23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[DavidLeblond]

Ah, when I started reading this thread it was a "Merom vs Conroe" discussion, now I see it has taken the natural (de)evolutionary route down to "Macs vs PCs." Nice.

Anyway, I'm in the market for a new iMac so I, for one, hope the 23" rumor is just a rumor. It'll probably cost more than I can afford, and I'll end up getting the 20" therefore having a "mid-range" iMac which I swore I wasn't going to do.

 

[javierbds]

Go buy a MacPro and spend 4000 grand on a Quadro...I am sure you will all be happy.

Go buy a Mac mini and an Apple Cinema display ...

It is funny that people suppose that Apple thinks there is no market for Conroe ...
I guess Intel is going out of business anyday now

Maybe that's what this transition was about: servers for pros and laptops for the rest ...

PS: There are HIGH-END GPUs (by Nvidia) than don't get ever to 50 W ...
The iMac G5 with maximum brightness and CPU load consumes about 140 W, so a Conroe and a good GPU by Nvidia can go in there ...

 

[Super Macho Man]

My fear...

is that this 23" iMac means that Apple is going to kill off the 17" iMac and put nothing in its place.

Wouldn't that suck? Talk about a GAPING hole in the desktop line... and I can totally see Apple doing it. They've done it before when they killed off the 15" LCDs and the 15" iMac. I have a fear that the 17" iMac is gone.

 

[CJM]

I force my G4 iMac to play World of Warcraft.

It hates me because of it.

I must admit, the GPU in the current model isn't too bad, but definitely an update would be nice.

I don't think moderate gamers should be forced into buying the Mac Pro, which has several processors we won't be using.

 

[swingerofbirch]

My rev. A bondi iMac came with 2 mb vram, and it played the included 3d games just great! It was nanosaur and one other shoot-em-up game.......

 

[Squire]

Forget Upgrades for a Minute...

It's been said countless times in this thread--the vast majority of people buying computers DO NOT UPGRADE them. They just don't.

You anti-minitower folks seem to be dwelling on only the upgradeability aspect of the argument. How about taking a look at the gaping whole in Apple's product line?

Apple wants switchers, right? Well, let's say I have a 20" Samsung monitor, a Logitech keyboard/mouse set, and some sweet Klipsch speakers to go along with my Dell tower. It's not a bottom-of-the-barrel $400 system but not one of their XPS systems, either. Let's say it's a Dimension. For years, I've been entertaining the idea of switching to a Mac. Then, it happens...the Dell craps out and dies.

Which Mac do I buy? Not the mini. I would consider it a downgrade. Not the Mac Pro. That-- even in its most basic incarnation-- is twice the price I'm considering. The iMac? Well, damn, I got this monitor that I paid a fortune for...And then our theoretical protagonist goes to Dell's site because he heard about a sale and Apple loses a potential customer.

The mini exists for people who want to "get their feet wet" but what about those who just feel like diving in? (And what about mini users who want to move up to something better?

I know what I'm going to do when I replace my iMac: buy a basic Mac Pro. But there's still quite a gaping hole in the product line for people with good quality monitors-- people who would not likely choose an iMac.

-Squire

 

[Bengt77]

But there's still quite a gaping hole in the product line for people with good quality monitors-- people who would not likely choose an iMac.

That's not the only market for a Mac Pro mini, though. If the iMac indeed will be outfitted with Meroms and GPUs like a the X1650 or the 7300, then half of the people that were considering buying a new iMac will want something better. And that something better will be a Mac Pro mini. Myself included.

As much as I'm in love with the iMac line (if a good new model comes out, that'll be my third: bondi blue G3, first generation 15" G4 and then Core 2 Duo), if it doesn't match my wishes (see my sig), then I guess I'll just wait for this fabled Mac Pro mini. And I'm most certainly not the only one here. Heck, we're probably not the only ones wishing for something in between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Just because we're vocal about it, telling everyone here what we want, doesn't mean we're the only ones who think like that.

There is a market for a Mac Pro mini, really. If Apple listens, they could have one ready to be unveiled at MWSF. Maybe I'll just keep my trusty G4 iMac just a little longer. It'll turn 5 years in 2007 already, but it still serves me well. Games are a no-go, essentially, and that's what I partially want a new machine for. But even though I can't play them now (at least not the ones I want to play), I won't rush out and buy the new iMac if it doesn't fit my needs. If it takes some waiting for a machine that does what I want, then so be it.

By the way, it does somewhat strikes me that we're getting all fired up over these minor details while any of today's Macs is several times faster (even the lowest of low Mac mini or MacBook) than the old Power Mac G4s that were out back in the day. Strange thought, really...

 

[Squire]

1. The market is too small to care about.

Don't think so. I would guess that the number of people able (or willing) to tinker with a computer is rising. As time goes on, the completely computer illiterate folks, sadly, will die out.

2. Steve Jobs is obsessed with design/athestics and selling the whole widget.

Yes, but even Steve is willing to bend a bit if it brings in more switchers. (The mini, iPod shuffle, and video iPod are all concepts he scoffed at in the past.)

3. Apple can't successfuly compete in this market.

They can't if they don't try!

30-somethings? You just described myself and my peer group. I have a rather diverse group of friends. Some of us are even in marketting or finance. Some of us have kids, others will no doubt follow soon. We've got decent jobs and husbands/wives/girlfriends/boyfriends. Most of us play video games.

We grew up with them. We played Space Invaders when it was new. We remember Pac-Man mania. The C64, the Nintendo NES, the Commodore Amiga, we owned them all.

Some of us own consoles too, but everyone owns a computer.
Today the average console owner today is a twenty-something. Video games are mainstream.

More of us are gamers than photography buffs (vs point-n-clickers) or musicians, but some are. They like games, too.

We're mostly not hardcore $3K system gamers -- said other halves wouldn't stand for that in most cases. We are, however, people that look at what we're buying.

We're not buying systems that we throw away in two years time because it can't run the new games acceptably.

Of course, the majority of us aren't Apple users, iPod aside.

Perhaps that too is self-selecting, with those that want games as an option staying well away because Apple doesn't sell systems that suit their needs.

In this group, the ones who know more about computers are "leaders"; people come to us to see what we use, to ask what they should buy. People will follow our lead. Those who are technically adept advise those who aren't.

There's not a $400 Dell in sight. The people buying those seem to be the over-50's. (Curiously, they play Bejewelled, so they too are gamers after a fashion, albeit ones that could live happily on the Mac side of the fence.)

Apple's free to ignore our preferences, of course. I see it as their loss. After all, its our kids who are learning to use Windows and not MacOS right now.

And you just described myself and my peer group...to a 'T'. Nice post.

-Squire

 

[steve_hill4]

You anti-minitower folks seem to be dwelling on only the upgradeability aspect of the argument. How about taking a look at the gaping whole in Apple's product line?

[snip]

-Squire

And that really sums up a lot of my argument.

I would take the iMac. If I needed a top notch system and had cash to burn/a good expenses account, I'd go for the Mac Pro instead. I'd even consider the Mini as a media centre, but I wouldn't want a mini-tower. If my friend, (hypothetical, this doesn't mean I only have one in real life ), was a gamer, wanted to switch and use boot camp and like above also had a good display and wanted the option to upgrade the machine later if need be, what would he go for?

The reason Apple ditched their fragmented product line was for simplicity. They had several different headless desktops in the early 90's and they largely went in favour of the standard Power Macintosh and iMac lines after the second coming of Jobs. It worked and sales soared. Now they have tons of publicity due to various reasons and more people are at least thinking of switching. Does Apple actually need to keep the range slim still? It may need to remain fairly simple, but why shouldn't they add a mid range tower and even extend their laptop offerings? I would say by adding a 15" and 17" MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro, they would maybe pick up a few more sales, but if nothing else give their current customers the choice they deserve.

I work in retail still, (hopefully not too much longer), and while people are attracted to the 13" MacBook being cheaper than most others at that size, some want a 17" Apple Portable which doesn't start at £1899, (same with 15"). If it had identical specs to the £899 White SD MacBook, but a larger, higher resolution display and cost say £1099, people would buy it.

I see people daily looking at them and being put off by a limited range and sticking with Windows instead. This isn't a myth, it's reality and it's also true of desktops, (though enough has been said of those, so I chose the lesser talked of laptop example).

 

[Squire]

That's not the only market for a Mac Pro mini, though. If the iMac indeed will be outfitted with Meroms and GPUs like a the X1650 or the 7300, then half of the people that were considering buying a new iMac will want something better. And that something better will be a Mac Pro mini. Myself included.

You know, in that post I also wrote something like "New iMacs are good for people replacing old iMacs but a lot of iMac owners want to sort of trade up..." but I deleted it, worried that I wouldn't make any sense.

Does that make any sense?

-Squire

 

[FFTT]

I think the 17" WS iMac will end up replacing the eMac completely and hopefully
Apple will configure those machines with a child resisitant screen cover.

I would love to see a 2.0GHz Core Duo 2 MAX mini with 2 X 1GB RAM slots
and at the very least 128 MB dedicated RAM with expansion to 256MB.

Essentially a MBP without the display.

If Apple could put this together for $999.00 they'd please a whole lot of people.

 

[aafuss1]

Wonder if Apple will sell a IR receiver for other Macs.

 

[sigamy]

You anti-minitower folks seem to be dwelling on only the upgradeability aspect of the argument. How about taking a look at the gaping whole in Apple's product line?

Apple wants switchers, right? Well, let's say I have a 20" Samsung monitor, a Logitech keyboard/mouse set, and some sweet Klipsch speakers to go along with my Dell tower. It's not a bottom-of-the-barrel $400 system but not one of their XPS systems, either. Let's say it's a Dimension. For years, I've been entertaining the idea of switching to a Mac. Then, it happens...the Dell craps out and dies.

Which Mac do I buy? Not the mini. I would consider it a downgrade. Not the Mac Pro. That-- even in its most basic incarnation-- is twice the price I'm considering. The iMac? Well, damn, I got this monitor that I paid a fortune for...And then our theoretical protagonist goes to Dell's site because he heard about a sale and Apple loses a potential customer.

The mini exists for people who want to "get their feet wet" but what about those who just feel like diving in? (And what about mini users who want to move up to something better?

I know what I'm going to do when I replace my iMac: buy a basic Mac Pro. But there's still quite a gaping hole in the product line for people with good quality monitors-- people who would not likely choose an iMac.

-Squire

I'm not against the mini tower at all. I just don't think Apple *needs* to release one. If they do, great, they'll sell some. I don't think it will change the world as some here do.

As I've said in other posts, this has happened more than a few times in the past. Most recently, Apple quietly brought back the single processor 1.6Ghz G5. It wasn't a mini tower, but it was a lower priced, expandable/upgradable Mac. How many people bought it?

I've asked people here for the reasons why Apple hasn't had this machne in the lineup. I'm still waiting for the reasons. I've listed that the market is too small to care about or that Jobs is so bent on design that he wants everyone to have an AOI. I'm not sure what the reason(s) are...

 

[bembol]

The 23" iMac would put the price close to Mac Pro right...???


I would say NO...especially since I just picked up the 20" iMac Intel Core Duo this June...!!!

*wrong thread...thought this was the Poll

LOL

 

[sbarton]

As I've said in other posts, this has happened more than a few times in the past. Most recently, Apple quietly brought back the single processor 1.6Ghz G5. It wasn't a mini tower, but it was a lower priced, expandable/upgradable Mac. How many people bought it?

Not sure I agree with that assesment. The 1.6 was still $1999.00, I think they dropped it to $1799.00. It was kinda like buying a 2WD Durango or Explorer. Plus in today's market you get Dual processors/cores in the base package. With the single G5 most users could acually use the additional processor offered in the duals, so it was easier to justify the bump. The 4 way Xeon is kinda overkill for the prosumer.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Jobs is so bent on design that he wants everyone to have an AOI. I'm not sure what the reason(s) are...

What's an AOI? Apple Only Interface (i.e. Apple computer, Apple mouse, Apple Keyboard, Apple Screen)?

I for one hope Apple DOES take Merom for the iMac. Make it two of them for the 23" if you have to. But one of the qualities I like most about the iMacs is that they are quiet. You basically only hear the hard drive discs spinning and the heads clicking. And since Seagate now owns Maxtor, whose drives are in current iMacs, maybe upcoming iMacs will be even more quiet using Seagte's technology in the drives.

Someone here said something about Desktops for pros and laptops for consumers. This is indeed the future if you like it or not. Look at the increasing laptop sales compared to desktop sales in the computer market. Laptops do pretty much anything the home user wants and they're very affordable now. Isn't it much nicer to do your stuff on the couch or the bed instead of at a desk? Desktops will eventually be for gamers what cars are for tuning fans: something to put much money into to have something more powerful than the standard stuff. If you need a gaming mashine, don't buy a Mac. Just don't. Go to Falcon Northwest and get one there or buy spare parts and spend a lot of time and money to keep it up to date.

 

[Squire]

Not sure I agree with that assesment. The 1.6 was still $1999.00, I think they dropped it to $1799.00. It was kinda like buying a 2WD Durango or Explorer. Plus in today's market you get Dual processors/cores in the base package. With the single G5 most users could acually use the additional processor offered in the duals, so it was easier to justify the bump. The 4 way Xeon is kinda overkill for the prosumer.

Good point. (I've been pondering the 2wd SUV metaphor for some time now.)

I wonder what people would pay for a tower mac. I, for one, would pay a premium for the ability to expand.

What's an AOI? Apple Only Interface (i.e. Apple computer, Apple mouse, Apple Keyboard, Apple Screen)?

All-in-one.

-Squire

 

[fall3n]

Ah, when I started reading this thread it was a "Merom vs Conroe" discussion, now I see it has taken the natural (de)evolutionary route down to "Macs vs PCs." Nice.

Anyway, I'm in the market for a new iMac so I, for one, hope the 23" rumor is just a rumor. It'll probably cost more than I can afford, and I'll end up getting the 20" therefore having a "mid-range" iMac which I swore I wasn't going to do.

No offense, but that seems like a rather stupid reason to not want there to be a 23". Just because you swore you didn't want to have a mid-range iMac? If there is a 23" going to be released, this will most likely drop the price of all the iMacs, making the 20" even more affordable. So, you'd rather the prices remain around the same just so you can have the imaginary title "high end iMac owner"? There's logic for you.

 

[BenRoethig]

Yes, there ARE other alternatives and the gaping hole in Apple's product line is a realativley NEW development. There has always been a reasonably priced upgradable tower in Apple's product matrix. Even when the G3 imac was out, you could get an upgradable G3 tower for less than $1700.

I'm really sick of this bullsh*t "well it meets my needs so go somewhere else" attitude from some of you guys. I've been a Mac user for 15 years. I'm watching and waiting for the new x86 product matrix to unfold. I think Apple has done a stunning job of this task to date. But when it's all said and done and I have to chose between paying $1700 for an iMac that only does 90% of what "I WANT", or $2500 + monitor for something I "DONT NEED" then I absolutley will start looking at alternatives - I really don't need anyone to tell me.

I'm with you 100%. I paid $1999 for my Blue & White G3 which was the middle configuration. You can't get a MacPro for less than $2150. Add to that prices are much cheaper than they were in the late 90s, Apple has just moved higher and higher up market. That I think is going on here is that we're dealing with the iMac generation. They don't remember the last days of the beige era where there was something for everybody. Maybe the company that brought us into the Mac fold just doesn't exist anymore.

 

[baxterbrittle]

Not sure I agree with that assesment. The 1.6 was still $1999.00, I think they dropped it to $1799.00. It was kinda like buying a 2WD Durango or Explorer. Plus in today's market you get Dual processors/cores in the base package. With the single G5 most users could acually use the additional processor offered in the duals, so it was easier to justify the bump. The 4 way Xeon is kinda overkill for the prosumer.

That is not a particulary good argument. Duals were nessersary but quads are overkill? The 1.6 G5 is also a bad example. That was the bottom machine (like the quad 2.0 is now) when the G5's were first released and the iMacs were G4's. A better comparison is the specs identical 1.8 G5 that is the same as the Rev A iMac 20". Same everything - GPU bus processor etc... One came with a 20" LCD the other was upgradable. The G5 PM was cheaper than the iMac 20" ($2399 vs $2999 AU). What sort of ratio do you think the the iMac sold over the G5? I can tell you that we shifted hundreds of 20" and less than a dozen G5 1.8's. That's exactly how popular an expandable mid level tower is. There are even a couple left lying around because nobody wanted them. Apple just simply stopped selling them.

I guess everyone wants an expandable tower machine!

 

[BenRoethig]

That is not a particulary good argument. Duals were nessersary but quads are overkill? The 1.6 G5 is also a bad example. That was the bottom machine (like the quad 2.0 is now) when the G5's were first released and the iMacs were G4's. A better comparison is the specs identical 1.8 G5 that is the same as the Rev A iMac 20". Same everything - GPU bus processor etc... One came with a 20" LCD the other was upgradable. The G5 PM was cheaper than the iMac 20" ($2399 vs $2999 AU). What sort of ratio do you think the the iMac sold over the G5? I can tell you that we shifted hundreds of 20" and less than a dozen G5 1.8's. That's exactly how popular an expandable mid level tower is. There are even a couple left lying around because nobody wanted them. Apple just simply stopped selling them.

I guess everyone wants an expandable tower machine!

Lets see here,
non-competitive PowerPC processors
A full ATX sized tower that gave you a grand total of
1 optical drive
2 hard drives
1 AGP slots
3 PCI slots.

Those are specs expected from a shuttle cube, not something 20" tall. We can keep with the current lineup that excludes potential and current Mac users instead of one that includes them, but Apple will only themselves to blame when they start losing marketshare again.

 

[swingerofbirch]

Good lord.

23" iMacs brings out the best in us?

 

[baxterbrittle]

Lets see here,
non-competitive PowerPC processors
A full ATX sized tower that gave you a grand total of
1 optical drive
2 hard drives
1 AGP slots
3 PCI slots.

Those are specs expected from a shuttle cube, not something 20" tall. We can keep with the current lineup that excludes potential and current Mac users instead of one that includes them, but Apple will only themselves to blame when they start losing marketshare again.

What exactly is wrong with those specs? Given the time the machine was available? I agree 2 HD bays is a bit lame even the G4's took more than that. But what the hell do you want in a machine? Let me guess... Conroe Extreme 2.93 4GB Ram up to 8. 4 HDD bays SLI capable with 7950 standard 2 optical drive bays - All for $999 US? Get real or get lost - tell me what you reasonably expect for your fabled mini tower? The above machine is what people said they wanted at the time and nobody bought it what makes you think it will work this time?

I need convicing.

 

[travi68]

ok

the whole reason for the mac pro is the higher processor.
Everything else is easily upgradeable on the computer but the processor.
I think the main idea on the 23" imac would me mainly just for the extra screen space, a slightly upgraded processor for more appeal, and a few courtesy upgrades, like RAM and Hard drive, and maybe a better graphics card.

people are only willing to pay so much, for so much



12" powerbook G4

 

[sbarton]

That is not a particulary good argument. Duals were nessersary but quads are overkill? The 1.6 G5 is also a bad example. That was the bottom machine (like the quad 2.0 is now) when the G5's were first released and the iMacs were G4's. A better comparison is the specs identical 1.8 G5 that is the same as the Rev A iMac 20". Same everything - GPU bus processor etc... One came with a 20" LCD the other was upgradable. The G5 PM was cheaper than the iMac 20" ($2399 vs $2999 AU). What sort of ratio do you think the the iMac sold over the G5? I can tell you that we shifted hundreds of 20" and less than a dozen G5 1.8's. That's exactly how popular an expandable mid level tower is. There are even a couple left lying around because nobody wanted them. Apple just simply stopped selling them.

The real problem during the G5 era was the G5. Remember there was ALOT of pressure to get the G5 going on the Mhz front. Everyone was scratching thier heads and wondering what the delay was. The G5 is/was a great processsor but the 1.8 was the slowest that they could dare come out with in a machine without suffering negative comparisons with competitors. But on the other hand, the 2.0 was pretty much as fast as they could get from IBM. There really wasn't a big enough spread/choice in CPUs to create the type product spread that I think Apple would have liked to have had. It was a major fiasco and IMO one of the things that pushed Steve to ring up Intel.

The G5 iMac was Apple making lemonade out of lemons. It was/is a great machine but I think they would have liked to have offered more had they the choice. I mean, using your argument, why did Apple sell G3 and G4 towers when the iMac and eMac were availible? Or are you going to propose that all of those systems went to pros?