$499 Headless iMac?

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

...Touting the securty of a Mac vs. Windows may be a huge selling point. Imagine a commercial where they show in print: Viruses made for Windows: 500+ Viruses made for the Mac: ??
Touting other reseach indicating that hooking a windows machine to the internet for the first time can result in an attack in less than 4 minutes. The possiblities are really endless and all can prey upon people's fear of Windows.

In theory... it's good. Yet... it also could potentially make the Mac a target as well. Blow the trumpet too hard... and you might not like what comes to greet you. Y'dig? Have to remember... hackers love challenges. 😉

This could be good if it pans out. I have my doubts though.

I don't so much doubt the rumor... as I think if Apple is serious it's an inevitable situation that needs remedied. The eMac has had it's place, but the CRT is on it's way out and the eMac pigeon-holes everyone into a specific monitor sizing that some aren't into. That's where the AIO market falls nicely for the iMac and education-iMac models. The pro line is served by the G5, which is now expanded with a more frugally priced G5 single processor model that fills a gap for those wanting a more upgradable high end piece of hardware. This new machine could be offered in 2-3 variants, from $499-899 with various processors and essentially supercede the eMac altogether. Especially if the costs of LCD monitors drop again soon, as I figure the LCD iMac will eventually break into the $800-ish range if they don't bump the low-end processor too quickly in it.

Just to add... I think Apple should offer a pair of LCD monitors along with the unit's introduction, should the rumor ultimately bare true. A nice silver-framed 15" widescreen, alongside a nice 17" silver-framed widescreen both similar in design to the pro Cinema displays (all using the iMac's LCD's). Beyond that... 20" & 23" would work on this unit I'm sure (but cost significantly more than the CPU itself). 😉 Beyond that... there's always standard LCD's and CRT's. 😀

 

[~Shard~]

Well I'm not reading through the other 240+ posts (man, did this thread ever explode!) but I think this is great news - it shows Apple is focusing more than just making the iPod available to Windows users - now it's going to push a low-end desktop as well.

This will also be good because it will shut up all those whiners who have been crying for a cheap, headless iMac for as long as I can remember. Once Apple releases the G5 PowerBook in 6 months or so, I don't know what some people on the MacRumors will have to complain about anymore! 😛 😉

Great news though, I can't wait for the Stevenote... 😎

 

[mclosers]

Not too slow

In my 2+ years on MR, I have heard the screams for a $499 headless Mac. Now we have a rumor that is credible (based on Think's past record) and it has started.

1.25 GHz is too slow- needs at least a 1.5 GHz.
32MB GPU- needs a 64 MB GPU.
40 GB HD is not enough give us an 80 GB.
Where is Bluetooth?
Combo drive - it needs a DVD burner.
256 MB RAM - OK, that is pathetic.

Give me a break people. This is an entry level/switcher/iPod halo effect machine designed to hit a price point and make some money for Apple and, hopefully, grow market share. In reality, I think it's designed to get people into the store where they can be up sold if need be.

No, Apple can't take a hit on profits and add better components. They are a business. What is the point of growing market share at the expense of making money? From a business perspective, none.

Apple sells a ton of these, what else do these users do to add to Apple's bottom line? IMO, little or nothing. It comes with all the software the user needs to get started and they likely have all the peripherals they need. It will likely last for years and the user will not need to spend any more money with Apple on their PC. Any money spent will likely go elsewhere for non-Apple peripherals and software. So what does Apple get? A small profit on a $499 box and a possible Mac sale in 4, 5, 6 years?

I only hope the market doesn't look at this rationally and drives my Apple stock to the magic number I'm looking for before I sell it. I'm a greedy bastard.

I totally agree 1.25 GHz is not too slow anyways. I have a 1Ghz Sawtooth Machine (upgraded with aftermarket card). That I use for professional level video and photo editing. This is not only 25% faster but has a much better bus speed ect. This machine is plenty fast for people to be productive, my only question is, are pc users smart enough to be able to get anything done. I mean without viruses spyware and pop ups there isn't much for them to do on a mac. 😉

 

[anakin44011]

What about for business?

How many small to medium-sized businesses out there would love to replace their fleet of aging PCs with inexpensive Macs? Imagine - no viruses, no spyware, easy configuration - Not to mention the new feature where you can transfer all files from an old Mac to a new Mac with a click of a button. Buying a new PC (my recent experience has been a Dell laptop) is tremendously frustrating with McAfee Security alerts popping up every eight seconds.

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Well, as long as some folks think the media center idea is too hoaky to talk about on a rumor site, I guess I'll point out that you could run the Newton OS on the processor you mentioned above. So how about a media center running the Newton OS?

[ducks and runs] 😀

Beat you to it. 😉 I mentioned SymbianOS, QNX, Newton, Palm, and even whatever OS is the foundations of the iPod... likely something Apple put together, maybe out of remnants of what was Newton. 😀

 

[iGary]

I just told people in my office about this and they're like:

"I can still build one for 300.00"

"But then you have to buy software for it"

Windows users are programmed zombies.

 

[Eric_Z]

I totally agree 1.25 GHz is not too slow anyways.

Considering that it'd be competing, formfactor whise, with VIA Mini/Nano-ITX boards I'd have to say no. A G4 (allmost any G4) is a speed demon in comparison.

 

[dongmin]

And if Apple is smart they will bundle in the DVI to VGA adapter for those that already have monitors from their PC systems.

Even better, how about offering an optional kvs switch so people can use their PC simultaneously with their Mac? The perfect transition solution. Two computers for the price of one (and without that stinking slow VPC.)

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Well hell, they'll <i>almost</i> have my money. I'm a long-time Windows user, tried out Linux for about a year in 2002, then bought my first mac, an iBook, this past May 2004. I gave away the main PC I had, but lately have been wishing I had a cheap, low-power central server for my laptop & my wife's laptop to use.

<a href="http://idotpc.com/TheStore/Desktop/732Spec.asp?Product.id=732&Cate.id=19">I just bought one</a>, at just under $500. It's working out great.

Assuming it's true, if I'd known about this just a month or two sooner, I'd probably have waited and bought a headless Mac. I've been hoping for something like this ever since I got my iBook. Unfortunately, since I just bought this little PC server, a headless Mac will have to wait.

The other sticking point is that I'm connecting to the little PC server remotely to run Quicken (previously my wife and I shared a copy on her laptop). Now we both use shared files on the server. Because Windows Quicken is good (even the old 2002 version we have), and everywhere I go I read that Mac Quicken sucks.

Also, even if this isn't true (somebody please tell me if Mac Quicken is actually good now, or if there is some other wonderful Mac finance software package??) ... even if we could do finances on a Mac instead of relying on Windows, her laptop is new enough that she doesn't want to replace it for at least 2 more years - so we couldn't just share the files, she'd have to do what I'm doing now - connect to the headless mac in a VNC/"Remote Desktop" way and run the app on the server. Which would probably mean we'd have to buy Apple Remote Desktop, unless they wisely included it with their headless macs...

Overall, I find this news positive, but sadly, too little, too late for me.

Hopefully one of those "codenamed" Apple Keynote projects is a full-featured replacement for Quicken on the Mac... (not holding my breath! 🙂 )

You have an interesting setup and reasons not to buy this new product, to say the least.

First of all, you don't really need to buy Apple Remote Desktop when you can just as easily use VNC (Virtual Network Computing) instead, which has free clients and servers available for a wide variety of platforms.

As for Quicken, I've never used the Windows version, so I can't comment.

One more thing: HTML doesn't work in these forums. You need to use vBCode instead.

 

[mclosers]

WRONG!

Considering that it'd be competing, formfactor whise, with VIA Mini/Nano-ITX boards I'd have to say no. A G4 (allmost any G4) is a speed demon in comparison.

Unfortunately speed means nothing if you can't use it. Say you have a car that can go 1000 MPH and my car can go 100 but they accelarate at the same speed and mine gets better gas mileage. which would you rather have?

Getting something done is what matters. AKA productivity. You can't argue that a 2.5GHz P4 lets you get more done in less time than a 1.25 GHz mac. (this is assuming you aren't rendering crap and the like, because obviously someone who is doing that kind of work wouldn't be in this market).
Does a 3Ghz P4 make Microsoft word go faster? Does it make the internet faster? Does it make your music sound better? hmmmm.. think again

 

[biederman]

Missing the point

I think everybody is missing the point here... a headless Mac will NOT be used to attract low-end/beige-box Windows users (Apple doesn't care about them). This device is the new competitor to Microsoft's Media Center PC, but for half the price. This device is headless because the TV is the display, and it's designed to play DVD's, act as a DVR/Tivo unit, stream music from iTunes via WiFi, and probably incorporate some iPhoto and iMovie functionality as well. It may even synch with your iPod. Don't think of this as a general-purpose computer... it will be designed to fit into your home entertainment center, and will integrate with your existing home wireless network. There's no way, IMHO, this device could be anything else!!

 

[Damek]

I think you're right.
The reason apple's stayed away from this sort of thing in the past is that it would be more geared towards current apple users than switchers — effectively turning a bunch of $1200 purchases into as many $600 purchases.
Also, I don't think apple wants to release a new 32-bit product that they'll have to support for however many years.

if this happens, which i hope it will, it will have to have a low-power G5 or some sort of fancy 64-bit motorolla chip. I don't know how they'll keep the imac market buying the imac, though.

(Disclaimer: I, like everybody else on this list, don't know what I'm talking about)

I disagree. I think there are enough people coming in from UNIX/Linux or Windows who love the Mac, and wish they could run OS X on their cheap home servers. I think there are even enough long-time Mac users who would love a Mac-based cheap home server. People who want that aren't going to just buy a full-fledged PowerMac just because they want a cheap, low-power server but Apple doesn't offer one. They're going to use chaeap PC hardware or use old Macs they have lying around.

It's possible you're right about something like this not being a big draw for average switchers, but I don't think it wouldn't result in an increase of sales & money for Apple. Right now there are people who would like to buy a product like this, but can't because Apple doesn't offer it. And they're not going to buy a full iMac or PowerMac because those are overkill. If Apple wasn't the only source for OS X-capable hardware, someone else would be offering such a product, just like there are plenty of PC vendors offering small, low-power products (Shuttle PCs, Mini-ITX PCs, hell, even low-end Dells). Sure, it's a niche market, but it's there, and it's growing. And some of those people buying low-end PCs for home servers would rather have OS X and would happily buy an Apple product like this to do so.

Only Apple knows if it's worth it to them to offer this. I hope it is.

 

[Photorun]

as a owner of the quicksilver 733 thats been upgraded to a 1.4 i more then get it. But what is more of 5 year old cpu going to do for you that the 733 cant do except better frame rates on a few games?? nothing. I will admit i have not shopped around for used Macs but i would think with a little persistance..................... If Apple resorts to this then its clear to me they have hit a brick wall at IBM and Moto.

Ah yes, the super biased comments from Dont Hurt Me. You know what, thankfully 99.999999 people aren't you and these things will sell. They're not for everyone, clearly not for you, so take your narcissistic negativity somewhere else please, you're tiring most of us, not impressing. Thanks.

 

[Eric_Z]

Unfortunately speed means nothing if you can't use it. Say you have a car that can go 1000 MPH and my car can go 100 but they accelarate at the same speed and mine gets better gas mileage. which would you rather have?

Getting something done is what matters. AKA productivity. You can't argue that a 2.5GHz P4 lets you get more done in less time than a 1.25 GHz mac. (this is assuming you aren't rendering crap and the like, because obviously someone who is doing that kind of work wouldn't be in this market).
Does a 3Ghz P4 make Microsoft word go faster? Does it make the internet faster? Does it make your music sound better? hmmmm.. think again

I should have been more clear. I didn't mean *teh G4 am si s10wzorz!!!* but rather * no, the G4 isn't slow. Aspecially in comparison to VIA CPUs*

Clearer now?

 

[kimble3]

Other possibility

Is it possible that what is being rumored is not a headless mac but rather some type of multimedia device ala TiVO? This could be the like when people were rumoring about a new tablet computer which turned out to be the iMac. Just because it doesn't have a monitor doesn't mean its a headless Mac, it could instead be a multi-media appliance that is hooked up to your TV and stereo.

Imagine a machine that you put in your living room that is a DVR (like TiVO), a CD and DVD player, an iTunes server, a DVD server(?), surround sound processor, etc, etc... This could be another iPod like product that reaches global markets, not just Mac users.

Just a thought...

 

[s10]

not a headless iMac

I think this is a great idea, but although it IS a headless iMac G4, it will be branded as something different, iTV would be a better indication.

No cheap monitor required, just hook up to your TV, and have HD recording capacities too. Mac Os X as a perfect interface for getting your DV to DVD, getting your digital Photos on the TV or on a cd/dvd, listening to your cd's and ripping them to your iPod or HD, editting your DV's...The full iLife experience... ad a karaoke program (iSing) and what else do ou need?

Let's drop some names...
iMedia, iCentre, iLink, iVid, iMaster, iHead..

 

[edesignuk]

Ah yes, the super biased comments from Dont Hurt Me. You know what, thankfully 99.999999 people aren't you and these things will sell. They're not for everyone, clearly not for you, so take your narcissistic negativity somewhere else please, you're tiring most of us, not impressing. Thanks.

I just love it when someone is critical of Apple and someone feels the need to come out a defend the corporate beast 🙄

Yes, they'll probably sell. Should they sell? I'm not so sure...oh sorry, am I "not impressing" be being negative, hmmm...shame 😛

 

[Damek]

Just bad timing for me. Great product in general, if true!

You have an interesting setup and reasons not to buy this new product, to say the least.

Yeah, that was just my personal reasoning. I still think it's a great product if it's true), and high time Apple did this. I'll probably still buy one come summertime, and donate this PC server to some worthy cause. Or try to sell it, depending on my needs. Another thought is I could still return it inside of 30 days... hurry up, Apple! 😛

First of all, you don't really need to buy Apple Remote Desktop when you can just as easily use VNC (Virtual Network Computing) instead, which has free clients and servers available for a wide variety of platforms.

True - I'm just spoiled by Microsoft's easy Remote Desktop stuff. That's really the least of my concerns. The fact that I just spent $500 this month on a similar solution, and finding a replacement for Quicken - those are the biggies. Once I get past those, finding a VNC solution is just a speed bump.

As for Quicken, I've never used the Windows version, so I can't comment.

Do you use any finance software on the Mac? What works for you? I should really ask this elsewhere, shoudn't I... Maybe I will get around to it.

One more thing: HTML doesn't work in these forums. You need to use vBCode instead.

Whoops, I knew that - I just forgot since I haven't been here in a while... Thanks though! I've gone and fixed it...

 

[RichP]

Figure I will add my 2 cents here...

First, I think a headless mac at this pricepoint is a phenomenal idea, and I have seen others hint on the idea of "trying out" a mac. I finally convinced my father to get an iMac this winter, but it was difficult when a new Dell is only 500 dollars. A mac at this pricepoint, people may be willing to take the chance on a mac, it doesnt require the level of investment that a new imac does. Beside, most people have flatpanels and such, its a hard arguement for a PC user to throw out their monitor just to go to an iMac.

Secondly, I think the performance specs are fine. I am on a Powerbook 17 right now running at 1.33, and it honestly is very similar to my dual G5 for 99% of operations. Also, it is obvious here we are mac users, NOT PC users, or the average PC user. Go to a friend or relatives house, especially someone who is not particularly computer literate. Regardless of the PC's hardware specs, they are SLOW as ever, because there is a plethora of spyware, adware, viruses, etc running the machine into the ground. Add into the fact that windows as an OS simply slows with useage due to its design, and hardware particulars arent as big a concern.

 

[ccuilla]

What is really interesting, to me, about this is a rumor that I read a couple of years ago to the effect that Apple was planning to "ride the iPod power curve UP" and "ride the iBook minuturization curve DOWN"...when they would meet in the middle. iMac and rumored iMac mini appear to be a further manifestation of this idea.

Apple likes to make "sealed boxes"...devices where they could stamp out a million that are identical (this was the original vision for the Macintosh). This new iMac sounds like more of the same.

I agree with the likeliness that it is the iBook G4 motherboard. Drop the display, keyboard and battery. Shove the power supply inside...and you have a TINY computer.

I also see how it could be used as an iTunes "server" of sorts.

I think this will be a good play for Apple. While the observations about the target market (i.e., premium music player buyers vs. budget PC buyers) MIGHT be right...keep in mind that many of those iPod buyers might buy this kind of thing "just to check it out". They've lowered the barriers to entry...getting it closer to an "impulse buy".

For those who suggested Apple ought to do an OS X for Intel port to lower the barriers to entry...this is sort of a step in the right direction. Only they have made the barriers even easier. No need to install an OS (a PITA for most consumers).

I think this is all around a great idea. I hope it is true.

 

[billyboy]

Thinking about Apple's recent moves into the corporate world, isnt this the sort of set up to attract some orders from corporations where Apple are pushing thier Xserves? No need for the average office worker to burn DVDs, dont need the earth to move to use Office, a video card incapable of taking advantage of Core Image on Tiger probably wont mean anything to people pumping out reports... but rock solid virus free dependability with OSX. And a gazillion old monitors can still be used, I guess.

I would still get one though for home - and it is the process of office workers getting the same kit they use at work for home that has made PCs running Windows to be so popular.

 

[MacNeXT]

I think everybody is missing the point here... a headless Mac will NOT be used to attract low-end/beige-box Windows users (Apple doesn't care about them). This device is the new competitor to Microsoft's Media Center PC, but for half the price. This device is headless because the TV is the display, and it's designed to play DVD's, act as a DVR/Tivo unit, stream music from iTunes via WiFi, and probably incorporate some iPhoto and iMovie functionality as well. It may even synch with your iPod. Don't think of this as a general-purpose computer... it will be designed to fit into your home entertainment center, and will integrate with your existing home wireless network. There's no way, IMHO, this device could be anything else!!

Well, for a lot of us, the actual point IS to have a cheap headless "general purpose" system. And why couldn't it be both? I'm not really into this media center stuff, but isn't such a thing exactly the same as a normal computer except for the supplied software, interfaces and maybe form factor? And for that matter, can't you run media center software on a normal pc?

 

[ckkoay]

Marketing, not technical guts

From ThinkSecret's report:-

Apple has been working on the low-end Mac for almost a year, sources report. Indications are Apple has been working mostly on finding the right mix of price, performance and features that would motivate Windows users to consider a Mac, and less on the actual engineering of the product. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to design a bare-bones PC," said one source familiar with the project. "What it takes is a team of marketing and software experts to find the right mix to convince Windows users to buy a Mac at a price that is not much more than the cost of an iPod."

It seems pretty obvious that the guts of the machine is not as important as the positioning of the new headless mac. And looking at the posted specs of the machine, it is pretty obvious how they are going to position this new machine:- a cheap computer that just works very well or better than Windows. The primary target market?

- Students on a budget who don't care about the "nerdy" side of computing (don't talk GHz or 2nd level caches, etc)
- First family PC for people who are not too technically savvy
- A kid's first PC

Generally the primary target market:-

- don't care about if a processor is 32 or 64 bit as long as it works
- don't know how to insert RAM let alone upgrade their PC if their lives depend on it
- will buy if the product is compelling and attractive

Secondary target market could include:-
- Windows iPod users (but I doubt that iPod users would be too swayed by the new iMac. Remember that these iPod users already have a computer, either a Mac or a PC.)
- Windows users wanting to buy a second/third computer for their house
- SOHOs wanting to buy cheap desktops for their businesses
- University computer labs (cheap UNIX machines)

Expect a prolonged and extensive marketing campaign for this product!

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

I think everybody is missing the point here... a headless Mac will NOT be used to attract low-end/beige-box Windows users (Apple doesn't care about them). This device is the new competitor to Microsoft's Media Center PC, but for half the price. This device is headless because the TV is the display, and it's designed to play DVD's, act as a DVR/Tivo unit, stream music from iTunes via WiFi, and probably incorporate some iPhoto and iMovie functionality as well. Don't think of this as a general-purpose computer... it will be designed to fit into your home entertainment center, and will integrate with your existing home wireless network. There's no way, IMHO, this device could be anything else!!

I completely disagree. LoL I don't think Apple would waste the $ using specs for a PC for a unit like this that they could achieve in a much more efficient way (one with a much longer potential lifespan with less internal upgrades), and that wouldn't be a cumbersome desktop Mac for the non-computer literate. It's not "impossible" but I consider it highly "improbable" considering Apple's less is more philosophy with regards to interfaces. The iPod doesn't run Mac OS. It's also intuitive and easy to use because it was designed for the task. There's no need for a G4 processor to serve this task, as even the iPod's processor is more than efficient enough with other circuitries and a FlashROM to handle it's upgrade tasks. Apple could do all of this on a lowly embedded G3 with the right accessory chipsets. I also feel that SymbianOS as used in many phones (perhaps even the rumored iPhone with Motorola, who is partners in the SymbianOS program to best my knowledge 😉) would be far more effective to the task than OS X would and be more configurable to the needs. That is assuming the iPod's OS isn't equally as extensible, as iPod photo seems to point that it is.

If Apple is going to compete with DVR's and TiVO... they'll make a unit that runs another OS that's far more efficient for it's specific tasks, with an interface that's more appliance-like and yet intuitive for it's needs. Something that likely bridges the gap between the iPod interface, but also is compatible or similar to the simplified nature in which TiVo handles movie navigation, and somehow is smart and savvy enough to integrate well with "smart" technology equipped units. I also figure any "media center" of this ilk will have a Superdrive, not a lowly CD burner.

What do I see a (fictional) unit like this doing?

I see it working via AirTunes to transmit music wirelessly for play through your stereo (although a direct connection to your surround receiver is likely as well), I see it working via AirPort and Bluetooth. I see it mounting on your desktop Mac via AirPort so you can transfer your iMovie movies to it for playback on your TV. For dropping digital photos onto and showing onscreen via iPhoto or drag/drop. I see the unit being able to burn your photos and movies to DVD or CD. I see it being able to burn off viewed programs that you store on it's drive to DVD for storing in your collection just as if it was a modern VCR. Basically it's a DVR with one-way Mac connectivity to stream data to the device. You won't see Apple streaming anything back to your desktop from this unit. All of your recorded movies/shows will be hidden from reach, the only thing you can delete are items you upload from your computer manually.

I don't see it needing a G4 to do all of this, as it'll be overkill compared to some of the more spritely embedded processors and smaller footprint OS's. I don't see it running OS X. It's far too colossal and cumbersome for what most appliance buyers will use. I do see it having a hard drive for storage, likely partitioned into an accessible format for the Mac, and an inaccessible format for the unit itself that Mac OS X/Windows won't support for storage of saved content from the TV (so as to prevent the debacle that ReplayTV went through). I don't see the unit having a keyboard or mouse. I do see it having a remote though. I do see it being programmable via a desktop Mac or PC via an optional software application that interacts with it wirelessly and perhaps downloads and updates the TV guide applications that you stream to the unit rather than use a monthly fee (ala TiVO). I can also see an iPod dock built into the unit for immediate streaming of music files to your stereo (while recharging), as well as immediate viewing or transferring of photos on an iPod Photo.

That's if Apple even bothers to tackle this... I'm not sure it's got much need nor am I sure it'd do anything better than what is on the market now for such tasks.

 

[ccuilla]

I just told people in my office about this and they're like:

"I can still build one for 300.00"

"But then you have to buy software for it"

Windows users are programmed zombies.

First, this wouldn't be the market Apple is targeting.

Second, even at BYO for $300, a $500 is still pretty decent. Time is money too you know. Well...those guys probably don't.