the larger screen size, such as 512 MB of memory standard or the 160 GB hard drive.

On the plus side, this does give Apple something you can't find with any other all-in-one (a number of them have 1440x900 or 1280x1024 displays).>

I agree, but why would apple want to do this. With 256 MB standard, they almost force you to go to apple tech support to install apple memory to get to 1GB. Or of course blow your warranty and do it yourself (which by the way is not too hard to do). I like my 17" iMac, but I think I'll have to go to the Mall of America store and salivate a bit.
 
Re: Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by jocknerd
The iMac's sales were pitiful.
Click to expand...

For the last quarter, Apple sold 253000 iMac/eMac units. That's one machine out the door every 31 seconds or so. What's so pitiful about that?
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Some people don't need $1700 worth of computer or even $700 worth of monitor.
Click to expand...

The point of the iMacs is an all-in-one consumer model that saves desk real estate.
My iMac is great. My desk is a lean clean machine. And there's still an awe! factor when people see it:
My imac
The speakers, two cds
a book
a pen

keyboard and mouse in out-of-sight keyboard tray

As compared to my other desk: beige G3 on computer cart (too large to fit inside), external hard drive inside computer cart, bulky Sony CRT monitor on desk, along w/ printer, iBook, lamp, extra keyboard, pda dock.

Use both sites but the iMac desk is a thing of beauty. it's definitely more zen.
Besides we've all been there with the pizza boxes: not a pretty sight.

Although the cube is/was definitely awesome.
 
Re: Re: Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by iMeowbot
For the last quarter, Apple sold 253000 iMac/eMac units. That's one machine out the door every 31 seconds or so. What's so pitiful about that?
Click to expand...
where are those numbers? from what i understand is sales had drop big time on imacs.
 
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.

And people will pay 2000 + for this machine, I did.
 
consumers in apple's market are not gamers. please, get over this.

macs have higher entry price. people who can afford them are NOT teenagers and college students playing video games. gamers who are no longer students but with a decent job to afford a Mac will know enough to not get a Mac for games already. only time iMac/eMac line will be subjected to high performance gaming (and disappoint the user in comparison to similarly priced PCs - this part i won't argue) is if a 15 year old johnny wants to play doom on his dad's iMac. then dad will go out and buys a $150 game console and johnny will be happy.

just an example, but i think it's a fairly accurate one.

apple cannot target its products to gamers. their video cards aren't good, CPU is slow, blah blah. (oh, doesn't intel still sell those celerons? what's that?) geez, they know this, you know this. so stop complaining that they aren't making good gaming machines - they are not a gaming machine, period. that doesn't mean these machines are useless - there's more to computers than just games, you know. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by 1macker1
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.

And people will pay 2000 + for this machine, I did.
Click to expand...
im not trying to start a war but i know ut2k3 has to look like crap and those outdoor levels must be a big struggle, i use a 1.33 g4 and geforce3 and a gig and still isnt fluid. take box requirements and double them then you have what you need. the fact is the g4 is way way behind this is not even up to debate merely simple fact as go with the fx5200. a rebranded mx card is all trash. and even the g5 they have to use 2 cpu's vs 1 intel so apples cpu's in the g4consumer line arent even close to 2.4 or 2.6 intels. bottom line is apple acts like the g4 is still something and it aint crap.
 
Re: Re: Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by jxyama
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.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those people - and I'm not even a grandparent :p
 
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...

Really?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031015/sfw126_1.html

Q3-03 sales:

iMac: 253k
iBook: 137k
PowerMac: 221k
PowerBook: 176k

Seems to me that iMacs outsold PowerMacs (G5's mind you). iMac sales are down but just because you don't like them doesn't mean people aren't buying them.
 
Apple should sell versions of the iMac without an attached monitor. They'd need to add DVI support to the video out and close up the hole on top. Sell a combo drive version of the iBump for $599, and a superdrive model for $799. I think they'd sell like crazy.
 
I comlpetely agree...

Originally posted by jxyama
consumers in apple's market are not gamers. please, get over this.

macs have higher entry price. people who can afford them are NOT teenagers and college students playing video games. gamers who are no longer students but with a decent job to afford a Mac will know enough to not get a Mac for games already. only time iMac/eMac line will be subjected to high performance gaming (and disappoint the user in comparison to similarly priced PCs - this part i won't argue) is if a 15 year old johnny wants to play doom on his dad's iMac. then dad will go out and buys a $150 game console and johnny will be happy.

just an example, but i think it's a fairly accurate one.

apple cannot target its products to gamers. their video cards aren't good, CPU is slow, blah blah. (oh, doesn't intel still sell those celerons? what's that?) geez, they know this, you know this. so stop complaining that they aren't making good gaming machines - they are not a gaming machine, period. that doesn't mean these machines are useless - there's more to computers than just games, you know. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I agree with jxyama. Although I personally don’t see a lot of people purchasing this new 20” iMac, I think some people in this forum are being a bit harsh. When people make comments like “it’s a crap processor and a crap video card”, I think it all depends what you are using it for.

I don’t play video games, so what do I need an amazing graphics card for? I have a GeForce2 with 32 MB RAM running in my current PC and it works fine. For me, a 5200 is probably overkill! Am I using FCP, etc.? No, if I were, I’d be looking at buying a PowerMac, not an iMac. And as for the processor, what is wrong with a 1.25 GHz G4? My friend uses a 450 MHz G4 15” PowerBook and it’s not slow for him at all. He uses iTunes, iPhoto, and even makes movies in iMovie and uses iDVD to burn them. Other than that, he uses e-mail, Internet, Office... Hmm, that’s about it! So you’re saying a machine almost 3x as fast is crappy? I don’t think so. And with Panther to speed things up too? Good luck.

It all comes down to what you use your computer for, so if you are a hardcore gamer, then buy your Alienware system designed for gaming. If you are a graphics and video guru, buy a PowerMac. Don’t rip into the iMacs just because they don’t suit your needs. There's more to computers (and life) than gaming. (Boy, am I going to get ripped to shreds for that comment..) ;)

As I said, I still don’t think this 20” iMac will go over to well, so don’t get me wrong, but I just think some people in this forum are being very unreasonable.
 
Give me a break!

If you wanted to game, you wouldn't buy an iMac. And yes, the G4 processor is slow for games, animation, gaphic programs, etc. That was the complaint about the pro line until the G5 was released. This is the consumor model.

All you gamers would laugh at ANY Dell, HP, etc machine that came configured for under $1000. You would have to because you would want a good graphics card that by itself would cost $200-$400 more. I would imagine, and from what I see in most computer mags, the avg. gaming machine runs $1500 - $3000. Hmmm, close to the G5 lineup.

So please, stop comparing this Apple to oranges. And as already pointed out Dell trys to sell a $500 PC that when decently configured runs $1000-$1500 - sans an LCD monitor.

Now, I am wondering if Apple is taking a different step with product announcements and introductions. Steve said he would move away from announcements at major events - and seems to have kept true to that. Perhaps what we will see are more product updates at more frequent intervals than twice a year. Granted, a product update might be something as simple as slapping a 20" LCD monitor on it. But what if in January you see better cpus and gpus in the same model? Under the "old way" of announcing, you could plan on the current config of this new 20" iMac to be around until at least July 2004. Maybe we could see a 1.33 G4 and better graphics in January under this "new way" of announcing products.
 
Cool, but...

I think the 20" imac is a cool idea, and If money were no object I might get one. If you didn't do anything processor intensive it would be fine. (Like in an office setting)

Here's my thought... since Apple is the home of innovation, why don't they just make the end of the monitor arm an ADC plug that locks into the base? That way in 3 years when the g5 makes it to the consumer line you can just unplug your sweet 20" lcd and plug it into the new iMac base. I also realize this coincides with everyone else's idea to have a headless iMac, but it's still slightly different.

Ah crap I already can see the arguments against this and the "why not just use an apple display?" reply. Fook it. Nevermind.
 
I'm not much of a gamer, but I play UT2k3 on my 800Mhz iMac all the time with no problem. I also play RTCW with no problems. It has an Nvidia *sp* G-Force 4 MX.
Click to expand...

I play UT2K3 on my 1GHz iMac with 1GB Ram. I also have a G-Force 4MX with 64 MB. I have not noticed any appreciable slow down even on the outside levels. Now, I'm not saying it is as fluid as I would like, but I can't say that I've been running around and been killed while looking at a locked or choppy screen. Now, I'm also not a major gamer, but the games that I do run work well enough for me. (Warcraft III, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, America's Army, Medal of Honor, etc.)
 
Re: Re: Totally agree with you Lancetx

Originally posted by DGFan
Really?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031015/sfw126_1.html

Q3-03 sales:

iMac: 253k
iBook: 137k
PowerMac: 221k
PowerBook: 176k

Seems to me that iMacs outsold PowerMacs (G5's mind you). iMac sales are down but just because you don't like them doesn't mean people aren't buying them.
Click to expand...

Hey, I talked my mom into getting one last March. But sales are down compared to previous years. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/10/15/units/. I quote them:
"With so much emphasis on Apple's professional products, iBooks and iMacs both suffered for the quarter, both sequentially and year over year. Apple moved 253,000 iMacs and 137,000 iBooks for the quarter -- down 12 percent and 28 percent respectively compared to the previous quarter, and down 20 and 25 percent respectively for the same quarter a year ago. iMac sales total $279 million in quarterly revenue; iBooks came in with about $154 million added to Apple's coffers."
 
i agree that its an odd realease

A very odd release, given that they processors kinda went nowhere and there wasn't a price drop either. WOulda beens well to see at $100-$200 drop on the ohter machines.
Maybe even 15" 1099 17" 1499 20" 1899 for combos
and 15" 1299 17" 1699 20" 2099 for Supers.

And if not a G5, then G4 1.33's and 1.42's . .
 
Re: For those grumblers

Originally posted by bizarro
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.)
Click to expand...

Just sell me the innards then!
 
Originally posted by Steve M
Apple should sell versions of the iMac without an attached monitor. They'd need to add DVI support to the video out and close up the hole on top. Sell a combo drive version of the iBump for $599, and a superdrive model for $799. I think they'd sell like crazy.
Click to expand...

always comes up and it's not anything new.

standard replies:

1) apple's not interested in selling the most number of units. they are interested in margins.

2) a headless iMac doesn't seem to have a place in their current marketing/business model. tell me how such a machine won't cannibalize sales from elsewhere?

just because you'd want and buy a cheap(er) Mac doesn't make it a good product or an idea...
 
Re: i agree that its an odd realease

Originally posted by dieselg4
A very odd release, given that they processors kinda went nowhere and there wasn't a price drop either. WOulda beens well to see at $100-$200 drop on the ohter machines.
Maybe even 15" 1099 17" 1499 20" 1899 for combos
and 15" 1299 17" 1699 20" 2099 for Supers.

And if not a G5, then G4 1.33's and 1.42's . .
Click to expand...

they can't do this because it would get the 15" too close to eMac... they want eMacs to be "cheap" and iMacs to be "cool."

it would be nice to get a 15" for $1100, for sure...
 
Originally posted by choogheem
I play UT2K3 on my 1GHz iMac with 1GB Ram. I also have a G-Force 4MX with 64 MB. I have not noticed any appreciable slow down even on the outside levels. Now, I'm not saying it is as fluid as I would like, but I can't say that I've been running around and been killed while looking at a locked or choppy screen. Now, I'm also not a major gamer, but the games that I do run work well enough for me. (Warcraft III, Baldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale, America's Army, Medal of Honor, etc.)
Click to expand...
i guess you are running at 640 x 480 with everything off,also take another look at the d-day beach landing! the sad fact is for over 2 grand it has 1 single stagnated 1.25 g4 and the slowest cheapest video chip. they dont currently make a cheaper chip the fx5200? to have such a nice display it ashame. it makes the protowers look so much better but a lot of people dont want a gigantic metal beast! Apple says you cant have it your way( as in the pc world) you must buy protower we will not give you a powerful consumermachine. and we will force the monitor on you. our way or the highway so what do millions do? they go out and get a pc!
 
For starters, the people in this forum are no longer Apple's target market for the iMac. Apple is looking for new users who are looking for an alternative to the boring PC. Most people here are hardcore Apple fans who are mostly interested in the latest greatest (but sadly enough won't buy anything, because they're alway waiting for the latest greatest vaporware).
These are sweat machines. They look better than anything out there and they are selling.
As far as the cost of the machines. Apple saves a lot of money by not updating their machines everyweek (day) like Dell does. Just think of the money Apple saves on marketing alone and then add in the costs of constantly changing your computer line and then there is the support issue.
Whatever
 
What kind of business or common sense does it make for them to have switcher machines independent of a monitor? Most people don't see the CPU case unless the attached monitor requires it sit on the desk. Since Apple probably wants its logo and hardware to be seen, it will most likely keep both of them firmly on the desktop, as opposed to something headless where users could bring over their previous displays. Because having a dell monitor with an OS X desktop is just great marketing for AAPL.

-Hertz

..."consumers are gamers"......kids.....
 
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